Slashdot Mirror
Why Does The Universe Exist?
Mr.Newt writes "You may wonder why we're here. Britain's Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, thinks he has it figured out. As a small part of a large multiverse, everything has to be perfect for life as we know it to exist. " Just reminds me of the Python song: "Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's..."
We can infer, from the measurements we make, other facts about the universe for which we do not possess evidence of a more direct nature.
Sure. That's what I meant by "tools to extend them." But our perceptions are still ultimately limited, and the information we recieve is still bound by our five senses. You might be able to build an immensely complicated collider to detect subatomic particles, but the output is still read in through your eyes.
The problem with the alternate universes hypothesis or anything like it is that we have no means of testing it either directly or indirectly. There is no way to test the proposition "there exist specific things that we cannot observe through any means," yet that is essentially what the alternate universe hypothesis says. Since universes by definition don't interact with one another, there's no way anyone in this universe can gain meaningful information about any other. No amount of deductive logic can ascertain facts without any empirical data. All reasoning ultimately rests on the observation of the senses to have any meaning.
the sine qua non of life in any form is a structure that can encode information in a stable and consistent manner but with the flexibility to react and adapt to its environment
I mostly agree with this. I just think people are a little too quick to assume that our form of life (or approximations thereof) are the only forms possible. It may be that the range of suitable-entropy universes is still pretty narrow, but there are certainly more options than just the precise values that we have here.
I suspect that your reaction is symptomatic of the spirit of the times we live in, where so many now glibly reject the scientists' assertion of an objective reality
I must admit I'm a bit puzzled by this, as I consider it to be quite the opposite. It is the "parallel universe" hypothesis that is not grounded in objective reality. It is a poetic, intuitive, and ultimately groundless assertion. I accept the existence of an objective reality. Indeed, I think the existence of objective reality must go hand in hand with the rejection of claims not grounded in reality.
For something to be grounded in reality, it must on some level be grounded in the evidence of the senses. Otherwise there is no rational basis for separating the true from the false. The multiverse hypothesis has no grounding in empirical evidence, and is therefore an unscientific and non-empirical hypothesis. It is the multiverse that is "cozy and New-Agey." It's plausible and sounds good, but it can never be proven or disproven.
There have been a few authors that kind of tackled that basic concept, but I think I've got a good take on a new direction. It will probably take me a few more years to complete the story (as writing is not my profession, just a hobby), but I still think I have something a little different.
But even when I have seen others go on that theme, I've always found it very interesting to say the least.
Bite my yammer.
Every universe that can exist, does exist
Says who? How do you know?
Certainly, accepting this doesn't make one whit of difference to us isolated here in our own reality. But that's not the point really
It's precisely the point. We are creatures of limited knowledge, and so we must consider things from our own perspective. We can fantisize about meta-universes in which we can see people who can't see each other, but we will never occupy such a position, and so there's no point in taking those fantizies seriously. In the real world we must take reality as we see it.
And of those potential individuals, every life that can be lived by them, is indeed lived somewhere.
This is a bald assertion, and one that you can't possibly prove.
You are of course correct, and I do apologize if I implied that I could deduce the one True Truth and prove it. I certainly don't believe that. If it were that cut and dried, science would be sorta boring.
Now, I don't really want to get carried away with Godel's theorem because applying it to real life always confuses the hell out of me. Obviously second order logic or higher are provably incomplete, and most of real world stuff falls into this category.
My point, I guess, is that there are truths we can prove, or at reasonably explain. These are repeatable by rational thinkers. We may not ever deduce ALL the truths, we may not ever get THE answer(s). Then there are unprovable assertions that may or may not be true, but I can't be expected to accept assertions that while not inconsistent with the evidence do not follow according to logic or reason from the complete set of information we have. They may follow logically or reasonably from a very small set of information (it may have been rational 5 thousand years ago), but we have information now that when we put it all together doesn't necessitate regular intervention of the deity in our day-to-day existence.
Oh, I don't know. Ever read the Hyperion/Endymion books by Dan Simmons? He made the concept of empathy=love=physics sound pretty damned exciting. If only the entire universe could love!
Bite my yammer.
You are right. The example was apt, because I missed some possible assumptions. You filled them in, which follows the general scientific process. And I can follow your logic and agree with you that your process is rational and repeatable. I did not mean to imply that science was "complete" or that any piece of scientific knowledge was complete, but there is a process that is rational rather than irrational or imposed.
It's not about cultural differences. I agree that most missionaries these days are quite sensitive to that.
However, I've met a lot of people, Christian and not, who think that *any* dogmatic statement of the form "I think you are mistaken and here's why" is "insulting and degrading" when applied to certain subjects, such as "religion". The problem is that if someone thinks that a statement is insulting or degrading, then it is, and it's self-defeating to try to persuade them otherwise.
So I think any self-respecting missionary, no matter how sensitive, will eventually have to say something potentially insulting or degrading, and inevitably some people will feel insulted or degraded.
But basically, I just wish Christians, atheists, and everyone else would be a bit less touchy about having their beliefs questioned. Especially Christians. "Always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that you have" is not acceptably satisfied by "Back off man, don't degrade my beliefs."
You claimed that you needed proof to believe in a God. I pointed out that not all true things have proof.
Your faith is in reason. Good for you. It is as much a faith position as a religious one.
I can point to (clearly subjective) experiences of people who have put their faith in God and have been transformed by the experience, but I can never prove anything about that God to you. That's why it is a faith position. It is completely orthagonal to reason. One can have faint and be anti-rational or have faith and be rational or not have faith and be anti-rational or not have faith and be rational.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
And do you not equate theoremhood with truth within the meaning assigned to the symbols in such a system?
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
God: "First Light!"
(And on the fifth day God created Natalie Portman, and he saw that it was good.)
Any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from Gods.
> for a deeply scientific person, it must be "I am
> almost certain there is a God."
I'm a Christian, and I'd say that. Any honest person has to admit the possibility of error in anything they say.
But it gets pretty inconvenient to always say things like "I believe in the existence of Linus Torvalds with probability 99.9999%" or whatever. So we simplify things and say "I believe in the existence of Linus Torvalds." The approximation is good enough to live by.
Think base 10 vs. base 8 and base 16 to get what I meant.
--
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Edwim Abbott Abbott would not like D, the idea that life can only exist in three dimensions? Why is this so anyway? I can easily think of life existing in two dimensions, and in four we may not be able to perceive it. One I cannot see life existing in, but a two-dimensional universe can have a surprisingly similar structure to our three dimensional one, using a Bohr model for the atoms (remember laws revolve around the properties, so a Bohr model might work in another universe with two-dimensional representations of the orbitals) and with some different elements (since nuclei cannot bond in three dimensions given a two-dimensional universe, more or less neutrons may be needed). So if these quantum properties can be acheived, one would think you could have a life-forming two-dimensional universe (people might not be different regular shapes, however :-) )
I am a high school physics student, so I am obviously to be pitied for my ignorance; why can't a two-dimensional universe sustain life?
# debian/rules
You are defining randomness as nothing; in other words, you argue that if the Universe was random you probably would not exist; that doesn't mean you won't.
Here: consider a bag with four marbles of different colors, red, yellow, blue, and green. If I pick one at random (and I mean random, whatever that is) it may be any of these four, but just because I can't be sure doesn't mean it won't be any of them.
Extend this analogy almost infinitely; the chance that you exist compared to every other possibility, something has to happen, and by chance you exist and posted this. It's random. Something had to happen, so something did happen.
# debian/rules
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars. It's a hundred thousand light years side to side. It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick, But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide. We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point. We go 'round every two hundred million years, And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions In this amazing and expanding universe.
The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding In all of the directions it can whizz As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know, Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is. So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure, How amazingly unlikely is your birth, And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, 'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.
Sleep: A completely inadequate substitute for caffeine.
...we consider it perfect by our own standards. I'm sure there are other forms of potential consciensness (perhaps not even "living" as we know it) that could not exits in our Universe that would consider our enviornment pretty crappy. People always seem to forget that we have a very, very narrow viewpoint, and that any and all value jedgements we make are inherently skewed because of that.
--
Feminism is the wild notion that women are human beings.
I find it fascinating when I read stories about this type of thing. I wonder exactly where the normal slashdot reader lies in terms of the whole Big Bang vs Creationism argument; somehow I feel that for most people on here, any beliefs that these things came to be through some force other than an exploding pinhead are totally unacceptable.
Where do you folks fall? Do you find the Big Bang and it's associated theorems to be a joke, or do you laugh at the concept of some deity who's saturday afternoon fun consisted of slapping together a snow globe full of planets and stars?
I've always wondered, we geeks are a confused bunch.
EOM
You misinterpreted 'repeatable'. Being able to repeat the experiment doesn't imply creating a black hole of your own or something nonsensical like that. It means if someone else repeats the measurements on the same phenomenon, or a different but similar one, he or she will find the same data.
Compare it with revalations. Moses climbs a mountain, and receives 10 commandments from God. That is not a repeatable experiment. John smith climbs the same mountain, and receives nothing. There is no way to verify this experiment, and you will have to trust the word of Moses, and of the people who wrote the story down.
Engineers build a device to measure faint sources of radiation in space. They find a more or less constant background radiation in every direction. You can build a similar, or even a completely different device, and measure the same background radiation. You can repeat the experiment a hundred billion years from now, and you will still find the same background radiation (though slightly fainter). This experiment is repeatable, and it doesn't involve creating a new big bang.
Given the tremendous amount of traffic that's passed, I don't know if I have much of a chance of making a new contribution. I don't have time to read every single post to find out. But I love this topic, so, I'll just say what I have to say, even if I'm babbling to myself...
I used to think that there was something circular about the question of why life emerged in this universe, but the "firing squad" analogy won me over. The question is definitely worth asking. The "multiverse" theory is nice in ways, but for me, it falls flat. The question is how we define "universe" and "existence." I'll throw out an idea for consideration:
I believe in this because the contrary seems so absurd. Suppose someone came to you and claimed to have discovered some thing. He can't explain what this thing is, how big it is, or what it's made of, because, he says, it cannot be detected in any way. It can't be seen, smelled, touched, or heard; you can't see it on radar, or sonar; it emits no electromagnetic energy, it has no detectable mass, and exerts no forces upon anything else. And yet, the man claims it exists. How can we possibly credit such a claim?
(Now, I tend toward atheism, but for the theists out there, I have no trouble accepting that God can be detectable by acts of divine intervention. But I won't get into that.)
Of course, I'm speaking in the broadest philosophical sense. Advances in technology give us more ways of examining the universe. I'm not claiming that radioactivity didn't exist until someone invented the geiger counter. So, of course, there may exist things that we can't detect yet, with our current technology.
Now, since I've accepted that first claim (not that I expect everyone else to :-), I make a
second claim:
Again, the converse seems absurd.
Now, I define the "universe" as being the thing within which everything that exists, is instantiated. The corollary is that everything that exists resides within the universe.
This means that if we ever find evidence of something akin to a "parallel universe," that universe, by definition, is actually part of our universe, owing to the fact that we've detected it. Claiming that there are other universes completely separate from ours is just like claiming the existence of an undetectable thing. Again, I can't credit such a claim.
If someone finds evidence of this so-called multiverse, then I would say it's a fallacy to claim that our universe is one of many separate universes; I would rather say that our (one) universe is just much stranger than we had previously thought. And if this is so, maybe we should withold judgement on the probability of the emergence of life in our universe.
Yeah, I know. To some extent, I'm just playing with definitions. Isn't it fun? :-)
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
The problem with 'playing god' and creating a universe is that people don't know enough to do the job; you start changing things and the whole apple cart gets upset.
For example: demand Circular orbits only and you never get any planets; circular orbits can never intersect. That means there can't be any collisions - so the planets never form. That's why we don't have circular orbits - that sort of simplistic "perfection" just won't work. The 'imperfections' of the universe are just as necessary as the perfectly precision parts. Throw away the imperfections and things don't work anymore.
We live in a complex Yin and Yang universe - not a simplistic 4 elements black and white universe like Aristotle thought. 4 elements won't support life either - that's why we need the complexity of more than 90 elements.
Get rid of the vacuum inside of atoms and everything collapses into nuclear material - and boy does life change then. The messy parts are just as necessary as the clean ones; get rid of the mess, and you get rid of life. The illogical chaos of the universe is just as important as the perfectly logical parts are. Eliminate the Yin and Yang nature of the universe - demand only black and white - the way most simplistic people think things are - and nothing works.
My personal (and admittedly laypersons) definition of the universe was "I can get there in a spaceship that moves in 3 dimensions" (ignoring time concerns). If there's another splotch of "the cosmos" that I can't get to in this manner, I'll happily concede it to be in another universe. We currently don't know of any other "splotches of cosmos" besides the universe we currently know, and evidence that they exist would significantly alter our view of things.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
> God exists. He created everything.
I really don't feel like breaking out all my guns, and I'd rather just watch you dance around this question for my amusement: apply the same deductive logical process to explain the existence of God.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
> Three-dimensional space is also quantized. See Zeno's Paradox.
You only need one dimension for this paradox, and to see how bogus it is. Zeno kinda forgot to mention that the time required to cross the remaining distance also approaches zero.
Actually Zeno knew that, knew he was full of shit, just that the math of his day that was taught to even more learned folks didn't have a way to really express the answer in a "standard" fashion. Pythagoras woulda eaten him for lunch.
The one that still bends my brain from time to time is the hangman's paradox. I saw it solved once too, but I can't remember how. Think it had to do with the fallacy of being able to assume any one date out of all possible days of the week that he could have been hung.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
First of all, the search for meaning in this universe, any meaning, is a human phenomena, purely cognitive. It's a severe drawback to being conscious. Any 'meaning' we find we must ultimately accept the fact that beneath it lies 'deeper' fundamental questions. For instance: given six fundamental numbers, completely arbitrary simply because they're numbers thus making everything relative, why, in the whole wide universe, must we suppose that this means anything at all? Where do we get off in claiming there's any meaning at all anywhere to anything? Meaning and Reason are simply not equipped to explain the origin of the universe.
Second, even though these numbers are quasi-constant and are possibly responsible for the configuration of the universe, why do we assume that if they were ANY DIFFERENT the universe would be any different? I mean, sure, the numbers would be different, but the way these numbers affect reality would probably be exactly the same. The universe does not subscribe to human pedantry. And as one very intelligent man put it, 'god does not play dice with the universe.'
Third, let us consider the scientific idea known as Occam's Razor. We all know what this means. But what does it mean when in context of the origin and meaning of the universe? Simply, that there is no meaning, and there is no origin, because the universe always has been and always will be. Eastern philosophy has known this for a long time, and the practical pragmactic western philosophy simply cannot fit this circular thinking into their dysfunctional linear paradigms.
