God vs Random Chance vs Multiverse

[Atla]

As my last post on this forum (I'm quitting philosophy forums), I'll show you guys a few initial steps one may take in search for the "truth", after covering some of the basics. The "truth", the "answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything", the answer to "why are we here"?

We use probabilities and we use Occam's razor. Hypotheses that have a low chance of being correct, are discarded.

Some basics are obvious like Eastern nondualism. None of you currently on this forum seem to have made it to nondualism yet, so keep working on that. Awakening to our true nature, throwing out most of Western philosophy all the way back to Plato, that kind of thing.
Another obvious basic is: the world may not be inherently good.
Another obvious basic is: the fine-tuning problem is real, our universe is unfathomably unlikely, we'll be using this a lot below.
A less obvious basic is: that the "truth" may only have to do more directly with one or a few humans, I opened a topic about this.
Plus a few more basics are recommended, like having an overview of all relevant science, having pondered QM for years and realized why all current interpretations fail, having a good insight into human psychology, especially clinical psyhcology and unusual states of mind.

Ok, so the first four steps after covering some of the basics:

1. God did it

As we all know there is no evidence for God, this idea is probably wrong.

2. Random chance

So the standard atheist reply was that the world is Godless, it simply happened by random chance.
Our universe, stable and all, with intelligent life in it, has a probability of, say 1 in 100^100^100 (probably much more improbable, but this example will do).
So this explanation has a 1 in 100^100^100 probability of being correct, so it's probably wrong too, next.

3. God again (or we live in a simulation etc.)

So the reply was that such an unlikely thing could only have been created intentionally. God, simulation etc.
Unfortunately a God or simulator with such capabilities is even more unlikely, say 1 in 100^100^100^100. This explanation is probably even more wrong, next.

4. Multiverse

So some people finally conceded that in order for our existence to be probable, probably infinite possibilities have to be assumed. There, the probability of our existence is 100%. In fact everything occurs infinitely many times, including us.
Unfortunately, what they have forgotten is that even within infinite possibilities, the probability that existence is somehow "centered" on us is still only 1 in 100^100^100. Yes, these thoughts can only occur in this world, but all the other worlds also objectively exist, so why this world, here, now, anyway? Still unfathomably improbable, next.


5. So after all the warm-up above, we finally made it to the starting line, to the interesting part of philosophy.

Infinite possibilities are necessary, but that's just the framework in which to think in (also, the idea of separate universes within the multiverse should be thrown out).
So, what is it in the world of infinite possibilities, that would somehow be a centeredness to here, now? Why the human form? Why are we here, what is going on? What is the "truth"?
We continue to use probabilities and Occam's razor. I think it becomes obvious pretty fast that there is no answer in 4 dimensions, so we have to think in at least 5-7 dimensions, and that's the HARD part.

I haven't been able to find the solution yet, although I think I might be getting somewhat closer. Will keep trying, you try too, if you like.

Take care!

[Sunday66]

As my last post on this forum (I'm quitting philosophy forums), I'll show you guys a few initial steps one may take in search for the "truth", after covering some of the basics. The "truth", the "answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything", the answer to "why are we here"?

We use probabilities and we use Occam's razor. Hypotheses that have a low chance of being correct, are discarded.

Some basics are obvious like Eastern nondualism. None of you currently on this forum seem to have made it to nondualism yet, so keep working on that. Awakening to our true nature, throwing out most of Western philosophy all the way back to Plato, that kind of thing.
Another obvious basic is: the world may not be inherently good.
Another obvious basic is: the fine-tuning problem is real, our universe is unfathomably unlikely, we'll be using this a lot below.
A less obvious basic is: that the "truth" may only have to do more directly with one or a few humans, I opened a topic about this.
Plus a few more basics are recommended, like having an overview of all relevant science, having pondered QM for years and realized why all current interpretations fail, having a good insight into human psychology, especially clinical psyhcology and unusual states of mind.

Ok, so the first four steps after covering some of the basics:

1. God did it

As we all know there is no evidence for God, this idea is probably wrong.

