Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thoughts On Robin Collins and the Many Universe Generator
JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 325 (148046)
10-07-2004 8:52 AM


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.htm
This 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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 10-07-2004 4:58 PM JasonChin has replied
 Message 4 by sidelined, posted 10-07-2004 11:20 PM JasonChin has replied
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 10-08-2004 6:05 AM JasonChin has replied
 Message 142 by mikehager, posted 10-12-2004 1:04 PM JasonChin has replied
 Message 144 by Hangdawg13, posted 10-12-2004 4:06 PM JasonChin has replied
 Message 272 by PaulK, posted 10-18-2004 1:46 PM JasonChin has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 325 (148116)
10-07-2004 1:58 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 325 (148163)
10-07-2004 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JasonChin
10-07-2004 8:52 AM


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
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JasonChin, posted 10-07-2004 8:52 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by JasonChin, posted 10-08-2004 8:30 AM crashfrog has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 4 of 325 (148241)
10-07-2004 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JasonChin
10-07-2004 8:52 AM


JasonChin
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.
Doesn't it suck how all the speculation and aspiration of this attempt to inject intelligence or divinity into a natural world falls apart on the basis of that little two-letter word that begins the quote?
IF is a huge reminder of just what constitutes valid theory in studying the beginnings of the universe.Why is there such a fuss over the idea of fine-tuning when there is nothing in the universe that demands one value over another? 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.
There is also the matter of what an alien species that is also sentient and present in this universe would say for the idea of fine-tuning especially if it was other than carbon based.
I m also wondering about your use of the word theory as pertains to Robin Collins since what he offers is hardly a theory but rather conjecture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JasonChin, posted 10-07-2004 8:52 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by JasonChin, posted 10-08-2004 8:38 AM sidelined has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 5 of 325 (148268)
10-08-2004 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JasonChin
10-07-2004 8:52 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JasonChin, posted 10-07-2004 8:52 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by JasonChin, posted 10-08-2004 8:41 AM Dr Jack has replied

JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 325 (148275)
10-08-2004 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
10-07-2004 4:58 PM


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........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 10-07-2004 4:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 10-08-2004 4:55 PM JasonChin has replied

JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 325 (148276)
10-08-2004 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by sidelined
10-07-2004 11:20 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by sidelined, posted 10-07-2004 11:20 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by coffee_addict, posted 10-08-2004 11:59 AM JasonChin has replied
 Message 31 by sidelined, posted 10-09-2004 8:03 AM JasonChin has replied

JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 325 (148277)
10-08-2004 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Jack
10-08-2004 6:05 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 10-08-2004 6:05 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 10-08-2004 9:15 AM JasonChin has replied
 Message 10 by agnostic, posted 10-08-2004 9:35 AM JasonChin has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 9 of 325 (148282)
10-08-2004 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by JasonChin
10-08-2004 8:41 AM


If you enclose the section you are quoting in [ qs ] and [ /qs ] tags (without the spaces before and after the qs) you will get nice quote boxes like these:
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?
As has been pointed out we don't have the information to make any judgement on what those odds are. In any case your answer fails to answer my point: isn't, by definition, a being capable of creating and fine tuning the universe more complicated and requiring of more precise conditions than the universe itself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by JasonChin, posted 10-08-2004 8:41 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by JasonChin, posted 10-08-2004 11:24 AM Dr Jack has replied

agnostic
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 325 (148289)
10-08-2004 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by JasonChin
10-08-2004 8:41 AM


what isn't a miracle?
quote:
Like I said before, if the Earth naturally produced f-18s instead of mountains, it'd be a universally acknowledged miracle.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by JasonChin, posted 10-08-2004 8:41 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by JasonChin, posted 10-08-2004 11:28 AM agnostic has replied

JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 325 (148321)
10-08-2004 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dr Jack
10-08-2004 9:15 AM


If you enclose the section you are quoting in [ qs ] and [ /qs ] tags (without the spaces before and after the qs) you will get nice quote boxes like these:
Sweet, thanks. I was wondering how you guys did that.
As has been pointed out we don't have the information to make any judgement on what those odds are.
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.
In any case your answer fails to answer my point: isn't, by definition, a being capable of creating and fine tuning the universe more complicated and requiring of more precise conditions than the universe itself?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 10-08-2004 9:15 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 10-08-2004 11:29 AM JasonChin has replied
 Message 15 by Dr Jack, posted 10-08-2004 11:42 AM JasonChin has replied
 Message 24 by Beercules, posted 10-08-2004 3:18 PM JasonChin has replied

JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 325 (148327)
10-08-2004 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by agnostic
10-08-2004 9:35 AM


Re: what isn't a miracle?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by agnostic, posted 10-08-2004 9:35 AM agnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by agnostic, posted 10-12-2004 10:33 AM JasonChin has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 13 of 325 (148330)
10-08-2004 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by JasonChin
10-08-2004 11:24 AM


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?
Yes.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by JasonChin, posted 10-08-2004 11:24 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by JasonChin, posted 10-08-2004 11:39 AM jar has not replied

JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 325 (148337)
10-08-2004 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
10-08-2004 11:29 AM


Naivte.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 10-08-2004 11:29 AM jar has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 15 of 325 (148338)
10-08-2004 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by JasonChin
10-08-2004 11:24 AM


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.
But geology doesn't produce f-18s, it produces mountains through processes we understand pretty well.
And, hang on a second, "pre-destining" - nothing has predestined anything, that's the whole drift of naturalism. Things just happen.
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?
Nope. Firstly, as I said above: no pre-destination. Secondly, you're wrong - we don't require any more or less explanation that a god does. 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.
Our knowledge of the laws of Physics are derived from a tiny sample under a small subset of possible circumstances; we know nothing yet about what goes on at the big bang yet alone before it. What Physics has taught us, however, is that intuition and common sense are very poor guides indeed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by JasonChin, posted 10-08-2004 11:24 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by JasonChin, posted 10-08-2004 11:50 AM Dr Jack has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024