I have an argument, that I’m thinking about for quite a while in my mind. And I haven’t seen anyone talking about it somewhere else, yet. So right now, I’m putting it out there to refine and test it and to hear objections.
So the core idea is that, if you use a multiverse hypothesis as an alternative explanation to design to explain any kind of fine-tuning, you are doing it by inflating the number of existent universes to a degree, that a universe that allows acting agents could “randomly” exist. That is the core idea of using a multiverse hypothesis against a Teleological argument.
I see a big problem with this strategy that I call “illusory order”. By inflating the amount of universes you make it also more likely that universes exist, that are completely chaotic, but are expierenced as orderly. If I can show then, that the number of possible universes with “illusory order” is greater than the amount of possible universes with “actual order”, this would destroy any rationality and the basis for science.
This is because it would always be more likely that things won’t happen as science or reason would predict, than the other way around. So holding onto reason and science and an undesigned multiverse would be inconsistent. You should give up either science and reason or the undesigned multiverse.
This was just an overview of the argument. My actual argument goes like this:
First some definitions:
Order = “state of affairs that make acting possible”
Act = “conscious, willful behavior”
Chaos = “state of affairs that makes acting impossible”
illusory order = “state of affairs that allows a ‘pseudo consciousness’ to expierience an illusion of order”
P1: There is a multiverse
P2: The multiverse can be undesinged
P3: If something is undesigned, it is ultimately arbitrary
C1 From P2+P3: The multiverse is ultimately arbitrary
P4: A universe can only be chaotic or orderly
P5: A chaotic universe can have illusory order.
P6: There are infinitely more universes possible, that have illusory order, than universes that are possible and actually orderly.
P7: We live in a universe of the multiverse.
C2 From P3+P6+P7: If the multiverse is undesigned, chances we live in orderly universe go against zero
C3 From C2+P3: If one thinks in an universe of an undesigned multiuniverse, that science and reason does work, he is most likely mistaken.
P9: If Science and rationality does work, it is highly unlikely that we live in an undesigned multiverse
P10: Science and rationality does work.
P11: The multiverse is almost certainly designed.
That was just the syllogism (which might not be perfectly fleshed out, yet. Feedback is welcome). But I still have to elaborate what I mean with all these terms and premesis.
Now let me give a further clarification what I mean by order. As I defined above it is a state of affairs, that allows acting. Acting requires predictability. An act always tries to achieve a goal and for that to be possible, the states of affairs needs to be predictable to some degree and the world needs to be understandable to some degree.
I give to main examples to explain what illusory order is, why it is infitly more likely than actual order in an undesigned multiverse.
The Laws of Nature.
Think of any state of affairs the universe could have right now. And then think of all states of affairs the universe could have in the future in oder to be just somewhat predictable. These possible states of affairs are infinitely small compared to all other possible states of affairs.
Think of your memories of the past and how the past actually could have been. The amount of possible pasts that were so contradictory to your memory, that you could not know oder understand anything of the world at all, is infinitely larger than the narrow amount of pasts that at are at least somewhat comparable with your memories.
These two example show that illusory order is from the aspect of possible universes infinitley more likely than actual order.