Interbane wrote:
One of the predictions is that the universe we live in would appear finely tuned.

No;We knew our universe is finely tuned already and that it really exists.Why should this be a problem?
We don't know,and have no evidence that other universes exist in reality.
Why should Dawkins favour the multiverse notion and endorse as science a book by Krauss of speculative, untestable,unproven theory which presupposes physical laws as part of it's explanation?
And why does this theory predict sci-fi scenarios at a prodigious rate from the sublime to the ridiculous? Shouldn't the ridiculous aspects at least give pause for thought?

Section 2.1.2 "Meaning, Reality, and Illusion

Quote:

"For if no experience of any kind can in any way be had, even in theory, except (Carriers's emphasis) an experience in this world, then by definition, no experiences exist (my emphasis)- there is no other world. (mine again) It follows that all our ideas of a 'physical' reality (as opposed to say a matrix) are rooted in the observation that, as of yet, what we have experienced makes the most sense by appealing to a natural organism called the universe, rather than by appealing to a computer simulations - or any other kind of Cartesian Demon, a monster..,

I'm anticipating this essentially blows Carrier's possible support of a multiverse hypothesis completely to hell.
It's like someone trying to fuse dynamite and having it blow up in their face.

If there is "evidence" for a multiverse, no experience can ever be had of it. Hence, no such reality exists. No worlds (reality) can be experienced within it, therefore, it does not exist.

Our experience is rooted in the physical reality we experience.
There is no experience of a multiverse physical reality. Any such experience would need to be rooted in observation.
No empirical evidence has brought us near an observable multiverse, therefore it can not truly exist.


But let's not forget a God can not exist because of the reasons Carrier has given here.

Flann 5 wrote:

Interbane wrote:
One of the predictions is that the universe we live in would appear finely tuned.

No;We knew our universe is finely tuned already and that it really exists.Why should this be a problem?
We don't know,and have no evidence that other universes exist in reality.
Why should Dawkins favour the multiverse notion and endorse as science a book by Krauss of speculative, untestable,unproven theory which presupposes physical laws as part of it's explanation?
And why does this theory predict sci-fi scenarios at a prodigious rate from the sublime to the ridiculous? Shouldn't the ridiculous aspects at least give pause for thought?

Which scientific hypothesis predicted our universe would be fine tuned??

EDITED:

Are you going to drop the anthropic principle on us here??

The AP is a big fat TRUISM

No;We knew our universe is finely tuned already and that it really exists.

Any further evidence we have yet to discover already exists in theory as well. Our knowing it is the difference. Which understanding came first, the idea of the multiverse, or our understanding that the laws of nature were fine tuned? The idea of a multiverse was mentioned in 1895.

But that's wordplay. The idea of a multiverse neatly explains everything we see, with the fewest post hoc assumptions. See a [urlhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mult ... -universe/]Scientific American article[/url] from 2011.

And why does this theory predict sci-fi scenarios at a prodigious rate from the sublime to the ridiculous? Shouldn't the ridiculous aspects at least give pause for thought?

Only in a finite universe do you avoid the things you mention. Even a singular, yet infinite, universe has the same odd predictions. Such as there being infinite Earths with infinite people doing exactly what you and I are doing. The multiverse theories don't create these issues, but they don't resolve them either. There are some senses in which it's made even worse, though. Imagine a universe with different laws from our own.

This gives me pause for thought, in the sense that it stirs my imagination. I don't see these things as marks against a multiverse. Are they marks against an infinite universe?

I'm anticipating this essentially blows Carrier's possible support of a multiverse hypothesis completely to hell.
It's like someone trying to fuse dynamite and having it blow up in their face.

If there is "evidence" for a multiverse, no experience can ever be had of it. Hence, no such reality exists. No worlds (reality) can be experienced within it, therefore, it does not exist.

Our experience is rooted in the physical reality we experience.
There is no experience of a multiverse physical reality. Any such experience would need to be rooted in observation.
No empirical evidence has brought us near an observable multiverse, therefore it can not truly exist.

There are many ways we could in theory experience evidence of a multiverse. I'm not sure what your argument is.

But let's not forget a God can not exist because of the reasons Carrier has given here.

Right. The reason to pick one over the other is at a later point in the book.

If the Universe had a beginning and is expanding,how could it possibly be infinite,and don't the same laws apply throughout the universe?

If the Universe had a beginning and is expanding,how could it possibly be infinite,and don't the same laws apply throughout the universe?

For the first part, there is no way to know if the big bang was the "beginning", or one step in an infinite series of big bang/big crunches(or baby universes). All we know is that it is far back as we can see in this region of the universe. It's a horizon, but there may be more on the other side.

For the laws, the popular multiverse theories propose that the laws are not uniform, but vary depending on the model of the theory.

Any further evidence we have yet to discover already exists in theory as well

That would be a statement of faith, not evidence, if that evidence is empirical evidence

But evidence arrived from by theory?
How are you defining "theory" here, just to be clear?

There are many ways we could in theory experience evidence of a multiverse. I'm not sure what your argument is.

Experience evidence of a multiverse or the reality of a multiverse?



My argument here is that Carrier is essentially arguing against a theory of a multiverse.

For the laws, the popular multiverse theories propose that the laws are not uniform, but vary depending on the model of the theory.

How is that hypothesis testable?