just diving right in and then hopefully a lil summary of the last few days post.
The summary may have to be tomorrow.
Are There Reasons to Believe in a Multiverse?
"Several areas of physics
suggest
reasons to think
that unobservable universes
(Of course)
with different natural laws
(Of course)
could
lie beyond ours."
The theoretical physicist David Kaplan talks with Steven Strogatz about the mysteries that a multiverse would solve.
(So Steven Strogatz is the interviewer
and David Kaplan is the theoretical physicist)
First things first
Near the end of the interview:
David Kaplan: "I personally have not been completely sold on the multiverse as explanations for these things, but I think they are plausible."
(Hey? At least he admits it right? :-)
"By definition, the universe seems like it should be the totality of everything that exists.
Yet a variety of arguments
emerging from cosmology, particle physics and quantum mechanics hint
that there could also be unobservable universes beyond our own that follow different laws of nature.'
("a variety of arguments" not any evidence just "arguments"
Compare that to:
"Three scientific discoveries that reveal the mind behind the universe."
And on the inner sleeve it is stated:
"Meyer demonstrates how discoveries in cosmology and physics coupled with those in biology help to establish the identity of the designing intelligence behind life and the universe."
So one position has
"scientific discoveries"
backing it,
the other position has
"a variety of arguments"
My inference is not unlike lots of peoples and it goes a lil something like this:
The reason for the "variety of arguments"?
is only because those who adhere to a rigid orthodoxly of scientism?
Dont like the direction recent "discoveries in cosmology and physics coupled with those in biology" point toward.
Queue Brother Brian somebody:
It's not complicated!
That these arguments were not posited when the steady state model of the universe was in vogue? Pretty much tells you what you need to know.)
"While the existence of a multiverse is speculative,
("engaged in, expressing, or based on conjecture rather than knowledge.)
for many physicists it represents a plausible explanation for some of the biggest mysteries in science."
(just because something is:
"plausible"
("an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable. Doesn't mean it's true. This argument is nowhere near:
"reasonable or probable".
Keep these two words in mind:
Speculative
and
Plausible
well come back to them later (maybe even tommorrow) in a different context.
Funny to me how some theoretical physicist are allowed to be "speculative" but a Christian apologetic isn't afforded anywhere near the same courtesy.)
Kaplan:
"...the observable universe is a part of the universe that we have any sort of access to. And there’s a very simple fact, which limits our ability to see the entirety of whatever the universe might be, which is the fact that the universe appears at least to be finite."
(Ecclesiastes 3:11
He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.
Psalm 74:16-17
The day is thine, the night also is thine: thou hast prepared the light and the sun.
Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: thou hast made summer and winter.
It's not just a physical boundary.
There is only so far man will be allowed to discover.)
"In other words, in the early universe, if it was smaller and hotter and denser, light didn’t travel in a straight line. It was stuck in the plasma — the soup that was the early universe."
("IF"?
It was smaller and hotter and denser?
Come on now.
"The plasma — the soup that was the early universe."
Every soup I've ever had was a liquid, I never had any "plasma" soup. I know, it's ionized gas etc. but it has very different characteristics than the other three states of matter
and?
"Unlike the phase transitions between the other three states of matter, the transition to plasma is not well defined and is a matter of interpretation and context. Whether a given degree of ionization suffices to call a substance 'plasma' depends on the specific phenomenon being considered.")
"There certainly could be universe beyond that."
(
"The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim"
(And no I will not be waiting on new theories/particles etc. I have already scaled the mountain of ignorance:
Robert Jastrow
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
"to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also
fallacious
(based on a mistaken belief)
reasoning."
All you really need is a preponderous amount of evidence LEADING/POINTING in a certain direction more so than any other available option. Apparently? It applies to everything else just not a theistic agent outside of our universe having created it.)
"...if the universe has a finite lifetime, and it takes like a finite time to get to us, we just mathematically cannot see beyond a certain point."
(Again:
Ecclesiastes 3:11
He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.
Psalm 74:16-17
The day is thine, the night also is thine: thou hast prepared the light and the sun.
Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: thou hast made summer and winter.
There is a 3000 year old book that explains all that.
Thats gonna be my, "conjecture".
They got theirs, I got mine.
I got observable evidence and a 3000 year old book.
They got:
"a variety of arguments"
Which is based on more evidence?)
Kaplan: "When it comes to the multiverse — or the initial start of the universe, all of those things — they’re all very speculative.
(Again, the theoretical physicist is allowed to be: "speculative" but the theologian? He is told to wait for new particles/physics etc.)
"So you do hear standard things like, “At the Big Bang, you create time and space.” And there is some notion where you could say that is probably right, in some sense. But really what’s going on is when you get to densities of order — it’s called the Planck energy… The description of gravity in terms of a geometry or a geometric theory of the universe breaks down. It doesn’t mean that there isn’t time and space of some other kind at earlier times. It’s just that general relativity no longer applies in that time."
