I would say that the odds of an intelligence in the universe existing that is capable of creating universes are quite high. I don't see how it is logical fallacy. And there may well be very more created universes than "natural ones". The fathers of inflation, Guth and Linde, think the same. They research universe creation and think it is quite plausible that we could be living in some kind of "desktop" universe.

Says Linde:

"Maybe it's time we redefine God as something more sophisticated than just the creator of the universe."

All of this (and the other threads you posted) remind me of a short story I wrote ages ago. (IMG:http://media.profileheaven.com/images/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

I may post it at some point.

I once tried to wall hack, and hurt my head. I'd say reality is real.

(IMG:http://media.profileheaven.com/images/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) That is actually a refutation of the "design" argument for the existence of god, with words supplanted. Don't hate me!

It's the whole concept of Occam's Razor - the explanation with the lesser magnitude of assumptions is the more likely one ("the simplest answer is the best one").

I spent a few hours trying to understand the theory and I finally do. It's saying that at some stage, an intelligent life (probably genetically identical to us) would develop the ability to simulate a universe artificially. If indeed this is the case, and say they can create 100 fake universes, that means there are 100 fake universes, and one real one, meaning that this existence has a 100 out of 101 chance of being fake. The only things that would reduce this probability would be the likelihood of extermination of species prior to reaching such a maturity, and the probability that such a society would not bother with such simulations.

On reflection, I think the problem is of infinite regress. To quote here: "Even if we are a simulated reality, there is no way to be sure the people running the simulation are not themselves a simulation, and the operators of THAT simulation are not a simulation, ad infinitum. Given the premises of the simulation argument, any reality, even one running a simulation, has no better or worse chances of being a simulation than any other."

To elaborate, the supposed probabilities of simulation are not only applicable to our universe, but to the hypothetical universe in which the simulation is running. Every universe has, according to the logic of the theory, an equal probability of being a simulation. At some stage you have to have a reality that isn't there by design of a higher reality, so it might as well be this one (Occam's Razor again), the one we are aware of.

So yeah, this theory as I see it, appears to be fallacious in the same way that believing in god is (IMG:http://media.profileheaven.com/images/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I knew you were coming from Occam's Razor and I can see your point. As far as intelligent life out there being able to create universes, I don't think it is a fallacy but it is speculating and going beyond the facts. There could be no intelligent life other than us in the universe. There could be 12, 100, 1,000,000,000,000 etc... more intelligent species than us, who knows. I wouldn't bet we are the most advanced species though.

I learned Occam's Razor through Astronomy which is where it really made its first big splash. The geocentric models of the Solar System. There was one main problem with it, the retrograde motions of planets. So all these astronomers had worked for hundreds of years to try and figure this out. The only way they ended up being able to explain the retrograde motion was by inventing these crystaline spheres and epicycles that the planets moved on. These contraptions kept on getting more complex to keep with the observations. These models had to be constantly tweaked and added to to explain the observation. It got so messy and ridiculous that Occam's Razor had to step in. Copernicus could explain the retrograde motion of the planets by simply doing one thing, putting the Sun in the center of the Solar System instead of the Earth. Problem solved in one step. No more need for all that other shit. Because if you start with incorrect initial assumptions, everything after that initial assumption will be wrong too. Which is why you have to keep adding to it. Increasing complexity. I mention this because I think a similar thing is happening in String Theory. It keeps expanding and getting more complex to keep up with itself. I think the multiverse violates Occam's Razor too. And String Theory and the Multiverse have major support among experts. I don't think the idea of our universe being created by a higher intelligence violates Occam's Razor anymore than String Theory or the Multiverse.

Thats why i dont actually believe the theory however:



this is also true however i do agree with the multiverse theory (or the more complicated universe terrain theory - dont know the technical terminology or even the actual name of the theory so bear with me, basically different regions of our universe are in different stages of development or where differing laws of the universe exist). The laws of our observable universe are far too defined for my liking

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2052...multiverse.html

Read that a few days ago.

What do you mean by too defined? You mean too fine tuned?

(IMG:http://media.profileheaven.com/images/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

Ellis is one of the best. Him, Penrose, and Hawking wrote the book on the Big Bang.

