Science's Alternative To an Intelligent Creator 683
Hugh Pickens writes "Discover magazine has an interesting article on the multiverse theory — a synthesis of string theory and the anthropic principle that explains why our universe seems perfectly tailored for life without invoking an intelligent creator. Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse. While most of those universes are barren, some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life. The idea that the universe was made just for us — known as the anthropic principle — debuted in 1973 when Brandon Carter proposed that a purely random assortment of laws would have left the universe dead and dark, and that life limits the values that physical constants can have. The anthropic principle languished on the fringes of science for years, but in 2000, new theoretical work threatened to unravel string theory when researchers calculated that the basic equations of string theory have an astronomical number of different possible solutions, perhaps as many as 101,000, with each solution representing a unique way to describe the universe. The latest iteration of string theory provides a natural explanation for the anthropic principle. If there are vast numbers of other universes, all with different properties, at least one of them ought to have the right combination of conditions to bring forth stars, planets, and living things." So far xkcd is simulating just one single universe.
imagine (Score:5, Funny)
a universe without first posts
Re:imagine (Score:4, Funny)
God (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the things that confuses me about this article is its assumption that science is providing an alternative to an intelligent creator. If there are multiple universes, doesn't the question shift to who made the multiple universes? If there are infinite universes, how and why is there an infinity of physical universes existing in the first place? As far back as science goes in describing the origins of things, people will ask, "Okay, but who or what set up the whole process in the first place?" These questions will never be answered and will always exist as long as we do.
For me, it's weird and disturbing to think there's just this bunch of physical universes here for no reason. It almost feels more illogical that it would exist out of the blue than for there to be something that "made" it all. We'll get better and better at describing the actual physical processes of what created our universe and possibly others, eventually accurately describing the Big Bang and maybe even what came before, but that will always raise the question in my mind, "Great, but I still don't know how or why the hell all these processes are here in the first place! Why is all this stuff here?!" It's a maddening question.
Re:God (Score:5, Insightful)
For me, it's weird and disturbing to think there's just this bunch of physical universes here for no reason. It almost feels more illogical that it would exist out of the blue than for there to be something that "made" it all.
That doesn't help either, because then the question becomes, "well if there is some creator of our universe, then who or what created the creator?" Something must have come before this, and something before that, and something before that, ad infinitum. I think it's just one of those questions that will remain unanswered. I don't think the answer really matters. We'll learn as much as we can about our universe because it helps us in practical ways and because we're just naturally curious.
Re:God (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you accept anything on faith then by definition you are not following logic and reason to a conclusion. No amount of awe or popularity or wonder is going to make it any more rational.
The bible is scientifically inaccurate, it is even self-contradictory and full of things that make you wonder why anyone thinks this is the word of god - but if you take it on faith that its is the word of god then all that doe
Re:God (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when has truth ever depended on popularity?
I was parodying your original post where you mentioned the continuing popularity of the bible, in what appears to me, as an argument for its validity.
The deepest and most important questions can only be answered by faith.
I think this a very sad sentiment. Faith answers nothing - why would it? Its just something you have accepted to be true without any good reason (by definition of faith). It is frankly very stupid to say that "what you feel in your heart" has some significance!! Why not just say "I don't know - no evidence has given me reason to move to any conclusion".
The fact that the humanity is incurably religious, abundantly proves of this.
This proves nothing - its one of many possible and (in my humble opinion) one unlikely explanation (i.e.: survival benefits as a rival explanation). Likewise humans have a tendency to assign human traits to inanimate objects. This, of course, proves nothing inherently true about the inanimate object!
Re:God (Score:5, Funny)
Then, a few trillion years later, God finished every season of Gunsmoke, (all 633 episodes) thanks to TV Land reruns. And people were whining about science, so he said "What the hells wrong with these people? They keep whining to me about how science is wrong. I better do something about this, or I'll never get through all the episodes of Lassie." So he created Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda, and Slashdot was born. The whining moved to Slashdot comments and God said, "This is good."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:imagine (Score:5, Funny)
SlashDeity.com Post comment:
Name: ImaGod0001
URL: http://www.thedivine.god/ [thedivine.god]
Subject: RE: How do you make a Universe?
Comment: First post! Let there be light!
Re:imagine (Score:5, Funny)
Re:imagine (Score:5, Funny)
So it would seem: sometimes insightful, sometimes trollish, completely unaccountable and impossible to get answers from.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I disagree.
Its life Jim, but not as we know it.
