Does a Godless Multiverse Have Bigfoot Butlers?

[fin-tastic]

This is a serious question.

It makes no sense for atheists to ridicule Bigfoot as well as religion. If God does not exist, Bigfoots certainly do. Follow my reasoning: Some atheists explain the apparent fine-tuning of our universe by positing an infinite number of universes (or a single universe that expands and collapses an infinite number of times). One consequence of multiple-universe theory is that every conceivable universe exists—including an infinite number where Bigfoot-like animals live discreetly among human-like animals on Earth-like planets. Considering the sightings and tracks and video evidence, it’s very possible we’re living in one of the awesome universes with Bigfoots rather than one of the boring universes without Bigfoots. Hopefully, we’re also living in a universe where I capture one and train it to be my personal butler. I would prefer an eternity in heaven, but I must admit that a Bigfoot butler would be a nice consolation prize if God does not exist.

[STer]

 

Some atheists explain the apparent fine-tuning of our universe by positing an infinite number of universes

 

I think the key word there is "Some." Only some posit a multiverse. Many do not posit a multiverse.

[Pepin]

Some atheists explain the apparent fine-tuning of our universe by positing an infinite number of universes (or a single universe that expands and collapses an infinite number of times).

Atheism has nothing to do with the multiverse interpretation of QM as QM has nothing to do with the existence of a diety.

It would make more sense to say "some theorists feel the need to explain" as opposed to simply "explai"n because using the term explain is assuming that there is a need to explain. This is not to say that the multiverse theory is incorrect, but it is important to understand that there is no need to explain emperical fact, especially through the use of the concept of the multiverse.

For instance, in the case that a single universe theory is true, there would be no need to explain the fine-tuning, rather the fine-tuning could only be an interesting yet irrelevant feature of the universe. It would certainly be an interesting observation, nothing more, nothing less.

One consequence of multiple-universe theory is that every conceivable universe exists—including an infinite number where Bigfoot-like animals live discreetly among human-like animals on Earth-like planets.

The argument is going is in the direction of assuming the validity of the multiverse and throwing another arguement on top. This is rather ineffective because you have not provided any case or reason to believe that the multiverse theory is true. Any conclusion can only be as strong as your weakest presmise. But I'll assume it is true.

Considering the sightings and tracks and video evidence, it’s very possible we’re living in one of the awesome universes with Bigfoots rather than one of the boring universes without Bigfoots.

So, a deity may or may not exist in this universe, but whether either is true or false does not matter because a deity must exist in some universe. Is this what you are claiming?

[fin-tastic]

 

For instance, in the case that a single universe theory is true, there would be no need to explain the fine-tuning, rather the fine-tuning could only be an interesting yet irrelevant feature of the universe. It would certainly be an interesting observation, nothing more, nothing less.

 

We might have to agree to disagree on this point. If I went to Vegas and hit the jackpot at every slot machine in every casino, I would certainly wonder whether some higher power was helping me win. Whether scientists admit it or not, multiple-universe theory is driven by the human desire to explain our cosmic good fortune without bringing the “g” word into the picture. (That’s a bit of speculation, but I think some scientists have admitted as much.)

I am not really making an argument. I am asking a question to start a discussion: IF an atheist feels the need to explain the fine-tuned universe AND accepts multiple-universe theory as the explanation, does he have to believe in Bigfoot butlers? If so, what does he think about that?

I ask because I’ve noticed that many atheists and agnostics show a skeptical if not derisive attitude toward subjects like Bigfoot encounters and UFO abductions. That attitude makes no sense if they believe multiple-universe theory is true. If Bigfoot butlers and alien sex offenders exist in an infinite number of universes almost exactly like ours, how can we be certain they don’t exist here? Atheists should maintain a receptive or agnostic mindset toward all kinds of extraordinary claims. I’m not accusing anyone here of ridiculing Bigfoot and UFO researchers, but it’s a trend I’ve noticed among people who identify as atheists, skeptics, or whatever. If the universe is governed by random, impersonal forces, it’s quite possible that a Bigfoot butler could be serving me a beer sometime in the near future. It’s weird and interesting to think about.

Of course, if STer or anyone else wants to offer an alternative to the multiple-universe theory, I’d love to hear it.

