tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post2542082532027747912..comments2024-01-25T13:46:11.967-06:00Comments on The Bronze Blog: Scooby SyndromeRyan Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14750814560493466382noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-65583124557238265022008-08-14T08:06:00.000-05:002008-08-14T08:06:00.000-05:00I agree re the equivalence between retrospective a...<I>I agree re the equivalence between retrospective and prospective probabilities - which is why I see the equivalence in applying mutliverse reasoning to things other than the fine tuning of the universe for life.</I><BR/><BR/>The point is that they're <I>not</I> equivalent. Throwing a dart at a blank wall and circling the point you hit is not the same as throwing darts at a target and hitting the bullseye.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-15605972926747201212008-08-14T05:55:00.000-05:002008-08-14T05:55:00.000-05:00Changed my mind about that. Now I don't think it's...Changed my mind about that. Now I don't think it's a good explanation for woo eitherAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-19753028858118188062008-08-13T17:21:00.000-05:002008-08-13T17:21:00.000-05:00What's getting me is how you're using it to dismis...What's getting me is how you're using it to dismiss the paranormal, implying that there's some reason we can use the argument for dismissing woo but not for dismissing anything else.Bronze Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10938257296504189967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-25566011481637435322008-08-12T19:07:00.000-05:002008-08-12T19:07:00.000-05:00I agree re the equivalence between retrospective a...I agree re the equivalence between retrospective and prospective probabilities - which is why I see the equivalence in applying mutliverse reasoning to things other than the fine tuning of the universe for life.<BR/><BR/>But having read the comments here and some other stuff by Laurence Krauss, I'm now not so sure that the multiverse theory is all it's cracked up to be (for explaining fine tuning or anything else). As Krauss puts it "a theory that can explain anything, in a sense, one might say explains nothing."<BR/><BR/>In fact i'm suprised that Dawkins endorsed multiverse reasoning in the God Delusion (which is what got me stuck on this dead end track in the first place) - maybe he should stick to biology.<BR/><BR/>Of course, if you reject multiverse reasoning then that could leave you open to the blatherings of IDiots that the universe has been designed for us by God etc etc. <BR/><BR/>But I think there is a way out of this. Other than the dark energy/ cosmological constant problem (which supposedly is fine tuned to 1 in 10 to the power of 120), all the other fine tuning examples are fairly easily explained by Stengers. In relation to the cosmological constant, Stengers refers to another theory called"quintessence" (which has not yet been tested) which gives a naturalistic explanation for this.<BR/><BR/>Stengers makes the point, which I agree with, that: <BR/>" As long as science can provide plausible scenarios for a fully material universe, even if those scenarios cannot be currently tested they are sufficient to refute the God of the gaps."<BR/><BR/>Here is the link to Stengers paper:<BR/>http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-30126438440545483212008-08-12T09:56:00.000-05:002008-08-12T09:56:00.000-05:00I think you're getting hung up on the difference b...I think you're getting hung up on the difference between prospective probabilities and retrospective probabilities.<BR/><BR/>The probability of last week's lottery numbers being whatever they were is exactly the same as the probability of correctly guessing next week's numbers - but only one wins you the jackpot.<BR/><BR/>It's the difference between the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy and actually being a really good shot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-47697086855320459482008-08-11T23:02:00.000-05:002008-08-11T23:02:00.000-05:00I think the statue waving thing is in the “Blind W...I think the statue waving thing is in the “Blind Watchmaker” (which I don’t have right now). You’re probably right that he was making a more complicated point than the way I phrased it.<BR/><BR/>Re the multiverse argument , I don’t see why “The ONLY situation that it helps to explain is "fine tuned for life" universes and that's only because life can only ask the question of how the universe is fine tuned in those universes that allow it to exist.”<BR/><BR/>It seems to me the only difference between the life situation and the unlikely dice predictions is that one has happened and the other hasn’t. An explanation of why a psychic had an unlikely run of correct guesses (if this ever did happen) would only be needed in a universe where that unlikely run of correct guesses did occur. <BR/><BR/>Because it has never happened and probably never will, a multiverse argument has never been needed for that situation. Only difference with life is that it has happened.<BR/><BR/>But that is the sort of reasoning that IDiots criticize as being post hoc. An IDiot would say Goddidit is jut as likely an explanation for the universe being fit for life as the psychic having abilities is in your example - assuming the odds are the same in each case. <BR/><BR/>Of course, Victor Stenger has shown the universe may not in fact be fine tuned for life anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-15637514119780834332008-08-11T17:43:00.000-05:002008-08-11T17:43:00.000-05:00Doesn't quite sound like Dawkins to me, so you may...Doesn't quite sound like Dawkins to me, so you may want to give us a citation. No offense, but I imagine he can probably put it more elegantly than you can, so it'd be nice to see his exact wording.Bronze Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10938257296504189967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-16173277418351749392008-08-11T17:30:00.000-05:002008-08-11T17:30:00.000-05:00Good point. I'm going to have to think about that ...Good point. I'm going to have to think about that some (but i have to finish my math assignment first).<BR/>I understand what you're saying re the "ontological demand" about life, but can't see how it bears on the likelihood that coincidences are best explained by coincidences in the multiverse, rather than supernatural explanations.<BR/>E.g. Richard Dawkins says that if all the molecules of a statue of the virgin Mary happenned to shift to the left so that she waved, the best explanation would be coincidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-88810768538314996442008-08-11T06:33:00.000-05:002008-08-11T06:33:00.000-05:00The problem is, no it isn't.It works for life only...The problem is, no it isn't.<BR/><BR/>It works for life only because we're only going to be IN universes where life is capable of existing. It doesn't work for seemingly psychic randomness because there's no ontological demand that we be IN a universe where that event occurs.<BR/><BR/>It's no different than explaining it away by saying all those molecules just happened to shuffle to the left at the same time. The fact that there's a multiverse involved doesn't really do anything to the odds.<BR/><BR/>Let me put it this way. If there's just one universe and you roll a million 20 sided die and a psychic predicts all of them accurately, that's a pretty strange coincidence and very accurate. Certainly the idea that the psychic is actually psychic is worth considering over the idea that it's just a coincidence. If there are infinite multiverses, this changes nothing. What are the odds that we would find ourselves in that ONE universe where the psychic predicted everything accurately? The fact that a universe HAS to exist where that occured does nothing to affect the odds. It's the same odds either way. As a result we still have to consider it far more likely that the psychic actually has the abilities claimed than that we managed to, by coincidence, end up in that universe.<BR/><BR/>Saying it's another universe as an explanation is identical to saying "it was a really huge coincidence" as an explanation. The ONLY situation that helps to explain is "fine tuned for life" universes and that's only because life can only ask the question of how the universe is fine tuned in those universes that allow it to exist. Beyond that, a case where odds would be stacked perfectly in favor of us ending up in one of those universes, there's nothing that would stack in our favor of extremely unlikely events, which I'd say explains pretty well why we don't SEE totally unlikely events all the time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-45552419165455846942008-08-10T19:21:00.000-05:002008-08-10T19:21:00.000-05:00Seems valid to me.But I did realise that an adjust...Seems valid to me.<BR/>But I did realise that an adjustment is necessary to the calculation I made before in relation to average probablities across universes, to account for fine tuning.<BR/> If our universe is "fine tuned" for life say to the extent of 1 in a billion, then the probability of a 1 in a billion (in our universe) event happenning somewhere in the multiverse is 1 in (a billion times a billion).<BR/>This may seem remote, but if there are a googol number of universes out there, then such an event is still likely to occur trillions of times across the multiverse.<BR/>So if something unusual happens, it's more than likely because we just happen to be in one of the trillions of universes where it happened.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-63465189213445109922008-08-10T10:33:00.000-05:002008-08-10T10:33:00.000-05:00It's not the multiple universes thing I have a pro...It's not the multiple universes thing I have a problem with. It's the ability to chalk anything up to coincidence that you're using it for.Bronze Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10938257296504189967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-19366646362578508142008-08-10T02:13:00.000-05:002008-08-10T02:13:00.000-05:00Well if it's good enough to explain the amount of ...Well if it's good enough to explain the amount of dark energy in the universe and other aspects of the so called "fine tuning" of the universe for life, I think by extension that it can also rationally be applied to other coincidences.<BR/><BR/>Skeptico has a good article on the parsimony of the multiverse:<BR/>http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/09/occams-razor.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-83614130225048069902008-08-09T23:30:00.000-05:002008-08-09T23:30:00.000-05:00I wouldn't go with that rationale, but unlikely ev...I wouldn't go with that rationale, but unlikely events do happen. Problem with using it that strongly is that it can explain just about anything. If some real psychic shows up and passes several well-controlled tests with one-in-a-million odds, I think it'd be more rational to accept that something odd is going on, rather than dismissing it all as dumb luck.<BR/><BR/>Apply the same rationale to other hypotheses, and you'd never accept anything.Bronze Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10938257296504189967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-41906306401549201402008-08-09T23:10:00.000-05:002008-08-09T23:10:00.000-05:00The latest research in physics gives skeptics even...The latest research in physics gives skeptics even more reason to dismiss so called paranormal events as nothing more than coincidence. <BR/><BR/>If there are a googol number of universes around, as physicists are suggesting, then even an event that has one in a billion chance of happening is almost certain to happen somewhere (the probability for this being 1 minus (0.999999 to the power of googol) - on the reasonable assumption that one in a billion is an average probability across all universes).<BR/><BR/>So any unusual woo event which does not seem to fit with established scientific theory can easily and most parsimoniously by explained by the fact that we just happen to be in the universe where that unusual event has occured.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com