2. Random chance

So the standard atheist reply was that the world is Godless, it simply happened by random chance.
Our universe, stable and all, with intelligent life in it, has a probability of, say 1 in 100^100^100 (probably much more improbable, but this example will do).
So this explanation has a 1 in 100^100^100 probability of being correct, so it's probably wrong too, next.

3. God again (or we live in a simulation etc.)

So the reply was that such an unlikely thing could only have been created intentionally. God, simulation etc.
Unfortunately a God or simulator with such capabilities is even more unlikely, say 1 in 100^100^100^100. This explanation is probably even more wrong, next.

4. Multiverse

So some people finally conceded that in order for our existence to be probable, probably infinite possibilities have to be assumed. There, the probability of our existence is 100%. In fact everything occurs infinitely many times, including us.
Unfortunately, what they have forgotten is that even within infinite possibilities, the probability that existence is somehow "centered" on us is still only 1 in 100^100^100. Yes, these thoughts can only occur in this world, but all the other worlds also objectively exist, so why this world, here, now, anyway? Still unfathomably improbable, next.


5. So after all the warm-up above, we finally made it to the starting line, to the interesting part of philosophy.

Infinite possibilities are necessary, but that's just the framework in which to think in (also, the idea of separate universes within the multiverse should be thrown out).
So, what is it in the world of infinite possibilities, that would somehow be a centeredness to here, now? Why the human form? Why are we here, what is going on? What is the "truth"?
We continue to use probabilities and Occam's razor. I think it becomes obvious pretty fast that there is no answer in 4 dimensions, so we have to think in at least 5-7 dimensions, and that's the HARD part.

I haven't been able to find the solution yet, although I think I might be getting somewhat closer. Will keep trying, you try too, if you like.

Take care!

The idea of the mulitverse is not about the ultimate origin of the universe, as far as I understand it.

[stevie]

... I'll show you guys a few initial steps one may take in search for the "truth"...

You're a funny guy!

[Alan Masterman]

"We use probabilities and we use Occam's razor."

This should be written up in letters of gold... it perfectly summarises the mathematical/scientific ideal. Unfortunately, you continued speaking!

[Pattern-chaser]

As my last post on this forum (I'm quitting philosophy forums), I'll show you guys a few initial steps one may take in search for the "truth", after covering some of the basics. The "truth", the "answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything", the answer to "why are we here"?

We use probabilities and we use Occam's razor. Hypotheses that have a low chance of being correct, are discarded.

This sounds great; it sounds logical, reasonable and rational. But — there's always a "but" — it depends for its truth and utility that we can know or discover the probabilities you refer to. In some enquiries, we can know or discover these probabilities, and then perhaps your words are applicable and helpful.

But in other cases, there is no way for us to know, discover or calculate the applicable probabilities. In these cases, there are no valid statistical methods or techniques that would allow us to determine the probabilities in question. And, perhaps most importantly of all, in such cases we often tell ourselves that we have a useful and accurate idea of those probabilities when we don't. Then, we unknowingly and unwittingly deceive ourselves and others.

[Alan Masterman]

Pattern-chaser, I think you are being unnecessarily abstract in your reasoning. With respect to any phenomenon, certain data present themselves to observation. The observer may then form hypotheses to account for the data and (with luck) form a basis for future prediction. That is the essence of science. If the predictions fail, analysis of the reasons for failure will suggest how we should modify the original hypothesis. So we try again until we have refined the original hypothesis to something which, like the Darwinian theory of evolution, can survive any currently-conceivable challenge.

[Pattern-chaser]

As my last post on this forum (I'm quitting philosophy forums), I'll show you guys a few initial steps one may take in search for the "truth", after covering some of the basics. The "truth", the "answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything", the answer to "why are we here"?

We use probabilities and we use Occam's razor. Hypotheses that have a low chance of being correct, are discarded.

This sounds great; it sounds logical, reasonable and rational. But — there's always a "but" — it depends for its truth and utility that we can know or discover the probabilities you refer to. In some enquiries, we can know or discover these probabilities, and then perhaps your words are applicable and helpful.

But in other cases, there is no way for us to know, discover or calculate the applicable probabilities. In these cases, there are no valid statistical methods or techniques that would allow us to determine the probabilities in question. And, perhaps most importantly of all, in such cases we often tell ourselves that we have a useful and accurate idea of those probabilities when we don't. Then, we unknowingly and unwittingly deceive ourselves and others.

Pattern-chaser, I think you are being unnecessarily abstract in your reasoning. With respect to any phenomenon, certain data present themselves to observation. The observer may then form hypotheses to account for the data and (with luck) form a basis for future prediction. That is the essence of science. If the predictions fail, analysis of the reasons for failure will suggest how we should modify the original hypothesis. So we try again until we have refined the original hypothesis to something which, like the Darwinian theory of evolution, can survive any currently-conceivable challenge.

The perspective you describe here is the typical 'scientific' response to this topic's question. But it completely fails to address what I said. I started by describing the situation you describe too: "In some enquiries, we can know or discover these probabilities, and then perhaps your words are applicable and helpful."

It's my second paragraph that you seem not to have seen. There are matters that we humans choose to investigate, matters that do not feature "data" (evidence), and maybe cannot even be "observed".

Is the universe infinite?
Does God exist?
Are we brains-in-vats?
Is good superior to evil?
What is it like to be a bat?
Does the (human) mind exist?
How to deal with bullying?

There are many such questions, and they cannot be answered in the way you describe. The standard response to this is 'those are invalid questions', or 'without evidence, there is no issue to investigate'. But humans insist on investigating such questions, so we do the best we can. And, in such cases, the best we can do is to apply serious, structured and considered thought, and not give too much thought to justified conclusions, as there likely won't be any.

[Pattern-chaser]

As my last post on this forum (I'm quitting philosophy forums), I'll show you guys a few initial steps one may take in search for the "truth", after covering some of the basics. The "truth", the "answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything", the answer to "why are we here"?

We use probabilities and we use Occam's razor. Hypotheses that have a low chance of being correct, are discarded.

This sounds great; it sounds logical, reasonable and rational. But — there's always a "but" — it depends for its truth and utility that we can know or discover the probabilities you refer to. In some enquiries, we can know or discover these probabilities, and then perhaps your words are applicable and helpful.

But in other cases, there is no way for us to know, discover or calculate the applicable probabilities. In these cases, there are no valid statistical methods or techniques that would allow us to determine the probabilities in question. And, perhaps most importantly of all, in such cases we often tell ourselves that we have a useful and accurate idea of those probabilities when we don't. Then, we unknowingly and unwittingly deceive ourselves and others.

Pattern-chaser, I think you are being unnecessarily abstract in your reasoning. With respect to any phenomenon, certain data present themselves to observation. The observer may then form hypotheses to account for the data and (with luck) form a basis for future prediction. That is the essence of science. If the predictions fail, analysis of the reasons for failure will suggest how we should modify the original hypothesis. So we try again until we have refined the original hypothesis to something which, like the Darwinian theory of evolution, can survive any currently-conceivable challenge.

It's my second paragraph that you seem not to have seen.

You also seem not to have mentioned probability, a central part of the words (from Atla's OP) that I quoted. You do mention "prediction", but not statistics or probability. So: what do you do if there are no precalculated probabilities, and no means of calculating them?

[Alan Masterman]

I'm sorry, but I must withdraw from this post. If we must consider such questions as "does god exist?" I'm out.

[Pattern-chaser]

I'm sorry, but I must withdraw from this post. If we must consider such questions as "does god exist?" I'm out.

That question is only one of a number of examples I offered, of subjects that have a perennial interest to humans, but insufficient 'data' — evidence — to enable a scientific investigation. What shall we do in such cases? Your response seems to be that of the typical sciencist: that such 'questions' are not 'proper' questions, and so unfit for serious consideration.

But what shall we do? We have questions that people wish to consider, and science is no good to us, in these sorts of cases. But philosophy can approach these questions, even if nothing — no technique, discipline, or method — can deliver logically-justified conclusions. We can still learn from the discussion, even without one clear and unambiguous conclusion.

[Atla]

The idea of the mulitverse is not about the ultimate origin of the universe, as far as I understand it.

I didn't say anything about the ultimate origin of the universe. If we use probabilities and the razor, I think the idea that the universe had an ultimate origin, is obviously discarded as a probably unnecessary assumption.

