I disagree with AC Grayling, when he says that a multiverse isn't necessary to explain the existence of life in the universe. It damn well IS, because there is no reason to assume that a one-off universe would just happen to have suitable fundamental constants for a complex, hydrocarbon-based biochemistry to be possble.

EDIT: His statement to the effect it did anyway, because "here we are", does not answer what caused such an unlikely thing to occur in the first place. The interview posed the correct question on this, but Grayling's answer to it was a fudge.

FURTHER EDIT: Thus, the "universe as a black hole" model is the only credible non-creator-god-based cosmology.

One of the possible objections to this is the one that holds that black holes are only formed when atomic matter collapses to a point. This is not valid, because, contrary to what has been stated on some TV science programs a black hole only requires collapsing matter, not collapsing atomic matter. (And atoms are notorious for resisting compression. Thus, even the super-massive black holes in this universe could have formed before atoms were! (Something that seems to elude TV cosmology program-makers.)

DavidMcC wrote:I disagree with AC Grayling, when he says that a multiverse isn't necessary to explain the existence of life in the universe. It damn well IS, because there is no reason to assume that a one-off universe would just happen to have suitable fundamental constants for a complex, hydrocarbon-based biochemistry to be possble.

There's no reason to think it'd be impossible either though.

DavidMcC wrote:
EDIT: His statement to the effect it did anyway, because "here we are", does not answer what caused such an unlikely thing to occur in the first place. The interview posed the correct question on this, but Grayling's answer to it was a fudge.

How do you know it's unlikely?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
EDIT: His statement to the effect it did anyway, because "here we are", does not answer what caused such an unlikely thing to occur in the first place. The interview posed the correct question on this, but Grayling's answer to it was a fudge.

How do you know it's unlikely?

Let me put it this way most physicists would agree that how the universe develops depends a lot on the values of the fundamental constants of that universe, and that complex biochemistry requires fairly precise values, but why should the fundamental constants of the universe have these values and not different ones? The idea that "life would adapt" pre-supposes that life can start in the first place, and that in turn requires particular values of the constants. Even getting atoms at all, places some demands on them, complex biochemistry is even more demanding, particularly of the fine-structure constant, which is basic to all of chemistry.

... Even in this universe, life on any given planet is highly unlikely, and it is only the sheer number of slightly different solar systems in it that gave life any real chance to start.

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
EDIT: His statement to the effect it did anyway, because "here we are", does not answer what caused such an unlikely thing to occur in the first place. The interview posed the correct question on this, but Grayling's answer to it was a fudge.

How do you know it's unlikely?

Let me put it this way most physicists would agree that how the universe develops depends a lot on the values of the fundamental constants of that universe, and that complex biochemistry requires fairly precise values, but why should the fundamental constants of the universe have these values and not different ones?

Why should it not?

DavidMcC wrote: The idea that "life would adapt" pre-supposes that life can start in the first place, and that in turn requires particular values of the constants.

But we know this is a possibility, because life does exist.

DavidMcC wrote: Even getting atoms at all, places some demands on them, complex biochemistry is even more demanding, particularly of the fine-structure constant, which is basic to all of chemistry.

While true, does not demonstrate likeliness or unlikeliness.

DavidMcC wrote:... Even in this universe, life on any given planet is highly unlikely, and it is only the sheer number of slightly different solar systems in it that gave life any real chance to start.

True, but again this does not demonstrate that it is unlikely.
We have a sample size of 1. We have nothing to compare that 1 sample to, to have basis for claiming it's likely or unlikely that our universe came to be the way it is.

Already done the "fine tuning" myth to death elsewhere. In particular, I addressed the secondary myths attached thereto here four years ago, by presenting two scientific papers whose contents demonstrate that:

[1] Stars (the primary entities responsible for heavier nucleosynthesis) can exist in universes with a wide variety of values of certain fundamental physical constants - approximately 25% of a large parameter space is compatible therewith;

[2] Even eliminating the weak nuclear force from the picture, would have precious little impact upon the habitability of a universe bereft thereof, from the standpoint of human life. A recognisable physics (minus the missing weak force) and chemistry would still be present in some candidate weakless universes.

The papers in question are fairly technical, but I gave a reasonable exposition thereof in that past post.

