life => multiverse?

[Anonymous No.11212796]

The anthropic principle seems to suggest that the presence of life is a byproduct of the existence of multiple universes. However I find the argument a bit preposterous because it tends to invoke an unthinkably large number of quantities to explain something like conscious life. This seem's to also violate occam's razor argument that if something can be explained simply, then it is the most likely explanation. Is the multiverse hypothesis really the simplest way to explain the physical laws and constants consistent with life?

[Anonymous No.11212806]

>>11212796

[Anonymous No.11212851]

>>11212796
>explain the physical laws and constants consistent with life?
what does it explain and how

[Anonymous No.11212875]

>>11212796
>This seem's to also violate occam's razor argument that if something can be explained simply, then it is the most likely explanation. Is the multiverse hypothesis really the simplest way to explain the physical laws and constants consistent with life?

It is. Your view of Occam's razor is a misconception. It does not favor the simplest solution, but solution with the least amount of assumptions. In case of a multiverse, we simply assume the existence of an inflaton field (a scalar field pretty similar to Higgs field really), and the rest should follow from the evolution of this field. Inluding the creation of countless bubble universes with different physical constants.

[Anonymous No.11212889]

>>11212796
Why do you /x/tards have to shit up this board

[Anonymous No.11212904]

>>11212796
Yeah, don't bother, I've reached new levels of nihilism that shouldn't be possible.
The more we learn, the less we understand.
It's almost as if the Universe only matched with mathematics for a while.

[Anonymous No.11213001]

>>11212875
and in your view that is a simpler assumption than the universe being constrained with the physical constants and laws it has? pfft

[Anonymous No.11213004]

>>11212904
Not sure where you are coming from but if there is one thing that is certain in the universe it is that of logical consitency. But don't misinterpret this as logic existing before the big bang.

[Anonymous No.11213232]

>>11213001
yeah, look up fine tuning

[Death No.11213884]

>occam's razor
>violate
occam's razor is not a law, nothing close to it. read this. or actually just skip to the end. william of occam himself believed in the multiverse, or something like it:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/long-live-the-multiverse/
>As for Occam’s razor, you could check with William of Occam himself, the 14th-century philosopher who articulated that principle. In his day, he was the most enthusiastic of the advocates for a multiplicity of worlds.

[Death No.11213896]

>>11213001
what most people neglect and take for granted is that the constants that exist themselves demand an explanation. that's where all this talk of fine tuning, and in some quarters the multiverse, comes from. you feel that the idea that constants "just are" is "simple" because this seems "intuitive" on the face of it. but if you think about it more, you will see that this is not so

[Anonymous No.11213909]

>>11212796
>anthropic principle
>multiverse
It's simple. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point

The multiverse spawns/spawned an infinite number of universes. All those universes reached maximum entropy and heat death. Not all of them fizzled out of existence. Some of those universes developed advanced intelligence sufficient enough to reverse entropy by restarting the universe.

Thus, the only universes that exist now, are ones that have intelligent life capable of restarting the universe before heat death occurs. Which is why all universes that still exist in the multiverse are capable of supporting intelligent life.

[Anonymous No.11213948]

>>11212796
compare the set of all natural numbers to the set of all numbers n, for which there is an n-faced platonic solid for each n. The former is infinite, the latter is a subset of the former and has only 5 members. Which is more complicated? Which takes longer to describe? Specificity is what is complicated, not large numbers. Physics has time and time again showed us that it isn't afraid of scales and numbers that are mind-boggingly big for us.