Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
EntryDelay Clarification
by Ger1
Yesterday at 22:11
strf length-limitation
by Grant
Yesterday at 18:49
Deformers struct in MDL7 abspeichern.
by tagimbul
Yesterday at 17:41
Compiling Trading Strategies with C++
by pascalx
Yesterday at 12:18
global breakeven of a portfolio inside tmf function
by kmerlo
08/19/17 12:21
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
AckCon'17: Lotter vs The World
Triton Wing
Computer Repair Simulator
Collider (working title)
Who's Online
11 registered (3dgamelight, Grant, alibaba, Iglarion, jrath, JoFo, jyd, tagimbul, mk_1, 1 invisible), 447 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
mqo, Aimak, Grant, Marce, pascalx
17719 Registered Users
Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#63676 - 04/15/06 05:30 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado ***** [Re: zazang]
Matt_Aufderheide Offline

Registered: 10/03/03
Posts: 4114
Er.. Newton didnt discover gravity. That's like saying Columbus discovered the Ocean.
Sphere Engine--the premier A6 graphics plugin.

#63677 - 04/15/06 11:58 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
zazang Offline

Registered: 10/04/03
Posts: 702
lol...I too thought 10 times before assuming Newton as the one who discovered
gravity...It pays to visit Wikipedia : -

In 628, the Indian astronomer Brahmagupta was the first to recognize gravity as a force of attraction. He explained that "bodies fall towards the earth as it is in the nature of the earth to attract bodies, just as it is in the nature of water to flow".

#63678 - 04/16/06 20:34 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: zazang]
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert

Registered: 09/19/02
Posts: 8177
Loc: Netherlands
And you are still wrong probably ... this is one of the earlier descriptions of the effect, I'm pretty sure gravity is one of the very first things everybody discovers when they are just born, it takes some time to consious experience it off course.
I'm 100% confident that more people knew about the force of attraction off the earth, thus gravity, way way earlier. I think Matt is still right with his 'Columbus discovering the Ocean-comparison'. A better statement would be that 'the first one, or at least from which we've found the text/inscription the first, to write down a description of the force of attraction we now call gravity (since Newton? naaw somehow I think that's older too, but not sure) was the Indian astronomer Brahmagupta. But there are plenty of cultures before 628 who used gravity in their advantage, so in my opinion they must have known.

PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software

#63679 - 04/17/06 07:29 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: PHeMoX]
zazang Offline

Registered: 10/04/03
Posts: 702
In that case should we say that its probably the first single cell creature born in an ocean that discovered an ocean ?...Its understood we are talking about the earliest record known to man

#63680 - 04/23/06 12:15 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Fine-Tuning Par [Re: jcl]
Rigoletto Offline

Registered: 05/15/03
Posts: 609
Loc: Rattenfängerstadt

Unsere Existenz basiert auf einer feinen Abstimmung von Naturkonstanten. Wäre die Materiedichte zu Beginn des Urknalls ein wenig höher oder niedriger, so wären schwere Elemente und damit kohlenstoffbasiertes Leben nicht entstanden. Offensichtlich existieren wir dennoch. Welche Erklärung dafür scheint Ihnen am plausibelsten?

Our existence is based on a very precise combination of nature constants. If the density of the universe at Big Bang time were a little higher or lower, or if other constants were a little different, heavy elements and thus carbon based life could not exist. In fact 99,9..% of all possible combinations of nature constants would lead to bleak universes without stars, planets, and life. Obviously, we exist nevertheless. Which explanation for this paradox seems the most likely to you?

Wenn genügend Zeit, Raum und Materie zur Verfügung stehen klappt es irgendwann mal mit der entstehung von Leben. Wer kann schon sagen wie oft das "System" gepatzt hat. So wie die größten Erfindungen durch Zufall gemacht wurden, wo vorher eine lange reihe gepatzter Versuche standen, hat es irgendwann mal mit uns geklappt. Und wahrscheinlich gibt es auch am anderen Ende in den weiten des Alls silizumbasiertes Leben. Mit unendliche viel Zeit, Raum und Materie gibt es auch unendlich Möglichkeiten das Leben entsteht.