[Atla]

"We use probabilities and we use Occam's razor."

This should be written up in letters of gold... it perfectly summarises the mathematical/scientific ideal. Unfortunately, you continued speaking!

I also consider it to be the ideal in philosophy, but philosophy is philosophy not science.

[Atla]

This sounds great; it sounds logical, reasonable and rational. But — there's always a "but" — it depends for its truth and utility that we can know or discover the probabilities you refer to. In some enquiries, we can know or discover these probabilities, and then perhaps your words are applicable and helpful.

But in other cases, there is no way for us to know, discover or calculate the applicable probabilities. In these cases, there are no valid statistical methods or techniques that would allow us to determine the probabilities in question. And, perhaps most importantly of all, in such cases we often tell ourselves that we have a useful and accurate idea of those probabilities when we don't. Then, we unknowingly and unwittingly deceive ourselves and others.

Of course we can't know or discover these probabilites for sure, this is philosophy not science. See here:

But what shall we do? We have questions that people wish to consider, and science is no good to us, in these sorts of cases. But philosophy can approach these questions, even if nothing — no technique, discipline, or method — can deliver logically-justified conclusions. We can still learn from the discussion, even without one clear and unambiguous conclusion.

That's why the first step is to try to guess which system of probabilites to use, on which all further considerations are based. If this guess is wrong which is a very real possiblity, then all further calculations are also wrong.

My guess is that simpler configurations are more common than complicated configurations. Say "universes" consisting of one "particle-pair" would be more common thatn universes consisting of two particle-pairs and so on.
Also, highly homogeneous universes would also be more common than equally sized but highly inhomogeneous universes.

[Atla]

For example here are some possibilities:

- We can't use any probability calculations because everything is random. This would be the end of philosophy imo, we can't get any answers because there are none.

- Simpler configurations are more common. This is the possibility that I've been exploring for over a decade.

- All configurations are equally likely. This actually might be the case. But it seems to conflict with how the natural world seems to behave, so I haven't looked into this much.

- More complex configurations are more common. I haven't considered this before.

[Pattern-chaser]

This sounds great; it sounds logical, reasonable and rational. But — there's always a "but" — it depends for its truth and utility that we can know or discover the probabilities you refer to. In some enquiries, we can know or discover these probabilities, and then perhaps your words are applicable and helpful.

But in other cases, there is no way for us to know, discover or calculate the applicable probabilities. In these cases, there are no valid statistical methods or techniques that would allow us to determine the probabilities in question. And, perhaps most importantly of all, in such cases we often tell ourselves that we have a useful and accurate idea of those probabilities when we don't. Then, we unknowingly and unwittingly deceive ourselves and others.

Of course we can't know or discover these probabilites for sure, this is philosophy not science. See here:

But what shall we do? We have questions that people wish to consider, and science is no good to us, in these sorts of cases. But philosophy can approach these questions, even if nothing — no technique, discipline, or method — can deliver logically-justified conclusions. We can still learn from the discussion, even without one clear and unambiguous conclusion.

That's why the first step is to try to guess which system of probabilities to use, on which all further considerations are based. If this guess is wrong which is a very real possibility, then all further calculations are also wrong.

Given that the circumstance-under-investigation does not offer calculable probabilities, as per our current discussion, why would your first step, following this realisation, be to randomly (?) select a "system of probabilities" to use? Wouldn't it be more helpful to us to focus on how we might give serious thought and consideration to something in the absence of usable probabilities?

Is it so important to have usable probabilities that you would rather pretend you had them instead of learning to live without them? Isn't this a sort of self-deception? What value does this odd mode of thought offer you, that you are willing to discard what you actually know — not much, in this case — in favour of a fantasy?

My guess is that simpler configurations are more common than complicated configurations. Say "universes" consisting of one "particle-pair" would be more common thatn universes consisting of two particle-pairs and so on.
Also, highly homogeneous universes would also be more common than equally sized but highly inhomogeneous universes.

This seems to illustrate my questions well. Your thoughts offer unfounded guesses, not about the subject matter directly, but about what probabilities might apply to it. I don't understand what we gain by thinking so...?