[STer]

 

 

For instance, in the case that a single universe theory is true, there would be no need to explain the fine-tuning, rather the fine-tuning could only be an interesting yet irrelevant feature of the universe. It would certainly be an interesting observation, nothing more, nothing less.

 

We might have to agree to disagree on this point. If I went to Vegas and hit the jackpot at every slot machine in every casino, I would certainly wonder whether some higher power was helping me win. Whether scientists admit it or not, multiple-universe theory is driven by the human desire to explain our cosmic good fortune without bringing the “g” word into the picture. (That’s a bit of speculation, but I think some scientists have admitted as much.)

I am not really making an argument. I am asking a question to start a discussion: IF an atheist feels the need to explain the fine-tuned universe AND accepts multiple-universe theory as the explanation, does he have to believe in Bigfoot butlers? If so, what does he think about that?

I ask because I’ve noticed that many atheists and agnostics show a skeptical if not derisive attitude toward subjects like Bigfoot encounters and UFO abductions. That attitude makes no sense if they believe multiple-universe theory is true. If Bigfoot butlers and alien sex offenders exist in an infinite number of universes almost exactly like ours, how can we be certain they don’t exist here? Atheists should maintain a receptive or agnostic mindset toward all kinds of extraordinary claims. I’m not accusing anyone here of ridiculing Bigfoot and UFO researchers, but it’s a trend I’ve noticed among people who identify as atheists, skeptics, or whatever. If the universe is governed by random, impersonal forces, it’s quite possible that a Bigfoot butler could be serving me a beer sometime in the near future. It’s weird and interesting to think about.

Of course, if STer or anyone else wants to offer an alternative to the multiple-universe theory, I’d love to hear it.

 

I've heard very few atheists bring up the multiverse theory. It's a pretty new theory whereas atheism is thousands of years old. I think you might be mixing up the multiverse theory with simply the idea that the universe we do have is huge. We don't need to posit any more universes to have the large numbers involved to make sense of our "good fortune." Even in just one universe as big as the one we are in, there are so many places and events that you would statistically expect to find a place like our planet.

[fin-tastic]

 

I've heard very few atheists bring up the multiverse theory. It's a pretty new theory whereas atheism is thousands of years old. I think you might be mixing up the multiverse theory with simply the idea that the universe we do have is huge. We don't need to posit any more universes to have the large numbers involved to make sense of our "good fortune." Even in just one universe as big as the one we are in, there are so many places and events that you would statistically expect to find a place like our planet.

 

You might be confusing the fine-tuned universe with the Rare Earth hypothesis.

The Rare Earth hypothesis addresses the good fortune of planet Earth—distance from a star, a large moon, stable orbit, and so forth. If only one of these factors were slightly different, complex life could never develop. That good fortune could be explained by the observable fact that billions of planets exist.

The fine-tuned universe addresses the good fortune of the universe as a whole (the cosmological constant, strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei, and so forth). If only one of these values were slightly different, complex life could never develop anywhere in the universe. That good fortune could be “explained” by the hypothetical existence of an infinite number of universes that can't be measured or observed. It's a new theory because only recently have physicists learned how ridiculously fine-tuned for human life the universe seems to be.

The latest science seems to offer two equally extraordinary choices—an intelligent creator for this universe, or Bigfoot butlers in other universes.

[STer]

 

 

I've heard very few atheists bring up the multiverse theory. It's a pretty new theory whereas atheism is thousands of years old. I think you might be mixing up the multiverse theory with simply the idea that the universe we do have is huge. We don't need to posit any more universes to have the large numbers involved to make sense of our "good fortune." Even in just one universe as big as the one we are in, there are so many places and events that you would statistically expect to find a place like our planet.

 

You might be confusing the fine-tuned universe with the Rare Earth hypothesis.

The Rare Earth hypothesis addresses the good fortune of planet Earth—distance from a star, a large moon, stable orbit, and so forth. If only one of these factors were slightly different, complex life could never develop. That good fortune could be explained by the observable fact that billions of planets exist.

The fine-tuned universe addresses the good fortune of the universe as a whole (the cosmological constant, strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei, and so forth). If only one of these values were slightly different, complex life could never develop anywhere in the universe. That good fortune could be “explained” by the hypothetical existence of an infinite number of universes that can't be measured or observed. It's a new theory because only recently have physicists learned how ridiculously fine-tuned for human life the universe seems to be.

The latest science seems offers two equally extraordinary choices—an intelligent creator for this universe, or Bigfoot butlers in other universes.

 

Yes I was thinking you meant the Rare Earth hypothesis. It sounds like the fine-tuned universe idea is the same thing on the larger scale. But I had never heard that version of it. I'd need some verification that it applies the same way on that scale as on the smaller scale. If so then this is an interesting discussion.

[fingolfin]

 

The latest science seems to offer two equally extraordinary choices—an intelligent creator for this universe, or Bigfoot butlers in other universes.

 

None of this has anyting to do with science. It's the ramblings of a bunch of lunatics caling themselves "scientists" and "physicists". There are hardly any scientistst in the world. There are thousands of academics and surrealists and mathemeticians pretending to do science, but actually doing all maner of other things but.

"Infinite" universes, time travel, time dilation, warped space, dimension-less particles, thigs hopping in and out of existence, magical Star Wars forces, hungry black holes, creation-less creation, 1d strings, dark energies, 11 "dimensions"... where will this utter b***shit end?!

[fin-tastic]

fingolfin: So multiple-universe theory, string theory, and much of what passes for physics today is not real science? Why? Because it's not repeatable and testable? If that's what you're saying, I don't disagree. Lee Smolin said the same thing in The Trouble With Physics. It's very controversial whether multiple-universe theory counts as science, philosophy, or something else. Some of these arguments go over my head, but I find it very strange that scientists can't agree about what qualifies as science. It's like, WTF?

STer: Wikipedia has a good summary of the fine-tuned universe proposition and the objections to it. Personally, I find the proposition more convincing than the objections.

Stephen Hawking: "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

[TheRobin]

generally, whenever someone uses the concept of "infity" it stops being an explanation of how things work in reality and becomes a meaningless myth."infinite" is not a description of anything that can ever be measured or understood or experienced, so it can't be an explanation for anything.Try doing some math and joxtapose a variety of probabilities that all use an infinite somewhere and you see what I mean, I guess

[Pepin]

 

 

For instance, in the case that a single universe theory is true, there would be no need to explain the fine-tuning, rather the fine-tuning could only be an interesting yet irrelevant feature of the universe. It would certainly be an interesting observation, nothing more, nothing less.

 

We might have to agree to disagree on this point. If I went to Vegas and hit the jackpot at every slot machine in every casino, I would certainly wonder whether some higher power was helping me win. Whether scientists admit it or not, multiple-universe theory is driven by the human desire to explain our cosmic good fortune without bringing the “g” word into the picture. (That’s a bit of speculation, but I think some scientists have admitted as much.)

This isn't a matter of disagreement. The fine-tuning of the universe can only have explainatory power if the multiverse theory is true. If the theory is false, then the fine-tuning could only be a description of the only universe that exists. If you can show me that the fine-tuning would have further meaning if the multiverse theory were false, I will certainly retract my statement.

[Wesley]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15165371

The universe expands at an increasing rate (therefore not having a limit and eventually coming back onto itself), implying that "the big bang" or whatever happened was a singluar event and not a recurring event.

[fin-tastic]

 

 

 

For instance, in the case that a single universe theory is true, there would be no need to explain the fine-tuning, rather the fine-tuning could only be an interesting yet irrelevant feature of the universe. It would certainly be an interesting observation, nothing more, nothing less.

 

We might have to agree to disagree on this point. If I went to Vegas and hit the jackpot at every slot machine in every casino, I would certainly wonder whether some higher power was helping me win. Whether scientists admit it or not, multiple-universe theory is driven by the human desire to explain our cosmic good fortune without bringing the “g” word into the picture. (That’s a bit of speculation, but I think some scientists have admitted as much.)

This isn't a matter of disagreement. The fine-tuning of the universe can only have explainatory power if the multiverse theory is true. If the theory is false, then the fine-tuning could only be a description of the only universe that exists. If you can show me that the fine-tuning would have further meaning if the multiverse theory were false, I will certainly retract my statement.

 

I'll give it a shot.

The odds that a single Big Bang would produce a single fine-tuned universe are incredibly small. For me and many others, this raises the question: What is the most reasonable explanation for a fine-tuned universe?

1. Chance.
2. An intelligent creator.
3. A multiverse.

Your answer seems to be, "The fine-tuned universe doesn't need an explanation. It just is."

