I. Introduction - "Sense and Goodness Without God"

[Flann 5]

Right ant. Scary, but intellectually fulfilling. Feed the beast! It seems these black holes 'spawn' other universes. Don't ask me how I know. Richard has an explanation based on his philosophical principles.

[Interbane]

Carrier, in his discussion of life in our universe, did not pause to question if our understanding of what constitutes "life" is fully understood. Paul Davies discusses this at length in one of his books (I forget which one it is)
Have we defined Life properly?

One of my favorite problems in philosophy is that of "cutting nature at it's joints." It's not really the nature of defining a concept that gives us full understanding of it, especially when the universe is disdainful of our abstracted boundaries(in a non-anthropic way). There will always be information compression going on, so something is lost. In some areas, such as the definition of life, the concept is like an atomic particle with regards to the uncertainty principle. We know the grey area of the boundary between life and non-life, but the closer we come to examining it, the we realize the boundary has dimension, rather than existing as an infinitely fine plutonic line.

I'll give Davies a try, and see what he has to say on the matter.

Carrier says I think, that the principal 'purpose' that could be deduced,were one to talk of purpose is not the facilitating of life and intelligence but the production of as many black holes as possible. Their 'purpose' is to produce even more universes with as many black holes as possible and so on, ad infinitum.
Thanks Richard, That would explain everything.

What he's saying is slightly different. He's saying that if there were a purpose for the universe(given by a god), that purpose would be the formation of black holes. There is a relationship between this quantity and value. Consider an allotment of land from the government. One person is given three thousand square kilometers of beachfront property that isn't prone to natural disasters and has plenty of natural resources. Another person is given a square meter in the middle of a desert. Who would you say is valued more? If you question the analogy, consider the larger quantity of land being given to rocks instead of a person. It makes even less sense. Why have so much of creation devoted to something you have little value for? It still feeds back to value-laden distribution, no matter which approach you take.

But this doesn't explain everything. It is merely one of many issues with the idea of a creator.

It's just a "brute fact" that our universe both has and "feeds" black holes.

Correct me if I'm wrong(it's hard to backtrack through an audio book), but the brute fact is that "the universe exists". The fact that our universe has black holes and feeds them is an observation, not a brute fact. Sure, it follows from the brute fact, but so does absolutely everything else in the universe. The brute fact comes before all. But the distribution of resources and the apparent benefit to black holes from physical laws is not a brute fact, it's an observation.

[Flann 5]

Our Universe is finely tuned for life and we exist, even if it is in a tiny speck in the universe.
God made everything for his glory.
He probably enjoys all of the universe even the parts we can't even see. Should he make just one galaxy because we think the rest is a waste.The universe is magnificent.It just depends on how you look at it.
I think his worldview and Dawkins is what makes them favour the mutiverse. It 'solves' the fine tuning 'problem'. It's entirely untested,unproven speculative theory which he thinks is logically sound.
He talks about the scientific method as a basis for his philosophy. Everything we observe in the natural world is explicable in terms of having a cause. He seems to abandon this principle in postulating an infinite regress of universes and suggests that it created itself! Illogical, no matter how he tries to 'explain' it.

[ant]

..,the multiverse is eternal, in the sense that it exists at every point of time that exists, has existed, or ever will exist. And for that reason it did not come "from" anywhere. There was never a time when it did not exist, so it did not come from "nothing" because there has never been "nothing - Carrier

What effect would an eternal universe have on entropy?
If the "brute" law of entropy is active in an eternal universe, at what point would dissorder completely govern order and why?

If conscious beings imprint (my word, not Carrier's) an arrow of time onto an "eternal" universe that has no beginning or ending, how is it that our experience is NOW? Would not our point of experience on an arrow of time not even be possible?


BUMP

[ant]

Correct me if I'm wrong(it's hard to backtrack through an audio book), but the brute fact is that "the universe exists". The fact that our universe has black holes and feeds them is an observation, not a brute fact. Sure, it follows from the brute fact, but so does absolutely everything else in the universe. The brute fact comes before all. But the distribution of resources and the apparent benefit to black holes from physical laws is not a brute fact, it's an observation.

There would need to be other "brute facts" added to the brute fact that the universe exists.

Is not the law governing the direction of entropy an additional brute fact?

[Robert Tulip]

Moved a long post in reply to Interbane to the thread on II How We Know

[Flann 5]

Carrier seems to suggest an infinity of universes though he understands them as being parts of one universe. If a universe produces trillions of black holes which spawn universes,all with trillions of further black holes the effect is combinatorial inflation accelerating exponentially. So infinite universes, though they cant actually be infinite since they are still producing them.
Granting Carrier,such an infinity of universes and as he says it is inevitable there will be other universes exactly like ours, and others different with slight or greater variations in laws and maybe dimensions,what does this predict? If infinite then surely anything that can happen must happen. Other earth like planets must exist,other life forms and civilizations. Where laws vary different results apply or different dimensions.We are surely in an Alice in Wonderland universe where everything that can happen already has happened and is happening. This surely is sci-fi nonsense.
And order will surely arise as long as you have enough chaos!
Everthing we observe in our universe is caused.Observable scientific fact. But no! the multiverse has no cause,it creates itself.Forget observable testable science.
And everything complex must come from simple to begin with but as Lennox pointed out, Dawkins book is complex but simpler than Dawkins himself.
And surely in a universe/multiverse of infinite varying parts collisions are inevitable between these infinite parts and what would the effects of this be? You can predict just about anything and inevitably amidst the infinity of universes it will happen.
What we know scientifically is that there is one real universe but of course we can invent just about anything with highly speculative theories about what might have happened in that part of the universe's past that we can't see.

[Interbane]

Our Universe is finely tuned for life and we exist, even if it is in a tiny speck in the universe.
God made everything for his glory.

My immediate thought when I read this was "what a prick"(god). Why make a universe so hostile to life? What is glorious about such a being? The universe is magnificent, absolutely. But we need not go beyond that brute fact and attribute magnificence to some speculative entity.

I think his worldview and Dawkins is what makes them favour the mutiverse. It 'solves' the fine tuning 'problem'. It's entirely untested,unproven speculative theory which he thinks is logically sound.

There is the idea of infinite regress, then there is the logical fallacy of infinite regress. The first is what you're referring to with causation, and it is not illogical. The second involves endless propositions, which is a separate matter.

Regarding the multiverse. It is speculative, yes. But so is the idea of a god. The idea of a god is even more speculative, due to all the issues the idea creates.

He talks about the scientific method as a basis for his philosophy. Everything we observe in the natural world is explicable in terms of having a cause. He seems to abandon this principle in postulating an infinite regress of universes and suggests that it created itself! Illogical, no matter how he tries to 'explain' it.

I don't follow where you see a violation of logical rules in the idea. You'll have to explain.

There would need to be other "brute facts" added to the brute fact that the universe exists.

Is not the law governing the direction of entropy an additional brute fact?

That's a good question. All entities within the universe exist if the universe exists. The root of their operation is another matter. The various multiverse theories take this into account. There is no set of laws that is absolute. The laws are different across universes, varying in type and intensity. I think the idea is beautiful. Entropy in our universe would be reversed or even absent in another. At least, I think that's how the theory plays out.

That looks to be a very hasty comment. Yes, wisdom can be summarised and simplified for popular use. But the idea that historical antecedents should be ignored is a recipe for error.

Aspirin works without anyone knowing that it came from willow bark. I don't see the logic in your argument. Historians of language or culture would surely need to trace wisdom back to the bible and other religious texts, but as useful knowledge for a property manager at a YMCA, it's simply unnecessary. A book like Carrier's suffices, giving a basic overview of a worldview.

[Interbane]

So infinite universes, though they cant actually be infinite since they are still producing them.

The concept of infinity doesn't work like that. There are infinite points on a number line between the number 1 and 2. There are also an infinite number between points 2 and 3.

This surely is sci-fi nonsense.

Surely? Why surely?

Everthing we observe in our universe is caused.Observable scientific fact. But no! the multiverse has no cause,it creates itself.

This argument applies with equal silliness to the idea of god. We get nowhere. And again, I'll repeat that science is not the dominant method of examination here. We need not limit ourselves.

And surely in a universe/multiverse of infinite varying parts collisions are inevitable between these infinite parts and what would the effects of this be?

It might be the case that collisions are inevitable. You seem to have a better understanding of what the theory entails than I do. If collisions are inevitable, there is your testability, bringing it within the purview of scientific method. We look to the fringes of our universe and see out areas where we could be colliding with another universe.

[Flann 5]

Hi Interbane,
I think he tries unsuccessfully to water down the usual madness of 11 dimensions and different laws that string theorists build their bizarre universes from, by appealing to what on the surface suggests less such outcomes. Once you get an infinity of varied universes you are really in string theory land, whether it's admitted or not.
He tries to fool around with headache inducing theories about time.
In the end he starts from one 'simple' universe which presumably expands produces black holes and the rest is Carrier 'history'. This essentially returns us to where we are with the standard model needing an explanation for it's beginning. He just waves the magic wand ala Krauss and hey presto! it creates itself.He desperately wants to eliminate the problem of a beginning from nothing but up his sleeve is something,just as with Krauss.

Carrier maintains that the Theistic explanation is poor and intellectually deficient. I'm going to provide a link to a discussion by three Christian thinkers from Oxford University. Alister Mc Grath, John Lennox and Keith Ward. The subject is Atheism,Science and God. It's on youtube. I can't get a working link. Sorry.