Hacker News Reader

Comment by zemaj | Hacker News Reader

All the article says is this; If I went into a casino picked a number on a roulette wheel and won straight away, you would be amazed. If I then did it a second & third time in succession, you would be incredulous. You might wonder if I was cheating the system or had some strange or divine powers.

However, if you then found out I had been going into a different casino only betting 3 times and walking away every hour of my life you would understand that it was just by chance that you happened to be there on the day that I won three times in a row. There is nothing to explain - no divine powers.

This is what Hawkings is arguing for the multiverse. Because there are many possible universes, the fact that ours has all the right qualities to sustain life is an inevitability. It's inevitable that one would be created and because we exist, we must inhabit one.

View on HN

The problem is that one has to be convinced that multiple universes (which by definition can't be observed) exist. Which means rejecting the idea of one (potentially empirically observable) unknown entity [a creator or "god"] only to replace it with the idea of an infinite number of universes which however can never be observed…

So I think that this has nothing to do with empirical science?

My comments above are certainly inductive rather than empirical in nature. I think the potential (or lack of same) for empirical observation is about the same; I can imagine being transported to 'other dimensions' just as I can imagine being with miraculous powers of creation and destruction.

However, I disagree with your implied argument that one is unnecessarily multiplying entities by postulating multiple universes rather than the philosophically more economical single being. When people postulate a God, they usually ascribe infinite power and potential to that being. By contrast, the idea of multiple universes assumes that they are individually finite and have fundamental limitations, which is in line with empirical experience.

Likewise we could postulate a more realistic and limited creator-god, one which might even be empirical observable, either directly or indirect. The point being that we can only know which features a deity actually has after one has been observed in action.

Given available evidence at least some postulated deities have become increasingly unlikely, but this is not the case of all. Some might have merit if only they where actual observed from time to time.

What are "divine powers"?

Imagine someone was able to calculate where the ball will fall with only a glance of the roulette wheel…

Or someone who is able to go from casino to casino every hour of his life? Without requiring a full night of sleep and somehow always have enough cash with him to travel from casino to casino and always play 3 times at roulette?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com