Turd..les all the way down.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So we have an infinite regression of universes creating new universes and a laddy on this board patting himself on the back(I presume you can do that sort of thing in an infinite regression)because he came up with the idea.

Well as it's an infinite regression one of those universes has to be an uncreated God.

That really means that an infinite regression is multiplying entities beyond necessity.

[Outrider]

So we have an infinite regression of universes creating new universes and a laddy on this board patting himself on the back(I presume you can do that sort of thing in an infinite regression)because he came up with the idea.

Bringing it here hardly qualifies anyone as the originator of the concept.

Well as it's an infinite regression one of those universes has to be an uncreated God.

Which bit of 'infinite' confused you? There is no creation of an infinite thread, there is no start point, there is no end in any direction... that's the meaning of infinite.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Bringing it here hardly qualifies anyone as the originator of the concept.

Which bit of 'infinite' confused you? There is no creation of an infinite thread, there is no start point, there is no end in any direction... that's the meaning of infinite.

O.

That's all very well Rider but you haven't realised that if it is an infinite regression one of the universes has to be an uncreated God. Can you deny that?

[SqueakyVoice]

Sigh...

Oh, look. Chunsty is losing an argument on one thread, so rather than stop and contemplate  why that might be the case, he's started another thread based on his own bizarre interpretation of the argument up to that point.

Well you've been doing that for at least a couple of years now, how's it working out for you, Chunsty?

...copy and paste is a real boon on occasion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sigh...

Oh, look. Chunsty is losing an argument on one thread, so rather than stop and contemplate  why that might be the case, he's started another thread based on his own bizarre interpretation of the argument up to that point.

Well you've been doing that for at least a couple of years now, how's it working out for you, Chunsty?

...copy and paste is a real boon on occasion.

Poisoning the well again, squeaky.

[Outrider]

That's all very well Rider but you haven't realised that if it is an infinite regression one of the universes has to be an uncreated God. Can you deny that?

And still you fail to provide what you think is the reasoning behind "infinite material chain = requirements for non-material intervention".

O.

[SqueakyVoice]

Poisoning the well again, squeaky.

On a thread you titled "Turd..."?

No.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And still you fail to provide what you think is the reasoning behind "infinite material chain = requirements for non-material intervention".

O.

eh.

You've introduced the paradox you careless oaf. ''Let's have an infinite regression'' you declared after scratching your arse as to why philosopher's wouldn't accept an infinite regression......Her'es an answer...an infinite regression of universe necessarily throws up one with an uncreated God.

[Outrider]

You've introduced the paradox you careless oaf. ''Let's have an infinite regression'' you declared after scratching your arse as to why philosopher's wouldn't accept an infinite regression......Her'es an answer...an infinite regression of universe necessarily throws up one with an uncreated God.

Why would it? An infinite number of material things wouldn't produce anything non-material. An infinite number of possible things wouldn't result in an impossible thing (not that gods are, by definition, impossible, but it's possible that they are).

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why would it? An infinite number of material things wouldn't produce anything non-material. An infinite number of possible things wouldn't result in an impossible thing (not that gods are, by definition, impossible, but it's possible that they are).

O.

Alright then............... an infinite regression of material things would include uncreated intelligent matter of a kind not found or directly detectable.

[Sebastian Toe]

Alright then............... an infinite regression of material things would include uncreated intelligent matter of a kind not found or directly detectable.

Not to forget that in one of those universes, there would be a Vlad who made sense, in another one where Vlad was actually funny, one where Vlad never mentions turds, one where Vlad is actually the invisible pink unicorn, one where Vlad is God, one where Vlad is a leprechaun an shits rainbow coloured turds all day.........

[Red Giant]

So we have an infinite regression of universes creating new universes and a laddy on this board patting himself on the back(I presume you can do that sort of thing in an infinite regression)because he came up with the idea.

Well as it's an infinite regression one of those universes has to be an uncreated God.

That really means that an infinite regression is multiplying entities beyond necessity.

In an infinite sequence everything is relative.  Perhaps every universe is regarded as God by the one that comes after it.

[Outrider]

Alright then............... an infinite regression of material things would include uncreated intelligent matter of a kind not found or directly detectable.

That rather depends on whether it's possible for anything to be an intelligent material - intelligence, where we've found it, has emerged from activity, not from base properties of the material.

It also depends on whether the principle of undetectable matter makes sense - why would material be undetectable?

If you conjecture impossible things, an infinite regression won't help you find them.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That rather depends on whether it's possible for anything to be an intelligent material - intelligence, where we've found it, has emerged from activity, not from base properties of the material.

It also depends on whether the principle of undetectable matter makes sense - why would material be undetectable?

If you conjecture impossible things, an infinite regression won't help you find them.

O.

Sorry but you are wanting the observations of a single universe...this one......... to be true in infinite universes...and then probably just the observations which suit you.....The big bang suggest that physics breaks down at the big bang. Infinite universes with material?, instant permutations of intelligence possible since intelligence and consciousness aren't ,according to you, attached to any particular piece of material.

Are you now beginning to understand why philosophy takes a dim view of infinite regression?

[Outrider]

Sorry but you are wanting the observations of a single universe...this one......... to be true in infinite universes...and then probably just the observations which suit you.....

No, I'm not defining the extra-universal physics but proceeding from the underlying principle of cause and effect - I say nothing about the nature of extra-universal or other-universal nature other than it's reasonable to presume cause and effect.

The big bang suggest that physics breaks down at the big bang.

No, like quantum mechanics, the mathematics suggests that different forces have greater or larger sway at different magnitudes and distances. Physics doesn't 'break down', physics remains consistent, it's just that the concepts we think of as immutable constants from our experience and that we've evolved to work with aren't the same proportion of effects at those levels of distance or energy.

Infinite universes with material?, instant permutations of intelligence possible since intelligence and consciousness aren't ,according to you, attached to any particular piece of material.

No, instant permutations of intelligence aren't likely (not impossible, but not likely) since they are emergent properties of the pattern of interaction of material.

Are you now beginning to understand why philosophy takes a dim view of infinite regression?

No, seems to work fine to me.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I'm not defining the extra-universal physics but proceeding from the underlying principle of cause and effect - I say nothing about the nature of extra-universal or other-universal nature other than it's reasonable to presume cause and effect.

No, like quantum mechanics, the mathematics suggests that different forces have greater or larger sway at different magnitudes and distances. Physics doesn't 'break down', physics remains consistent, it's just that the concepts we think of as immutable constants from our experience and that we've evolved to work with aren't the same proportion of effects at those levels of distance or energy.

No, instant permutations of intelligence aren't likely (not impossible, but not likely) since they are emergent properties of the pattern of interaction of material.

No, seems to work fine to me.

O.

Sorry but if universes are conformed to maths and maths is complex instant universes are likely.

The only way we are likely to have any idea of other universes is through maths. That isn't science. They must therefore be unfalsifiable.

The trouble is if universes are defined by maths then if we accept the multiverse we must also accept the possibility of universes not defined by the laws of physics you are alleging are multiversal.

You have therefore been truly caught out fine tuning the multiverse to suit philosophical materialism.

[Outrider]

Sorry but if universes are conformed to maths and maths is complex instant universes are likely.

No, they are still unlikely, it's just that in an infinite chain there will be an infinite number of them. There will huge numbers of more likely universe between each instance, though, because they're unlikely.

The only way we are likely to have any idea of other universes is through maths. That isn't science. They must therefore be unfalsifiable.

No, we have no idea of what future scientific ideas will be able to measure. All we can say is that they are mathematically viable now and that we can't prove (or disprove) them yet. Even now there are cosmologists with hypotheses on how other universes would measurably impact on our own, and are preparing experiments to try to test them.

