Is there an order in the Universe?

[jem]

Quote from 2cents:

so what? and what do the guys who've come up with M-theory say? whats the latest on inflation theory? at the mo' string & M-theories are just that, theories, admitedly more elegant/seductive than the "standard model" with all its plugged-in "constants", but theories still... how abt waiting for a few confirmations, its only a few years away now with LIGO etc... we still don't understand the various forms of energy / matter... nor the "exact" topology of our n-dim universe at different scales
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/21/17/012
http://www.math.utah.edu/~carlson/research/eprints/pdf/CHGMCS.pdf
http://www1.kcn.ne.jp/~iittoo/
http://www.nature.tsukuba.ac.jp/HP.Eng/Math_4Eng.htm
http://www.math.utah.edu/~carlson/research/eprints/pdf/realcubics.pdf

... mind u, its pretty big! and messy! take a look at the SDSS http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1190447#post1190447

as for the "anthropic" principle, its just another disease of the mind... http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1241268&highlight=earthlike#post1241268 no need for a grand design to explain away any form of causal-type relationships we don't fully grasp yet...

why do ppl need to believe in a grand design, and particularly one that is deemed to be 'unfathomable'? how does that help with anything? beats me... don't ppl have better things to do???

?

The author interviewed in the article I cited is the creator of String Theory- and his considered his own work and work that flowed from M Theory when he concluded there must be more than a million vacuums or landscapes or universes in order to combat the conclusion that stem from the anthropic principle.

You should try reading the article. M-Theory is what is coming to the rescue of physicsts when the cite multiverses instead of design.

If you googled you would see there the big debate in physics now is multiverse vs. design (because of things like the cosmological constant and other fine tuning issues)

 

[2cents]

Quote from ElCubano:

"The PAH world hypothesis proposes that the use of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) was a means for a pre-RNA World basis for the origin of life. As yet it is untested." AS YET IT IS UNTESTED...wtf does this mean???

and there are many scientists that say the Miller-Urey experiment which is the one best argument for the origin of life being by chance was not accurate...2 of the leading origin of life scientist ( kluas Dose and Sidney Fox confirmed that miller used the wrong gas )....

try reading more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

of course 'life' on other extrasolar planets cld v.well have originated quite differently but hey, its hard enough trying to figure out how it originated on this one... one thing at a time!

 

[2cents]

Quote from jem:

?

The author interviewed in the article I cited is the creator of String Theory- and his considered his own work and work that flowed from M Theory when he concluded there must be more than a million vacuums or landscapes or universes in order to combat the conclusion that stem from the anthropic principle.

You should try reading the article. M-Theory is what is coming to the rescue of physicsts when the cite multiverses instead of design.

If you googled you would see there the big debate in physics now is multiverse vs. design (because of things like the cosmological constant and other fine tuning issues)

i am v.aware of the multiverse hypotheses (there are many variations), calabi-yau manifolds etc... read michio kaku's "parallel worlds" if u want to have a good overview of where we stand right now on a tons of things ultra-large & small... it remains that topology is a key issue and our brain's not very good at operatig in non-euclidian type geometries yet... see links in my earlier post

give it a few more years, we've been making giant strides since the WMAP survey...

as for ID, anthropic principle etc, thats just a common disease of the mind that some scientists may develop, like so many fellow humans, when they are overwhelmed by doubt... sounds familiar?

 

[stu]

Quote from ElCubano:

..but in the end the only difference is how YOU want to look at it...peace

I agree. On this matter you want 2+2 = 5, that is your right privalige and perogative. But in my view that approach doesn't help toward understanding the universe much.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

?

The author interviewed in the article I cited is the creator of String Theory- and his considered his own work and work that flowed from M Theory when he concluded there must be more than a million vacuums or landscapes or universes in order to combat the conclusion that stem from the anthropic principle.

You should try reading the article. M-Theory is what is coming to the rescue of physicsts when the cite multiverses instead of design.

If you googled you would see there the big debate in physics now is multiverse vs. design (because of things like the cosmological constant and other fine tuning issues)

The person you describe as the creator of string theory has concluded no such thing. You are making conclusions for him.

There are no conclusions that stem from the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle is incapable of falsification. It is not science. Therefore cannot be a principle for scientific conclusions.

There are separate valid observations which the anthropic principle uses. Those are included within it. In that way the anthropic principle piggy backs a free ride to respectability and is therefore taken into account by eminent physicists. Many do not agree with its propositions.

You like to refer to the "best minds in physics" on this issue. Einstein queried whether the universe could have been any other way or indeed non-existent altogether. Such reasoning would work against the anthropic principle, which suggests the universe can and is existing only the way it is observed. A truism

But it is not science.

Either way your argument is goosed.
Even if the anthropic principle did postulate "design" (it does not), the design could be completely natural requiring no designer or unconnected agent whatsoever. Nowhere has Susskind argued any differently or suggested otherwise.

