reply to post by Joecroft
Originally posted by Joecroft
(I posted something similar to my post below in another thread, thought I should post
it here as well)
Scientists are aware through predominantly that of empiricism, that our universe has a large number of cosmological constants, which if slightly off
by a fraction, would result in us not existing.
Yet scientists have no clue if those constants could even possibly have other values. There is also the fact that the universe would seemingly be able
to chug on as is without the weak force
of the universe, one of the four fundamental forces (strong, weak, electromagnetism, gravity).
It is well known to science through empiricism, that had our universe expanded to fast, or to slow, by a tiny fraction, then conditions would not have
been right for the creation/happening of the elements on the periodic table and life as we know it. This knowledge, has led some to believe, that
there could be a creator/God, which although is a rationalist jump, it is at least based on empiricism.
No, it is based on assumption. We are unable to determine whether or not those numbers have any other possible values, so any leap based upon the
values of those numbers is merely assumption.
One of the major potential criticisms of the Anthropic cosmology, is the idea of the multiverse.
Yes, one of many unproven hypotheses with regards to theoretical cosmology.
Many Multiverses may have expanded at the wrong rate and may have only gotten as far as the hydrogen and Helium stage, resulting in a rather lifeless
and ultimately dead universe. The general concept is that with many thousands or millions of universes expanding, ours just happened to hit lucky by
Or possibly all universes have the exact same fundamental physical constants, thus they all formed into stable universes. We don't have to appeal to
the multiverse to say that the 'fine tuning' argument for a creator is a bit silly.
The problem with the multiverse is that it is not based on empiricism/knowledge, because we simply don’t know what lies beyond our own universe, or
indeed, even if there are, any other universes.
Indeed, I actually agree with you here. It is currently a hypothesis, so only scientific inquiry will tell, probably with the next couple of decades,
whether or not the concept is near the truth.
Of course, I also cut this paragraph off here to highlight something, we only have one sample. We have no way of knowing of other possible value for
constants due to this fact, and to leap to the conclusion that these constants were finally tuned would be to make the same mistake as those who
appeal solely to the multiverse.
What this essentially means, is that we are using rationalism, to try to refute the empirical knowledge, as to why the universe appears to have so
many coincidental factors, for the creation/happening of life, as we know it. Science will of course claim that God is not falsifiable but then again,
neither is the idea of the multiverse falsifiable.
Actually, the idea of the multiverse is
falsifiable. It is within the realm of scientific investigation and is currently going through
scientific inquiry. Of course, it is only one hypothesis amongst many.
The conceptions of deities, on the other hand, vary. Some are unfalsifiable. Some might be. But that is a separate issue and something for another