- #1
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 4,446
- 558
If one does not want to use God or rely on an unbelievable luck that led to extremely specific initial conditions, there are mainly two remaining possible hypotheses. The first would be to consider that since complexity - and in particular life - is an adaptive process, it would have emerged in nearly any kind of universe. This is a tantalizing answer but our own universe shows that life requires extremely specific conditions to exist. It is hard to imagine life in a universe without chemistry, maybe without bound states or with other numbers of dimensions.
The second idea is to accept the existence of many universes with different laws where we naturally find ourselves in one of those compatible with complexity. The multiverse was not imagined to answer this specific question but appears ”spontaneously” in serious physical theories, so it can be considered as the simplest explanation to the puzzling issue of naturalness.
Wallace said:What we now call galaxies were once dubbed 'island universes', until we realized that wasn't good terminology and called them galaxies. The same thinking should apply if we ever find that what we previously thought of as 'the universe' is actually one part of a larger thing. The exact name we'd settle on for what was previously 'the universe' would depend on the nature of the discovered extension to the extend of reality.
Edit: I concur with Garth, if you can't observe or measure it then it's not physics
Garth said:Indeed, instead of a multiverse we could simply have an infinite universe where far regions have different laws to our own region. We can only live in the fecund region which is a fraction of the vast whole. Of course this would demand some underlying theory that requires the constants of physics etc. to vary across such a universe.
But until we observe such regions these ideas, interesting though they may be, fall on the sword of Popper.
Garth[/QUOTE
And not being able to understand the whole we can not understand the part, i agree the discussion is pointless.
Garth said:We observe star systems, galaxies and galactic clusters; show me one of these other universes and I will believe you.
.......
.......
Garth
Pippo said:I am not so sure that what we can't observe doesn't exist, Cristoforo Colombo couldn't see the Americas.
Pippo said:I am not so sure that what we can't observe doesn't exist, Cristoforo Colombo couldn't see the Americas.
Garth said:I am not saying they don't exist, it is just that the idea of their existence is just speculation, not a scientific falsifiable hypothesis.
If our rational system requires them to exist, to explain the anthropic coincidences for example, then it must be recognised that that system is based on 'faith' rather than 'sight'.
[Edit: crossed with Wallace]
Garth
sysreset said:I wonder why most discussions of multiverse posit that the laws of physics would be different in the different universes and that we just happen to be in an "anthropically favored" universe where the various properties of matter, energy and constants are favorable for our existence. What if many, or all, of the universes share similar or identical physics and just cannot communicate with each other due to barriers in space-time?
Wallace said:Right, but he didn't know they existed till he did see them, and speculating about their existence before observation was reasonable, since there was a means of testing this idea (by sailing there and having a look).
The discussion here is whether we can sensibly talk about the existence of something that is inherently unobservable, i.e. there is no known way to 'sail there are have a look'.
ptalar said:And the reality is that Christopher Columbus wasn't initially looking for the "New World." He was looking for a new route to India. Hence, the name West Indies for the Islands of the Caribbean. But the real moral of this story and throughhout the history of science is that some of the greatest discoveries were discovered by accident, luck and a spurt of inspiration, and this is probably how we will stumble on the discovery of other Universes.
ptalar said:Wouldn't physical reality and the observable Universe both be part of "nature?" If we are already aware that what we see is not all that exists then aren't we part of the way there (there being physical reality)
just as your example of the birds in flight indicate nature has shown that flight is possible? It may be we just don't recognize the signs nature has given us.
But in general, I concur with your statement. This is a much more complex issue than the easily found proof of a bird in flight showing us that flight is possible. There wasn't much difficult scientific investigation in identifying nature's example of flight.
ptalar said:And the reality is that Christopher Columbus wasn't initially looking for the "New World." He was looking for a new route to India. Hence, the name West Indies for the Islands of the Caribbean. But the real moral of this story and throughhout the history of science is that some of the greatest discoveries were discovered by accident, luck and a spurt of inspiration, and this is probably how we will stumble on the discovery of other Universes.
The multiverse is a hypothetical concept in physics and cosmology that suggests the existence of multiple universes or parallel dimensions beyond our own. This idea has been explored in various scientific theories and has captured the imagination of many people.
Scientists study the multiverse as a way to better understand the fundamental laws of nature and the universe as a whole. By exploring the concept of multiple universes, scientists hope to gain insight into the origins of our own universe and the possibility of other forms of life.
The multiverse theory is supported by various scientific theories and observations, such as the concept of inflation in the early universe, the existence of dark energy, and the idea of quantum mechanics. However, there is still ongoing research and debate among scientists about the validity and evidence for the multiverse.
The multiverse theory has far-reaching implications for our understanding of the universe and our place in it. It could potentially explain the existence of dark energy and the fine-tuning of physical constants in our universe. It also raises philosophical and ethical questions about the nature of reality and the concept of free will.
Currently, there is no direct way to test the multiverse theory. However, scientists are constantly developing new technologies and theories that may provide evidence for or against the existence of multiple universes. Ongoing research and advancements in technology may one day provide a way to test this concept.