The mother of all backahnded compliments for the Dalai Lama

[Tellos Athenaios]

True. This is the basic problem with trying to apply the razor in any shape or form: it doesn't actually simplify things (yet).

M theory still doesn't explain why there is matter or energy in the first place. M theory is great at explaining how the universe came to be as it is, in the same way the Goldilocks zone is great for explaining why we came to inhabit Earth and not Venus. But then the question remains "how did M-verse" come into being? Where did that stuff come from?

Then again neither does any theology deign to explain where their first thingies/beings/causes come from. For instance Christianity is pretty good at explaining how the universe came into being, in principle: "because God made it". Unfortunately it doesn't explain why there is a God, how God came into being, what God is made of, what the universe was made of/how God made the stuff he needed to make the universe, or even how God made the universe with that stuff.

So in the one case you rephrase the question in a "higher order", more general form (M-theory); in the other you simply add yet another inexplicable "term" to the "equation" and the equation still does not answer the key question of "why". That is, working backwards, you cannot explain why creation ended up the way it is, purely because you cannot explain yet why the universe is how it is. M theory can at least do that, but it adds the big presumption that other universes are likely to exist and also does not explain why any universe should exist at all.

[Kadagar_AV]

True. This is the basic problem with trying to apply the razor in any shape or form: it doesn't actually simplify things (yet).

M theory still doesn't explain why there is matter or energy in the first place. M theory is great at explaining how the universe came to be as it is, in the same way the Goldilocks zone is great for explaining why we came to inhabit Earth and not Venus. But then the question remains "how did M-verse" come into being? Where did that stuff come from?

Then again neither does any theology deign to explain where their first thingies/beings/causes come from. For instance Christianity is pretty good at explaining how the universe came into being, in principle: "because God made it". Unfortunately it doesn't explain why there is a God, how God came into being, what God is made of, what the universe was made of/how God made the stuff he needed to make the universe, or even how God made the universe with that stuff.

So in the one case you rephrase the question in a "higher order", more general form (M-theory); in the other you simply add yet another inexplicable "term" to the "equation" and the equation still does not answer the key question of "why". That is, working backwards, you cannot explain why creation ended up the way it is, purely because you cannot explain yet why the universe is how it is. M theory can at least do that, but it adds the big presumption that other universes are likely to exist and also does not explain why any universe should exist at all.

I think my main gripe with Bibleboys are these on this topic:

* If the church throughout the ages had supported science and urged it on, then the church would be more believable. As it is, the church has fought hard to push science down. It is hard for me to understand why that would be the case, if the church are in fact sure they are right. If they were, they if ANY would urge science to go further, fund it, so that we can find God when science reaches it's highest peak. But that is not how the church work, now is it?

* True, M-theory doesn't explain where branes come from or anything. I'm not even sure I believe in it myself, all those dimensions are messing with my mind. However, the smartest minds of today put their vote there, or on theories much similar. I trust the sharpest minds of today more than a dusty old book. I am not saying they are RIGHT, I am saying they are, from my perspective, more likely to be right. Same goes with a lot of stuff, the sun might orbit the sun for all I know, I haven't done any testing on my own. However, enough intelligent people say it is so for me to believe it.

TL;DR - I prefer to go with the sharpest minds of today, basing their observations standing on the shoulders of the sharpest minds throughout the ages, to adhering to an old book written by a people lost in the desert for 40 years. The desert ain't even that big.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think my main gripe with Bibleboys are these on this topic:

* If the church throughout the ages had supported science and urged it on, then the church would be more believable. As it is, the church has fought hard to push science down. It is hard for me to understand why that would be the case, if the church are in fact sure they are right. If they were, they if ANY would urge science to go further, fund it, so that we can find God when science reaches it's highest peak. But that is not how the church work, now is it?

