Comments on Gracepoint Forum: Fine-Tuning in the Universe

In looking back on this set of comments, I think w...

2011-01-02T21:40:40.944-08:00

In looking back on this set of comments, I think we can see a pretty good example of how someone who is trying to avoid the fine-tuning argument could move toward accepting the multiverse theory. In the beginning, Sierra was not willing to go toward the multiverse (and gave it a good attempt to explain the fine-tuning within our one universe), but you can see how at the end, sierra moved toward the multiverse theory -- not because of the overwhelming evidence for it, but because it's personally easier to swallow than the theistic alternative. This has been often the case.

The fine-tuning argument is extremely difficult to answer if you stay within the one-universe theory.. So people opt for the multiverse. If the theistic hypothesis is ridiculous to a person, then of course it's more plausible to choose the multiverse theory simply to avoid the theistic theory. So I'm not saying that that's necessarily disingenuous. That's a legitimate way of choosing between two theories. However, I think it does demonstrate begging the question in a small way.

It seems like many models of the universe have bee...

2010-04-02T13:59:26.092-07:00

It seems like many models of the universe have been brought up here. For anyone interested here is a relatively concise article by William Lane Craig that addresses many of the models proposed. Note that the focus of the article is the cosmological argument(arguing for necessity of a creator if the universe had an absolute beginning), not fine-tuning, and issues with this argument should be discussed in another thread. However the summary and evaluation of universe models is informative.

Mandelbulb: a 3D fractal

"The analogy fails, because you don't sho...

2010-03-30T13:45:40.066-07:00

"The analogy fails, because you don't show that we have 300 mill universes."

You're right, I don't show that. It's just more plausible than invoking something that works essentially by magic, which doesn't really explain anything.

I also am not able to show that I competed with 300 million other gametes, but that doesn't mean I should conclude that my father must have built me in his image.

There's a lot of interesting mathematical models of the early inflationary universe which predict a lot of other universes and predict a field where the conditions for inflation are common. One theory is Chaotic Inflation which predicts an eternally inflating fractal cosmology on the largest scales -

I am just amazed by that. Imagine our universe, and the omniverse it lives in, on the largest scales has the same kind of pattern that we can see every day in all living things, trees, circulatory systems, coral...it's so elegant. I don't know about you but I find fractals almost hypnotically beautiful.

BTW, I like the video. It's really cool. And y...

2010-03-30T10:09:25.506-07:00

BTW, I like the video. It's really cool. And you can imagine not only 10 dimensions, but infinite # of dimensions..

The video seems to say that we might have infinite number of universes, including infinite number of universes where I am the president, where I have god-like powers, even. That's cool.

I think the overall effect of watching the video is: "woa, the universe is so much more complex than we can ever hope to understand with our puny 3-dimensional mind."

I think that's one point that we can agree on wholeheartedly...

Okay, I guess we're talking on different wavel...

2010-03-30T10:09:19.294-07:00

Okay, I guess we're talking on different wavelengths here, and we need to agree to disagree. But maybe we actually DO agree completely, it's just that we don't seem to agree because of relativity of simultaneity of reason! :)

Anyway, for the 6th time now.. How does this address the fine-tuning of the constants again? Your example of 300 mill sperms is a classic example of selection bias, which I already covered. The analogy fails, because you don't show that we have 300 mill universes. It seems like you're entertaining that idea, though.. And I admit, if we have infinite universes, you have solved the fine-tuning mystery... it should not be eerie at all, since one of them had to be fine-tuned for life like our universe.

"There are infinite number of universes (and ...

2010-03-29T17:05:40.284-07:00

"There are infinite number of universes (and thus infinite sets of different constants) in the unobservable parts of the universe."

I'm not arguing that other universes with different constants would exist in the unobservable part of this universe.

I'll define "this universe" broadly as the region of spacetime that exists post-symmetry breaking the way it did for us. So observable + unobservable.

You have to go up a level to talk about an infinite number of universes starting with the same initial conditions, which would let you be president.

Then it's another level to talk about multiverses forming with different constants. I don't think the former is a requirement for the latter, or vice versa. A good visual representation of this is the video imagining the tenth dimension

I also am just not convinced that it's at all eerie - at least not anymore eerie than knowing that out of 300 million sperm I was the one that made it, or that even though most of this planet is completely inhospitable to my life, I somehow ended up in a part that's quite comfortable. My existence is my cheat sheet - I know I must be possible. The question is how.

1&2. No I'm not advocating the perfect cos...