If sufficient time, space and subject are available it sometimes come to the emergence of lives. Who can say how often the "system" lose. As the largest inventions by coincidence it was made, where a long lined up before losed attempts stood, sometime it happens. And probably it gives also at the other end to the far universe the siliciumbased life. With infinite much time, space and subject is there possibilities the life develops also infinitely.
WedWitch Project Rigoletto´s A6world

#63681 - 04/23/06 21:49 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Fine-Tuning Par [Re: Rigoletto]
Irish_Farmer Offline

Registered: 02/24/04
Posts: 718
Loc: Wisconsin
I have a question for people who explain the neat order of our universe by multiple universes (in other words we accidentally have a universe that is perfectly designed for life because there's an infinite amount of universes that aren't suitable), where are these other universes? What 'space' is there outside of our own? Are they alternate realities? If hyperspace keeps creating universes (I'm assuming you mean 3d universes), then where does it put these universes? Just some questions that I don't feel like researching myself if you guys already have the answers.

Where did hyperspace come from? And what created whatever created hyperspace?

Edited by Irish_Farmer (04/23/06 21:51)
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."

#63682 - 04/24/06 05:58 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Fine-Tuning Par [Re: Irish_Farmer]
zazang Offline

Registered: 10/04/03
Posts: 702
I think such questions have not yet been answered and proved satisfactorily and probably never will be...but that does not stop science from looking deeper and deeper...before asking such questions,I wish I knew the answer to these questions : -

1).Is there even an end to these questions ?
2).Can the human brain grasp those answers ?

it seems like to grasp those answers,we have to go into some higher conscious state...

#63683 - 04/24/06 11:00 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Fine-Tuning Par [Re: Irish_Farmer]
jcl Offline

Chief Engineer

Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 25661
Loc: Frankfurt
With the "many universes" answer in the poll I meant that the Big Bang was not a unique event, just from the consideration that if it can happen once, it can also happen infinitely often. In that case, the other Big Bangs happened befor our Big Bang, after our Big Bang, and also possibly at the same time. The question of "When" and "Where" of the other universes does not make much sense here as they are outside our space and time (and aren't in a "hyperspace" either).

However, the Andrej Linde interpretation of string theory postulates that not only one but many universes were created by the Big Bang, and are still created by local hyperinflation. In that case the question of the "where" and "when" can be answered more precisely when we manage to put the string theory together - probably within the next 40 years.


In both cases you won't be able to visit the other universes. They are separated from ours by event horizons.

#63684 - 04/24/06 18:28 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Fine-Tuning Par [Re: jcl]
KoH Offline

Registered: 11/05/04
Posts: 595
mulitple universes seems most likely to me, but a future theory may prove otherwise
I am no longer a member of these boards.

#63685 - 05/19/06 01:50 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Fine-Tuning Par [Re: KoH]
Damocles Offline

Registered: 01/29/03
Posts: 4301
Ich schreib jetzt einfach mal deutsch:

Die Annahme eines antrohpischen Prinzips hat meiner Meinung nach einen Haken:

Es besagt ja, das es eine unendliche Anzahl verschiedener universen gibt/gab
die jeweils völlig zufällige Kombinationen ihrer physikalischen Grundbausteine/Kräfte haben.
Und nur da diese Variable in unserem universum so schön zusammenwirken,
das es die Erde und den Menschen überhaupt geben kann, ist die auch nur die
einize Welt, in der intelligente Wesen diese in diesem Zustand betrachten können.
Bei allen anderen Kombinationen ist es nicht möglich, denkende Wesen zu schaffen, die die
Welt so betrachen können.

Der Schluss ist, wir sehen die Welt nur so wie sie ist, weil man nur in so einer Welt sowas sehen kann.

ich bezweifele aber Grundsätzlich, das sich die "bekannten" Physikatischen Kräfte überhaupt
so variabel kombinieren lassen.
ich bin der Meinung, sie können nur in der genau beobachteten Form in einem
universum vorkommen. Denn:

Man kann sich zwar viele kombinationen Vorstellen, aber eines mus immer konstant bleiben:
die Gesetze der Logig.
1+1=2 kann in keinem "anderen" universum anders sein.
Und da man diesen Faktor nicht variieren kann, bezweifele ich, das man überhaupt Variationen
der Konstanten haben kann.
ich denke eher, das es eine grundsätzliche Formel gibt, die alle bis jetzt unerklärbaren
Naturkonstanten elegant in ihrer Ausprägung erklären kann.
Die Annahme, sie sind "zufällig" zeugt eher vom fehlenden Erklätungsansatz für diese.

Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >

Moderator:  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes Wörterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite