Simpler mechanisms create fewer unanswered questions than complex mechanisms.
And in the case of the universe we have zero knoweldge of what formed it - thus there is no "simpler mechanism". Further, a "simpler mechanism" is not necessarily one that gives rise to just a single instance.
Which is more plausible? That life exists on one other planet in the SS or that it exists on two or three?
Given that we have an idea of what is required for life as we would recognise it, this example is not the same category as being discussed.
Which is more plausible? That one impactor formed the Moon? Or two or three?
Given that we have an idea of what it takes to form planetary objects, this example is not the same category as being discussed.
Yes, but they're cumulative.
What is cumulative?
All other things being equal, two spontaneous events are less likely than one spontaneous event.
And there you are asserting it to be a spontaneous event. Where is your evidence of such? Where is your evidence that it was not formed by an underlying process that gives rise to multiple universes?
Does your soda bottle only produce a single bubble upon opening?
Then you are completely misunderstadning my stance.
Then perhaps elucidate so that I can understand.
No, it's critical. Your scenario seems superfically plausible because we're used to people doing goal-directed tasks multiple times in pursuit of a result.
No, it's not critical. It's irrelevant. The analogy begins with the falling deck and ends with the formation of the cards. That's it. Any attempt to read more into it is simply a red herring.
If that wasn't clear before, I trust it is now. So please no more red herrings. Ignore the cause of the deck falling. That was outside the purpose of the analogy, and to be considered outside. Clear?
Ask yourself how implausible it seems that a deck of cards falls off a table spontaneously many, many times.
And there you are again asserting it to be a spontaneous event.
Because we're not bringing a sentience into the scenario to start things in motion.
One doesn't need to bring a sentience into the scenario for it not to be spontaneous. Any non-sentient cause would mean that it is not spontaneous.
I do not claim to "know" anything except the basic mathematics of probability. Two spontaneous events is less likely than one spontaneous event.
And there you are asserting it yet again to be a spontaneous event.
I'm assuming you find it miraculous that your soda bottle produces many bubbles?
We are left with explaining an infinite number of spontaneous events.
We are left with explaining one spontaneous event.
No, in both cases we are left with explaining an effect. The cause might or might not itself lead to the conclusion that it has happened just once or perhaps many times before. To assume one over the other is to input bias into the question.
But again, your miraculous soda bubbles must keep you up at night with wild amazement, right?
Because that is the nature of probability. A fraction of 1.0 will always be smaller than 1.0.
What exactly are you assessing as 1.0 and what are you assessing as being a fraction of 1.0?
Of course it's unknowable. You misunderstand my stance again.
Then please clarify your stance.
If it's unknowable then by definition you can not assign probability, and you can not assert that the universe is more likely the only one or just one of an infinite. So which are you arguing: it is unknowable, or that it is more likely to be a single occurrence rather than one of an infinite?
If you say all possibilities are equally likely, regardless of the fact that some have more preconditions than others, then you open the door to God being a perfectly plausible explanation.
Why do some have more preconditions? What makes you think that?
As for God, you'd have to define what you mean by God before I can answer.
The reason God is generally not considered a plausible candidate for the creation of the universe is because, as an explanation, it raises more questions than it answers.
Certainly some explanations of God do. But you'd have to define God before I will address that issue here.
Occams' razor: don't create more entities ( or conditions) without warrant.
So what conditions do you think there are for the creation of the universe that you know about? Name one, please? And Occam's razor is a matter of where one should concentrate their efforts, not what is correct or not, not what is valid or not, not what is logical or not. And in the absence of knowledge of what conditions are actually needed, who is to say what conditions are valid or necessary?
The only reason to posit the nigh-infinite spawning of universes - each with their own permutation of Cosmological constants** - is to find an answer to this problem. But again, that's circular.
No, the reason to posit it is to highlight that to do otherwise is to assign bias to an answer that we can know nothing about. The rest is just a by-product.
** another implicit precondition by the way. You posit, not only
- a nigh-infinite number of universes being spawned, but additionally, that
- those spawned universes arise with different properties.
Are you claiming that such is impossible? And you would know this... how? Simply put, if you can not know at all how the universe was formed then you can make no judgement about whether the existence of our universe is miraculous or a certainty.
A pounding surf spawns many many small rocks, but it doesn't spawn an infinite variety of shapes. The force creating small rocks doesn't run through permutations of cubes, tetrahedrons and dodecahedrons.
And when you know how our universe was created, I look forward to the discussion.
Your scenario is getting more complex. Harder to explain.
It may sound more complex, but in the absence of
any knowledge about what it takes, who is to say what is more or less complex? Who is to say whether our universe is the result of miraculous coincidence or a certainty. When you know what is required to create a universe, then at least we can apply Occam's razor to theories about how such conditions arise. But we're not even at that stage. I don't think we can ever be. And as such we can not say whether our universe is miraculous or a certainty. To consider it one or the other is to apply an unwarranted bias.
