God & Cosmology: Perceptions & Opinions

[Freeman Dyson]

Intelligent observers can't exist except if these things were true, so it is impossible to make any conclusions one way or the other about what these simple statements mean.

Source on intelligent observers only being able to exist in a coherent and orderly universe? Why couldn't they come to be in an absurd one? It is impossible to say whether a universe need to be coherent for intelligent life to form.

To put it another way, it shouldn't be any surprise that you weren't born in the vacuum of space, because if you were, you'd be dead. So you can't conclude anything one way or the other about the fact that you were born in a habitable environment.

But that doesn't answer anything. Total anthropic principle reasoning as with your first point. "It's that way because that's the way it is, or the only way it could be." That isn't an explanation. It is a tautology. I meant prove as in mathematics. Science is a means of finding an approximation to the truth. That approximation gets better and better as we learn more and more. But it is only ever an approximation, and we don't always know precisely where the approximation breaks down.

What theologians and philosophers have attempted to repeatedly do is find an actual proof, not just present evidence (because there is none). They've fallen flat every time, mind you. But they've tried.

He states what he means quite explicitly:

Science requires a philosophy known as "methodological naturalism", which basically is a statement that science can only discover natural causes. In other words, science can only discern things which adhere to materialism. The fact that science has been incredibly successful, however, lends credence to the statement that there isn't anything else out there that doesn't adhere to some natural rules (that is, the supernatural).

Theism includes deism which doesn't require an interventionist God. But a God who set up the initial conditions of the universe and then "retired". He let's physical processes do the work. He set up a framework so he doesn't have to intervene every 2 seconds. Or as Francis Bacon said: "God never wrought miracle to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it."

 

[Chalnoth]

Source on intelligent observers only being able to exist in a coherent and orderly universe? Why couldn't they come to be in an absurd one? It is impossible to say whether a universe need to be coherent for intelligent life to form.

Intelligence requires, at a minimum, a complex stable ordered structure capable of information storage and processing. You can't have complex stable structures unless the universe is also stable.

But that doesn't answer anything. Total anthropic principle reasoning as with your first point. "It's that way because that's the way it is, or the only way it could be." That isn't an explanation. It is a tautology.

I didn't claim it was an explanation. Yes, it is a tautology. It's a statement that there are some things that we don't have any right to be surprised about, because it's just not possible for those things to be any other way.

Theism includes deism which doesn't require an interventionist God. But a God who set up the initial conditions of the universe and then "retired". He let's physical processes do the work. He set up a framework so he doesn't have to intervene every 2 seconds. Or as Francis Bacon said: "God never wrought miracle to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it."

I am entirely aware of deism. It may be somewhat more reasonable than an interventionist deity in that it isn't directly contradicted by observation. But it's still a god of the gaps.

 

[celebrei]

Science requires a philosophy known as "methodological naturalism", which basically is a statement that science can only discover natural causes. In other words, science can only discern things which adhere to materialism. The fact that science has been incredibly successful, however, lends credence to the statement that there isn't anything else out there that doesn't adhere to some natural rules (that is, the supernatural).

That is more of a personal belief rather than a scientific statement, perhaps the methodology of science cannot prove or disprove the existence of the spiritual or the divine, but does it mean that simply because something is not scientifically fallible it is therefore bogus? that sounds more of a truism, science is not the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth, and in no way does methodological naturalism eliminates traditional epistemology, philosophy, metaphysics,etc. as other sources of truth, there are epistemic principles which are not natural facts, methodological naturalism relies on empirical evidence and therefore all epistemic facts which comprise this method must be reducible to natural facts, that is, all facts related to the process of understanding must be expressible in terms of natural facts, but there are things which are not reducible to natural facts, therefore outside the scope and methodology of science, consider metaphysical statements, in a Popperian criterion they are not falsifiable, untestable, but as Karl Popper said, simply because metaphysical claims are not falsifiable they are therefore rendered epistemically meaningless, they may be reasonable but not empirically testable, to insist that all valid knowledge must first be scientific and that existent things must be no more than an extension of its' physical properties is just a personal conviction/belief in scientism.

I am entirely aware of deism. It may be somewhat more reasonable than an interventionist deity in that it isn't directly contradicted by observation. But it's still a god of the gaps.

I am baffled as to why some assume that any event which is eventually explained by science automatically excludes God, and that the activity of the paradigmatic God is isolated/restricted to such "gaps", it's not altogether impossible that through natural processes the Deity could have brought forth the creation of the universe. the "god of the gaps" argument against theism/deism is limited ( like occam's razor) in that it's only applicable to beliefs which are overly gratuitous.

 

[Chalnoth]

That is more of a personal belief rather than a scientific statement,

It's just basic inductive reasoning: if something works again and again and again, chances are it's going to continue to work. In this case, not only has scientific investigation repeatedly and consistently demonstrated natural causes for observed phenomena, but it has also supplanted previous supernatural explanations over and over and over again. In fact, in each and every case where a supernatural explanation was favored in an area where science could investigate, the supernatural explanation has been found to be false.

You might well continue to hold the belief, "This time, it will be different," or, "Well, since science can't test things here, maybe the supernatural explanation is true this time," but it's just not a reasonable position to hold.

science is not the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth,

It's the only one that we know works. At least for truths other than tautologies (which is in the domain of logic and mathematics). The other claimed ways of accessing the "truth" contradict one another using the same types of "evidence" and are therefore invalid.

 

[celebrei]

It's the only one that we know works. At least for truths other than tautologies (which is in the domain of logic and mathematics). The other claimed ways of accessing the "truth" contradict one another using the same types of "evidence" and are therefore invalid.

Well then that is where our intellectual position differs, I think you are using vaguely defined terms such as "truth" or "evidence" by injecting your own materialist mindset into it, there is a difference between evidential truths and rationally-defensible truths, like I said, to say that all valid knowledge must be scientific is scientism, it is more than anything, a form of belief

 

[celebrei]

You might well continue to hold the belief, "This time, it will be different," or, "Well, since science can't test things here, maybe the supernatural explanation is true this time," but it's just not a reasonable position to hold.

You are making a categorical error by positing that both the scientific and supernatural philosophical view about something are both scientific theories, the contrariety and conflict of these two views arises by categorizing them both in a scientific sense, it is perfectly reasonable therefore to hold for example that the our biological world is a product of evolution while evolution itself is a tool that God employed to develop human life.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well then that is where our intellectual position differs, I think you are using vaguely defined terms such as "truth" or "evidence" by injecting your own materialist mindset into it, there is a difference between evidential truths and rationally-defensible truths, like I said, to say that all valid knowledge must be scientific is scientism, it is more than anything, a form of belief

By saying that, you are implicitly placing science into a small box in which it simply does not fit. Science is just a rigorous, disciplined investigation into the nature of reality. It has no rules that aren't open to argument. It has no limits as to what questions it can or cannot consider (though the answer to some may well be, "that cannot be determined.").

This isn't a statement, by the way, that all of reality fits inside of science, but rather that science (i.e. disciplined investigation) can be applied to any facet of reality.

To put it another way, science is the only discipline that has the gall to ask, about anything and everything, "How do you know? How can you be certain?" Science checks and re-checks. It verifies. It doesn't take for granted that a given statement is true, it verifies to see that it is. And then, once verified, it checks again. And again. Then it looks at it from a different angle to see if the statement still holds up. Even then the statement is not taken to be absolutely and utterly true all the time.

It is that questioning nature that separates science from non-science. Without engaging in this questioning and cross-verification that science demands, people make mistakes. Even with the questioning and cross-verification demanded by science, we still manage to make mistakes. We still manage to not get the truth quite right, or in some cases get things quite wrong. Because we know how often we are wrong about the nature of reality when we check and recheck and check again, there is no question whatsoever that we are guaranteed to be wrong when we loosen that discipline and don't bother to check our results.

That is why science is the only reliable means of finding truth about the nature of reality.

 

[Dolphiney]

A pretty loaded title for the thread (I know).

I would like to know what are everyone's perceptions/opinions regarding the beginning of the universe (of time) as it relates to the notion of a god or God?

You might not like my style, I am straight like this that
If you don't believe in God, then don't. No one ever in this world in any particular society can force you to believe in God or in absolute science.
Lifeforms on Earth started with chemical elements.
Thoughts started to be known with modern developments in neuroscience.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

Intelligence requires, at a minimum, a complex stable ordered structure capable of information storage and processing. You can't have complex stable structures unless the universe is also stable.


I didn't claim it was an explanation. Yes, it is a tautology. It's a statement that there are some things that we don't have any right to be surprised about, because it's just not possible for those things to be any other way.


I am entirely aware of deism. It may be somewhat more reasonable than an interventionist deity in that it isn't directly contradicted by observation. But it's still a god of the gaps.

But how do you know it's not possible for things to be any other way? Many prominent atheist Cosmologists, like Weinberg and Susskind, are running to the multiverse and AP for cover because they do think the universe looks a little too perfect. As Weinberg says:

In several cosmological theories the observed big bang is just one member of an ensemble. The ensemble may consist of different expanding regions at different times and locations in the same spacetime, (7) or of different terms in the wave function of the universe. (8) If the vacuum energy density rhoV varies among the different members of this ensemble, then the value observed by any species of astronomers will be conditioned by the necessity that this value of rhoV should be suitable for the evolution of intelligent life.

It would be a disappointment if this were the solution of the cosmological constant problems, because we would like to be able to calculate all the constants of nature from first principles, but it may be a disappointment that we will have to live with. We have learned to live with similar disappointments in the past. For instance, Kepler tried to derive the relative distances of the planets from the sun by a geometrical construction involving Platonic solids nested within each other, and it was somewhat disappointing when Newton's theory of the solar system failed to constrain the radii of planetary orbits, but by now we have gotten used to the fact that these radii are what they are because of historical accidents. This is a pretty good analogy, because we do have an anthropic explanation why the planet on which we live is in the narrow range of distances from the sun at which the surface temperature allows the existence of liquid water: if the radius of our planet's orbit was not in this range, then we would not be here. This would not be a satisfying explanation if the Earth were the only planet in the universe, for then the fact that it is just the right distance from the sun to allow water to be liquid on its surface would be quite amazing. But with nine planets in our solar system and vast numbers of planets in the rest of the universe, at different distances from their respective stars, this sort of anthropic explanation is just common sense. In the same way, an anthropic explanation of the value of rhoV makes sense if and only if there is a very large number of big bangs, with different values for

However, we would not expect to live in a big bang in which galaxy formation is just barely possible. Much more reasonable is what Vilenkin calls a principle of mediocrity,

But we do live in a Big Bang where life is just barely possible. So, what you're saying is that we could only live in a universe where life was barely possible. Why couldn't we live in a universe that was much more suited for life? A more "mediocre" universe as Weinberg and Vilenkin call it.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

By saying that, you are implicitly placing science into a small box in which it simply does not fit. Science is just a rigorous, disciplined investigation into the nature of reality. It has no rules that aren't open to argument. It has no limits as to what questions it can or cannot consider (though the answer to some may well be, "that cannot be determined.").

This isn't a statement, by the way, that all of reality fits inside of science, but rather that science (i.e. disciplined investigation) can be applied to any facet of reality.

To put it another way, science is the only discipline that has the gall to ask, about anything and everything, "How do you know? How can you be certain?" Science checks and re-checks. It verifies. It doesn't take for granted that a given statement is true, it verifies to see that it is. And then, once verified, it checks again. And again. Then it looks at it from a different angle to see if the statement still holds up. Even then the statement is not taken to be absolutely and utterly true all the time.

It is that questioning nature that separates science from non-science. Without engaging in this questioning and cross-verification that science demands, people make mistakes. Even with the questioning and cross-verification demanded by science, we still manage to make mistakes. We still manage to not get the truth quite right, or in some cases get things quite wrong. Because we know how often we are wrong about the nature of reality when we check and recheck and check again, there is no question whatsoever that we are guaranteed to be wrong when we loosen that discipline and don't bother to check our results.

That is why science is the only reliable means of finding truth about the nature of reality.

Oh, please. Science has a ton of limits. The biggest one being us.

It consists in asking a definite question which excludes as far as possible anything disturbing and irrelevant. It makes conditions, imposes them on Nature, and in this way forces her to give an answer to a question devised by man. She is prevented from answering out of the fullness of her possibilities since these possibilities are restricted as far as practible. For this purpose there is created in the laboratory a situation which is artificially restricted to the question which compels Nature to give an unequivocal answer. The workings of Nature in her unrestricted wholeness are completely excluded. If we want to know what these workings are, we need a method of inquiry which imposes the fewest possible conditions, or if possible no conditions at all, and then leave Nature to answer out of her fullness.

The so-called "scientific view of the world" based on this can hardly be anything more than a psychologically biased partial view which misses out all those by no means unimportant aspects that cannot be grasped statistically.

and

"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature. "

-Bohr

"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning."

-Heisenberg

"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions."

Stop assuming man and his questions are so wise.

 

[DaveC426913]

Oh, please. Science has a ton of limits. The biggest one being us.

It consists in asking a definite question which excludes as far as possible anything disturbing and irrelevant. It makes conditions, imposes them on Nature, and in this way forces her to give an answer to a question devised by man. She is prevented from answering out of the fullness of her possibilities since these possibilities are restricted as far as practible. For this purpose there is created in the laboratory a situation which is artificially restricted to the question which compels Nature to give an unequivocal answer. The workings of Nature in her unrestricted wholeness are completely excluded. If we want to know what these workings are, we need a method of inquiry which imposes the fewest possible conditions, or if possible no conditions at all, and then leave Nature to answer out of her fullness.

A load of hooey disguised as profundity.

 

[Chalnoth]

But how do you know it's not possible for things to be any other way? Many prominent atheist Cosmologists, like Weinberg and Susskind, are running to the multiverse and AP for cover because they do think the universe looks a little too perfect. As Weinberg says:

For cover? Clearly you have no clue what the arguments here are even about. The weak anthropic principle is simply a statement of fact: we can only observe conditions that allow us to exist. This is a tautology, and therefore undeniably true.

All that these physicists are saying when they bring up the anthropic principle is that when you start to consider theories about why certain cosmological parameters are the way they are, it is absolutely necessary to take into account this selection effect.

To call this "running to the AP for cover" is patently ludicrous. As far as the multiverse is concerned, it is seeming more and more likely to be a necessary consequence of high-energy physics.

But we do live in a Big Bang where life is just barely possible. So, what you're saying is that we could only live in a universe where life was barely possible. Why couldn't we live in a universe that was much more suited for life? A more "mediocre" universe as Weinberg and Vilenkin call it.

We do? Finding that we live in a universe that is near the boundary of the region of parameter space conducive to life would be quite exciting (as it would be evidence of a particular bias in the cosmological parameters, one which we expect must be predicted by a proper theory of how such parameters come about). But as far as I know this has not yet occurred.

 

[Chalnoth]

A load of hooey disguised as profundity.

Indeed. Science doesn't "impose conditions" on reality.

 

[DaveC426913]

Indeed. Science doesn't "impose conditions" on reality.