I respect that. Such an answer would do away my original quesion, which was about contemplating the ramifcations of a multiverse (Bigfoot butlers). I mistakenly assumed that most atheists felt the need to explain the fine-tuned universe and went with the multiverse explanation. It appears that is not the case. They either go with Chance or feel no need to answer the question.

[Guest darkskyabove]

If you ask loaded questions, expect buckshot and grenades for answers.

Is there any evidence to support a multiverse theory?

[fin-tastic]

Some scientists say "yes," some say "no," other say "not yet."

It's vexing. I am terribly vexed.

[Wesley]

 

Some scientists say "yes," some say "no," other say "not yet."

It's vexing. I am terribly vexed.

 

This is an appeal to an authority's opinion and is not even an attempt at providing evidence. Just saying.

 

A "scientist" can "say" whatever garbage they want. That doesn't mean it is evidence and that certainly doesn't mean it is true.

 

[PatrickC]

Stephen Hawking: "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

 

Stephen Hawking, perhaps one of the finest huckster genius known to all science. It's a shame he's never been able to use his 'brilliant' mind for anything but magic tales.

[Pepin]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For instance, in the case that a single universe theory is true, there would be no need to explain the fine-tuning, rather the fine-tuning could only be an interesting yet irrelevant feature of the universe. It would certainly be an interesting observation, nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

 

We might have to agree to disagree on this point. If I went to Vegas and hit the jackpot at every slot machine in every casino, I would certainly wonder whether some higher power was helping me win. Whether scientists admit it or not, multiple-universe theory is driven by the human desire to explain our cosmic good fortune without bringing the “g” word into the picture. (That’s a bit of speculation, but I think some scientists have admitted as much.)

 

This isn't a matter of disagreement. The fine-tuning of the universe can only have explainatory power if the multiverse theory is true. If the theory is false, then the fine-tuning could only be a description of the only universe that exists. If you can show me that the fine-tuning would have further meaning if the multiverse theory were false, I will certainly retract my statement.

 

 

 

I'll give it a shot.

 

The odds that a single Big Bang would produce a single fine-tuned universe are incredibly small. For me and many others, this raises the question: What is the most reasonable explanation for a fine-tuned universe?

 

1. Chance.

2. An intelligent creator.

3. A multiverse.

 

Your answer seems to be, "The fine-tuned universe doesn't need an explanation. It just is."

 

I respect that. Such an answer would do away my original quesion, which was about contemplating the ramifcations of a multiverse (Bigfoot butlers). I mistakenly assumed that most atheists felt the need to explain the fine-tuned universe and went with the multiverse explanation. It appears that is not the case. They either go with Chance or feel no need to answer the question.

 

 

 

Granted that you either seem to lack the ability to agree with logical implications or particular claims, or that you are not able to comprehend and respond to an opposing argument in any satisfactory way, I am going to withdraw from the discussion because I feel as though it cannot be productive.

[Wesley]

 

 

The odds that a single Big Bang would produce a single fine-tuned universe are incredibly small. For me and many others, this raises the question: What is the most reasonable explanation for a fine-tuned universe?

1. Chance.
2. An intelligent creator.
3. A multiverse.

Your answer seems to be, "The fine-tuned universe doesn't need an explanation. It just is."

I respect that. Such an answer would do away my original quesion, which was about contemplating the ramifcations of a multiverse (Bigfoot butlers). I mistakenly assumed that most atheists felt the need to explain the fine-tuned universe and went with the multiverse explanation. It appears that is not the case. They either go with Chance or feel no need to answer the question.

 

Describing reality as having been brought about by chance is a fundamental misunderstanding of the world around you. Chance assumes that the world is created right now and has all the properties that it does now. If you took this assumption and denied trillions of years of history before this point, then yes, one of your choices would be the only options.

However, it is not how it happened. Matter exists the way that it does BECAUSE it is the only way that it can exist. If matter did not behave in this way, then it would not exist. This does not need cosmic forces, chance, or a multiverse. It is a simple explanation of how reality is.

Yes, if the strong nuclear force was a slightly different constant, then molecules and matter as we know it oculd not exist. However, this means that these supposed multiverses that contain this non-existant matter do not exist.

The reason why we study what the constant is is to further understand the world around us. The fact that that number is what it is because it is the only way it could be makes perfect sense in the existence of a single reality that has developed. The development necessitated these numbers.