should all good athiest sceintist should believe in......
 

multiple universes?

The Anthropic Principle basically says that everything about the universe, including unrelated physical laws and constaints, are geared toward making life possible.

This link gives the following examples

" Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, "stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster."

The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example).

A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons--yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars.

If the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron were not exactly as it is--roughly twice the mass of an electron--then all neutrons would have become protons or vice versa. Say good-bye to chemistry as we know it--and to life.

The very nature of water--so vital to life--is something of a mystery (a point noticed by one of the forerunners of anthropic reasoning in the nineteenth century, Harvard biologist Lawrence Henderson). Unique amongst the molecules, water is lighter in its solid than liquid form: Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and earth would now be covered with solid ice. This property in turn is traceable to the unique properties of the hydrogen atom.

The synthesis of carbon--the vital core of all organic molecules--on a significant scale involves what scientists view as an astonishing coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism. This ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 to reach an excited state of exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical of the centre of stars, which creates a resonance involving helium-4, beryllium-8, and carbon-12--allowing the necessary binding to take place during a tiny window of opportunity 10-17 seconds long."

There is a lot of circular reasoning in the Anthropic Principle nevertheless it still appears our universe isn't the result of random chance - unless of course, there are multiple universes. If enough universes are created, then its a lock that at least one of them would end up "just right" like ours is.

In this light a multiple universe model seems to be a simpler explanation than a single universe model.

Stu

Re: should all good athiest sceintist should believe in......
 

I've never, ever understood why people find the anthropic principle to be any sort of convincing argument whatsoever. I must be missing something. There are BILLIONS of events that must have gone EXACTLY correct for me to be here typing this sentence. This impresses only me and maybe my future kids. Certainly not my parents.

Re: should all good athiest sceintist should believe in......
 

In the beginning, there was nothing - except the uncertainty principle - which says basically that everything is uncertain. So nothing became unstable and bubbled and frothed and formed many ten dimensional bubbles. In our particular universe, six collapsed and four remained. The big bang, and consequently our universe ensued. Now, before you begin to wonder about the conservation of matter and energy, no worries. We are merely components of nothing. Just like 1 plus negative 1 equals nothing, and just like one and negative one are components of nothing, so are we.

If you take all the energy and mass and call it positive, then take all the gravity and call it negative, then it all exactly cancels out and we have nothing. We are merely components, illusory or not, of nothing

Re: should all good athiest sceintist should believe in......
 

[ QUOTE ]
In the beginning, there was nothing - except the uncertainty principle - which says basically that everything is uncertain. So nothing became unstable and bubbled and frothed and formed many ten dimensional bubbles. In our particular universe, six collapsed and four remained. The big bang, and consequently our universe ensued. Now, before you begin to wonder about the conservation of matter and energy, no worries. We are merely components of nothing. Just like 1 plus negative 1 equals nothing, and just like one and negative one are components of nothing, so are we.

If you take all the energy and mass and call it positive, then take all the gravity and call it negative, then it all exactly cancels out and we have nothing. We are merely components, illusory or not, of nothing

[/ QUOTE ]

But why is our nothing more something-like than nothing-nothing?

Re: should all good athiest sceintist should believe in......
 

" Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, "stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster."

The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example).

A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons--yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars.

If the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron were not exactly as it is--roughly twice the mass of an electron--then all neutrons would have become protons or vice versa. Say good-bye to chemistry as we know it--and to life."

Wait a second. There is a problem here. And it is NOT the points made by the silly atheists. Rather it is this: GOD doesn't have to worry about these constraints. Do you think he needs to make the weak force 1028 times the force of gravity to have water or humans?

If your argument has merit (a ticklish question that I have not yet answered for myself) it would only be an argument for that six year old from the fifth dimension playing with his chemistry set. Or for the god of Einstein and my father. A god who is constrained by laws more powerful than he is. Not the one who will decide on your afterlife.

Re: should all good athiest sceintist should believe in......
 

[ QUOTE ]
But why is our nothing more something-like than nothing-nothing?



[/ QUOTE ] I'm not a philosopher, so I don't know. The number one is something. The number negative-one is somthing, they add up to nothing.

Re: should all good athiest sceintist should believe in......
 

it is a common missconceptions that neutral=nothing, all this adds up to neutral force, NOT to nothing; and even that is flawed since space and time dont add up to nothing, they are simply the same thing viewed from differnet reference frames, they are definitely something

Re: should all good athiest sceintist should believe in......
 

[ QUOTE ]
it is a common missconceptions that neutral=nothing, all this adds up to neutral force, NOT to nothing; and even that is flawed since space and time dont add up to nothing, they are simply the same thing viewed from differnet reference frames, they are definitely something


[/ QUOTE ] Fine. All I pointed out was that there was no violation of the law of conservation of matter and energy. I was only being cute otherwise - not really trying to make any inference.

Re: should all good athiest sceintist should believe in......
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wait a second. There is a problem here. And it is NOT the points made by the silly atheists. Rather it is this: GOD doesn't have to worry about these constraints. Do you think he needs to make the weak force 1028 times the force of gravity to have water or humans?


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi David,

I guess what I am asking is if we assume God doesn't exist then doesn't it make the most sense to put our faith in a multi-universe model?

Stu

Re: should all good athiest sceintist should believe in......
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi David,

I guess what I am asking is if we assume God doesn't exist then doesn't it make the most sense to put our faith in a multi-universe model?

Stu


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I hate to stick my neck out for fear of being called a moron from David, but I'll say that the multi-universe model is the only one I’m aware of for a natural ( non - intelligent ) creation of the universe, of course, I’m not an expert and could be wrong but it doesn’t matter much unless someone can show the following wrong by providing additional evidence:

There is a 50/50 chance that the universe was intelligently created( even if perhaps by some dipwad that didn’t even realize he was creating it) or non-intelligently created ( meaning that the whole thing resulted from some natural phenomena that was non- sentient). Of course, I'm open to suggestions one way or the other that would change my line. It seems to me like a brain comes after nature, so my line would shift more towards nature. . . but wait, what comes first here, the chicken or the egg?

edit - I like to bounce around ideas on these forums, whether my ideas are good or not, but David stifles the sharing of ideas among all but the super geniuses, by calling people morons. I understand his position that you shouldn't express an opinion unless you know what you are talking about, but often I don't know what I am talking about and just want a friendly discussion of my opinions without being called a name. Frequently I just post something, knowing that I may be wrong, but wanting to learn something new.