space big so GOD REAL

Fun fact: I sometimes remember arguments that I want to make videos on and completely forget where the argument comes from. Fortunately, I remembered that the stuff about one's existence confirming a multiverse can be found in the linked article. :)

0:00 - Argument from Scale
6:34 - Multiverse???

[evanjobe]

Really interesting argument. Not sure if I am completely convinced yet however. I appreciate that this channel actually seems to produce ideas that I have literally never heard before.
Glory to God in the highest

[irnic]

I think that the scale argument is definitely interesting and deserves a lot of thought and consideration, but I just wanted to point out that the objection to the Fine-tuning argument mentioned in the beginning does not completely destroy the Fine-tuning argument. This is because the Fine-tuning argument claims that life would be plain impossible given most sets of physical constants and initial conditions of the universe, not just improbable. Life simply couldn't exist in universes where particles collide every few trillion years, in universes where atoms fall apart, in universes where chemistry is impossible, or in universes where the big bang rebounds on itself after of a second.

[shdowveil]

Thank you I now have an excellent example to cite whenever I need to show someone what a False Equivalence fallacy looks like.

[cousinbryan]

I see what you did there. This is actually very clever. Well done, Square.

[Finfie]

This argument seems so strange to me. Lets look at the example where i heard the argument (in general) the first time: Its more likely for you to live in a more populous country, than it is to live in country with a small population. It is also more likely for you to live in a city than it is for you to live in a village. Therefore we can conclude that you the reader most likely live in a city of a populous country.

That may as well be, still there are people living in small villages, thus you aren't guaranteed to live in a city. In fact even if everybody but one would live in a city, there is still a chance for you to live in the countryside. This argument does not really tell us anything about the real world. It only tells us, that if everybody that is alive would make the assumption, that they lived in the most populated universe, a plurality would be correct. It could never tell you if you were actually in the plurality.

[daman]

Thanks for the vid! Does this argument require a particular account of personal identity? Are there some accounts that it wouldn't work with?

[casualgamer]

I'm just a layman, but would this be presupposing that a multiverse is possible at all? Couldn't we do something similar in the thought experiments? Wouldn't it be more likely that the murderer is insane and he mistakes 1000 people for 100 million? That would be more people = higher probability. I get the idea of saying something is more likely if you extend it to the max range of people, but how do we know where that ends? I don't see how we could justify assuming infinity for this scenario instead of other scenarios? (Love the video by the way, I lean towards theism. Just trying to correct my potential misunderstandings)

[claytonhiggins]

Great vid! However I can't say I agree with your argument. For the second scenario you mentioned, assume the coin has 50/50 odds. Either way, at least one person will be created, which, by the reasoning you described, will think it's much more likely that the coin landed heads, even though both chances were equal. It's quite similar to the reason why the fine tuning argument doesn't work: we can't say that the earth was made with us in mind because we can only exist if the earth had the right conditions necessary for us to exist.

[edwinagnew]

Interesting argument. Cant put my finger on it but something seems very strange to me about conditioning on the fact that I exist. Musnt this fact be already assumed in order to properly define *subjective* bayesian credences? Feel like there's a difference between conditioning on not being executed and conditioning on existing in the first place...

Feels reminiscent of the issues raised by the sleeping beauty paradox - perhaps the inspiration for this video?

[superduper]

This is a misunderstanding of the argument from scale

1. The argument deals with not only the size of the universe but also the amount of time and the fact it's hostile to life. The idea of aesthetic value being the explanation not only is unsatisfactory to account for scale (is aesthetic value good in itself or is it value when people experience it?), but it doesn't account for the other factors, heck, it actually makes it worst.

2. This principal is, the more X is created, assuming that Y can be X, if follows there is a higher likelyhood Y is created.

However

A)this principle says doesn't say if a situation of there being more X is likely or not.

B) there are billions of humans, and since of origin of life for humans is earth, this principle has little consequence to the likelihood of human life.

Though this does touch on a paradox is science, i think it's called the Fermi Paradox.

It is rather odd that we can't see much life in the universe. However the naturalist can bite the bullet and say "yeah that is werid" or hypothesize some explain like life is a rare thing to spawn naturally.

A Theist on the other hand has no explanation good explanation for why the universe is empty and hostile to life, and every possible explanation you gave only makes theism worse by comparison to naturalism.

[babotond]

if we swap KILL with LET LIVE and kill 1000 people on heads but only kill YOU on tails does that prove that the scenaeio with less people is more likely?
you can say "I'm about to be killed so it's more likely to have been heads than randomly selecting me out of 1000 to be killed."

[protoseargeant]

As a Christian, I have to say I find this argument severely flawed.

A being created from the coinflip only knows that at least one person was created. Both scenarios have an equal amount of “at least one person” being created.

The probability would only be affected by the existence of my point of if one of the results was a chance of at least one person being created, but also a chance of no people being created, in which case that would be the less likely option.

[deliberationunderidealcond]

One technical thing: you say that worlds with more people have higher priors. That's not really the right way to think about it. Their prior is the same, I just update on the fact that I exist to think they're more likely.

[BeachBumZero]

Very nice argument that basically proves God exists.

[bobdinkytown]

If I do not exist (yet), then the chance that I will exist is undefined, because "I" is unintelligible when "I" do not exist.

Why is the chance above undefined? If "I" do not exist, and we make a statement/proposition about "I" when "I" exist before "I" exist, to judge the truth-value or probability of this proposition when "I" do exist requires continuity of identity from when "I" do not exist to when "I" do exist. But there's no continuity of identity from when "I" do not exist to when "I" do exist, because there's no continuity of non-existing things into existence (non-existing things are not things). Then we cannot judge the truth-value or probability of such propositions.

The "Population Principle" relies on such proposition, and therefore on continuity of non-existing things into existence. The "Population Principle" must be rejected.

[CH-ekbm]

Could this reasoning be used with gods too? The more gods that exist, the more likely it is that one of them happens to be any specific god, therefore polytheism is more likely than monotheism?

[mesplin]

"Population principle: the more people that exist in hypothetical scenario, the higher the prior probability of that scenario."

Why? The probability of my existence is 100% (I think, therefore I am).

Suppose I went looking for Waldo, and I knew Waldo was in a specific building. The probability of finding Waldo in a certain room is proportional to the number of people in that room. But your population principle doesn't apply to myself. I already know where I am. I'm looking for Waldo.

[ultrabi]

Great video. However, I do believe the atheist could appeal to ignorance of our understanding of how probabale life is, given we have explored basically nothing of the universe. Perhaps life is more probable than it seems. Perhaps, assuming the predictions of how the universe may carry out its existence, we are among the first few life forms and there may be trillions of other future life in the predicted quadrillions of years of matter staying close enough to be able to perform chemistry and biology. Moreover, life being rare, in my personal opinion, wouldn't be enough to convince an atheist (especially a staunch one). They may argue the universe doesnt see difference between life and non life like we categorise it. It could just be a natural consequence of physical laws. How those laws are the way they are could be due to infinite reptitions of big bangs, uncaused multiverse stuff, or maybe there are uncountable number of combinations of physical laws that all lead to rare events. If life is a rare event and nothing special to the universe, then other combinations of physical laws could also lead to improbable circumstances. If a mind type thing were to exist in one of these (or any observing object which can calculate probability) it could just as easily say this is highly improbable, therefore special. Long response, idk if anyone will even read this, its 1 am and i have college tomorrow. Adios

[Just_an_onion]

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.

[jimneutron-psjl]

Can you post your math so that you can show how you got 99.9%?