Slashdot Mirror
Science's Alternative To an Intelligent Creator
Hugh Pickens writes "Discover magazine has an interesting article on the multiverse theory — a synthesis of string theory and the anthropic principle that explains why our universe seems perfectly tailored for life without invoking an intelligent creator. Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse. While most of those universes are barren, some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life. The idea that the universe was made just for us — known as the anthropic principle — debuted in 1973 when Brandon Carter proposed that a purely random assortment of laws would have left the universe dead and dark, and that life limits the values that physical constants can have. The anthropic principle languished on the fringes of science for years, but in 2000, new theoretical work threatened to unravel string theory when researchers calculated that the basic equations of string theory have an astronomical number of different possible solutions, perhaps as many as 101,000, with each solution representing a unique way to describe the universe. The latest iteration of string theory provides a natural explanation for the anthropic principle. If there are vast numbers of other universes, all with different properties, at least one of them ought to have the right combination of conditions to bring forth stars, planets, and living things." So far xkcd is simulating just one single universe.
a universe without first posts
In this universe
Now comic book geeks are going to be quoting physics theory they don't understand to quantify arguements about Earth-1 versus Earth-2 grounds to why the old pre-Crisis DC universe was better. Comic book guys rejoice !
ACK
This is news? I thought that this idea has been around for a while, or at least it was the logical conclusion of having a multiverse. A livable universe doesn't exist "just for us," it just so happens that out of all of them, at least one of them would end up hospitable. Kind of like planets and solar systems.
Is that really "101,000," which is hardly an "astronomical" number, or is it supposed to be 10^1000? The article was correctly quoted, and with a quick search I couldn't find another source for the number of possible multiverses.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I could swear that this has got to be the third time Discover has run almost this exact same story, but I unfortunately recycled about ten years of the magazine this summer.
This sounds more like a comic book than science. Does any of this "theory" have any facts behind it? Or is it like my theory that the marshmallow man is really the creator of it all? I know they put a lot of fancy math with it, but remeber math is just a language. It tries to express what is there, but it doesn't have to. I can write a story of truth(non-fiction) with English, or I can write a story of fiction with English. The same can be said for math. We clearly have the latter here.
So we're moving from the Big Bang to String Theory. The old question was who caused the 'bang' now I guess it's who looped the 'strings'.
It's extremely disingenuous to call a hypothesis a principle, especially when the hypothesis is as controversial as this one.
I lack the credentials to argue whether or not the idea of this universe being particularly suited to life is a valid one, but overbearing terminology like this makes me extremely wary of people arguing in favor of the hypothesis.
If there is a vast multiverse, how did that come to be? Religion is the "answer" to the question of origin. It is what you end up with if you don't accept "it just is" as an answer. All science can't prove that god does or doesn't exist. The whole science or religion discussion is like comparing apples and oranges. They're just not dealing with the same problems. As a scientist I find it insulting that religious people try to pass off religion as some form of science and as a human being I find people who think that science can explain everything rather arrogant.
The universe really was made just for me!
Test your net with Netalyzr
101,000 possible solutions ? Perhaps you mean 10^1000. If you are pulling imaginary figures out of the metaverse, how about making them moderately large?
The latest iteration of string theory provides a natural explanation for the anthropic principle.
And now, quoting Caroline Miller:
The Anthropic Principle is based on the underlying belief that the universe was created for our benefit. Unfortunately for its adherents, all of the reality-based evidence at our disposal contradicts this belief. In a non-anthropocentric universe, there is no need for multiple universes or supernatural entities to explain life as we know it.
I think Occam's razor fits just right here. If we don't need a zillion universes, why would we say they exist?
Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.
The anthropic princple in general just says that the Universe is the way it is because if it were not nobody would be here to see it. That does not imply that it was 'made for us', it just means that because we are seeing it, conditions are the way they are.
that must be a tiny penis, then. Of you're taking the "search for a tight hole" to another extreme...
In my view science can explain only what we can observe, directly or indirectly. Is it ever possible for mankind to discern the true nature of God from our limited vantage point? Where did this multiverse come from? Is the mutliverse itself some part or aspect of God?
for extremely large values of 6000.
Good people go to bed earlier.
The fact that we exist is to me no more surprising than the fact that unicorns and goblins do not. What people usually forget when it comes to amazing things happening is that a vast number of equally improbable things did NOT happen. Take the lottery as an example. One person might find it amazing he won since the chance must have been one in a million or less. However, in a big lottery there were also millions of people who did not win, but could have. The probability that somebody would win is 100%, but it will still be surprising to the ones who do. When seen in this light the fact that life exists in this universe can be seen as simply a curious coincidence which occurred instead of a large number of equally bizarre possible events that did not. Elves, goblins, unicorns, gold at the end of the rainbows, the mad hatter and the easter bunny, honest politicians and well documented computer programs, they cold all have been real... It is only the limits of our imagination that cause us to think the universe would be more likely to be "dead" than amazing and alive.
I get tired of hearing about how other physical constants wouldn't allow for life. I've never seen any definition of life that made any sense. It's likely that different physical constants wouldn't allow for "life as we know it," but given that we've only seen one kind of life, we're not exactly experts.
anthropic principle: if you find fish that you must be looking in water.
biologist principle: the system evolves to use whatever the environment has to offer - if you have a world of water, then you can get fish.
An explanation that requires whole alternative universes fails the occam's razor test for me.
Are you kidding?! I have every intention of reading the full article, but I haven't yet. But my knee-jerk reaction to the notion that the universe is perfectly tailored to support life is ridiculous! the universe is rather hostile to life. The universe wants everything to be dead. The fact that life rarely exists indicates this quite well. The combination of factors that lead to life as we know it are extremely rare.
First, I'm not sure I agree that the universe seems perfectly tailored for life. 99.99% of the universe is empty space in which no life as we know it can survive. It seems to me that "perfectly tailored" would mean something other than "99.99% unusable".
Second, I don't know how this solves any God-related problems. The question is "Why is there anything?" The God-related answers usually hinge on the idea that, as we understand it now, the physical universe we can observe does not have within it the ability to create itself. (Hence lots of arguments about "First Cause" and such.) So, it is posited, something outside our physically observable universe must exist which is subject to different rules and created our universe (and with it, us).
So, there's a mind-bogglingly huge multiverse; fine. But why is it there? Why is any of the universes there? The one we live in doesn't seem to have been capable of creating itself, and the ones that arose in parallel with it can't have created it either, since they didn't exist at the time it didn't exist.
And third, unless you have an observation, which for the moment I'll describe as "a number and a unit of measure which can (at least in theory) be independently checked by someone else", you're not doing science. As this "theory" of multiverses proposes (infinitely?) many parallel worlds which we cannot observe in any way, it's not a science at all. It's just another religion made up by people who want to avoid using that word.
The idea that the universe was made just for us â" known as the anthropic principle â" debuted in 1973 when Brandon Carter...
That's not the way I've always heard it, it's more along the lines of:
Question: Why is the universe the way it is?
Answer: Because if it were any other way, we wouldn't be here to observe it and pose the question.
Sort of like Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" on a cosmic level.
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God. Hebrews 3:4
I suppose it will be posited that in an alternate universe houses do, in fact, construct themselves?
The universe isn't made perfectly for us - we're made perfectly for it. We evolved to fit the niche which is our universe. It doesn't matter if there's only one universe or infinite. And by evolved I mean to include things like our entire basic structure of elemental atoms, nuclear forces etc. Not just biology which just sits on top of the rest of it.
When it comes to the ultimate origin of the universe, I'm fine with saying "I dunno.". Maybe one day we will know.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Every time you run in to a roadblock, just tweak your calculations until they fit what you see. Shouldn't our formulas be based off of our observations, and not the other way around?
I'm personally a big fan of relative gravity, but touching einsteins theory of relativity seems to be anathema. A ridiculous notion since relativity itself debunked newton's theories, theories come and go as our ability to observe grows. Scientists shouldn't be afraid of it.
I thought this was exactly what parallel universes are. Just a bunch of universes with different conditions. We didn't really get lucky that we are in a habitable one because we exist, and just by the virtue of our existence means we could not be in anything but a habitable universe. Sure there might be better universes, but at least we're not on Nowwhat. Seriously, none of this is new if you've read Mostly Harmless or Candide.
..the fact that life exists in this universe can be seen as simply a curious coincidence..
I know this might seem pedantic, but isn't "coincidence" when two or more things happen. So, if my friend and I turn up at the same place at the same time, without planning to do so, that's coincidence.
So, our existance in the Universe is merely "incidence". It is not 'co-' with anything else.