Calilasseia wrote:Already done the "fine tuning" myth to death elsewhere. In particular, I addressed the secondary myths attached thereto here four years ago, by presenting two scientific papers whose contents demonstrate that:

[1] Stars (the primary entities responsible for heavier nucleosynthesis) can exist in universes with a wide variety of values of certain fundamental physical constants - approximately 25% of a large parameter space is compatible therewith;

[2] Even eliminating the weak nuclear force from the picture, would have precious little impact upon the habitability of a universe bereft thereof, from the standpoint of human life. A recognisable physics (minus the missing weak force) and chemistry would still be present in some candidate weakless universes.

...

You may make that assertion, but how do you know it is true? You are facing an even worse problem than the one TE confronted me with. The assertion that 25% of parameter space allows life is questionable, because it requires more than just nucleosynthesis to allow life - there has to be a very complex biochemistry, which is therefore dependent on more than just having atoms more complex than hydrogen.

Calilasseia wrote:Already done the "fine tuning" myth to death elsewhere. In particular, I addressed the secondary myths attached thereto here four years ago, by presenting two scientific papers whose contents demonstrate that:

[1] Stars (the primary entities responsible for heavier nucleosynthesis) can exist in universes with a wide variety of values of certain fundamental physical constants - approximately 25% of a large parameter space is compatible therewith;

[2] Even eliminating the weak nuclear force from the picture, would have precious little impact upon the habitability of a universe bereft thereof, from the standpoint of human life. A recognisable physics (minus the missing weak force) and chemistry would still be present in some candidate weakless universes.

...

You may make that assertion, but how do you know it is true? You are facing an even worse problem than the one TE confronted me with. The assertion that 25% of parameter space allows life is questionable, because it requires more than just nucleosynthesis to allow life - there has to be a very complex biochemistry, which is therefore dependent on more than just having atoms more complex than hydrogen.

DavidMcC wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Already done the "fine tuning" myth to death elsewhere. In particular, I addressed the secondary myths attached thereto here four years ago, by presenting two scientific papers whose contents demonstrate that:

[1] Stars (the primary entities responsible for heavier nucleosynthesis) can exist in universes with a wide variety of values of certain fundamental physical constants - approximately 25% of a large parameter space is compatible therewith;

[2] Even eliminating the weak nuclear force from the picture, would have precious little impact upon the habitability of a universe bereft thereof, from the standpoint of human life. A recognisable physics (minus the missing weak force) and chemistry would still be present in some candidate weakless universes.

...

You may make that assertion, but how do you know it is true? You are facing an even worse problem than the one TE confronted me with.

Are you going to adress that?

I have. You asserted, in effect, that there is no reason why another universe shouldn't have exactly the same constants as this one. That is notionally true, but the elephant in your room is the converse, because there is no known reason for them to be the same!

Awww...I remember William Lane Craig. T'was a different era.

VazScep wrote:Awww...I remember William Lane Craig. T'was a different era.

Yeah! One best forgotten!

DavidMcC wrote:I have.

You really haven't. You adressed Cali's post, not mine.

DavidMcC wrote: You asserted, in effect, that there is no reason why another universe shouldn't have exactly the same constants as this one.

I did nothing of the sort. Kindly refrain from misrepresenting me.
What I pointed out to you is that:
1. We have a sample size of 1 universe and thus cannot make any rational claims about how likely or unlikely it's existence is.
2. In line with point 1, you have no basis to assert a one-off universe like ours is impossible or a multiverse being necessary for our universe to be possible.

DavidMcC wrote:IThat is notionally true, but the elephant in your room is the converse, because there is no known reason for them to be the same!

It's a straw-man.
I've restated what I've actually said and would appreciate it if you adressed that.

Anyway, in case late-comers to this thread mistakenly think I am arguing for a god, let me remind them that multiverse theories obviate the need to invoke ID of the universe to get the constants right, because with many slightly different universes, a hit and miss process is sufficient to explain us in at least one universe.

DavidMcC wrote:Anyway, in case late-comers to this thread mistakenly think I am arguing for a god,

I don't think anyone who knows you would think you're arguing that.

DavidMcC wrote: let me remind them that multiverse theories obviate the need to invoke ID of the universe to get the constants right,

There's no rational argument that a single universe requires ID either.

DavidMcC wrote:

VazScep wrote:Awww...I remember William Lane Craig. T'was a different era.

Yeah! One best forgotten!

I only really stuck around these sceptic communities because, for reasons I never thought too hard about, I had opportunities to talk about stuff in which I was interested. I had long debates with people about infinity because of William Lane Craig, and I guess I have to thank him for that, because it was fun.