Sabine Hossenfelder argues that the multiverse is “no better than God”

_{News
August 1, 2021

Intelligent Design, Multiverse, theism

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design
Multiverse
theism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

It’s not just theists who have problems with the multiverse. Sabine Hossenfelder explains her reservations.
The Big Conversation is a video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the religious and non-religious community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human. The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with John Templeton Foundation.
Luke Barnes, “The Multiverse is no better than God” at The Big Conversation (July 31, 2021)

Here’s the full version, with over 2700 comments:

Many physicists have pointed out the extraordinary ‘fine tuning’ of the physical laws of the universe that have allowed life to develop within the cosmos.
Luke Barnes believes it gives evidence for a designer behind the cosmos, whereas Sabine Hossenfelder disagrees, questioning whether we can even speak of ‘fine tuning’ as a phenomenon.
Luke Barnes, “The fine tuning of the Universe: Was the cosmos made for us?” at The Big Conversation (July 31, 2021)

See also: Sabine Hossenfelder: Is math real? Hossenfelder: The physicists who believe in this argue that unobservable universes are real because they are in their math. But just because you have math for something doesn’t mean it’s real. You can just assume it’s real, but this is unnecessary to describe what we observe and therefore unscientific.

Comments

Jerry, you've become an annoying distraction. No one is forcing you to read his "nonsense." Completely optional, yet here you remain. Just go away and work on becoming more a more positive mental consciousness projection.AnimatedDust_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PST}

WJM, just curious-- How old are you? What does your formal education consist of? Thanks.AnimatedDust_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PST}

One of the claims of Christianity is that what we are in, this "universe," is really all about/for us. The entire reason for creation, in fact. Sure, highly anthropocentric, but entirely consistent with the claims of Christianity. It would have made no sense for Genesis 1-3 to talk about quantum mechanics, but the why that creation is the way it is, is solidly there. One giant thought, from the originator of all thought.AnimatedDust_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PST}

Just for the heck of it, Jerry ... I respect your views, but you're not taking in the information I provided to explain, and you're firing shots that are widely missing any target.
Could this explain Murray?
That's just an insult - calling him stupid. What good is that going to do?
He only recently talked about how hard he works in his garden as to why the lives of medieval serfs was not so bad.
Do you think that he believes there are no "ideas of a garden" in the world? That his mind is just a blank slate with nothing in it?
Someone in the external world referred to their life and others as nasty, brutish and short. Of course you reacted to others dying young by commenting all have to die.
You don't like his ideas on social/political organization. That's an argument against MRT?
I don’t believe Murray believes any of what he says. No one could be that dumb. Look for another motive.
Ok, you're just saying that he's lying. But you haven't explained why MRT is "dumb". You're letting him skate away with the idea and not directing your arguments against it. It's like telling a materialist, "you can't really believe that everything is matter and God does not exist". Sure, you might be right, but that's not much of an argument. You have to engage it as if they believe and are convinced. Anyway - just throwing that out there for you. I understand the interest in just shutting it down and getting rid of the topic, but why not work on better arguments that would more conclusively refute it?Silver Asiatic_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PST}

Could this explain Murray? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a79090168646b1ff9763780bc1ea424c0f55d16d1fd403afe0529c4678a06bb6.pngjerry_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PST}

Thanks - you too! I appreciate your effort to explain and work through the questions and issues.Silver Asiatic_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PST}

SA said:
I think the experience of touch does not occur in the mind alone – thus I do not accept MRT.
Fair enough. It's been a pleasure having this conversation. You have a great day!William J Murray_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PST}

I think the experience of touch does not occur in the mind alone - thus I do not accept MRT.Silver Asiatic_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PST}