The String Theorist says "hey, I just found this really cool mathematical technique which allows me to express the observed laws of Nature in a different way." We say "Ah, but now you have to explain why your theory fails to predict the existence of only one type of Universe". The String Theorist waves his hands a bit and says "perhaps all of the possible types of Universe exist, it's just that we can only see this one." So then we ask, where did this multiverse come from?
In both cases the gorilla in the room is Bill Ockham's shaving instrument - in order to explain what is, something much bigger and more complicated has to be postulated which is not observable.
Personally, I think String Theory is going to be another Phlogiston or Ptolemaic Epicycles - both of these required observed behaviour to be explained by the unobservable, whether it was the negative mass phlogiston that left heated materials, or the invisible angels needed to keep the Sun and all the planets revolving around the Earth. Both were "scientific" orthodoxy for some time.
The fundamental mystery is still "Why is there anything at all?", and none of the current "explanations" actually have any explanatory power. We should recognise this. (And perhaps put more physics effort into cheap, safe nuclear power and solar energy? But that's just applied physics, even if it is far more likely to keep physics departments open for the next fifty years or so.)
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I wonder if it's possible to consider the following without devolving into a flame fest:
So the multiverse theory postulates there are innumerable universes, each with different conditions, and ours happened to be the right conditions to support life as we understand it. How does this rule out the possibility of an intelligent creator? It can be argued that the structure of the multiverse itself is the creation of an intelligent being, thus abstracting the concept one level beyond our universe. Granted, this might be difficult for conventional organized religions to explain, but beyond dogma it does not rule out the possibility.
This whole "there is no God" argument of science versus spirituality is actually quite tiring. No matter how advanced science gets, it will never be able to disprove -- or prove, for that matter -- the existence of a God or gods. The very concept of a supernatural being does not lend itself to being explainable by science. The sooner science quits preoccupying itself with trying to prove an impossible proof, the sooner we can get back to doing real science and not starting arguments with people's personable beliefs (or lack thereof). Let people believe what they want to believe about the supernatural, and let's focus a bit more on what we can prove. Let's start with a Mr. Fusion for my time machine, shall we?
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I will get right on that right after I finish viewing yours on youtube. Hurry up and load that loin girding vid so I can do mine!
The sub-moronic demiurge. The theory? Dipshit design. My proof? Just look around and see how everything cries out to having been dipshittily designed. The hand of the sub-moronic demiurge is everywhere.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
People should be careful here. When you describe a mathematical object in a consistent manner it only exists as mathematical ideal, an object whose existence does not contradict any theorem of the theory.
The question of physical existence of such object remains open.
Essentially the existence of other universes remains a matter of belief here.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
...the 'We came here on the backs of crystals' or the 'Aliens deposited us' "scientific" explanations.
But this one is just as far-fetched and unprovable. Maybe moreso as it contains bigger words and "new theoretical work". Sounds so official - it must be true. Just need an actor in a white labcoat to provide the false authority, and we're all set.
You'd need quite the leap of faith to believe anything that "science" says about the origin of the universe.
Ah, so God must have made the *multiverse* just for us then.
Michael Moorcock has been writing about this idea for years. Geez. Don't you people read books any more?
Pax Vobiscum
"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise."
As others have mentioned, this is an age old idea. Here are some questions that I've yet to hear sensible answers to:
So your idea is that the universe is actually part of a multiverse. Fine. But then why does that exist, as opposed to nothing? and how did this multiverse come to be a place so fineley tuned as to be an environment conducive to the spawning of hospitable universes? Do you see that while you've expanded the idea, you havn't come to a more fundamental answer? And what is it that makes the universe "work"? Say the multiverse is goverened by string theory, what is it that breathes life into all these mathematical equations, rather than them being simply lifeless abstract formulae?
And where's the payoff in believing in a multiverse? Doesn't your Occam's Razor alarm bell begin ringing like crazy? To accept it, I'd have to put faith in an unseen (perhaps even permanently undetectible) world of parallel universes for which we have not even a single shred of hard evidence (and possibly never will), and for which the theory behind it is so embryonic that it's equations have not even been completely written down, much less solved; a theory which is so tenuous that many physicists regard it's status as "Not even wrong" (Peter Woit). What possible good reason could there be to find this a more appealing "explanation" for the origin of the universe? Not only is there no substantial evidence whatsoever, but also it fails to deal with the design/creator problem. As an explanation it does nothing but expand our idea of the scope of everything-that-exists by a step. So it seems to me that it would take much more faith to believe in this over the idea of a creator God.
Sometimes it seems people are so eager to believe in anything - any idea at all - just so long as it doesn't have God in it.
It feels strange to me the way Atheists always want to claim the Scientific high ground over Christians. It's strange that the headline of this article sets Science and belief in a creator God up as opposed to each other, which they're clearly not. I grow weary of Atheists pointing to this theory or that experiment as a way of proving that God cannot exist. The reason I grow weary is that Science (aka the Natural/Physical Sciences) is the ordered study of the natural/physcial world, but God must by definition be in some ways metaphysical. So discussion regarding God has to be grounded in Philosophy and Metaphysics rather than Physics of the Natural Sciences.
... the whole idea that there are multi-verses goes right against the grain of science itself, multiplying entities needlessly.
The two general explanations are:
Universe is eternal
Universe is not eternal (eternal something else exists "outside" the universe that caused our universe)
Out of those two, you have a few options:
1) Universe is eternal, the universe is godless
a) Universe is eternal, the universe is god (i.e. reality/god = same thing)
2) Universe is not eternal, the universe is godless
a) Universe is not eternal, the universe has a god "outside" the universe (which is a misnomer, technically the universe would be 'inside' god, or made out of god, god being the substance of all existence, in this case).
Those are the most parsimonious explanations, if you want to be honest with yourself.
Cosmologists spent decades establishing the subject as respectable science, and now these nitwits come along and blow all that good will. I see a number of specific problems with the Anthropic idea:
(1) It makes no predictions. There is no way to either verify or falsify it.
(2) The measure problem: in an infinite multiverse, there is no way to define probability. Think of a box with 1000 black marbles and 1000 white marbles. If you pick a marble out blind, your odds of getting a black one are 50%. Now consider a box with an infinite number of marbles, arranged Black/White/Black/White... and so on. What are your odds of getting a black marble if you pick one out blind? If you say "still 50%," consider this: since the number of marbles is infinite, I could just as well rearrange the marbles to be Black/Black/White/Black/Black/White... and so on. Now what are the odds a random pick will give me a black marble?
(3) Who is to say that a universe with very different laws of physics can't support life? Sure, it probably won't be based on carbon and DNA, but as long as you can build a Turing machine with available materials, then you can have life, and given enough time, you will have life. So how "special" is our universe, really? See (2) above.
Calling the "Anthropic Principle" a principle is pure PR. String theory's original promise that self-consistency would provide a unique theory has completely failed, and Anthropic arguments are an attempt to create a quasi-mystical explanation for why this is ok.
Fine. But then don't call it science.
And who created that multiverse, hmmm?
See, the trick was to create all of those universes 6000 years ago and then nudge science into thinking that because of all of those possibilities, at least one had to sustain life.
I say that God is Kaiser Söse.
~Syberz
The argument of the ID crowd tends to be on the improbability of life. I submit to you:
How to witness the impossible (without being god)
Go to a casino and sit down at a roulette table. The probability of a sequence of 1000 specific numbers being rolled on the table is 36^-1000 (or is it 37^-1000). In any case it is about 0.00...01 (with more than 1000 zeros replacing the ...), so effectively impossible. And yet, sitting at the roulette table and witnessing 1000 rolls you have just witnessed the impossible.
We may be the outcome of such an extremely unlikely event, or it may be very probable that life comes into existence in our universe. The problem is: we don't know. We can't restart the universe to see if it happens again. And even if we were to know the probabilities, fact remains that we are here. The event may or may not have been unlikely, but nevertheless still happened. Invoking god in the scenario is as unnecessary as invoking god when sitting at the roulette table for a few hours.
My UID is prime. Hah!
http://xkcd.com/171/
Are they sure it's not 101010 solutions? That would be "42" in binary.....
They have the number more accurately pinned at 1.44*10^5 but that presents a particular problem...
I require some kind of empirical evidence or some kind of experiment I can perform to reproduce these results. So far I have been unable to prove the existence of an alternate reality as I only have this one to work with. I would like very much to believe in alternate realities except for the fact that I have no satisfactory evidence proving that they exist.
Similarly, I have no empirical evidence that intelligent aliens exist only smug retorts on how conceded I must be to believe that they do not. I merely lack any evidence that they exist. It would be insane for me to behave as if something I had no proof of was real.
I can only act upon the reality I see in front of me. I can't really be expected to act on imaginary things can I? The multiverse is beyond my experience so far so I can't be expected to react to it.
[signature]
If the bible is the word of god, and if man is fallible, why would god rely on man to produce and profit from printing the bible, when he could just have created and planted around the world a "bible" tree (a tree that grows bibles)?
This still goes based off of the egocentric views of humans that we are the only ones in this universe.
We claim that something has to be "suitable for life", but yet, we are talking about things suitable for earth life and never reach out to the possibility that something that is not from earth can survive on conditions that are not earth-like.
In this "we need to see it to believe it" viewpoint on the universe, it is very hypocritical to even think that way when many people out there are religious, or have beliefs in a higher power that they have yet to see.
We are a speck of dust in this universe, not the central point in which all life is sustained. We have only looked over less than 1% of the galaxy, so you are telling me that there is no way that the 99% of the rest of the galaxy is barren? Oh wait, we have seen no proof thus far. We have not seen anything that explains anything about life on other planets. Wait. Where do you go to church again to worship something you have never seen before and there is no proof of its existence outside of writings (which there is also writing on people seeing races from other planets).
I know, I have an idea, maybe there isn't life. Maybe we are the only ones in this universe and the only possible way there could be life on other planets would have to be in another universe.
Get your heads out of your %@$#. We are not alone. We are not the sole planet in this galaxy to have life. I have not seen it, but you have to be out of your mind to think that of us only seeing 1% of the galaxy, for you to write off existence on other planets.
Once something has happened, however improbable it was, its probability of happening turned out to be 100.0%.
Probability isn't about "luck". It's about the unknown certainty that something will have happened once it did, even if many other things could have happened instead.
We do indeed live in a universe that is improbable because it's one of the very few, of all that could exist, that can and does make sense to us. That's because we evolved in it, as part of it. We were selected by the universe's laws and materials to have bodies that include organs which can hold information modeling the universe. But that doesn't mean anything miraculous occurred to us. It just means that we're the parts of the universe that generated the mechanisms to have the model. Mars' many rocks were also generated, but don't have the hardware to notice, or at least to replay an accurate rendition to their parts that can notice. Likewise, something like 15 billion years have passed until now, when we're noticing that we're noticing - until now, we weren't "miraculous", and what has changed is simply our interaction with ourselves, nothing "divine".
Every lottery winner can think they've received a miracle, because the odds were so slim, they have to think "why me?" But someone was certain to win, eventually, even in lotteries where the chances of even one winner are tiny - if the game goes on long enough.
What is at work with these "divine selection" delusions is not metaphysics, or even determinism. It's ignorance of math, of the mechanics of consciousness, of the basics of selection. "God" does indeed play dice with the universe: all "god" does is roll dice, in every quantum event, and probably on an even finer scale. We're just dice that eventually rolled unp parts that notice what's showing on the other die. We're just getting started, and many of us have yet to make the lucky guess that that's all we are, which is special enough without having to invent a roller.
--
make install -not war
It may sound ridiculous initially (NULL != NULL, anyone?) but it's mathematically true. One can have two different infinite series (say "all even integers" and "all odd integers which are multiples of 7"). Clearly, both series are infinite. Just as clearly, there are "more" even integers than there are odd integer multiples of seven. All of this to say that, even with multiverse theory, unless they assume that every single possible iteration exists (which isn't unheard of but...), an infinite number of multiverse layers (universes) could exist and none of them need ever have the possibility of supporting life or even come close to it. Since we're working with infinite possibilities here, there's not even a reliable "it's pretty probable" principle. Just a thought to throw in there.
-----------------------------------------
Remove the Greed which plagues mankind.
to disprove the unseen. Why am I not surprised?
How many of those parallel Universes do you suppose carry (a) life, (b) Slashdot, (c) this discussion?
They have it backwards. The universe is not perfectly tailored for life. Life is perfectly tailored for this universe because life evolved in this universe.
This whole article comes from the false belief that life is somehow special and that the universe exists to support life. Well, that is false. Life is a side-effect of the universe. If all life ceased, the universe would carry on and not care.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
If there are infinitely many universes each with different rules and possibilities, shouldn't God exist in some of them?
Parallel or Serial universes, when stretched infinitely, both give the same results.
Our universe could simply be the current incarnation of an endless series of universes that stretch infinitely back in time, each one replacing the last. We are here to marvel at this universe because it's laws make it possible for life to exist, but the next (or previous) universe might not be so life-friendly. To our simple brains this seems amazing and 'special', but even if we're the first lifeforms in the last trillion different serial universes, that trillion would still be an unmeasurable dot on the infinite timeline of previous universes.
One area of science which has rapidly approached religious status. It's ironic that the writers talk about an alternative to God and base it in a hypothesis which has been pretty much faith-based since it was thought of.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
This joins the 10^122 article published some time ago about strange coincidences between basic physics constants. Very interesting... almost in a numerological point of view !
Non-Linux Penguins ?
not again!
So how does Vin Diesel fit into all of this?
So if there are infinite universes, there must be at least one where an intelligent creator made it. :)
Sounds remarkably similar to the Infinite Monkey Theorem. In that scenario, we would have a multiverse that would consist of an uncountably infinite number of universes that do not support life and a (countably?) infinite number of universes that do. At any rate, it would be remarkably impressive to find only one other universe that supports life.
Any cosmology that assumes an intelligence within its framework is unacceptable to the modern mind because such would acknowledge that which transcends man. If one were to acknowledge that which transcends man then one must face the possibility that such an entity may include within its framework a moral perspective. Aldous Huxley finishes the thought "We objected to morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."
Truth told, downmodding expected.
As several others pointed out, this "news" comes again and again, often in order to complain about string theory and its funny ideas.
I just want to make a couple of points more precise:
Just like any theory in physics, string theory has many solutions (estimates vary around 10^500 or more, rather than 10100, and grow as we find new ones). In newtonian gravitation any conic section is a possible solution of the two body problem with appropriate parameters, but only one describes the motion of the earth around the sun (neglecting the other planets). Once we picked (or measured) the correct solution we can predict the future trajectory with an accuracy determined by the accuracy of the first measurement.
The problem in string theory is that there are many solution which, at the low energy which can be probed by current experiments, look very similar to each other, so it is difficult to determine which is the correct one.
Another problem in modern physics is the very tiny value of the cosmological constant. So the multiverse theory is a proposal taking advantage of the first problem to solve the second one: since there are so many solutions (with different values of the cosmological constant) it seems plausible that there should be one (or many) that has the tiny value which is observed.
This proposal is controversial in the string theory community mainly because it is viewed as "giving up" trying to find an explanation for the cosmological constant problem. On the other hand some people use it to push forward ideas (the anthropic principle) to counter the claims of intelligent design.
There is an excellent book on all this by Leonard Susskind, one of the promoters of the proposal.
The universe means 'all that there is'. So nothing can be outside of it; and there cannot be more than one. This whole theory is bad metaphysics with some equations to distract people from the fact that its bad metaphysics. Modal logic's possible world semantics does not imply the existence of other worlds or universes even if we can make meaningful statements about them. They are nothing more than useful fictions without ontological status. Not all grammatical subjects have objects (e.g., 'the present king of France is bald' is not true, but not because he has hair).
DC Comics would be proud... ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_(DC_Comics)
The multiverse+anthropic principle doesn't explain why there is such things as universes. A generalisation called "The Ultimate Ensemble theory" goes further. In short, the universe is just logic and math. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_ensemble
If the universe is perfectly tailored for anything, it sure as hell isn't life. Maybe empty space or black holes, but seeing how, as far as we know, life only has appeared as a thin film covering the surface of one tiny planet revolving around one insignificant star, maybe we're a little biased in our views of what is common or uncommon in the universe.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
As soon as you say, "I believe..." you are no longer doing science. In fact, you have abandoned the scientific method and further rational discussion is impossible.
Most of what you don't understand there exists mathematical and scientific "Theories" that explain the closely, though not perfect, homogenous nature of the universe. It is this lack of total homogeneity that provides just enough variance in density to account for things like Galaxy Clusters, Galaxies, Stars, etc, etc.
Now, no person of any integrity would call these theories fact. They are theories in the truly scientific sense in that they provide a model that behaves in a way similar to what we observe in the universe.
From this model, we can make predictions and then do experiments and/or make observations that either confirm or deny these predictions.
With each successfully confirmed prediction, the model's strength and correctness becomes more and more assured. If, on the other hand, the model/theory makes a prediction that is contradicted by observation or experiment, then it is back to the drawing board for the theorists to incorporate the new observations into the model and thereby refine it to be more correct.
For example, Newtons' theory of Gravity was refined by Einstein's relativity due to observations by Michelson and Morley (from here in Case Western Reserver University in NE Ohio no less) that the speed of light is the same no matter which direction in which it is measured.