(Talk about
"speculative"?
"It doesn’t mean
that there isn’t time and space
of some other kind
at earlier times"
"The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever."
"And so, could it be that time goes back infinitely far? A different label of what we call time? Absolutely. We don’t know."
(The idea of time having a starting point is just absolutely abhorrent to those who adhere to a rigid orthodoxly of scientism. They are putting blinders on themselves before they even get started.
("Absolutely. We don’t know."
Oxymoron much?
I reiterate:
"The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim and is not upon anyone else to disprove.")
"So people pop in and say, ‘Well, time and space get created sort of instantaneously out of nothing.’ But that’s not a mathematically well-defined description."
(Who said you had to have one?)
"And if you really have nothing, it’s hard to make predictions about when something appears because there’s nothing there."
(Theism:
belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
Since we're all about conjecture here today?
Here's mine:
The theistic agent that designed and brought the universe into existence?
Doesn't really care about your math or predictions.
I mean if they get to
"conjecture"?
Then so do I/we etc.)
"The multiverse as it appeared in Particle Fever was a use of the multiverse. It was the idea that, in an almost mundane way, if the universe is infinite — or much, much bigger, at least — than the part that we see (the observable part), then it’s possible that the laws of nature in different patches are different. You don’t even need the deep underlying laws to be different. You just need some of the parameters to be different."
(You probably already know where I am going here:
"The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever."
They got nothing but
a variety of arguments.
Nada.
Zero.
Zilch.
Again, why weren't the theoretical physicist talking about a multiverse when the steady state model was the accepted theory of universe evolution?
You already know the answer.
They didn't
"need"
it then,
but now?
With the preponderance (WOD BTW) of evidence all pointing in the direction of theism as THE best metaphysical explanation for the inherent design and evolution of the universe?
Well that just cant be!
Say those who adhere to such a rigid orthodoxly of scientism.)
"...if those things are different in different places, they will have a different expansion history. The universe at that region will expand based on what’s in the universe, and what are the interaction strengths of the stuff in that part of the universe. And so you can really have very different universes with a little bit more pedestrian descriptions of how the laws may change from one place to another, or just even the content of the universe in each of those places."
(And it's all conveniently in a place we cant access right/observe right?
Thats their conjecture.
Here's mine:
They are never gonna find any of it.
And I got a 3000 year old book from outside this time space continuum that says as much.
(Ecclesiastes 3:11
He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.
Psalm 74:16-17
The day is thine, the night also is thine: thou hast prepared the light and the sun.
Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: thou hast made summer and winter.)
"And so there’s a simple idea of the multiverse, which is that there really is just one universe. The part of the universe that we exist in has a certain set of parameters controlling how life looks. And then if you go far enough away, farther than light could have traveled in the age of the universe, there are places in the universe where the laws are just different. The parameters are different. The expansion history is completely different. Maybe [in] those regions, no stars, or galaxies could have formed, nothing lives there. Or maybe in those parts of the universe, detailed properties like the mass of the Higgs boson, which controls the mass of lots of other particles, it controls what hydrogen is, it controls how chemistry works. All of those things could be different in different places if you go far enough out."
(Well?
If?
"there’s a simple idea of the multiverse,
which is
that there really is just one universe"
The real question that is being avoided is:
"What brought it into existence and what intellect was behind the information contained in the initial conditions it exhibited"?
How about we
"conjecture"
about that
instead of different parts of it having different laws etc?
The practitioners of a rigid orthodoxly of scientism?
Dont ever wanna talk about that and my "conjecture' for why is thus:
They know there is one metaphysical explanation that is head and shoulders above the others (Theism) and they absolutely just do not want to 'conjecture" about that largely because:
"...to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning."
I mean these guys are all about there's different parts of this universe that we cant see having different laws properties etc, but to narrow it down to the best metaphysical explanation for this universe having come into existence?
That they dont want any part of because they already know what is, so they avoid that at all possible cost, but their conjecture of different parts of this universe having different laws is all well and fine...just...please...spare me/us.)
"It appears in our observable universe, the laws are pretty static. We have laws, we have initial conditions. And we have a description of how the universe works, and how experiments work on Earth. They seem to be constant in time, and it doesn’t really matter where our galaxy is as the experiments are done, as our galaxy is actually moving quite fast relative to the background. So in that sense, the laws are very stable here, but you could imagine much farther distances in which the laws are different."
("We have laws, we have initial conditions"
Thats information folks.
What conscious sentient intellect created it? And why dont we "conjecture" about that instead? I've already explained why that doesn't happen. See above.
Just because:
"...you could imagine "
(Only because you want to, and speaking of imagining things? Where exactly did that ability come from?)
"much farther distances in which the laws are different."
Just dont make it so. