Refuting Dawkin's Ultimate 747 argument

[MiM]

Nobody denies your right to hypothesise. I actually found your hypothesis about the giant intelligence in a neighbouring universe quite enjoyable. It has a lot in common with Nick Bostroms simulation argument http://www.simulation-argument.com/. But there is a very real difference between hypothesis and theory. And even a weak theory is far too little to hang a belief on.

I am quite sure some of the theoretical physicists are delusional. Then on the other hand there certainly are some geniuses in there also, or then someone might just get lucky. So I think it is generally a good idea to let them carry on and fight it out among themselves. Eventually something useful will come out of it. Until that I bide my time and rather spend my money on horses.

And I probably should add, that I have far too little knowledge in the theoretical physics "world models" of today to be able to evaluate if they have some real substance in them or not. And I very much doubt anyone else on this forum has that either.

[Seth]

Nobody denies your right to hypothesise. I actually found your hypothesis about the giant intelligence in a neighbouring universe quite enjoyable. It has a lot in common with Nick Bostroms simulation argument http://www.simulation-argument.com/. But there is a very real difference between hypothesis and theory. And even a weak theory is far too little to hang a belief on.

Well, yeah. I've tried to be careful to refer to my claim as a hypothesis and not a theory for that very reason.

[Coito ergo sum]

Not at all. We build a world view on the evidence we know combined with the acceptance of the fact that we do not know everything, and that therefore things that we know not of may, and probably do exist, and should be given due consideration when formulating, and amending, our worldview.

Nobody denies that, even the dreaded atheists, materialists and scientists. ... However, right now there is just as much reason to believe in pseudomagnetotism as there is to believe in god.

And what about an intelligent entity residing in another universe? I've laid out for you the logical sequence of inferences that support this hypothesis. Does this put it in the same level as pseudomagnetism?

Of course - you have no evidence for it. So, there is just as much reason to believe in pseudomagnetotism as there is in god. You have a "logical sequence" but I can make the same logical sequence about a god living in the 12th dimension. It's all just idle speculation until you have a theoretical basis, or some evidence.

[

[Coito ergo sum]

Russels Teacup, dammit.
We have positive proof that teacups exist, and we have the technology to send one to Saturn. That does not mean we believe there is one orbiting Saturn right now. Showing that something is possible is not enough to form a theory, or anything to hold a belief on. You need positive evidence for that.

So, membrane universes and bubble universes are not scientific hypotheses, right? And those who theorize about them are delusional "universists" right?

No. Theorize doesn't mean "wonder" or "speculate" about. M Theory is an outgrowth of string theory and there is a boatload of theoretical physics behind it. http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic3a.html and http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic5a.html and http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic7a.html

Sitting around speculating about gods living in alternative universes and dimensions is not the same thing at all, is it?

[Coito ergo sum]

Seth, you said this: "Not at all. I clearly understand this. Which makes me wonder why you are resisting the notion that there very probably does exist intelligence greater than our own in some other place. "

Because your "logic" doesn't show that there "very probably" is anything at all of the kind. All you've done is find a supposed place that we don't know anything about and created an unfalsifiable supposition. You think there is a god in another universe. Well, fine - I resist believing that because I don't just accept the dreams and imaginings of folks who have no evidence or even a theoretical basis for what they're talking about.

[Seth]

Russels Teacup, dammit.
We have positive proof that teacups exist, and we have the technology to send one to Saturn. That does not mean we believe there is one orbiting Saturn right now. Showing that something is possible is not enough to form a theory, or anything to hold a belief on. You need positive evidence for that.

So, membrane universes and bubble universes are not scientific hypotheses, right? And those who theorize about them are delusional "universists" right?

No. Theorize doesn't mean "wonder" or "speculate" about. M Theory is an outgrowth of string theory and there is a boatload of theoretical physics behind it. http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic3a.html and http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic5a.html and http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic7a.html

Sitting around speculating about gods living in alternative universes and dimensions is not the same thing at all, is it?

Why not? All the various cosmological theories have loads of theoretical math behind them but not one single direct observation of the existence of another universe, and not one single falsifiable explanation of what came before the big bang, and this is all "science" in your view.

I merely suggest that, based on known, observable phenomena, ie: the existence of intelligence in this universe, which is NOT theoretical or based only in mathematical modeling, there is likely to be intelligence in other universes, or elsewhere in this universe, and suddenly it's not "science" anymore.

This indicates a cognitive disconnect on your part, not any failure in my reasoning abilities. Besides, I'm hardly the only person on the planet to speculate that intelligence exists elsewhere. Even the Great Dawkins admits this possibility. Are you now saying that he's a religious nut too?

[Seth]

Seth, you said this: "Not at all. I clearly understand this. Which makes me wonder why you are resisting the notion that there very probably does exist intelligence greater than our own in some other place. "

Because your "logic" doesn't show that there "very probably" is anything at all of the kind. All you've done is find a supposed place that we don't know anything about and created an unfalsifiable supposition.