This observation flew in the face of the then current theory of the nature of light propagation and the nature of space/space-time. It was this observation, and others like it, that force people like Einstein to keep looking deeper and refining the model to better match observation and experiment.
Nowhere in this process does "Belief" ever play any meaningful role.
I believe that anyone that argues with what the believe is an idiot! (*smiles*)
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Assuming the universe is specially tailored for life/us is a rather stupid and arrogant idea.
Why isn't the more logical assumption( we/life is specially tailored to fit the universe/world ) not used ?
There. That's the important part. The whole point of the anthropic principle is that we shouldn't be surprised to find ourselves in a universe that allows intelligent life. If the universe didn't support it, we wouldn't find ourselves in it.
The argument for God's existence through the anthropic principle is simply "doing it wrong." The point of the anthropic argument is to remove the supposed necessity for an intelligent creator.
No, the anthropic principle is not science. Of course, it also doesn't rely on the existence of multiple universes.
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
Well then who conceived of this inconceivable multiverse then, eh? Bet you smart science types didn't see *that* coming!
I think I'm about to puke. The Anthropic Principle in its purest form does nothing but make the observation that our surroundings obviously support lifeforms such as ourselves who in turn are able to make observations about their surroundings.
It really, really does not matter how many universes are out there. This is ours, and it exists without any need for justification. Sure, theoretically a vast number of universes could have parameters that make life impossible (like, say, because they have no temporal dimension), and just as unprovably many universes could exist that do support life in some form.
There is no discrepancy, there is no need for an explanation - at least scientifically speaking. Only religion demands an explanation, because it introduces the concept of "meaning".
To make a more earth-bound analogy: assume, somewhere in the desert, there is a volcanically heated pond of slime. The conditions in this pond are unique: it has a water temperature of 70 degrees Celsius and only a few uncommon amino acids can be found in the slime, making it a hostile environment for most known forms of life. However, in time, a type of cyano bacteria evolves that can handle the heat and live off the odd amino mixture.
Now, suppose that, by some freakish accident, the cyano bacteria were intelligent. They ask questions like "why is this pond so superbly designed to support us?". Of course, we as humans looking into the slimey pond, recognize the absurdity of the question right away, but the bacteria remain ignorant as to the stupidity of their premise.
They go on to ask "surely there must be an omnipotent creator who made this pond just for us". Again, looking from the outside in, we know better, but for the bacteria it's a huge deal. Next, they discover secularism and say "well, if there is indeed no creator, we must find another explanation why this pond is exactly the right kind of pond, because it is so exquisitly tailored to our needs!"
Then it dawns on the bacteria: "hey, maybe there is an infinite number of pools with different environments! So the explanation for the Bacteric Principle lies in the fact that one out of infinity has exactly the features we need!" At this point, we as outside observes realize the futility. The bacteria will never understand that the number of pools does not matter, because it was them who evolved to live there, it was never the pool that had to be adapted to them...
This is where we are now. And, just like the outside observer looking in, I realize the futility. But it nevertheless frustrates me immensely.
it can't be proved. it can't be disproved. end of discussion
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It fails the falsifiability criterion right out of the gate. Sorry. Sir Karl Popper is turning in his grave.
Lee Smolin delves into the anthropic principle in his book "Trouble with Physics"(a great book about the state of present day physics). He basically comes to the conclusion that the anthropic principle has less to do with science than it does with preserving the "ascendancy" of the string theory and supersymmetry, ie. string theorists are stretching to find something to hang their hats on.
Can we observe miracles? Then science can, at least, perform observations on God and His work. If we cannot observe any sort of physical effects of God's intervention in this universe, well, then He is totally irrelevant to us.
That's an emotionally loaded question. You could apply it to science as well as religion: Is is ever possible for mankind to discern the true nature of subatomic particles from our limited vantage point? No matter how much we learn, one can always argue that the "true" nature of something is still beyond our perception.
The main problem I see with philosophical statements such as those you made is that they are very restricted. If you wish to discuss God from a philosophically neutral point of view, then you must also open your mind to consider questions such as theodicy. If God is so powerful and good, then why do we have so much random suffering in this world?
Note that there could exist an intelligent creator that's less than perfect. We see this with computers all the time. I have the power to change any variable in my programs, I have the power to inspect the value of any variable, I wish everything worked as I planned. Yet, all the time, I find that the variables, for some reason or other, behave differently from what I intended.
I think one can conclude with a great deal of confidence that the existence of a God that's everything most Christians believe is extremely unlikely. If they would accept an imperfect Creator then what we observe around us would make more sense.
I'm compelled to recall a story from last week, covered on slashdot here, where the article was suggesting that intelligent organisms have some control over their own evolution. But isn't that, by very definition, intelligent design?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The way of things around us is systemic and indicative of something much greater than ourselves. It's laughable to think we have enough competence to understand how it all works or where it came from. We haven't enough awareness of the depths of the oceans or even enough wisdom to prevent our own demise. Who are we to say we have a rich enough grasp on the rest of it to make more than only mere whimsical observations? We can't even figure out, as a species, how to stop killing ourselves off over money, drugs and oil.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
Both popular science and popular religion seem to be pushing towards the "every answer is right in some form" conclusion. IMO this is just a failed attempt at the truth, and here's why:
I studied most of the world's religions for many years before settling on the congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't believe that everyone has got it right. Whether we like or not, somebody does have it right. Popular religion has fallen into this pattern in order to promote tolerance. Just because they all have certain principals in common is no proof they are all talking about the same god.
I have also studied physics for many years, and have a decent grasp on String and M-Theory. While the 11th dimension is a convenient mathematical model to explain every POSSIBILITY, to bastardize the Jedi: "This is not the solution you were looking for". It seems like a cop-out. Allowing for every possibility "somewhere else" just leaves us in the same boat theoretically, and will leave this branch science in the same boat as evolution: claiming a unproven theory is fact before it has proven factual.
I urge these scientists: If you must continue down this path, it would seem prudent to find the "Grand Unified Theory" for our own universe before you tumble into an infinitely-recursive dimensional discovery.
Where genius and insanity become confused true wisdom is found
Seriously.... good thing we've figured this out without the need to invoke an intelligent designer. Otherwise.... well....we don't want to think about that....
An infinite universe is hard to imagine.
To simplify, astrophysicists saved the day to announce that there are now an infinite number of infinite universes.
Get a job, ffs.
It's turtles, all the way down.
...and He is very observable.
What is matter made of? Mostly empty space. If you look inside the atoms of the elements of the periodic table, you'll find mostly empty space, with a very tiny actual volume being occupied by the protons and neutrons in the nucleus, and the electrons in orbit. As nuclear physicists have discovered, the subatomic particles are also composed of mostly empty space themselves, and according to the standard model, string theory, and the m-theory, the atom's building blocks themselves can be further divided down (quarks, gluons, neutrinos, positrons, whatever...). The further down you try to divide matter into its tiniest constituent "parts", it is now believed that you eventually get down to strings or membranes - basically little bundles of energy, vibrating at some wavelength.
That's pretty strange to try to wrap your brain around the concept of some little bundles of vibrating energy having substance and mass, isn't it? If you've ever listened to a large symphony orchestra live in a big concert hall, you may have noticed that certain complex musical chords played by all the wind and string instruments at once, sound so big and powerful that the combined sound starts to feel like it actually has mass, and occupies space. That effect gives you just a glimpse of how matter "works". Those little bundles of vibrating energy at the cores of the subatomic particles' innards are what ultimately gives matter it's mass and substantive existance. Now you must ask, just exactly what is the source of those little bundles of vibrating energy? I only know a very little bit about subatomic physics... just what I learned in schools, and by Googling a few websites this morning, but I know what the source of that energy is. It's God's Holy Spirit himself. Energy becomes matter thru His spoken word... or more in this case, he is basically humming a tune into matter.
If you don't believe me, go pick up a nice chunk of solid granite rock that weighs about 10 kg. Examine it as far down into it's molecular, atomic, and then subatomic structure as you can. Even though it feels quite solid and dense, you'll find it is indeed mostly empty space, and at the very heart of the tiniest undividable "particles", that you're basically holding a very sophisticated musical chord that God is humming.
Upon seeing string theory being taken seriously, I thought Roland Piquepaille might be at hand. Then I double checked and it was somebody else. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Problems_and_controversy
I have always pondered the universal significance of being born in the bottom of NJ, the terminus of the digestive system of the united states. I wonder what it would be like to have been born in europe or africa, but yet I am born here. I guess I could have been born in the middle of the air on an airplane, or at the bottom of the ocean, but I couldn't continue to exist there very long. I guess the same applies here. We apply extra significance to ourselves and our existence here in this universe in this solar system, but it just happens that we were born in the NJ of the multiverse, instead of the Europe of the multiverse, and could not have possibly continued to exist at the bottom of the sea if we were born there. Nothing special about here and now, just a possible solution that we as observers are uniquely aware of. I am just glad I wasn't born in the Africa of the universe.
i am so very tired....
