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
ZeaL
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 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#63646 - 02/12/06 02:04 Anthropisches Prinzip / Fine-Tuning Paradox *****
jcl Offline

Chief Engineer

Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 25661
Loc: Frankfurt
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?

1. Gott - The universe was created this way by a God who does not require a further explanation for his existence (f.i. because he is eternal).

2. Unbekannter Prozess - The universe was created this way by a yet unknown process (f.i. a self-organizing process).

3. Viele Universen - The Big Bang is not a unique event. So many different universes are created that some of them have to be complex enough to produce life.

4. Zukünftige Theorie - There will be a simple explanation for the nature constants by a future physics theory (f.i. string theory).

5. Andere - Some other explanation I haven't thought of yet.

Please post your opinion.


Explanation for the Universe Paradox:
Only one choice allowed


Votes accepted starting: 02/12/06 02:04
View the results of this poll.

Top
#63647 - 02/12/06 02:08 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Paradox [Re: jcl]
Julius Offline
Developer

Registered: 11/29/03
Posts: 677
Loc: There
nice list i reckon. i believe in the 1st, but i also find the 3rd quite interesting. i mean, it sounds pretty cool, eh?

julius
_________________________
flabadabadab.

Top
#63648 - 02/12/06 03:41 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Paradox [Re: Julius]
Blattsalat Offline
Senior Expert

Registered: 07/12/02
Posts: 5181
Loc: Austria
maybe eternity aint a timeline but more a flummy ball jumping thru dimensions. As hard it will get to find the starting point of a ball or circle time could be the same.

if time can change depending on speed and mass ... well, ever thought of the big repeat and replay button hidden on planet pluto

the only funny thing (maybe funny aint the right word) is the fact that we accept something called god to be eternal (since i still havent found a tag on him saying "made in china") but we denay the possibility that the universe could be as well.

how about that:
the universe created god. now guess how

cheers
_________________________
Models, Textures and Levels at:
http://www.blattsalat.com/
portfolio:
http://showcase.blattsalat.com/

Top
#63649 - 02/12/06 08:38 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Blattsalat]
EX Citer Offline
Expert

Registered: 05/02/02
Posts: 2541
Loc: Berlin
The last article I read about the endlessness of the universe was very interesting. thanks jcl.

I think there can be unicorns because 1. we live in a world with fuzzy logic what means if there is something what looks like a unicorn it is a unicorn and 2. evolution has to do a lot with luck and 3. humans haven´t discovered all secrets of life.

Fuzzy logic means: We see the world not very exactly. For example a big man is wearing a brown jacket. We wouldn´t say a 1,80 to 2 meter big man is wearing a jacket in the color spektrum between 199 to 230 (don´t know if these numbers make sense but something like that).

And ontopic: I have one argument for the 1. "God" and all the rest of arguments for something else like 3. "many universes". The funny thing is the first argument weights so much that it´s in balance with the rest arguments So I have made up a personal view of universe and an official.


Edited by EX Citer (02/12/06 08:43)

Top
#63650 - 02/12/06 13:42 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Paradox [Re: jcl]
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert

Registered: 09/19/02
Posts: 8177
Loc: Netherlands
Quote:

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.




Isn't this precise combination of nature constants the evidence of a balance reached at one point in time, making it possible for us to exist? When you think about all constants as being a bit visually abstract, liquid-like all within a bottle mixed just right, like it's wine, only a good and balanced mix of all ingredients will taste good, wine also need time for it's taste to improve, all in all that 1 % would be the perfect wine? ... Somehow I see it as being inevitable, the density of the universe and other constants are relative(?), when you look at any 'circles of life', you will see one infuencing another, being dependent off another, all in all very cyclic and circular and in balance (ideal situation).

I take it the world around us is the result of the 1% of combinations that are possible, but would this be just 1 or still more than 1 possibilities? In the wine example you can have different 'constants' and (very) different tastes, but it's not impossible either to get a very similar taste with different constants, or so one would think??

Cheers
_________________________
PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software

Top
#63651 - 02/12/06 14:56 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado *DELETED* [Re: PHeMoX]
Jamie_Lynn Offline
Senior Developer

Registered: 10/21/04
Posts: 1068
Post deleted by Jamie_Lynn

Top
#63652 - 02/12/06 15:26 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Jamie_Lynn]
Inestical Offline
Rabbit Developer

Registered: 04/30/05
Posts: 3815
Loc: Finland
I took "multiple" cuz this is one universe in the timeline.