The anthropic principle isn't a principle. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's extremely disingenuous to call a hypothesis a principle, especially when the hypothesis is as controversial as this one.
I lack the credentials to argue whether or not the idea of this universe being particularly suited to life is a valid one, but overbearing terminology like this makes me extremely wary of people arguing in favor of the hypothesis.
Re:The anthropic principle isn't a principle. (Score:5, Insightful)
Asking therefore "that the universe was made just for us", is clearly totally wrong. Its not about us at all. Its just that life can survive and exist in this universe.
Re:The anthropic principle isn't a principle. (Score:4, Insightful)
If only most scientists actually stopped and checked even their most basic concepts for paradoxes, people wouldn't spend so long debating such obvious statements.
Time is another one. Follow the paradoxes in that one and having time travel ends up proving that such a universe universe would be incapable of remembering your relative position and velocity at all.
There was a thread about philisophy last week. A general lack of it is exactly why so much of science has gaping holes that people stare far too long into.
Re:The anthropic principle isn't a principle. (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with paradoxes is simple. If you throw out any theory with paradoxes, you can start by dumping :
-> big bang theory
-> quantum mechanics
-> relativity
-> newtonian physics
There wouldn't be much left :
Indeed if scientist respected the laws of mathematics there would be no paradoxes in physics. Any theory containing even a single paradox would be thrown out the window immediately, like they are in mathematics. You could simply say time travel has the potential to create paradoxes ... and is therefore impossible ...
It wasn't to be : It wasn't very practical with physics theory. After all, the big bang theory requires FTL travel (faster than light) and a "limited" suspension of at least causality, along with changing a few universal constants here and there (in fact even Genesis is more likely : suppose an "eternal" being, alive or not created our universe, and you don't have any causality problems. Who created the creator ? Nobody, he's always been. Mathematically that's simple to express and quite consistent. Of course the 7-days stuff of Genesis is a bit more problematic). Oops. Physicists weren't quite ready to dump that one.
Newton's physics would be thrown out, due to the black body radiation paradox (has nothing to do with black holes). But as long as nothing was there to replace it, nobody really thought throwing it out was a good idea.
Relativity would get thrown out due to Schwarzchild geometry (black holes), and quantum mechanics would get thrown out for a hundred reasons, it's "known paradox count" is somewhat of an embarrassment really.
So physics just "tries to get along" with paradoxes, which never works in practice, so basically experiments just like to get close to paradoxes, because in the real world they don't exist. Therefore the paradoxes we're seeing in theories are really something that's not described, rather than a real paradox. Sometimes we really can't get close enough to take a look, which is the case with black holes, or the edge of the universe (if there indeed is one, like the big bang theory predicts), in that case we're stuck, and the only option is to search for the needle in the haystack some other place.
That obviously brings the problem which paradoxes are acceptable and which aren't. Nobody's given even a basic answer to that one though. Apparently paradoxes are acceptable as long as they only manifest in places we know nothing about.
Paradoxes are also the real reason for the claim "passing through a black hole makes anything possible", which is simply another way to say that once you've proven 1=2, you can prove anything, no matter how wrong. Of course the problem is in our understanding of black holes, which is mathematically inconsistent, the problem is not that inside black holes anything is possible. Same goes for any other paradox in physics.
Of course many people believe that since there are many "paradoxes" in physical theories, especially quantum mechanics, everything is really possible, if you only think hard enough about it. However history does show us that every single time we approached a paradox in experiment, it turned out our theories produced the paradox, and the world disagreed with our theories.
You can resolve the black body paradox of Newton's theories yourself. Google the "black body radiation problem" (the third link is nice). Then heat up a piece of metal until it glows. According to Newton's physics if you do that, the universe should explode (calculate this for yourself). Or to put it mathematically, the energy output in radiation should "approach infinity", which is another way of saying "this should produce a huge bang". There you've just explored one of the great historical paradoxes. All paradoxes are like this.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with paradoxes is simple. If you throw out any theory with paradoxes, you can start by dumping : -> big bang theory
I agree on that one.
-> quantum mechanics
Lost me there, quantum mechanics beautifully captures the logic of timeless superposition of all possibilities in uncertainty. Paradoxes are both true and false here and existence is a question of resolution.
-> relativity
No, I don't agree here either. Here, time is the process by which existence itself changes - if existence were always true, nothing could change - change is both creation and destruction in 1, relativity is the realm of certainty in spacetime. It is the question of time's existence
Re:The anthropic principle isn't a principle. (Score:5, Funny)
"the idea of this universe being particularly suited to life" ... And if there are multiple parallel universes, then in all universes that are not suited to life, there will be no life to ask, "why isn't this universe suited to life". So only in the universes that are suited to life, could there be lifeforms asking, why is this universe suited to life.
