What is the fourth dimension supposed to be? — Terrapin Station

I was imagining a possible model where some form of 4D space preexists time. And then 4D spacetime is made out of 4D space.

I just did give it a definition as a 4D object in space rather spacetime. So it has no time component or time coordinate.

If you think about 4d spacetime it is called eternalism because everything has eternal existence - past/present/future all real and permanent. So in a sense time exists permanently if you buy eternalism (but it is however not possible to exist permanently within time).

So maybe imagine the universe in 4D spacetime as an object like a brick. And then off to the side and outside of time you could imagine a 4D object in 4D space - permanent and outside of time.

Not quite sure what you mean.

In terms of causation, the first cause has to be self driven, so that leads to 1 or 2. In terms of equilibrium, the arguments leads to 1 or 2.

I'm not sure separating 1 and 2 is that easy. If matter can be created in exchange for negative gravitational energy, we'd not be able to tell if that took place in the Big Bang as opposed to it being from pre-existing matter. We don't know what happened in the singularity.

Then there is the idea of pantheism. God does not appear omnipresent so maybe not too likely.

So what would you say that "permanent" refers to in general? — Terrapin Station

I'm not sure. In the beginning, one of the following must have existed:

1. God
2. God and some stuff
3. Some stuff

My feeling is 3 leads to equilibrium rather than the start of time / Big Bang. 2 seems mostly likely. 1 requires God to do some sort of conjuring trick (something from nothing - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe maybe).

Doesn't "permanent" only make sense in relation to time? Permanent refers to something lasting for all time (at least of a particular range), no? What would it refer to outside of that? — Terrapin Station

Permanent can't apply to something inside of time - that would mean 'always' in time and always has no start/coming to being. So the requirement that something exist permanently has to be satisfied by something outside of time.

Why can anything exist permanently? — Terrapin Station

There is a start of time, there must be something permanent causally before that to create time.

I personally think can't get something from nothing holds so all matter/energy must have existed permanently. This is in line with the conservation of energy and everyday experience. We should be able to trace everything back to a timeless state of existence.

IMO, Time isn't a thing — Relativist

I think spacetime could be 'real':

- Things that are real in some sense always have starts, things that are imaginary do not
- There was a reality before time where it did not exist. Going from not existing to existing means reality changed somehow. It was augmented by the addition of time.
- Spacetime appears to have vacuum energy / dark energy, it maybe 'real'

n my opinion, the A-theory of time is correct: only the present has actual existence, and the present has been reached in a sequential series of past moments — Relativist

The A theory of time is impossible with a start of time: if only now exists and that is taken away, then there is nothing left at all to create time. A start of time requires the B theory: something must timelessly preexist time to create it.

Every present moment causes the next, so it's reasonable to expect the initial moment would cause the next. — Relativist

What causes the initial moment? It has to be the start of time. It has to be something in the world causing something else in the real world, so time seems real.

Why can anything start on its own (as in whatever you figure started time)? — Terrapin Station

There is a timeless first cause that has existed permanently that starts everything else. That is the start of time and causality. I don't see how anything can possibly exist without this.

So I'll reiterate: It's impossible to exist "before" time: "before" is a temporal relation. — Relativist

Time can't just start on its own. It can't emerge from anything unless there is something pre-existing it causally. Time cannot start without something causally before it.

To be clear: if time is past finite (as we both assume), something "always exists" if there is never a time when it did NOT exist. (I agree that something cannot come from "nothing." Nothing is not a state of existence; it cannot have been a prior state, because it doesn't even constitute a state). — Relativist

It is really not possible to always exist in time - that would require an infinite regress of some form which is impossible. To illustrate this with an example, imagine a pool table:

The cue hits the white ball. The white ball hits the black ball. The black goes in the pocket. Would the black ball go in if the cue did not hit the white? No - we remove the first element in a time ordered regress and find that the rest of the regress disappears. So the first element (in time order) is key - it defines the whole of the rest of a regress. If it is absent, as in the case of an infinite regress, then the regress does not exist - temporal/causal infinite regresses are impossible.

