Seriously thoughtful Universe not created by God

[Graham]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's really just a re-statement of the anthropic principle which answers the question "why are the physical laws the way they are?" with the answer "because if they were different, we wouldn't be here to observe them."

Yes, I mentioned the Anthropic Principle above. The Anthropic Principle is weak if you only allow the existence of a single universe, as it just amounts to saying "well things are as they are" and being glad the dice fell out the way they did.

However, once you allow the existence of multiple universes, the Anthropic Principle becomes much more useful. In this case it becomes possible to use the fact that we are here as observers to indicate that there may be a much greater number of other places where people like us could not have evolved, and you can then point to the statistical unlikelihood of getting such a wonderfully benign universe to suggest that it is more likely that there are multiple universes than just one.

There's also a great hypothesis floating about, which is pure speculation (but fun), that points out that if there is some property of life (or of the physics that generates a suitable environment for life) that makes it more likely that a universe could spawn new universes suitable for life, then as the multiverse developed the forces of evolution would fine tune it for life.

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's available for pre-order from Amazon for £5.98.

Have you got a link for that, Harry? I'm just seeing the hardcover at £8.54 as the cheapest version.

Graham

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Graham

Have you got a link for that, Harry? I'm just seeing the hardcover at £8.54 as the cheapest version.

Graham

Link here.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Link here.

Excellent, thanks Harry. The main page for the book here suggests that there's no Kindle edition.

Graham

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Link here.

And U.S. version here:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Desi...3950206&sr=8-1

[HarryT]

You're welcome .

[Over]

Originally Posted by Graham

But there is a difference. By my understanding of this, Hawking is saying that the physics suggests that it is possible for something to spontaneously be created out of nothing. Pairs of particles and anti-particles arising where there was nothing before, for example. The randomness of fluctuations within that would allow that something to grow and develop, rather than simply annihilate itself.

My point is, there's no evidence, facts, that backup that possibility. We're talking about a possibility based on onther possibility, none of them confirmed of backed up by facts. It has as much value as me saying that gremlins possibly exist or existed somehow, somewhere, somewhen in a multiverse with an almost infinite time line.

While you're correct that Science can't deny that there was a Creator, Hawking is satisfied that this doesn't leave an unexplained gap in Science's position.

On, there's a gap, more than one. That's what we've been talking about. But i guess we'll have to wait for the book to make any fair conclusions.

The faith position that the universe had a Creator, on the other hand, does require further explanation that has not been provided, particularly to the key question, "If things must be Created, then who created the Creator?"

And why do you assume that everything must be created? That's what I meant a few post ago that humanity can't handle infinity very we'll.

We're trapped in finity. Everything for us must have a beggining and an end. A cause and effect. It's hard to imagine and explain an infinite universe, for example, or an infinite creator.

I guess we have limited capacity and "tools" to understand this. Science doesn't have the means to study and understand God, for example. So it can't deny or confirm it, must settle with the current best answer. That might be different tomorrow. There's always paradigm shifts and there's always will be. We're must not there's yet. But I won't settle with a "we don't need a Creator", because science didn't demonstrate that it doesn't need. Saying we don't require a Creator (or that we do require) is, in my opinion, unscientific.

You are correct here, but that doesn't invalidate the position. The argument though isn't that scientists are inflating timescales and universes until they get the answer they want, but rather that the need for a longer time frame for evolution, and the proposed need for multiple universes, are indicated by the current state of events.

In evolution's case the fossil and geological evidence puzzled thinkers used to biblical timescales. The scientific evidence suggested that the world was much older, and subsequent tests proved this to be the case.

In the case of the universe the set of physical constants that we have (that allows the universe to exist and life to evolve) seems to be from a very small subset of what could be possible. Various reasons for this could be proposed, but they boil down to two options: a) a Creator chose these values, or b) multiple universes exist either all together or in a sequence, which allows the current universe to exist as one unlikely instance.

Must because the time dilation is convenient, i'm not saying it's not sensible. But in this particular case, with having read the book, it seems that time and universes we're added without any facts backing it up. You mentioned fossils, for example. That's a more legitimate reason.

Hawking's point is that if a universe can get started spontaneously, then there is no reason why it shouldn't happen many times, leading to multiple universes, including this lovely one which houses us. His science seems to support that (b) is the case.

Graham

i'm curious to know how can that be even an hypothesis. We'll have to wait and read and verify and reproduce the facts. Meanwhile, i can hypothise that if Santa Claus exists, them we aren't required to buy gifts for the kids.

[Over]

Btw, i'm writting from my iPad. Pardon me any typos. And it's a little but hard to skim the text to correct them, so let me know of anything isn't understandable.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Over

My point is, there's no evidence, facts, that backup that possibility. We're talking about a possibility based on onther possibility, none of them confirmed of backed up by facts.

But there are facts, many of them. Hawking arrives at his conclusions based on relativistic physics, which has held up under intense scrutiny and experiment. Our current theories may be displaced by better ones further down the line, but so far the observable facts support relativity.

For the rest, well, my copy of the book gets here tomorrow, so let's read it and continue then!

Graham

EDIT: I should have said "quantum physics" above instead of referring to relativity. Returned to this post after reading "The Grand Design" and spotted my error!

[Graham]

Well, I've read "The Grand Design" now. I'm not sure it breaks much new ground, and although it's an enjoyable book, I'd say I've read better, clearer explanations of the material that it does cover elsewhere. I followed straight on from reading "Why Does e=mc²?" by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw, and while I'd whole-heartedly recommend the latter, I don't think I'd urge people to go out and get the Hawking book.

Without spoiling it for those who do want to read it, though, it does cover pretty much the ground we've been discussing in this thread. A key passage other than the one getting quoted in the press would be the following:

[The] multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine-tuning. It is a consequence of the no-boundary condition as well as many other theories of modern cosmology. But if it is true, then the strong anthropic principle can be considered effectively equivalent to the weak one.

The ebook is not long, but suffered a little on my greyscale reader. There are some very nice colour diagrams and illustrations, which would look great on a tablet, and also which you'd probably want to bookmark and refer back to.

Graham

[kennyc]

Thanks Graham, added Why Does E=mc2? to wish list...

[Graham]

Enjoy, Kenny!

Just to clarify, "Why Does E=mc2?" is more about relativity than quantum physics, and seeks to explain the properties of this universe, as we currently understand them, while in "The Grand Design" Hawking and Mlodinow take quantum fluctuations as their touchpoint to lead us into a discussion of how multiple universes emerge from our current theories.

Another good read on the multiverse concept is "The Goldilocks Enigma" by Paul Davies.

Graham

[kennyc]

Davies is another great science writer!

[wodin]

As I understand the media/reviewer's interpretation of Hawking's book, he failed to answer the fundamental question, “Who wrote the laws?”

[Graham]

Originally Posted by wodin

As I understand the media/reviewer's interpretation of Hawking's book, he failed to answer the fundamental question, “Who wrote the laws?”

He does answer this question, in the manner discussed earlier in this thread, by explaining that M-Theory in particular allows for spontaneous generation of multiple universes each with its own set of physical laws. This means that there is no need to look for the "Who" in the question.

It does not remove the possibility of the existence of a "Who", of course, who exists outside of the realm of what can be known, but one is not an absolute requirement for all that is around us to exist.

M-Theory, of course, has yet to be fully confirmed by observation, but the building blocks on which it is based, those of quantum physics, have been subjected to some of the most rigorous testing ever conducted and have so far passed every test.

Graham

[Graham]

Originally Posted by wodin

As I understand the media/reviewer's interpretation of Hawking's book, he failed to answer the fundamental question, “Who wrote the laws?”

To be specific and fair to your reviewer, if his interpretation was that Hawking did not reveal a completely proven theory that explained the existence of the laws, then that is a fair comment.

He does, though, present a candidate theory, which has borne up well so far, which would, if accepted, lead to the conclusions in the book.

Graham