Phi for All Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 21 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said: On one hand we clearly have knowledge, a vast amount, and I am not disputing all of it, just some it. Most of this stuff I am disputing and introducing is surrounded by 'we dont know'. Or YOU don't know. Your knowledge has been updated a few times now. The evidence is starting to show us that you've misunderstood quite a bit. If I were you, I'd go back and study mainstream science. It's more trustworthy than what you've been reading, obviously. The last thing you should ever do in science is start guessing without knowing the basics. 1
beecee Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 (edited) 41 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said: On one hand we clearly have knowledge, a vast amount, and I am not disputing all of it, just some it. Most of this stuff I am disputing and introducing is surrounded by 'we dont know'. I have two beefs with your claims, [1] You claim some logic and intelligence behind the universe, yet "supposedly" dismiss any magical deity, and [2] Have absolutely no evidence to support your claims or disputes with accepted mainstream cosmology, other then incredulity. Edited January 2, 2019 by beecee
PrimalMinister Posted January 3, 2019 Author Posted January 3, 2019 Look, I looked at the universe from nothing, where it actually comes from a quantum foam. This quantum foam still has the same mystery our universe does. He explains that the quantum foam will evolve according to rules, with no explaination as to why it is going to accord to those rules. In Lawrance Krauss theory a universe from nothing, the only explaination is the will of the creator, and I don't mean God, I mean Laurance Krauss, he is the creator of the universe (the one where it comes out nothing) and his will makes the quantum foam evolve time, not quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is the design, not the implementation, it explains the how, but not the why, this is fact. This is the mystery of physics. -3
Ghideon Posted January 4, 2019 Posted January 4, 2019 I find it challenging to follow your argumentation, I asked: On 1/2/2019 at 11:17 PM, Ghideon said: On 1/2/2019 at 3:08 PM, PrimalMinister said: I have my own ideas about the universe and believe (I could be wrong) that I have read the mind of God. Nothing wrong with that, but can you provide some details about what you did see during that mind-reading? Something that would explain how universe is designed and how big bang theory is wrong? The following is your response? Is "God" in your statement above the same as the person Laurance Krauss below? 7 hours ago, PrimalMinister said: Look, I looked at the universe from nothing, where it actually comes from a quantum foam. This quantum foam still has the same mystery our universe does. He explains that the quantum foam will evolve according to rules, with no explaination as to why it is going to accord to those rules. In Lawrance Krauss theory a universe from nothing, the only explaination is the will of the creator, and I don't mean God, I mean Laurance Krauss, he is the creator of the universe (the one where it comes out nothing) and his will makes the quantum foam evolve time, not quantum mechanics. Can you provide a reference; where is it stated that he (Krauss) existed before the universe and from there used his will to design a universe from quantum foam? In a more general case; is your suggestion that anyone that creates a scientific model of some process that depends om random/statistical mechanisms also must be a "creator" whose "will" triggers the process?
beecee Posted January 4, 2019 Posted January 4, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, PrimalMinister said: Look, I looked at the universe from nothing, where it actually comes from a quantum foam. This quantum foam still has the same mystery our universe does. He explains that the quantum foam will evolve according to rules, with no explaination as to why it is going to accord to those rules. In Lawrance Krauss theory a universe from nothing, the only explaination is the will of the creator, and I don't mean God, I mean Laurance Krauss, he is the creator of the universe (the one where it comes out nothing) and his will makes the quantum foam evolve time, not quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is the design, not the implementation, it explains the how, but not the why, this is fact. This is the mystery of physics. It is the height of stupidity to claim there is some intelligence behind the laws, rules and constants of the universe. As you have already been asked, and even if we accept such stupidity, then It is reasonable to ask, what is the intelligence behind the intelligence that sees the universe as it is. The answer is the logically obvious one....The universe is the way it is, because of chance...nothing more, nothing less. The second act of stupidity is claiming that Laurence Krauss is behind the universe from nothing and therefor is God, when every man and his dog [except for you] can see that he is not claiming anything as fact, rather, as a hypothetical speculative scenario, much of which takes in much of what we know today for certain, in the field of quantum physics and weirdness. The third act of stupidity is your interpretation of nothing, The quantum foam, if it exists as generally pictured, maybe the closest to nothing that can ever be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam Quantum foam or spacetime foam is the fluctuation of spacetime on very small scales due to quantum mechanics. The idea was devised by John Wheeler in 1955.... The fourth act of stupidity is simply applying a "god of the gaps" type of logic in areas where science admits it doesn't know. Edited January 4, 2019 by beecee
Eise Posted January 4, 2019 Posted January 4, 2019 2 hours ago, beecee said: The answer is the logically obvious one....The universe is the way it is, because of chance...nothing more, nothing less. Is that what science says, or is it just your personal belief? A question e.g. would be what the chance distribution is? And of what? Physical parameters? Or even the form of the laws of nature? Or of different kinds of elementary particles? A universe made of 'yoghurts' instead of 'quarks', that are bound by completely different interactions than the 4 we know?
