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
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.
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.
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.
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?
I think science is what you end up with if you don't accept "it just is" as an answer.
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.
as a human being I find people who think that science can explain everything rather arrogant.
i find it even more insulting to think that even if there is a god, why doesn't he show himself? and how do these religious people know for a fact that what they are praying to, really is that god?
And even if there is a god, then why doesn't he interfere ? is he incapable ? or not willing ? in both cases he loses the right to be prayed to.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
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
It's very simple. We began with Percussion (Big Bang), now we're moving toward Strings. Next will obviously be Brass and Woodwind. I don't care much who banged the drum or plucked the strings, who blew the brass or woodwinds. Whoever we're looking for, we know he'll have a musical degree and a conductor's baton.
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.
..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."
No, the bible just counts mod 6001. Next year the universe will be 0 years old. Again.
My UID is prime. Hah!
Sorry, you're in the wrong universe, try that one over there.
Yep, all those scientists are just trying to disprove god. The research is just a nice byproduct.
Religion is the "answer" to the question of origin.
It doesn't provide an answer at all - I presume this is what you mean by the quotes.
as a human being I find people who think that science can explain everything rather arrogant.
There may well be some things that are fundamentally unknowable - which is true is a matter of opinion, and I'm not sure that either viewpoint is "arrogant".
What I found arrogant however is the idea that "science can't explain everything", but that there somehow exists some other method by which we could explain it. E.g., people who say "Religion explains the 'why' which science can't do", or people who try to give extra credibility to alternative medicine and other hocus pocus by claiming "science isn't the only way to find answers".
"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."
... 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.
Religion replaces "it just is" with "God did it" which means about the same thing: "No idea."
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Are they sure it's not 101010 solutions? That would be "42" in binary.....
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]
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?
Actually, the existence or not of God or Gods is immaterial. We can't prove that 1 + 1 = 2 without the Peno postulates. We can't prove the Peno postulates without taking set theoretic constructs for granted. So even a thing like 1 + 1 = 2 is beyond our ability to prove or disprove empirically. We can merely establish that the Platonic conceptions of 1 and 2 may be understood in the context of 1 + 1 = 2 and remain useful and does not invalidate any other constructs we chose to build related to it. I will support the concept of God as coequal with the concept of 1 or 2. The possibility of empirically proving 1 or 2 exists or does not exist is equally silly as proving that God exists or does not.
If you say: "there is no such thing as God" you are saying the equivalent of: "there is no such thing as 2." You may in fact argue that 2 does not exist and you would be right in some senses. You would also be right to argue that the concept of "I" is equally an illusion. You may not exist yourself. It is all a matter of strata.
If God does exist he must exist the same way that 2 exists. Which may be only in our minds... or may be more fundamental to reality than the particles that make up our bodies. Either way God and 2 are beyond the use of microscopes and atom smashers.
[signature]
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.
Newton was not "debunked".
His theory had a scope that doesn't conflict with relativity under most of the conditions that appear within the human experience.
If you use numbers and values that apply within the scope of the theory, it works great and has tremendous predictive value. Whole industries are built on using just his stuff.
Yes, it doesn't apply to some values (that's where Relativity comes in) but it isn't wrong. It just isn't complete enough. Being "not complete" is not "debunked".
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 ?
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!
You've posted in the wrong Universe, silly!
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."
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.
To be more exact: god may be a good fit for what we observe, but not a useful fit. You can always adjust religion to fit new facts (and even make the adjustment an expected part of the religion) so you don't have any unexplained bits dangling about, but that says nothing about the predictive nature of the explanation. Science isn't about explaining history, it just happens to use history and therefore also explains it -- it's about usefully predicting the future, for our own betterment. In the end, science really only cares about showing that the planets move in a precisely predictable manner, not about proving that it is or isn't God doing it: nobody cares. And really, that's not a "how" so much as a very, very precise "what". What's going on out there, exactly? What can we use it for?
Religion does not seek, it claims to know the answer. This is pure arrogance, as it offers little proof other than some text that it claims is written by god.
most of it has to do with history and moral/ethical guidelines. Jesus never discusses creationism, but he spends a lot of time suggesting that we help the poor, defend the defenseless, and be true and honest in all our relationships. This is really the goal of religion: defining our everyday actions.
I act morally, without religion, & I have even seen animals behave morally ... ergo : religion is superfluous.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
But all these moral tenets can be built from utilitarian (or Kantian if you find that more appealing) philosophy, so there really is no need to appeal to the supernatural in order to build a moral framework.
That's why I have no problem with the Gospels, but diverge strongly from the Pauline additions and the insistence on belief in an unknowable entity.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
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.
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.
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.
Decades ago: The Last Question: http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html/
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.