I keep coming across statement from physicists like the following:
Observationally, we have learned more and more that we live in a highly special universe—it seems that the “physical laws” of our universe (summarized in the form of standard models of particle physics and cosmology) takes such a special form that if its structure were varied slightly, then there would be no interesting structure in the universe, let alone intelligent life. It is hard to understand this fact unless there are many universes with varying “physical laws,” and we simply happen to emerge in a universe which allows for intelligent life to develop (which seems to require special conditions). With multiple universes, we can understand the “specialness” of our universe precisely as we understand the “specialness” of our planet Earth (e.g. the ideal distance from the sun), which is only one of the many planets out there.
http://ift.tt/1jwQpJq
Question: if there's no evidence that other universes actually exist, can't a theist use this type of reasoning to assert "God did it" (since there's no evidence for God either). In other words, how do you argue to a theist that the "specialness" of our universe is better explained by a vast ensemble of other universes than "God did it", if there's no actual evidence that other universes exist?
In the past people here at JREF would complain that arguments that depend on the "specialness" of the universe (the precise values of the physical constants that allow for a universe like ours) are an example of the "sharpshooter fallacy". But I keep reading physicists who keep saying the only way to explain the uniqueness of our universe is by positing a whole bunch of other universes, like the physicist I just quoted. I think these scientists are sophisticated enough to avoid fallacies like that.
Thoughts? Does anyone want to argue that it's all just chance, there's no "specialness", and we shouldn't look to a multiverse (or God, if you're so inclined) to explain it?
Observationally, we have learned more and more that we live in a highly special universe—it seems that the “physical laws” of our universe (summarized in the form of standard models of particle physics and cosmology) takes such a special form that if its structure were varied slightly, then there would be no interesting structure in the universe, let alone intelligent life. It is hard to understand this fact unless there are many universes with varying “physical laws,” and we simply happen to emerge in a universe which allows for intelligent life to develop (which seems to require special conditions). With multiple universes, we can understand the “specialness” of our universe precisely as we understand the “specialness” of our planet Earth (e.g. the ideal distance from the sun), which is only one of the many planets out there.
http://ift.tt/1jwQpJq
Question: if there's no evidence that other universes actually exist, can't a theist use this type of reasoning to assert "God did it" (since there's no evidence for God either). In other words, how do you argue to a theist that the "specialness" of our universe is better explained by a vast ensemble of other universes than "God did it", if there's no actual evidence that other universes exist?
In the past people here at JREF would complain that arguments that depend on the "specialness" of the universe (the precise values of the physical constants that allow for a universe like ours) are an example of the "sharpshooter fallacy". But I keep reading physicists who keep saying the only way to explain the uniqueness of our universe is by positing a whole bunch of other universes, like the physicist I just quoted. I think these scientists are sophisticated enough to avoid fallacies like that.
Thoughts? Does anyone want to argue that it's all just chance, there's no "specialness", and we shouldn't look to a multiverse (or God, if you're so inclined) to explain it?
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1jwQpJs
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire