Multiverse!

[Obvious Leo]

You will see that our universe's constants are outrageously suited for the creation of life.

Have you ever heard of a bloke called Charles Darwin? Apparently the idea of life being the plan of a a creator is not so fashionable these days.

[henry quirk]

"our universe's constants are outrageously suited for the creation of life."

Dumb luck applicable only to certain places in certain circumstances.

Show me mile-long floater whales lazing about in jupiter's upper atmosphere...show me singularity flukes thrivin' in the accretion disks of black holes...show me plasma snakes skittering along a star's magnetic field...show me deep space super-conducting sentient crystals floating in the spaces between galaxies...mebbe then we can talk about the outrageous suitability of the universe for life...as it is now: we got dirty bags of water livin' on the surface of a rock that, by dumb luck alone, is in the right place, at the right time.

[raw_thought]

You will see that our universe's constants are outrageously suited for the creation of life.

Have you ever heard of a bloke called Charles Darwin? Apparently the idea of life being the plan of a a creator is not so fashionable these days.

yes! That is why I believe in the multiverse! It is the only explanation that does not require God.
PLEASE read posts before commenting on them!!!!

[raw_thought]

“Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non¬religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.’
FROM
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10 ... nt-creator
I guess I won’t receive a Nobel Prize! Obvious syllogisms have been thought of many times before.
1. Our Universe is outrageously fit for life.
2. This can be because it is
A: fine-tuned which implies a God
Or
B: not fine-tuned.
The only reasonable explanation for how “B” can create a universe so outrageously fit for life is the multiverse theory. If there are trillions (perhaps even infinite) amount of universes, most would not have constants capable of allowing life. However, a tiny percent will. Obviously, we must be in that tiny percentile. It is nothing miraculous. For example, if I toss a coin one hundred times and it is heads 100 times that is vastly improbable (similarly, if there is only one universe, it is vastly unlikely that that universe will have constants exactly suitable for life.). However, if I toss a coin 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times it is very likely that at some point there will be 100 heads in a row.

[raw_thought]

"Scientists are now saying that experiments can be run to test the hypothesis of a multiverse."

I look forward to the results.

Till those results are presented: I'm stickin' with 'no multiverse'.

Then you believe in God!

[raw_thought]

"our universe's constants are outrageously suited for the creation of life."

Dumb luck applicable only to certain places in certain circumstances.
.

If one threw a coin 100,000,000,000 times it would not be fate or luck that 100 heads came up in a row at a particular place in the coin toss.
However, you are starting to get the concept. Yes, the constants are outrageously suited for the creation of life only in certain places, our universe! By definition our universe must be suitable to create life because we are alive and we are in it. However, most universes are not suitable for life. *
PS; The constants are true everywhere in our universe. For example, light moves at 186,282 miles per second everywhere in our universe.Planks constant is 6.62607004 × 10-34 m2 kg / s everywhere in the universe. If it were a thousandth off life would be impossible. PLEASE read the article!
* In other words it is not remarkable or a miracle that we do not live in the vast majority of universe"s that are incapable of life.

[raw_thought]

Raw thought. What you're doing is claiming that the universe was created in accordance with a suite of laws of unknown origin. This is a Platonist world-view and patently unscientific.

I am saying that there is no explanation for the fire that instantiates the equations (Hawking). That would become an infinite regress. When there is no explanation (laws of nature) everything is allowed. Everything happens, the multiverse! There is no Platonic realm that dictates (or explains) the nature of the multiverse.

I have to keep repeating myself because people's objections have NOTHING to do with my argument.
Leo keeps thinking that I am advocating for a belief in God. I really do not understand how anyone can think that if they read the posts.
Henry keeps thinking that I am talking about the earth. I am talking about universes.The constants in our universe ( that are the same throughout our universe ) are outrageously suited for creating life.

[henry quirk]

I'm an atheist cuz I see no evidence of a god or gods.

I know of only one universe, and I've yet to see a jot of evidence for the existence of other universes, so, insofar as I can tell, there is no multiverse.

