Thoughts On Robin Collins and the Many Universe Generator

Circular reasoning, again. The only reason you assume the universe is fine-tuned is because you presume that those factors are variable in the first place.Of course, we've never seen them vary in any way. It appears natural to me - I've never observed life arising except by entirely natural processes. Never has anyone observed a supernatural entity in the act of creating life. Don't you think that's rather a matter of opinion?

Maybe you've never heard the argument against it because it's so patently stupid, it's self-refuting.>>Every multiverse theory in existance is an attempt to explain it.........so, sorry, your assertion that every fact you don't like is "stupid" is.....well......stupid.But hey, if you're so sure it's proved with math, show me the math, already.>>You know that neither you or I would be able to understand the mathematics involved.Stars in the globular cluster M16, in the Eagle Nebula, for one. Or the stars in NGC 3603. Or in the Orion Nebula.>>It takes millions of years for stars to form, so I know this is BS.

The number of sperm in an average ejaculation is 100 million (10^8). If your parents only ever had sex oonce (most conservative assumption), then there's a 1 in 10^8 chance of that sperm going on to produce you.But that's only the beginning! Your grandparents, unless they weren't human, also went through a similar process to produce your parents. The odds of those sperm comiing (excuse the pun) to produce you are now 10^24.But that's just the beginning! If we now consider your great grandparents. The odds become 1 in 10^56.Next generation: 1 in 10^120
next: 1 in 10^248
next: 1 in 10^504 !!So thats only six geberations in total. Imagine how many we'd get back if we went back 6000 years, when the world began (conservative estimate). I'm using very conservative estimates and I'm not even considering other pertinent factors such as the likelihood of a pair of parents actually meeting one another and falling in love. Conclusion: it is incredibly unlikely that you could ever exist and you are probably a figment of my imagination.Do you agree with the analysis above (the numbers might not be exact, but you get the picture)? If not, why not?PE

The only reason you assume the universe is fine-tuned is because you presume that those factors are variable in the first place.>>If they're not variable, then it's an even greater miracle........for reasons I've already laid out and won't repeat.It appears natural to me>>Considering that every culture in history disagrees, I'd say you're in a small minority.

Once again, PLEASE make sure you understand the theory before you argue against it.........go back to my post with the subject "to everyone".

So you don't think the universe is fine-tuned for life? I must have misread you.As you were.PE

Collins' theory pre-supposes the cause for the fine-tuning of our universe being the existence of infinite universe, which is what I gather you were getting at.And then he makes an argument that there's still plenty of proof for God, even pre-supposing this.

Oh ok then. I think I see what you're getting at - out of an infinite panoply of potential universes there is a non-zero probability that, as long as it was physically possible, a deity could exist. And we could, just could, be living in said universe. Have I understood?By the same argument, the invisible pink unicorn, cichlids the size of galaxies, a version of you with six arms and two heads may also exist as well. Is God therefore as probable as you having two heads?An interesting aside to this discussion is the idea that:- computers are getting more and more powerful
- one day, in the not too distant future, they may become so powerful they can actually simulate reality - so that a user would not recognise the difference between a computer-generated world and the real world (a bit like the Turing test applied to reality)
- as computers get yet more powerful, they are able to run millions, nay billions, of these simulations every second
- by an overwhelming probability therefore, you are not living in the "real world" but actually one of these computer generated simulationssee here for details.PEeta: forgot to add, what are your thoughts on the probability calculation of you existing I posted above. I take it you disagree with the conclusion?This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 10-10-2004 06:19 AM

Oh ok then. I think I see what you're getting at - out of an infinite panoply of potential universes there is a non-zero probability that, as long as it was physically possible, a deity could exist. And we could, just could, be living in said universe. Have I understood?>>No, we're still not talking about the same thing yet. I think you're getting this thread mixed up with my "Materialistic God" thread.Go back a few posts to the post with the subject "TO EVERYONE" or go back to the link on the first post to learn what Collins' hypothesis is.eta: forgot to add, what are your thoughts on the probability calculation of you existing I posted above. I take it you disagree with the conclusion?>>Not necessarily, it just doesn't have anything to do with Collins' hypothesis.

This is what you write in your TO EVERYONE message:

quote:

---

you assume that an inifinity of universes exists, and that therefore a universe capable of supporting life MUST exist just like someone MUST win the lottery even though the odds against it are astronomical, that still doesn't explain why the background of the entire universe just happened to be (using the inflationary model) an inflation field. If there was no inflation field, there'd be no us. If the laws of relativity didn't happen to interact the way they do in the presence of an inflation field, there'd be no us. If there wasn't a as-of-yet-undiscovered mechanism that took the energy of the inflation field and turned it into the kind of mass energy we see in out universe, there'd be no us. Is space didn't happen to consist of exactly 10 or 11 dimensions, no more no less, there'd be no us. If there wasn't a universal attractive force like gravity, there'd be no us. If the Pauli exclusion principle and the principle of quantization didn't act in conjunction with gravity to allow for the possibility of the emergence of complex matter, there'd be no us.

---

My post about the possibility of you existing is directly relevant to this. Do you find the arguments in it persuasive?PE

Seems to me like the arguments of fine-tuning vs multi-verses is just an endless series of mirrors. If someone says that the universe is fine tuned, someone counters with multiple universes. If someone says that the multiple universes are also fine tuned, someone counters with multiple multiple universes... It doesn't actually lead anywhere.Good basic idea, and nicely written too, but ultimately just the same argument as we've heard before.If anyone is interested, and it won't bother you guys arguing about fine-tuning, I'd like to point out this quote from the paper;

quote:

---

The final alternative is merely to claim that the simplicity and beauty of the laws of nature is simply a brute fact that requires no explanation. One could always adopt this position, but then given that theism naturally explains these features of the laws of nature, the atheist must admit that theism offers a better explanation of them than atheism, and thus that they support theism over atheism. Why? Because a natural, non-ad hoc explanation of a phenomenon x is always better than no explanation at all. And theism does seem to offer such a natural explanation: for example, given the classical theistic conception of God as the greatest possible being, and hence a being with a perfect aesthetic sensibility, it is not surprising that such a God would create a world of great subtlety and beauty at the fundamental level.

---

I would like to know if anyone can provide a non-circular argument for this? It seems to me like the classic theistic conception of God is found mostly by finding beauty in the first place.This message has been edited by Melchior, 10-10-2004 07:48 AM

Jasonchin Could you tell me what the odds are of a designer existing and whst it means for intelligence to exist outside of the materialistic brains within which reside our conscious intelligencewhich is the only intelligence we know of.Take away the brain and what have you got for intelligence?
Where would you postulate the designer came from and since the designer should be orders of magnitude more complex than that which it designed what designed that complex designer?Also if the universe is fine-tuned for life why do we not find the universe teeming with life?This message has been edited by sidelined, 10-10-2004 10:28 AM

---

When reputable scientists correct flaws in an experiment that produced fantastic results, then fail to get those results when they repeat the test with flaws corrected, they withdraw their original claims. They do not defend them by arguing irrelevantly that the failed replication was successful in some other way, or by making intemperate attacks on whomever dares to criticize their competence.

But none of those conjectures are at all accepted by the scientific community. They're not even theories, as you erroneously described them. They're just idle speculations. So your argument relies on evidence you're not able to understand? I'm just supposed to take your word that you have the mathematical basis to conclude these astronomical odds, even though you've stated you're not able to understand the math involved?Well, I do not. I don't take your word for it. You're prevaricating because you have no mathematical basis to conclude huge odds. And please, don't assume I'm a simpleton. Why don't you present the math and leave it up to me what I can and can't understand, please? Did you even look up what I was talking about? I doubt it. Each of those is a stellar nursery where we can observe stars forming. It's exactly what you asked for. Don't crawl up my ass if your ignorance of cosmology bites you on the butt.

But I've already rebutted those reasons. There's nothing miraculous about something happening when it's the only possible outcome. Argument ad populum? Why would I find that compelling? If everybody was jumping off a bridge, would you do it too?

What a mess of BS. This is bull crap.