Which is just another way to state the Axiom of Identity, A = A.
This is the idiocy of the 'reasoning' related to ANY form of the so-called anthropic principle. It is like you picked an ace of spades from a deck of cards at random, and then somehow it is an astounding fact that you have an ace of spades in your hand! Duh! You picked a card, so no shit, you had to have SOME card in your hand.
But it goes deeper than that. The only real definition of a thing is the thing itself. We exist, we are part of the Universe, inseparable from it. Asking 'why are we here' and not 'someplace else' is just plain illogical.
Sure a different Universe could exist. It wouldn't be OUR Universe, and since we're an inseparable part of THIS universe we wouldn't exist either, by definition. A != B, and if A = B, then by the Axiom of Identity A IS B.
The Anthropic Principle, and any reasoning based on it or about it, is fundamentally irrational because it can't be based on the Axiom of Identity and NO LOGICIAN IN THE HISTORY OF MAN has been able to even suggest that there is a form of logic or a method of rational discourse which does not start with the Axiom of Identity. In fact it is THE ONLY THING they all agree on unequivocally. You can argue about the Law of the Excluded Middle, but you can't even HAVE an argument without the Axiom of Identity.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
We have an existence proof for intelligence: us.
Now, halt that snarky comment right there! :)
If we can be intelligent, why can't equally complex entities also be intelligent? Like, say, the universe? Or the biosphere of our planet? Or the process of evolution itself? Of couse it's not bound to be an intelligence we can understand, but so what?
It's just that simple. But I find when I mention this idea, folks of both the theological and non-theological bent come along and twist it, so I usually just don't bother. (I'm not arguing either side.)
If the universe we inhabit formed at all, then it did so as a natural process. But nature doesn't do "one offs" so theoretically there is likely to be more than one "universe". That theory would also allow an answer to "where did the big bang take place". Just because we can't measure or observe anything outside our own universe, does not preclude the existence of other universes. Considering that not long ago (universally speaking) we thought the earth was the centre of everything, ignoring the possibility of other universes is extremely short sighted. That is not to say that knowing another universe exists is useful in this universe, but who knows. Maybe inter-universe communication is possible. That could conceivably have a great deal of value. If you take the existence of the heliopause around our solar system, is it not possible that there may be a "unipause" around this universe, the existence of which precludes observation by us of the situation outside its perimeter.
In short, to say there is only this universe is illogical. The content of the universe must have come from somewhere. Even stars do not create substance, they just change certain chemicals into others.
Excuse the use of the word universe. Multiverse makes an assumption, and multiples cannot really be termed "uni" unless you're talking about uni-cycles. Maybe system would be better, solar system on a small (!) scale and mega system on a (currently) universe sized scale.
I still entertain the notion that the whole of existence as we are capable of knowing it, exists in a petri dish. It's not scientific, but it makes as much sense as any big bang theory that neglects to state where the big bang took place. Dark matter deals with the continued expansion of the universe but seeks to explain why it is still accelerating with only the amount of visible or accountable matter we calculate composes the universe. However, if something outside the universe were sucking material out (think inverted black hole), then we don't need dark matter to explain the discrepancies in mass. This of course cannot be proved using conventional science only observed, which cannot be done either so dream on.
This proves nothing in terms of the overall concept of a "G-d" starting it all. Sure maybe it refutes the Judeo-Christian version of the story... but science/dinosaur bones did that a long time ago.
If in another universe long long ago a universe was dying and these alien critters wanted to escape or buy themselves some more time. They could have utilized the whole power output of a few galaxies and constructed a device to inflate a bubble of "quantum foam" so they could create a new universe. This was so they could escape to "our" universe when their own universe was winding down and dying due to the forces of entropy.
They could be alive and well billions of light years away and we wouldn't know it, or maybe they are used to conditions in the universe when it starts winding down so maybe they have yet to arrive in this cosmic bubble until the era a red dwarfs and black holes.....
Would they give a flying fsck about the morals of some little critters that managed to evolve some sorta rudimentary intelligence in some backwater galaxy in the middle of nowhere, nope they wouldn't give a fsck.
Our universe could be one of a very long chain of universes created by these beings to escape the fate of their universe. Who knows maybe we will evolve and expand enough so that we may start our own cycle of buying time to live on in newly created basement universes ad infinitum.....
Step 1. Create Basement Universe.
Step 2. Move in for a couple hundred billion years.
Step 3. Create machinery capable of inflating the quamtum foam.
Step 4. Goto Step 1.
Step 5. ???????
Step 6. Profit
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
It has always struck me as odd to base so much conjecture on so little information.
1) We postulate 101,000 universes from mathematical model of atomic interaction. Model not proven, universes not seen.
2) We postulate number of planets with life based on many different assumptions. Some analysis show 1 in 10 stars have life, some show 1 in 1 billion have life (or worse odds.)
3) We postulate the existence/nonexistence of a divine diety based on ??? A careful analysis of a claim for either the existence or non-existence of a diety will show that the science it is based on is chosen because it fits the belief and science contrary is downplayed or ignored.]
4) We postulate strong or weak anthropic principle, when we are within the system we are postulating about. This means there are no counter examples nor supporting examples observed (or possibly obversable.)
Conclusion:
1) The use of string theory as a model to explain observations in the universe is the realm of theoretic physics. (Hopefully will move to practical physics someday.)
2) The existence of a multiverse or lack of it, is the real of theoretical physics as far as predictions/explainations of observations goes (this is the definition of any branch of science.)
3) The existence of a multiverse or lack of it, is the realm of philosophy/theology as far as how it impacts our beliefs and actions at a personal or societal level.
4) If you believe in a divine diety the multiverse is a construct of mathematics and not part of objective reality.
5) If you believe there is no divine diety (or not involved in the universe as an agent for change) then the multiverse is a possible explaination for the real or apparent arguments made by those who believe in a diety, to explain why a diety is not needed.
Overall Conclusion: The mathematical model resulting in this discussion of the possible existence of a multiverse is interesting and stimulating. Using it to "prove" or "disprove" a belief system is stretching its applicability.
Ok... after much reading. I can authoritatively say that we are living in a sandbox. And that the development of Java finally gives us a language in which to describe it.
I thought science's answer was the honest "we don't know everything, but we're working on finding out more". Which is different in that it doesn't put having an answer ahead of of having a true answer (if such even exists). And it loves it when someone comes along and shows why the best current answer is wrong, since that opens the way for an better answer.
About 2000 years ago God came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ. He did many awesome miracles and showed many signs proving who He was. People like you scourged Him, nailed Him to a cross and killed Him.
I believe that the purpose of life is to reduce entropy. Think about it, all these replicating life forms that take heat from stars and relatively basic forms matter, and transform it into something more complex and interesting on a smaller scale.
OK, to avoid violating the second law of thermodynamics, I'll say that the purpose of life is to reduce *local* entropy.
He had a theory that intelligent life was possible, and then devised an experiment to test it. This involved creating an infinite number of universes, so that the standards for the development of intelligent life could be met.
Sadly, so far this experiment has been a failure. The only reason we are still here to post about it is because God's garbage collection is nearly as bad as ours is sometimes.
Everyone focuses on the Creator but what about the Destroyer? No one gives him enough credit.
---
There was a thought here, somewhere....
Sure, this universe is tailored for life, but it's not tailored for Blorfy! Blorfy is a much more grand and dignified phenomenon than something mundane and banal like 'life', and I for one think it's a horrible tragedy that we can't enjoy Blorfy's presence here.
Also, almost five and a half million universes have conditions favourable for life, only *one* for Blorfy! Who's God's favourite *now*? Eh?