The trouble is if universes are defined by maths then if we accept the multiverse we must also accept the possibility of universes not defined by the laws of physics you are alleging are multiversal.

Universes aren't defined by mathematics, universes are defined by natural laws. We can model those natural laws mathematically.

You have therefore been truly caught out fine tuning the multiverse to suit philosophical materialism.

I've not 'fine tuned' for materialism, I've openly presumed materialism from the start and explained why. As ever, all you need do for me to update my idea with 'gods' is to justify anything non-material: you still lack any sort of methodology for justifying anything else.

Even if there were some mathematical shortcoming in our material understanding of the universe, that's a call to update our material understanding, not arbitrarily look for magic.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, they are still unlikely, it's just that in an infinite chain there will be an infinite number of them. There will huge numbers of more likely universe between each instance, though, because they're unlikely.

No, we have no idea of what future scientific ideas will be able to measure. All we can say is that they are mathematically viable now and that we can't prove (or disprove) them yet. Even now there are cosmologists with hypotheses on how other universes would measurably impact on our own, and are preparing experiments to try to test them.

Universes aren't defined by mathematics, universes are defined by natural laws. We can model those natural laws mathematically.

I've not 'fine tuned' for materialism, I've openly presumed materialism from the start and explained why. As ever, all you need do for me to update my idea with 'gods' is to justify anything non-material: you still lack any sort of methodology for justifying anything else.

Even if there were some mathematical shortcoming in our material understanding of the universe, that's a call to update our material understanding, not arbitrarily look for magic.

O.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html

[Outrider]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html

Tegmark's hypthesis would result in non-interfering universes, whereas the more conventional understanding is that universes will interfere, hence the experiments I mentioned elsewhere.

Tegmark's hypothesis is fine in and of itself, but it's unable to be elevated to a theory because you can't differentiate the lack of evidence of interference from independent universes from the lack of evidence because there are no other universes from the lack of evidence because we aren't looking for the right signs from the lack of evidence because they can interact but just aren't at the moment.

It's unfalsifiable in principle, because it results in no observable phenomena. Doesn't make it wrong, just makes it useless as a theory.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Tegmark's hypthesis would result in non-interfering universes, whereas the more conventional understanding is that universes will interfere, hence the experiments I mentioned elsewhere.

Tegmark's hypothesis is fine in and of itself, but it's unable to be elevated to a theory because you can't differentiate the lack of evidence of interference from independent universes from the lack of evidence because there are no other universes from the lack of evidence because we aren't looking for the right signs from the lack of evidence because they can interact but just aren't at the moment.

It's unfalsifiable in principle, because it results in no observable phenomena. Doesn't make it wrong, just makes it useless as a theory.

O.

Yes but what would interference from another universe look like?
How would we distinguish that other universe from our own or even the effect of another universe from a feature of our own?
I think you would be redefining the universe to fit your argument rather like calling each room of a house, a house.

If nature conforms to laws of nature then you are suggesting these laws are eternal and not subject to any particular piece of matter. By what process does matter conform to laws?

[Outrider]

Yes but what would interference from another universe look like?

The most advanced experiment I've heard of was looking for gravitational waves, I believe - there are a number of possibilities.

How would we distinguish that other universe from our own or even the effect of another universe from a feature of our own?

That's why you make a mathematical prediction based on your hypothesis, and then see if the experimental data conforms to it.

I think you would be redefining the universe to fit your argument rather like calling each room of a house, a house.

I know you think that, but you think magic is real, so...

If nature conforms to laws of nature then you are suggesting these laws are eternal and not subject to any particular piece of matter. By what process does matter conform to laws?

I don't know if the laws of nature are variable or fixed - certainly the ones we've discovered in this universe appear to be fixed. We'd need more data to make that determination, but then we could start to look at what those variations were dependent upon.

Still no non-material methodology in evidence, I see.

O.