Timeline for Does refuting the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God necessarily require belief in a Multiverse?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 28, 2018 at 18:59 | comment | added | Conifold | @NikolajDiRondò Whether God envisioned or recombined possible worlds have to be distinguished as "possible" somehow, which is just the multiverse of possibles by another name. Admitting anything logically coherent would produce a vast set that can not support any interesting probability measure. And the supposed explanation of fine tuning, that in the fullness of multiverse all worlds, fine tuned or not, are realized, and we just find ourselves in one of them, does not work with possibles, we are back to why this one only was actualized. All the flaws of multiverse with none of the benefits. | |
| Jun 27, 2018 at 19:50 | comment | added | Nikolaj Di Rondò | @Conifold one could argue for a combinatorial view for possible worlds. If this is the case, the sample space could be seen as abstract recombination of facts and states of affairs without appealing to multiverse (or God's mind). In this sense fine tuning can be spelled without making a commitment to the reality of the alternatives. Afterall when we say that the "result" of a coin toss could be head instead of tail, we refer to such abstract sample space (without referring to real situations) | |
| Jan 20, 2018 at 20:33 | answer | added | Johannes | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 17, 2015 at 16:02 | comment | added | Neil Meyer | It is actually impossible to prove multiverse theories so if this is the case you are believing in a theory that science can never prove true. | |
| Dec 1, 2015 at 18:40 | answer | added | robert bristow-johnson | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 1, 2015 at 14:19 | answer | added | Mozibur Ullah | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 1, 2015 at 0:56 | answer | added | alanf | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 28, 2015 at 18:25 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | At some point down this path, you may have to be very exacting with terminology. Words like "universe" and "multiverse" are very easy to use up until the point where they start getting us in trouble. For example, is there any particular reason to presume that there was a "statistical population of universes" to draw from any more than there was a statistical population of nuclear bombs on the chalk boards of Oppenheimer's team as they frantically built one that would explode? | |
| Nov 28, 2015 at 14:51 | answer | added | gnasher729 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 27, 2015 at 23:55 | comment | added | Conifold | To the contrary, belief in multiple worlds, at least "possible" ones whether in mutiverse or in the mind of God, is required to even spell out the fine tuning argument. The idea being that those constants could take multiple combinations of values, and it is "highly unlikely" that they would turn out to favor our existence. Without it there is no "fine tuning" that requires an explanation, because without a sample space there is no probability. But even if there was, why should all outcomes be equally likely, and what does that even mean? As in Pascal's wager "probability" here is a figment. | |
| Nov 27, 2015 at 22:56 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/670375796771565568 | ||
| Nov 27, 2015 at 19:40 | answer | added | Rex Kerr | timeline score: 4 | |
| Nov 27, 2015 at 17:14 | answer | added | sand1 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 27, 2015 at 15:21 | answer | added | Kris | timeline score: 0 | |
| Nov 27, 2015 at 11:14 | comment | added | Jo Wehler | I do not consider fine-tuning an argument for a creator. Because each argumentation to explain the existence of the universe by a creator requires a subsequent explanation for the existence of the creator: What or who created the creator? An answer often heard "The creator is causa sui", that's not an answer but a further unproved ad-hoc claim. - I consider the concept of a creator a problematic concept. It prompts more questions than providing answers. - Hence I propose to keep the theological question separate from the cosmological question and to focus on the latter :-) | |
| Nov 27, 2015 at 9:21 | answer | added | Chris Degnen | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 27, 2015 at 8:38 | history | asked | Alexander S King | CC BY-SA 3.0 |