Asking therefore "that the universe was made just for us", is clearly totally wrong. Its not about us at all. Its just that life can survive and exist in this universe.
Imagine how tough it would be if we were to live in one of those Universes that were not suitable for life! I guess we should thank God that he put us in this one.
Phew!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not think anyone has the credentials to argue whether this universe is particularly suited to life - who knows what life forms might exist if the universe were different?
The science vs religion headline is not useful. scientific knowledge of ultimate origins may possibly eventually shed some light on God, but not right now. The argument for God's existence from the anthropic principle is a "God of the gaps" (
The summary is terrible. (Score:5, Interesting)
There. That's the important part. The whole point of the anthropic principle is that we shouldn't be surprised to find ourselves in a universe that allows intelligent life. If the universe didn't support it, we wouldn't find ourselves in it.
The argument for God's existence through the anthropic principle is simply "doing it wrong." The point of the anthropic argument is to remove the supposed necessity for an intelligent creator.
No, the anthropic principle is not science. Of course, it also doesn't rely on the existence of multiple universes.
Re:The anthropic principle isn't a principle. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The anthropic principle isn't a principle. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, the principle is still a principle. The principle is that "It is unsurprising that an observer finds his universe suitable for life since only universes suitable for life can contain observers". This is true regardless of how many universes exist and how many of them have life in them. The principle classifies meta-universal models into two classes: one in which there are many different universes, and the existence of life in some of them is unsurprising (but some cause for many universes must be given)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, you do bring into question to what "life" actually is. But I think that mere recording is not observation. It is conceivable that an automaton could be able enough to interpret the observations, and thus constitute "life".
However, I think the point is irrelevant, because a universe in which an automaton could exist probably qualifies as one in which life could exist, regardless. The problem with the uncountable number of non-life-holding is that their physical laws are such that matter cannot exist, o
Re:imagine (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting premise, after you realize that without first posts, there wouldn't be ANY posts at all.
Theoritical grounds for the DC multiverse (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is news? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
I prefer my own Weak Myopic Principle: We think the Universe is perfectly suited to life, because we're unable to imagine forms of life that would develop in other conditions.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I prefer my own Maniacal Egocentric Bastard Principle: I created the Universe, you guys are all just figments of my imagination. Muahahahahah!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?
Re:This is news? (Score:5, Funny)
My brane hurts. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're right -- that's not an astronomical number. However, the article implies that's a rough estimate of the number of families of solutions to the situation; each of those families will have uncountable numbers of parameter-driven solutions. I imagine that many of those families may have overlapping domains, so that half of the universes described have strictly increasing entropy, half of those have light speed as a universal speed limit, only a few of those utilize our particular Lorentz transformation,
Re:My brane hurts. (Score:4, Interesting)
Our universe doesn't have strictly increasing entropy. Entropy can and does decrease occasionally. It's simply that there are many more high-entropy states than low-entropy states, so a given system is much more likely to be in a high-entropy state at any given moment than in a low-entropy state; it follows that if the universe was in less than maximally entropic state at any given moment, it is more likely going to be in a higher-entropy state than a lower or equally entropic state at any other moment (future or past; the latter is something people often overlook).
I don't think it's possible for this to change, no matter what physics are at work behind the scenes. Entropy is really just a measure of how "special" some state is; the lower the entropy, the more special and unique the state. For entropy to be more likely to decrease than to increase in time would require there to be more special than non-special states, which doesn't make sense.
Again, I don't think this can change. Lightspeed as the limit follows from symmetry; specifically, it follows from the fact that all observers are equal, despite their movement in respect to each other. Since modern physics - including string theory - is built on such symmetries, such a solution would conflict with its own premises.
Since Lorentz transformation is simply a mathemathical description of the above mentioned symmetry, I don't think they can change either.
Based on the above, I don't think that anything besides the values of various constants can vary from universe to universe. But I'm not a physicist, so I could be wrong.
Re:My brane hurts. (Score:4, Informative)
"The string theorists predict that there are perhaps 10^1,000 [ten raised to the power of one thousand] different types of universes that can be formed that way," Linde said.
Again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
All hail to His Noodly Appendages! [venganza.org]
(it's been proven by Science! [venganza.org])
RAmen.
I'm a believer in Applied Anthropics... (Score:2)
The universe really was made just for me!
Anthropic Principle (Score:4, Informative)
The latest iteration of string theory provides a natural explanation for the anthropic principle.
And now, quoting Caroline Miller [wikipedia.org]:
The Anthropic Principle is based on the underlying belief that the universe was created for our benefit. Unfortunately for its adherents, all of the reality-based evidence at our disposal contradicts this belief. In a non-anthropocentric universe, there is no need for multiple universes or supernatural entities to explain life as we know it.
I think Occam's razor fits just right here. If we don't need a zillion universes, why would we say they exist?
Re:Anthropic Principle (Score:5, Insightful)
Caroline Miller is simply wrong. The anthropic principle does not say this. It says that, given that we exist, our universe must be the way it is. That fits Occam's razor just fine.
Multiverses, OTOH, are just bollocks. I'm with you on that. Although ... Occam's razor says one should not "multiply" possibilities without reason, and here we are exponentiating them :)
Re: (Score:2)
It says that, given that we exist, our universe must be the way it is.
You're right. It seems that Caroline Miller was talking about other extensions of the original idea which carry the same name. From wikipedia:
The anthropic principle has led to more than a little confusion and controversy, partly because several distinct ideas carry this label. All versions of the principle have been accused of providing simplistic explanations which undermine the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. The invocation of either multiple universes or an intelligent designer are highly controversial, and both ideas have received criticism for being untestable and therefore outside the purview of contemporary science.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Occam's razor fits just right here. If we don't need a zillion universes, why would we say they exist?
Because the odds of 1 universe getting created that has the right properties for any complex systems to exist are beyond astronomical. The odds of something as complex as solar systems even less likely. And things as complex as life even more remote.
So, basically in that case you are stuck with two matters of faith. The anthropic principle or a creator. Neither is provable through the scientific met
Re:Anthropic Principle (Score:4, Informative)
Because the odds of 1 universe getting created that has the right properties for any complex systems to exist are beyond astronomical. The odds of something as complex as solar systems even less likely. And things as complex as life even more remote.
Reference please? Seriously... because many scientists disagree. Vic Stenger (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/) argues that the chance of complex life appearing given random fundamental constants is about 50 percent. That doesn't seem to astronomical to me.
Misleading (Score:5, Informative)
The anthropic princple in general just says that the Universe is the way it is because if it were not nobody would be here to see it. That does not imply that it was 'made for us', it just means that because we are seeing it, conditions are the way they are.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly.
My first thought was that this hypothesis doesn't "provide[s] a natural explanation for the anthropic principle," so much as provide a natural explanation obviating the anthropic principle (part of that being, don't make teleological assumptions where not needed).
On the other hand, being a cynic, I have occasionally subscribed to the misanthropic principle - that the universe was made the way it is just to make us miserable.
Can science find God? (Score:3, Insightful)
In my view science can explain only what we can observe, directly or indirectly. Is it ever possible for mankind to discern the true nature of God from our limited vantage point? Where did this multiverse come from? Is the mutliverse itself some part or aspect of God?
Re:Can science find God? (Score:5, Insightful)
I find preachy Creationists to be highly annoying. But I also find shrill atheists to be highly annoying. Not all scientists are atheists, and not all theists are anti-science. Religion and Science are both a part of this world just as much as politics and money. Get over it, they're not going away in the next couple millennia.
For those who must say that God exists, try this: science is for understanding how we exist, spirituality is for understanding why . It's far more mind-boggling for a God to have worked out the delicacy of our whole existence in advance by designing the laws of physics that would play out Correctly all the way from Big Bang to Big Crunch, than it would have been if we were just modeled directly in clay and moved around like puppets at the slightest whim. For those of you who must take the "seven days" literal view of Genesis, then consider this: since God's view of time is not the same as ours (Psalm 90:), we may indeed still be in His Sixth Day (day of Man), awaiting His Seventh Day (day of Rest) (Revelations 20:).
For those who must say that God does not exist, try this: your position is just as unprovable as theirs, and yet raising your voice to argue your point is just as pointless as theirs. There is no arguing with religion. It's not that they are right, it's that the whole exercise is just as bad for the blood pressures of everyone involved. Yes, continue to fight for equality of position and separation of Church and State, as this is important. Quibbling over scriptures (as I admit I am doing above) will not change many minds. Both the Priest and the Atheist are fond of telling someone that they are Wrong, without any way of proving the point once and for all. The fact is, science doesn't know everything and will never know everything. Stick to proving negatives with observations; teaching axioms and laws and theories and hypotheses built from observations; and showing how science, unlike faith, can be proven wrong with evidence and this is a good thing. If they want to pray to their flying spaghetti monster, until it's impinging on your personal rights, just leave them to it.