So something must have permanent existence outside of time.

If God caused anything, he has to be in frame 1 (or at least extend into frame 1); if there were a prior frame, THAT would be frame 1. — Relativist

To follow on your analogy, someone has to set the film going. Time does not start by itself.

You're missing the point: you have pointed to gaps in scientific knowledge as reason to assume it's due to something unnatural. You have the same burden as a naturalist at explaining exactly where nature leaves off and the unnatural (e.g. God) begins. That was why I asked you to identify specifically where his fingerprint is. I realize that as a theist, you believe God is behind it all, and I don't have a problem with claiming this theistic view is consistent with reality. I just have a problem with an assertion that God's existence is entailed by what we know. — Relativist

The Big Bang is completely unnatural. The fine tuning of the universe is completely unnatural. The fact we are not in equilibrium is completely unnatural

I agree that the Big Bang is suggestive of something prior, and a lot of theoretical physicists are investigating possibilities. I gave you Sean Carroll's hypotheses: it covers these issues. There are others (e.g. Vilenkin, Krauss, Hawking,...). Perhaps each is wrong, but even this doesn't imply there's not a natural basis. I've refuted all the claims you've made that support your claims, and you can't show my general observations to be impossible, in particular: a finite past that begins with an initial state of a quantum system. That initial state exists by brute fact, and as a quantum system - it is necessarily the case that there is quantum "uncertainty," which accounts for the emergence of one or more universes. — Relativist

I afraid I do not buy these arguments. Any sound explanation for the origin of the universe must cover the following:

1. A first cause for causality
2. A cause of time
3. An explanation of why we are not in equilibrium
4. An explanation of why there is something rather than noting
5. An explanation for the fine tuning of the universe

The cosmologists are a long way from satisfying the above. Whereas using simple metaphysical arguments like Aquinas's and my argument from equilibrium satisfy all 5 of the above points.

It's impossible to exist "before" time: "before" is a temporal relation. — Relativist

Something logically must exist before time - I proved that using Aquinas's 2nd way and you have past it by without comment. Alternatively: an infinite regress of time is impossible, so there is no other solution - a timeless first cause is the only possibility. Stuff can't always exist in time and it can't come from nothing so it must exist timelessly.

If there is change, then time has elapsed. You could posit another dimension of time, but not an absence of time, but that is problematic because it entails an infinite past for God. Your only hope is to consider there to have been an initial state that included God. — Relativist

There cannot be another time dimension - that leads to an infinite regress of times nested one within the other. The only way to avoid an infinite regress is a timeless first cause.

"Somehow" is not an explanation. "Somehow" the big bang occurred, and "somehow" the early universe was in a state of low entropy. "Somehow" the universe is expanding. Neither of us can explain it, but concluding this gap in knowledge implies "therefore Goddidit" is a fallacious argument from ignorance. — Relativist

For example, eternal inflation posits a first cause of some negative gravity particles in a high energy environment that result in a chain reaction of eternal inflation, giving birth to a multiverse. This cannot have happened by accident.

This is just the sort of thing a benevolent God would do; create a multiverse from nothing. If God was able, he would not be able to resist it.

When precisely? At the end of the Planck epoch? At the beginning of it? If there is a God, he could have created the universe 10 minutes ago, inserting false memories in each of us, and starlight in flight. — Relativist

I don't believe in magic. God engineered the Big Bang through conventional means.

If the total energy of the universe is zero, as many cosmologist think, then it IS in equilibrium. If it isn't, it may be that the total energy of the multiverse is zero. — Relativist

The universe should be gravitational or thermodynamic equilibrium. That it is not is due to an active agent (God). The Big Bang is the complete opposite of equilibrium. It is that unnatural expansion of space that is keeping us from equilibrium.

God cannot have existed prior to the universe because there is no time prior to the universe=spacetime. — Relativist

A first cause has to exist prior to time - that is the only logically way anything could have come about:

- Can’t get something from nothing
- So something must have existed ‘always’
- IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something must have permanent existence.
- It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (always leads to an infinite regress; but they have no start so cannot not be), so the ‘something’ must be the timeless first cause (of time/causality).

Agreed, and you would need a strong reason to believe causation can occur without a passage of time. — Relativist

If there is change, there is causation. Logically we have gone from a no time to time situation. That can't happen unless a change can take place without time.

IMO, it's even more reasonable because there is no empirical evidence of anything existing that is unnatural - there are only arguments from ignorance (AKA "God of the gaps"). — Relativist

There is evidence of something unnatural - the Big Bang:

- It is a singleton; natural events always come in pluralities
- Entropy was unnaturally low at the Big Bang
- Rather than the objects themselves moving further apart, it is space itself that is expanding - the Big Bang is no normal explosion. This expansion of space is keeping the universe from collapsing in on itself into a massive black hole.
- That the expansion is speeding up rather than slowing which also seems unnatural

In explaining the history and physical foundation of the universe, precisely where does God's act end and nature begin? Parsimony doesn't mean ignoring details, it means explaining details with the fewest assumptions. — Relativist

It's a very simple model I'm proposing. God caused the Big Bang somehow. The associated expansion of space is what is keeping us out of equilibrium - that is down to God.

The Big Bang is effectively the end of God's evolvement in the universe from our perspective.

Any isolated system decays to equilibrium without an active agent - this applies to the universe. So God is required.

How do you define the function sin(x) if you can't use infinite expressions? — Mephist

lim sin x
n-> infinity

It already works, just read the above as 'n tends to but never reaches actual infinity'. Thats a better definition.

For example, with π, it's irrational so it can never be fully defined - it's impossible to know all the digits, so saying an expression tends to π rather than is equal to π is actually more accurate. We can never know π exactly.

IMO, whenever an infinite sum is evaluated, it is more correct for maths to use ~= (approx equals) rather than = (equals).

So, at least for what I know, if you want calculus to be part of mathematics you have to allow the existence of actually infinite objects! — Mephist

I don't see why calculus cannot be defined purely in terms of potential infinity. A limit should approach but never reach actual infinity:

lim 1/n
n->0

It's not possible to make this expression equal actual infinity; n is either non-zero (leading to a finite number) or zero (leading to UNDEFINED). There is no place for actual infinity between the large numbers and UNDEFINED; actual infinity should be UNDEFINED IMO.

I think that calculus worked just fine before Cauchy and Dedekind; it's just actual infinity has been used in the logical justification of calculus when it should not have been.

Now, if for transfinite numbers the neutral element for addition is nor unique, you can't define subtraction as the inverse of addition, simply because addition is not invertible! — Mephist

Because addition with transfinite 'numbers' does not make sense, nor does subtraction. This is indicative of the fact the transfinite are not numbers.

Sorry to disappoint you, but (as I just wrote in the previous post), I believe that at least infinitesimal objects do exist in nature in some sense, but you cannot decide if they exist or not using mathematics. — Mephist

I do not believe infinitesimal objects exist in maths or nature:

1. We have no examples from nature of actual infinity
2. Creating anything infinity large is impossible; not enough time / would never finish
3. Creating anything infinity small is impossible; no matter how small it is made, it could still be smaller
4. Basic arithmetic says infinity is not a number: if it were a number, it would be a number X greater than all other numbers. But X+1>X
5. Numbers are magnitudes or sizes. Infinity is not measurable: for infinity in the large, we would never finish measuring it. For infinity in the small, a finely graduated enough ruler is not available. So infinity has no size; so it is not a number.
6. Numbers have a fixed value; that is their defining characteristic. Numbers are not variables. Infinity has no fixed value so is not a number.

Thinking about this a bit more, Carroll’s proposal does not make sense:

So you have this timeless unstable initial state. It should tend towards equilibrium. All isolated systems tend towards equilibrium. What it should not do is the Big Bang - that is the polar opposite of equilibrium.

All systems end up in equilibrium unless they have a self-driven agent in them. The universe would be in equilibrium unless there has always been a self-driven agent in it. This would be God.

Irrespective of whether Carroll's hypothesis is true, one can coherently account for the big bang with the past being finite. It just means there was an initial state that was inherently unstable. You need a strong reason to reject that, not merely because you prefer an account that requires an intelligent creator who performs magic (i.e. can do things that violate the laws of nature). — Relativist

The universe is a macro phenomena, so the initial state is a macro state. If it is unstable, that implies it is changing in the macro world. That implies causality holds in some form. That implies a first cause.

You need a very strong reason to reject causality in the macro world.

A few other points:

- You can't completely describe anything with Schroedinger's equation; it does not take account of gravity which is dominant for the macro world.
- I do not see how time can emerge without something changing which implies some form of causality and thus a first cause
- God is not magic. Who said anything about magic. What would be magic is any form of causality existing without a first cause
- Time is a dimension so I do not see how such could emerge from anything
- I see this QM based explanation very much opposed to Occam's Razor, whereas causality based accounts are very much inline with Occam's Razor

So, it's impossible to deduce that ∞ - ∞ = 0, and it's not allowed to use the expression ∞ - ∞ as if it was a definite cardinal number.

To derive 1 = 0 from ∞ + 1 = ∞ you should subtract ∞ from both sides of the equation, but
"1 + ∞ = ∞" does not imply "(1 + ∞) - ∞ = ∞ - ∞" because ∞ has not an unique inverse.
So, no contradiction! :-) — Mephist

I see, thanks. If you believe there is only one infinity (like I do), then ∞ - ∞ = 0 is fairplay, leading to 1=0.

I suppose you can say so. Though, I don't understand the use of the term "timeless thermodynamic phenomena"... — Wallows

Well I think the idea is that if entropy causes time, there could be timeless processes that lead time to emerge via causing entropy. But it does not make sense to me; entropy is caused by causality and that is linked to time.

I don't think it's an either/or situation. They can exist simultaneously along with each other, yes? — Wallows

Entropy causes time and time causes entropy? That sounds a bit weird. There is no evidence for the first. Correlation is not causation in this case.

Thanks for bringing this up. I always understood time as an emergent phenomenon from lower dimensions upward, instead of the absolutism of higher dimensions dictating the behavior of lower dimensions. — Wallows

By 'emergent phenomenon from lower dimensions upward' you mean time is emergent from timeless thermodynamic phenomena? If entropy increases causes time to flow, we would expect time to flow faster where entropy is increasing faster. This has not been observed.

So I believe entropy does not cause time - time causes entropy.

I am a fan of spacetime so I see time as a degree of freedom and a dimension. I find it difficult to see how a dimension could emerge from anything. Time started in the Big Bang singularity most probably.

But, if I'm understanding you correctly, then in a deterministic universe where a perfect unchanging equilibrium persists, then time, understood as a change occurring, within the state space of the universe, does not exist, yes? — Wallows

I believe time enables change rather than change is time. If you have a clock and an empty piece of space next to it; surely time is running for both (but change is only taking place in the clock; the empty space is completely still).

OK, then please explain how you are using the term "equilibrium" in more detail if you don't mind... — Wallows

As far as the universe goes, there are different types of equilibrium that it could end up in (given infinite time):

- All the matter in one big black hole (gravity wins)
- All the matter converted to energy (heat death)

I don't see how one of these could be avoided with infinite time.

Ok, exercising my noetic intelligence, you stipulate that time has a start iff there is change, and since there is no change (an equilibrium, although used stipulatively here), then time never existed. But, we don't live in an equilibrium, thus, time had some start.

Is that correct? — Wallows

I am not sure what you mean. My argument is that any isolated system will end up in equilibrium after sufficiently long period of time, unless it has an internal driver - an intelligent internal driver (IE God)

I am not buying Carol's proposal:

- Time runs at different rates due to special relativity; that has nothing to do with entropy. Entropy changing at different rates definitely does not cause time to run at different rates. Entropy is a result of causality (IE time) not time is a result of entropy.

- It sounds a lot like creation ex nilhilo and without time.

- I don't buy 'the eigenstates are inherently unstable' - something must have changed with the ground state 14 billion years ago else there would be no Big Bang. Something must have caused that change in the ground state. That something would be a timeless first cause.

An initial state (such as the one described in the Carroll hypothesis) "causes" everything that follows. What's missing in that scenario? — Relativist

What causes the initial state to start causing everything else? Anything that causes something else is within some form of causality. All forms of causality require a first cause.

That does not follow. There merely needs to be an initial point of time — Relativist

But time and causality are inextricably linked and a first cause is required for causality. So if there is a start of time, there must be a timeless first cause else nothing else would exist within causality.

The notion that a first cause can be "timeless" is problematic. Timeless does not mean "frozen in time" it means that something exists independent of time. Abstractions exist timelessly (consider the law of non-contradiction - it is an abstraction; it did not come into existence and it cannot cease to exist). But abstractions are not causally efficacious. Why believe a timeless entity can be causally efficacious? — Relativist

Because there does not seem to any other logical option; time cannot stretch back in an infinite regress; it would have no starting moment so as a result, none of it would be defined. If an infinite regress of time is impossible, the only other possibility is a start of time. But that requires a timeless first cause. The first cause must be outside of causality/time itself to be uncaused and have permanent existence.

Aquinas's Argument From Necessary Being supports this view:

- Can’t get something from nothing
- So something must have existed ‘always’.
- IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something must have permanent existence.
- It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (always leads to an infinite regress; but they have no start so cannot not be), so the ‘something’ must be the timeless first cause (of time/causality).

Photons are timeless so it seems possible to exist timelessly and have some interaction with the world. It is true however that timelessness is very puzzling... it seems required yet how it could work I am not sure.

Even more strange is the thought that the first cause is from beyond spacetime so may not even be made of normal matter. A non-material God could cause the Big Bang and evade destruction.

Quantum fields are the fundamental basis of all that exists, and the assumption is that these simply exist by brute fact. In the ground state, time is non-existent. This means there is no time at which the the ground state didn't exist - because there is no time until it emerges from the ground state — Relativist

Fields are a property of space, which is part of spacetime, which was created 14 billion years ago. There would be no fluctuation of these fields and thus no particles if there is no time - if something exists for 0 seconds it does not exist - space requires time as a prerequisite. So before the start of time there can be no quantum fluctuations.

There is no multiverse time. This is consistent with special relativity: even within a universe, time is relative to a reference frame. Between universes there is no reference frame. — Relativist

Surely the birth of a new universe must involve causality of some form?

I don't agree with what you are saying on FTA but I don't want to keep going over the same old ground again.

Welcome any comments of the following argument for God:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5832/argument-from-equilibrium

Nope. The energy amplitude is limited by the quantum uncertainty, which is (in principle) a calculable finite number. — Relativist

I'm still a little unclear where exactly does the matter/energy come from in Carroll's hypothesis? Or is it that it always existed?

Under Carroll's hypothesis, time is an aspect of thermodynamics: each distinct universe has its own, independent arrow of time — Relativist

We don't see time running at different rates depending on the rate of entropy increase so I think that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not cause time; time and causality cause the 2nd law. As cause and effects multiply with time so entropy increases.

If each universe has its own time; what passes for time/causality as far as the multiverse goes? I would of thought some overarching time/causality would have to apply to allow the birth of new universes?