PrimalMinister Posted January 4, 2019 Author Posted January 4, 2019 5 hours ago, Ghideon said: I find it challenging to follow your argumentation, I asked: The following is your response? Is "God" in your statement above the same as the person Laurance Krauss below? Can you provide a reference; where is it stated that he (Krauss) existed before the universe and from there used his will to design a universe from quantum foam? In a more general case; is your suggestion that anyone that creates a scientific model of some process that depends om random/statistical mechanisms also must be a "creator" whose "will" triggers the process? I am not saying there is an intelligence behind our actual universe, I am saying there is one behind Laurance Krausss theory that is 'making it so' through his will alone becaucse there is no scientific explanation for why, only how. The why is not explained by the creator (Laurance Krauss), he says it will accord to quantum mechanics, and so his will is done, thats it. 2 hours ago, beecee said: It is the height of stupidity to claim there is some intelligence behind the laws, rules and constants of the universe. I am not saying there is an intelligence behind the universe, I am saying there is an intelligence behind Laurance Krauss's theory. As I said above, he explains how the foam will accord to quantum mechanics, but not why, how he is going to make it so. He just says it will accord to quantum mechanics and his will is done with no explaination on why it should accord to quantum mechanics, at present the only thing making it so is his will, he says it will accord to quantum mechanics and his will is done. 2 hours ago, beecee said: The third act of stupidity is your interpretation of nothing, The quantum foam, if it exists as generally pictured, maybe the closest to nothing that can ever be. It sounds like something to me. 2 hours ago, beecee said: The fourth act of stupidity is simply applying a "god of the gaps" type of logic in areas where science admits it doesn't know. I know science doesn't know, this is my point, yes we have a vast amount of knowledge, it looks like we have it nearly worked all out, but there is a mystery. I have analysed that mystery of why, or how it is actually going to made so, and I have a logic that potentially explain the why, how it is so. My idea, simple as it is, with a bit of imagination, could explain the why, the how it is so. You are not exactly explaining what is wrong with my logic. Ok, so it is chance that things are the way they are, but that only applies at the point of creation, not after the point of creation, after the point of creation fixed laws apply, these are not random, by chance.
Strange Posted January 4, 2019 Posted January 4, 2019 7 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said: I am not saying there is an intelligence behind our actual universe, I am saying there is one behind Laurance Krausss theory that is 'making it so' through his will alone becaucse there is no scientific explanation for why, only how. Science doesn't really deal with "why". Or at least, not the "ultimate why". That is a question for philosophy or religion. The nearest that science gets is "how" something happens. For example: Quote Q: Why is the sky blue? A: More than light of other colors, blue light is scattered in all directions by the Earth’s atmosphere. Q: Why is blue light scattered more? A: Because blue light has a shorter wavelength than most other visible light. Q: Why does blue light have a shorter wavelength? A: No reason: we just call visible light with short wavelengths ‘blue’. Q: But why does light with short wavelengths look blue? A: Umm, err... that’s not a physics question. Q: So why does light with short wavelengths scatter more? A: It scatters off oxygen and nitrogen molecules with an intensity proportional to wavelength−4. Q: Why does light do that? A: Electromagnetic waves scatter off particles much smaller than their wavelength with an intensity proportional to wavelength−4. Q: Why wavelength−4? A: Now that’s a good question! [explanation omitted, but it boils down to space being 3 dimensional] Q: Why is space 3-dimensional? A: Nobody knows. Whatever explanations or theories you have, in science you will ALWAYS end up with "we don't know" or "because it is" as the final answer to "why". That is true of your "theory" as well. Even if, by some chance, you were to be correct then someone can always as "why is space divided into cells" or "why do the cells behave that way" or whatever. And you will only be able to say (as you have already) "because I say so." By the way, the above list is from "Unsolved Mysteries of Fundamental Physics" by the (always excellent) John Baez. There is a video of him presenting it and a copy of his slides here: https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2019/01/02/unsolved-mysteries-of-fundamental-physics/ You might like it: Quote There are many questions in physics that seem too hard for us now: Q: Why is space 3-dimensional? Q: Why is time 1-dimensional? Q: Are there any truly fundamental laws, or only succession of better and better approximate laws? Q: What are the fundamental laws, if they exist? 19 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said: My idea, simple as it is, with a bit of imagination, could explain the why, the how it is so. No it can't. You are just moving the goalposts back one step. (And then insisting for no reason that no one can question it.) 1
swansont Posted January 4, 2019 Posted January 4, 2019 On 1/2/2019 at 2:40 PM, beecee said: The universe is as is, because it is...pure chance and luck. No, I don't think you can say that, if you mean that all outcomes are possible. The best we can say is we don't know of a reason why the fundamental constants are what they are.
