you don't know it but you just started down the path to understanding the argument. I bet you don't follow up this conversation.
Answer the following....
1. if there is only one universe how does the anthropic principle account for the appearance of fine tuning in our universe?
vs.
2. if there is a multiverse how does the anthropic principle account for the appearance of fine tuning in our universe.
you have not explained anything with any type of link or support...I am still waiting for you to explain Penrose. In fact with respect to penrose... I am concerned you have no idea what you are saying..
here is some background on this subject from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted. Nevertheless, several physicists, mathematicians and philosophers of science have voiced criticisms, claiming unfulfilled promises and lack of serious empirical support. In 1999, John Earman and Jesús MosterÃn published a thorough critical review of inflationary cosmology, concluding that âwe do not think that there are, as yet, good grounds for admitting any of the models of inflation into the standard core of cosmologyâ.[96] Since 1999 the results of the WMAP mission in 2006 made the empirical case for cosmic inflation very compelling.
In order to work, and as pointed out by Roger Penrose from 1986 on, inflation requires extremely specific initial conditions of its own, so that the problem (or pseudoproblem) of initial conditions is not solved: âThere is something fundamentally misconceived about trying to explain the uniformity of the early universe as resulting from a thermalization process. [â¦] For, if the thermalization is actually doing anything [â¦] then it represents a definite increasing of the entropy. Thus, the universe would have been even more special before the thermalization than after.â[97] The problem of specific or âfine-tunedâ initial conditions would not have been solved; it would have gotten worse.
A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data we could get. It is significant that Paul J. Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics. He calls âbad inflationâ a period of accelerated expansion whose outcome conflicts with observations, and âgood inflationâ one compatible with them: âNot only is bad inflation more likely than good inflation, but no inflation is more likely than either. ⦠Roger Penrose considered all the possible configurations of the inflaton and gravitational fields. Some of these configurations lead to inflation ⦠Other configurations lead to a uniform, flat universe directly âwithout inflation. Obtaining a flat universe is unlikely overall. Penroseâs shocking conclusion, though, was that obtaining a flat universe without inflation is much more likely than with inflation âby a factor of 10 to the googol (10 to the 100) power!â[98]
Quote from jcl:
Well, then just do it. In all your quotes and videos is no top scientist saying anything like that. All videos are only about the fine tuned physical constants, which have a perfectly normal reason - the anthropic principle - and have nothing to do with "designed".
I have even tried to explain to you what Penrose and Weinberg particularly talk about. Again, Penrose was referring to string theory solutions and Weinberg to vacuum energy. Just listen to the videos again. No one was saying that the universe is or appears "designed".
- On a more general note: You seem to insist that anything that science can't explain yet must be a miracle by god. It is true that today science can explain with certainty only about 70% of our universe. For the 30% rest there are no models yet. To name a few of the gaps: dark matter, dark energy, string theory solutions, vacuum energy, proton decay, CP violation, abiogenesis, and so on. For all this we have no commonly accepted models, or rather, we have too many models and not enough data to decide between them.
You can now assume that in all those gaps sits a god and generates those phenomena by miracles. The problem with this is just that the gaps are shrinking fast, and your gods are shrinking with them. In 200 years from now most likely we'll have mathematical models for anything, there won't be such gaps anymore, and thus no god.
It is futile to look in physics or cosmology for a reason of your god belief. Rather, look inside your head. I can probably explain to you why you believe in God. In this, there's no miracle involved either.