2010-03-29T16:40:33.684-07:00

1&2. No I'm not advocating the perfect cosmological principle or steady state theory for the observable universe, which as you cited was disproved by the discovery of the CMB.

It's only in our reference frame, matter was created a long time ago/far away from us. But our reference frame is not the one true reference frame. Simultaneity is relative. We happen to be in a part of spacetime where inflation already happened, galaxies already formed and spring break is over. But to someone 45 billion light years away, we're still in the inflationary epoch.

Re: infinite universe. It's spatially infinite - no matter which way you go, there will always be more of it and it will never repeat.

""I can explain phenomena X away because there might be objects Y out there in the unobservable universe" -- "

What phenomenon am I explaining away?

"The argument refers to theoretical planets beyond the event horizon, traveling away faster than the speed of light, so they can never be verified or falsified."

That's not true, actually. The curvature of the universe can be falsified.

Do you believe we are at the exact center of the universe? You kind of have to if you reject the idea of a universe beyond the observable universe. That's anti-copernican, and doesn't explain why the local geometry is flat.

Then there's the existence of Dark Flow which is direct physical evidence of matter outside the observable universe.

"Because if you are allowed to invoke unobservable infinite number of planets, by the same token I can invoke unobservable infinite number of planet Earths where I'm the president of the U.s."

Not necessarily. But let's grant it anyway. Ok, in another universe, a body shaped like yours became president. What's your argument? It's incredible so it can't be true?

Speaking of pseudoscience, isn't it pseudoscientific to posit a agentic fine-tuner who by unknown mechanisms and for unknown reasons created only the observable universe?

Apart from all that, though... and this is importa...

2010-03-27T12:18:57.478-07:00

Apart from all that, though... and this is important.. I just wanted to point out something: Why are we still talking about the rarity of the Planet Earth? Because I've mentioned several times how this is a separate issue from the fine-tuning of the universe. The fine-tuning of the universe is talking about the setup of the universal constants that come way before Earth ever enters the discussion. I just wanted to make sure we are on the same page about that, because I find myself repeating that same point for the 5th time now (counting the 2 times I said it during the talk :)). I'm just worried that I am not making myself clear, because you still seem to be talking as though if you could show that there might be other life-sustaining planets out there, you have solved the fine-tuning problem. Discovering the possibility of another Earth-like planet is not the same thing as discovering how the universe seems to be set up to create planets in the first place. When Hitchens brings up this issue about the rarity of the Earth, Richard Dawkins astutely catches this mistake, and says that "that's a separate question." Yes, it's a separate question.

Sorry for the bluntness of this comment, I just felt that this thread could go on and on talking about infinite and isotropic universe.. But all that talk can only get us, at best, to a conjecture (based on an old Newtonian idea at that) which shows the possibility of other Earth-like planets out there. However, even if we entertain that conjecture, that does not get at the fine-tuning in the constants that govern the universe, which was the main point. The only way you can hope to begin to solve the mystery of the fine-tuning of the constants is if you say, "There are infinite number of universes (and thus infinite sets of different constants) in the unobservable parts of the universe." But if you say that, you would then be going over to the ultimate dark side of pseudo-science -- the infinite multiverse.. which I am guessing you are unwilling to do..

Again, sorry for the barrage, and I hope that you keep an open mind that won't adopt a ridiculous theory (like the multiverse) simply to avoid the eerie implications of what we've been finding. I know you haven't done that, but unfortunately, many people do exactly that. I know this back-and-forth medium is frustrating, so if you would like to have a more face-to-face discussion about this, you can sign up for office hours and we can continue to chat. My wife and I are there at the Y on Thursday afternoons for office hours. (sign up at: www.acts2fellowship.org)

For the sake of not going deeper down this really ...

2010-03-27T12:11:58.590-07:00

For the sake of not going deeper down this really confusing rabbit hole that others might find boring, I want to sort of cut to the chase here. I do enjoy this discussion, and I personally like going back and forth for a long time to fully flesh out all the ramifications of ideas, but l am running into the reality of constrained time on my part, so let me just lay out all my cards here.. I would like to apologize ahead of time for being a bit forward and undiplomatic in this reply..

I would like to just summarize the main contentious points. (btw, I'm assuming that you don't subscribe to the multiverse theory... since it's pseudo-science.. and I'm hoping sincerely that this discussion won't push you in that direction as a "way out".. that would be sad)

Okay, so here goes:

1) You say that: Space is infinite, homogenous and isotropic. This is called Perfect Cosmological Principle. This principle accurately describes what you've been saying.