Life, existing in a certain place, at a certain time, in the universe, is, insofar as I can tell, just dumb luck. The universe works the way it does cuz it just does. There is, best I can tell, no grand design or purpose woven into the fabric of what is.

The universe (an on-going explosion) could have just as easily gone a slighly different way and you and me wouldn't be here now...it went, is going, the way it went, the way it goes...dumb friggin' luck...bully for you, bully for me...indicative of nuthin'.

The universe, this universe, the only universe, is not outrageously suited for life except, insofar as I know, in one place, and only at a particular time in this place.

You wanna make the universe into human-centric event when clearly it is not.

The universe doesn't favor life, or humans, or anything. I believe it's marvelous to 'be'; the universe, however, doesn't give a flip at all. Assuming it had an awareness, the universe would see this beautiful rock we live on, and any and all other similar rocks, as mere processes amidst an incalculable number of processes. And, in a grand scale of processes, Earth (life, humans) doesn't rate very high. The cycle of stars, the interactions of aggregates of stars, etc. would be a helluva of lot more important to the (aware) universe than the goings on of dirty water on a rock at the edge of a picayune galaxy.

Your perspective is skewed. 'Obviously, if life exists, it signals sumthin' BIG'.

My perspective is skewed. 'I'm very precious to me, but I know that's just me valuing 'me'...my existence (and yours) means nil to the universe, is indicative of nuthin' about the universe ('cept, mebbe, that it's a queer place)'.

You, and folks like you, take calculations and probabilities as conveyors of 'meaning' when, really, a coin flip -- independent of all the coin flips before and after -- is just a coin flip...devoid of meaning, pointing toward nuthin'...just a metal disk goin' up, then comin' down...illustrative of nuthin'.

Thus endth this utterly pessimistic rant...Cthulhu Be Dreaded.

[Obvious Leo]

Leo keeps thinking that I am advocating for a belief in God. I really do not understand how anyone can think that if they read the posts.

I do read your posts and it is quite unnecessary for you to tell other people what I think since I am quite capable of doing this for myself. I think you have no idea what determinism is.

[raw_thought]

You will see that our universe's constants are outrageously suited for the creation of life.

Have you ever heard of a bloke called Charles Darwin? Apparently the idea of life being the plan of a a creator is not so fashionable these days.

You forgot that people can scroll back! It is obvious that you think I am advocating for a belief in God. It is also obvious that that shows that you think something (that I am advocating theism) that is obviously stupid.

[raw_thought]

“Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non¬religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.’
FROM
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10 ... nt-creator
I guess I won’t receive a Nobel Prize! Obvious syllogisms have been thought of many times before.
1. Our Universe is outrageously fit for life.
2. This can be because it is
A: fine-tuned which implies a God
Or
B: not fine-tuned.
The only reasonable explanation for how “B” can create a universe so outrageously fit for life is the multiverse theory. If there are trillions (perhaps even infinite) amount of universes, most would not have constants capable of allowing life. However, a tiny percent will. Obviously, we must be in that tiny percentile. It is nothing miraculous. For example, if I toss a coin one hundred times and it is heads 100 times that is vastly improbable (similarly, if there is only one universe, it is vastly unlikely that that universe will have constants exactly suitable for life.). However, if I toss a coin 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times it is very likely that at some point there will be 100 heads in a row.

[raw_thought]

Quote one of my posts that demonstrate a false understanding of determinism. Obviously, you have no evidence. You just make false accusations because that is all you got.

[raw_thought]

You only attack strawmen that you create yourself that have no resemblance to my position.

[raw_thought]

Henry, I agree, there is no design or grand purpose. That is why I embrace what most physicists currently embrace, the multiverse. It is the only explanation for the outrageously precise constants that make life possible, that doesnt require a God.

[Obvious Leo]

Give me an example of a law of physics and I'll show you something that will be regarded as a historical curiosity at some future date. You are presuming that which you're trying to argue for. What evidence do you have that our universe can only be modelled in the way that science is currently modelling it and in no other way?