Post by R. Dean Post by Christopher A. Lee Post by R. Dean Post by Lucifer Morningstar Post by R. Dean
However, he does not deny the fine tuning of the constants.
but why does he consider it "profoundly atheist". Can
you explain his conclusion?
I don't know but I did notice he included the ridiculous
multiverse 'theory' in as fiction.
No, Dawkins said "I think is a rather elegant explanation, I think it's
probably true, but I don't know enough physics to know." This was at
about 4:10 minutes into his lecture where he discusses the multiverse
This was one of four possible explanations for the fine tuned
Call me lazy but I not going to transcribe all four.
Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of
scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts
to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode
public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of
fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a
philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be
Arguments against multiverse theories
In his 2003 New York Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the
Multiverse, the author and cosmologist Paul Davies offered a variety
For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be
tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some
regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes,
but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that
there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a
limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on
faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme
multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological
discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to
explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as
invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in
scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of
The multiverse hypothesis is one of four potential explanations for
the Fine Tuned constants. Dawkins list a four in the reference.
1) Denial; 2) Theory or Everything; 3) multiverse; 4) computer
simulation. Dawkins did not voice his preference for any of these
No. We've been through this before.
They are NOT "an explanation for the fine tuned constants".
Here's a response I made to Bill Esque, who uses exactly the same
arguments you do, exactly the same lies about atheists and scientists
as ad hominems to ignore what both of you have had explained over and
over again, and exactly the same phrasing when he loses his temper
that you do.
The first clue was that you both use "character assassination" when
you are treated as a liar for your lies, etc.
As do several of your other nyms.
Read the goddamned thing and tell me where he says it is "one of four
possible explanations for the fine tuned constants "problem"".
At 2.50, he says....
"IF [and he emphasises the "if"] [does Bill understand what "if"
means?] the universe, the constants of the universe are indeed fine
tuned, how do we explain it? How do we explain the APPEARANCE [again,
his emphasis] that the universe is tuned to bring us into existence?"
[Me: he's speculating on top of an initial speculation - but then he's
only offering scenarios for the initial speculation, which is in the
form of "assuming for the sake of argument]
"Theists say God did it. God tuned. God twiddled the knobs and tuned
the physical constants to have exactly the right values. That is, of
course, no explanation at all because it leaves unexplained the tuner.
It's just pushing the problem back one step. so we can instantly
discount explanation number one."
[me: we can also discount it until this hypothetical God is
"Explanation number two is adopted by physicist, I think, Steven
Weinberg who was quoted earlier in this conference. Steven Weinberg. a
Nobel prize winning physicist from Texas [me: joint with the Pakistani
Abdus Salam and one other]. I think his view is that we don't yet
understand enough physics and when we do, when we have the longed-for
Theory Of Everything, the TOE, we will then realise that these knobs
are not for tuning - there is no freedom, there are no degrees of
freedom, there is only one way for a universe to be."
[Me: I agree with the first part, but I don't like speculating on what
the TOE might say on the subject, although I suspect he might be right
about the second part - it is the most parsimonious of the scenarios]
"But that might leave some people unsatisfied, because it still seems
a bit uncanny that the only way for a universe to be is the way that
eventually gave rise to us."
"Me: I suspect he is talking about the layman who demands an
explanation, rather than the scientist who is happy with "We don't
know yet, but this is what we do know, and we're looking for more
"The third explanation is, I think, the one that is probably favoured
by... Oh, no, there are four actually: Victor Stenger who will be
known to and greatly respected by many people here, denies that the
universe is fine tuned at all, and that is a serious point of view
that we ought not to forget."
[Me: that is pretty close to Weinberg's view, except that it
bypasses the as yet undiscovered TOE]
But assuming that it is fine tuned [Me: assuming for the sake of
argument], the final idea, which I think probably most physicists have
some time for, is the multiverse theory. This is the theory that
arises out of the inflationary model of the universe and it suggests
that the universe that we know, the only universe that we have any
knowledge or any means of measuring, is a bubble in a foam of billions
of bubbles, each one a separate universe and each one having a
different set of physical laws and constants. So there's a vast range
of range of universes with different physical laws and constants. A
tiny minority of those universes have their constants tuned in such a
way that the universe lasts more than a picosecond, lasts long enough
to make galaxies, lasts long enough to make stars, long enough to make
chemistry and to make the evolution of life happen"
[Me: All of which is a speculative answer to a speculation. William of
Ockham would have had something to say about that. Even the multiverse
"A tiny minority of universes in this bubbling foam have what it
takes, and then the Anthropic principle kicks in"
[Me: what it actually says, not how Bill Esque interprets it, ie that
we only observe the universe to comment on it because we are here, if
it were any different we wouldn't be here - it says nothing about any
intent for life]
"Of all those bubbles in the foam of the multiverse, we have to be
living in one of the minority of universes that has what it takes to
give rise to us, because we are here"
[Me: Don't forget, this is all "assuming for the sake of argument that
the multiverse is more than just theoretical"]
"Once again, physicists find that a bit of a stretch, they find it not
exactly implausible but they think of it as a bit of a cop out. I
actually think it's rather an elegant explanation - I think it's
probably true but I don't know enough physics to know"
[Me: it's just his opinion, and it's gone way beyond where there is
any knowledge. I suspect he didn't mean to say that, it's just how it
"I think I'll just go on to the final science fiction speculation that
is rounding off this theme of the theological implications of science
fiction. Another science fiction theme explored by Daniel Galouye, who
is another of my favourite science fiction authors, in his third book,
I can't remember the title, his idea, and it's been used by others as
well, is that our world may be a gigantic computer simulation in a
computer elsewhere in the universe. We are virtual creatures living in
a virtual world. A kind of Second Life but a much bigger and grander
"I don't know whether you can rule that out, it may be philosophically
absurd, but even if it were true, once again, you would have the
regress. You cannot have complexity to build a computer, to build
Second Life software to "run" us unless the creatures who built that
computer evolved, or maybe they're also somebody else's Second Life.
Sooner of later regresses of that kind have to be terminated."
I fail to see how Wm. Esque could read what he did, into that.
Incidentally, I spent all afternoon stepping through that video to
make a transcription.
Twice, because I had a problem with the sound two thirds of the way
through and ended up rebooting when I uninstalled and reinstalled the
Post by R. Dean