I started to dissect the quote but soon realized the post would be yards long. The unspoken implications, attempts at manipulation, and errors are legion.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

Indeed. Science doesn't "impose conditions" on reality.

No? What is an experiment? Your tests are imposed conditions. Your methods are imposed conditions. Who made the rules?

 

[Freeman Dyson]

For cover? Clearly you have no clue what the arguments here are even about. The weak anthropic principle is simply a statement of fact: we can only observe conditions that allow us to exist. This is a tautology, and therefore undeniably true.

All that these physicists are saying when they bring up the anthropic principle is that when you start to consider theories about why certain cosmological parameters are the way they are, it is absolutely necessary to take into account this selection effect.

To call this "running to the AP for cover" is patently ludicrous. As far as the multiverse is concerned, it is seeming more and more likely to be a necessary consequence of high-energy physics.


We do? Finding that we live in a universe that is near the boundary of the region of parameter space conducive to life would be quite exciting (as it would be evidence of a particular bias in the cosmological parameters, one which we expect must be predicted by a proper theory of how such parameters come about). But as far as I know this has not yet occurred.

But the selection effect is too selected. Which is what Weinberg and Susskind are talking about. They think there is a particular bias in the cosmic parameters. Susskind says the entire universe is on a knife's edge, and the only way this can explained short of a tuner is if we are in just one of an infinite amount of universes.

From Wiki:

A major outstanding problem is that most quantum field theories predict a huge cosmological constant from the energy of the quantum vacuum.

This conclusion follows from dimensional analysis and effective field theory. If the universe is described by an effective local quantum field theory down to the Planck scale, then we would expect a cosmological constant of the order of M_{\rm pl}^4. As noted above, the measured cosmological constant is smaller than this by a factor of 10-120. This discrepancy has been termed "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics!"[7]

Some supersymmetric theories require a cosmological constant that is exactly zero, which further complicates things. This is the cosmological constant problem, the worst problem of fine-tuning in physics: there is no known natural way to derive the tiny cosmological constant used in cosmology from particle physics.

Are you saying high energy physics has shown indications of a multiverse?

 

[Chalnoth]

No? What is an experiment? Your tests are imposed conditions. Your methods are imposed conditions. Who made the rules?

The purpose of an experiment is to isolate one particular facet of reality in order to examine that without other facets interfering (as much as possible). What, pray tell, does this have to do with "imposing conditions" in any way, shape, or form?

 

[Chalnoth]

But the selection effect is too selected. Which is what Weinberg and Susskind are talking about. They think there is a particular bias in the cosmic parameters. Susskind says the entire universe is on a knife's edge, and the only way this can explained short of a tuner is if we are in just one of an infinite amount of universes.

Well, this is a different issue. Basically there are two schools of thought in theoretical physics. The first school of thought argues that the parameters that make up our universe could be uniquely predicted if we were to have a theory of everything before us. The second school of thought states that the universe takes on many different values for these parameters, and our region stems from one particular realization of them.

Susskind and others (including myself) argue that the fact that the physical parameters that define the properties of physics at low energies have the appearance of fine tuning is strong evidence for the second situation.

A "tuner" doesn't enter into it at all, because that proposal is a non-starter, for two main reasons.

The practical reason why proposing a "tuner" is a non-starter is just that if it were true, then there would be no further investigation to be done. So we might as well just go with those hypotheses that can be investigated and understood. This is basically the reason why science relies upon methodological naturalism: it has to, or else it'd stop.

The logical reason why it's a non-starter is that the proposal of a "tuner" is necessarily more complex than that which it is purported to explain, and thus isn't actually an explanation.

Are you saying high energy physics has shown indications of a multiverse?

Yes. Spontaneous symmetry breaking is a mechanism that is inherent within the standard model of particle physics, and is likely to be even more significant for physics beyond the standard model. Spontaneous symmetry breaking ensures that different regions of the universe will have different parameters for what we see as physical constants. The symmetry breaking within the current standard model is pretty minimal, just relating to the properties of the weak nuclear force, but it is expected that many other parameters are a result of such events as well.