We may be the first unintelligently created world containing intelligence. However, if ever we create (through simulation, terraforming, cosmoforming or any other mechanism) a significant number of worlds like those in our past, it will become (subjective probability) almost certain that we are already living in an intelligently created world. For more explanation of the formal argument, which is an extension of the Simulation Argument, check out this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4982417278432917073&ei=aaYhSYOiGYSKqQPHv_DCBw&q=new+god+argument&hl=en
The problem is that creationists, atheists, and agnostics are all missing the bigger picture and missing the point (but, if we must assign a winner, agnostics come closest.) The question as to whether there is a creator is nonsensical as far as we can fathom. Consider the two possible scenarios: 1) "There is a creator; call it god. Some entity created everything." 2) "There is no god. Nothing created the universe; it just came into existence." Neither of the only two possible scenarios makes any sense. They both fail in the same way: you can't have something come from nothing; whether that be the universe or the creator that made the universe. You don't need to be a philosopher or particularly logical to see this. In fact, you could argue that atheists are creationists since they believe the universe created itself. So, what are we left with? I can think of two things. But, first I'd like to point out that a true agnostic is one who sees the paradox and futility in taking a position on this. At least that is what I term an Agnostic; one who doesn't know (anything about the origin of the universe) and doesn't care (because they know its futile, not because they are apathetic). So what can we conclude if our two seeming scenarios are ludicrous? 1) The first is simplistic... there is an explanation and it is beyond any semblance of what we deem as logical. Or even asking the questions of why and how the universe exists is not even the right question. How else would you overcome a paradox? By changing the rules of the game. This means that our language, our thoughts, our logic, etc DO NOT APPLY. We are either too simplistic, lacking the proper whatever to understand what is going on. 2) The one I like the most is this: In a more philosophical bent, it can be argued that the universe (in the most encompassing definition of the word) can not be 'explained' since there can always be an explanation for the explanation; always a viewpoint from outside to that which you have just explained; similar in concept to the paradox that you can always divide something in half to get something smaller. The universe by its very definition of encompassing everything means nothing can be outside of it. It can't be explained or else it couldn't exist. Basically, its a paradox as far as we can see it.
The latest iteration of string theory provides a natural explanation for the anthropic principle. If there are vast numbers of other universes, all with different properties, at least one of them ought to have the right combination of conditions to bring forth stars, planets, and living things.
Who says life has to be carbon-based? If other universes allows for different natural-constants, then it's not inconceivable that "life" can be plutonium-based or Higgs-boson-based in these universes, neither does it mean intelligent life needs to be about 6-feet tall walking upright on 2 fleshy appendages, it could be quantum-sized or galaxy-sized (although those monikers would probably hold little meaning in those universes).
You humans think you're sooo special.
Kane and Kodos
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
The Universe had to turn out someway. The misinterpretation of the Anthropic Principle is just a glorified version of intelligent design. For example:
Intelligent Poster: Notice how our nose and ears are the perfect design for wearing glasses.
Another Poster (with large knife): Here let me cut of your nose and/or ears. Let's see how well those glasses fit now.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
How are unobservable "multiverses" and a theory which not only is unprovable, but can not make any predictions any more scientifically satisfying than having an intellegent creator? It seems to me that this is basically replacing one religion with another and has nothing to do with real science (which must be testable and make predictions).
The fact that there are millions of possible string theories, which allow you to predict whatever you want and tweak the parameters to match reality, means that string theory is useless. Ptolemy's theory of astronomy had the same problem: it had free parameters that allowed you to create as many "wheels within wheels" (epicycles) as needed to fit the observed data (though it wasn't until Fourier that we had enough mathematics to know that Ptolemy's system could be extended to match any possible observed data on planetary motion perfectly). String theory's champions are so in love with its mathematical beauty that they haven't noticed that they are no longer doing science. They've created an unfalsifiable mathematical game that makes no predictions.
Given infinite time, anything with even the smallest possibility to happen will happen.
life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think
Nice post, it sums up how I feel about the situation nicely. Trying to think about existence is absolutely absurd. I can only hope that there is something after out current lives, in which the great mysteries seem trivial, and the answers instinctively known. Not that I'm holding my breath.
life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think
the origins of the abrahamic theology are in fact to stop believing in manmade things.
that's why abraham said ok, no more worshipping made up stuff, the only thing worth your time and effort is whatever is real, and ultimate truth (limitless) is beyond our limited conception.
I've heard this theory before too, though not on discovery. It's always struck me as a silly concept, that the universe is "ideal" for life in some way (beautiful, etc.). The fact is that WE are ideal for it, having evolved to live in it, to pick up the patterns in light on a material, etc. Since we evolved to notice and use those patterns, it's pretty obvious that we'll find them stimulating. Which is not to say it's any less beautiful for the simple explanation.
One of the things that confuses me about this article is its assumption that science is providing an alternative to an intelligent creator. If there are multiple universes, doesn't the question shift to who made the multiple universes? If there are infinite universes, how and why is there an infinity of physical universes existing in the first place? As far back as science goes in describing the origins of things, people will ask, "Okay, but who or what set up the whole process in the first place?" These questions will never be answered and will always exist as long as we do.
For me, it's weird and disturbing to think there's just this bunch of physical universes here for no reason. It almost feels more illogical that it would exist out of the blue than for there to be something that "made" it all. We'll get better and better at describing the actual physical processes of what created our universe and possibly others, eventually accurately describing the Big Bang and maybe even what came before, but that will always raise the question in my mind, "Great, but I still don't know how or why the hell all these processes are here in the first place! Why is all this stuff here?!" It's a maddening question.
...now if we could only find Nathan Brazil
I was talking, not thinking. -D. Franz
Decades ago: The Last Question: http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html/
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
Think of the multiverse like this:
If we put ourselves to it, we could run some cool simulations of small-scale versions of some of these multiverses, thereby connecting them with our reality.
Multiverses do exist, not in the sense of existing in this universe, but existing in a mathematical way, as formula the complexity of which we can never fully grasp.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
The anthropic principle is really a non-event. All it says is that perhaps there's nothing about the fundamental constants that says they must line up to allow a universe with structure that can give rise to life. That is all.
We have to ask, what does this idea suggest to us? Since it is a negative conclusion, we cannot prove it except by exhausting every other possibility. So, it doesn't really suggest that we do anything different. In that sense, it's just the same as any other excuse to be lazy: "I won't bother with X because it probably won't find it anyway.". It lets us avoid the feeling that we're missing out by sitting out.
It may well be that at some point it will all come down to a few constants and dumb luck that they happen to be within the narrow range of values that allowed us to exist and ask the questions, but in the meanwhile, if we just give up and accept a zillion 'constants' and say "well that's it then", we will probably fail to find a great many unifying principles that derive those 'constants' from fewer more fundamental constants.
Where would we be if a couple thousand years ago we said "The Earth is here because if it wasn't, we wouldn't be around to wonder why. QED. Who brought the beer?" and then left it at that?
Unless and until someone appears before us and convincingly shows us that he is the creator of the universe, we will never never know what really happened. Even finding the exact process by which the universe was born does not negate an intelligent creator because an intelligent creator could have set up all of the rules for creation. If I were to set up a number of dominos and the wind were to come along and blow one down thereby starting the chain reaction that results in all of them falling down, that would not be evidence that I did or did not exist. It would only be evidence that gravity, wind and dominos exist. Until I decide to show myself, I am just one of the great unknowns of the universe.
Yawn. Can we at least have some evidence with our SCIENCE ? How about the obvious fact that we have no idea how big the universe is. That all we see is THE VISIBLE universe. So hence there is a limit to how far we can observe / interact (speed of light). What if the laws of Physics change depending on which region of this immensely vast universe we exist in. Seem A LOT more reasonable that sci-fi multiverses.
I think the big problem with string theory or any other theory of anything is that we don't have enough data about how the universe works. Our experiments only probe a few orders of magnitude in energy, length, and time. These theories try to extrapolate from those familiar conditions out toward extremes and come up against unresolved questions:
It's a noble effort to try to formulate a theory of everything based on what we already know. But the messiness of the endeavour so far makes me think we need more data to narrow the focus and whittle the possible theories down from 10^1000 to 1.
Since when is 101,000 'astronomical'? Shoot, I got more neurons than that in my left pinkie.
Something must have come before this, and something before that, and something before that, ad infinitum.
Not so. Since the Big Bang created the space-time of the Universe there is doubt as to whether time existed before it....and if time did not exist then there is no longer any simple concept of causality so the problem we really need to ask is how can anything exist without space-time as we know it existing because clearly something did exist in order to create the Universe we observe. I think. Well I'm pretty sure at any rate.
I thought that this idea has been around for a while, or at least it was the logical conclusion of having a multiverse.
It has been around for a while and it is still an unpalatable then as it is now. Personally I think a better goal for science would be to see if there can only be one basic outcome regardess of the initial conditions. For example If you drop some water on a mountain top you know that eventually it will arrive at the ocean. It might have a long trip , severa re-evaporations and rains etc but it will eventually get there. Suppose the universe is the same way? Regardless of what path it takes you will always end up with c being large, G and h bing small etc. However, untill we actually know where these funadmental constants come from we have no hope of explaining why their values are the way that they are.
As an experimental physicist
1. I will have a better opinion about string theory if it actually starts *explaining* at least some of the things that are so well captured with the standard model right now (I judge a model's usefulness solely by how well it reproduces the observed reality and by the quality of its (observable and reproducible!) predictions)
2. Talking about parallel universes? As long as there is no possible way of interaction offered by which we can test whether there are parallel universes or what their properties are, I would like to see the discussion about parallel universes moved from scientific rather to philosophic or better religious realms.
