Sound evidence and reason for god (s) free

[Outrider]

A conscious extra universal ruler is the same number of extra universal rulers as an unconscious one

But a ruler (conscious or otherwise) operating through natural laws is one more element to justify than just natural laws...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which is equally silly.

Until you come up with an argument, you're playing a guessing game here - what's the relevance of science?

It's you who is trying to base an argument on the number of universes, not me. We have no idea if there are others or how many.

Because it's an alternative guess that doesn't involve a conscious creator and doesn't suffer from the problems you keep on asserting there would be without one.

Yes it does. There are mathematics which do not appear physicalised in the universe. There is no observed example of maths BECOMING physicalised rather than just remaining in the realm of mathematical realism. A multiverse is just maths and maths only supplies a finite number of universes.

Maths however seems to be independent of physics 1 +1 =2 no matter what the physical conditions are. What would stop a new big bang every second right here right now if it was maths wotdidit?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But a ruler (conscious or otherwise) operating through natural laws is one more element to justify than just natural laws...

Occam's razor isn't just about the number of elements but the number of necessary elements and laws need enforcement.

[Gordon]

Occam's razor isn't just about the number of elements but the number of necessary elements and laws need enforcement.

So, Vlad, how would you go about 'enforcing' Boyle's Law?

[ProfessorDavey]

But energy can't exist without stuff, so it must be contingent on the existence of stuff.

And stuff cannot exist without energy, so it's tricky to say which is contingent on the other - possibly that they are fundamentally interdependent but as they are conserved neither is contingent on a further entity.

[ProfessorDavey]

... but the number of necessary elements and laws need enforcement.

Blimey, we've moved beyond anthropomorphising the universe to requiring a policeman - beyond parody.

So if all elements and laws need enforcement Vlad, who (or what) is the enforcer for a conscious creator. Under your argument that a conscious creator is a necessary element (wrong of course, but let's work with this assumption) then under your own argument there must be a higher enforcer to police that conscious creator. And on it goes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Blimey, we've moved beyond anthropomorphising the universe to requiring a policeman - beyond parody.

So if all elements and laws need enforcement Vlad, who (or what) is the enforcer for a conscious creator. Under your argument that a conscious creator is a necessary element (wrong of course, but let's work with this assumption) then under your own argument there must be a higher enforcer to police that conscious creator. And on it goes.

The creator obviously shows self control by only performing the creative act once otherwise we would be knee deep in matter/energy and the laws would be constantly changing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, Vlad, how would you go about 'enforcing' Boyle's Law?

I would probably say ''obey Boyles law otherwise we'll take you round the back and give you a good shoeing''

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And stuff cannot exist without energy, so it's tricky to say which is contingent on the other - possibly that they are fundamentally interdependent but as they are conserved neither is contingent on a further entity.

E=MCsquared

[ProfessorDavey]

E=MCsquared

Well done Vlad - do you think I don't know that?

[Outrider]

Occam's razor isn't just about the number of elements but the number of necessary elements and laws need enforcement.

Why do FUNDAMENTAL laws need 'enforcement' - it may well be that this is the nature of stuff.  Otherwise you have one of those infinite regresses that you get so upset about.

O.

[Stranger]

Yes it does. There are mathematics which do not appear physicalised in the universe.

As you would expect. I take it you haven't really looked at the proposal.

What would stop a new big bang every second right here right now if it was maths wotdidit?

Because that isn't part of the mathematical structure that is the universe. I'm not going to try to argue that Tegmark is correct but it does provide a counterexample to your assertions about unconscious creators.

Still waiting for any reason to take any of these guesses seriously.

[Stranger]

And stuff cannot exist without energy, so it's tricky to say which is contingent on the other - possibly that they are fundamentally interdependent but as they are conserved neither is contingent on a further entity.

But energy is a property of stuff, just like momentum is (and they're treated together in relativity) or, for that matter, mass, electric charge, or spin. It's also observer dependent and conserved only because of the time translation symmetry of the universe.

Nothing can exist if it doesn't have any properties so why regard one of those as something special? I really don't get why people latch on to energy as something fundamental.

[Gordon]

I would probably say ''obey Boyles law otherwise we'll take you round the back and give you a good shoeing''

I thought I'd teed this up for you, by citing Boyle's Law, to come back with a witty 'enforcement' response along the lines of - 'Well, I'd get all the gasses in a room and apply some pressure to 'em', but you missed the opportunity!

[ProfessorDavey]

But energy is a property of stuff, just like momentum is (and they're treated together in relativity) or, for that matter, mass, electric charge, or spin. It's also observer dependent and conserved only because of the time translation symmetry of the universe.

Nothing can exist if it doesn't have any properties so why regard one of those as something special? I really don't get why people latch on to energy as something fundamental.

But the argument can be made entirely the other way around too, effectively that stuff (mass) cannot exist without energy and that mass and matter is a manifestation of energy, rather than energy being a property of stuff.

The fundamental relationships between those entities remains unclear - and theoretical and experimental physicists continue to spend large amounts of time and effort studying those relationships, precisely because they are so fundamental and so intrinsically linked to the nature, origins and development of the universe.

[jeremyp]

No I didn't say the universe shows remarkable control and self control. I said the creator has these, not the universe.

How could you possibly know that. You haven't determined that there ever was a creator?

There may be more than one universe but not an unlimited number.

Why not?

[jeremyp]

I would have thought that to be certain

The only person claiming any certainty here is you.

the universe would have had to demonstrably self created or be demonstrably infinite.

Or it just is.

The universe just is is no answer. an unintelligent creator is an entity like an intelligent creator but still not part of the universe. It's hard to see what you have achieved.

"God just is" is no answer.

[jeremyp]

Yes it does. There are mathematics which do not appear physicalised in the universe. There is no observed example of maths BECOMING physicalised rather than just remaining in the realm of mathematical realism. A multiverse is just maths and maths only supplies a finite number of universes.

No. It has been explained to you already that the maths is what we humans do to describe the way reality behaves.

Maths however seems to be independent of physics 1 +1 =2 no matter what the physical conditions are. What would stop a new big bang every second right here right now if it was maths wotdidit?

Really?

What is c + c then? (where c is the speed of light).

[bluehillside Retd.]

It cannot be an unconscious creator because of the fixed tuned nature of the parameters and that we would see matter constantly created.

Been a while since anyone attempted the circular reasoning daftness of a "fine-tuned" universe: "From the outset God intended us to exist; we can only exist if the universe is a certain way; the universe is that way; therefore God". Perhaps we could have a face palm emoji available for the next time someone tries it?     

[Stranger]

But the argument can be made entirely the other way around too, effectively that stuff (mass) cannot exist without energy and that mass and matter is a manifestation of energy, rather than energy being a property of stuff.

Mass isn't stuff either (it's another property) and matter isn't even a well defined scientific term (it's context dependent). The stuff that exists in our two most fundamental theories (GR and QFT) are quantum fields and space-time. There is no hypothesis or conjecture that I'm aware of that claims that they are manifestations of energy. I can't even see how that would make any sense, given that it's basically a consequence of symmetry and is fundamentally related to momentum in relativity. Feel free to provide a reference though.

[ProfessorDavey]

The creator ...

There is no evidence for a creator.

obviously

In what way is an entity for whose existence there is no evidence doing something, somehow obvious. It isn't.

shows self control

Evidence please - given that you have no evidence for a creator in the first place you cannot move to the stage of ascribing attributes to that entity.

by only performing the creative act once

You have no evidence that the universe was created by a creator - nor do you have evidence that the emergence of our universe is the only example of a universe emerging. There are plenty of theories (that are actually based on evidence and observation) that propose multi-universe solutions.

otherwise we would be knee deep in matter/energy

Why would that be the case given that matter and energy are conserved within a closed system such as a universe, so regardless of whether other universes exist ours would still contain the same matter and energy.

and the laws would be constantly changing.

Why would those laws be constantly changing - if they are fundamental laws they'd be constant and would apply in our universe, and other ones, in the same manner.

On Occam I think you have added six additional steps/complexities/entities that fall foul of Occam and therefore require you to justify their existence and necessity in a single sentence. These are:

A creator
That the creator has self control
That the universe was created by the creator
That the creation of the universe by the creator only happened once
That energy/mass are not governed by the fundamental laws of conservation in mult-universes
That fundamental laws are not fundamental in multi-universes but change.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Been a while since anyone attempted the circular reasoning daftness of a "fine-tuned" universe: "From the outset God intended us to exist; we can only exist if the universe is a certain way; the universe is that way; therefore God". Perhaps we could have a face palm emoji available for the next time someone tries it?   

A bit of an unwise intervention since the fine tuned universe is an idea amongst respectable physicists past and present.
Dawkins acknowledges this in the God delusion and advocates not only the multiverse but Smolin's evolutionary multiverse in that notoriously atheistic tome ''The God Delusion''. The scientist and atheist Massimo Piggliaci has taken Carroll to task for talking about trying to solve/circumvent Fine tuning and referring to it as ''The fine tuning problem''. Pointing out it is a problem for atheism but not science.

I use it here in answer to the contention that even if there were a creator there is no reason why it could not be unconscious and unintelligent or why it could be conscious and intelligent. Under an unconscious creator there would be nothing to stop it creating matter/energy or changing the parameters of the universe or for it to make only one universe.

[ProfessorDavey]

Mass isn't stuff either ...

Define 'stuff' then NTtS - it isn't a term I've heard my friends and colleagues in our school of physics use - including those who are eminent academic experts in theoretical particle physics, string theory or cosmology.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is no evidence for a creator.
In what way is an entity for whose existence there is no evidence doing something, somehow obvious. It isn't.
Evidence please - given that you have no evidence for a creator in the first place you cannot move to the stage of ascribing attributes to that entity.
You have no evidence that the universe was created by a creator - nor do you have evidence that the emergence of our universe is the only example of a universe emerging. There are plenty of theories (that are actually based on evidence and observation) that propose multi-universe solutions.
Why would that be the case given that matter and energy are conserved within a closed system such as a universe, so regardless of whether other universes exist ours would still contain the same matter and energy.
Why would those laws be constantly changing - if they are fundamental laws they'd be constant and would apply in our universe, and other ones, in the same manner.

On Occam I think you have added six additional steps/complexities/entities that fall foul of Occam and therefore require you to justify their existence and necessity in a single sentence. These are:

A creator
That the creator has self control
That the universe was created by the creator
That the creation of the universe by the creator only happened once
That energy/mass are not governed by the fundamental laws of conservation in mult-universes
That fundamental laws are not fundamental in multi-universes but change.

Bzzz Appeal to multiverse.
Which is an extra entity.`

[Nearly Sane]

Define 'stuff' then Vlad - it isn't a term I've heard my friends and colleagues in our school of physics use - including those who are eminent academic experts in theoretical particle physics, string theory or cosmology.

You aren't replying to Vlad here