#31
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 6 numbers
[ QUOTE ]
An article I was reading LINK talks about 6 numbers that decide exactly how the universe is. If any of these six numbers were slightly different we would not be here. From this I draw three possible conclusions. #1 - The universe was designed. #2 - A ton of other universes exist, or have existed at "one time" (clearly, not time in our sense of it). #3 - We got crazy lucky. Like egg landing on the ground and reassembling itself lucky. [/ QUOTE ] I like number 2, and I think the opinion among leading theorists have shifted towards that option more and more in recent years. Ten years ago, a lot of people were talking about the possibility that string theory would one day prove that the universe can't be slightly different. They were hoping to show that the only possible solution of the still unknown equations of string theory is a universe with exactly the the kinds of elementary particles and interactions that we have in ours. Now theorists are saying that the particles and their interactions depend on planck-scale geomentrical and topological properties of spacetime, and that they have good reasons to expect that those properties are not fixed by string theory. I should add that the "other" universes could be just different regions of a larger universe, in which ours is just a tiny "bubble". |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 6 numbers
I'm sure this would happen (I'm certainly an ardent believer in evolution) - it isnt fundamentally surprising that the universe suits us. My point is that there may well be an underlying reason that the numbers are fine tuned.
It can be easy to fall into the trap that because we have learnt so much, our theory must be correct. Things like this can point the way to a more fundamental understanding of the way the world works. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 6 numbers
[ QUOTE ]
The first crucial number is the number of spatial dimensions: we live in a three-dimensional Universe. Life couldn't exist if D were two or four. Time is a fourth dimension, but distinctively different from the others in that it has a built-in arrow: we 'move' only towards the future. [/ QUOTE ] Is this true? |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 6 numbers
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The first crucial number is the number of spatial dimensions: we live in a three-dimensional Universe. Life couldn't exist if D were two or four. Time is a fourth dimension, but distinctively different from the others in that it has a built-in arrow: we 'move' only towards the future. [/ QUOTE ] Is this true? [/ QUOTE ] Life as we know it is 3-dimensional--wow, how lucky we live in a 3-D universe! That is about the dumbest logic I can even imagine. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 6 numbers
I was under the impression that not only is our universe not composed of three spatial dimensions, but Euclidean geometry doesn't accurately represent it.
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 6 numbers
[ QUOTE ]
I was under the impression that not only is our universe not composed of three spatial dimensions, but Euclidean geometry doesn't accurately represent it. [/ QUOTE ] I've definitely heard talk of up to 10 dimensions. Sup with that? |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 6 numbers
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Not to get all Zen on you, but I see only one conclusion. The numbers are what they are and we are here. Wondering "what if? is a waste of mental energy. [/ QUOTE ] Kurn bin Mogh, But that would not flatter the enormously inflated ego of thos who see themselves as the centre and motive of a purposeful creation! [/ QUOTE ] There is no doubt that our observations perceive an order to the universe. It is also natural for the human mind to perceive a pattern in order. From that point, many infer a motive force behind the perceived pattern. I am reminded of the Zen aphorism that says "Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water." My gut is that the more the pious and the secular argue about what is and is not true, the farther both get from reality. "The Way that can be named is not the true Way." - The Tao Te Ching |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 6 numbers
To those who claim “imperfection” in the design of the universe:
1. Do you mean imperfection in terms of its intended function? 2. If so, what do you consider to be that function? |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 6 numbers
[ QUOTE ]
To those who claim “imperfection” in the design of the universe: 1. Do you mean imperfection in terms of its intended function? 2. If so, what do you consider to be that function? [/ QUOTE ] Already answered above, but here you go again. The body of a human is deigned with legs for locomotion. Those that are born without legs seem to indicate a flaw in the design, or a failure, of the reproductive system. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 6 numbers
In the near term (around the time of my conception) millions (if not more) of happenstances had to turn out exactly as they did or I would not be here. In the longer term, uncounted googles of things had to happen as they did. From this I can draw one of two conclusions:
1. Some designer set it up so I would be here or; 2. If anything had turned out differently someone else would be here positing that their existance is so unlikely that it could only have come about by design (or not). Yet another empty argument that reduces to belief in a god/creator/designer/whatever or not. -- Scott |
|
|