T
Tomdstone
Guest
I thought that this model has the universe with no boundaries, not that it has no bounds.
- Status
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
As Paul Davies (I think) pointed out, if the multiverse were true, probability would dictate that we would have found ourselves in a much smaller and less complex universe.
Incidentally, have you read and thought about John Leslie’s Firing Squad Analogy?
The problem with proposing the multiverse scenario is that we have no reason for thinking it to be true except to explain the fact of our highly improbable survival when all the cogent facts make that an impossibility, except by assuming a multiverse. So, a virtually unprovable scenario is being cited to prove a virtually impossible event (our existence,) just because we don’t want to accept that a reasonable explanation (design by a supernatural power) got us here safely.
In the analogy, that would be akin to the firing squad survivor positing an indefinite number of firing squads, not because any evidence points in that direction, but because he simply does not want to accept that something deliberate was going on.
Does that sound rational to you?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
By the way, these are only some of the “bullets” represented by the Firing Squad analogy.
Unlike the firing squad, though, all of these had to “hit” perfectly on target in order for us to survive the firing squad. And since the Big Bang was a “blind” event, according to atheists, the expert marksmen had to be blindfolded and had no indication of where to fire, but all of them had to hit a target the size of a dime in order for the prisoner to survive.
Perhaps, that puts things into perspective?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I was not aware that probability dictated anything. It only attaches probability percentages from 0 to 100 for an event to take place.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I was not aware that this was the only reason for proposing the multiverse. I thought that the multiverse proposal was based on several other factors. For example, there have been found many different solutions to string theory, each one giving a different universe. And in addition (see Wikipedia) “Scientists say that they have found evidence that our universe collided with other (parallel) universes in the distant past. This claim emerged after studying patterns in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), the after-effects of the Big Bang, made by Planck space observatory operated by the European Space Agency (ESA), and designed to observe anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) at microwave and infra-red frequencies, with high sensitivity and small angular resolution, in which they may have found evidence that four circular patterns recognized in the CMB are “cosmic bruises” where our universe has crashed into other universe(s) at least four times.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I don’t see that. For example suppose that there had been a difference of +/- 1% in the white dwarf binaries. How would that have changed anything at all on earth?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
That’s not quite how probability works. Probability is the ratio of actual or expected outcome over possible outcomes.
A coin has two sides. Given the two sides are equal and mass is evenly distributed, and discounting the very unlikely possibility of the coin landing on edge, the probability of the coin coming up heads is 1 out of 2 or 1/2 or 50%.
The chance of any one of the constants cited by Bob Crowley hitting the very very limited allowable range that brought the universe into existence is an infinitesimally small portion of the possibilities for that constant. Given that at least 32 such constants exist just to tune the universe and about a hundred to tune the Earth for life, the chance of ALL (EVERY SINGLE ONE) of them being within the tiny allowable range is much like all 32 (at least) marksmen hitting a dime blindfolded.
N
N0X3x
Guest
… yes… yes, actually, it does.
When unlikely events occur to people, or are witnessed by people, those people often irrationally conclude that the event was planned.
For example, when someone has a close brush with death, but escapes it, the general saying is, “your gaudian angel was looking out for you.” I’m not saying that isn’t the case, but I will say that you can’t reach that conclusion from that experience. Statistically, unlikely events are bound to happen sometimes. They just don’t happen very often.
Additionally, the multiverse hypothesis, used appropriately, is not used to show that God can not exist. What it does do is provide an alternate plausible explanation to divine creation. The multiverse hypothesis effectively says, “You can’t conclude with certainty, or even anything close to certainty, from the apparent insurmountable improbability of the universe being exactly the way it is that there is some designer behind it,because I provide an alternate explanation which may or may not be true.”
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
The issue has to do with the tuning of all the constants at the Big Bang which would have repercussion from that point on. One constant being out of alignment would have had effects on all the other dependent constants and altered them.
One example, the fine structure constant (a) as it relates to white dwarfs:
T
Tomdstone
Guest
You are talking about one constant, the fine structure constant. But this does not answer the question. You said that all of the constants had to hit perfectly on target. Here’s the quote:
I doubt that all of them had to hit perfectly on target. As an example, what difference would it make if there had been a difference of +/- 1% in the white dwarf binaries. How would that have changed anything at all on earth?
N
N0X3x
Guest
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Let me give you an example of a set which has upper and lower bounds, but the set itself does not have a boundary in the set: I(0) = {x: 0<x<1}. Here is another example of a set which has the same upper and lower bounds, but it has a boundary in the set itself: I(1) = {x: 0<x<1 or x=0 or x=1}.
So I(0) is a set which is bounded but has no boundaries (in the set).
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Probability does not dictate anything.
In the example that you have given, the probability of a coin coming up heads is 50%. That does not dictate that in ten tosses of a coin, you would have exactly 5 heads. In fact the probability of having exactly five heads is quite smaller than 50%, it is 24.6094% So according to the law of large numbers, 75.3906% of the time, you would probably have something different from 5 heads turning up in 10 tosses of a coin.
I
inocente
Guest
That leads you to a paradox: the universe is surrounded by nothingness, but as nothingness does not exist, the universe cannot be surrounded by nothingness.
The following page at Harvard-Smithsonian explains (and dispels a number of misconceptions):
cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/questions/
I
inocente
Guest
Although Father Lemaître, founder of big bang theory, said this cannot be decided on evidence:
“We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations.”