The thing is, while an "Intelligent Creator" is emotionally satisfying...at least if you presume that it cares anything about people, it's not in the running as a plausible scenario.
It's too complicated.
The only way I've been able to make it seem at all sensible is logically equivalent to saying that we are all life forms who are NPCs in a really fancy game. Not exactly the kind of scenario that fills one with joy.
Others have managed to put more emotional pull behind the notion by saying that we are simulations of the ancestors of the people who are running the simulation, and that they are interested in us because we represent their ancestors. OK. I find this rather implausible.
And note that BOTH of these "explanations" leave untouched the question of "Where did these model builders come from?" But so does every explanation I've encountered that invokes some intelligent creator.
Note that just because the explanation seems unreasonable doesn't prove that it's wrong. But it does mean that if you want it to be believed, then you should have some good evidence. I've yet to encounter any.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The Universe is a machine for creating stories and God is the ultimate Couch Potato watching it all unfold.
Your argument against creationism based on the idea that you can't have something from nothing fails under your logic for agnosticism. One could be agnostic as to the origins of god/God/gods/force/universe (I'll call this thing God... it depends on your religious/philosophical views what terms and understanding are applied) and use the same basic argumentation you used for the universes existence.
A Christian creationist might argue that God existed, that his being defined the concept of existance and that out of that existence something else was created and that thing was our universe... our little closed box of existence. I think we'd agree that if you existed in a closed system you cannot know anything about anything outside of that system (even whether there is or is not anything) without information from outside of your system being made available to you. This is the typical religious argument... that God has made Himself (or whatever) known in some way. The test of course is how reliable are the claims, are the based in knowable reality, are they somewhat testable, are the claims consistent, etc...
The key point in all of this discussion is that our inability to know has no bearing on the actual truth of the matter.
(shrug)
I have no idea if there's a diety, or if we're the result of the chemical equivalent of billions of years of monkeys at typewriters. All I know is that if you're postulating the 'random chemical' thing, you're not really solving the question at all, only moving the point of it further back in time. If the universe proceeded from the big bang, along a discrete set of physical laws with no diety present, where did the initial mass and laws come from? If you say it came from a bubble spawned off another universe, where did that come from.
I don't see infinite regression as somehow more scientifically 'valid' than saying there was some point some noodly appendage went "POOF" and it all started.
-Styopa
Why is it that stupid science writers get everything wrong?
The multi-universe notion is just that a notion. You don't need it to prove that god doesn't exist nor for explaining how life arose in our universe. It's just speculation that
"the universe: Its basic properties are uncannily suited for life. Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way and--in this universe, anyway--life as we know it would not exist."
That assumes that the "properties" of the universe can be "tweaked" at all! Very big assumption.
Just because we can image it doesn't make it real.
Oh right, imagine a god (anyone you like) and it exists.
Imagine that you're on another planet and you are.
Imagination can take you anywhere as the saying goes so does any connection with objective reality.
Mathematical imagination can be cool but until a connection with the actual objective reality we exist in is demonstrated keep whacking off all you like to dreams of multiverses for that's all it will be.
Do you believe that freedom of speech involves censoring offensive non-Politically Correct speech
This is blasphemy, I tell you, blasphemy! God will strike you down, my non-rebublican son!
The idea of the Multiverse is the central theme of Neal Stephenson's Anathem. Its not my favorite work from Stephenson but it is an interesting read and does have some interesting dialogs on the idea of the Multiverse, science .vs. religion and consciousness.
@de_machina
So it includes everyone and doesnt hurt anyone's feelings. FUCK THAT. Creationism with Intelligent Design is the ONLY way all this happened.
FUCK all those know it all "scientists". They're no better than big oil, big pharma and al gore with his global warming BULLSHIT.
fuck them all. They're nothing but used-car salesmen.
I am not up on all theories relative to the situation, but isn't the ability of life to exist kind of the same as the ability of anything to exist? It just seems like common sense, no religion or anti-religion sentiment here. I mean, just common sense logic. If you haven't seen life come about, it is just too much for your mind to wrap around.
Anything that is, came to be by all the random and not so random processes that shape anything. A complex con where you don't see it coming demonstrates the effect... sort of. OK, big long terrible example to follow.
Take rock X that you found on the beach. It is a complex shape, let's call it shape B. Now you draw an accurate drawing of the rock.
Then you hide the rock in your pocket and go up to a 6 year old. Show the 6 year old the picture, tell him it was randomly drawn by a friend standing a few feet away, point out all the various intricate details of the rock... a hole here... a scratch there. Then bet the kid his lunch money that you can find a rock like that on the exact beach you are on. He'll take your bet, and when you take the rock out of your pocket he'll say you cheated! From his naive perspective you had no chance of finding a rock of shape B on that beach or even the planet. But the rock of course did in fact exist... you just made it seem like you didn't know it exists.
Same thing for life! It's complex, it seems impossible to have been made, it seems unlikely it'd happen here, and it seems very mystical from a naive perspective that hasn't actually witnessed all the events leading to that situation/state. But, religion and creation aside, it is just the manifestation of all the events that lead us to this point.
I don't understand why the theory of intelligent design is offensive to science. We have so many "grasping at straws" theories about how it all started, including being "planted here" by aliens. Why is it offensive to believe that a God had a hand in creating everything? Forget about religion for a minute... religion is merely man's attempt to understand God anyway. Just because none of us have seen God doesn't mean he's not there. I personally have never seen a big bang, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. And if the big bang did happen, it doesn't mean that God didn't have a hand in making it happen. The Bible is merely man's best authoritative document dealing with God. It is not, however, a legal or scientific final word on the topic of God. It is a man written document describing man's understanding of who God is. It isn't even the only authoritative document on the topic. Much is not known about the beginning. What is known is theory and conjecture. I say, don't discount God as a possibility in the processes. He makes more sense then aliens or chance.
I noticed in many high rated comments here that people didn't understand that the anthropic principle in this article is discussed on a new scale. It's not about whether the surrounding environment is composed of this chemicals and that thermal conditions etc (as in the Douglas Adams' puddle). It's about the fundamental laws themselves. If they were a bit different it wouldn't just be about different environment - if the nuclear forces and/or dark energy influence were different the universe would have collapsed early after the Big Bang and there would not be any spacetime at all! Or in the other extreme (a slight deviation in the other direction) the universe would end up being hydrogen atoms floating around millions of light years apart from each other. From this point of view we have won the jackpot (million times over). It's no surprise the scientists are asking themselves - are there some places (universes) that didn't win the jackpot? Are there some that won it in a different way than we did? It's not about asking 'why are we here' it's about 'what else is out there'. The puddle in the Douglas Adams lecture was wrong about assuming it's in a unique place. Scientists contemplating the multiverse are trying to avoid exactly that kind of fallacy.
Your argument against creationism based on the idea that you can't have something from nothing fails under your logic for agnosticism. One could be agnostic as to the origins of god/God/gods/force/universe (I'll call this thing God... it depends on your religious/philosophical views what terms and understanding are applied) and use the same basic argumentation you used for the universes existence.
I'm not sure what you mean, but my point was that there is no argument to be had. We can't even have the discussion because we can't even ask the right questions. Our questions make no logical sense.
I think we'd agree that if you existed in a closed system you cannot know anything about anything outside of that system (even whether there is or is not anything) without information from outside of your system being made available to you.
If you can step outside of the system then there now is definitely something more and hence we don't understand the universe. So, you keep stepping out further... for arguments sake, if at some point you can absolutely no longer step outside further, well then you can't understand the universe. Or, you've just determined that the system is closed. I can't fathom a universe with boundaries. Seems like a paradox any way you cut it.
This is the typical religious argument... that God has made Himself (or whatever) known in some way. The test of course is how reliable are the claims, are the based in knowable reality, are they somewhat testable, are the claims consistent, etc...
Right, that is the typical argument. It makes no sense. A leap of faith. Religion is trivially dismissed.
The key point in all of this discussion is that our inability to know has no bearing on the actual truth of the matter.
This is an interesting point and I agree at face value. But are you implying or do you think that there is an absolute truth to be known? Thats a big assumption. My philosophical point was that the universe can't be 'known' else it could not exist. How can you close the system? So say we figure it out. Then what? Thats it? End game? Play again? Twiddle thumbs for eternity? Again I'll say that the questions we are asking don't even make sense.
Is it really necessary to pay any attention to our universe being unlikely?
Given an infinite amount of time every possible unlikely condition may eventually occur.
The reality of this argument is there are people who refuse to believe that things happen
without a cause. If something unlikely happens then someone had to cause it to happen.
It's just random chance. Move along, nothing to see here.
-- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
For years atheists have argued (as some slashdotters mindless repeat in the above posts) that a random sequence of events culminated to become the universe as we now perceive it. Now as we do more research we are begrudgingly giving into the argument that the complexity of life, the miniscule probability that conditions are just right to sustain life as we see it, points to an undeniable cause for this "unnatural" effect. As most creationists and other religious philosophers argue there must be something created this - we deny it, chosing instead to beleive that maybe there is a god(as in a cause), but god is a theory. The benefit being a diety that we have control over which is entirely predictable and completely understood. However the only problem is that starting somewhere around the 1900s with the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics or string theory now, no one really claims to understand . No one even demands that a theory acheive coherence within itself (ex. EPR paradox etc, etc) . The only criterion is that a predicted hypothesis is experimentally verifiable. While all of the above theories have predicted amazing things and helped us progress scientifically, it doesnt help that we have to accept that we don't understand. We dont really understand gravity, dont really understand electricity or magnetism except to describe how they behave. That is more like a master artist, using color to paint a scenery that he did not creat. While there is scientific benefit in this, there is no reason to deny God. Then there is the problem that there are countless scientists with minds far superior to ours that have experimentally, historically verified the true God we love to hate as rationalists. Biblical truth is littered with verifyable prophesies and then empirically proven in all who chose to test them. All thats left is an irrational hate towards a loving God and an empty argument.
The "parallel universes" explanation of the anthropic principle certainly predates any connection with string theory (and probably predates string theory itself). And its not really an "alternative" to an intelligent designer only in that both are completely untestable speculations that explain nothing; particularly, in the case of the "parallel universes" take on the anthropic principle, it doesn't explain why there are vast numbers of other universes to start with (and, if a theory explains that, it doesn't explain why there is the set of conditions which in turn permit vast numbers of other universes, and so on.)
Really, there may be good reasons to believe in (God, String Theory, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whatever), but believing in anything as an excuse to get out of the problem of infinite regress that there will always be just one more thing that you need to explain, well, no one has yet found the thing to put there as "first explanation" that doesn't immediately demand an explanation of its own. And, I suspect, they never will.
To be fair, you should mention that there ARE different types of infinity as well, namely the countably infinite and uncountably infinite.
With a countable infinity, you can create a 1-to-1 mapping between it and the integers (so you can say this is element 1, that's element 2, etc.), just like you proved with the correspondence between the evens and the odd multiples of 7.
However, there's also an uncountable infinity, like the real numbers. There are infinitely many real numbers for every integer, so you can never put them into 1-to-1 correspondence. In order to relate them, you need to take the power set of the integers, which is another matter entirely (and changes their cardinality).
I notice the adaption of language to the demands of science and technology. When I was a child, near big bang, the universe was the word I used to describe all that there is. Now the notion is put that there are many all-that-there-is. In fact all that there is can be described in a universally large number of ways. This really means that it can't be described and as a result I think we may be heading for irrelevancy in all this and perhaps even absurdity. All this shows that science and mathematics are still on the journey.We can see the struggle Einstein had with all these ideas- he knew it would probably be simple.- divinely simple. Multiverse! Maybe we are heading in the wrong direction in our thoughts.
Creationists: "Whenever you physicists get into a jam, you throw mass quantities at the problem."
Physicists: "Whenever you creationists get into a jam, you throw an intelligent manipulator at the problem."
Table-ized A.I.
It merely changes the manner in which we think the universe was created.
Maybe the chaotic waters from which the firmament were drawn were... those other multitudes of string theory possibilities, where our universe the wheat that was sorted from the chaff of inhospitable solutions.
But, even if you say our universe doesn't need a creator, because we're just a consequence of one of the multitude of solutions... you haven't eliminated the creator question, you have merely deferred it up a level. Instead of asking "how did this universe get created, and by whom?", you now have to ask "how did the multiverse get created, and by whom?"
The question is still as valid (no matter which answer you believe is the right one), it just has a different scope. That's all this theory changes.
The multiverse is not a scientific theory. Scientific theories make unique and distinguisting predictions. What unique and distinguishing predictions does the multiverse conjecture make?
What happens in a Soviet Universe?
The question as to whether there is a creator is nonsensical as far as we can fathom.
I thought that was type of agnosticism?
The problem with multiverses is that they try to explain how finely tuned the universe in terms of something that we can't observe/test... pretty much the same objections that are often raised against an Intelligent Creator.
Believing something doesn't make it true. Not believing something doesn't make it false.
Multiverses are essentially science fiction, since by definition it is impossible to interact with a parallel universe. So, even if multiverses do exist, there is no reason why we should care.
Our understanding has zero bearing on reality. The fact that your conscious of your existence is notable, but does not alter the fact that you exist.
The questions are then just questions about what we can and cannot know... and even then, without complete knowledge of all time and space we cannot be truly certain about anything, so we really just ask questions about what we have seen and learned, make propositions based on that learning, and make decisions based on the reliability of those decisions. In all of that, there is still reality, and as time progresses we face the reality of our decisions.
Plato's Cave illustrates our predicament... we watch the wall from our viewpoint and believe what we see and understand is real. We construct language and thought patterns based on what we see and how we understand it, and yet there may (and in the case of Plato's cave there is) be a greater reality beyond what we see.
Subjecting reality to the logical and linguistic constructs we've deduced from experiencing reality is useful, but not definitive.
We then fall back on having to use what we have learned to determine how the universe is... no answer is provable... we simply make the best decisions we can based on the information we have. Some may believe that a man born 2000 years ago is the Son of God, is God, and has told us about what will was and what will come... others might believe we're in a karmic force and that good and evil struggle for control of existence... others may believe the whole conversation is pointless and refuse to even think about it or discuss it. Either way... as time progresses the truth or folly of their choices will be proven out (although it's certainly possible that no one will know or care).
I think agnosticism is a comfortable and perhaps even logical philosophical position to accept in that it requires no faith, just existence. The hope for an agnostic is that their choices are not in conflict with reality.
Is it possible there is, behind the complexity, God? "Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious."
you can't have something come from nothing
There is something called the energy of empty space and quantum fluctuations.
Calling yourself a scientist does not necessarily make you more open-minded on basic worldview philosophy. A person, scientist are not, believes what they want to believe even in the face of considerable evidence contrary to such beliefs.
Michael Behe and Dean Kenyon are prime examples of this.
Again, both in the case of the flood or the age of the universe, it is because of the INTERPRETATIONS of the observations as established facts, as seen through the underlying worldview by people.
This is false, and I've already addressed it in some detail here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1031421&cid=25834495
Also, [uniformitarianism assumes] that the clocks we have today, such as radioactivity, have always ticked at the rate observed today.
The consistency of physical laws throughout time and space are directly evidenced by the distant light we receive from the distant stars and the finite speed of light. We know that the atomic interactions we see here on Earth in laboratories are the same atomic interactions taking place in distant space because not only do they appear identical, but if they were not in fact identical, the atoms would not behave the same way or even hold together at all. Because these phenomena come from so far away in space, we know that they were happening a long time ago, because the light has taken so long to traverse the intervening distance. If the laws of nature had changed over time or with distance from our vantage point, we could see them. Therefore it is a meaningless tautology to wonder if time has always flowed at the same rate as here or now because it has always flowed at the same rate everywhere.
Some scientists, equally well-educated, with just as many degrees behind their name...
You're illustrating why arguments from authority are baseless. Reason and evidence must always back up any argument.
...who have come to a different interpretation, intelligent design...
They didn't "arrive" at it at all; they were indoctrinated with creationism and had their conclusion in hand before they set out upon their sham investigations. They never had any doubt in what the answer would be (that part was given to them by creation mythology), and only sought arguments to bolster creationism.
...such as Michael Behe, Dean Kenyon, and many others are severely discriminated against by the scientific/legal/governmental establishment.
No. Their ideas are severely discredited by the scientific establishment because they are bunk, and their actions which include surreptitious attempts to indoctrinate children with creationism are opposed by thinking people everywhere using the framework of the legal system (which is to say "using the mechanism of government").
Since you mentioned a cosmic background radiation, you may not have read that it also is not smooth and uniform as first measured with crude technology.
Large-scale structure and CMBR anisotropy are conceptually distinct from the alleged quantized redshift. This anisotropy has been known since COBE, and known quite well since WMAP.
It is not only quantized...
No, it isn't. I addressed this in the linked comment already cited.
...but also directional...
That's what anisotropy means: varies with direction.
...as revealed by recent very much more accurate observations.
Perhaps by "recent very much more accurate observations" you mean to refer to the WMAP survey, which is the most detailed large-scale mapping to date. The "A" in "WMAP" stands for "anisotropy"; we