Why Some Scientists Embrace the 'Multiverse

Quote from jem:

hey lefitst drone... learn had to read.

I have said many times the fine tuning is evidence of a Creator... not proof.

and I have stated a hundred times.. that the question is what caused the fine tuning...
More...

You mean what caused it to APPEAR TO BE fine tuned.

The APPEARANCE of it being fine tuned is NOT evidence of a creator. It just means the universe APPEARS to be fine tuned. Understand now?

And we already answered why it APPEARS that way. It's because any other combination simply would/did not work so is not there/here. The shards of broken glass appear to be fine tuned to create a glass when put together because they were all part of the larger at one time.

It APPEARS you are looking under every rock to support your mythology. LOL.
 
wow good scientific mind you have there.

you have a big bang... you have almost infinite potential combinations of values for the constants.

of which a very very tiny amount of those combos could be or ar are conducive to life.

a just right slice of the pie that is so small the top scientists in the world tell you that you could not expect luck to deal it out.

yet you want to say its just happened.

no wonder you are leftist. facts and science mean nothing to you.









Quote from futurecurrents:

You mean what caused it to APPEAR TO BE fine tuned.

The APPEARANCE of it being fine tuned is NOT evidence of a creator. It just means the universe APPEARS to be fine tuned. Understand now?

And we already answered why it APPEARS that way. It's because any other combination simply would/did not work so is not there/here. The shards of broken glass appear to be fine tuned to create a glass when put together because they were all part of the larger at one time.

It APPEARS you are looking under every rock to support your mythology. LOL.
More...
 
Quote from jem:


you have a big bang... you have almost infinite potential combinations of values for the constants.

of which a very very tiny amount of those combos could be or ar are conducive to life.
More...

Is that a fact jem? Exactly what is the number of this very very tiny amounts of those combos that could be or are conductive to life. Is it one, is it two, is it 4500 or 123,000 million different combos out of the infinite combinations? Have you considered the laws of the universe only allow for the universe to be formed the way it is whether ours is the only universe or there are infinite universes. Your whole argument is biased to where the only end is where there is a singular god which coincidentally aligns with your personal religion.
 
well if you buy into string theory... according to Susskind, polichinsky calculated that there could be 10 to the 500 combinations of solutions... give a or take a few trillion.
And according to Susskind we are so finely tuned it would take a very larger number of potential universes like that to expect to find one that is as tuned as ours.


I will give you a link to something hawking says next.





Quote from bigarrow:

Is that a fact jem? Exactly what is the number of this very very tiny amounts of those combos that could be or are conductive to life. Is it one, is it two, is it 4500 or 123,000 million different combos out of the infinite combinations? Have you considered the laws of the universe only allow for the universe to be formed the way it is whether ours is the only universe or there are infinite universes. Your whole argument is biased to where the only end is where there is a singular god which coincidentally aligns with your personal religion.
More...
 
The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood.[1] The proposition is discussed among philosophers, theologians, creationists, and intelligent design proponents.
Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." He also states that "'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because biogenesis occurs frequently".[2] Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of natural explanations have been proposed, such as the anthropic principle along with multiple universes. George F. R. Ellis observes "that no possible astronomical observations can ever see those other universes. The arguments are indirect at best. And even if the multiverse exists, it leaves the deep mysteries of nature unexplained."[3]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
 
From the same link as above...

As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[9]
If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium.[10] This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. The existence of the di-proton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the Universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.[10]
 
well now you are getting somewhere.
you are hoping that some day a theory of everything will emerge.

although if you read some of the links I presented in the past you will see scientists were hoping string theory was going to be that theory of everything and offer 1 solution that tied it all together.

But, string theory is kind of losing favor since CERN pretty much confirmed the standard model and did not find things which suggested string theory was promising.

Quote from futurecurrents:

It's almost like everything was one thing at one time. Like one complete perfect equation. I wonder why it all seems to fit together?
More...
 
Quote from jem:

I have provided video with top scientists showing you the cc is tuned to 120 decimal places.
More...
No you haven't. Deluded yourself more like, into believing you have provided video or links with top scientists showing you cosmological constant is "tuned" to 120 decimal places.
But actually, you haven't.

Next you'll be claiming pi is tuned to infinite places.
 
at 50 seconds in.

and this is just one of many ways I have shown the fine tunings.



<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/nXi_YaDO9ZI?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top