Re:Can science find God? (Score:5, Insightful)
For those who must say that God exists, try this: science is for understanding how we exist, spirituality is for understanding why.
I hear this a lot but I have not found it to be true. No religion gives a real understanding of the why, or even goes more than one or two trivial steps through an answer -- "Why do we exist?" "Because God made us this way" "Why?" "Uh...". The Munchausen Trilemma still holds.
I am also unconvinced that it's impossible to make a good argument for atheism. "Is there a god?" is not directly answerable, but it would be possible to show evidence that religions and religious beliefs are best explained as the products of human nature and human history, not divine influence.
I'm not militant or anything, but just telling people to shut up and leave the questions alone isn't going to fly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... like: 13.7 Billion projected onto 6000?
Re:the universe is 6000 years old (Score:5, Funny)
No, the bible just counts mod 6001. Next year the universe will be 0 years old. Again.
Re: (Score:2)
general Christian population (of which I am a part), blatantly presuming that despite so many things in the Bible being figurative, that 6 days (& the 6000 years) is so literal?
because the bible is being used literally. and selectively for that matter.
Conditional probability (Score:2)
The fact that we exist is to me no more surprising than the fact that unicorns and goblins do not. What people usually forget when it comes to amazing things happening is that a vast number of equally improbable things did NOT happen. Take the lottery as an example. One person might find it amazing he won since the chance must have been one in a million or less. However, in a big lottery there were also millions of people who did not win, but could have. The probability that somebody would win is 100%, but
It's not "co-incidence" (Score:3, Informative)
..the fact that life exists in this universe can be seen as simply a curious coincidence..
I know this might seem pedantic, but isn't "coincidence" when two or more things happen. So, if my friend and I turn up at the same place at the same time, without planning to do so, that's coincidence.
So, our existance in the Universe is merely "incidence". It is not 'co-' with anything else.
Hunh? (Score:4, Interesting)
anthropic principle: if you find fish that you must be looking in water.
biologist principle: the system evolves to use whatever the environment has to offer - if you have a world of water, then you can get fish.
An explanation that requires whole alternative universes fails the occam's razor test for me.
Perfectly tailored to life? (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you kidding?! I have every intention of reading the full article, but I haven't yet. But my knee-jerk reaction to the notion that the universe is perfectly tailored to support life is ridiculous! the universe is rather hostile to life. The universe wants everything to be dead. The fact that life rarely exists indicates this quite well. The combination of factors that lead to life as we know it are extremely rare.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Just Two Things (Score:5, Insightful)
First, I'm not sure I agree that the universe seems perfectly tailored for life. 99.99% of the universe is empty space in which no life as we know it can survive. It seems to me that "perfectly tailored" would mean something other than "99.99% unusable".
Second, I don't know how this solves any God-related problems. The question is "Why is there anything?" The God-related answers usually hinge on the idea that, as we understand it now, the physical universe we can observe does not have within it the ability to create itself. (Hence lots of arguments about "First Cause" and such.) So, it is posited, something outside our physically observable universe must exist which is subject to different rules and created our universe (and with it, us).
So, there's a mind-bogglingly huge multiverse; fine. But why is it there? Why is any of the universes there? The one we live in doesn't seem to have been capable of creating itself, and the ones that arose in parallel with it can't have created it either, since they didn't exist at the time it didn't exist.
And third, unless you have an observation, which for the moment I'll describe as "a number and a unit of measure which can (at least in theory) be independently checked by someone else", you're not doing science. As this "theory" of multiverses proposes (infinitely?) many parallel worlds which we cannot observe in any way, it's not a science at all. It's just another religion made up by people who want to avoid using that word.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And third, unless you have an observation, which for the moment I'll describe as "a number and a unit of measure which can (at least in theory) be independently checked by someone else", you're not doing science. As this "theory" of multiverses proposes (infinitely?) many parallel worlds which we cannot observe in any way, it's not a science at all. It's just another religion made up by people who want to avoid using that word.
<img src="images/WHARRGARBL.jpg">
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mu.
Personally I find the idea of an oscillating universe (Big bang -> expansion -> contraction -> Big crunch) to be appealing. At least that's a theory that might be proven given enough time. And then it would be possible to have a universe that creates (and destroys) itself.
