Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 15, 2023 at 4:44 comment added robert bristow-johnson I like Bayesian inference regarding whether the evidence we observe about our own existence (and what we are) infers that we might be designed (or not). I really don't think multiverse reasoning is useful (unless you want to write off evidence of design as simply selection bias or survivor bias, then that might be a "Multiverse of the Gaps" kinda argument). We have no more physical proof of other universes than we have physical proof of God. But I like comparing to a poker hand.
Jul 20, 2023 at 17:55 comment added Bumble Let us continue this discussion in chat.
Jul 20, 2023 at 17:55 comment added Bumble And who is to say that a fantasy universe could not be described by mathematical laws? The laws would just be more complicated. The space of possible universes with and without gods is either incomparable or else identical if it extends to all logical possibilities. There is no reason to restrict the space of godless universes to those that are similar to ours.
Jul 20, 2023 at 17:33 comment added causative @Bumble Also, it's not a question of "God vs. all universes creatable by simple mathematical rules" - where God still comes out behind in the P(O|H) term, because God could create any universe creatable by simple mathematical rules, or could create any other kinds of universes - it's a question of "God vs. the specific kinds of mathematical rules that physicists consider plausible in this universe," and the probability mass of those specific mathematical rules is even more tightly focused on just this kind of universe, so the God P(O|H) term has even more trouble by comparison.
Jul 20, 2023 at 17:30 comment added causative @Bumble An omnipotent God would be capable of creating any religious or fantasy fictional universe humans have ever imagined, in addition to all of the universes governed by mathematical laws that physicists study. So it's a strictly larger space. "We have no idea...what probability distribution applies to it"- in the absence of an idea about the probability distribution, it's appropriate to use a uniform distribution or a minimum-description-length distribution. Bayesian inference only concerns our subjective credences; we aren't required to know whatever distribution is in the mind of God.
Jul 20, 2023 at 17:29 comment added Bumble I don't see any reason to suppose that the set of possible universes is any greater or less depending on whether gods exist. We are using the word 'possible' here in such a general way that we have to allow that anything is possible. Unless you assume that a universe without gods must have laws similar to our own, there are no constraints on what is possible, and I don't see any reason to make such an assumption.
Jul 20, 2023 at 16:02 comment added causative @Bumble But we may still suppose that the set of possible universes God could have created that sentient beings are in a position to observe, is also very large, larger than the set of possible universes that could be created by laws of physics. Because, as the OP mentions, an omnipotent God is not constrained to setting up initial conditions and letting things evolve. He could do that, or could instead directly create a modern universe with sentient beings in any way he likes, without needing anything to conform to simple laws of physics. Crystal spheres are an option, for example.
Jul 20, 2023 at 14:07 comment added Bumble This misses the anthropic point that we are not in a position to observe all the possible universes that God could have created; we can only observe the universe we are actually in. We have no idea how big the space of possibilities is, or what probability distribution applies to it. Nor do we know, for possible universes other than ours, whether there are observers like us who are making observations like ours.
Jul 19, 2023 at 7:22 history answered causative CC BY-SA 4.0