An argument conveniently non-falsifiable. That explanation has exactly as much evidence going for it as the alpha creator has.
I always play only 17 holes. The 18th takes my ball.
Both that and the windmill sound exactly like ideas Skald would have.
Why does Hawking maintain that position? The theory hasn’t been proven scientifically, it likely never will be proven scientifcally, and it’s probably not even be possible to prove scientifically. So far as I can tell, Hawking only proposes this idea because he wants to keep intelligent design off the table, and yet the theory he’s peddling is every bit as mind boggling and unproven/unprovable as intelligent design. While I am relentlessly agnostic on this issue, a theory that endlessly multiplies universes without evidence of their actual existence seems a truly massive violation of Occam’s Razor and has no edge over intelligent design.
My question has always went the other way: if there exists an intelligent designer, why did he make the universe appear so damn complicated?
And if we’re calling this designer an omnipotent god, then why did he make it look like he doesn’t exist, or that we evolved over billions of years instead of just creating us outright?
And hey! Where the hell is he hiding? And why?
He claims to be located in Camazotz. Read his threads, the reason he’s hiding is obvious.
I would argue the opposite. That one particular universe exists instead of another possibility requires “special pleading.” To argue instead that any universe that might exist does exist would be Occam’s solution.
As a thought experiment, imagine a mathematical system so complex that some of its entities have brains complex enough for consciousness. Within that system, those entities are conscious: they dream, fall in love, debate on message boards. In their own brains (even if you take their universe’s existence as hypothetical) they say “Cogito ergo sum.”
In what way are we “real” and they are not? Our tears are composed of material water? They think theirs are too.
Nonsense. First, unlike “intelligent design” it is not just a dishonest repackaging of creationism. Second, unlike creationism (let’s call it what it is) it doesn’t postulate some physics ignoring critter based on barbarian myth. Third, all that it does postulate is the existence of more of something that we already know exists; we know that universes are possible since we are in one. Fourth unlike creationism it fits in perfectly with already existing scientific theories. Fifth it is an actual explanation; creationism explains nothing. Sixth if a process exists by which one universe comes into being what’s to stop more universes being produced in the same fashion?
One thing that strikes me about the whole argument, and I may be arguing from my own ignorance, but was it even possible to have other constants randomly selected in a random universe? Yes, if gravity was a lot stronger, then the universe probably couldn’t support life, but as far as I know, there’s no indication that gravity could have been stronger.
We just don’t know.
We can justifiably assume:
- Our universe exists, therefore it’s possible we might not be the only one.
and/or
- Our universe might have a beginning (the Big Bang) and an end (the Big Crunch) and be an infinitely long chain of big bangs and crunches, creating a new universe that would evolve cosmologically according to…
2a) The same set of physics our universe holds or
2b) Some different parameters.
- This is the only universe that has, or ever will exist, and despite the complexities and seeming coincidental physical nature of our universe, life is possible here.
What we can’t know of these realistic assumptions is if any parameter was tweaked in an infinite combo of ways, or if there might be a universe with all-out new fundamental constants, if life can only evolve in a universe just like ours, and only like ours.
He proposes it because that is where physics, observation, and mathematics brings you. As unlikely as it seems, the idea of superposition is consistent with both theory and experiment. None of that is Hawking’s “position”. In his latest book he simply shows that the claim that “something can’t be created out of nothing” is not consistent with at least one leading theory of physics.
There will be verifiable claims on that as soon as someone comes up with a General Unifying Theory of Everything. So, any minute now :).
I’d like to add that Hume was fond of arguing that (a) we shouldn’t deduce a supernatural entity playing intelligent designer, but (b) if you really feel you must, wouldn’t it make more sense to explain the just-so story as independent design work from lots of limited supernatural entities? Folks in antiquity had no trouble believing in a whole pantheon of limited deities precisely because it’s easy to figure the rain god isn’t the guy who created the platypus sure as someone else is doing a half-assed job of handling volcanoes…
He’s being a little misrepresented here. He does not hold the position that here are or have been multiple universes; he merely discusses the possibility of it. He discusses the possibility of plenty of other things, too, without adopting those positions himself. He’s quite honest about what is an actual theory and what is mere postulation.
Okay, I’m back for a fleeting moment to save the world from cluelessness… 
But first, my disclaimer. I’m not a believer.
Anyway, the misconception here is that any universal configuration is possible, which is false, unless there is a multiverse, which is just theoretical speculation at this point without a complete theory to justify the assumption of something that can never be observed.
We do have a most natural expectation for what the universe is supposed to look like that falls from the extension of quantum theory, which is one of the best tested theories that we have. QFT says that the energy of the universe should be about a 120 orders of magnitude more dilute than what we observe, without any structure at all, but we observe instead looks nothing like that, and has precariously balanced structure defining characteristics that share commonalities with the ecobalanced conditions that are necessary for carbon based life to arise and evolve.
Probabilities have absolutely nothing to do with it until you throw up your hands to the natural scientific expectation for a resolution to the problem from a cosmological principle that defines the structure of the universe from first physics principles.
My question has always went the other way.
I have trouble envision such a thing. Gravitational fields are really abstractions that we humans use to visualize how the force of gravity affects matter, hence I can’t grok a life form made out of them.
The other problem is that in our universe, complex life involves a great many different arrangements of matter which, owing to shape and chemical properties, react in very specific ways. Many molecules in our bodies can only react with one or a few other molecules while “ignoring” thousands of others. Some reactions occur only in a certain temperature range, others only in a certain pH range, others only when a catalyst is present, and so forth. Gravitational fields have no such specificity.
In addition to not having been exposed to science, it’s clear they’ve never actually designed anything system-like. Complexity is bad design, not intelligent design.
Nonsense. Complexity is not inherently bad design. Overcomplexity can be bad, but complexity itself is not – not unless one believes that all problems have simple solutions.
Trying to look for clues, the fingerprint of God even, by ascribing intelligence to a vast series of factors of nature that have to be ‘just so’ in order for us to be here is errant thinking.
It’s like believing you, yourself are some divine miracle, because of all the things that could’ve prevented your birth, your parent’s birth, each of their parent’s births, their parents, and their parents, and so on, all the way down the line; where had Crunk the Neanderthal not taken a shit before he went off foraging, he would’ve been eaten by a cheeta and wiped out all his descendants including you.
Therefore that shit and every decision that came before and after resulted in you, well, the odds of everything happening ‘just so’ says that you are a very, very unlikely individual, therefore you must have been part of a master design?
It’s looking at the whole thing backwards.