2) You say that: Matter is distributed homogenously throughout space, and therefore matter is being created continuously as the universe expands into infinity. This model of the universe, which is consistent with your premise of Perfect Cosmological Principle, is called Steady State Theory of the universe. Appropriately, this theory is also called "Infinite Universe Theory", which is exactly what you have been proposing all this time.

My point, put bluntly, is this: The Big Bang theory has disproved the Infinite Universe Theory / Steady State Theory. Check out the wikipedia article or this PBS article on the Steady State Theory. Stephen Hawking himself has said that the discovery of the CMB radiation was the "final nail in the coffin of the steady state theory." In other words, Big Bang theory has disproven this notion of an infinite universe with infinite matter being created. For reason why this would be the case, a simple logical explanation was given in the March 14 comment above, but there are a lot of other scientific evidence that I did not mention which you could read up on. I'm not the one who's saying this. The scientific community at large is saying this. So your argument is against them, not me. I am not saying that therefore you're wrong -- simply that the current evidence seems to disprove the infinite universe model. I have a feeling you might have heard different parts of Steady State theory and Big Bang Theory -- and sort of integrated the two in your mind, but that can't be done, because the those two models are incompatible alternatives to each other.

On a related note, though, don't you think the arguments such as -- "I can explain phenomena X away because there might be objects Y out there in the unobservable universe" -- are, by definition, pseudo-scientific? The argument refers to theoretical planets beyond the event horizon, traveling away faster than the speed of light, so they can never be verified or falsified. So why base our discussions on them? Because if you are allowed to invoke unobservable infinite number of planets, by the same token I can invoke unobservable infinite number of planet Earths where I'm the president of the U.s. And you wouldn't want that ridiculous situation, I know. :)

"So are you saying that new planets are being...

2010-03-22T18:07:32.856-07:00

"So are you saying that new planets are being created at an infinite # at a time?"

To expand on this, you can't talk about how many planets are being created at a specific time because of the relativity of simultaneity. The universe relative to us will always appear spherical - and thus the universe that we can see will always have a finite volume and a correspondingly finite number of stars. But the observable universe is not the actual universe, which has infinite volume and a correspondingly infinite amount of matter.

If I tell you I have five fish per bowl, and an infinite number of bowls, how many fish do I have?

If there are 10^22 stars per 3×10^80 cubic meters of space, and I have an infinite amount of space, how many stars are there?

Do you believe that big bang means expansion outwa...

2010-03-22T15:57:14.942-07:00

Do you believe that big bang means expansion outwards from a central point?

"So are you saying that new planets are being created at an infinite # at a time?"

I'm saying that the amount of matter is proportional to the amount of space. If an infinite amount of space is expanding at a constant rate, then an infinite amount of matter must exist distributed homogenously throughout that infinite space. In any event, the numbers we're talking about are much greater than the one you cited, 10^22.

"Also, do you believe that the universe existed infinitely (and infinite amount of matter existed eternally) before the Big Bang?"

The evidence suggests the universe began to inflate ~13 billion years ago. In that dimension no the universe is not infinite. I can't comment on the amount of matter existing eternally, because who knows what it means to have existed "before" the big bang, the beginning of time as we know it.

"Or maybe you believe that NEW matter is being created continuously at an infinite rate?"

New matter is also being created everywhere always. They're called quantum fluctuations and they generally de-create very quickly!

What do I care what Hitchens has to say? Just because he's atheist, we're supposed to agree??

I can see the point he's making: if a god went out of his way to make this universe capable of life, and then it turned out Earth was the only planet in the whole universe that could support life then that seems very well inefficient. You have an easier time saying the universe was fine-tuned for stars and not for life.

The argument I'm making is that Earth-like planets are not as uncommon as you stated, because the universe is not as small as the observable universe. There's also the problem that the farther away we look the farther back in time we look, so we can't *see* how common Earthlike planets are even in the observable universe past a certain horizon.

Whether any of this suggests "fine tuning" depends on knowledge we don't have, namely whether other universes are possible (which you argue against). So maybe this is the only kind of universe that can exist for reasons physics hasn't uncovered yet.

We know life-supporting planets exist in this universe, so therefore they are possible. Since the universe is homogeneous everywhere, life-supporting planets are possible elsewhere.

>> I don't agree that you'd have to ...

2010-03-20T14:38:57.471-07:00

>> I don't agree that you'd have to count to infinity to reach an infinite number of planets - it's not as if they're being dropped into the universe box one at a time. They're forming everywhere in the universe by the same process.