beecee Posted January 4, 2019 Posted January 4, 2019 6 hours ago, Eise said: Is that what science says, or is it just your personal belief? A question e.g. would be what the chance distribution is? And of what? Physical parameters? Or even the form of the laws of nature? Or of different kinds of elementary particles? A universe made of 'yoghurts' instead of 'quarks', that are bound by completely different interactions than the 4 we know? It is certainly my personal acceptance based on current knowledge that we have. Probably in line with what is known as the strong Anthropic principle. I really cannot see any argument against the "pure chance" position I'm stating, when we look at the fact that if we changed any of the constants, life as we know it, would be impossible....or the other non scientific alternative that is often used to explain that fact. If we accept current scientific observational data re the evolution of the universe, and then some reasonable logical speculation [logical in my opinion anyway] then the speculative scenario of our universe evolving from a quantum foam, would also see other fluctuations in that same quantum foam, that will have different original fundamental properties, much as a surface of soapy lather with some bubbles rising to different heights before bursting. 5 hours ago, swansont said: No, I don't think you can say that, if you mean that all outcomes are possible. The best we can say is we don't know of a reason why the fundamental constants are what they are. If the outcomes [fundamental constants] were not as they are, we probably would not be here to contemplate it. While certainly you are correct that we don't know why they are the way they are, we really only have two choices for an answer as I see it....chance or luck, and the unscientific answer of some deity we often see trotted out by some. 5 hours ago, Strange said: Science doesn't really deal with "why". Or at least, not the "ultimate why". That is a question for philosophy or religion. The nearest that science gets is "how" something happens. For example: Your example would have Feynman smiling in recognition. well put. 6 hours ago, PrimalMinister said: I am not saying there is an intelligence behind our actual universe, I am saying there is one behind Laurance Krausss theory that is 'making it so' through his will alone becaucse there is no scientific explanation for why, only how. The why is not explained by the creator (Laurance Krauss), he says it will accord to quantum mechanics, and so his will is done, thats it. Yes you are and have many times. And again for the umpteenth time, Krauss has put forward a hypothetical as an explanation, not claiming any certainty at all, but again a proposal or hypothetical built on current knowledge and data. At least a hypothetical many many rungs ahead of your own "turtles all the way down" which is an unscientific proposal. Your continuing "stuck like a record player needle" question of why was explained in the Feynman link I gave, and again excellently illustrated by Strange's previous post. 6 hours ago, PrimalMinister said: It sounds like something to me. Can you truly imagine nothing? Space? space is what exists between you and me, so it is real in that sense. Tell me about it. As I said, perhaps this "hypothetical" quantum foam, maybe as close to nothing that can ever be. Quote I know science doesn't know, this is my point, yes we have a vast amount of knowledge, it looks like we have it nearly worked all out, but there is a mystery. I have analysed that mystery of why, or how it is actually going to made so, and I have a logic that potentially explain the why, how it is so. My idea, simple as it is, with a bit of imagination, could explain the why, the how it is so. I like the part where you tell us you have analysed that mystery. Tell me, do you have access to the LHC? the HST? Planck? the RHIC? And secondly I find absolutely no logic in what you are claiming, and simply suggesting turtles all the way down. Quote You are not exactly explaining what is wrong with my logic. [1] It isn't logic. [2] It leads to turtles all the way down. [3] It smells of a creator. [4] Science's job does not delve into some underlying truth or reality [if that at all exists, and does not concern itself with your why. [5] At the risk of repeating myself, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8 Quote Ok, so it is chance that things are the way they are, but that only applies at the point of creation, not after the point of creation, after the point of creation fixed laws apply, these are not random, by chance. Only at the point of creation??? If you are referring to the scientifically inspired Krauss speculative explanation, the the properties etc were "fixed" at that instant. We [humans] after observing the consistent nature of these properties, declared them as laws. Chance, luck, accidents etc, or if you like cosmic coincidences, can be observed throughout our universe.
swansont Posted January 4, 2019 Posted January 4, 2019 1 hour ago, beecee said: If the outcomes [fundamental constants] were not as they are, we probably would not be here to contemplate it. While certainly you are correct that we don't know why they are the way they are, we really only have two choices for an answer as I see it....chance or luck, and the unscientific answer of some deity we often see trotted out by some. I don’t see that a false dichotomy is a better answer than “we don’t know”
beecee Posted January 4, 2019 Posted January 4, 2019 4 minutes ago, swansont said: I don’t see that a false dichotomy is a better answer than “we don’t know” If we only have two choices for an answer, one scientific, the other unscientific?
swansont Posted January 4, 2019 Posted January 4, 2019 11 minutes ago, beecee said: If we only have two choices for an answer, one scientific, the other unscientific? The pont is that you don’t know that there are two options. You are artificially narrowing it to two but you don’t have enough information to do that. If you did, you could categorically declare that some combination of fundamental constants will never be shown to be impossible. Can you do that?
beecee Posted January 4, 2019 Posted January 4, 2019 1 minute ago, swansont said: The pont is that you don’t know that there are two options. You are artificially narrowing it to two but you don’t have enough information to do that. If you did, you could categorically declare that some combination of fundamental constants will never be shown to be impossible. Can you do that? Nice to debate a contentious point with someone qualified! Let me add, When I infer we only have two choices, I'm saying that one choice is the scientific path, and the other spiritual and unscientific. My experience here tells me that you would adhere to the scientific path as an answer. My reasoning on that scientific answer being that the universe we know, is simply an accident among probable many other potential universes. And while certainly speculative, I believe the Anthropic principle supports this. Our universe, our bubble in the quantum foam, was tuned for life as we know it, is what I'm and I believe what the strong anthropic principle supports. Similarly the process of universal Abiogenesis appears to be the only scientific answer, despite no direct evidence [other then once there was no life, then there was life] and no detail as to the exact process. OK, then we accept that we don't have an answer to the philosophical question of how, but still have an answer to the scientific question of universal abiogenesis in principal. While much of what I said is assumptions, science does deal in and follow on from assumptions. eg: The isotropic and homogeneous nature of our universe. 37 minutes ago, swansont said: The pont is that you don’t know that there are two options. You are artificially narrowing it to two but you don’t have enough information to do that. If you did, you could categorically declare that some combination of fundamental constants will never be shown to be impossible. Can you do that? OK, with regards to your first sentence, what other options are there/ other then perhaps a pre BB universe that has existed forever.And that maybe the quantum foam and the actual 'nothing" that is often talked on. On your question in the second paragraph, no I can't.
swansont Posted January 4, 2019 Posted January 4, 2019 1 hour ago, beecee said: Nice to debate a contentious point with someone qualified! Let me add, When I infer we only have two choices, I'm saying that one choice is the scientific path, and the other spiritual and unscientific. My experience here tells me that you would adhere to the scientific path as an answer. My reasoning on that scientific answer being that the universe we know, is simply an accident among probable many other potential universes. And while certainly speculative, I believe the Anthropic principle supports this. Our universe, our bubble in the quantum foam, was tuned for life as we know it, is what I'm and I believe what the strong anthropic principle supports. Similarly the process of universal Abiogenesis appears to be the only scientific answer, despite no direct evidence [other then once there was no life, then there was life] and no detail as to the exact process. OK, then we accept that we don't have an answer to the philosophical question of how, but still have an answer to the scientific question of universal abiogenesis in principal. While much of what I said is assumptions, science does deal in and follow on from assumptions. eg: The isotropic and homogeneous nature of our universe. OK, with regards to your first sentence, what other options are there/ other then perhaps a pre BB universe that has existed forever.And that maybe the quantum foam and the actual 'nothing" that is often talked on. On your question in the second paragraph, no I can't. To say it’s pure chance is not the scientific path. It’s one possibility along the scientific path. We don’t know enough to say what the options are, which is why “we don’t know” is the best response.
beecee Posted January 5, 2019 Posted January 5, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, swansont said: To say it’s pure chance is not the scientific path. It’s one possibility along the scientific path. We don’t know enough to say what the options are, which is why “we don’t know” is the best response. I'm having trouble thinking up any other possible option, plus if by chance it isn't pure chance, doesn't that then mean its intentional? Which then raises the question of design? While probably not classed as a scientific theory stage as yet, doesn't the preponderance of evidence and data we do have, point to chance or accident? Edited January 5, 2019 by beecee
swansont Posted January 5, 2019 Posted January 5, 2019 1 hour ago, beecee said: I'm having trouble thinking up any other possible option, plus if by chance it isn't pure chance, doesn't that then mean its intentional? Which then raises the question of design? The same issue comes up in other discussions. The outcomes of chemistry, for example, are not random. You do not get H2O from a combination of oxygen and hydrogen by pure chance.
PrimalMinister Posted January 5, 2019 Author Posted January 5, 2019 But even if the universe is somehow by chance, it is still inevitable. So the quantum foam is a random universe generator, it generates universes. Prior to generating our universe it must have had the potential to generate else it couldn't have actually created it. So our universe existed as potential in the quantum foam before it even existed. Now lets say the quantum foam can generate an infinite amount of universes, given enough time (and we have eternity), it will eventually create our universe, meaning that is inevitable.
swansont Posted January 5, 2019 Posted January 5, 2019 1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said: But even if the universe is somehow by chance, it is still inevitable. That doesn't follow, either. Except in the trivial case of predicting something after the event has occurred. 1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said: So the quantum foam is a random universe generator, it generates universes. That is an unsupported assertion. 1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said: Prior to generating our universe it must have had the potential to generate else it couldn't have actually created it. So our universe existed as potential in the quantum foam before it even existed. Now lets say the quantum foam can generate an infinite amount of universes, given enough time (and we have eternity), it will eventually create our universe, meaning that is inevitable. Does time exist without a universe?
beecee Posted January 5, 2019 Posted January 5, 2019 17 hours ago, swansont said: The same issue comes up in other discussions. The outcomes of chemistry, for example, are not random. You do not get H2O from a combination of oxygen and hydrogen by pure chance. I'm not sure I am able to accept that analogy as relevant. Simply what you describe could be interpreted as a property or law of the universe which arose by chance. 4 hours ago, PrimalMinister said: But even if the universe is somehow by chance, it is still inevitable. So the quantum foam is a random universe generator, it generates universes. What I am asserting is that the universe is/was a chance accident, and whether that came about by some fluctuation in the quantum foam, [which so far to my mind appears the most logical and likely supported by most cosmologists] is not yet entirely confirmed or empirically evidenced. But that uncertainty in the exact methodology, still does not give any credence to the point you appear to be making concerning some laws or intelligence that holds the current laws and constants in place; or obviously as Strange has explained and as per the Feynman video, the question of why the laws are as they are. Quote Prior to generating our universe it must have had the potential to generate else it couldn't have actually created it. So our universe existed as potential in the quantum foam before it even existed. Now lets say the quantum foam can generate an infinite amount of universes, given enough time (and we have eternity), it will eventually create our universe, meaning that is inevitable. Even if it were inevitable, I fail to see that as supporting your hypothetical claim.
studiot Posted January 5, 2019 Posted January 5, 2019 46 minutes ago, beecee said: What I am asserting is that the universe is/was a chance accident, I would take issue with the addition of the word accident. That implies some unintended event. Unfortunately that then implies there was also an intended event (that did not happen) with all that is associated with it. A chance event is surely better?
