Does the atheistic multiverse explanation of fine tuning commit the inverse gamblers fallacy?https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l6tZm2iJSJMhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_C2GVsBvOwQ&pp=ygUcTXVsdGl2ZXJzZSBpbnZlcnNlIGdhbWJsZXJzINIHCQmyCQGHKiGM7w%3D%3D
Only if you draw the conclusion that there MUST be many universes before/besides this one, which is stupid.Not watching any fucking youtube videos btw.
>>16785449without watching/listening to them you won't understand the arguments
>>16785454I am capable of reading, retard.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_gambler%27s_fallacy
>>16785442I'm not watching banana sodomite YT edutainment, but this sounds like a good thread to remind /sci/ that most science-loving midwits constantly confuse epistemology with ontology. Whatever OP's video is about, I'm gambling it's gonna be rooted in the same basic confusion.
>>16785442It commits the fallacy that infinity = all possible combinations. There could be infinite universes where I clicked reply at a different time between this second and the next second. Thus we have an example of infinite universes but none of them have dancing T-rexes flying on magic carpets etc. Therefore, infinite universes necessarily does not imply a single one of them has to be fined tuned, thus we're once again stuck asking why the universe is (clearly) fine tuned.
>>16785462What about beth 2 infinity
>>16785462>this is your brain on real numbersnjwildberger would like to have a word with you regarding your so-called argument. Just because they're called 'real' doesn't mean they're real.
>>16785462It only needs to be fine tuned to the point of having slight variance in every single universe, which is a big complexity save from having 1 very fine tuned universe.
>>16785462The fine-tuning argument really only concerns a few universal constants, and there's some reason to believe other universes could spawn with some variation in those.For anything on a scale smaller than the universe, we already know there are countless galaxies (let alone stars and planets) out there, so there's no difficulty in positing that we represent one lucky roll among a billion trillion or whatever.
>>16785474Greeks thought time could be infinitely divided bruvProve them wrong>>16785496>It only needs to be fine tuned to the point of...Who cares what it needs. The point is infinity does not guarantee any particular need will be met. >>16785582>and there's some reason to believe other universes could spawn. . . Such as?>For anything on a scale smaller than the universe, we already know there are countless galaxies (let alone stars and planets) out there, so there's no difficulty in positing that we represent one lucky roll among a billion trillion or whatever.That's a different argument about abiogenesis or whatever, and it's very copey since any odds given to this "lucky roll" are entirely made up. You say billion trillion but I could say billion trillion billion trillion etc.
>>16785462this argument only works if you assume space-time isn't quantized. If so you can only describe time (or space for that matter) as small as 1 planck length unit, so the number of universes where you post a comment in that second would be finite. Its still unconfirmed whether space or time is quantized so we can't know for sure.
>>16785669greeks also thought pi was rational and everything was made up of 4 elements. quit being a fag
>>16785442I think "fine-tuning" falls apart once you start looking into proteomics; there are all sorts of redundant, useless, and even harmful proteins expressed by all different organisms. If some "creator" really designed all that unnecessary complexity, he was a major schizo sperg who couldn't really into "fine-tuning" very efficiently.
>>16785680He could create lots of universes Maybe our universe was just one of the "good enough" universes