SA said:
You’re saying that robots have the conscious mental experience of touch?
I guess you didn't click on the link. I didn't say robot; I said a robotic hand. The robotic hand was attached to a person. Was the experience of touch occurring in the robotic hand of the person it was attached to, or was in occurring in the mind of the person? But, from your comment, I think you understand what I'm saying: the experience of touch does not occur in the fingers or the hand; under ERT, all the hand does is take information to the mind which translates that information into the experience of touch. The actual experience occurs in mind. Information provides for the experience; it is not the experience itself (in ERT perspective.) At best, under ERT, what we actually experience of the "external world" is a mental simulation experience that corresponds to that external world. It is not, and cannot be, a direct experience because it goes through at least two translation stages; the translation into electro-chemical information, and the translation into mental experience.William J Murray_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PST}

WJM
Regardless of any ontological theory, all experience occurs in mind anyway – see definition of mind above.
Yes, that's your view. I disagree with this, as explained. But that's the way it is. Not much more to do with it at this point.Silver Asiatic_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PST}

WJM
That is how you are conceptually organizing the two experiences. There are other ways of conceptually organizing those two experiences.
Yes, I fully accept that. I think my way is right, but I accept that people take other approaches. I think IRT has a lot of problems, but I accept that you adhere to it as best you can. You're trying to create a worldview from that model. I don't agree but I know what you're attempting - and you're validating on personal experiences you've had that confirm things to you. I can't judge those - like people who have mystical experiences. I can't really judge it. Like someone who has a near death experience. It's just something to consider.Silver Asiatic_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PST}

WJM
Can a robotic hand feel things? If not, then where is the experience of touch occurring?
You're saying that robots have the conscious mental experience of touch? Robots are using sensors to take in information and then process. The information is not generated in their "mind" first. Of course, you could create a robot that just had information built into it, with no need for receiving any by sensors - but it wouldn't be a very useful robot. We want the robot to "sense" things. They do that in the fingers that touch or the lasers in their eyes or whatever sensor they have. The sensor in my car wheels retrieve information from the tires, then communicate to the controller (mind) and then display on dashboard when air is low. The information is not just created in the processor - it comes through the sensors from external data. It reads the external world, the gives information to the mind. That's how my fingers work.Silver Asiatic_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PST}

SA said:
Plus, when I dream of an object that I am not sensing, my mind is just remembering what it feels like. It is re-using information that the senses gave it. Then, eventually, I realize that I wasn’t “feeling” the physical object in my dream at all.
That is how you are conceptually organizing the two experiences. There are other ways of conceptually organizing those two experiences. This is indicative of what I said about evaluating or criticizing MRT from an ERT ontology. You have to understand the difference between the fact of the experience (physicality, touch, sight, sound, etc.) and the ontological interpretation of what those experience mean or represent.William J Murray_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PST}

SA said:
He’s saying all of that just happens in his mind. It’s basically like Solipsism, except a little different for reasons I don’t understand.
Regardless of any ontological theory, all experience occurs in mind anyway - see definition of mind above. The only thing that allows any ontological perspective to exclude solipsism (either as matter or in mind or in spirit) is the premise that other individuals as distinct, free will, conscious entities, exist and that we are interacting them as distinct identities separate from our own. MRT provides that like any other non-solipsistic theory of existence.William J Murray_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PST}

WJM
When you dream, and you reach out with your hand and touch a physical object, are your fingers having the experience of the physical solidity of the thing you are touching?
When I dream, a lot of things are going on. If I'm lying on a beach and sleeping, my body feels the sand - takes that sensory information into my mind - and this informs the dream. It's not my mind feeling the sand, but my body lying on it. The sand is real, my dream is not. Plus, when I dream of an object that I am not sensing, my mind is just remembering what it feels like. It is re-using information that the senses gave it. Then, eventually, I realize that I wasn't "feeling" the physical object in my dream at all. Because when I wake up and I taste an orange or hold the coffee cup, I fully understand the difference of feeling real objects and having remembered/imagined experiences in dreams. That's why IRT does not work for me. I know the difference between dream and real. I also know that my senses bring in data and information from real things they encounter in the world. I see, touch, hear real things outside of me. I hear with my ears, not with my mind. I take in the sound and process with the mind. I see with my eyes, not with the mind. I'm not looking at things in my head, but things in the world. I know the difference between imagination/thought and real things in the world.Silver Asiatic_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PST}

What I actually said was that absent the capacity to talk to serfs and get their experience from their perspective, we don’t know how “bad” their experience was to them.
That’s the external world. And you did justify their experience may not be so bad by referring to you hard work in the garden as a positive experience. One of the more perverse comments made here. Someone in the external world referred to their life and others as nasty, brutish and short. Of course you reacted to others dying young by commenting all have to die.jerry_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PST}

Jerry said:
He only recently talked about how hard he works in his garden as to why the lives of medieval serfs was not so bad.
What I actually said was that absent the capacity to talk to serfs and get their experience from their perspective, we don't know how "bad" their experience was to them.William J Murray_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PST}

SA, When you dream, and you reach out with your hand and touch a physical object, are your fingers having the experience of the physical solidity of the thing you are touching? Can a robotic hand feel things? If not, then where is the experience of touch occurring? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/24/at-last-feel-again-robotic-hand-user-sense-touch-grapes-eggsWilliam J Murray_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PST}

WJM
All this back and forth produced a definition of what I mean by “mind:” the capacity to receive, process, produce or interpret information as a personal experience.
I think the term "receive" there in your definition is going to cause you problems eventually. You're pointing to a source. The classic view is that the mind "receives" information from the senses, then processes.Silver Asiatic_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PST}

He’s saying all of that just happens in his mind.
No! He’s referring to experiences in the external world to justify his nonsense. He only recently talked about how hard he works in his garden as to why the lives of medieval serfs was not so bad.jerry_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PST}

Jerry
But he has referred to his own personal experiences in this external world hundreds of times.
He's saying all of that just happens in his mind. It's basically like Solipsism, except a little different for reasons I don't understand. But supposedly, when we see a chair or a tree or a cat - we're not seeing real things that are material (since quantum physics supposedly disproved that there is anything like "matter") but it's all just ideas inside of our head. So, everything WJM experiences or says or encounters - he will always say "it's just ideas in my mind". If he feels something, it's just his own mind creating the feeling. Like his mind creating a movie that he's watching. He's not actually looking through his eyes at anything.
You are just the latest fish he has caught.
What do you mean? I have given long explanations on why I reject that worldview.Silver Asiatic_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PST}

WJM
Well, I’m setting aside the idea of mind-spirit dualism, because I’m incorporating mind and spirit into the same theory. Someone else originally called my theory monistic and I just picked it up. “Mind” is a categorical descriptor of what “experience” is and how it occurs: it’s all informational in nature. Information is abstract; abstract things are generally considered to be of and in mind.
Ok, that's fine but I just wasted numerous posts arguing about the irrationality of monism, and now you (rightly) are rejecting that concept. You're merging mind and spirit together, and that's more reasonable, but it makes a huge difference because now we have to understand how there is both a mind and soul. This means, there is "something more than just mind". The soul has greater powers than the mind. This says a lot about the nature of God also.Silver Asiatic_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PST}

He is saying that “there is no external world”
But he has referred to his own personal experiences in this external world hundreds of times. That’s why I say don’t believe anything he says. He doesn’t believe any of it. He’s playing games. You are just the latest fish he has caught.jerry_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PST}

WJM
Hey! Lookee there! All this back and forth produced a definition of what I mean by “mind:” the capacity to receive, process, produce or interpret information as a personal experience.
That's a benefit of a lot of discourse - so it's a good thing. But I think we can all wonder how anyone could accept MRT when a key component "the mind" just now was defined, and by yourself without any other validation or analysis by opposition. In other words, there's quite a lot of room to disagree with what you're saying and adhere to time-tested realist philosophy.Silver Asiatic_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PST}

WJM
No, your fingers don’t experience anything. Does your cut off hand have the mental experience of the table if I lay that hand on the table?
Did you read my reply in 211? The difference between my hand cut off of my living body and a dead hand?Silver Asiatic_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PST}

Hey! Lookee there! All this back and forth produced a definition of what I mean by "mind:" the capacity to receive, process, produce or interpret information as a personal experience.William J Murray_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PST}

Jerry
The only thing Murray has said that makes sense is that we have minds that process the information from the external world. No one since the hunter gathers has thought any different.
No. He's not saying that - on the contrary. He is saying that "there is no external world". The classical view (the one I take) is that "we take in information from the external world from our senses, then process in the mind". That's the true view, as I see it. WJM's IRT is that "There is no external world. We don't take in information from senses. Instead, all our experience is information inside of our mind. Nothing outside exists - only thoughts. So, the sun in the sky is a thought in our head. It's not really in the sky. It's not really a sun. It's just the projection of a image. I know you're not that interested but you might as well just get what WJM is saying correct - that way you can refute it if you want. To just say "it's crazy" - is pretty good - but it's not going to really get at the heart of things.Silver Asiatic_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PST}

SA said: And my fingers feel the table, not thoughts of the table. So, mental monism is falsified in that. No, your fingers don't experience anything. Does your cut off hand have the mental experience of the table if I lay that hand on the table? IF I cut out hour eyes, take them to the other room and place them in front of a painting, do those eyes experience the sight of the painting? 'How does one “shut off the mind”? You mean, if I am dead? I can recognize things by my soul when I am dead." Well, I'm setting aside the idea of mind-spirit dualism, because I'm incorporating mind and spirit into the same theory. Someone else originally called my theory monistic and I just picked it up. "Mind" is a categorical descriptor of what "experience" is and how it occurs: it's all informational in nature. Information is abstract; abstract things are generally considered to be of and in mind. Even the ERT model describes this as information of the surface of the table being translated into bioelectric and chemicals that carry that representative information to the brain. Can you open the brain at that point and see the solidity of the table in the brain? Can you see the table in the brain? No. Somehow, those electro-chemical signals are translated into mental experiences (under current ERT) that we experience as personal noumena. Even under ERT, it is representative information that moves through our bodies and is somehow translated into experience. So, what I mean by "shutting off your mind," I mean cut off your capacity to receive, process, produce or interpret information.William J Murray_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PST}

WJM
These people literally live in fear of being vilified, ridiculed, losing their jobs and being ostracized by their own family and friends if they talk openly about their ongoing experiences.
Ok, but you're talking on an ID site. We know what all of that is like. We have had to create strategies to gain a hearing. I know, we complain about persecution also, but the reality is, we have to convince the powers-that-be that we're right. The same for MRT advocates. As it stands, the vast majority of people are just going to say that it's crazy. Speaking of ID, MRT is actually not very friendly to the idea that "we observe evidence of intelligent design in nature" since one can say that "there is no nature". It's all just "information" in the mind that we selected. How MRT can claim that "all possible thoughts are actual" is also loaded with problems. Obviously, possible thoughts include many contradictory ideas. If all of them are actualized, then this kills the Law of Non-Contradiction and thus is irrational. For example, Materialism is a thought. So, materialism is actual. But so is non-materialism. In IRT, both things occur.Silver Asiatic_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PST}

WJM
Do you know that there are, very conservatively, hundreds of thousands of people who use various forms of MRT theories, and methods described by those theories, to actively “create” reality in their lives, and who testify in various venues about their successes? There are hundreds of books and websites describing these methods and techniques. There are classes you can take both in physical locations and online.
I don't know the number but I imagine there are many, as you say. There are millions of Hindus who believe in reincarnation. Millions of Buddhists who believe in astral projection and ascended masters who are godlike and live in the mystic kingdom of Shambala. A million Mormons believe they will become gods of their own planet. There are probably a million people who believe in the power of crystals, tarot cards and/or wicca. I don't dismiss your beliefs out of hand. What you're saying does not seem coherent or reasonable, but you've got first-hand experience of various things which I would not argue against. Those are your testimonies and I trust what you're saying. However, I would argue against your conception of God, since it does not make sense and leaves too much unanswered or contradictory.Silver Asiatic_{August 11, 2021
August
08
Aug
11
11
2021
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PST}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply