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..."
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.
...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
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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!)
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
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
"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
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
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)
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"