No, I am not saying they are being dropped into the universe one at a time.. just discrete numbers.

Let me ask you some questions, so that I can get a better grasp on your understanding..

So are you saying that new planets are being created at an infinite # at a time? That would mean that the universe has infinite energy, and that it's constantly creating new matter at an infinite rate? Is that your understanding?

Also, do you believe that the universe existed infinitely (and infinite amount of matter existed eternally) before the Big Bang?

Or maybe you believe that NEW matter is being created continuously at an infinite rate? Maybe that's what you believe (btw, that's called steady state theory), and in that case, all that you said would make sense.

Anyway, even granted that there might be more life-sustaining planets in the universe, like I said, the fine-tuning argument of the universe still stands. In fact, Hitchens (the guy sitting on the left in the video) seems to think that the rarity of Earth-like planets is a point AGAINST the fine-tuning argument! (quite an opposite point that you are making). He's saying that if the universe is so well fine-tuned for life, then we ought to find more life-sustaining planets. So I guess all that is to say that the rarity of Earth is a separate issue from the fine-tuning argument, since the rarity of life-sustaining planets might just be a numbers game that is dependent on how many planets this universe might have. But I believe we only got one universe, and pretty much one Big Bang. So the apparent fine-tuning of the universe stands on a different order of magnitude than the rarity of life-sustaining planets.

Why would it be disproven by the big bang? &quo...

2010-03-20T10:45:37.974-07:00

Why would it be disproven by the big bang?

"(sort of like how you would feel if you were travelling along a sphere)."

But it's the opposite of a sphere, so the intuitions about walking along a sphere don't apply. If it was like a sphere then yes it would be finite, just like there are only some many continents that fit on the Earth.

"2) Between the time of the Big Bang and now, the number of planets in the whole universe went up in discrete numbers."

I don't agree that you'd have to count to infinity to reach an infinite number of planets - it's not as if they're being dropped into the universe box one at a time. They're forming everywhere in the universe by the same process.

Space is infinite. The distribution of matter is homogenous within that infinity. It doesn't follow then that matter is infinite?

http://blog.drwile.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/univ_map.jpg

If
A) everywhere is infinite and B)everything is an inextricable part of everywhere,

how could everything be a finite, countable number?

Even if we grant that it's a finite number, it's still a much bigger number than 10^22. The odds that we'd have this specific earth-like planet in this specific location may be incredibly small, but the odds that we'd have some earthlike planet somewhere in the universe (and that we'd then be on it) is pretty good.

Hi, During the talk, I actually made it a point t...

2010-03-14T23:07:06.793-07:00

Hi,

During the talk, I actually made it a point to say that now that we're talking about Planet Earth, we are no longer talking about the universal constants and the fine-tuning in the universe. Rather, I said we're just talking about chance occurrences, depending on how many planets we have in this universe. (there was a slide dedicated to make this distinction clear.. and I said it twice, because I have had people get confused about the two.)

Sorry if that was not clear. For the next time I give this talk, I will try to reiterate this point more.

"Even if you grant that the universe was somehow set up to produce life, it's a huge jump to say that it's set up to produce human life."

I agree. I never made the claim that the universe is set up to produce HUMAN life. I believe I've always said "complex life" or "carbon-based complex life" during the lecture. Wow, I wish I could go all the way to show the universe was made for human life! That would be astonishing Seems like you were giving me more credit than I deserved. :)

Well, now that's cleared up, let's go back to the interesting part of the discussion.

"The number of planets in the observable universe is finite and unknown. The number of planets in the whole universe is infinite because the universe itself is unbounded and isotropic."

Okay, so I think I understand what you are saying. You are saying that in the whole universe (including the universe beyond the event horizon of the observable universe), we have an actual infinite number of planets. Wow, I've personally never heard that before. I thought that was disproved by the Big Bang..

From my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong), the universe might be "infinite" in the sense that no matter how far you go, you will never reach the end (sort of like how you would feel if you were travelling along a sphere). But that does not mean that therefore the whole universe has infinite planets.

To me, the conjecture that the whole universe has infinite number of planets seems logically impossible on the following grounds:

1) At the moment of the Big Bang, which happened a finite time ago, there were no planets in the whole universe.
2) Between the time of the Big Bang and now, the number of planets in the whole universe went up in discrete numbers.
3) Now, we have an actual infinite number of planets in the whole universe

In order for statement #3 to be even possibly true, you must be able to count from 0 to infinity and actually reach it in a finite time, during step #2. And we know that's impossible, therefore given #1 and #2, we cannot have #3.

The only way to escape this conclusion is if you deny #1 or #2.. Is there something wrong with my logic?

I do understand, by the way, the confusion that could come from hearing that the whole universe is isotropic and infinite. But when astronomers say that, they are saying that we might not be able to reach the "edge" of the universe, because space might be bent in around itself. They are not actually saying that the universe has infinite matter and infinite planets. Yeah, it's confusing when these nerdy astronomers speak about infinity. :)

The number of planets in the observable universe i...

2010-03-14T12:37:44.989-07:00

The number of planets in the observable universe is finite and unknown. The number of planets in the whole universe is infinite because the universe itself is unbounded and isotropic.

"So the presence of other Earth-like planets (even if there are millions) does not threaten the premise that the universe seems to be configured to produce life-sustaining planets."

But part of your lecture was on how excrutiatingly rare a planet like Earth is. Now you are saying this whole universe was set up to produce Earth-like planets?

It's more plausible and parsimonious that we're a completely unintended side effect of the existence of chemistry. Even if you grant that the universe was somehow set up to produce life, it's a huge jump to say that it's set up to produce human life.

By the way, fine-tuning of the universe is PRIOR t...

2010-03-13T23:02:41.721-08:00

By the way, fine-tuning of the universe is PRIOR to the development of Earth-like planets. (explained above in the comment made on Aug 3, 2009). So the presence of other Earth-like planets (even if there are millions) does not threaten the premise that the universe seems to be configured to produce life-sustaining planets.

Okay, fair enough. So when you say that there are...

2010-03-13T22:57:40.642-08:00

Okay, fair enough.

So when you say that there are "infinite" number of planets in our universe, do you mean actual infinity? Or do you mean a very large (but finite) number that is approaching infinity?

"I'm just showing you that if you actuall...

2010-03-13T20:59:02.703-08:00

"I'm just showing you that if you actually have infinite attempts, no matter how impossibly unlikely something might be, you can get it to happen. Do you grant that?"

Yes, which is why it doesn't surprise me that in all the universe, somewhere, there'd be at least one planet where life would develop. It's just an odds game and we lucked out. No fine tuning required.

"No I don't think so. There are different...

2010-03-13T20:30:31.201-08:00

"No I don't think so. There are different kinds of infinity. The infinite set of all whole numbers is twice as big as the infinite set of all even whole numbers. The set of all possible universes is larger than the set of all extant universes, even if the total number of extant universes is infinite."

That's true. The infinite set of all whole numbers is twice as big as the infinite set of all even whole numbers. However, I have not made a statement about what is more probable or less probable.

I'm just showing you that if you actually have infinite attempts, no matter how impossibly unlikely something might be, you can get it to happen. Do you grant that?

Again, I think the confusion arises because of the misunderstanding of actual vs. potential infinity (explained in my previous comment).

Thanks for keeping the discussion going.

"How about if we multiply the non-zero possib...

2010-03-13T19:26:29.522-08:00

"How about if we multiply the non-zero possibility with actual infinity? Then you get infinity. Does that make sense?"

No I don't think so. There are different kinds of infinity. The infinite set of all whole numbers is twice as big as the infinite set of all even whole numbers. The set of all possible universes is larger than the set of all extant universes, even if the total number of extant universes is infinite.

"Well, I'm assuming that the scientific evidence we have is what we should go with"

I'm not going against the scientific evidence. But at the moment we can only see as far as the surface of last scattering. Unless we're actually located at the exact center of the universe, there is a whole lot of universe beyond the horizon of the observable universe.

(Big Bang theory assumes a finite universe, by the way.. If the universe started a finite time ago, and it's expanding at a certain rate, then that means it can't be infinite.)

There's two different senses of the word finite being used here. The universe is spatially infinite in that any two beams of light will eventually diverge. It has not existed infinitely far back in time.

"Also, there are some major logical problems with saying that there are actually infinite number of suns and planets, but I don't think we should get into that.. (unless you want to?)"

My point was more that the universe is much bigger than we can see. 10^22 is the number just in the observable universe.

BTW, I think a lot of the confusion arises from th...

2010-03-13T18:44:28.602-08:00

BTW, I think a lot of the confusion arises from the difference between actual infinity vs. a large number that's approaching infinity. There's a difference. If I may be so bold as to guess at what your conception of "infinity" is, I think you are thinking of a very very large number that is constantly approaching infinity, but never gets there. That's why you think that the universes (if multiverse is true) can still diverge to a point where there won't be any overlap. Does that make sense? Please let me know which conception of "infinity" you have, because that's where we're sort of missing each other.

Good points brought out. "Suffering isn'...

2010-03-13T18:44:23.137-08:00

Good points brought out.

"Suffering isn't the same as the problem of evil. It's not a result of evil to get sick or to have a disability. If the malleability of carbon is evidence of god's intervention/design, its downsides have to be included in that."

Actually, as mentioned above, the fine-tuning argument is on a different category.. it's because fine-tuning argument only gets us to a possibility of a deistic intelligence. It has nothing to say about the goodness/evilness of that deity.. Nor does it say anything about how proficient that design is. For all we know, the deistic being that did the fine-tuning could be some alien outside of our universe or an evil god who wanted to do an experiment. So that's why I didn't want to mix the two topics. Hope that's more clear now.

"I don't think that's necessary, but even if it's true, what I said still applies. Those universes would not be carbon copies of this universe. Chaotic systems evolve in unpredictable ways"

Actually, if you have an actual infinite number of tries, then you do get infinite number of copies. Let's think about this. If we have one other universe besides ours, what are the chances that every single event of that universe (which is a finite number, by the way, since universes had a beginning) is exactly the same as ours? Very very slim, nearly 0... But if you have 2 other universes, that infinitesimal, non-zero chance is doubled, but still so small that it should be considered impossible. But what if you have 4? Well, that chance would quadruple. 10? Billions? How about if we multiply the non-zero possibility with actual infinity? Then you get infinity. Does that make sense?

So when you say, "Sets can be both infinite and limited. For instance the set of whole numbers is infinite, but none of them are -5 and only one of them has the value "2." -- I see what you're getting at.. that might be true in terms of specific numbers, but when we are talking about probability/statisitcs, we are talking about something different. Whatever the chances are, as long as it's greater than 0, if we have to multiply by infinity, you get infinity.

"You're ascribing agency to something that is not agentic. This is the same problem I have with the term "fine-tuned."

Sorry, I didn't mean to ascribe agency to this principle by using the word "create". Maybe I should have used the word "cause". So rephrasing it: "This principle must have been causing Big Bangs throughout all eternity". The point still stands, I think... that this principle, if it's not a free agent, would have been causing Big Bangs throughout all eternity -- therefore, we have an infinite number of universes. (Remember, this principle must be outside of the universe and timeless and eternal.)

"That we can see. The unobservable rest of the universe is another story."
Well, I'm assuming that the scientific evidence we have is what we should go with (Big Bang theory assumes a finite universe, by the way.. If the universe started a finite time ago, and it's expanding at a certain rate, then that means it can't be infinite.) Also, there are some major logical problems with saying that there are actually infinite number of suns and planets, but I don't think we should get into that.. (unless you want to?)

Good discussion.

Suffering isn't the same as the problem of evi...

2010-03-13T17:08:27.643-08:00

Suffering isn't the same as the problem of evil. It's not a result of evil to get sick or to have a disability. If the malleability of carbon is evidence of god's intervention/design, its downsides have to be included in that.

"Well, the thing about multiverse theory, though, is that you must conclude that the universe-producing machine must still be creating universes constantly to this day and infinitely beyond.

I don't think that's necessary, but even if it's true, what I said still applies. Those universes would not be carbon copies of this universe. Chaotic systems evolve in unpredictable ways.

"And therefore this "principle" must have been creating universes throughout all eternity.. "

You're ascribing agency to something that is not agentic. This is the same problem I have with the term "fine-tuned."

"Given that there are literally infinite number of universes, we must conclude that there are an infinite number of universes exactly like ours,"

Sets can be both infinite and limited. For instance the set of whole numbers is infinite, but none of them are -5 and only one of them has the value "2."

"And we don't have infinite number of planets. We have about 10^22 stars, and far fewer planets. "

That we can see. The unobservable rest of the universe is another story.

"If there is actual infinity (meaning that it's not merely a very very large number), then anything is possible, as long as it's logically possible."

Yes, anything is possible, but you're arguing that therefore everything logically possible exists. That doesn't follow.

Hope what I said made some sense. You are of cours...

2010-03-13T15:34:56.797-08:00

Hope what I said made some sense. You are of course welcome to ask more questions and provide further comments. And if I misunderstood anything that you've said, please correct me.

BTW, just in case it wasn't clear to other readers of this post, I personally believe that there is just one universe. :) I was just going along with the multiverse theory to show its strange conclusions.