@Jamie: yes.. but this life is the life we know. but, we know that there shouldn't be any life exact to ours in other planets - the life has maany forms, maybe other planets has life - different than ours, not green plants or oxygen, just somekind of..
_________________________
"Yesterday was once today's tomorrow."

Top
#63653 - 02/12/06 19:18 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Inestical]
fastlane69 Offline
Senior Expert

Registered: 03/29/03
Posts: 5377
Loc: USofA
I don't quite see what the big deal is. We don't need String Theory or an Intelligent Designer to understand this, and the idea that 99% of the time life is impossible and seeing any meaning in that is just a "momentary lapse of reason" to quote Pink Floyd. It's merely a circular argument, an illusion because we happen live in this time...put less kindly "philosophical masturbation".

How different is this from asking yourself "Had my mother and father not met, I would not be alive. Had my father procreated with another women or my mother with another man, I would not have been born and thus I would not be alive. Thus, for 100% of other combinations of human partners, they 'might' lead to another life, but certainly not 'ME'"

For most of the past time of the universe, Carbon Based (CB) life was impossible. For most of the future time of the universe, CB life will again be impossible. As a matter of fact, if the universe truly is flat and ever expanding, then as the universes age approaches infinity, the window where CB life is sustainable approaches zero, thus making this universe devoid of life and asymptotically raising the probability that life doesn't exist in this universe to 100%.

As a matter of fact, consider these other balancing acts that the universe shows us:





Is there some paradox here? For most of these rocks lifetimes, they were either unbalanced or something else. In the future, there is a 100% probability that they will become unbalanced, either directly or by erosion. Like life in this universe, like us, we just happen to live in a time where there is this balance, but we should keep in mind that this is a very narrow view of the entire history of the universe.

And I agree with Whine that this whole dicussion is grossly ethnocentric and assumes that CB life is teh only type of life. We have no way of knowing there isn't some other form of life that can evolve in the quark-gluon plasma at the birst of the universe nor can we say with certainty that life won't evolve into something else in the cold, dark ends of time.

Top
#63654 - 02/12/06 21:08 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: fastlane69]
Inestical Offline
Rabbit Developer

Registered: 04/30/05
Posts: 3815
Loc: Finland
there is no paradox there is only (yes, I'm just copying..) balance in there. In feww houndred years the balance starts shaking and it creates unbalnace and *plumbs* or any other voice (maybe *EEEEK, skreek, panic?*) when this time comes.

The "other forms of life, that ain't Carbon Based" Is shown so many ways, Fantastic Four; The golem guy, elemental beings, like firebird, icewolf or any other kind of ways. Also any kind of material can be and is a source of life, even plasma, carbon, water, lava, the sands of Mars , etc.
_________________________
"Yesterday was once today's tomorrow."

Top
#63655 - 02/12/06 21:57 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Inestical]
Damocles Offline
Expert

Registered: 01/29/03
Posts: 4301
I strongly favor the "future theory" thing.
Thinking that the nature of natural constants is just
a random incident shows rather that it is not explanable
currently why it is so. Not that they are really random combintions.

Before Newtons theory of physics, one might say, that
all these strange mechanical behaviours might also be
"random laws", and it might be an anthrophic princile that we
see them this way.
But with the knowledge of mechanincs we can explain all
these (everyday scale) phenomenon by simple mechanical laws.
The same goes for the movement of stars/planets before
the knowledge of Keplers laws.

I rather think that there is a simple, yet unknow
"theory of everything" (Weltformel).
And all these physical constants can be derived from it.
And that there are/where no other combinations of it.