So, universe is large + spontaneous symmetry breaking = multiverse.

 

[madness]

For cover? Clearly you have no clue what the arguments here are even about. The weak anthropic principle is simply a statement of fact: we can only observe conditions that allow us to exist. This is a tautology, and therefore undeniably true.

All that these physicists are saying when they bring up the anthropic principle is that when you start to consider theories about why certain cosmological parameters are the way they are, it is absolutely necessary to take into account this selection effect.

This seems like a massive copout to me. If we can only observe conditions that allow us to exist, do you then suppose that there are other universes where the conditions are not sufficient for our existence? If not then you still have the problem of why the conditions allow us to exist, if so then you are making an assumption equally as unjustified as design.

 

[zomgwtf]

This seems like a massive copout to me. If we can only observe conditions that allow us to exist, do you then suppose that there are other universes where the conditions are not sufficient for our existence? If not then you still have the problem of why the conditions allow us to exist, if so then you are making an assumption equally as unjustified as design.

I don't see how this follows logically.

 

[GeorgCantor]

My position is pretty well summed up in the following article by Paul Davies:

"TAKING SCIENCE ON FAITH

The most refined expression of the rational intelligibility of the cosmos is found in the laws of physics, the fundamental rules on which nature runs. The laws of gravitation and electromagnetism, the laws that regulate the world within the atom, the laws of motion — all are expressed as tidy mathematical relationships. But where do these laws come from? And why do they have the form that they do?

When I was a student, the laws of physics were regarded as completely off limits. The job of the scientist, we were told, is to discover the laws and apply them, not inquire into their provenance. The laws were treated as "given" — imprinted on the universe like a maker's mark at the moment of cosmic birth — and fixed forevermore. Therefore, to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin. You've got to believe that these laws won't fail, that we won't wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of light changing by the hour.
Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from "that's not a scientific question" to "nobody knows." The favorite reply is, "There is no reason they are what they are — they just are." The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science.
Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity? If so, then nature is a fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity somehow masquerading as ingenious order and rationality."

Full article:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/davies07/davies07_index.html

 

[GeorgCantor]

This seems like a massive copout to me.

It is. In the abscence of knowledge, assumptions are needed to support an expressed position.

 

[Chalnoth]

This seems like a massive copout to me. If we can only observe conditions that allow us to exist, do you then suppose that there are other universes where the conditions are not sufficient for our existence?

It is possible. Though I wouldn't say other universes per se. Just other regions beyond our horizon (there is only one universe). We already have evidence that this is likely the case from the standard model of particle physics, and I strongly suspect that as we learn more about both early universe cosmology and high-energy physics that the evidence for other regions not conducive to life will start to become really compelling.

If not then you still have the problem of why the conditions allow us to exist, if so then you are making an assumption equally as unjustified as design.

What assumption?

But no, that isn't a problem. The only question that needs to be answered is whether or not the laws of physics have a non-zero probability for a region conducive to life to form. And if the probability is non-zero, and the theory is sufficiently prolific, then it is guaranteed to happen.

 

[DaveC426913]

Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from "that's not a scientific question" to "nobody knows." The favorite reply is, "There is no reason they are what they are — they just are." The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational.

If you read up on the Big Bang, vacuum energy and spontaneous symmetry-breaking, you may get some answers you are looking for.

As the universe settled out from the BB, symmetries had to break. Where they broke may be somewhat arbitrary. Think of trying to balance a marble on a beachball. This is symmetrical but unstable. Ultimately, the marble will roll off, and in doing so will pick a direction to do so. The direction is arbitrary and there an infinite number of possible ones it could have chosen. Indeed, place the marble back on the beach ball and it will surely choose a different one.

This universe has properties that were fixed in that moment. One such property is the vacuum energy, which is not zero, though it could have been.

The point is, we are observing this universe because its properties are such that atoms were able to form, leading to us. There are infinitely many possible outcomes to the BB and a large majority of them result in unvierses where no life could possibly exist.

So, what do you mean by laws existing "reasonlessly"? Is the above irrational?

 

[GeorgCantor]

If you read up on the Big Bang, vacuum energy and spontaneous symmetry-breaking, you may get some answers you are looking for.

As the universe settled out from the BB, symmetries had to break. Where they broke may be somewhat arbitrary. Think of trying to balance a marble on a beachball. This is symmetrical but unstable. Ultimately, the marble will roll off, and in doing so will pick a direction to do so. The direction is arbitrary and there an infinite number of possible ones it could have chosen. Indeed, place the marble back on the beach ball and it will surely choose a different one.

This universe has properties that were fixed in that moment. One such property is the vacuum energy, which is not zero, though it could have been.

Those were questions asked by prof.Paul Davies of Arizona State University. I may send him an email with your answers. I am sure he has read on the Big Bang theory and the spontaneous symmetry breaking.

The point is, we are observing this universe because its properties are such that atoms were able to form, leading to us. There are infinitely many possible outcomes to the BB and a large majority of them result in unvierses where no life could possibly exist.

How do you know there were infinitely many outcomes to the BB(most scientists I've seen hold to determinism)? And what other universes do you have evidence of?

So, what do you mean by laws existing "reasonlessly"? Is the above irrational?

No, but what is the evoidence for the above assertions?

 

[madness]

It is possible. Though I wouldn't say other universes per se. Just other regions beyond our horizon (there is only one universe). We already have evidence that this is likely the case from the standard model of particle physics, and I strongly suspect that as we learn more about both early universe cosmology and high-energy physics that the evidence for other regions not conducive to life will start to become really compelling.


What assumption?

But no, that isn't a problem. The only question that needs to be answered is whether or not the laws of physics have a non-zero probability for a region conducive to life to form. And if the probability is non-zero, and the theory is sufficiently prolific, then it is guaranteed to happen.

The assumption is that there are other universes (ie places with different laws of physics) that don't support life. In my opinion, this assumption is no better (no more justified) than assuming a designer. Of course the laws of physics have non-zero probability for life to form, or we wouldn't be here. The question is why? And I don't find the anthropic principle a satisfying answer to that question. Of course you could always argue that this is just the way things are and that there is no need for an explanation - Bertrand Russel said the universe is just a "brute fact".

 

[twofish-quant]

With a god, on the other hand, not only is the very idea of a god just completely incompatible with everything that we do know about our world, but there also isn't any verifiable evidence that is even suggestive of a god's existence.

But what constitutes "evidence".

The thing about science is that there are a set of philosophical assumptions and processes which over time produces consensus. It we argue about what the mass of the electron is or what the nature of dark matter is, then we have rules and processes which will produce scientific consensus over time.

The trouble with arguing about God is that we are going to argue for the next hundred years, and we *still* are not going to come to a consensus because we do not agree on what the ground rules are.

To flesh this out a bit more, here is a good analogy:
http://machineslikeus.com/scientific-proof-of-gods-non-existence

[/QUOTE]

And as a scientist, this is precisely this type of muddle headed article that makes me go ballistic.

First of all physicists do not *prove* anything. Mathematicians *prove* things. If you are using the word "proof" to mean anything other than a series of logical mathematical steps, you are using language in a an unforgivably sloppy way. A lot of physics involves making very, very precise statements using very precise terminology, because if you start becoming imprecisely, then your thinking becomes sloppy.

Once you've proved something mathematically, there is no way you can argue against the result other than to find a flaw in the prove. Now that Fermat's last theorem have been proved, then the conclusion cannot be challenged. Physics doesn't work that way. Last year I thought the big bang happened. May be next year I'll change my mind. If the existence or non-existence of God were really subject to scientific evidence, it would be tentative and uncertainty. Yesterday, I thought God existed, maybe tomorrow I'll see something that will make me change my mind.

But I don't know of anyone that thinks of the existence of God in the same way that people think of the fine structure constant, which suggests to me that people *aren't* using scientific means to come to their conclusions, which is perfectly fine as long as people admit it.

Also, there has been a *lot* of philosophy that has contributed to the understanding of God, and even if you don't believe that God exists, it's useful to understand belief in God as a social phenonomenon. One thing that convinces me that God cannot be proved through rational means is a brilliant theologian named William of Ockham. You may have heard of him.

 

[twofish-quant]

Let me step back a bit to explain why people are interested in the anthropic principle. One of the results of string theory is that the fundamental constants are basically random. They just are the result of the expectation values of vacuum field strengths. One thing that quantum mechanics has are lots of examples of "uncaused events". Why does this uranium atom decay at this time, and the next one doesn't decay for the next billion years. No reason, it just happens.

So one of the results that has come out is that the fundamental constants of the universe could just be random and statistical in just the same way that when a atom decays is random and statistical. So to make sense of this one idea is that you have lots of different universes, and only ones in which life is possible will be observed, and the other thing that people have argued is that it's only an extremely narrow range of parameters that will allow this.

 

[twofish-quant]

The assumption is that there are other universes (ie places with different laws of physics) that don't support life. In my opinion, this assumption is no better (no more justified) than assuming a designer.

It's one of the results that comes from string theory. If you want to argue that this proves string theory is bogus and useless, I might not agree, but I'll not object to strongly.

And I don't find the anthropic principle a satisfying answer to that question.

I don't either but, "why ask why?"

One thing that I think is happening is that people that do have science do science with very, very different philosophical ideas that just happen to be compatible with each other enough so that we don't argue over everything. If there is a lot of evidence, and if we agree on how to process the evidence, then there is nothing to argue about.

However, when we *don't* have a lot of evidence or we disagree about what it means, then sparks fly. One thing I *very* strongly object to are surveys that seem to imply "most scientists are atheists, scientists are smart, therefore atheism must be true" since that implies that scientists that believe in God like myself are stupid."

I see God right in front of me. If you don't then fine. I'm not going to even try to convince you because I know I can't and it's a waste of my time to try.

But I someone annoyed when someone calls me delusional, and I get professionally offended when someone argues that I'm less of a physicist or that I'm dumber for believe that God exists, and that seems to be the gist of a lot of articles. Also if you make a scientific argument for anything, it's my professional duty to shoot it full of holes. That's how science works.

If atheists believe that there is no God, that's fine. If atheists believe that *I* (i.e. competent scientists that do believe in God) don't exist, then we have a problem.

 

[twofish-quant]

Those were questions asked by prof.Paul Davies of Arizona State University. I may send him an email with your answers. I am sure he has read on the Big Bang theory and the spontaneous symmetry breaking.

I'm sure he has, and he knows about the problem.

How do you know there were infinitely many outcomes to the BB(most scientists I've seen hold to determinism)? And what other universes do you have evidence of?

In general, physicists after around 1930's, are not determinists. Determinism is incompatible with quantum mechanics unless you start assuming either weirder stuff.

What is happening is that theory X gives result Y. If you assume a few basic things about string theory X, you end up with result Y. Now, you may conclude that result Y is so nutty, that theory X must be wrong. Cool! We are making progress. Albert Einstein could never accept the standard form of quantum mechanics because he thought it gave nutty results.

No, but what is the evidence for the above assertions?

It's theory. If you assume X is true, then Y logically follows. If you don't like Y, then you can reject X. I should point out that the fact that a lot of high energy physicists and cosmologists are uncomfortable with the results that they are getting, that they are looking for alternatives to theory X. Heck maybe the big bang is wrong in some fundamental way.