The Physico-Theological Argument👎
Good afternoon
Contrary to the common claim that a complex thing indicates someone was aiming for it, there is also the possibility that someone simply repeated conditions that could create it with a slim chance many, many times.
As an answer to the example of the factory that works by itself and therefore probably has a planner, one can give an example of some classic miracle story that almost certainly stems from enough trials in which coincidence can happen and then only the successful case is noticed. Every exceptional case can be classified into one of two factors according to the characteristics of the exceptional case.
Therefore, when we look at our universe, and see something very, very unusual, two ways can also initially arise for the anomaly to have been created. How did we choose? We did not choose. Both ways are possible. In conceivable scenarios such as a miracle story or a project, it is relatively easy to classify, but in the health of universes we do not understand, how do those who decide on one side have any idea whether universes are more prone to intelligent formation or to very abundant formation?
In short, both the intelligent creator and many universes are proven only from an indirect conclusion about their existence and one of their properties from observation of the universe, and both are sufficient explanations, and because of our lack of familiarity with the creation of universes, it is not possible to decide between them.
This is the claim of the anthropic principle. I discussed this at length in the third notebook and in my first standard book.
I was already after reading the chapter in the notebook and in the abstract I also tried to answer it.
Because an intelligent creator and a multiverse are symmetrical, I will defend the multiverse with the very defenses I found in the Rabbi's notebooks/debates on the intelligent creator.
The first thing is that the notebook presents the multiverse as an assumption and not as a possible conclusion from complexity, as soon as it is an assumption and not a conclusion, you can make a classic teapot move on it, but that is simply not the case. Just as an intelligent creator is a possible conclusion from complexity, a multiverse is also a possible solution (this is what many atheists do only for the creator instead of the multiverse, presenting it as an assumption instead of as a conclusion from complexity). In addition, the Rabbi presents certain other parables that show that coincidences in this specific parable (unlike the miracle stories at the beginning of the thread) are much less likely than a designer, but as I said before, it is difficult to know whether universes are more likely to be created in large quantities or by a designer, so they cannot be classified. The parables only concern more limited cases that we have intuition about whether they are more likely to happen after many attempts or to be created by a creator.
And the notebook also contains the common argument that points to incompleteness/inefficiency in the theory (in the case of atheists against the Creator) and therefore it is not valid, here it is only presented for the multiverse side. You already answered this in a debate with Elam Gross, that if you see footprints in the sea, you know that someone made them and you don't need to define the whole thing to know that, and that this is a functional and not essential definition of what caused the complexity (exactly the same for the multiverse).
The author simply does not respond to the claim of symmetry and indeterminacy except to someone who actually holds the multiverse view out of the two possibilities, and she responds to him in the ways that all average atheists do, many of whom have already contradicted themselves when presented against a Creator.
If we want to go to the formalism as it was in column 144, which is really close to the topic if not talking about it, then we can talk about the thing that appears on page 5 (the line with the footnote numbered 5) and is explained on page 6
The choice that P(A|𝐵2) be one part of the number of universes
The meaning of the notation (just a reminder) is the chance that given a universe generator that it will be a complex universe.
The purpose of the article stands and falls on this, and it is said there:
“The assumption that a random universe generator exists is with a very low probability
because we have not seen many other universes that it has created except for ours. On the other hand, an
intelligent agent creates exactly the world that it is interested in and therefore it does not bother me that there are no other universes.”
The rest of the paragraph was not understood and not sure that it is even related. A random generator with enough trials will almost certainly create a universe that is at least as rare as ours. And the paragraph also makes a claim about P(B2) and this is what needs to be proven and therefore this is the desired assumption.
A. For each possibility you can say that there were infinite possibilities and therefore it happened.
B. You assume that it is not possible to pair a priori probability between hypotheses, but this leads to many absurdities.
The Rabbi chose Occam's razor, a simple thing without a limit is considered simpler than something with a limit.
Think that before Einstein, they did not think that speed had a certain limit, only necessity led to it having a limit like the speed of light. (Why 3X10^8 and not 4X10^8).
C. And further to B’. Given that you have consciousness and understanding, the assumption that the primary factor in the world has the ability to understand, and after all, the potential you have is included in it. It gives additional a priori probability. Now do Bayes's law and you will get the conclusion.
D. Dualism improves the probability even more (we see that spirit can affect matter, etc.)
A. I can say this about anything I have no knowledge of (say, the creation of universes), the unique example is all the existing miracle stories that are nothing more than coincidences, however there are cases that are not like that and they are also declared as contained because there is some intuition about it
B. The term is simply difficult to define in comparing a creator and an intelligent creator. Each one has different characteristics and different and strange sequences and such a definition simply does not exist. And we also gave them a definition according to the role they play as we see them in the universe, there is no knowing what comes from this and it is beyond our reach and so maybe one of them is very not simple.
C. And does he have a body or the image of the body in your opinion? I think not. So it seems that it is not necessary to share qualities with him and you are only offering this example and in retrospect after you have already made up your mind
D. What would it hurt me if ghosts or whatever you want were to hang around the creator? What does it have to do with an intelligent creator?
A. I didn't understand.
B. In simple terms, it means that you place as few options and boundaries on the hypothesis as possible. If in your opinion there is no a priori option in choosing between hypotheses, then that's fine. Just don't claim that the multiverse is better than any other possible proposal.
C. What does it matter what I think? Do you agree that the initial factor includes the properties of consciousness and then the world was created, and after 14 billion years many small people with consciousness were created?
D. If a ghost is something arbitrary, then it does not add up, but if you mean those with knowledge, then why do you assume that there are other ghosts around the creator, maybe he himself is that "ghost".
E. The initial factor should be teleological, it's strange that entities that we perceive as deterministic are created following an arbitrary teleological thing.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
