Problems with the Multiverse

Answer: they both make a great leap of faith - it's just that the theists are more honest about it.

Moreover,  

"Many have noted that this fine-tuning strongly suggests design by a pre-existent intelligence. Physicist Paul Davies has said that “the impression of design is overwhelming.” Fred Hoyle argued that, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology.” Many physicists now concur. They would argue that — in effect — the dials in the cosmic control room appear finely-tuned because someone carefully fine-tuned them.

To explain the vast improbabilities associated with these fine-tuning parameters, some physicists have postulated not a “fine-tuner” or intelligent designer, but the existence of a vast number of other parallel universes. This “multiverse” concept also necessarily posits various mechanisms for producing these universes. On this view, having some mechanism for generating new universes would increase the number of opportunities for a life-friendly universe such as our own to arise — making ours something like a lucky winner of a cosmic lottery.

But advocates of these multiverse proposals have overlooked an obvious problem. The speculative cosmologies (such as inflationary cosmology and string theory) they propose for generating alternative universes invariably invoke mechanisms that themselves require fine-tuning, thus begging the question as to the origin of that prior fine-tuning. Indeed, all the various materialistic explanations for the origin of the fine-tuning — i.e., the explanations that attempt to explain the fine-tuning without invoking intelligent design — invariably invoke prior unexplained fine-tuning."

I refuse to believe infinity is or even could be designed consciously by anything. As in, even if it unbelievably turned out to be true, I'd reject it on principle. I am no ones puppet.

I refuse to believe infinity is or even could be designed consciously by anything. As in, even if it unbelievably turned out to be true, I'd reject it on principle. I am no ones puppet.

I don't buy the multiverse cop-out by the materialist crowd, but infinity is still a very real concept that is as simple as referring to something that has no limitations.

The multiverse concept is still a very interesting phenomena, regardless, in the sense of infinite potential timelines resulting from all of our possible choices. We seem to gravitate towards a specific reality, however. Those other possibilities that never had a chance to play out are still a potentiality.

This physical universe is certainly not infinite ~ its limits are just ridiculously large, and even then, it is a minor speck in the realm of all that is possible in being created by consciousness. A minor speck, maybe, but all specks are equally important to Absolute Consciousness which is truly impartial, and yet partakes in all experiences and perspectives equally.

Absolute Consciousness, akin to the concept of Brahman, if you will, is Infinite, because all potentialities come from it, and there are infinite potentialities, possibilities, those that we can imagine, and even all of those that we cannot, because of our limited nature.

You are no puppet... as you say. But, the unconscious contents of your ego will control and possess you when you least expect it, unless you work to become truly and fully aware of them. Carl Jung called this process Individuation.

I am no ones puppet.

But that's the point about being a puppet:  The puppet has no clue.

But that's the point about being a puppet:  The puppet has no clue.

And, not wanting to be a puppet does not make you not a puppet.

And, not wanting to be a puppet does not make you not a puppet.

Then i'd rather cease to exist entirely or, preferably, kill the puppet master.

I don't buy the multiverse cop-out by the materialist crowd, but infinity is still a very real concept that is as simple as referring to something that has no limitations.

The multiverse concept is still a very interesting phenomena, regardless, in the sense of infinite potential timelines resulting from all of our possible choices. We seem to gravitate towards a specific reality, however. Those other possibilities that never had a chance to play out are still a potentiality.

This physical universe is certainly not infinite ~ its limits are just ridiculously large, and even then, it is a minor speck in the realm of all that is possible in being created by consciousness. A minor speck, maybe, but all specks are equally important to Absolute Consciousness which is truly impartial, and yet partakes in all experiences and perspectives equally.

Absolute Consciousness, akin to the concept of Brahman, if you will, is Infinite, because all potentialities come from it, and there are infinite potentialities, possibilities, those that we can imagine, and even all of those that we cannot, because of our limited nature.

You are no puppet... as you say. But, the unconscious contents of your ego will control and possess you when you least expect it, unless you work to become truly and fully aware of them. Carl Jung called this process Individuation.

You just described a consciousless multiverse. If this theorised absolute consciousness is as you say then I don't think you can actually define it as being conscious at all. It's the problem I see every time someone tries to do this, they either state that infinity is restricted by some consciousness which automatically hits the mathematical wall of "how did you manage to restrict infinity?" to which the only answer I've ever seen boils down to "I dunno, prime mover I guess?" or they define their fundamental consciousness as so neutral, so diffuse and so uninvolved it would be far more accurate to say it doesn't even exist. This is the problem with trying to take any specific thing and saying that it's the fundamental of everything, you either hit the math wall of infinity or define your thing out of existence. You could just as easily say "zinc is fundamental" or "red is fundamental" and state there's some sort of absolute redness or zincness to everything and use the same arguments to justify it. To me this leave "nothing" or some form of raw "existence" as the only logical conclusion for what's at the bottom of all this. Beyond that, how it turns from nothing into something specific, I don't really know.

I refuse to believe infinity is or even could be designed consciously by anything. As in, even if it unbelievably turned out to be true, I'd reject it on principle. I am no ones puppet.

lol

PLONK

lol

PLONK

As if you of all people have anything remotely rational to add.

As if you of all people have anything remotely rational to add.

Seconded