Instead he hares off into pure speculation about other universes inside black holes obeying completely different laws of physics.

These are ideas that so many professional cosmologists also consider viable. You make it sound as if Carrier made these ideas up, or that speculation is not how you originally formulate hypotheses. They are a naturalistic explanation that attempts to make sense of the apparently fine tuned laws of nature. To see how progress is being made, look at some of the recent links in various posts. Perhaps I'll compile them into a single thread. There are other ideas out there other than that of the multiverse, and many brilliant minds churning through these ideas and more, merging cosmological explanations with variations of string theory, seeking variations to various multiverse theories that are testable, coming up with entirely new cosmological explanations.

The main thrust of Carrier's argument isn't that "the multiverse is true." As geo pointed out, that's speculative. The main thrust is that the universe is naturalistic, and as one naturalistic explanation, the idea of a multiverse is the best bet so far. Why do you think it's not the best bet Robert?

But to listen to Carrier, with his lofty talk of evidence, you would think there is real scientific weight behind the idea that the laws of physics are not necessary products of the nature of reality.

He is saying the laws of physics are a product of nature, I think you misunderstood him. Unless you took him to mean something other than that the laws of physics were naturalistic. What is your explanation for the laws of physics? Or more precisely, the value of the contants. Why should the be the value they are, and not some other value? Why these values precisely, that allow for stars to form, which create heavy elements, allowing life to form?

a more constructive approach would be to ask how the idea of God evolved as a psychological fantasy, how it remains culturally adaptive, and how humanity can evolve to a more enlightened spirituality.

That wouldn't be more constructive. People's eyes would gloss over as they hear "support for god", and they'd go on believing what they already believe. It's exceedingly rare to change a person's worldview Robert. This is a defense of metaphysical naturalism, not a defense of cosmological Christianity. All of your comments seem motivated by this disagreement and nothing more.

He is imagining, completely wrongly, that an intellectual faith with no ritual devotion or worship can be adequate for mass culture. This failure to understand how the emotional comfort provided by simple faith is valid and good marks Carrier’s attitudes as extreme and out of touch.

What he says regarding philosophy serving as a religion has struck more true to me than most other parts of the book. For me, philosophy is my religion. I've built my worldview with an understanding of what I need to be psychologically healthy, moral, and productive, using philosophy. Perhaps this wouldn't work for mass culture. You could be right. I think the best alternative would be a form of secular buddhism.

Robert Tulip wrote:. . . He is imagining, completely wrongly, that an intellectual faith with no ritual devotion or worship can be adequate for mass culture. This failure to understand how the emotional comfort provided by simple faith is valid and good marks Carrier’s attitudes as extreme and out of touch.

I agree with this as well. And the same criticism can easily be applied to Dawkins. Carrier seems stuck in us-versus-them mode and it dumbs down his approach. Then again, the book is titled, "Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism." The prevailing beliefs in God in our culture do have to be addressed. The book's thesis is sort of married to that.

I'm still enjoying the book a lot. And to Carrier's credit, his discussion of multiverse theories are discussed in context of his personal worldview. He personally likes Smolin’s ‘selection theory. I was blown away with it myself. How cool is that, the idea that black holes are actually other universes, each governed by different natural laws. Carrier makes it clear that there's very little evidence to support these views, only that they are consistent with what is being observed. He makes a really interesting point that conditions in the universe are generally very adverse to the formation and continued existence of life. How tenuous is our existence! Generally he does a great job describing these theories even when he's interspersing these scientific discussions with elitist anti-religion views.

To Johnson, please join in. I think you would like this book.

Quote;Richard Carrier; " ....Anything that is unproven can claim no authority over what has an inherently greater proof by being directly in our perception. This is all the more the case if we can prove there are faults or defects in these contrary claims,or even a suspicion thereof."end quote.

I agree with Robert on the whole mutiverse business, though not of course about God.
Richard Carrier opts for the eternalist view of time, from which the logical consequence must be that our experienced perception of the passing of time must be an illusion, foisted on us by our brains.Whether this version of time and reality is proven,faultless or suspicious is the question.
First off, there are varied and conflicting theories of time and some do indeed find fault with the eternalist view based on the irreversibilty of time,quantum uncertainty, and entropy as examples.
This engenders suspicion at the very least.
These theories themselves are claimed to be based on scientific evidence and theories, but different people appeal to and explain the evidence in different ways.
I don't claim expertise here, but am trying to understand and make sense of these things.
However we weigh these things,one wonders how the view that our direct and universally experienced perception of reality and the passing of time, is nothing more than a deception from our brains, can be squared with the above statement of Carrier's
.
What is directly perceived is a gigantic universal hallucination and the eternalist theory of time version is true and above suspicion?
Ditto for the multiverse.

