Thoughts On Robin Collins and the Many Universe Generator

There's a theory proposed by Robin Collins that even in if there are or were an infinity of universes and super-string theory is validated which would allow there to be enough variation in this infinitum of universes for our highly fine-tuned universe to occur naturalistically, that there'd still be plenty of proof for a theistic creator of the "Many Universe Generator" that would have to exist for this infinity of universes for exist. For instance, there would have to be an infinite and eternal inflation field in place, the laws of relativity would have to react with the inflation field for the universes to come into existant, and the invariable physical laws of all universes such as the principle of quantization and the Pauli exclusion princple would have to exist. You can read his theory here. http://www.messiah.edu/hpages/facstaff/rcollins/muv2.htmThis is the theory which pushed me into full blown support of ID. What do yall think of it? I'd like to know if you could poke holes in it......especially since his entire theory is apparently based on the validity of inflationary cosmology. If inflationary cosmology is invalidated or modified, would that effect his theory. I just don't hae the technical know how to determine whether or not it would myself.

By what evidence do you come to the conclusion that our universe is "fine-tuned"? We've only ever observed one universe, and we've never observed any kind of process that suggests that the constants of the universe are in any way "tunable" or alterable in any way. For all we know, the kind of universe we have now is the only kind that can exist.>>If the only type of universe that can exist is a universe that's fine-tuned to support life, that still doesn't decrease the theistic argument.........that's the whole point of Collins' hypothesis.For instance, if the only type of geological formation that could exist just happened to contruct a working f-18 fighter jet.......well, I don't think anyone would call that coincidence........

Also what is not certain is whether or not another value could just as readily produce a sentient species that would also consider itself in a universe designed just for it.>>From what I've read, it's pretty dang certain. If the expansion rate, which is tuned to one part in something like a million trillion trillion trillion trillion, was not what it is not only would humans not exist, but no life would exist period.........because either the universe would have collapsed under its' own gravity before matter formed, or the universe would expand too quickly for matter to form. Same thing goes for gravitational force, the cosmological constant and supposedly 20-30 other such variables.This message has been edited by JasonChin, 10-08-2004 07:49 AM

I find it odd that you're perfectly happy to posit an awesomely powerful being capable of designing a universe without any cause or explanation but reject the notion of an entirely simpler natural cause for the universe without cause or explanation.>>Once again, that's the whole point of Collins' hypothesis.......even if the universe and life assembled itself through naturalistic means (a big if), what are the odds that every force of nature would just happen to act in a way that either failed to hinder of caused the creation of man?Like I said before, if the Earth naturally produced f-18s instead of mountains, it'd be a universally acknowledged miracle.

Sweet, thanks. I was wondering how you guys did that. Oh, come on, just like at the geological f-18s analogy.......that analogy was probably GENEROUS to materialists, and I know darn well that I don't need a mathematician to tell me that the odds of the forces of geology just by coincidence pre-destining the production of f-18s (a machine much less compex than man) aren't very good. Yes. But the difference is that not only does a theoretical metaphysical force, like God, not require an explaination, but the attempt at explaining a metaphysical being or process through physical means would be absurd.However, physical beings like us DO require a physical explaination.........and even if all of the forces of nature conspire together to materialistically pre-destin the existance of man, could we really convince ourselves that these natural phenomonon just HAPPEN BY CHANCE to work together to make us?

Einstein once said "You either beleive everything or nothing is a miracle" Clearly the former is more apparent if you look around!I would consider an eco-sytem as complex and diverse as ours to be more of a miracle that a lump of metal in the shape of an F-18.>>Sooooo, I take it you agree with me?

Naivte.

But geology doesn't produce f-18s, it produces mountains through processes we understand pretty well.>>That's why it's called an analogy. On the other hand, the multiverse (if it even exists) DOES produce us, machines far complex than any f-18........Whatever reason you can put forward as to why your designed doesn't require an explanation I can put forward as to why the universe doesn't require one - and the universe will always be the simpler explanation.>>I don't understand a thing you say here.

Would we be having this conversation if the universe didn't form at all?
It's like saying "it's a miracle that I exist at all because if my parents didn't have sex at the exact time that they did then there wouldn't be me standing around..." The question is would you be questioning the chances of your existence if you didn't exist at all?My brother married a girl he met on a California beach. They now have 2 chidren. What if my brother arrived at the beach 3 seconds later or earlier? Chances are that they wouldn't have met each other at all. Well, the fact of the matter is they did meet each other and they did get married... after 2 years of expensive phone bills.>>Those aren't good analogies at all. Because with as many places as your brother must have gone in his life where he could potentially meet women, he was bound to find one he'd eventually marry. With the frequency with which my parents had sex, I was bound to be concieved.But you can't say that there was BOUND to be a physical principle which keeps electrons from orbiting the nucleus of an atom at its lowest orbit, which is what the Pauli exclusion principle does. Or there was BOUND to an inflation field on which every universe in existence could come to life. Or there were BOUND to be 10-11 dimensions in every universe. Without these things, none of which HAD to be set into place, we wouldn't exist.

The fact of the matter is we really don't know enough about the beginning of the universe or if there is a possibility at all that the universe could have existed in another form with a different set of laws and constants.>>No offense, but you're repeating yourself. As I said earlier, even if EVERY universe supports life because that's just the nature of things, what are the odds that arbitrary forces would act together to ensure that every universe could support life? The only logical presumption is that these forces AREN'T arbitrary.This message has been edited by JasonChin, 10-08-2004 11:47 AM

No, the only presumption is to leave a blank spot for future people to solve.>>But there is no even POSSIBLE non-metaphyiscal explaination........that's the point. It's either coincidence that things like gravity and the Pauli exclusion principle and the principle of quantization and all the other things that make our being here possible exist, or it's not. And the odds seems to be heavily against the former. Even if all these things got their origin in some big yet-to-be-discovered super-law of quantum physics, even then the odds of this big super-law existing and having the nature it does ALSO aren't good.

I'm inclined to go back to my brother as an example. The odds of him meeting the girl of his dream while in California for vacation and have the 2 wonderful children are astronomical, considering that he could have gone to Florida or elsewhere.>>Your brother going to California is a variable. Your brother meeting the particular woman he did is a variable. Your brother having two kids is a variable.If your brother hadn't gone to California, he'd have met a woman to marry elsewhere. Had he not have the two kids he had, he'd have others.The principle of quantization ISN'T a variable. Either it exists, or it doesn't. And Collins' argument is that these invariable physical laws all work together to pre-destin the creation of man.In any of these "background" laws of nature didn't exist, it wouldn't have given birth to a different TYPE of life........like your brother would have married a different TYPE of woman and had different TYPES of kids........there'd be no life AT ALL.

Why on earth would a theorectical metaphysical force need any less of an explanation than the physical universe?>>Because any metaphysical force is, by definition, impossible to explain by means of physics.

On the other hand, 100% of the universes we've observed are capable of life, and 0% of the universes we've observed are incapable of it.>>Which is exactly why it's analogous to the geological f-18s.

Why not? These things have been the case in every universe we've ever observed.>>Once again, this doesn't weaken Collins' argument any more than if f-18s were the only structure geology could produce.