Answers to answers about the multiverse appeals
peace,
When you raise the argument about the uniqueness of the laws, you also raise parallel universes as a possible answer besides an intelligent designer, but you have 3 arguments against parallel universes. I will address the arguments and I hope I understand them correctly. I will write them as a quote even though it is not your quote but how I understand the answer, and forgive me and correct me if I am wrong, I am not interested in creating straw man arguments.
1. Occam’s Razor – “In the absence of observational evidence for an intelligent designer and the existence of countless universes, we choose the simpler option, the intelligent designer, rather than countless teapots.”
answer:
The multiverse theory stems from physical models, such as string theory or cosmic inflation, and is therefore not an artificial addition but a result of scientific views. The planner you propose does not stem from physical models, and is much more complex than the multiverse. The planner is an entity that includes intelligence, intention, and perhaps even temporality, and you yourself claim that if parallel universes do exist, then he is responsible for them all, designed them all, and created them all, and therefore he must be more complex than them in any case.
2. “If there are countless universes, anything can exist in other random sets of laws, including a universe with gods, and therefore you also believe in God.”
answer:
If parallel universes exist, it is certainly possible that there are universes with natural laws that allow the creation of beings with enormous powers in relation to the laws we know in our universe, and perhaps these beings would look like “God” to us, but in any case, it is not the God you are trying to prove, it is simply beings that correspond to the reality of those laws of that universe. The fact that countless other random sets of laws exist does not prove that there is an intelligent designer who created all universes or our universe. It only means that certain definitions of “God” can indeed exist as entities in universes with other natural laws, so what? What does this mean? These are entities that are subject to natural laws that exist in the same universe. The God you are trying to prove the existence of is a God who is not subject to natural laws at all and who designed them, and such an entity cannot exist in parallel universes either.
3. “If parallel universes exist, then there is actually one superuniverse in which universes with random systems of natural laws are drawn. So who created this natural law that allows universes to be drawn?”
answer:
It’s true that the idea of parallel universes doesn’t answer the question of who created the multiverse or the law that creates universes, but it’s the same problem with an intelligent designer, about whom you claim that he doesn’t need an explanation and doesn’t need someone to create him, or that he’s not one of our experiments, so in exactly the same way I can stop the question about the superuniverse and say that it “simply exists.”
- I can’t argue with that. It’s clear that in terms of the number of beings, God is a simpler solution.
- This is exactly the God I’m trying to prove. I didn’t see any argument here.
- It is not true that an intelligent designer is an entity that does not need explanation. If those universes were also created by such an intelligent designer then we are back to the same point.
1. Regarding the number of entities, that is true. But the number of entities is not the only measure of the complexity of the explanation, according to your method the one entity you add is necessarily more complex than all the other entities.
2. The God you are trying to prove is a 'God' who operates within the natural laws of one of the universes in the multiverse? The argument was that even in the multiverse, if there is a universe with laws that allow the existence of 'gods' then these will be entities that are subject to the natural laws of that universe, but in relation to our universe they can show us to have certain properties of God. In such a reality there is no intelligent designer who is above the natural laws of the universe in which he exists.
3. It is not clear why an intelligent designer is an entity that does not need explanation, but a superuniverse with one simple law – random lottery of law sets – does require explanation. An intelligent designer with intentions is more complex than a natural law of the lottery of universes. If you assume that this intelligent agent is temporal, the necessity of reality and does not need an explanation, I do not see why it is impossible to argue that the space of the superuniverse, where the lottery of systems of laws takes place, does require an explanation.
When you argued that our special laws require an explanation, the question was in place, why such special laws that allow for low entropy exist. But if only the lottery of systems of laws exist, this question is no longer relevant. And it is precisely an intelligent designer that requires an explanation more than the lottery of systems of nature.
1. Indeed, not the only one. That's why I wrote that it's debatable. And yet I think it's much simpler, certainly given the fact that we haven't met all the other worlds.
2. So what? Assuming that there can be many gods and universes is certainly no simpler than one God.
3. Because space is an inanimate entity, and it is unlikely that it is its own cause. Beyond that, such an entity does not produce universes, unless it was programmed to do so. Then the question arises who is the programmer.
The lottery of systems of rules certainly requires an explanation. And how.
It seems to me that we are repeating ourselves.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
