In the beginning

RJM Corbet said:
Yes, but as I keep saying, the 'Anthropic Principle' multiverse THEORY is really just a desperate patch to cover the fact that -- as even Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins etc, will acknowledge -- the 'fine-tunings' of life, the universe and everything are IMPOSSIBLE without virtually infinite other universes which we will never be able to prove or observe in any way.
Click to expand...

Methinks we are starting to get into a rut here. The universe is completely possible to explain within just this one reality. Life on this planet is possible to explain in just this one reality. Four billion years. That is a very hard concept to wrap the mind around. Just how long that is. With evolution happening in the tiniest of steps, two steps forward, one step back. And on and on and on. With that amount of time it is all possible.

There are few people I call a hero of mine. Not that there haven't been great people; obviously there have been lots. But of them all I think Carl Sagan is the person I would point to above all others for me. This famous clip from the original Cosmos series says it all. Wait till the very end!

 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
A Cup Of Tea said:
You and I have very different ideas about the laws of the universe. If we work from the assumption that the universe need to be exactly like it is for anything to be like it is, then yes, then ID might seem more plausible than the current scientific models. But I think most of us assume there are many different forms for existence to take and even with very different laws there might even be forms of life as we define it.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. But that's back to the multiverse. I don't have a problem with other universes, other forms of life. But my problem is with science absolute refusal to even consider a spiritual force higher than nature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lux
Devils' Advocate said:
Methinks we are starting to get into a rut here. The universe is completely possible to explain within just this one reality. Life on this planet is possible to explain in just this one reality.







Four billion years. That is a very hard concept to wrap the mind around. Just how long that is. With evolution happening in the tiniest of steps, two steps forward, one step back. And on and on and on. With that amount of time it is all possible ...
Click to expand...

No it's NOT possible, without the multiverse idea. Richard Dawkins, Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking agree. This is the fact of physics today.
 
Where he's talking about the cosmological constant being accurate to 120 decimal places (10 to the 120) -- as is required for the universe to exist at all -- the sum of all the atoms in the universe is around 10 to the 90. Please don't dump on me if that's not exact.

But it means the cosmological constant odds alone are many times greater than all the atoms in the universe. There are scores of other such fine-tunings. And that's before they even start working out the odds for life to have come into being.
 
Last edited:
wil said:
I am not a scientist...

But I sure don't think they are trying to pull wool over our eyes on their work.

What would cause them to decide to give us the big con...noting that a significant percentsge are Jewish, Hindu, Christian...
Click to expand...

No-one's trying to pull the wool. Science doesn't allow for wool. They have to say they think that way because the scientific 'culture' ridicules anyone who expresses even a wistful question about a spiritual power.

Emperor's new clothes, as I said? Imo.
 
Last edited:
RJM Corbet said:
I completely agree. But that's back to the multiverse. I don't have a problem with other universes, other forms of life. But my problem is with science absolute refusal to even consider a spiritual force higher than nature.
Click to expand...
This starts so many questions, I was sure you agreed previously that science can't prove or disprove God. Is that not true?
Also, how is science refusing spiritual forces?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
A Cup Of Tea said:
This starts so many questions, I was sure you agreed previously that science can't prove or disprove God. Is that not true?
Also, how is science refusing spiritual forces?
Click to expand...

1) But science can't prove or disprove the multiverse either. It's just an IDEA.

2) Try mentioning the possibility of spiritual forces to Richard Dawkins -- or to Brian Cox, Stephen Hawking, etc.
 
Last edited:
Surely it's obvious to anyone that a 'theory' proposing infinite universes in which infinite monkeys write infinite masterpieces, is more like something out of Monty Python than serious science?
 
RJM Corbet said:
No it's NOT possible, without the multiverse idea.
Click to expand...

Apologies. I didn't mean my statement (to which you are referring here) to sound so strident. What I meant to say was that we have gotten to the point that we were going over the same ground over and over again.

RJM Corbet said:
This is just one of many such articles, written by ordinary scientists with no axe to grind:
Click to expand...

Ah philosophy. This 'science' annoys me to no end. Well not philosophers themselves. Rather the ones who must dissect whatever they are talking about to abstraction. Because they take things to such a torturous level that anything and everything is beyond belief. Those who do this are the ones I call the Extremist Philosophers. It's like when priests discussed for hours on end how many angels could set on the point of a pin. (Which I believe is more metaphorical than anything that actually happened, but the analogy is apt either way). The point (no pun intended) being that people can over analyze concepts to the level of absurdity.

Here are two statements:

1. As unlikely as the universe is to have come in to existence, it did just that.

2. God had to be there as a catalyst to make existence possible.

For me, neither of these two statements are more outrageous than the other. In the former we are positing an extremely unlikely series of events actually occurring. In the latter we are positing an extremely unlikely being of such vastness and magnitude that it is only believable in the imagination.

Again, right now I'm not staking a claim on either of these two statements. To me the one is as completely unlikely as the other. Yet here we are. Or so we think?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Devils' Advocate said:
... For me, neither of these two statements are more outrageous than the other. In the former we are positing an extremely unlikely series of events actually occurring. In the latter we are positing an extremely unlikely being of such vastness and magnitude that it is only believable in the imagination.

Again, right now I'm not staking a claim on either of these two statements. To me the one is as completely unlikely as the other. Yet here we are. Or so we think?
Click to expand...

Thank you!!

That's ALL I needed to hear :)
(Absolutely no apology required, DA)
 
Last edited:
wil said:
I'd like to see the scientific paper mentioning infinite monkeys writing infinite master pieces...

Citation/link please...
Click to expand...

You'll need to search the infinite multiverse, where it undoubtedly exists ...
 
RJM Corbet said:
1) But science can't prove or disprove the multiverse either. It's just an IDEA.

2) Try mentioning the possibility of spiritual forces to Richard Dawkins -- or to Brian Cox, Stephen Hawking, etc.
Click to expand...
No the multiverse is a model built on what we know right now, science isn't saying anything about it yet because, as you say it can't. But you CAN draw conclusions from science to get to multiverse. You CAN'T draw conclusions from science to say anything about God, OR anything about faith to say anything about science.

No no, not people who talk about science, you said science refuse spiritual forces. You can list scientists who are atheists (I have no Idea what Cox or Hawkings spiritual positions are) and I'll google some non-atheistic scientists for you. And you can read their personal opinions about the nature of reality, but we are talking about the scientific method, no?

And I think you are making way to much the typewriting monkey, they are a logical conclusion to infinity´. Do you know how much infinity is, its a lot!
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
A Cup Of Tea said:
... you CAN draw conclusions from science to get to multiverse. You CAN'T draw conclusions from science to say anything about God ...
Click to expand...

We're back to Occam's Razor again, now aren't we? Never mind the irritating Brian Cox :)
 
RJM Corbet said:
Surely it's obvious to anyone that a 'theory' proposing infinite universes in which infinite monkeys write infinite masterpieces, is more like something out of Monty Python than serious science?
Click to expand...
wil said:
I'd like to see the scientific paper mentioning infinite monkeys writing infinite master pieces...

Citation/link please...
Click to expand...
RJM Corbet said:
You'll need to search the infinite multiverse, where it undoubtedly exists ...
Click to expand...
So to be clear...you made up something not said by scientists to mock and disprove science... I think there is a name for that...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
wil said:
So to be clear...you made up something not said by scientists to mock and disprove science... I think there is a name for that...
Click to expand...


I extrapolated.
If that's too many syllables to understand, I'm sorry, you'll have to look it up :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top