I'm seeing why Carrier spent so much time on time.

It appears to be a controversial topic. I have no issues with any of the popular models of time. The eternalist version makes sense. I don't see the uncertainty principle posing an issue, but there are other seemingly random events in quantum mechanics that may pose a problem. In the end,our perceptual judgement means nothing, since everything would appear the same. The truth of it rests on the math, which is beyond me.

I wouldn't say the eternalist version means our experience is an illusion. It's a consequence, born from the interplay of various forces and dimension, similar to gravity in relativity. Our conscious experience isn't an illusion. This claim comes up often, and is a cartesian demon sort of argument that Carrier shows to be ridiculous.

Perhaps what motivates the claim that our consciousness is an illusion is that many of the explanations in naturalism place consciousness into an explanatory context. This knocks it off the plateau of "ultimately, supremely true and mysterious above all explanation". But that doesn't mean it's an illusion. Able to be partially explained, set in context, framed naturalistically, yes. Illusion, no.

Do we not directly perceive and experience the passing of time? Is this perception and experience real or illusory? You say it is real.If so, time must actually pass or the perception is illusory.

Do we not directly perceive and experience the passing of time? Is this perception and experience real or illusory? You say it is real.If so, time must actually pass or the perception is illusory.

The way I see it is that we pass through time. As Carrier analogizes, it's like walking down a road. This doesn't mean the road behind us or ahead of us doesn't exist, or that the act of walking is an illusion. So, passing through time is like walking down a road. Neither experience is illusory. The road, in both cases, exists independently of our perception of it.

If anything, this makes the dimension of time even more real than we perceive it to be. It has dimension beyond our perception.

Does this help?

I don't know if it is helpful Interbane, though of course it's meant to be.
I need to examine these theories more closely before I can say.
A British prime minister from years ago described negotiating with an Irish prime minister of the time as being "like trying to pick up mercury with a fork!" I feel this way about Carrier and his 'explanations'.
You know, he makes a big deal about directly perceived reality then implicitly totally undercuts this and devises some sort of analogy as an out,which someone smarter than me would probably shred in seconds.
All I can say is the proposition remains logically incoherent to me, and I suspect the explanation is faulty.
Adolf Hitler 'exists' both alive and dead on the fixed eternal time model and theoretically he could walk through time backwards from dead to alive!

Flann wrote:You know, he makes a big deal about directly perceived reality then implicitly totally undercuts this and devises some sort of analogy as an out,which someone smarter than me would probably shred in seconds.

The thrust of this is that from directly perceived reality, we build our worldview upward and outward. It includes everything from viewing distant stars through a telescope to performing mathematical equations that give us a fuller understanding of spacetime.

As far as spacetime is concerned, it doesn't make much sense that we'd have a dimension in which one of the directions doesn't yet exist until us puny humans experience it. That's like saying that nothing east of me exists until I travel east, thereby creating the world with my experience.

The version of time Carrier explains isn't merely his own. It's a popular conception held by many highly intelligent people. You say someone smarter than you would shred it apart in seconds. I don't think that has happened. From my point of view, it makes too much sense not to hold a kernel of truth. Not to say the model he expresses is definitely true, but if you find yourself rejecting it within only a week of learning about it, be wary that the issue isn't your own understanding.

Ok Interbane.
I was a bit petulant there I admit.
I'll get back to Carrier's explanation.I was looking at the time theories and had forgotten what he said on the subject.It doesn't add up to me, but I'll look at what he says and see how he squares the circle.I'll probably comment here after I've done that.

Interbane wrote: as one naturalistic explanation, the idea of a multiverse is the best bet so far. Why do you think it's not the best bet Robert?

Observation of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, the signature of the Big Bang, indicates uniformitarian physical law within the observable universe. There is no real evidence of any other universe impinging on ours.

The multiverse theory suggests the fine tuning of cosmological numbers in our universe may be random, and that therefore there are whole seemingly infinite realms consisting of nothing but hydrogen and space, because the different fine tuning prevents the fusion of metals.

I prefer the hypothesis that fine tuning is a necessary product of the nature of matter/energy, so that where ever energy exists, it has the capacity to fuse into heavy metals as we see in our universe.

Interbane wrote:

… the idea that the laws of physics are not necessary products of the nature of reality.

He is saying the laws of physics are a product of nature, I think you misunderstood him. Unless you took him to mean something other than that the laws of physics were naturalistic.

By ‘necessary’ I meant ‘universal’. Apologies for the ambiguity. Carrier is saying there may be areas of reality where our observed laws of physics may not hold. I find that completely implausible on uniformitarian grounds. So he accepts a uniformitarian model for our tiny flea bubble, while everything outside it in the vast ocean of the multiverse may obey quite different laws of physics. I prefer to assume, until some better case is made, that the nature of mass and energy intrinsically produces the fine tuned constants. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

I think a better hypothesis is that a Grand Unified Theory would show that the physical constants of particle physics are necessary universal functions of the nature of matter and energy.

Interbane wrote: What is your explanation for the laws of physics? Or more precisely, the value of the constants. Why should they be the value they are, and not some other value? Why these values precisely, that allow for stars to form, which create heavy elements, allowing life to form?

In the absence of a GUT, bringing together relativity and quantum mechanics, cosmology is unable to have any basis to judge between the multiverse hypothesis of varying laws and the universe hypothesis of invariant laws. Scientists and philosophers are left with intuition about which of these options look more elegant. My hunch fwiw is that invariance is an elegant idea.

Interbane wrote:

a more constructive approach would be to ask how the idea of God evolved as a psychological fantasy, how it remains culturally adaptive, and how humanity can evolve to a more enlightened spirituality.

That wouldn't be more constructive. People's eyes would gloss over as they hear "support for god", and they'd go on believing what they already believe. It's exceedingly rare to change a person's worldview Robert. This is a defense of metaphysical naturalism, not a defense of cosmological Christianity. All of your comments seem motivated by this disagreement and nothing more.

Perhaps such eye-glazing at the raising of ideas that do not reinforce atheist prejudice is evidence of bigotry? Carrier does in fact come to a realization that cosmological Christianity provides a scientific explanation for the origin of the Christ Myth in his latest book On The Historicity of Jesus. The status of religious concepts within a natural philosophy should be all about where the evidence takes us.

Again we see the psychological memetic driver in place, in the great words of your American poet, a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest. Carrier and simple atheists imagine the possibility of a world without religion. To me that is a fool’s vision, disregarding the deep wired physiological need for religion as the basis of human belonging to community.

The etymology of ‘religion’ as ‘rebinding’ indicates this necessary social and intellectual function of faith, that we need a story that connects us to our context, binding us to where we belong as a basis for identity, meaning, purpose and direction in life.

Interbane wrote: What he says regarding philosophy serving as a religion has struck more true to me than most other parts of the book. For me, philosophy is my religion. I've built my worldview with an understanding of what I need to be psychologically healthy, moral, and productive, using philosophy. Perhaps this wouldn't work for mass culture. You could be right. I think the best alternative would be a form of secular buddhism.

My view, following Plato, is that an intellectual elite should construct popular religious myths that are conducive to the orderly improvement of mass society. That means that philosophy should be the religion of the elite, but it also opens questions about the nature of philosophy, especially its links to politics and psychology.

If we understand that it is simply impractical for most people to be philosophers, we see it will be impossible for many people to engage in the sophisticated distinctions between literal and allegorical belief, and will rely on simplified myths.

I actually think that Christianity was constructed with just this Platonic Gnostic intent, but the popular myth became so emotionally attractive that it completely overwhelmed its origins. So we have a possible precedent of a relation between a Gnostic elite and an ignorant mass. In her books such as The Gnostic Gospels, The Gnostic Paul and The Gnostic Exegesis of John, Professor Elaine Pagels of Princeton University identifies three social classes – the Gnostic spiritual elite known as the pneumatics, the religious believers known as the psychics, and the ignorant materialistic masses known as the hylics.

An informative commentary at http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/wor ... xt-imo.htm explains this division into three categories.

The challenge this material poses for philosophy is how to steer popular myth in a constructive way. In Christianity we have a ready-made resource for this problem, with its latent Gnostic Platonism waiting to be rekindled. Christianity is able to engage at hylic, psychic and pneumatic levels, corresponding to ritual, belief and knowledge.

But in arrogant atheists like Carrier we see a strong psychological blockage against dialogue about the epistemic value of Christian allegory, with Carrier advancing the anti-evolutionary argument that instead we can just start again with a rational scientific philosophy that ignores the precedent value of religious heritage.