Finally, who cares? We're here. Anyone claiming they know the origin and or meaning to it all is simply trying to grab a piece of the 'awe-pie'. They're never going to be proven right. WHY this universe is here and HOW are inconsequential compared to WHAT we do WITH it WHILE we're around.
There's nothing about this post which is strikingly outrageous other than the flagrant disgregard for the universe's ability to be at once mystical and simultaneously atavistic.
Just think about it, you'll see what I mean.
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
So molecules doing the precise thing to support life is making life horrible?
.sigs??
Its like an illuminati joke... Molecules conspiring to create life, but making the life miserable for some!!
The creation of life didn't spawn war, or minorities, or anything evil. The human mind did that through years of psycological evolution.
-- Don't you hate it when people comment on other people's
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
I have two problems with this line of reasoning.
First, there's the problem of selection bias. We have a sample size of precisely 1. If other universes exist, we have no way of observing them and seeing if the exhibit the same properties. So for all we know the other universes did happen and we just happen to be in the one that produced us. There's no cosmic mystery there.
The analogy of the 21 guns missing fails because we are able to observe the causal process before and after, and we have some experience that guns are supposed to hit. We have no such information about the origins of the universe. For all we know, there is some underlying interconnectedness to the 6 numbers that make it inevitable that they take the values they take.
Secondly, we have no way of knowing that our form of life is the only one possible. A universe with different constants might not produce us, but it might very well produce other things that fit a more expansive definition of life. If you're going to make expansive statements about the "multiverse," it's absurd to act like Carbon-based human life is the only possible kind.
More fundamentally, our knowledge is limited by our perceptions. We will almost certainly never know what happened "before" the Big Bang. And unless there is some radical change in physics as we understand it, we will never be able to observe other dimensions in the "multiverse." Therefore, this sort of pseudo-philosophical musings, while interesting, are never going to reach any closure. You can always posit the existence of multiverses and extra dimensions and invisible unicorns. But if you have no evidence for their existence, they are no more than musings.
I've probably said it before, but I'll say it again. How the universe was created (theory: Big Bang) is different what caused that creation to occur (theory: either God or no causality). These are two different questions and not mutually exclusive.
:)
There's a fair amount of measurable evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, so I'll go with it for now.
On the subject of God versus no causality, I'll support the existance of a God. My arguments are similar to Rees' (the precise state of the constants of the universe necessary to support life are no coincidence), although I don't believe all of his "arguments".
For example, what's so big about 3 Dimensions? There's nothing hard about life existing in 4 or higher dimensions, although I agree that 2 dimensions is impossible. You have issues laying out some connected graphs in 2 dimensions. (Try drawing a pentagram (aka K5) without having any line cross any other.)
What about plank's constant? I've heard that very bad things happen if the constant is exactly what it is, but he doesn't meantion it. And his theory that "other universes could exist" is hardly a newsworthy theory. He's basically saying, "We're lucky enough to pick the right lottery numbers!" I'm saying, "We're lucky enough that someone picked the right lottery numbers for us!"
Who cares, really...
-Ted
Tom Lehar NOT Monty Python wrote that song. It has nothing to do with Monty Python and was never on the show. Tom was a professor of Mathamatics at Harvard or MIT, I can't remember now and wrote a number of wonderful songs back in the '60s. You could look it up.
He asserts that there are only three (spatial)dimensions. I've been reading _The_Elegant_Universe_ by Brian Greene, which is largely a book on superstring theory, which points to 10 (or 11) dimensions, with the saptial dimensions other than x,y,z (the normal ones we use every day) being very, very small (on the order of the Planck length. While there appears to be no real proof of string theory, it has been shown to be very good at predicting things that can be observed, and provides a unifiying framework for all forces (weak, strong, EM and gravity). But I digress- he asserts that Life could not exist if it were 2 or 4. Why? What connection is there between life and dimensions. Maybe life as we know it, but all our experiences are constrained to our three dimensional (apparent) world. Yes, its true that our 3 dimensional objects don't fit quite right in a 2 or 4 dimensional world, but it doesn't mean they can't.
As to the constants- true, the universe *as we know it* wouldn't exist if they were different, but whos to say that another wouldn't? The values of these constants may not be so precarious- if you place the ball at the very top of a hill, it's in equilibrium, but not stable- some force could easily roll it one way or another, and once it does start to move, it will keep rolling until it (coupled with friction) finds a more stable point- why can't these constants vary like that?
Maybe the big bang is a cyclic process, sometimes it forms a universe that isn't stable, so it just collapses and reforms with a new set of contants. We know about this one because, simply, we're here.
You insult and degrade the beliefs of a large portion of the population, then have the arrogance to say "Talk to the hand"??
I believe in the Almighty God / Jesus model of creation. Why? Because believing in eternal life sure beats the alternative. Becoming worm manure is not my ideal final resting place.
My opinion might stink, but at least I like the smell of mine more than the smell of yours.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
I am the culmination of billions of years. All things which have ever lived, existed so that I might live. All those who have died, died so that I might exist, and be consuming this soup for lunch today.
I am the Alpha and the Omega. All things exist through me. If you accept this truth, you will achieve a deeper sense of peace. Come to me my children; I accept all believers. Together we shall work for My Eternal Glory.
Amen.
</sarcasm>
I have no
Females are mean and nasty and it's all their fault that I'm still a virgin.
I have proof that this rebooting happens frequently. How else would you explain all of the unmatched socks in my drawer? It's an inconsistent state. In fact, why do you think it's called fsck? The alien bugs that fun the Matrix are clearly running some form of *nix.
Indeed - if the Big Bang happened, then why? Did everything just come from nothingness one day?
A simple answer is that science cannot predict anything before the Big Bang, because it is a singularity, meaning a discontinuity in a universe otherwise governed by continuous mathematics. Paths of stars, quasars, and galaxies can be computed back in time up until then, until you reach a point where volume is zero, making density infinite. It's certainly valid to point out that science cannot say anything about what may have happened before then.
However, there is another very intriguing possibility: the concept of time before the Big Bang is meaningless.
A two-dimensional analogy is the surface of the earth. For a long time, people assumed the earth was flat. Why would they think anything else? There was the ground, down below, and the sky above, and things fell down. As a result of this assumption, they knew that it must either be infinite, so that you could just sail and sail and sail forever without seeing the same place twice, or there must be an edge you could fall off of. Most people assumed the latter.
But we know now that there's a third possibility - the surface does indeed go on in opposite directions without ever coming to an edge - IN TWO DIMENSIONS! If you add a third spatial dimension, it is suddenly simplified to a surface which wraps around in all directions and connects back to itself, forming a smooth surface. Are there any boundaries - any "rough edges" or discontinuities at the north pole, like you would worry about with a flat earth? No! It's all a nice, self-contained package, with no beginnings or endings to worry about.
Now let's keep this analogy in mind as we talk about the nature of time. Until very recently, time was a very straightforward concept to us - it just plods on at a normal pace. If it's 12:00 Mountain Time for me and you're in New York, it's 12:00 Mountain Time for you, too (and 2:00 Eastern). If we stand far apart and fire two guns, we can make them fire at the same time, right? Well, no. I'll hear mine first, and you'll hear yours first. Well then we just put the judge halfway in the middle right? Well, no. We have to take into account relative speeds (such as the linear and angular motion of the planet we are standing on). The point is that, when you really examine it, the concept of two events occuring simultaneously is an imaginary, invented concept.
Our concept of time has been shown to be a distortion of reality which is built into our perceptions of the universe. Common sense tells us there is a universal clock, by which it is the same time no matter where you are. This is the foundation upon which Newtonian physics is based, and works well when you are not dealing with very large speeds.
The theory of relativity discarded this, and that theory has huge implications for the nature of time - namely, that it is inextricably tied to space, as a four-dimensional space-time. The Newtonian laws still work of course, but they are a special case of a much more general set of laws, and work when the speeds involved are insignificant relative to that of light. It is very hard to think in these terms, since our minds are wired to think in three dimensions with a constant forward-moving time.
However, when you make time into another axis along which events are plotted, the Big Bang is no longer an "explosion" but a description of the shape of our four-dimensional universe. As the time component increases, the space component expands. If you consider that time can be curved, just as space is curved by a massive object, the entire four-dimensional space-time can, in fact, be continuous.
In other words, the Big Bang is not necessarily a boundary with a void on the other side that you would "fall into" if you traveled back far enough. It could be more like the north pole - you can go north for a while until you reach the north pole, and then you can't go north anymore. But you're just at another spot on a continuous, curved two-dimensional surface.
The Big Bang could be just another spot on a continuous, curved four-dimensional surface.
This is known as the "no boundary" proposal. It is, of course, a theory - just like everything else in science, and hasn't been proven. It is a very valid theory though, and has been worked on a great deal by such physicists as Stephen Hawking, Jim Hartle, Julian Luttrel, and Jonathan Halliwell.
-------
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Well, kind of sort of.
I recall reading about time travel (can't cite my source, sorry), and it may be possible, however it would take more energy that we could possibly harness.
Also, as for, "maybe we're in the matrix", well that one we could figure out. You could either try to develop your powers of modifying reality (like Neo), or humanity could colonlize space. I have a feeling in a few thousand or million years once humanity is spread out all over the cosmos the "mainframe" running the program won't be able to to handle it and will crash.
Hah, that brings up another point. What happens when they need to reboot this mainframe, take it down for maintaince or it crashes? Does time just stop for us, and then resume later? Is evidence of a system crash those people who go "I have no idea how I got here!" (since usually all data is not consistent after a crash).
This type of column really yanks my chain. It is nothing but mysticism trying to wrap itself in the mantle of science, and it really ticks me off, especially given the source. The conclusion of the article, that the universe we live in is horrifically unlikely to have occured, is not a scientifically defensible conclusion.
I'm a particle physicist, so I do have some (small :-) idea of what I'm talking about here. It really doesn't matter which set of numbers you pick: the six, poorly motivated number chosen by this astronomer, or the 20ish well motivated numbers in the Standard Cosmological Model x Standard Particle Physics Model. The article states that we don't know why they have the values they do, and that is true. But we also know, on very fundamental theoretical grounds, that these are not the most fundamental parameters of the universe, and pretending that they are is not scientifically valid.
It may turn out that there are a handful of fundamental, unexplainable-except-by-mysticism, parameters of the universe. But it is (currently) just as scientifically defensible to think that there fundamentally are no parameters, that any possible universe would have to end up with exactly the physics we see in this universe. Or maybe there are 10, or 20, or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (well, you get my point :-) We just don't understand enough about the universe to state scientifically whether either conclusion is correct, and whether our universe is so unlikely after all.
For example, it may turn out that string theory is the correct description of the universe; in this case, it may be that there is only one, true vacuum state, and that that state can be picked out by a theorist, and shown to be the one that our universe occupies. No parameters, no choice, no so unlikely after all. It would turn out that the measured parameters of our universe are the only ones that could possibly be. It is just as possible at this point that there is no such vacuum state.
This appeal to science to tell us that the universe we occupy is "unfathomably unlikely" is just total crap from a scientific standpoint, given our current state of knowledge.
As I understand this argument, the position is that you cannot get order from random process. You must have intelligent design.
Since God is more ordered than the universe must I therefore think 'aha, something intelligent created God'. Of course. I cannot abandon such a well thought out axiom simply because it has ceased to support my position!
What about the intelligent thing that created God. That too is a footprint in the sand! Cool. Now we've an infinite loop of intelligent deities. This universe rocks!
I'm actually working on (and have been for about ten years) a book/series of books about such a possibility. That the reason our universe is so 'indifferent' and 'uncaring' as some of the other posters have pointed out is that someone (a very powerful someone, don't want to give away too much) in the early history of our universe tampered with THE WRONG THING (TM) and got it all fucked up.
Of course, it's sci-fi. Possibly even bad sci-fi (I don't have anyone else's opinion on that at the moment), but thus far it seems to be a pretty cool story.
Oh yeah, and it also delves into the possibility of 'traveling' to other universes within the multiverse and finding out that the other universes that support life of any kind are not nearly as messed up as our own.
To the other posters that are all upset with the original poster, chill out. It's a good philosophical question to ask why humanity is so fucked up and try to trace it back through the possibility that humanity evolved the way it did because of the fact that the universe is basically an uncaring place. It 'teaches' us to not care. I know, philosophical drivel, but at the moment, that's what this topic is basically about anyway.
BTW, before anyone points it out to me, I do believe in taking responsibility as individuals for our actions. I even believe that the human race on the whole needs to find a way to come to grips with its own responsibilities, but it never hurts to ask the question 'why?' as in "why are we so screwed up?". Agreed?
Bite my yammer.
OK, I have to mention this again, simply to drive the point home. I have had many many religious/philosophical/cosmological/dumb-ass discussions with several different people about this general subject.
It really really really REALLY pisses me off that I was so ready to contradict Rees' major point, that life couldn't exist without these numbers, that I had to read through the majority of the article before that one intelligent line, which I honestly think means a LOT in this discussion, came up: "life as we know it". People constantly seem to forget that "life as we know it" is so narrow and yet so vague. We know we are carbon-based. I'm beginning to wonder if this guy has ever seen Star Trek or Star Wars, or any Sci-Fi for that matter. There are so many possibilities out there of different forms/consciousnesses of life, in possibly an inifinite number of universes, that we cannot decide what exactly "life as we know it" means, and yet, we should be aware of the fact that that definition is so narrow. There are possibly an infinite number of life forms out there, even.
And honestly, if *one* of those numbers is off, then what does that really mean? I mean, true, I wouldn't be the person I am today, if I had been born one minute before I really was born. I would be slightly different, most likely, but not universe-life-altering-different. I might think a little different, or maybe be slightly shorter or something, but this would not have an effect on my ability to live. I think the same thing happens with these numbers. That, AND the fact that whenever certain numbers just *have* to be Just So, that usually indicates they are related. I've thought of the philosophical implications (while I was supposed to be doing Physics homework, so it's excusable, maybe. Maybe I was just tired.) of the whole concept of, say, addition. If x + y = 3, then isn't it Just Amazing how x just HAS to be 2, and y just HAS to be 1? Or the other way around. But it's not that amazing, it's just the fact that the two numbers are, in fact, related.
In closing of my rants (thanks to all for bearing with me), I am convinced that an Underlying Theory of Everything (TM) exists. I am also convinced that Life as We Know It probably only really exists here, as we really do know it. In some other universe, chances are really small that that universe would be *exactly* the same, so as to create the *exact* same conditions for life, and you and me, as we know it. And I'm perfectly convinced that multiple universes, perhaps an infinite amount, exist.
That all said, I believe that sufficiently advanced science is STILL indistinguishable from magic. Go Merlin.
OK. Done with the rant.
A logical positivist (including Zen types) would claim that these questions are more a defect of language/thought than of philosophy or science. That is, asking something property of a domain that doesn't apply. Example, "beginning of universe"- nothing in the physical world (except for hypotheised creation) has a true beginning. Like asking what is the sound of green? It doesn't apply (unless you are stoned).
> Since God is more ordered than the universe must I therefore think 'aha, something intelligent created God'. Of course.
Some of the many variants of Gnosticism believed that the Judeo-Christian god was not at the top of the pyramid. They called him the "creator god" because he created the "universe" (or else, depending on the particular sub-sect's beliefs, merely appropriated credit for creating it).
However, he was considered to be a narrow-minded meanie, not to be obeyed or worshipped. These variants of Gnosticism wanted to "cut out the middle-man" and worship the higher god directly.
Some of the variants even claimed that Jesus was an agent of the higher god, sent to free mankind from the meanie creator god.
IDKFS, but I can't help wonder whether JRRTolkien wasn't borrowing on this Gnostic theme when he created a mythos where Eru was the "higher god", and then the other "angels" below him actually created the universe and then entered into that Creation and acted as "gods" there. It's a pretty good match for this variant of Gnostic cosmology.
Of course, this all means that JRRT was creator( creator (creator (creation))), so it might be gods all the way up, in addition to turtles all the way down. (Our place in the universe is indeed distinctive, being the place where gods and turtles meet.)
Gnosticism was a very interesting intellectual(?) movement, and can be fun to read about, but unfortunately most of what you can find on it is New Age fluff that may or may not have much to do with the historical movement.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Martin Gardner did a pretty funny review of the first book (I can't find any links to it online) in which he refers to Tipler's Final Anthropic Principle (FAP) as the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle (CRAP). Honestly, there is nothing new here at all.
In a way, this is quite silly. If you've heard of the anthropomorphic principle, you know what I'm talking about.
It's silly to reason that since conditions need to be just so for us to exist, it must have been designed. If they were not just so, we wouldn't be around to ponder what might have been if they were. If fundamental constants were different, something wildly unimaginable but equally 'cool' could happen instead. Intelligence might form in a completely different way.
Does the rich man, in his rich, gated community, look out the window and wonder why he sees no poor people when supposedly they are far more numerous than rich people?
Out of all possible universes, the ones incapable of supporting carbon-based life will have no carbon-based people to ask such questions, so why should we be so surprised that we are here?
-------
Vidi, Vici, Veni
why does the large multiverse exist?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Everyone knows that there is only one number: 42!!
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
Ok, so there was this little pinpoint of super dense matter which exploded and created the entire known universe. Great. Then, everything just happened to come together just right to form life here on this planet. That's fine, too. When you consider the vast number of planets and universes out there, probability deffinately seems to be on your side. That's not too hard to believe.
But, here's the big question: where the heck did all that matter come from in the first place? It had to get there somehow, but nobody can really explain it. This is a problem. So, since it is human nature for us to want a reason for everything (and if you don't think so, just ask any parent with a 2 year old child going through their "why" stage), we simply do as we have always done and form a reason of our own. Some all powerful diety had to create this pinpoint of super dense mass, right? Well, maybe. I guess that's fine to believe for now. But, who's to say that several years from now, maybe even 100 years from now we won't find the reason that this matter existed. Chances are, though that it'll just bring up new questions that need to be solved, and so again the answers to these new questions will be attributed to a diety. It's happened before with the creation of the earth and the creation of life on it, and it probably will happen again. People used to attribute changes in weather as happening because some diety decided so. That was before we understood weather. It just goes on and on, only with new reasons to believe in an all powerful diety or dieties. It seems to be a never ending circle, where us humans with our insatiable quest for a reason for everything again and again attribute something or other to a diety.
The thing is, whether or not you believe in a diety makes no difference. There will most likely always be a reason for a diety in our culture. And those of you who to believe in a diety shouldn't fret so much that science will prove your diety wrong. Science just gives you new reasons to believe in your diety.
Well, anyway. I've kind of gotten off track, and have pretty much forgotten what my point was with this post, so I guess that's enough for now. Besides, I'm late for class
--------------------------------------- ----------------------------
---------
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.
So the book "explains" where our universe comes from, but it doesn't explain where it the first universe came from.
--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Not at all. By jumping out to the multiverse, you may be able to explain why this universe improbably supports life, but you need accept no such obligations regarding the multiverse. (Well, hopefully. It depends on what kind of multiverse you come up with.)
Same goes with God substituted for the multiverse.
The idea that life on earth came from outer space is far inferior, because it induces exactly the same kind of question that it tries to explain.
Guess which one gets interviewed on CNN?
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I can see why this argument might seem compelling - the word "design" is certainly appropriate for the extraordinary feats of engineering that are us and other living things. But the even more extraordinary conclusion that this is all a result of genome success based on selection pressure really is how it came to be. To see this argument presented in all its compelling force, you might enjoy Richard Dawkins's "The Blind Watchmaker", which explains the modern theory of evolution in a clear and enjoyable way and also answers some specific claims made by creationists. Check it out.
--
Xenu loves you!
It is absurd to think that the constants he listed are 'required' for life. Perhaps required for life exactly as we know it, but certainly not life in general. Most of them don't even preclude the formation of universes with the potential for life, and a few of them are completely broken. One at a time:
Epsilon, the '.007 figure', has little to nothing to do with whether or not complex molecules can form. If it were just a little bit smaller, stars would have to be bigger to make other elements, and the universe would contain a higher percentage of hydrogen than it currently does. If it were just a little bit bigger, it would be easier to make and fuse other elements, and perhaps helium-3 would be the fundamental element burned by stars.
In short, changing epsilon merely changes the power source of stars, and changes the stable isotopes in the periodic table. It does not eliminate the periodic table altogether.
Additionally, epsilon is derived from other fundamental constants and may in fact not be an independent constant.
N, ratio of gravity to other forces. His comment on this is totally bunk. We don't know shit about how this ratio affects the size of the universe, and current theories indicate that this constant could be grossly different and still produce a large, long lasting universe.
Omega, density of materials. Contrary to his belief, omega can also be grossly different without affecting anything. A very high omega might cause the big crunch sooner, but a low omega simply means stars and galaxies are farther apart. So the average distance goes from 8 ly apart to 80; is that really such a problem?
Lambda isn't even a real constant, and there is considerable debate as to whether it even exists, much less what its current value is. It's a little early to say that its present value is critical for life.
Q isn't even a well defined number, and certainly isn't a standard cosmological constant. Assuming the most sane definition of it I can think of, there is no reason this constant must be fixed either. It could also vary by many orders of magnitude and still result in a viable universe with stars such as we know today.
After all, don't we already have 'huge black holes' and vast clouds of dead gas out in interstellar space?
D - this one he pulls completely out of his ass. Granted, most physicists have difficulty thinking up life in two dimensions, but I know of none who think dimensions higher than 3 rule out life. There are even several theories that postulate the existance of higher dimensions (10 or 11 typically) as part of our universe, which makes his assumption that we live in 3D questionable.
In short, I find the description and importance of his constants as described in the article highly questionable and of the same caliber as 'creation science'. Perhaps the article is simply of low quality - if so, Rees should correct them. But as it stands, it is nothing more than 'pop science' and has little value in my opinion.
-dennis towne
Alter Aeon Multiclass MUD - http://www.alteraeon.com
It amazes me when scientists make up crazy, unprovable theories as an alternative to the crazy, unprovable theory of the existence of God.
Do they think that they seem more intelligent or scientific for making up this unprovable theory soley as an excuse not to give any validity to the unprovable theory of the existence of God?
I'm not sure whether I believe in God or not... but at least I'm willing to consider the possibility rather than writing it off from the start. But, making up my own theories would sure be easier than confronting this issue.
... then you need to read The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, a serious and fascinating discussion of the question of why our universe is the way it is; whether or not you agree with the authors' conclusions, it will at least give you the necessary tools to think further about it. Sort of like James Morrow does for Christian theology. Though not as funny.
How many parameters are there in the standard model? 18 or something? Mass of the fundamental particles (leptons & quarks), CKM mixing matrix, h-bar, couple of other things.
The idea that the origin of the observerved can depend on the nature of the observer is the Anthropic Principle
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
I'm pretty sure that his 'six numbers' can be used to derive those other constants. The strong force constant is in there as his epsilon, there's a ratio with gravity as his N, etc.
My guess is that he chose those six numbers rather than the fundamental constants to better describe them to laypersons. Planck's constant is tough to describe as a single quanta-frequency of light, but wrapping it into Q -- the size of the ripples of the expanding universe -- gets the point across. Physicists today, and cosmologists especially, have to in some part be showmen.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
The causal chain of being is
Nothing begets energy,
Energy begets matter,
Matter begets life,
Life begets biological intelligence,
Biological intelligence begets machine intelligence,
Machine intelligence becomes omnipotent,
Machine intelligence begets the universe!
We are but the link in "Biological intelligence begets machine intelligence".
Isn't this just a more precise version of the anthromorphic principle? This principle suggests that the reason the laws of the universe are the way they are are because they are the only combination of laws that would produce entities capable of observing the universe, namely, us.
The idea of the multiverse being a repeatedly spawning singularity is an intriguing one because it does answer the question of what there was BEFORE the Big Bang. It allows for a cosmos that is both finite and infinite at the same time.
...is that it is extremely difficult for a moderator to be objective - the subject of science and religion is both emotive and personal. I've read some comments here that have been marked "insightful" not because they contain conclusive evidence in a particular direction, but because they presumably support the view of the moderator.
The Slashdot moderation system isn't designed to cope with such a wide variety of deeply personal opinion. Ranting about Microsoft and praising Linux is a no-brainer for moderators - generally speaking the pro-Microsoft comments will be regarded as "troll" which anti-Linux comments are "flamebait". To expect otherwise is a naive considering the demographic. Religion is different as it concerns the deepest beliefs for some people.
Just so I stay on-topic, my personal belief is that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. The Bible doesn't try to explain everything, but it deals with issues of faith that science cannot.
Where have I heard this one before? *snicker*
--
"How many six year olds does it take to design software?"
dinner: it's what's for beer
Do you not see how this begs the question ?
-Tom Duff
No, when I see hoofprints I think hoofprints. Then I go looking around the area for animals with hoofs. If I find no animals with hoofs, I look for people with wheels imprinting false, hooflike prints in the ground. If after an exhaustive search for years or centuries I have still never seen a horse, nor any other explanation of the hoofprints then I can conclude that I simply cannot answer the question of whether or not horses created the hoofprints based on current knowledge or whether there is another source, artificial or manmade, of the hoofprints.
This is rational deduction. I am assuming zero starting information. Likewise, in our inquiry into the universe, which is a much, much more complicated problem, I assume zero starting information. In other words, I have no idea initially whether the universe has resulted from random processes or an act of God. If I am simple-minded, I will rely on the starting assumptions that others have placed into my mind, whether they are "science governs all" or "the universe was created by God". If I instead seek to embark on a rational inquiry, as I believe great thinkers tend to do, they start with as few assumptions as possible and look at the evidence piece by piece that has been collected over the centuries.
In this particular case the evidence is still inconclusive. This is not a philosophy. I do not philosophically believe that evidence is required to make factual statements. This is a necessity in order to define factual, repeatable results. If instead I make inquiries and answer questions based on pre-existing suppostions, people in different cultures which have had different collective experiences over the centuries will all come to vastly different conclusions. While most cultures would traditionally agree with you that some nonhuman deity or force created the universe, their explanations are not all monotheistic nor do they mesh with your Judeo-Christian explanation based on the Bible.
Me, I'll stick with explanations that are repeatable by any reasonable, rational, logical thinker.
In the article, the chances of life is compaired to the possibility of a Boeing 747 aircraft being completely assembled as a result of a tornado striking a junkyard.
This actually makes a strong point for the religious of the population. Some would say in the infinite galaxy, all possibilities will happen, due to the nature of infinity, but religion could say, "Something *had* to have interfered to actually -help- these number assume such a perfect state to attain life."
No no no no no! :-) Just step back from this and think of it like this. Think of those six constants as many sided dice, and only one (or possibly a few) combinations of those die will give rise to life. In all the cases that life does not arise, nothing exists to ponder why life does not exist. However in the one (or few) that life arises, that Life sits up in bed one day and thinks "it's so astonishingly unlikely that something like this could arise by chance, there has to be a divine creator who made it".[1] The whole point of the multiverse argument is that all these Universes may exist, and therefore as long as you roll the die enough times, you are bound to create Life in at least one of those Universes. The idea that the probabilities are tiny does not matter - if life wasn't possible here, we wouldn't be here to wonder why.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
[1] Of course, if you are an avid H2G2 fan, you will comprehend why this argument does, in fact, successfully lead to the conclusion that God does not exist, and that life can be truncated by philosophical ponderings on Zebra crossings.
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
I agree. How do scientists justify this with regards to the immutable(!) Laws of Thermodynamics?
The way I see it:
Throughout history, humans have always decreased the entropy of our world (for the most part), by arranging/building things. Wherever life is not, disorder ensues.
Do scientists believe that this universe is highly/slightly/_at all_ disordered? I don't think any do. Generally, their theories proclaim that over "billions of years" our universe has steadily decreased its entropy by forming atoms, molecules, stars, planets, solar systems, and galaxies.
And it all happened because those sub-atomic particles/waves in the BB knew how a stable universe could be formed. It was inherent in their nature? Order out of a singularity -- I should patent that.
Wrong. I believe you mean St. Augustus of Hippo, as discussed in his work, the *Confessions*.
these are the questions I ask myself when I am completely fucked up. He needs to do some more acid and call me in the morning. He will understand all there is to know about the universe and why we are here.
- Bill
I think that the multiverse is much in line with the Who made God? problem.
Where did our universe come from?
Oh, it's just part of the larger multiverse.
Where did the multiverse come from?
Oh...uhm...
and so forth.
Similar to this dialog
How did life start on earth?
It came form outer space.
Where did extra-terrestrial life come from?
...
It answers the question by creating a new question one degree removed, but no less challenging.
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
"Why should we vote?" "Why does the universe exist?"
A lot of these articles seem to be questions that Bill Nye gets from 8-year old kids on his show. Must be a slow week.
The real point of the article is to promote his specific explanation of a very very old theory. See this quote from the link: 'The multiverse idea is, in fact, far from new. In the late 1700s, philosopher David Hume mused that other universes might have been "botched and bungled, throughout eternity, ere this system."'
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
talk.origins archive and FAQs
Here's a summary addressing these old misconceptions;
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
The Universe exists because of this way cool dude:
http://images.slashdot.org/topics/topicscience.