swansont Posted January 5, 2019 Posted January 5, 2019 52 minutes ago, beecee said: I'm not sure I am able to accept that analogy as relevant. Simply what you describe could be interpreted as a property or law of the universe which arose by chance. It’s an example of things not being “pure chance”, if there is some law behind it. Or just not having certain outcomes being equally likely, or perhaps even possible
beecee Posted January 5, 2019 Posted January 5, 2019 21 hours ago, swansont said: To say it’s pure chance is not the scientific path. It’s one possibility along the scientific path. We don’t know enough to say what the options are, which is why “we don’t know” is the best response. Perhaps I have been too involved in debates with YEC's and other assorted god botherers, and that has influenced my "fixed" position on the universe being strictly accidental and chance. I will accept that at this time, we must say in the interest of accuracy, that we don't know. And probably even more disappointingly, we may never know with utmost certainty. It maybe beyond any human comprehension and knowledge to be able to confirm with any certainty. My problem I'l admit is that this immediatley is seen by the god botherers as something to hang their hat on, but on further thinking, they have already hung this hat on the current accepted BB theory. Of course in actual fact accepting "we don't know" does not add any more credence for any divine deity, and obviously the question remains more philosophical then scientific. So, yes, I''ll accept the "we don't know" as the most appropriate answer, but will add for your consideration, that the accidental chance scenario is a reasonable logical assumption to make. ps: I see a couple of more replies while I'm typing this and havn't checked them out prior to pushing the "submit reply"button. 14 minutes ago, studiot said: I would take issue with the addition of the word accident. That implies some unintended event. Unfortunately that then implies there was also an intended event (that did not happen) with all that is associated with it. A chance event is surely better? I bow to your better word construction.
Eise Posted January 6, 2019 Posted January 6, 2019 On 1/4/2019 at 8:41 PM, beecee said: It is certainly my personal acceptance based on current knowledge that we have. Probably in line with what is known as the strong Anthropic principle. I really cannot see any argument against the "pure chance" position I'm stating, when we look at the fact that if we changed any of the constants, life as we know it, would be impossible....or the other non scientific alternative that is often used to explain that fact. The most important topic is already discussed, and accepted by you: that saying the way the universe is is 'pure chance' is not scientific. And also that there are not only two options, either 'pure chance' or 'intelligent design' (not necessarily the movement known under that name). Personally I think the Anthropic Principle explains nothing. Doing scientific research, we can only expect to find a universe that makes us possible. Everything else would be paradoxical. All the talk about the multiverse, as used in string theory and/or eternal inflation, I consider premature and bad physics, as one needs to believe that the laws of nature could be otherwise. We simply do not know that, and we have no reason at all to think that. A bit mean, one could say the multiverse is a 'theory of the gaps'. As Feynman said 'string theorists don’t make predictions, they make excuses'.
beecee Posted January 6, 2019 Posted January 6, 2019 6 hours ago, Eise said: The most important topic is already discussed, and accepted by you: that saying the way the universe is is 'pure chance' is not scientific. And also that there are not only two options, either 'pure chance' or 'intelligent design' (not necessarily the movement known under that name). Correction: I did not say the "pure chance" hypothesis was unscientific. I said, "I will accept that at this time, we must say in the interest of accuracy, that we don't know. And probably even more disappointingly, we may never know with utmost certainty. It maybe beyond any human comprehension and knowledge to be able to confirm with any certainty"...with a final conclusion of "So, yes, I''ll accept the "we don't know" as the most appropriate answer, but will add for your consideration, that the accidental chance scenario is a reasonable logical assumption to make". Obviously the universe coming into being by "pure chance" or a "cosmic coincidence" is scientific and while we have no direct evidence, we do have a methodology to explain that chance. https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ the Intelligent design choice is indeed unscientific and only leads to "turtles all the way down" scenarios. Quote Personally I think the Anthropic Principle explains nothing. Doing scientific research, we can only expect to find a universe that makes us possible. Everything else would be paradoxical. It may not explain why, [which is more a philosophical question then a scientific one] but it must be factual in that if any of the constants were not as they are, and if any of the properties were not as they are, we would not be here to contemplate it. Since we are here to contemplate it, it appears that the apparent fine tuning to enable life to evolve to simply be a chance coincidence, brought about by those conditions. By observing and gathering data from many experiments that have been conducted, we are able to [in my opinion anyway] speculate reasonably logically, that our universe arose from a fluctuation in the quantum foam among many other similar but slightly different fluctuations, with ours having the necessary properties and constants to be as we observe today. I don't really see too much remarkable in that admittedly speculative but logical scenario. Quote All the talk about the multiverse, as used in string theory and/or eternal inflation, I consider premature and bad physics, as one needs to believe that the laws of nature could be otherwise. We simply do not know that, and we have no reason at all to think that. A bit mean, one could say the multiverse is a 'theory of the gaps'. As Feynman said 'string theorists don’t make predictions, they make excuses'. Probably premature in the fact that at quantum/Planck levels we simply have no method to make the necessary measurements and observations...which obviously explains why as yet we have no validated QGT. I can also understand Feynman's and many other scientists frustrations with string theory and its derivatives in that they have been promising so much for so long.
Recommended Posts