Furthermore, science can postulate theories that can't be observed/proven at this time. It doesn't become religion, because there might be a time when these theories can be
Re:Just Two Things (Score:4, Interesting)
99.99 is being generous. I would think a few more 9's need to be added on there.
Not to mention, life conditions are temporary. You cant count the earth as being conducive to life; only partially so. Life only exists on earth for its very recent history and may not last much longer, especially if you are working with time scales that are typical of astronomy.
If people want to start anthropomorphizing cosmology, the we need to admit the universe is incredibly hostile towards life. Anything other is feel good self-delusion.
Re:Just Two Things (Score:4, Informative)
Why did the explosion not occur uniformly? In other words, why did it not explode in perfect spheres of energy, never to have enough in a single area again to form mass?
You know, this is a classic example of a layman assuming that scientists are somehow dumber than they are. Honestly, what makes you believe researchers haven't known about this precise problem since the big bang theory first came on the scene? Do you really think you somehow caught on to a problem that no one else spotted? Really?
Here, read this [sussex.ac.uk]. To quote:
In short, good ol' quantum mechanics strikes again: random quantum fluctuations during inflation ultimately produced the variation we see in the universe today.
I know this isn't a popular answer, but I believe that there are forces at work which guide our existence that we will never be able to grasp on our plane of existence.
That's because it's not an answer.
Definition of Anthropic Principle (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that the universe was made just for us â" known as the anthropic principle â" debuted in 1973 when Brandon Carter...
That's not the way I've always heard it, it's more along the lines of:
Question: Why is the universe the way it is?
Answer: Because if it were any other way, we wouldn't be here to observe it and pose the question.
Sort of like Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" on a cosmic level.
Re: (Score:2)
Constructed.. (Score:2)
Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God. Hebrews 3:4
I suppose it will be posited that in an alternate universe houses do, in fact, construct themselves?
And the anthropic principle has issues (Score:2)
When it comes to the ultimate origin of the universe, I'm fine with saying "I dunno." [homeunix.net]. Maybe one day we will know.
I hate string theory (Score:4, Insightful)
Every time you run in to a roadblock, just tweak your calculations until they fit what you see. Shouldn't our formulas be based off of our observations, and not the other way around?
I'm personally a big fan of relative gravity, but touching einsteins theory of relativity seems to be anathema. A ridiculous notion since relativity itself debunked newton's theories, theories come and go as our ability to observe grows. Scientists shouldn't be afraid of it.
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
Newton was not "debunked".
His theory had a scope that doesn't conflict with relativity under most of the conditions that appear within the human experience.
If you use numbers and values that apply within the scope of the theory, it works great and has tremendous predictive value. Whole industries are built on using just his stuff.
Yes, it doesn't apply to some values (that's where Relativity comes in) but it isn't wrong. It just isn't complete enough. Being "not complete" is not "debunked".
It's a bit like arguments about God (Score:5, Insightful)
The String Theorist says "hey, I just found this really cool mathematical technique which allows me to express the observed laws of Nature in a different way." We say "Ah, but now you have to explain why your theory fails to predict the existence of only one type of Universe". The String Theorist waves his hands a bit and says "perhaps all of the possible types of Universe exist, it's just that we can only see this one." So then we ask, where did this multiverse come from?
In both cases the gorilla in the room is Bill Ockham's shaving instrument - in order to explain what is, something much bigger and more complicated has to be postulated which is not observable.
Personally, I think String Theory is going to be another Phlogiston or Ptolemaic Epicycles - both of these required observed behaviour to be explained by the unobservable, whether it was the negative mass phlogiston that left heated materials, or the invisible angels needed to keep the Sun and all the planets revolving around the Earth. Both were "scientific" orthodoxy for some time.
The fundamental mystery is still "Why is there anything at all?", and none of the current "explanations" actually have any explanatory power. We should recognise this. (And perhaps put more physics effort into cheap, safe nuclear power and solar energy? But that's just applied physics, even if it is far more likely to keep physics departments open for the next fifty years or so.)
Re:It's a bit like arguments about God (Score:4, Insightful)
In both cases the gorilla in the room is Bill Ockham's shaving instrument - in order to explain what is, something much bigger and more complicated has to be postulated which is not observable.
Occam's razor is not called Occam's law, other than by those that don't understand the concept. There is no law here, just a sensible rule of thumb.
It is sensible not to postulate a complex explanation, when a simple one will do.
In the case of a universal theory, or an understanding of the beginnings of the Universe, or in the existence of God, it is likely that any definitive answer will be quite complex.
