hackenslash wrote:

scott1328 wrote:Since a "multiverse" is the ultimate non-falsifiable claim...

I'd be reluctant to make claims like this.

It was widely thought that brane-worlds was unfalsifiable, yet physicists ultimately determined a way to falsify it. Had the BICEP2 results withstood critical scrutiny, brane-worlds would have been falsified, because one of the consequences of brane cosmology is that the B-mode polarisation cannot occur, because it arises from inhomogeneities during inflation.

I'm always reminded of Darwin's admonition:

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.

Certain theories of a multiverse are falsifiable, this is granted. But falsifying such a theory, does not rule out the existence of a multiverse.

Not actually relevant to the point raised. The simple fact is that there may be as-yet-undetermined consequences of a multiverse of some stripe actually being observable. This is among the hopes for MWI, which is ultimately a multiverse hypothesis.

hackenslash wrote:Not actually relevant to the point raised. The simple fact is that there may be as-yet-undetermined consequences of a multiverse of some stripe actually being observable. This is among the hopes for MWI, which is ultimately a multiverse hypothesis.

Just as your quibble was not relevant

It wasn't a quibble, it was an admonition to be sceptical of fuckwitted absolute statements such as yours, which was asinine.

You actually cherry-picked my statement which was

scott1328 wrote:Since a "multiverse" is the ultimate non-falsifiable claim, shouldn't the search be for evidence that falsifies the "universe" claim?

My statement is that to falsify a "multiverse" is impossible.

But it is possible to falsify a "universe". If "universe" is falsified, then "multiverse" is confirmed.

Your statement is made from a position of complete ignorance. You simply have no way of knowing whether your statement is true. Hence the admonition from Darwin.

Really.

Tell me how one would falsify the claim: there exists multiple universes none of which impinge upon any other in any way whatsoever.

Well done. You entirely missed where I dealt with that objection.

I'll leave you to your stupidity and the last word.

hackenslash wrote:Well done. You entirely missed where I dealt with that objection.

I'll leave you to your stupidity and the last word.

You didn't deal with anything. You merely arrogantly insulted me based on a quote you still haven't bothered to understand.

Probably drifting off topic here but this is a brief and pensive vimeo by Paul J Steinhardt of some relevance...

Recognizing Defeat?

Princeton University cosmologist Paul Steinhardt describes how many physicists stubbornly refuse to abandon a theory of the universe he helped develop.

1 minute 8 seconds' worth @ vimeo link and includes a link to further discussion within...

Thomas Eshuis wrote:The absence of evidence for fine-tuning undermines fine-tuning.

You realise that fine-tuning is a problem in physics? Are you suggesting that physicists have fabricated this problem without evidence?

zulumoose wrote:Best illustrated with the puddle argument, which can never be repeated too many times

But it's piss useless as an analogy, so what's the value of repeating it? To make this clear, if puddles only had circumferences of between 103 and 105 centimetres, you'd have an analogy. And I think it's pretty fucking obvious that an explanation would be desirable for the circumstance that empty holes suddenly fill with water when the amount of rain that has fallen suffices and equally suddenly empty after sufficiently more rain falls.

ughaibu wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:The absence of evidence for fine-tuning undermines fine-tuning.

You realise that fine-tuning is a problem in physics?

No, because it isn't.

ughaibu wrote:Are you suggesting that physicists have fabricated this problem without evidence?

I am suggesting that creationists have fabricated it and you've apparently been taken in by it.

If you're talking about the fine-tuning problem scientists are discussing, which isn't the same thing, then your comment is a non-sequitur.

ughaibu wrote:

zulumoose wrote:Best illustrated with the puddle argument, which can never be repeated too many times

But it's piss useless as an analogy, so what's the value of repeating it?

Why should your baseless dismissal be given any credit?

ughaibu wrote: To make this clear, if puddles only had circumferences of between 103 and 105 centimetres, you'd have an analogy.

Nope. Thank you for demonstrating you don't understand the analogy.

ughaibu wrote: And I think it's pretty fucking obvious that an explanation would be desirable for the circumstance that empty holes suddenly fill with water when the amount of rain that has fallen suffices and equally suddenly empty after sufficiently more rain falls.

Wtf are you on about? The reasons water fills up holes and puddles are well known and what kind of weird rain would causes puddles to empty?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:The absence of evidence for fine-tuning undermines fine-tuning.

You realise that fine-tuning is a problem in physics?

No, because it isn't.

Yes it is. The fine-tuning argument for theism is exactly the fine-tuning argument for a multiverse, only the conclusions differ.

ughaibu wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:The absence of evidence for fine-tuning undermines fine-tuning.

You realise that fine-tuning is a problem in physics?

No, because it isn't.

Yes it is.

Except that it isn't.

ughaibu wrote: The fine-tuning argument for theism is exactly the fine-tuning argument for a multiverse, only the conclusions differ.

The fine-tuning argument for theism begs several questions, so if that's the same thing you're talking about, it is a logically fallacious position and therefore irrelevant.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

ughaibu wrote:You realise that fine-tuning is a problem in physics?

No, because it isn't.

Yes it is.

Except that it isn't.

You're mistaken about this. There's nothing more to say beyond read up on the matter.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

ughaibu wrote:The fine-tuning argument for theism is exactly the fine-tuning argument for a multiverse, only the conclusions differ.

The fine-tuning argument for theism begs several questions, so if that's the same thing you're talking about, it is a logically fallacious position and therefore irrelevant.

If you're correct, then the fine-tuning argument for a multiverse "begs several questions", is "a logically fallacious position" and is "therefore irrelevant". I think I'll trust the physicists on this one, you've got a pretty dire track record, from what I've seen.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:The absence of evidence for fine-tuning undermines fine-tuning.

You realise that fine-tuning is a problem in physics?

No, because it isn't.

ughaibu wrote:Are you suggesting that physicists have fabricated this problem without evidence?

I am suggesting that creationists have fabricated it and you've apparently been taken in by it.

If you're talking about the fine-tuning problem scientists are discussing, which isn't the same thing, then your comment is a non-sequitur.

Thomas you're really quite mistaken here and you might be conflating the issue of fine-tuning as understood by physicists, with fine-tuning as defined by creationists and where they want to go with asking that question.

There is a fine-tuning problem in physics, and it is something like this: Why are the laws and constants of nature the way they are? For example, why is the strength of the electromagnetic force so very much greater than the strength of the gravitational force?

Why did the universe appear to have such an extremely high level of entropy in it's earliest periods?

And a host of related questions. Those are legitimate areas of investigation in physics, and they really are referred to collectively as the fine-tuning problem.

Creationists think they have a solution to the fine-tuning problem in physics. God did it, with magic. Which is of course unfalsifiable conjecture. So it's not that it is a bad question, or a nonsensical question that physicists aren't actually concerned with. The problem when it comes to creationism is the same as it always is, which is that the God hypothesis is not a useful scientific model. It's really just an argument from ignorance.

We don't know, it seems unlikely we'd get this particular ensemble, so magic man man musta waved his magic wand because what we see is what he wanted. Which can be applied to any conceivable observation, so it's worthless. It's not a prediction, it's ad-hoc rationalization.

It's a bit more subtle even than that. There are several fine-tuning problems in physics, and they all have to do with the fact that, under a given model, certain parameters have to fall within a narrow range of values if the model is correct.

The constants themselves don't represent a fine-tuning problem, they're simply questions to be answered, because they are what they are and there's no good reason - beyond the usual useful 'what if' thought experiments - to think they could be any different.

I talk at some length about fine-tuning generally and in apologetics here:

Careful With That Dial

Rumraket wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:The absence of evidence for fine-tuning undermines fine-tuning.

You realise that fine-tuning is a problem in physics?

No, because it isn't.

ughaibu wrote:Are you suggesting that physicists have fabricated this problem without evidence?

I am suggesting that creationists have fabricated it and you've apparently been taken in by it.

If you're talking about the fine-tuning problem scientists are discussing, which isn't the same thing, then your comment is a non-sequitur.

Thomas you're really quite mistaken here and you might be conflating the issue of fine-tuning as understood by physicists, with fine-tuning as defined by creationists and where they want to go with asking that question.

There is a fine-tuning problem in physics, and it is something like this: Why are the laws and constants of nature the way they are? For example, why is the strength of the electromagnetic force so very much greater than the strength of the gravitational force?

Why did the universe appear to have such an extremely high level of entropy in it's earliest periods?

And a host of related questions. Those are legitimate areas of investigation in physics, and they really are referred to collectively as the fine-tuning problem.

I know, but:
1. I was talking specifically about the way creationists use the term.
2. While I get what physicists try to describe, I have issues with the language they use to describe it.
Fine tuning implies an intentional calibration of factors with a specific goal in mind. I've not seen any evidence that this idea applies to the universe.
More-over all the questions you raised, in the way they are phrased, beg the questions that these things could have been different in the first place, which would need to be demonstrate, which I don't know how you would do that with no other universes to compare it to.
So, while I appreciate your attempt to correct errors on my part, it was actually ughaibu that kept conflating things in order to criticize my initial post.

Rumraket wrote:
Creationists think they have a solution to the fine-tuning problem in physics. God did it, with magic. Which is of course unfalsifiable conjecture. So it's not that it is a bad question, or a nonsensical question that physicists aren't actually concerned with. The problem when it comes to creationism is the same as it always is, which is that the God hypothesis is not a useful scientific model. It's really just an argument from ignorance.

We don't know, it seems unlikely we'd get this particular ensemble, so magic man man musta waved his magic wand because what we see is what he wanted. Which can be applied to any conceivable observation, so it's worthless. It's not a prediction, it's ad-hoc rationalization.

I know, but like I said, I find the phrasing 'fine-tuning' problematic.