I didn't "find" it, theoretical physicists and cosmologists "found" it. As for it being "unfalsifiable," it's only unfalsifiable because we don't know how to inspect some other universe for signs of intelligence. Hell, we don't even have the technology to effectively search our OWN universe for signs of intelligence. The best we've been able to come up with is SETI. The fact that we cannot search another universe at the moment, due to our own scientific ignorance, in no way makes the proposition of intelligence in another universe "unfalsifiable." Merely very difficult and beyond our present abilities.

You think there is a god in another universe. Well, fine - I resist believing that because I don't just accept the dreams and imaginings of folks who have no evidence or even a theoretical basis for what they're talking about.

See, there's that anti-theist bias again. I didn't say I think there is a "god" in another universe, I said the hypothesis that an advanced intelligence existing in another universe that has the capacity to penetrate into this universe to manipulate time, space, matter and energy is a SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS, not a theistic claim. And that's ALL I've said. You're the one who sees "God" in that statement and turns and runs from reason and science and takes refuge in unreason and irrationality.

[Clinton Huxley]

Alternate universes, brane-theory and the rest are interesting
postulates but until we can test them, that's all they are.
At the moment we don't even know how we might test such theories, let
alone have the engineering ability to actually do it.

Even if one of these multiverse theories is correct AND a being
in one of these universes could interact with ours (a
further supposition, in my view) it neither solves the
problem that ID is unfalsifiable (ie - ANYTHING we discover
about biology could just be "the way being X chose to do it")
nor does it solve the problem of infinite regression. I don't
think saying "we're just talking about this universe" is good enough.

Given the utterly conjectural nature of multiverse theories,
the intractability of the infinite regression problem and the
existence of hypotheses about how life could evolve from inanimate
matter, the most parsimonious explanation for life, to me, remains
chemical abiogenesis followed by Darwinian natural selection.

[Coito ergo sum]

Seth, you said this: "Not at all. I clearly understand this. Which makes me wonder why you are resisting the notion that there very probably does exist intelligence greater than our own in some other place. "

Because your "logic" doesn't show that there "very probably" is anything at all of the kind. All you've done is find a supposed place that we don't know anything about and created an unfalsifiable supposition.

I didn't "find" it, theoretical physicists and cosmologists "found" it.

Some theoretical physicists did math that suggests that there may be other universes. There is no evidence for that. It's math. There is no math of any kind to imply what might be going on in any of those universes that we don't know exist in the first place. To say - M-Theory posits 11 dimensions, is one thing (because there is string theory mathematics - theoretical physics - behind it - is one thing To say - I think there might be gods in those other dimensions is quite another. Now, what do you think the difference is?

As for it being "unfalsifiable," it's only unfalsifiable because we don't know how to inspect some other universe for signs of intelligence.

[

We don't know if there is another universe, let alone how to inspect it. And, even if there is intelligence in one, it may well be just human-like intelligence.

God =/- "intelligence" or "signs of intelligence."

Are you proposing that in an alternative universe there might be living things that think, along the lines that we do? Or do you post "god." You need to define your theory, perhaps, such that we know what it is you are claiming exists.

Hell, we don't even have the technology to effectively search our OWN universe for signs of intelligence. The best we've been able to come up with is SETI. The fact that we cannot search another universe at the moment, due to our own scientific ignorance, in no way makes the proposition of intelligence in another universe "unfalsifiable." Merely very difficult and beyond our present abilities.

Yes, that's why it's not scientific to say, "Maybe there is an intelligence on the the third planet, of the sixth star to the left, in the Andromeda galaxy." The only reason we think there might be life somewhere else is that there is no reason, yet, to think that our solar system and planet are unique in the universe. But, right now, we have no idea whatsoever.

You think there is a god in another universe. Well, fine - I resist believing that because I don't just accept the dreams and imaginings of folks who have no evidence or even a theoretical basis for what they're talking about.

See, there's that anti-theist bias again. I didn't say I think there is a "god" in another universe,

You did, though. At least initially, you did. Well, at least - I presently recall that you did, and I'm not willing to scroll back through the posts at this point.

If you're not talking about "god" then what are you talking about? Finding intelligence in another universe isn't the same as finding god or proving "ID" or anything like that. What's your theory, specifically?

I said the hypothesis that an advanced intelligence existing in another universe that has the capacity to penetrate into this universe to manipulate time, space, matter and energy is a SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS, not a theistic claim. And that's ALL I've said. You're the one who sees "God" in that statement and turns and runs from reason and science and takes refuge in unreason and irrationality.

It's about as good a scientific hypothesis as "ancient aliens came to Earth thousands of years ago and drew the Nazca Lines and helped build the pyramids." Actually, the latter is a better theory.