Take this mind-game:

Even if there where a universe with different
natural constants, take any combination (like strength of
graviation)

No matter what combination, one think would be allways the
same:

The logic of mathematics!
1+1=2 will allways be the same, in any "combination" universe. (and more complex equasions of course)

I think that this constancy is a proof of
"the one main formula"

BTW, if there where a god, he would not
have the power to change everything, as he could not
change principle logics/mathematics.
_________________________
rtsmaker.com

Top
#63656 - 02/13/06 01:37 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Damocles]
Blattsalat Offline
Senior Expert

Registered: 07/12/02
Posts: 5181
Loc: Austria
love those images! no matter if you belief in god or not but those "rock"

and no matter how small the chances are they are worth it. as everybodies single life or the whole CB based mankind.

so my conclusion would be: lets make babies! so we make sure no possibility gets skipped
_________________________
Models, Textures and Levels at:
http://www.blattsalat.com/
portfolio:
http://showcase.blattsalat.com/

Top
#63657 - 02/13/06 02:26 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: fastlane69]
jcl Offline

Chief Engineer

Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 25661
Loc: Frankfurt
Quote:

How different is this from asking yourself "Had my mother and father not met, I would not be alive. Had my father procreated with another women or my mother with another man, I would not have been born and thus I would not be alive. Thus, for 100% of other combinations of human partners, they 'might' lead to another life, but certainly not 'ME'"




With the same argument you could "prove" that no one would ever win in a lottery due to the improbability of this. The flaw lies in mixing different probability concepts. There are millions of lottery tickets issued, thus the probability of someone winning is a hundred percent. Were there only one ticket ever issued, winning would certainly require some further explanation - at least for a curious scientist.

The same applies to the universe.

Quote:

For most of the past time of the universe, Carbon Based (CB) life was impossible. For most of the future time of the universe, CB life will again be impossible. As a matter of fact, if the universe truly is flat and ever expanding, then as the universes age approaches infinity, the window where CB life is sustainable approaches zero, thus making this universe devoid of life and asymptotically raising the probability that life doesn't exist in this universe to 100%.




Mostly true, though in fact for most of the past time, about 10 billion years, carbon based life was very well possible. But this is not the point here. It's about under which conditions life it possible at all at one time in the universe.

Quote:

And I agree with Whine that this whole dicussion is grossly ethnocentric and assumes that CB life is teh only type of life. We have no way of knowing there isn't some other form of life that can evolve in the quark-gluon plasma at the birst of the universe nor can we say with certainty that life won't evolve into something else in the cold, dark ends of time.




This is correct, but still not the point. Development of intelligent life, no matter whether based on carbon, silicon, or unknown processes requires an energy source and an environment allowing evolution. For instance, in a universe filled with nothing but a thin expanding gas - and that's a much more likely universe than ours - life can not develop.

BTW I like the rock images, too.

Top
#63658 - 02/13/06 02:48 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Blattsalat]
JetpackMonkey Offline
Serious User

Registered: 11/05/03
Posts: 1659
Loc: San Francisco
hahahha blattsalat

i put unknown process, but i sometimes think of the unknown process as like cosmic metaphysical mystery = 'god/mother nature' (without bibles and dogma). I like the many universe and string theory developments! Maybe they are correct! I'd like to think they are, and if they are the answers, do they (or any other grand unification theory) cancel out 'god' ?

Quote:

How different is this from asking yourself "Had my mother and father not met, I would not be alive. Had my father procreated with another women or my mother with another man, I would not have been born and thus I would not be alive.


BTW I like this simple looking question a lot because it evokes that ultimate koan: who are you?


Edited by Jetpack_Monkey (02/13/06 02:55)

Top
#63659 - 02/13/06 03:50 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: jcl]
fastlane69 Offline
Senior Expert

Registered: 03/29/03
Posts: 5377
Loc: USofA
Quote:

With the same argument you could "prove" that no one would ever win in a lottery due to the improbability of this.




Please expand on this. My birth statement is factual: if my mom and dad hadn't procreated, I would not be alive, yet these is no mystery to my existence or how I came to be. However, your universal birth statement is not factual: if the constants do not align correctly, we have no way of knowing that in fact CB life won't again exist at some point in time in the past or future. But I have no idea where your lottery statement fits in.

Quote:

There are millions of lottery tickets issued, thus the probability of someone winning is a hundred percent.




Absolutely not...the probability of someone winning is not 100%...We see empirical evidence of this all the time: Tickets can get lost and people may not know they win and thus never claim their prize. As a matter of fact, this causes the jackpot to increase and leads to much joy and fanfare in the US.

Quote:

Were there only one ticket ever issued, winning would certainly require some further explanation - at least for a curious scientist.




Assuming I don't lose the winning ticket, this is an example of pulling a mystery out of circular logic...One winning ticket is issued, I have that ticket, so I win. What further explanation is needed?

A curious scientist with only one data point would hardly spend any time musing on how that one data point came to be...they would just accept that this is all they can get for the time being and move on. Remember that scientists are not numerologist...we use numbers as a tool, not as a divining method...if we see "42" come out of our calculations, we don't instantly scream "OMG, Douglas Adams was right! How did he know??" nor if we see 666 do we scream "The devil!! the devil!!". Likewise, realizing that the constants of nature are balanced (for now) so that we can live is just a fact and inspires no more scientific curiosity than wondering why DOG spelled backwards is GOD.

Quote:

The same applies to the universe.




I assume that in your analogy, the tickets are the universe. If that's the case (and again, I'm working with a core mis-understanding of what you are trying to say with your lottery analogy), then you are saying that if one million universes are issued, teh probability of life existing on one of them is 100% (where life=winning) since we are alive. But by using the lottery, you have skewed the analogy to state that only one universe can have life and the others can't (since in a lottery, only one person wins). But it is certainly possible that in this galactic lottery, everyone is a winner (CB or non-CB life is everywhere) and since we only know that we are the winner (and don't know the other winners), we feel like something special is going on.

Another way to interpret your analogy is that the tickets are the constants in nature. In this case, the millions of lottery tickets represent the millions of possibilities for these constants to combine. But as above, you are working with the assumption that only one ticket wins (our ticket; our constants) and that the other tickets are losers. Again we don't know that this is anything special since we have no way of stating that other non-CB life doesn't exist nor that other unknown physical processes won't again lead to the conditions necessary for CB life.


Quote:

BTW I like the rock images, too.




In their case, one would never question that some concrete physical process or at worst, just "coincidence" enabled them to balance, yet when people are confronted with balance on a cosmic scale, there "obviously" must be something non-physical to it.


Ultimitely, these questions remain in the realm of philosophy and meta-physics and thus everyone's opinion is as good as the other, but they do not cross over into the realm of science.

Top
#63660 - 02/13/06 06:46 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: fastlane69]
jcl Offline

Chief Engineer

Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 25661
Loc: Frankfurt
The question (it's only one) does not cross over because it's already there.

The question of probability for a certain event, be it a certain nuclear reaction or a Big Bang with a certain combination of nature constants, is essential for science. Such a question - or more precise, why a certain event does happen despite the current theory says it's unlikely - can lead to important discoveries.

In my opionion the Universe Paradox is among the 10..20 most important scientific questions at the beginning of this century. Sure, the God explanation won't get us much further, but once we understand more about the laws of physics in time scales below Planck time, we can seriously examine into explanations 3) and 4), and can possibly find the answer to the question.

As to the lottery anlogy, I admit that I don't know your US lottery rules. In German lottery there are always several winners, thus the universe analogy would probably indeed work with our lottery only. Especially since when multiple universes exist, there are probably infinitely many. Thus, the probability for intelligent life would indeed be 100%. But I think you got my point

Top
#63661 - 02/13/06 09:32 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: jcl]
fastlane69 Offline
Senior Expert

Registered: 03/29/03
Posts: 5377
Loc: USofA
Quote:

why a certain event does happen despite the current theory says it's unlikely - can lead to important discoveries.





While far from dismissing scientific curiosity, when it comes to this question, I strongly disagree with the core assumption that say's that our universes present configuration is likely or unlikely...

No one has any basis of comparason for that statement and the only "proof" offered is that if the constants were different, then life wouldn't exsist.

Well, in order for the constants to be different, the physics would be different and then all bets are off and we can say anything we want!

Hence you can say that changing the constants would lead to no CB life and I can say changing the constants changes the physics and that this new physics would lead again lead to CB life and there is no way for either of us to be proven right or wrong...hence there is no way that this line of questioning will ever lead to discovery since it's fundamentally nothing more than the question "Why are we here?" but with physical constants thrown in just to make things more interesting.

So while I ceratainly encourage people to find out why these constants are what they are, the idea that these the constants are "special" and somehow tied into life in this universe is just philosophy and not science.

BTW, I'm not trying to be thick-headed, but I really didn't get your point about the lottery as a counter-point to my father/mother/son circular arguement.

Top
#63662 - 04/12/06 18:24 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Damocles]
zazang Offline
User

Registered: 10/04/03
Posts: 702
Humans are eventually bound by logic.Human brain can never go into a realm that does not follow logic and we ascertain truth by "measurement"
.Even the statements I'm making are based on that.
The deeper questions like "How the universe started" etc are beyond the sphere of human logic...Just as talking in English is beyond the capability of an ant...