Furthermore, no simple explanation has so far sufficed.
Ergo, Occam's Razor does not (yet) apply.
Alternative to the intelligent creator? (Score:2)
The sub-moronic demiurge. The theory? Dipshit design. My proof? Just look around and see how everything cries out to having been dipshittily designed. The hand of the sub-moronic demiurge is everywhere.
Exists in mathematical sense... (Score:2)
People should be careful here. When you describe a mathematical object in a consistent manner it only exists as mathematical ideal, an object whose existence does not contradict any theorem of the theory.
The question of physical existence of such object remains open.
Essentially the existence of other universes remains a matter of belief here.
Douglas Adams (Score:5, Insightful)
"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise."
Re:Douglas Adams (Score:4, Informative)
It's from a Douglas Adams speech in 1998, which was quoted by Richard Dawkins in his 2001 eulogy at Adams's funeral. The original speech is here:
http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/ [biota.org]
Multiverse is not parsimonious... (Score:5, Insightful)
... the whole idea that there are multi-verses goes right against the grain of science itself, multiplying entities needlessly.
The two general explanations are:
Universe is eternal
Universe is not eternal (eternal something else exists "outside" the universe that caused our universe)
Out of those two, you have a few options:
1) Universe is eternal, the universe is godless
a) Universe is eternal, the universe is god (i.e. reality/god = same thing)
2) Universe is not eternal, the universe is godless
a) Universe is not eternal, the universe has a god "outside" the universe (which is a misnomer, technically the universe would be 'inside' god, or made out of god, god being the substance of all existence, in this case).
Those are the most parsimonious explanations, if you want to be honest with yourself.
As many as 101,000 Solutions? (Score:5, Funny)
Are they sure it's not 101010 solutions? That would be "42" in binary.....
We Are Perfect (Score:3, Insightful)
Once something has happened, however improbable it was, its probability of happening turned out to be 100.0%.
Probability isn't about "luck". It's about the unknown certainty that something will have happened once it did, even if many other things could have happened instead.
We do indeed live in a universe that is improbable because it's one of the very few, of all that could exist, that can and does make sense to us. That's because we evolved in it, as part of it. We were selected by the universe's laws and materials to have bodies that include organs which can hold information modeling the universe. But that doesn't mean anything miraculous occurred to us. It just means that we're the parts of the universe that generated the mechanisms to have the model. Mars' many rocks were also generated, but don't have the hardware to notice, or at least to replay an accurate rendition to their parts that can notice. Likewise, something like 15 billion years have passed until now, when we're noticing that we're noticing - until now, we weren't "miraculous", and what has changed is simply our interaction with ourselves, nothing "divine".
Every lottery winner can think they've received a miracle, because the odds were so slim, they have to think "why me?" But someone was certain to win, eventually, even in lotteries where the chances of even one winner are tiny - if the game goes on long enough.
What is at work with these "divine selection" delusions is not metaphysics, or even determinism. It's ignorance of math, of the mechanics of consciousness, of the basics of selection. "God" does indeed play dice with the universe: all "god" does is roll dice, in every quantum event, and probably on an even finer scale. We're just dice that eventually rolled unp parts that notice what's showing on the other die. We're just getting started, and many of us have yet to make the lucky guess that that's all we are, which is special enough without having to invent a roller.
So they ask us to believe in the unseen ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perfectly tailored (Score:3, Insightful)
They have it backwards. The universe is not perfectly tailored for life. Life is perfectly tailored for this universe because life evolved in this universe.
This whole article comes from the false belief that life is somehow special and that the universe exists to support life. Well, that is false. Life is a side-effect of the universe. If all life ceased, the universe would carry on and not care.
10^122 (Score:3, Insightful)
Perfectly tailored for life? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the universe is perfectly tailored for anything, it sure as hell isn't life. Maybe empty space or black holes, but seeing how, as far as we know, life only has appeared as a thin film covering the surface of one tiny planet revolving around one insignificant star, maybe we're a little biased in our views of what is common or uncommon in the universe.
Once again, science catering to religion (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I'm about to puke. The Anthropic Principle in its purest form does nothing but make the observation that our surroundings obviously support lifeforms such as ourselves who in turn are able to make observations about their surroundings.
It really, really does not matter how many universes are out there. This is ours, and it exists without any need for justification. Sure, theoretically a vast number of universes could have parameters that make life impossible (like, say, because they have no temporal dimension), and just as unprovably many universes could exist that do support life in some form.