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
Our Galaxy itself contains 100 million stars, its 100,000 light-years side-to-side, it bulges in the middle, 16 000 light-years thick, but out by us it's just 3 000 light-years wide. we're 30,000 light-years from galactic central point, we go round every 200 million years, and our galaxy is only one of millions of billions in this amaizng and expanding universe.
The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding, in all of the directions it can whizz, as fast as it can go, at the speed of light you know, twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure, how amazingly unlikely is your birth! Pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, because there's bugger all down here on Earth.
Thanks to Monty Python.... hope i got it all. It's a great song to remember conversion points for physics... heh
--
Gonzo Granzeau
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
Incidentally, are you using the term, multiverse in a multi-cultural sense? In order to be more inclusive of less fortunate or downtrodden universes? That's so cute!
Make that "The Anthropic *Cosmological* Principle"
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
"A zygote is a gamete's way of producing more gametes. This may be the purpose of the universe."
Limbo?
As a proud West Indian (at least, my parents are!), I would like to say that I have seen limbo, and it takes a lot of physical flexibility to perform it. Do you suppose the Pope did some tests. Or something.
There.
Someone had to say it.
:)
ELITISM: It's always lonely at the top. Uninvited company is rarely welcome.
For a start I'd dispute his claims that there are six numbers that constitute the makeup of everything. There's no mention of things like the masses of the fundamental particles, the interaction strengths of the four forces, Planck's constant etc. etc. His numbers, apart from D (although that is also looking more likely to not be fundamental), are secondary characteristics arising from the effects of the underlying forces.
On the other hand, chaotic inflation is a viable scientific theory, and has its proponents amongst the physics crowd. It's also worth having a look at Lee Smolin's book The Life of the Cosmos for an alternative explaination.
Personally I think we're going to have to wait until we've sorted out a theory of everything before we can attempt to really answer these questions. Given the direction superstring theory/M-theory is taking, it wouldn't suprise me if they said some pretty fundamental things about how the Universe came into existance.
"It's quite fantastic," says Martin Rees, Britain's Astronomer Royal, waving a hand through the steam rising from his salmon-and-potato casserole.
Seconds later he was confronted by a large buldozer, "Yellow" he thought.........
Dirty Pirate Hooker
Go see Mission to Mars, just try not to kill yourself afterwards.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
He wrote some great songs, including the classic Poisoning the Pigeons in the Park. I can't verify that he wrote the 'universe' song, but it's very much in the style of his other science songs.
Reading the lyrics do not do Lehrer's music justice. They are a must-listen.
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
time paper 1
time paper 2 time paper 3
most of the theory is that our perception of time is related to motion, but that time does not exist. care to rebut?
tagline
... hi bingo
Or in other words: absence of proof is not proof of absence.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Boy, I'd shure like to see a Beowulf cluster of these!
Uh..ya.. wait a minute.....
Dirty Pirate Hooker
For some reason, I find humor in seeing "© Copyright 2000 The Walt Disney Company." at the end of this article. (c:
"If you're walking on the beach and you discover a watch in the sand, you won't assume that randome processes and time caused this watch to appear."
No, I would think some sinner had lost their watch, doomed to wander the earth for an eternity without knowing the time... Where was his god then? WHERE???????
Dirty Pirate Hooker
Well, as has been noted, the infinite-monkeys theory has been definitively disproven:
"We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true."
-- Robert Wilensky, University of California
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
or at least thats St. Francis of Assisi's opinion.
tagline
... hi bingo
Question: "Why is the Universe here?"
Answer: "Well, where else would it be?"
Food for thought on a Friday afternoon...
Eric
--
Be who you are...and be it in style!
> You insult and degrade the beliefs of a large
> portion of the population,
Nothing wrong with that. If that was wrong, we'd have to disavow the efforts of most Christian missionaries.
It's more important to be right than popular.
God Wondering Whatever Happened To That Planet Where He Made All Those Monkeys
HEAVEN-- Reminiscing Monday, God wondered aloud what happened to "that one planet I made, like, four and a half billion years ago, the one with all the monkeys." "Man, I haven't thought about that planet in forever," God said. "I have no idea why it suddenly popped into My head. I remember it was really crude, one of My weaker early efforts, back when I was experimenting with the oxygen atmospheres and those ridiculous carbon-based lifeforms. And I was on that whole upper-primate kick. Huh." God said He couldn't remember the planet's name but was pretty sure it was "something like Ursh or Orth or maybe Ert." I laughed my butt off.
Because you can't, you won't, and you don't stop...
In the article, the chances of life is compaired to the possibility of a Boeing 747 aircraft being completely assembled as a result of a tornado striking a junkyard.
.sigs??
This actually makes a strong point for the religious of the population. Some would say in the infinite galaxy, all possibilities will happen, due to the nature of infinity, but religion could say, "Something *had* to have interfered to actually -help- these number assume such a perfect state to attain life."
Just a little philosophy for you from both sides of the spectrum. Being kinda religious, I'd venture to say it was a good argument that something had to help the environment reach this very rare state.
-- Don't you hate it when people comment on other people's
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Personally, I think that if you want to call yourself a Believer (of whatever religion you choose), you can't just say "I'm a creationist," or "God handles everything," and leave it at that. The facts are there, and are pretty hard to dispute : I could go on at length about this, but the Inflationary Big Bang is supported by many different observations, and no other theory has emerged (or is likely to emerge, IMNSHO) which can say the same. (Examples: the existence of a CMB, and the fact that it has the spectrum of a perfect blackbody at 2.7 K, to within one part in 10^5 or so, everywhere in the sky; the existence of a Hubble flow; etc.) You can't just ignore these things : you must find a way to reconcile them with your faith; if that makes your picture of God, and the way God functions, more complicated ... well, so be it.
And we haven't even touched on what is maybe the most fundamental thing, which is that it might be impossible for any scientist (or anyone who thinks scientifically) to believe absolutely, without doubt. Richard Feynman has discussed this all (much more eloquently) in some of his books, but the gist is this: that doubt is the very nature of science. You never, ever, ever say "I am absolutely sure of this one thing"; you say, "I am almost certain; I am 99.99999 percent certain," etc. And this is a profound thing, because for a simply religious person it is just "there is a God"; for a deeply scientific person, it must be "I am almost certain there is a God." You are never quite sure, cannot ever be quite sure -- no matter how much you would like to believe, no matter how many times you have felt like a Deity exists, the doubt is still there.
If you read the whole article, at the end they mention that although the various values are just right for everything to exist, our universe contains many imperfections - for instance our orbit could in theory be a perfect circle and still be able to support life.
They mention that many irregularities like that exist leading to there probably being many variations of our universe within the set of mutiverses. Indeed, he said that if these slight irregularities did not exist it would probably make you a lot more likley to think it was all put together by divine intervention!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This sounds rather like the anthropic principle to me.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Time is a purely derived notion, it doesnt exist.
tagline
... hi bingo
"In the best of all possible worlds, all is for the best."
That's the problem I have with most religious people: they're afraid of the truth, so they force themselves to believe a lie.
Just because *you* have trouble believing it dosn't make it a lie. That's why they call it "faith" and not "proof". There are some things which are true and yet have no proof.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Before you get your flamethrowers in a bunch trying to hose me for being an idiot, I suggest you consider the evidence of specific creation based on the concept of intelligent design.
If you're walking on the beach and you discover a watch in the sand, you won't assume that randome processes and time caused this watch to appear. "When you see hoofprints, think horses, not zebras"
The impetus behind most so-called science rejecting specific creation is simply the philosophy of metaphysical naturalism. Naturalism is a religious belief, not a scientific one.
God exists. He created everything. The fact that you are alive and reading this is an example of His grace.
This is not "offtopic" or a "troll" The article asked a philosophical question, and it deserves a philosophical answer.
Regards,
Tom Cooper
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I'm willing to bet that you think that given the planet Earth, the fact that life evolves upon it means that entropy has decreased. You know what? You're right. Entropy has decreased.
LOCALLY.
The Earth is not a closed system. Entropy in an open system may decrease to zero, as long as there is an equal or greater increase somewhere else to make up for it. The energy that went to "ordering" the "chaotic" matter on Earth to cause Life, CAME FROM THE SUN. The TOTAL entropy of the universe still increases, even though locally it may increase.
I suggest you go read a couple of physics textbooks on thermodynamics (since you obviously haven't... I mean "order from chaos"? COME ON, dude, this isn't 1500!) before you try to make this argument again.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
It's a horribly cruel and twisted experiment designed simply to make human beings search endlessly and hopelessly for the answer to the question "Why does the Universe exist?"
--
In a lecture he gave in Chicago, he said that the universe is in three physical dimentions because intelligent life couldn't EVOLVE elsewise.
Let's use some hypotheticals.
Imagine a two-d universe. Flat as a paper.
Now construct an animal that eats, digests, and excretes. Draw it on paper.
Too bad it literally falls apart.
Now, try the math of a four-d universe. Gravity will overcome energy very shortly, on the order of low millions of years, tops. This time span is NOT long enough for sentient lifeforms to develop.
So, at least, why is the universe 3D? Because otherwise there wouldn't be anyone around to question its existance.
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
It isn't a measurement system that gives the .007. The .007 was a ratio remainder, and thus has no units. It is .007 if you use metric or imperial, because it is 1 - the ratio of mass of helium to 2*the mass of hydrogen.
-no broken link
The concept of a multiverse is not new, as many have pointed out. But what ARE all those other universes and why "are we in this one"? Quantum uncertainty has led to some interesting theories about divergent universes. Anyhow, Feynman has a theory referred to as the Sum Over Histories. It's actually more than a thoery, as it is apparently very predictive of quantum interactions and is fundamental to the field of Quantum Computing. Being a computer geek and not a physics geek, I find it interesting if thick. There's info about how it relates to the universe's formation here.
On a related note, Feynman's books (Surely you must be joking, Mr Feynman & What do you care what other people think?, are both insightful and very entertaining)
Me: There are some things which are true and yet have no proof.
Thou: Uh, like what? I'll assume that you mean 'evidence' when you say 'proof'.
Study the Godel Incompleteness Theorem. In any sufficiently expressive formal system, if the system is consistant (i.e. no false statements have proofs) then there exists statements which are true and which have no proof. See _Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Briad_ by Douglas Hofstadter.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
By chance? Perhaps...
;-)
/."
This may sound very new-age and all, but: I believe in the Big Bang (though what happened prior to that event interests me infinitely more...pun pun) but I think the Universe has evolved to experience itself. We are one set of, I hope, millions of eyes and ears with which the Supreme Light/Universal Consciousness/God(dess) experiences him/her/itself. People should astral travel more often, you can get all your questions answered there.
There is chaos, but there is also order. Susan Miller had a very interesting article on synchronicity up last month, if you can find threads on the message boards I think it would be worth checking out. (Unfortunately I don't think she archives her monthly newsletters.) When I ponder the nature of the Universe, and our role in Life, I always have to come back to coincidences, synchronicity, and other happy accidents. I don't necessarily belive in Fate, but there could very well be an unseen hand guiding everything...
"I'm not a bitch, I just play one on
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Which states that the universe is the way that it is because if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here to see it.
Is the Hubble Constant still 42, by the way?
Hacker: A criminal who breaks into computer systems
"Information wants to be paid"
Ok, I'll bite. The concept of God is flawed because it only takes all the questions of existence and puts them in a little box and calls it God. It doesn't answer them. Where do we come from? God. Where does he come from? See? Adding an extra layer fools the average person who doesn't really care but won't fool the person, philosophical or scientific, who is really looking for answers. After you reject the concept of God as an explanation, you discover that he's not really all that convenient anymore. There's no physical evidence. So, Zarathustra(?) comes running down from the mountain shouting "God is dead" and Christians entirely miss the point and try to hang Nietsche.
A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither. - Thomas Jefferson
Yes, we all make assumptions. The difference is that science doesn't hold them sacred, they encourage their overturn by new evidence. And in fact any assumption that *can't* be overturned by new evidence is not allowed... it is against the rules. It *is* true that metascience, religion, and philosophy have some commonality, but science is something else I'm afraid.
People don't need to believe in science, they use the best it has to offer. Knowing full well it isn't correct, but probably close. Most don't even *care* what is actually correct if their answers are good enough to be useful.
Science says that if you want to know how something works, study that thing. Hypothesize, test, and refine. Many religions apparently believe that the appearance of reality can be deceptive, a trap of Satan, and experienced clergy are needed to interpret sacred writings to determine what can be trusted. Or something.
Science works. I can't prove religion doesn't, but I've never been given evidence I can believe. I'm not saying that you can't be a better person for having a religion, or that it isn't a valuable comfort for some, but its ability to predict and control reality is not as impressive as that of science.
So yes, I take things on faith. But I'm willing to toss my faith tomorrow for a better one, and actually kind of hope I might have to. Are you?
It's not a mainframe, it's a Palm Pilot.
.
He's got the whole world, in his hands, He's got the whole wide world, in his hands. .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Although I am a devout athiest, I can only say - and I think we all should - that there is information here which needs discussing, analyzing, theorizing. But no specific conclusions, because this issue is a lot bigger than sitting at your keyboard and blathering here.
On one final note, as an athiest, any evidence used to support the notion of a divine hand setting into motion the beginning of the universe can make sense, I concur. However, this does not mean that such divine presence means that any specific, and organized religious interpretation has any more credit than before. There is nothing here to suggest or bolster that Allah or Jehovah or Kronos or a chain of turtles had anything to do with it and therefore should live in accordance to their word or Law.
Maybe the ultimate reconciliation between science and religion will be when religion begins to focus on the greater, wider more cosmological notion of the divine rather than doctrine that should be applied to how people live and think. I think we as a species can sometimes to be humble enough to accept that there is something greater and bigger than all of us. But not in the form that still lingers on this planet, the poisons of dogma and doctrine and superstition.
** http://www.nkhumanrights.or.kr/ ** Human rights in North Korea. 1 million estimated dead from starvation.
A British Scientist (first initial M) decides that the entire universe flourishes because our measurement system has pegged a certain number level as .007
Does no one else see the irony?
--
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Since the laws of physics have lead to the creation of life, of intelligence, we should assume that there was some sort of infinite intelligence present in the universe before the laws of physics as we know them were applied, before the existance of space and time.
That infinite intelligence, call it God if you would like, reached to a conclusion that the existance of itself alone is pointless, so it simply thought of basic mathematical and physical laws, that can lead to the creation of other intelligence (hint: us), of life. After it thought over the laws, it created space and time, and in time 0 it transformed itself into the singularity that resulted in the Big Bang. That's pretty much it.
Where is that infinite intelligence right now? Many believe it exists in another plane, and no one can communicate with it. Or, it sacrified itself when it created the universe.
Maybe "normal" universes have life flourishing throughout. Maybe it's only our own where stuff has collapsed into stars and planets, with a few carbon-based entities clinging precariously to some tiny planets.