Harvard-Smithsonian says:
*"It is a common misconception that the Big Bang was the origin of the universe. In reality, the Big Bang scenario is completely silent about how the universe came into existence in the first place. In fact, the closer we look to time “zero,” the less certain we are about what actually happened, because our current description of physical laws do not yet apply to such extremes of nature.
The Big Bang scenario simply assumes that space, time, and energy already existed. But it tells us nothing about where they came from — or why the universe was born hot and dense to begin with."*
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
See, I agree with you again.
Harvard-Smithsonian says:
"It is a common misconception that the Big Bang was the origin of the universe. In reality, the Big Bang scenario is completely silent about how the universe came into existence in the first place. In fact, the closer we look to time “zero,” the less certain we are about what actually happened, because our current description of physical laws do not yet apply to such extremes of nature.
Correct agin. Now that makes at least six times I have agreed with you. Just shows how broad minded a Thomist can be
.Isn’t it ironic that the author just can’t bring himself to conclude, like a Thomis did, by inference, that they came from God. Of course, one wouldn’t exect them to come right out and agree with the Bible or the Divine Revelation therein.
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
All very interesting and highly speculative and imaginative. But give me a hint, where does it say the universe " cannot be surrounded " by nothingness. Of course from a strictly logical point of view, " nothingness " means no being, no space, no matter, no time, no energy, no waves, or, complete non-existence. And non-existence cannot surround anything. It is the state in which only God existed. As Thomas says,
" Reply to Objection 3. When anything is said to be made from nothing, this preposition “from” [ex] does not signify the material cause, but only order; as when we say, “from morning comes midday”–i.e. after morning is midday. But we must understand that this preposition “from” [ex] can comprise the negation implied when I say the word “nothing,” or can be included in it. If taken in the first sense, then we affirm the order by stating the relation between what is now and its previous non-existence. But if the negation includes the preposition, then the order is denied, and the sense is, “It is made from nothing–i.e. it is not made from anything”–as if we were to say, “He speaks of nothing,” because he does not speak of anything. And this is verified in both ways, when it is said, that anything is made from nothing. But in the first way this preposition “from” [ex] implies order, as has been said in this reply. In the second sense, it imports the material cause, which is denied. " ( S.T. Part 1, ques 45, ad 3 ).
Isn’t philosophy wonderful?
Linus2nd
A
alevanpa
Guest
Do you have a different definition of universe than “all that we can know, Or see, or compute?” “Universe” means everything possible. There is no way for us to know anything outside of our universe, it is closed. Therefore, the question “whether this universe is one of many” is a non-sequitur: it is a nonsense question. It’s like asking, “What did God do before He created the universe?” God is defined as “eternal” (outside time), while we are inside time (our universe). To do something require time and place, but “time and place” exist only in our universe. Therefore, to ask what God was doing prior to creating the universe doesn’t make sense, and neither does the question, “Is ours the only universe.”
Which “experiments?” Name one, so us ignorant people can study it and get ourselves enlightened.
He didn’t know about Quantum Theory because he existed before the invention of the telescope. St. Thomas is not omniscient (knows everything), but he is “smart.” If he were omniscient he would be God (who knows all things).
St. Thomas’s arguments are logical and based on what was known in his time. However, his logic (method of reasoning to a conclusion), and his deductions, based on what he knew, is still valid today.
No one-no physicist, astronomer, or scientist can “prove” anything without using the same logical process that st. Thomas used-“if, and, therefore”. This would make their arguments as invalid as you think St.Thomas’s are-if only what can be physically demonstrated is true.
We act, for instance, as if the physical laws humans have physically demonstrated, or deduced from said demonstrations, are true throughout the universe. That, because no one knows what transpires at the farthest reaches of the universe, is an assumption.
We act as if what we “know” now will never change. History, however, “demonstrates” the opposite. What we “know” constantly changes-although it may take centuries for the new knowledge to be known: remember, it has taken 15 billion years ( from the Singularity) to get where we are today. Logic does not change.
Man, I talk too much!
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Probability does show that virtually impossible events are, well, virtually impossible, as say 40 expert, but blindfolded, marksmen all hitting a dime when they have no way of knowing where the dime is.
You can argue probabilities all you want, but until you can show why the cosmological constants are tuned the way they are, the existence of a “Tuner” (aka God) is a live option. That possibility does not just “disappear” because some other wildly improbable alternative “might” exist.
I wouldn’t contend that a coin landing on heads or tails is an irrational or outlandish notion just because the possibility exists that it might land on edge. Likewise, it is not an outlandish notion to think that God tuned universe just because the highly speculative possibility of a multiverse can be entertained. I can entertain the idea of a coin landing on edge, but merely entertaining that idea does not make it more likely to occur, nor does it rule out the coin landing on heads or tails.
Y
yppop
Guest
My Dear Baptist Guy,
I am disappointed in you to be playing fast and loose with definitions. The universe is surrounded by “NOTHINGNESS”, but that can’t be the same “nothingness” that doesn’t exist.
Says who? Well your Harvard-Smithsonian gang that’s who. See the answer to the fourth question
Quote:
"Today, the situation is reversed. During the twentieth century, scientists learned that space is not “nothingness.”
Do yourself a favor and refrain from quoting from that web site; it is filled with errors. Don’t be fooled by the name; this is another gang that finds the thought of a God as a creator to be ridiculous.
Yppop
- Status