There is no discrepancy, there is no need for an explanation - at least scientifically speaking. Only religion demands an explanation, because it introduces the concept of "meaning".
To make a more earth-bound analogy: assume, somewhere in the desert, there is a volcanically heated pond of slime. The conditions in this pond are unique: it has a water temperature of 70 degrees Celsius and only a few uncommon amino acids can be found in the slime, making it a hostile environment for most known forms of life. However, in time, a type of cyano bacteria evolves that can handle the heat and live off the odd amino mixture.
Now, suppose that, by some freakish accident, the cyano bacteria were intelligent. They ask questions like "why is this pond so superbly designed to support us?". Of course, we as humans looking into the slimey pond, recognize the absurdity of the question right away, but the bacteria remain ignorant as to the stupidity of their premise.
They go on to ask "surely there must be an omnipotent creator who made this pond just for us". Again, looking from the outside in, we know better, but for the bacteria it's a huge deal. Next, they discover secularism and say "well, if there is indeed no creator, we must find another explanation why this pond is exactly the right kind of pond, because it is so exquisitly tailored to our needs!"
Then it dawns on the bacteria: "hey, maybe there is an infinite number of pools with different environments! So the explanation for the Bacteric Principle lies in the fact that one out of infinity has exactly the features we need!" At this point, we as outside observes realize the futility. The bacteria will never understand that the number of pools does not matter, because it was them who evolved to live there, it was never the pool that had to be adapted to them...
This is where we are now. And, just like the outside observer looking in, I realize the futility. But it nevertheless frustrates me immensely.
Atheism vs Agnosticism vs Creationism... all wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
This has all been solved (Score:3, Interesting)
Decades ago: The Last Question: http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html/ [multivax.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
as a human being I find people who think that science can explain everything rather arrogant.
i find it even more insulting to think that even if there is a god, why doesn't he show himself? and how do these religious people know for a fact that what they are praying to, really is that god?
And even if there is a god, then why doesn't he interfere ? is he incapable ? or not willing ? in both cases he loses the right to be prayed to.
Re: (Score:2)
if there is a god, then why doesn't he interfere ? is he incapable ?
[God] is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9
His promise: to intervene.
Re: (Score:2)
The god to whom people pray is not the same as the god who "created" the universe, where created equals "supplied the initial conditions from which the universe began."
The one to whom people pray is imaginary. The one who supplied the initial conditions is assumed to exist. Either way, he isn't coming to meet you any time soon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
most of it has to do with history and moral/ethical guidelines. Jesus never discusses creationism, but he spends a lot of time suggesting that we help the poor, defend the defenseless, and be true and honest in all our relationships. This is really the goal of religion: defining our everyday actions.
I act morally, without religion, & I have even seen animals behave morally ... ergo : religion is superfluous.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Religion is the "answer" to the question of origin.
It doesn't provide an answer at all - I presume this is what you mean by the quotes.
as a human being I find people who think that science can explain everything rather arrogant.
There may well be some things that are fundamentally unknowable - which is true is a matter of opinion, and I'm not sure that either viewpoint is "arrogant".
What I found arrogant however is the idea that "science can't explain everything", but that there somehow exists some other met
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Religion replaces "it just is" with "God did it" which means about the same thing: "No idea."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To be more exact: god may be a good fit for what we observe, but not a useful fit. You can always adjust religion to fit new facts (and even make the adjustment an expected part of the religion) so you don't have any unexplained bits dangling about, but that says nothing about the predictive nature of the explanation. Science isn't about explaining history, it just happens to use history and therefore also explains it -- it's about usefully predicting the future, for our own betterment. In the end, science
Re:Bang to Strings (Score:4, Funny)
It's very simple. We began with Percussion (Big Bang), now we're moving toward Strings. Next will obviously be Brass and Woodwind. I don't care much who banged the drum or plucked the strings, who blew the brass or woodwinds. Whoever we're looking for, we know he'll have a musical degree and a conductor's baton.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Imagine time is a 4th spatial dimension. Imagine that the permutations the sum of the energy and mass of a universe can enter are ALL represented in all universes, but that there is a single lowest common denominator, which is the singularity. The singularity is where all the multiverses meet, like petals on a flower. The dark matter, the stuff from outside the universe that is influencing it, those are other universes bumping into our own.
This is the model towards which all the painstaking math is leadi
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sorry, you're in the wrong universe, try that one over there.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:There is no God? (Score:5, Funny)
Yep, all those scientists are just trying to disprove god. The research is just a nice byproduct.