Ok in that sense sure, but do we really need a principle to define it? That is just elementary deduction. "I think, therefore I am"
I was referring to the anthropic principle being a justification for a multiverse.
As far as I understand, there is no evidence that any of the fundamental...
It is interesting how fickle life seems to be but it doesn't matter how many times you roll the dice, the odds of rolling a 1 are always the same. You can maximize chance with iterations but not odds. It is just as likely that life emerged on the first iteration or the trillionth.
All of...
If I assumed, I wouldn't bother looking for answers. Satisfaction in ignorance is no better. The pursuit has and always will be fact, whether that coincides with my own expectations or not. I did not make a conclusion, I postulated an idea. Is it evidently wrong?
I have no opinion on simultaneous multiverse theories, though because of intuition and the singularity problems I am inclined to a big-bounce theory. I don't think that we should be extrapolating back to exactly 0. I expect that the universe bounced slightly before. What we say is T=0 in the...
You can think of it how you want, independent or dependent. It's a matter of perspective only.
Just like numbers. Do numbers really exist or is math just a construct of the human mind? If you start counting from 1, was there a before 1?
The scientific argument would be, do you care what is...
No, I say it has no merit, because we don't know what the conditions for life really are. Life could just as easily prosper in a universe with completely different physics from our own. The fact that life is so prolific on Earth contradicts the idea of a finely tuned universe. The fact that we...
You miss the point. While our current model may be sufficient to explain what we already know, it doesn't explain everything. His statement is fine by scientific standards and I agree that the anthropic principle is not enough reason to justify a multiverse theory. I agree that the anthropic...
As I said in an earlier post, the only problem I have with Steinhardt's statement is his reason in that the universe was not accidental. Of course it was. Saying otherwise infers design. That answers nothing and complicates things immensely.
I agree.
The thing is that time is just a concept to describe the procession of events. What is the lowest and highest numbers in the number system?
If there was a beginning, then there was undoubtedly a before the beginning, just as there will be an after the end. Even if that moment before...
The Hubble constant (H0) only reflects one moment in time, back when it was first observed.
If you extrapolate the Hubble parameter (H) over time (H1, H2, etc, to HNOW), then it's not constant, it is accelerating.
I wouldn't say in unison. They all move relative to one another, but there are other effects besides galactic orbit that affect their movement. Most importantly would be gravity. Eventually all matter converges under gravity (barring inflation). So while the stars (and the nebulae) orbit the...
Don't even think of a shape at all.
Takes the numbers 1 to 10. That is a straight, 1 dimensional line.
Now when you count to 10, what's next after 10? Stop or loop back to 1?
I'm not sure what a 'not straight' 1d line would be like...
Just a guess, but I would suppose it would be a...
I think that the stretchy trampoline analogy is actually a backward representation.
Spacetime would actually be pinched into the center of the mass, not expanded away. If it is stretched around, it implies that mass makes spacetime less dense.