What's new

Multiverse - Higgs boson - String - Anthropic Principle

^thanks, Siro. I'll read it.

Perhaps pseudoscience was too strong or a bad description. All I really meant is science is measurable and whereas multiverse is immeasurable it is therefore theory. Science can surely include theories.. as it has to begin with an idea before something can be quantified.. but I used pseudo because multiverse is only a theory at this point and physicists agree it cannot be proven.

Just curious what word would better describe the above mentioned separation in sciences that can be measured/proven vs. a theory that cannot?

There is a general misunderstanding regarding the meaning of words like "law, principle, theory" and such within mainstream culture. In science, everything is a theory. Scientific knowledge is always probabilistic. A currently accepted theory is only accepted because it is confirmed by most observations, make for better predictions, and/or provides the best answer to a previously unanswered question. When scientists use the term law, they simply mean an established principle without any known contradicting evidence (or very little). But it is still probabilistic. The constancy of the speed of light is a law of physics. It has had so many confirmation across so many different fields and disciplines, and it explains so much in a profound and comprehensive way, that it would require some SERIOUSLY convincing experimental data to cast doubt on it. But it may be proven incorrect nonetheless. An accepted theory will typically contain many laws and principles.

The multiverse is a theory in a softer sense. Whether someone believes that interpretation or any other makes little difference to their experimental procedures, as the interpretation has little bearing on the rules of quantum mechanics. QM is the theory. Multiverse is the explanation of why QM are so freaking bizarre and counter-intuitive.
 
Lets say you are in a room with 50 swat members aiming their gun at you with lasers. They are all about to shoot you in 5...4...3...2..1... BAM they all shoot. You are still alive?

You shouldn't be surprised you are alive because if you weren't you wouldn't be alive. Instead you should be surprised the bullets missed.

You shouldn't be surprised Humans are alive in the Universe, you should be surprised the Universe allowed for humans to survive due to its fine tuned nature.

This is why Siro fails to understand.
 
Lets say you are in a room with 50 swat members aiming their gun at you with lasers. They are all about to shoot you in 5...4...3...2..1... BAM they all shoot. You are still alive?

You shouldn't be surprised you are alive because if you weren't you wouldn't be alive. Instead you should be surprised the bullets missed.

You shouldn't be surprised Humans are alive in the Universe, you should be surprised the Universe allowed for humans to survive due to its fine tuned nature.

This is why Siro fails to understand.

You've concluded that this discussion is superfluous because you already know all the answers and know that those who disagree are wrong. Congratulations. Since this discussion has no value to you I'd like to politely ask you to stay out of it.

TIA TBS
 
Lets say you are in a room with 50 swat members aiming their gun at you with lasers. They are all about to shoot you in 5...4...3...2..1... BAM they all shoot. You are still alive?

You shouldn't be surprised you are alive because if you weren't you wouldn't be alive. Instead you should be surprised the bullets missed.

You shouldn't be surprised Humans are alive in the Universe, you should be surprised the Universe allowed for humans to survive due to its fine tuned nature.

This is why Siro fails to understand.

Like I said in my first post, the Anthropic Principle is not a scientific theory. It is a logical response to the Fine Tuning argument. Fine Tuning hypothesis stipulates that the nature of the universe is so perfectly tuned to our existence. Anthropic Principle responds by saying "Well, DUH! If it wasn't we wouldn't be here talking about it". In essence, nobody denies that the laws of the universe make it possible for humans to exist, and that other laws would not (since we are the product of these very laws).
 
Like I said in my first post, the Anthropic Principle is not a scientific theory. It is a logical response to the Fine Tuning argument. Fine Tuning hypothesis stipulates that the nature of the universe is so perfectly tuned to our existence. Anthropic Principle responds by saying "Well, DUH! If it wasn't we wouldn't be here talking about it". In essence, nobody denies that the laws of the universe make it possible for humans to exist, and that other laws would not (since we are the product of these very laws).

We don't know much about why abiogenesis occurred for example but we know it occurred. We should still be surprised it occurred and try to find out how it occurred. Not just say if it didn't occur we wouldn't be here. We don't just say "Well, DUH!" I am a man of science, reason, rationality, and logic so I cannot do such foolishness.

Same thing with anthropic principle. You don't just say "Well, DUH!" like an idiot. You try to find out why the universe is fine tuned.
 
We don't know much about why abiogenesis occurred for example but we know it occurred. We should still be surprised it occurred and try to find out how it occurred. Not just say if it didn't occur we wouldn't be here. We don't just say "Well, DUH!" I am a man of science, reason, rationality, and logic so I cannot do such foolishness.

Same thing with anthropic principle. You don't just say "Well, DUH!" like an idiot. You try to find out why the universe is fine tuned.

That is precisely the point. The fact that it is tuned for our type of life is not surprising. It could not have been any other way. Regardless of the explanation, a universe that has conscious beings must have the laws the support their development. So the Fine Tuning argument says nothing worth saying. The question of why the universe have its current laws is what much of theoretical physics attempts to answer.
 
That is precisely the point. The fact that it is tuned for our type of life is not surprising. It could not have been any other way. Regardless of the explanation, a universe that has conscious beings must have the laws the support their development. So the Fine Tuning argument says nothing worth saying. The question of why the universe have its current laws is what much of theoretical physics attempts to answer.

A human living against swat members requires no explanation. The 50 swat members does.

Humans living because of fine tuned universe requires no explanation. The universe being fine tuned still does.
 
Lets say you are in a room with 50 swat members aiming their gun at you with lasers. They are all about to shoot you in 5...4...3...2..1... BAM they all shoot. You are still alive?

You shouldn't be surprised you are alive because if you weren't you wouldn't be alive. Instead you should be surprised the bullets missed.

You shouldn't be surprised Humans are alive in the Universe, you should be surprised the Universe allowed for humans to survive due to its fine tuned nature.

This is why Siro fails to understand.

In the sense of the discussion Siro linked in the video above, there was some discussion of the mathematical results of the QM equations allowing divergent realities. The snow-covered car pulls out of the parking lot and one multiverse has it turn to the right while the other has it turn to the left. And the astute QM theologian allows that there are infinite possible solutions to the unversal wave equations. Delightful possibilities.

So according to the math, if fifty swat team members unloaded their semi-automatics on you, fifty rounds per clip and say ten clips, there would be bullets flying literally everywhere but one "solution" to the mathematical equations would have them all miss you. That's the world for me!!!!!!

I just thought that was good for a laugh.

I don't believe "time" warps or varies, either, and time travel is impossible because the time field is not path-dependent. I don't believe this kind of multiverse is possible, either. Lots of quantum mechanical equations have probabilities of zero. What is curious though is that while hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, scientists do detect one of it's radiative emanations that has a zero mathematical "probability". So I hold out some consideration for impossible things. . . . though I suspect a more mundane explanation like a "catalytic" effect in some circumstances causing the forbidden transitions and radiation. . . . just like cold fusion is theoretically impossible under normal circumstances, but can happen in some other circumstances such as the combination of an electric field, the presence of the element boron in a metal that also has close-packed deuterium.

My idea of "multiverse" is much more mundane that the imaginary mathematical solutions of mere equations. Maybe a structure that is not simply spherical and maybe spaces/dimensions that are around some kind of "bend" where we just can't "see". I work with bailing wire a lot, and use it fix everything including my truck which is just too old to be held together in any other way. . . . . who knows if we are not living in a "wire" universe that can bend and fold back on itself in a way that could allow someone with "the right tools" to look across the gap and see us.
 
Last edited:
In the sense of the discussion Siro linked in the video above, there was some discussion of the mathematical results of the QM equations allowing divergent realities. The snow-covered car pulls out of the parking lot and one multiverse has it turn to the right while the other has it turn to the left. And the astute QM theologian allows that there are infinite possible solutions to the unversal wave equations. Delightful possibilities.

So according to the math, if fifty swat team members unloaded their semi-automatics on you, fifty rounds per clip and say ten clips, there would be bullets flying literally everywhere but one "solution" to the mathematical equations would have them all miss you. That's the world for me!!!!!!

I just thought that was good for a laugh.

Lets take just one of the fine tuned constants. The cosmological constant. If it was 1 part in 10^120 off one way or the other the universe would not even exist. The big bang would have collapsed on itself one way and the other way the universe would have expanded too fast the other way. 10^120 is a number so large that if you were to add up every single atom in the entire universe it would not even come close.

Keep in mind this is just ONE of the constants.

Atheism has been completely on the defense since these discovers in the last century. Atheists like to say as more and more science has been discovered god gets smaller and smaller. Keep in mind they don't mention a single discovery since 1859.

I simply don't have enough blind faith to be an atheist.
 
A human living against swat members requires no explanation. The 50 swat members does.

Humans living because of fine tuned universe requires no explanation. The universe being fine tuned still does.

The flaw in your analogy lies in the fact that we already know the chance of each solider hitting their target, making 50 misses extremely unlikely. But we do not know the chance of the universe being the way it is. It could be that reality began 14 billion years ago, and that all of reality is constrained within the 4 dimensions that we observe. That would make the cosmological constants a very unlikely coincidence. But the truth could be closer to the countless theories that do not accept the notion of the observable universe encompassing all that can possibly exist, making our existence very un-noteworthy.

I am of course making the assumption that your knowledge does not exceed that of the rest of mankind.
 
I simply don't have enough blind faith to be an atheist.

Yet you have faith in flying winged horses.
No atheist have any blind faith ( or any faith for that matter) by the way so you are way off. As always.
We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.
 
Lets take just one of the fine tuned constants. The cosmological constant. If it was 1 part in 10^120 off one way or the other the universe would not even exist. The big bang would have collapsed on itself one way and the other way the universe would have expanded too fast the other way. 10^120 is a number so large that if you were to add up every single atom in the entire universe it would not even come close.

Keep in mind this is just ONE of the constants.

Atheism has been completely on the defense since these discovers in the last century. Atheists like to say as more and more science has been discovered god gets smaller and smaller. Keep in mind they don't mention a single discovery since 1859.

I simply don't have enough blind faith to be an atheist.

I have to take it one step further. I count it as knowledge on my part that there is more to our life and circumstances than can meet the eye of "science" as we want to construe it as limited to our sense-perception and tools for measurement and quantification. "knowledge" of different kind, perhaps, but just as certain.

mathematical equations are a strange reality. The solutions to the wave equations depend on things "fitting" together in an additive way to "exist" at all, and any "solution" that involves elements that don't add up just have a "zero" existence or destructively interfere with each other to add up to nothing.

I suspect that is the mathematical case for the constants we have conceived of as necessary for our universe to exist.
 
Back
Top