Misreading , misrepresenting or interpreting something said, to mean something not said is ID methodology.

 

[ElCubano]

Quote from stu:

I agree. On this matter you want 2+2 = 5, that is your right privalige and perogative. But in my view that approach doesn't help toward understanding the universe much.

comparing the understanding of the universe to a math problem as simple as 2+2 is where your problem is i guess...

again..if something cant be proven either way, how can we see the same answer??? There is no right answer....specially to something so complex as the origin of life...so we only have what we want to see and how we want to see it..

p.s. and we all know 2+2=8 ...sheeesh..get your money back...

 

[stu]

Cube,
I didn't compare the math to understanding the universe.

Just a suggestion... I won't fall out with you I like you too much... but maybe you could start right there. Understanding what is really being said instead of altering it before it reaches cognizance.

If your defense of ID is to say you think what you think I'll think what I'll think, that does not in my opinion, lead to any better understanding. That's all I meant.

Thanks for the heads up, must have been short changed a hell of a lot.

 

[ElCubano]

Quote from stu:

Cube,
I didn't compare the math to understanding the universe.

Just a suggestion... I won't fall out with you I like you too much... but maybe you could start right there. Understanding what is really being said instead of altering it before it reaches cognizance.

If your defense of ID is to say you think what you think I'll think what I'll think, that does not in my opinion, lead to any better understanding. That's all I meant.

Thanks for the heads up, must have been short changed a hell of a lot.

cmon kiddo...I have mad love for ya...i know what you meant..and i kknow how you feel about the issue. I also know you are one smart mo-fo...all im saying is; when its all said and done ( at least for now ) the bottom line is that no camp can prove the other wrong...so that leaves us with what we feel and the way we want to view things...peace..

p.s. have a fantastic day holmes...

 

[2cents]

its not really a question of having to waste time & prove the ID 'hypothesis', the anthropic 'principle' etc wrong... fact is, they don't amount to anything more than a few incantations, an expression of awe if you will... just as compelling as the idea that this whole universe cld simply be sthg out of Baron's imagination - no offense Baron!

if i am wrong about this, and those hypotheses do in fact belong to a fairly developed descriptive model of the universe that enhances our current level of understanding and makes some novel predictions of a proper scientific nature - not oracles... -, plse let us know...

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

The person you describe as the creator of string theory has concluded no such thing. You are making conclusions for him.

There are no conclusions that stem from the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle is incapable of falsification. It is not science. Therefore cannot be a principle for scientific conclusions.

There are separate valid observations which the anthropic principle uses. Those are included within it. In that way the anthropic principle piggy backs a free ride to respectability and is therefore taken into account by eminent physicists. Many do not agree with its propositions.

You like to refer to the "best minds in physics" on this issue. Einstein queried whether the universe could have been any other way or indeed non-existent altogether. Such reasoning would work against the anthropic principle, which suggests the universe can and is existing only the way it is observed. A truism

But it is not science.

Either way your argument is goosed.
Even if the anthropic principle did postulate "design" (it does not), the design could be completely natural requiring no designer or unconnected agent whatsoever. Nowhere has Susskind argued any differently or suggested otherwise.

Misreading , misrepresenting or interpreting something said, to mean something not said is ID methodology.

Never in my life have I seen someone hit over the head with facts so hard only to see them rejected.

It must be a different universe, I was not going to respond -- then STU freaking makes shit up. It is one thing for him to be a bonehead and reject plain english -- it is another to be so dense that you accuse me of getting it wrong.

Stu read this fucking quote and then explain to me what you dont get.


"But a million is not enough for anthropic explanations - the chances of one of the universes being suitable for life are still too small.

What about that english do you not get.

I will paraphrase into simple sentences for you.

he needed the math (string and Mtheory via polchinski and brown) to show that there were more than a million universes to create enough universes to combat anthropic princples -- get it.

Read it again anthopic principle -unverses- suitable for life -- chances too small.

Google that paragaph- go back read the thread - do a boolean search whatever you need to do to you understand that paragraph and that article.

And just for fun read this.

The initial reaction was very hostile, but over the past couple of years people are taking it more seriously. They are worried that it might be true.

Why were they hostile - STU why are you hostile to the English. Because you and there little beliefs were being challenged. The were worried that it takes trillions of universes to combat the conclusion of the best minds in physics that our Universe is designed or it is part of a multiverse of trillions of universes.

Get it Stu. or should I try to make it even easier for you.

By the way also Google Leonard Susskind physicst. The person I descibe as the founder of String theory is widely given credit for that accomplishment. along with two others.


You are a little slime ball putting in sentences like the "person you describe as the founder of string theory". As if i were making it up. Where is you integrity.

You are a piece of work.