Top
#63663 - 04/13/06 02:26 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: zazang]
Marco_Grubert Offline
Expert

Registered: 09/02/03
Posts: 3236
Loc: San Diego, CA
..what fastlane said

Top
#63664 - 04/13/06 04:18 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Marco_Grubert]
Matt_Aufderheide Offline
Expert

Registered: 10/03/03
Posts: 4114
Questions like this are academic. The Universe is the way it is and that's that. The apparent probability of it turning out this way was 100%, meaning that while any one outcome may be improbable, one outcome is certain to happen. This is how it happened.

The same arguement applies to those who claim that if conditions on Earth were slightly different, life couldn't exist.

It just as easy to say that if conditions were different, life could exist, but it would just be different.

..Unless I'm missing something here, this is not a paradox at all.
_________________________
Sphere Engine--the premier A6 graphics plugin.

Top
#63665 - 04/13/06 04:58 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
Irish_Farmer Offline
User

Registered: 02/24/04
Posts: 718
Loc: Wisconsin
This isn't a very interesting question (no offense). For me it doesn't go far back enough to the foundation. Sure, there could have been slight changes that would change everything (except the core of physics) so what Matt said is true. Its pointless to ask why, because the simple fact of us being able to ask the question is kind of the answer to the question.

"I'm here because I can ask why I'm here," if you will. That may be circular reasoning, but in the context of the argument, that's as far as you need to go. At least in my opinion anyways.

The truly interesting question for me is one that science will never be able to explain...ever. Maybe you can try and prove me wrong, but from what I've heard from scientists, they've had to dodge this question.

If the universe also began in a sort of primordial state, where it was either smaller than it is now (relative to what? maybe it would be more accurate to say that relative to infinite space, all of matter was compacted into a tiny sphere), or literally nothing existed which became something, you're just begging the question. Where did this more basic universe come from? Something more basic? Where did that come from? Eventually it will all have to lead back to nothing. Saying it was always there is a cop out. You can say time keeps circling back on itself, but then why is there even time at all? Or to say that the probability of the existence of anything is 100% in this case also begs the question, where did probability come from? To say that it always existed is simply to take for granted its existence.

That's all I have to say, I don't want to hijack the discussion so you can continue on if you please.

However, it didn't seem to me that in JCL's original post, he was talking about changing constants. He was simply asking what if conditions hadn't been just right. Which definately is different than asking what it would mean if the physical laws of our universe were different, but I could be wrong about who said what.


Edited by Irish_Farmer (04/13/06 05:02)
_________________________
"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."

Top
#63666 - 04/13/06 21:51 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Irish_Farmer]
Anonymous
Unregistered


"but then why is there even time at all"

I think you have to realize that theres a chance that there is no real reason for anything. We tend to ask why so we understand purpose, which gives "meaning" to things. If you beleive in God, then there is no real reason why he created the earth and mankind. You can find meaning in God, and thats fine, but truly there is no reason why he started existence. If you say "we were made to praise him", then why does he need mortals to praise him? If you beleive in evolution, then theres also a chance that our existance isnt "right". We place evolution as a means to advance a species toward a better form, but for what? Multiply and die? Whats that do for anything?

Irish restated JCL's original post was asking if coniditions hadnt been right. Whats right? Not to sound clinton-ey but, whats the definition of right? Having childeren and going to school, church? Living, dying? Maybe you dying last year was "right" instead of living til now.

Top
#63667 - 04/13/06 22:01 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Irish_Farmer]
Doug Offline
Senior Expert

Registered: 07/23/00
Posts: 8973
Loc: Bay Area
If you ask the right scientists, there are some REALLY interesting theories on "where all this stuff came from". The problem is, as far as I know they are all REALLY hard to prove.

I think for most scientist, where all this came from is interesting but not very practical. So you're not going to see as much time spent on it as, say, how suns are made.

Top
#63668 - 04/14/06 00:11 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Doug]
Irish_Farmer Offline
User

Registered: 02/24/04
Posts: 718
Loc: Wisconsin
Quote:

I think you have to realize that theres a chance that there is no real reason for anything.