That's a curious assertion, because the same reasoning leads to the expectation that THIS universe should be teeming with life. — Relativist

I believe it is. We have a sample size of one saying it is. The onerous nature of interstellar travel means we are not overrun by aliens.

Space cannot have been expanding forever - if we trace back in time, there must have been a time when it was not expanding. So that is suggestive of either a start of time (leading to a first cause) or that space is in a cycle of expansion and contraction (leading to infinite matter density).

It would only be a coincidence if life was a design objective, but if naturalism is true - there was no design objective. — Relativist

But bearing in mind all the other evidence in favour of God then there is a high probability that a design objective exists. This is evidence independent of the separate scientific evidence for fine tuning.

Whereas we have no independent evidence in favour of naturalism; there are no 'proofs of no God' for example. All we know about naturalism is it is a billion to one shot - that is the whole of the evidence for naturalism.

There's something unique about every possible winner — Relativist

Not from God's perspective.

If there were two consecutive lotteries, and a OEHD won both - THAT would be a fluke. But when there's a single random event, and every possible outcome is unique, there can be no fluke. — Relativist

But there are multiple coincidences, one for each of the 20 constants:

- Chances of gravity being right strength
- Chance universe expanding at right rate
- Mass of up quark must be right
- Etc...

So if you prefer, you can consider that the OEHD entered 20 competitions in a row and won them all.

1. Quantum fluctuations do not produce matter; they respect the conservation of energy
2. If they did produce matter, we'd be at infinite matter density by now
3. If Eternal Inflation is natural and time is infinite, there should be an infinite number of eternal inflation instances simultaneously. There is only one instance; an unnatural singleton. If eternal inflation theory is actually happening then the whole process of eternal inflation was initiated by an intelligent first cause.
4. An intelligent first cause would want a multiverse teeming with life (=design objective).

Indeed there is, just as there's a distinct chance the lottery was rigged for the specific characteristics of the winner. But the mere fact that someone with those characteristics has won doesn't make it any more likely. — Relativist

If a one eyed dwarf has won a lottery at a billion to 1 and we have reason to suspect is rigged for one eyed dwarfs, the we should conclude the most likely explanation is that it was rigged for one eye dwarfs.

I showed you how the math works out: a complete analysis of the alleged "fine tuning" does not increase the epistemic probability that God exists. — Relativist

But again this is like a murder mystery who done it. You have to work out the most likely reason that the universe supports life. God is more likely than a fluke.

That is a loaded question: it assumes there is a reason. — Relativist

There is however a distinct chance that there is a reason - because God may exist.

Every possible winner of the lottery is not unique in God's eyes; he is only interested in life supporting universe, so that means only a life supporting universe is unique for God - God does not care about the other attributes of the universe, he only cares about if it is life supporting.

So there is a chance of God's existence and he wants a life supporting universe. That chance is much larger than the universe being life supporting by accident.

I felt like I lost something; it hard to explain; my internal dialogue is quieter than I remember it before the incident.

Have you looked up Fermi's paradox? — Alan

Interesting. IMO the impracticable nature of interstellar travel explains why we are not overrun with aliens. Related:

'Various UFO conspiracy ideas have flourished on the internet and were frequently featured on Art Bell's program, Coast to Coast AM.[2] According to MUFON, the National Enquirer reported that a survey found 76% of participants felt the government was not revealing all it knew about UFOs, 54% thought UFOs definitely or probably existed, and 32% thought UFOs came from outer space'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_conspiracy_theory

Its quite surprising how much support for a UFO conspiracy there is amongst the general public. Too much watching Men In Black or something else at play?

I have been giving some thought to the closely related question of: are there any possible models for the universe without a first cause? The following options are the only ones I can think of:

Quantum Fluctuations

Virtual particles appear out of the void and disappear shortly afterwards (according to QM). These quantum fluctuations respect the conservation of energy; no net new matter is created permanently, so they cannot have been the source of the universe’s matter/energy.

If permanent matter was created naturally, infinite time would result in infinite matter density so this is clearly not possible; mass producing natural processes imply a start of time.

Everything Has Existed ‘Forever’ in Time

In this model, particle collisions could be regarded as forming an infinite regress - which is impossible. In this model, nothing has a temporal starting point so nothing can logically exist.

A Cyclic Universe

Could the universe have created itself? Considering the two dominant theories of time:

If it were a presentist universe, the past and future do not exist, so it is impossible that the universe could be in a temporal cyclic (of causing itself).

If it were a (future real) eternalist universe, one can imagine the universe as an eternal circle of time; uncreated it just exists ‘’always’. It would form a causal loop with the Big Crunch causing the Big Bang. We would all live identical lives over and over again (Eternal Return). This possibility gains theoretical support from the Closed Timeline Curve; a class of solutions in general relativity that result in causal loops in spacetime.

But one needs to account for the fact that we can differentiate ‘now’ from ‘past’ and ‘future’ - there must be something different about ‘now’. This is sometimes conceptualised as a moving spotlight - we can imagine the eternal circle of time and a spotlight rotating about it; where the light falls is ‘now’. So what causes the spotlight to start rotating? - Even these types of eternalist models appear to need a timeless first cause to start time in motion initially.

Also the universe is expanding ever faster and faster - it does not appear (currently) to be in a cycle of Big Bang / Big Crunch required for a cyclic universe. And finally, the universe exhibits signs of fine-tuning for life - which requires a timeless first cause to causally precede the universe.

Multiple First Causes

Time is a created singleton; it could only be created by one cause. Two causes of time would have to work as cooperative agents; implying we can regard them logically as one logical cause.



So In summary, I think that time/causality absolutely requires a first cause. As far as causeless effects go, only quantum fluctuations qualify (arguably - it could be said they are caused by a field in space) and they are micro rather than macro phenomena (the cause of universe is a macro question).

Could the first cause be classified as a causeless effect? Not really I think - it is timeless so beyond causality.

The anthropic principle says we the universe must be live supporting, the question we are trying to answer is: is why is it live supporting?

There are two separate probability calculations for the two possible reasons it is live supporting:

[1] The first is probability that the universe supports life by accident. The evidence we have here (from science) is that it is a billion to one shot that it happened by accident.

[2] The second is the probability that a willing fine tuner exists to explain the fine tuning. This is derived from an independent set of evidence/arguments (first cause argument etc...). Say this is 1%.

To answer why the universe is fine tuned, we have to choose the mostly likely explanation from the above two.

1 and 2 are not related in anyway. They are different calculations based on different evidence.

P(N|F)....which means the probability that naturalism is true given the fact of a universe that is life-friendly. This is not a "billion to one". — Relativist

Why is it not billion to one?

P(G)=.1
P(N)=.9 — Relativist

Afraid you have lost me here. You can't do the above; the probability of naturalism is a billion to one.

Just because I say there is a 10% chance of God, you cannot assume that implies a 90% chance of naturalism - we already know the chances of naturalism are a billion to one - that evidence stands irrespective of any probability estimates we make for God. You are mixing up two separate probability calculations.

"Size is the magnitude or dimensions of a thing. Size can be measured as length, width, height, diameter, perimeter, area, volume, or mass.

In mathematical terms, "size is a concept abstracted from the process of measuring by comparing a longer to a shorter". Size is determined by the process of comparing or measuring objects, which results in the determination of the magnitude of a quantity, such as length or mass, relative to a unit of measurement. Such a magnitude is usually expressed as a numerical value of units on a previously established spatial scale, such as meters or inches."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Size

So you specifically compare two objects; one of which is a ruler, the other being the object to measure and derive a size. That is not possible with infinity (ruler not long enough).

Also note that size determination results in a 'magnitude' - infinity is not a magnitude.