Occam's Razor And Creation

[seer]

First a quote from Paul Davies

For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith. Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse

Ok, according to Paul Davies the idea of a multiverse is a leap of faith. So a question comes to mind, if we are all on the same ground of faith - what more aligns with Occam's Razor - an infinite number of past creation events leading to this present cosmos or a single intelligent Creator? Which is more parsimonious, and why?

[technomage]

an infinite number of past creation events leading to this present cosmos or a single intelligent Creator?

False dichotomy.

[robertb]

First a quote from Paul Davies



Ok, according to Paul Davies the idea of a multiverse is a leap of faith. So a question comes to mind, if we are all on the same ground of faith - what more aligns with Occam's Razor - an infinite number of past creation events leading to this present cosmos or a single intelligent Creator? Which is more parsimonious, and why?

I am not sure I would agree with this dichotomy. What do you mean by "an infinite number of past creation events"?

Secondly, though it may be the case that some would posit a multiverse as a response to some theological argument or other, I think that the idea of a multiverse is required by the mathematics of string theory, so, in any event, not specifically formulated as a response to theological arguments regarding creation.

[seer]

False dichotomy.

Why?

[seer]

I am not sure I would agree with this dichotomy. What do you mean by "an infinite number of past creation events"?

Secondly, though it may be the case that some would posit a multiverse as a response to some theological argument or other, I think that the idea of a multiverse is required by the mathematics of string theory, so, in any event, not specifically formulated as a response to theological arguments regarding creation.

But as Paul Davis said:

Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator.

I don't see a real difference.

[technomage]

Why?

Look up the definition of false dichotomy. You can start with this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

Then you can tell us why your argument is a false dichotomy.

[seer]

Look up the definition of false dichotomy. You can start with this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

Then you can tell us why your argument is a false dichotomy.

Good, then it is not false dichotomy since I'm only comparing the multiverse theory with theism. If you want to offer a third option (or more), later, that would be fine. For now I would like to limit the discussion between the two options in the OP.

BTW technomage, there is no need to be condescending...

[technomage]

By definition, then, you are offering a false dilemma.

[seer]

By definition, then, you are offering a false dilemma.

No, I want a discussion between the two options. So do you agree that is single Creator is more parsimonious that an infinite number of past universes? If no, please explain - if yes we can move on and compare theism with a different theory of creation. How is that not fair?

[robertb]

But as Paul Davis said:

Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator.

I don't see a real difference.

I am not sure I would call a mathematical requirement 'ad hoc'.

[technomage]

How is that not fair?

I never said it was not fair. I state that it is fallacious. There is a radical difference between the two.

[seer]

I never said it was not fair. I state that it is fallacious. There is a radical difference between the two.

No it is not, I told you we could bring in other theories in later. Why can't we focus on these two choices and the move on? Or are you just in a particularly bad mood this morning?

[seer]

I am not sure I would call a mathematical requirement 'ad hoc'.

But we both know that mathematical equations can be solid but have nothing to do with reality. If I remember correctly there are a dozen or so different mathematical equations for string theories that work on paper, but they all can not be correct.

[robertb]

But we both know that mathematical equations can be solid but have nothing to do with reality. If I remember correctly there are a dozen or so different mathematical equations for string theories that work on paper, but they all can not be correct.

Sure, but they are still not 'ad hoc', unless you are using this phrase in a somewhat unconventional sense.

[technomage]

Why can't we focus on these two choices and the move on?

You've proven yourself ... less than trustworthy in the past, Seer. Simply put, I do not trust you to "focus on these two choices and the[n] move on".

Your thread is your own, and you are welcome to it. But I would not have someone who was not familiar with you wander in and be caught unawares.