That's why I find the subject so interesting. There really is no reason anything should exist at all. The universe itself is just one of many things that defy reason, like our consciousness. That doesn't mean that ignoring it makes any sense. That's not to say that you shouldn't ignore it, I don't care what you do. But I see it this way, something does exist, but just as well nothing needs to exist in the first place. Nothing at all, God, our universe, matter, time, anything. So why does it? I'll never know the answer, but it tickles me the right way to reflect on these things for a few minutes every now and then.

Saying I'm trying to add meaning or purpose to something doesn't change the paradox.

Quote:

there are some REALLY interesting theories on "where all this stuff came from"




Do they all involve laws being suspended for one miraculous event? In fact, scientifically, the creation of the universe represents a miracle, which I believe is unavoidable. But if you have references to scientists saying something contrary to this, I'd love to see them. I'll probably research it myself later.

Quote:

I think for most scientist, where all this came from is interesting but not very practical.




True. I suppose for me it seems more practical in understanding the nature of the creator, but not everyone has the same beliefs as me of course.
_________________________
"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."

Top
#63669 - 04/14/06 03:07 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Irish_Farmer]
Matt_Aufderheide Offline
Expert

Registered: 10/03/03
Posts: 4114
A problem with this kind of thinking is the assumption that the "universe" was "created", quite apart from whatever was the agency of creation.

First what do you define as the Universe? just everything that can be seen including the visible galaxies and stars?

Our galaxy is a part of a galactic cluster, which is turn part of a galactic megacluster. There are even larger possible structures out there. The point is that the so-called universe that we see, and it is indeed expanding from a hypothetical point, may only be one small part of a far larger macrocosm.

Perhaps there are many "creation points". In other words I see no physical reason why there cant be another giant supercluster of galaxies expanding from ANOTHER point, somewhere far away. Perhaps one day our "universe" will collide with another one.

In any case, there is no reason to suppose that the matter or energy we see was "created" out of the void, when in fact there are certainly deep energy structures we dont yet percieve.

The Platonists believed in the great "one-ness" of being. Perhaps all being is one continuous stream, one wavefront, whatever.
_________________________
Sphere Engine--the premier A6 graphics plugin.

Top
#63670 - 04/14/06 03:10 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
Irish_Farmer Offline
User

Registered: 02/24/04
Posts: 718
Loc: Wisconsin
Quote:

In any case, there is no reason to suppose that the matter or energy we see was "created" out of the void, when in fact there are certainly deep energy structures we dont yet percieve.




Like I said, all science can do is call for a more primitive form that still has no explanation. You're just postponing the question. If there is no reason for this 'deep energy structure' to exist, then why does it? What I'm saying is that nothing really needs to exist at all. There's no reason for it. But it does. You can't postpone the explanation by trying to get more and more basic.
_________________________
"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."

Top
#63671 - 04/14/06 03:11 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Irish_Farmer]
Matt_Aufderheide Offline
Expert

Registered: 10/03/03
Posts: 4114
read the line below that one, there where i explain a possible answer.
_________________________
Sphere Engine--the premier A6 graphics plugin.

Top
#63672 - 04/14/06 08:38 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
Irish_Farmer Offline
User

Registered: 02/24/04
Posts: 718
Loc: Wisconsin
Quote:

The Platonists believed in the great "one-ness" of being. Perhaps all being is one continuous stream, one wavefront, whatever.




You're referring to this? This just raises more questions.
_________________________
"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."

Top
#63673 - 04/14/06 14:37 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Irish_Farmer]
jcl Offline

Chief Engineer

Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 25661
Loc: Frankfurt
Quote:

Like I said, all science can do is call for a more primitive form that still has no explanation. You're just postponing the question. If there is no reason for this 'deep energy structure' to exist, then why does it? What I'm saying is that nothing really needs to exist at all. There's no reason for it. But it does. You can't postpone the explanation by trying to get more and more basic.




What are you suggesting with this - that science should not try to find answers and explanations by going more and more basic?

Going basic is a science principle. Newton reduced the movement of celestial objects to simple laws of gravity and inertia. Einstein reduced the laws of gravity and inertia to properties of space and time. Possibly a future string theory will reduce the initial properties of space and time to a geometric model, an 11 dimension hyperspace that permanently spawns new universes with different physics constants.

That we don't know the mechanisms yet of the first 1^-43 seconds of the Big Bang does absolutely not mean that we'll never know. And it certainly does not mean that we shouldn't go more and more basic.

Likely we'll find one day that our universe is not a coincidence, but a necessity.

Top
#63674 - 04/14/06 19:48 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: jcl]
Irish_Farmer Offline
User

Registered: 02/24/04
Posts: 718
Loc: Wisconsin
I never said they shouldn't go more and more basic. They should discover all they can. What I'm saying is that eventually they're going to have to accept that no matter how much more basic the beginning gets, it has no real scientific explanation for existing.

So discover away. You still can't answer the real question. Let me put it this way, they're not really discovering the beginnings of the universe, per se, they're just understanding more and more the nature of the universe. There's a difference.
_________________________
"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."

Top
#63675 - 04/14/06 20:17 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Irish_Farmer]
zazang Offline
User

Registered: 10/04/03
Posts: 702
I agree perfectly with Irish Farmer and JCL both.We can keep on going deeper and deeper but we can always add a Why to anything we explain.Newton discovered gravity
but what causes gravity ?.Evetually it seems we have to accept that its the inherent property of that entity(like space or time)
It goes on and the rabbit hole
unfortunately never seems to end...but yes,it does not mean that we stop thinking and as JCL says that maybe universe was a necessity..such a cool thought to ponder while I go to sleep

Maybe such questions can be explained with a "circular" reasoning..like A is because of B and B is because of A...atleast this way the questions will end...
just a wild thought



Top
#63676 - 04/15/06 05:30 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: zazang]
Matt_Aufderheide Offline
Expert

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.

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

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".



Top
#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.

Cheers
_________________________
PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software

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

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

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

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

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

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

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."

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

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...

Top
#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.

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060330_multiversefrm.htm

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

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

Registered: 11/05/04
Posts: 595
Loc: 127.0.0.1
mulitple universes seems most likely to me, but a future theory may prove otherwise
_________________________
I am no longer a member of these boards.

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

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.
_________________________
rtsmaker.com

Top
#63686 - 05/19/06 08:21 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Fine-Tuning Par [Re: Damocles]
Pappenheimer Offline
Senior Expert

Registered: 09/11/03
Posts: 5900
Loc: Bielefeld, Germany
Sorry, I answer in german, because I don't know the relating english terms.

Das anthropische Prinzip zielt nicht zwingend auf die Beliebigkeit von Logik und Naturgesetzen. So wie ich es bislang verstanden hatte, hebelt es die Gesetze überhaupt nicht aus.

Es geht vielmehr darum, die Unwahrscheinlichkeit der Erde und des biologischen Lebens zu erklären.
Und da sagt das anthropische Prinzip, daß wir gerade deshalb im Stande sind diese unwahrscheinliche Konstellation von Bedingungen zu bezeugen, weil unsere Zeugenschaft gerade nur unter diesen Bedingungen möglich ist.
Die unendlich vielen anderen Universen können wir gerade deshalb nicht bezeugen, da sie nicht die Bedingungen bereitstellten, die wir für unsere Existenz benötigen.

Es geht beim anthropischen Prinzip also um die Perspektive, die es uns erscheinen läßt, daß die höchst unwahrscheinlichen Lebensvoraussetzungen von einem intelligenten Wesen geschaffen sein müßten.
Daß dieses lediglich auf Zufall unter der Bedingung von Unendlichkeit basiert, wird durch diese Perspektive verschleiert.

Top
#63687 - 06/01/06 08:02 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Damocles]
yung Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 01/10/03
Posts: 71
Loc: central US
I have a quite different belief to offer: the integral whole.

If one insists on the conditions under which things develop and searches
for the cause therof, such searching and insistence will never end until one
comes to something that is unconditional. Then the principles of self-transformation will become clear.
There are those who say that the semi-shadow penumbra is conditioned by the
shadow, the shadow by the body, and the body by the creator. However, the creator is uncreated and all forms materialize by themselves, just as the great
T'ai Chi is 'self-so.' Throughout the entire realm of existance, one will see that there is nothing, not even the semi-shadow, that does not transform itself
beyond the phenomenal world. Hence everything creates itself through the integration of yin and yang, without the direction of any creator. Since all things create themselves, they are self determined. This is the immortal model of the universe.

Top
#63688 - 11/16/07 18:33 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Irish_Farmer]
bupaje Offline
Expert

Registered: 08/29/02
Posts: 2692
Loc: California, USA
I favor number 1, while recognizing that I do not understand the ultimate nature of God. As far as I am concerned there is only one Truth, and if we honestly seek it, science, religion and philosophy all have the possibility of bringing us to a point of confluence where that Truth is evident.

As for 1+1=2 - I'm not sure that is true. In a certain light 1+1=11. When we view reality through the lens of our human understanding we filter, group and categorize that information with inherent limits imposed by our nature, intellect, and senses. I'm betting that in the process we discard, or simply fail to notice, a lot of what is real. As a result a true understanding of the nature of the universe might only be achievable when the seemingly divergent lenses of science, philosophy and religion are unitedly focused on the question.
_________________________
Find me at: |Stormvisions| Twitter|

Top
#295168 - 10/23/09 11:51 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Irish_Farmer]
PadMalcom Offline
Serious User

Registered: 03/08/06
Posts: 1987
Loc: Karlsruhe
@JCL: In my eyes you forget an important possibility that might be well known for all the programmers beneath us: Try and error! Who said we were the first try of nature to create life?
Science has proven that nature is able to adopt to given conditions and I'm pretty sure that the same happened to us!

Top
#364477 - 03/18/11 16:35 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Damocles]
AlbertoT Offline
Serious User

Registered: 10/27/06
Posts: 1245
In my opinion this is not a phylosofical problem or a sort of circular reasoning
This is a serious scientific question

First of all statistics clearly show that it can not be just a matter of chance
Should our universe be the only one then the probability that all the parameters assume the right value, by chance, is ridicously low ( we are not talking about 1 % )

The probability of exixtance of other form of life is also extremely low
Should some parameters be slightly different than the universe should be a ball of fire or a cloud of thin dust
Hard to believe that life can exist in these conditions

The multiuniverse is the only solution
Our universe is just a bubble in a boiling pot of billion and billion bubbles
It is the only solution unless you dont believe in God

Even though I am not a religious person I must admit I was embarassed , reading some scientific articles on this topic
Scientists claimed " Since God does not exist then multiuniverse is the solution "
It seems to me that Science use , in this csse,a dogmatic approach

Top
#365201 - 03/24/11 13:53 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: AlbertoT]
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert

Registered: 09/19/02
Posts: 8177
Loc: Netherlands
Originally Posted By: AlbertoT
In my opinion this is not a phylosofical problem or a sort of circular reasoning
This is a serious scientific question

First of all statistics clearly show that it can not be just a matter of chance
Should our universe be the only one then the probability that all the parameters assume the right value, by chance, is ridicously low ( we are not talking about 1 % )


The funny thing about those statistics is that it's pure speculation and theory. Following a similar same kind of logic one might assign some sort of chance to impossible events which eventually should be possible as long as enough time would have passed. To some extent such speculations do not make much sense. Don't forget that we do not actually know whether life can exist in other forms than currently exist on our planet. We assume life will be linked to planets that more or less have the same conditions as ours, but that assumption might be wrong. Perhaps there's nothing inevitable about the coming into existence of life.

Quote:
The multiuniverse is the only solution
Our universe is just a bubble in a boiling pot of billion and billion bubbles
It is the only solution unless you dont believe in God

Even though I am not a religious person I must admit I was embarassed , reading some scientific articles on this topic
Scientists claimed " Since God does not exist then multiuniverse is the solution "
It seems to me that Science use , in this csse,a dogmatic approach


They do not use a dogmatic approach, they simply are aware of how all deities are invented by mankind itself with no substantial proof to back their existence up. The good old Spaghetti Monster God argument is valid, until whichever God has been scientifically proven to exist.

'God' is really just one of many invented deities and why would Shiva, Ra or Allah be any more of a fictional God than Yahweh? At some point it really makes no sense to be overly respectful towards one religion in particular or religions as a whole. They're a cultural trait.

Also note how encountering more intelligent and more culturally and technologically developed life forms than us humans could easily be mistaken for Gods in comparison.

With that in mind encountering God-like entities might not have an actual chance of zero, but I'm convinced we're not going to find any of the currently 'described and popular' deities. Simply because they really do not exist. It's like trying to find Frodo. wink
_________________________
PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software

Top
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >


Moderator:  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes Wörterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite