Do you get the idea anywhere here that Carrier's beliefs aren't based on evidence? The man is all about the evidence. If there was evidence that supported a single universe, I think Carrier would change his mind. His belief in the multiverse is clearly expressed as an opinion based on evidence as the quote above well shows.

As I've already said, Carrier says one thing, but dresses his argument as scientific fact by the words he uses.
I've highlighted a couple of instances already.

And by the way, there is no evidence for a multiverse.
I posted a comment on that very claim uttered by a theoretical physicist that doesn't make his living selling books that promote his worldview.
Carrier's "opinion" is based on zero evidence.

You are welcomed to continue supporting Carriers's cheap double-talk as it relates to this.

There is no room for cheap double-speak when talking science.

He's a curious character I think. He studies the bible more than most believers I would say,and some of his insights are good I think.

It's also worthy of note how he apparently grossly misrepresented and patronized Antony Flew's final rejection of atheism:

When reports spread of Antony Flew's rejection of atheism in 2004, Carrier engaged in correspondence with Flew to find out what happened and published an extensive analysis of the situation on the Secular Web, finding among other things that Flew changed his belief into there being some sort of "minimal God" (as in Deism). Carrier also came away with the opinion that Flew's changed ideas were not accurately represented in the book Flew co-authored, There is a God.[14][15][16] It is however worth noting that Flew himself insisted 'the idea that somebody manipulated me because I'm old is exactly wrong. This is my book and it represents my thinking.'[17]

- Wiki (emphasis mine)

What reason would Carrier have to characterize Flew in the manner he did?
Flew was considering the concept of God long before Carrier was able to spoon feed himself.
Flew's rejection of atheism must have upset Carrier.
For Carrier, it is important that God not exist. So it seems.


I did like most of his political views though!

ant wrote:

Do you get the idea anywhere here that Carrier's beliefs aren't based on evidence? The man is all about the evidence. If there was evidence that supported a single universe, I think Carrier would change his mind. His belief in the multiverse is clearly expressed as an opinion based on evidence as the quote above well shows.

As I've already said, Carrier says one thing, but dresses his argument as scientific fact by the words he uses.
I've highlighted a couple of instances already.

And by the way, there is no evidence for a multiverse.
I posted a comment on that very claim uttered by a theoretical physicist that doesn't make his living selling books that promote his worldview.
Carrier's "opinion" is based on zero evidence.

You are welcomed to continue supporting Carriers's cheap double-talk as it relates to this.

There is no room for cheap double-speak when talking science.

I can see that you're angry, but I still don't know why. Are you saying that all of Carrier's opinions are based on zero evidence or just his opinion on the multiverse?

Multiverse theory is a scientific hypothesis. Carrier states it as such in precise, unambiguous language. I think a case can be made that there's little or no evidence for a multiverse. It doesn't bother me. About all even Carrier can say, as he does in a couple of places, is that there's no evidence against it. I'm just not seeing any "cheap double-talk." If anything, Carrier is very transparent and honest about his beliefs and goals.

Also, I can't say it enough, this is a book of philosophy. You seem to want Carrier to stop speculating about black holes and multiverses, but all science begins with philosophy. I don't think there's an out of bounds in science.

A scientific hypothesis is supposed to be, among other things, testable.

How is the idea of an infinite amount of universes testable?
How would you go about confirming the existence of an infinite amount?

Start with that, please.

When I wrote my the post you are responding to, I was actually drinking a strawberry banana smoothie while sitting on a bench under a tree.
Its hard to be angry with a strawberry smoothie in your hand.
I doubt you can "see" anything of me behind fiber optic cables.

Hypothesis
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Most people understand that multiverses are a new and speculative area of science. A starting point for further investigation. If they don't, Carrier indicates as such in the text.

It's not honest of you to say he's not married to it when one reads how Carrier clearly tries to frame mutiverse hypotheses within assertions of scientific fact.

I never said he wasn't married to it, but I don't think he would hesitate to change his mind given new evidence. What I said was that the justification for it is at the bottom of the list.

Saying he's enthusiastic about it to a point that he is presenting it as a scientific "fact" (in some of my quotes from the book) but "not wedded to it" is cheap political double-speak.

He was not presenting it as scientific fact. Check your quotes.

Carrier's "opinion" is based on zero evidence.