Creationist argument #3.
Don't be that guy brosef!

it would appear so however the fact the laws can change suggests otherwise. the strength of the electro magnetic force changed about 6 billion years ago, any "creator" worth his/her/spaghetti monster worth its salt wouldnt be daft enough to alter something as fundamental as that



more a case of it gives credence to the creationist arguement which could sway people with little understanding of physics. should have added the word "appears" my apologies




good book about the universe (coming from a relatively agnostic-style view) which i think anyone interested in this subject. The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? by Paul Davies

But it's a completely fallacious argument for two reasons (as I'm sure you are already aware):
* Infinite regress - "it's too complicated to be here by accident" (or without a multiverse of an overwhelming magnitude of other universes) cannot be explained by positing the existence of an even more complex scenatio/creator, because you're making a greater assumption and thereby arguing for an even greater unlikelihood. Both intelligent design and multiverse theory appear to be little more than god-of-the-gaps mentality.

* If the universe were not capable of supporting life, we wouldn't be here to say "wow, isn't it more than a coincidence that it is so?". Or as the weak anthropic principle says: conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist.
Fred Perry's going to like that I refer to Jay Gould (via wiki, shorthand lol), "Gould compared the claim that the universe is fine-tuned for the benefit of our kind of life to saying that sausages were made long and narrow so that they could fit into modern hotdog buns."
Every possible combination of universal constants is equally as unlikely as ours. It's simply backwards thinking (and wrongly athropocentric) to posit that, because it appears designed to suit us, there must be some explanation other than: the Universe just is.

Also see Douglas Adams' puddle theory (IMG:http://media.profileheaven.com/images/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Edit: can anyone with a better (read: basic or above) understanding of physics than I explain what problem the multiverse theory is supposed to solve?

This post has been edited by DougieFFC: Mar 13 2010, 5:47 PM

Thing is as human beings we are trying to come up with a better explanation (in order to refute the simple observer arguement that the universe appears suitable for life because otherwise we would not be observing it, too much of a kop-out for many of us and leaves too many gaps for the "god of the gaps"). The multiverse is primarily string-theories solution to the fact that in discovering the extra dimensions (ontop of our standard 4), it was also discovered that instead of these extra dimensions allowing for our universe, it allowed for an unlimited number of possibilities and probabilities. Its to solve the problem in string theory that its led to more problems than solutions. Very basic understanding, si should be better at this than I

"some string theorists have chosen to promote the idea that our universe is just part of a 'multiverse' of all the nearly infinite possibilities allowed by string theory. One of the few things one can then predict is that we must be in a part of the multiverse that is 'just right' to allow our existence. Debate rages amongst physicists over whether or not this idea is really testable and thus scientific."

We discovered extra dimensions?

There are 2 universes. The one we know of, and one which we don't know off.

The one we don't know of is home to all the things we argue exist or not and cannot explain. Its also home to things we know about but cannot explain.

Can you fuck off there?

well kinda

string theory predicts like between 6 or 7 extra dimensions to like 26 extra dimensions

the mathmatics is there but not experimentable

Are we talking about the quantum "many worlds" theory, or M-theory, which is a product of string theory?

The fuck should I know sir Isaac? (IMG:http://media.profileheaven.com/images/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

(IMG:http://media.profileheaven.com/images/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Well to be totally honest, they don't teach under grads about either, or at least they didn't in my course. There are two reasons for that: 1) a lot of this sort of cutting edge theoretical work requires a context of good background knowledge to truly appreciate, and 2) much of it is still highly speculative, and they have too much proven, experimentally supported science to get in to most undergraduate courses as it is, without including things like string theory.

So, i can't tell you anything you can't easily read on the net about M-theory. I was never taught about P-branes and D-branes, so i have about as much appreciation of the wiki article as any of you lot (IMG:http://media.profileheaven.com/images/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The QM "many worlds" thing is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. That is to say, it's one possible description of the real-world, practical consequences of quantum theory. I THINK it posits an alternative to the idea of wave function collapse. In QM, wave functions describe matter, and the square of their absolute values, the probability of a system occupying that allowed state. When an event occurs, and is measured, the distribution of wave functions collapses to a single wave function - the actual state of the system. There is a degree of random chance involved in this - see radioactive decay - where the probability distribution indicates the likelihood of collapse to any given state. The many worlds theory is essentially that whilst collapse appears to occur, in fact every single possible quantum possibility DOES occur, each in separate universe. In other words, whilst we're aware of only one outcome, every outcome still happens.

This post has been edited by Ill Culinary Behavior: Mar 15 2010, 1:45 PM