8 Replies to “Our Own Vincent Torley on ID the Future

  1. 1
    DesignDetectiveDave says:

    Dr. Torley seems a very humble and approachable guy. I was confused by his argument that a multiverse still requires fine tuning? I thought it could create a broad spectrum of universes?

  2. 2
    kairosfocus says:

    DDD,

    The observed cosmos is in a locally very isolated operating point in the config space of evidently possible parameters.

    The consequence of this, is that we are looking at in effect a patch of wall with just one fly on it swatted by a bullet. It matters not that other parts may be possibly carpeted with flies, hitting a locally isolated target points to sharp-shooting with a tack-driver of a rifle. Which is itself fine tuned.

    Or, changing from John Leslie’s metaphor to Robin Collins’, we are looking at a cosmos-building factory set up to produce OUR subcosmos, when if something fell into place by happenstance, it would make sense to expect a setup that would pop up something much less tightly tuned.

    And that implies that a much likelier cosmos id a Boltzmann brain popping up.

    KF

  3. 3
    jerry says:

    I will make my argument against the multi-verse that I have presented before. It is sort of an argument from ab surdium

    The only argument that has any traction is that the multi-verse is infinite. If it is not infinite then the actual finite number will always come up short in the fine tuning argument.

    If the multi-verse is infinite then all possibilities are possible including the one we live in. Two absurd implications of this are

    First, there must be an infinite number of universes that include each one of us leading our lives so that at every nano second a different path could arise and a different universe. For example, I missed a foul show in high school that prevented us from making the playoffs. Not only is there an infinite number of universes where I miss the foul shot but there are an infinite number of universes where I make it and an infinite number of universes where I go on to become an All American basketball player. What a world!!

    Second, even more absurd, there are an infinite number of universes where the Judeo-Christian God arises. Here is the argument I frequently make on this.

    If an infinite number of universes are postulated, then this leads to an entity of infinite intelligence. Why?

    If there is an infinite number of universes, there will be a subset also infinite in number that develops intelligent entities. Then one could rank the infinite number of universes with intelligent entities by the level of intelligence present in each universe. This would lead to a ranking with no limit on the scope of the intelligence as one goes higher up the rankings.

    Then jokingly I made the comment that an infinite subset of these intelligent entities would say “Let there be light.” And to make even more fun out of this absurdity, I said an infinite subset of that would say it in English.

    An infinite number of universes is self contradicting. So we have to be left with some finite number but for every finite number we postulate, why wouldn’t there be just one more. What is to prevent it? Is there a cap on the number of universes?

    One absurdity after another.

    The techniques of calculus are finally becoming handy.

    The argument of the multi-verse is infinitely absurd.

  4. 4
    ppolish says:

    What an interesting podcast, I did not realize there was that weird objection to Eric M’s piece by some Roman Catholics.

    But the Big Kahuna of fine tuning, the cosmological constant, is a very recent discovery. Began to dawn on Cosmologists in 1998. Here is a video describing its discovery:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLyF3OMOiy3nEO1yE2Gw-h4U0GQD06HlsZ&v=OjH5B8FpqWU

  5. 5
    ppolish says:

    In the Q&A at the end of the vid I linked to, Amdre Linde chief advocate of the Multiverse asks the panel for any explanation for the cosmological constant that is better than the Multiverse..,

    None of the panelists seem to be aboard the multiverse train – and one answers “God”. Although he added “I’m not religious”. Andre was not impressed, but the point that Dr Torley made in his podcast is so true – it’s ok to see God in the Science. Sure hard not to lol.

  6. 6
    ppolish says:

    Oops, I was mistaken to say Andre “was not impressed” with God as an explanation. He actually said it is the “second best explanation”. Baby steps.

  7. 7
    Levan says:

    It was interesting. They have somehow technical problems at ID the Future: The quality of the podcast was not so good.
    Dr. Torley came across very good.

    Of course the Multiverse theory is not the salvation for materialists. Either they will install into their theory a “Blind Multiverse Generator (like the well known Blind Watchmaker”)” or start to believe that there is an “Intelligent Universe Generator” 🙂

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    part 2 podcast – Vincent Torley: Can Science Point to the Existence of God?,
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....-god-pt-2/
    , Casey Luskin continues his conversation with Dr. Vincent Torley about Dr. Torley’s defense of Eric Metaxas’ recent WSJ piece, Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God–against both religious and secular critics.
    part 1
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....ce-of-god/

Leave a Reply