Based on no evidence? Carrier: "Inflation itself, chaotic or random behavior at small scales, “freezing” at larger scales, collapsing regions jump-starting inflation again, inflated regions being much larger than any distance we could see, etc."

If it is based on those things, it for one doesn't mean it's a scientific fact, but it does mean it's based on evidence.

But it was very clear to me he also tried to cleverly graft the authority of science on to his personal worldview.

Methodological naturalism supports metaphysical naturalism over any other worldview. If there is any authority to the method of science(epistemically speaking, there is), that authority supports metaphysical naturalism because the method is taken as a starting/guiding principle for formulating the worldview. You're speaking nonsense ant.

Interbane wrote:Going from simple to complex isn't a starting principle. It's a pattern we see in nature, and if it is a principle, it's one reached as a conclusion, rather than a starting condition. We know the elements start from simple and go to complex. We know life goes from simple to complex.

How do you square the second law of thermodynamics and entropy with patterns and principles we see in nature?
I'm not saying living biological systems can't or don't swim against this tide,as clearly they do.
Carrier though is asserting an overall principle and based on it concludes the universe must start with the single, simplest possible imaginable entity.
But doesn't this law indicate disintegration from complex order to simpler disorder? So when a leaf falls to the ground, over time it disintegrates from a complex ordered state to disordered and simpler chemical particles.
The same apples to abandoned cars etc.
I don't see how a universal principle of simple to complex can be maintained in the light of this law of nature.

How do you square the second law of thermodynamics and entropy with patterns and principles we see in nature?
I'm not saying living biological systems can't or don't swim against this tide,as clearly they do.

They are well squared. From the top hit of a google search: "the spontaneous formation of millions of far more complex compounds than their elements is energetically favored by the second law. This is true whether the new molecule is more or less complicated than its starting materials because the second law is concerned only with energy. All other requirements or consequences are not within the purview of the law."

I'm not an expert on Thermodynamics, so I could be wrong. It was a random website. But it meshes with what I've read before. The second law is in regards to energy. I wonder why you think there would be a law of physics that runs contrary to the rest of scientific understanding? A whimsical oversight? A few intelligent men being dumb?

I don't see how a universal principle of simple to complex can be maintained in the light of this law of nature.

I've thought before that it's more of a bell curve. During the start of the universe, when the simplest of subatomic particles existed, is one of the lowest points on the bell curve. Complexity increases as time goes on. Gravity causes matter to coalesce, leading to stars and fusion, which creates more complex elements. The elements combine to form molecules, and molecules form more complex molecules. Water forms into snowflakes, other elements into crystals. Proteins into proto-life forms. The proto-life forms grow more complex, leading to life. Simple life to complex life. We're still on the upslope of the bell curve.

But in billions of years, our complex entropy-defying bubble will run out of energy to fuel complexity(the sun), and the downslope will be fast. Like climbing a cliff only to jump off. In the end, entropy will win, even if it is defied in local areas for long stretches of time due to local stars. The heat death cometh.

http://www.kortexplores.com/node/76

Hi, Flann!

I've tackled the second law of thermodynamics in pretty good depth over here:

http://www.booktalk.org/evolution-and-t ... 14718.html

Put simply, the language of thermodynamics when speaking about things like order and chaos is not the same kind of language you would use.

For instance, a chess board that has been prepared for play is a far more disorderly object than the interior of the sun, which is a titanic nuclear explosion.

Check out the thread for more in depth coverage of these kinds of un-common sense conundrums.

But rest assured, there is no instance of anything going against the second law of thermodynamics. That includes evolution, formation of complex molecules, and planetary accretion.

Hi Interbane,
I see you have a bell curve view of things followed by falling off a cliff.
I'm sure energy does lots of useful things on it's way to disorder.
Carrier though is claiming a general principle of, from simple to complex in nature.I gave examples such as a leaf decomposing from complex order to simpler disorder and an abandoned car rusting away. Such examples of entropy are innumerable and the result of this law of thermodynamics.
So Carrier is wrong is his assertion on this,and this is a basis for his postulate of the simplest possible entity imaginable as creator.
I also mentioned losses of genetic information in certain animals,which I would maintain is a loss of informational complexity leading to a less complex genome which is nonetheless extremely complex.
So I take issue with his premise that all things go from simple to complex.