The Multiverse Theory Supports Creationism's Young Age Hypothesis

ResolutionThe Multiverse Theory Supports Creationism's Young Age Hypothesis Key Premises If our universe is but a small fleck in a world ensemble, then it's overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a tinier region of thermodynamic disequilibrium than we do. MWH lends itself to the same type of bizarre illusionism YEC does; our biological, astronomical, geological age estimates would be wrong, giving the appearance of an old earth, while having a young age. I've attempted to link MWH to YEC only in the sense that it's age estimate would contradict what we currently observe, thus coherence between the two theories is found. Argument I apologize if Con feels if I was being condescending, I wasn't intending so. It seemed to me my argument wasn't understood in the previous rebuttal, however. (Which is an honest mistake) Now I could be wrong so that's why I gave Con a decent opportunity to clarify his position before I take his last rebuttal seriously. Con gives my argument in a helpful syllogism, 1) If MWH is true, the estimates for our age of the universe are almost certainly over-estimates. 2) If YEC is true, the estimates for our age of the universe are almost certainly over-estimates. 3) Therefore, if MWH is true, then YEC is more likely to be true. Let's reformulate my argument more accurately, 1) Entropically, if MWH is true, then the local age estimates have a high probability of over-estimation. 2) Entropically, if YEC is true, then the local age estimates also have a high probability of over-estimation. 3) Therefore, the Multiverse Theory Supports (or coheres with) Creationism's Young Age Hypothesis (Some may observe the reformulated conclusion is the basically the resolution... which is a more modest and specific claim: unlike "if MWH is true, then YEC is more likely to be true.") Of course Con thinks my argument is a non-sequitar; he thinks I'm arguing for the entire Young Earth Creationist account! Possibly including the flood narrative, two people (or early hominids) named Adam and Eve, a creepy snake that talks, etc. But such a mis-characterization of my argument couldn't be farther from my modest claim that, paradoxically, MWH supports YEC's claim to a young universe. That's it! All Con says is, "To support YEC, this [universe] would have to be whatever size is necessary to be consistent with YEC age estimates. The problem is ... it is ... more probable for the size to be smaller than even this, thus contradicting YEC" ^Con thinks it's relevant the size of the universe. But that's irrelevant! Since both MWH and YEC are resultant in illusionism by virtue of comparison to our current observations! Furthermore, I'm arguing for entropically-derived age. Thus Con has set up a squirrelly little red-herring for us. (It seems to me a sea fish can indeed have mammalian character traits, especially when nuts are involved). Con goes on, "YEC makes no claims to any illusion." First, that's irrelevant too, since YEC needn't make an illusion claim. But we may surely see YEC's claim to a young universe as also claiming our age estimates as an illusion once we actually observe the age estimates we actually have (old age). So YEC doesn't have to claim anything about illusion, we just see an old age, but YEC claims a young one... some one is left saying: "This here's an illusion!" Second, Con continues, "YEC doesn't say that the Earth is young but appears old. YEC says the Earth is young and appears to be young." Yes exactly, thus YEC has the Bible, some other (very minute) evidence of a young earth, and (oh!) coherence with other theories, namely the multi-verse! (All hail the resolution.) Contention 1I think we're beginning to see Con squirm his case here when he makes these demands, "My opponent needs to demonstrate that MWH shows that the age estimates are more likely to be those required [by] YEC, while recognizing that YEC has lower limits. Limits for YEC range from 6 thousand to 10 thousand years. Is this range special to MWH? Would MWH not be more support for Last Thursdayism than for YEC?" However, it seems to me that I don't at all need to show such specificity given the theory of a huge global multiverse that fluctuates and gives rise to universes that have, on average, a higher probability of forming a habitable universe yet with a very young age. Such a scale of age doesn't need to be known if we know generally young universes are favored over old ones... this is all that's needed to support YEC's claim to a young cosmos. Contention 2This contention is just so incoherent I don't even know why I'm touching on it. Even if this contention goes through, it doesn't follow that MWH doesn't support YEC with regard to wrong age estimates. Further, and even more alarming, is that Con feels as if it's debatable that falsifiability doesn't permeate all of science. I directly challenge him to debate this within the contention! But I encourage him to tread softly and research "the demarcation problem of science" before finalizing his debate concerning Popper's science. Con hasn't grasped the scope of the [MWH / YEC / Actual Age-Estimate] paradox yet. For he's arguing under contention two that the age's could be wrong given the current falsifiability of our age estimates. That's right, but how does this show MWH doesn't support YEC? He says, "MWH is not unique or special in suggesting that they could be wrong in someway, just in what manner they could be wrong" I'm sorry but this is just such a weak and scratching argument that to call it unintelligible would be an understatement. Even Con admits this is "outside the scope of debate." The fact is, MWH supports YEC's claim to a young universe. The two theories cohere when it comes to a relatively young age. It doesn't matter if our current ~13.7Ga age estimate could be a few 'Ma' off. The point is, MWH would yield a very young universe by comparison. And so supports YEC's claim to a very young universe. Contention 3I must say, even now Con has refused to understand MWH. Please realize objects themselves don't fluctuate into existence on the MWH. Rather it's a whole closed-system universe which fluctuates into existence from the global equilibrium. Con is completely missing the point when he contends, " the Bible, arising out of a random fluctuation, is also an illusion" ^Don't you think physicists would promote a theory which at least doesn't have stuff like this apparent in their hypothesis? It's just the universe that fluctuates into existence, not any and every random object. So contention 3 is just worthless, I literally can't respond to it other than to correct Con's misinterpretation. (Read the literature, I linked it so one can debate intellectually).