* True, M-theory doesn't explain where branes come from or anything. I'm not even sure I believe in it myself, all those dimensions are messing with my mind. However, the smartest minds of today put their vote there, or on theories much similar. I trust the sharpest minds of today more than a dusty old book. I am not saying they are RIGHT, I am saying they are, from my perspective, more likely to be right. Same goes with a lot of stuff, the sun might orbit the sun for all I know, I haven't done any testing on my own. However, enough intelligent people say it is so for me to believe it.

TL;DR - I prefer to go with the sharpest minds of today, basing their observations standing on the shoulders of the sharpest minds throughout the ages, to adhering to an old book written by a people lost in the desert for 40 years. The desert ain't even that big.

I think we need to take a step back here and look at what the razor is, and what it isn't:

The razor is not proof, merely an indication of likelyhood.

The razor does not prefer the simplest explanation, but the simplest explanation when all explanations are equally plausible.

What this means is that in order to apply the razor to a Divinely ordained universe you first have to have some measure of how plausible that is compared to a universe that ordered itself, "just because".

M-theory may explain the mechanics of how the universe came to be, but that isn't a "why" explanation, so it isn't in competition with any God hypothesis. The biggest problem with M-theory is like many theories of the last 10-15 years is that it tries to use multiple universes to get around the problem of unlikleyness.

There's really no reason to posit more than one universe in the beginning even if you believe that multiple possibilities create new universes, and the model is actually less likely than a single-universe one because it requires more​ happenstance, not less.

[Kadagar_AV]

I think you misread me somewhat.

My point is, that what is good enough for the best brains we have is good enough for me. I am not educated enough in either theology or abstract physics to have a clue.

My observation is based on the characters supporting the various theories, not on the theories themselves.

I also base my observation on my main choice of study - history. And throughout history, whenever science has come to grips with the church, science has won. History also shows that science does not seek political advantages or have agendas, whereas the same can not be said about the church, That makes me skeptical towards the church.

I hope that cleared up my viewpoint

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think you misread me somewhat.

My point is, that what is good enough for the best brains we have is good enough for me. I am not educated enough in either theology or abstract physics to have a clue.

My observation is based on the characters supporting the various theories, not on the theories themselves.

I also base my observation on my main choice of study - history. And throughout history, whenever science has come to grips with the church, science has won. History also shows that science does not seek political advantages or have agendas, whereas the same can not be said about the church, That makes me skeptical towards the church.

I hope that cleared up my viewpoint

I get it - I picked you to quote because I didn't want to just repeat myself for everyone else.

The difficulty is in knowing who the "best" minds are.

Scientists are no better at theology than theologians are at science (except Newton).

In fact, science is politicised all the time - look at the Big Bang, Fred Hoyle refused to accept it because he was an atheist and the Jesuits loved it because it brought God back into the creation game in a BIG way.

[Papewaio]

Assuming we are unique has a trend if being wrong.

We are not in a system where the sun rotates around the Earth and the stars set on crystal shells around us.

We are not the centre of the universe, Or galaxy, or solar system. Our sun is an ordinary main sequence star.

Everytime we find out that we aren't that unique.

So I would be wary to state we are the only universe as probably will go the same way as heliocentrism.

[Kadagar_AV]

Tellos, Pape, awesome answers, thank you :)

Tellos example is actually kind of spot on.


However, to return to you PVC, do you seriously claim that the people going into theology is as brilliant as those going into science? You are of course correct that we can't apply the razor to the ideas, and what I mean with that is that WE can't, other more suited people probably can.

What we, as somewhat intelligent beings can do, is look at what people are defending what ideas, and then use the razor on that observation.

We had a guy back when I was in school who was sooo brilliant, not just in math, he just... got stuff... I never thought myself stupid, or even on par intelligence, but I can tell you I openly admit his intellect brushed mine away.

Now, the people HE will listen to and learn from, are the people I will sign of under.


Then there was this other quirky guy, you know the type, the one you want to be nice to but just find it so hard - when he continues to shower in his underwear and gets all sweaty during sexual education... Well he went on to be a priest.


Don't get me wrong, I met this absolutely wonderful priest the other week, I know that type also exists. Just... Oh well, I think you get my point already.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Assuming we are unique has a trend if being wrong.

We are not in a system where the sun rotates around the Earth and the stars set on crystal shells around us.

We are not the centre of the universe, Or galaxy, or solar system. Our sun is an ordinary main sequence star.

Everytime we find out that we aren't that unique.

So I would be wary to state we are the only universe as probably will go the same way as heliocentrism.

I did not say that were were the only universe, I said that we have evidence for no others. The addition of multiple universe is used as a "crane" to explain away or own universe.

As a theory that makes it suspect.

[Tellos Athenaios]

There's really no reason to posit more than one universe in the beginning even if you believe that multiple possibilities create new universes, and the model is actually less likely than a single-universe one because it requires more​ happenstance, not less.

To the best of my understanding, you have that rather the wrong way round. What M theory allows for is that there is more than one configuration which leads to a universe (not necessarily the same as ours). In fact, 100s of thousands of possible configurations. Thus the odds of a universe "happening" improve, by many orders of magnitudes.

Which is to say that while our universe may be considered to be the result of pure chance, a lucky draw in M theory, the existence of at least one universe is less so. The key here is that if you believe in one universe then you must assume numerous "constants" in physics to be axioms rather than part of our good fortune (we would not exist if they were not "just so"). With M theory you no longer require such values to be axioms, much like how carbon based lifeforms dependent on liquid water is not a given on every planet but pretty much the defining characteristic of Earth.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To the best of my understanding, you have that rather the wrong way round. What M theory allows for is that there is more than one configuration which leads to a universe (not necessarily the same as ours). In fact, 100s of thousands of possible configurations. Thus the odds of a universe "happening" improve, by many orders of magnitudes.

Which is to say that while our universe may be considered to be the result of pure chance, a lucky draw in M theory, the existence of at least one universe is less so. The key here is that if you believe in one universe then you must assume numerous "constants" in physics to be axioms rather than part of our good fortune (we would not exist if they were not "just so"). With M theory you no longer require such values to be axioms, much like how carbon based lifeforms dependent on liquid water is not a given on every planet but pretty much the defining characteristic of Earth.

Ah, no - I do not have it backwards.

The spontaneous creation of one universe seems unlikely, two is therfore even less likely, and 100 even less likely.

So the idea that our universe is the "lucky" one among an infinite number is actually no more likely than it being the only one. In fact, it is probably less likely because we knowthis universe exists, but we have no evidence for other universes except for a piece of pseudo-science that claims they are necessary for the "anthropomorthic" universe.

Let's look at that concept for a moment - a universe ideally fitted to us? Odd? No, not at all because we were created for and by it.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Ah, no - I do not have it backwards.

The spontaneous creation of one universe seems unlikely, two is therfore even less likely, and 100 even less likely.

No you are looking at a specific number of universes, whereas M theory posits any (unknown) number of universes such that there is at least one.

For example, you falling in love when you look at someone at first sight may not seem terribly likely, right now. However it could happen. But the odds of such a crush happening exactly once in your lifetime are stacked against you even more than the odds of this happening at least once. That is not to say you are more likely to fall in love at first sight 5 times rather than just one, instead you are more likely to do so either one, two, three, four or five times than just the one time.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No you are looking at a specific number of universes, whereas M theory posits any (unknown) number of universes such that there is at least one.

For example, you falling in love when you look at someone at first sight may not seem terribly likely, right now. However it could happen. But the odds of such a crush happening exactly once in your lifetime are stacked against you even more than the odds of this happening at least once. That is not to say you are more likely to fall in love at first sight 5 times rather than just one, instead you are more likely to do so either one, two, three, four or five times than just the one time.

Yes, but it's more likely I will fall in love once than five times - by introducing multiple universes you are asking two questions instead of one and needlessly complicating the issue. More universes are not more liely than fewere - therefore more univeres do not make this one more likely.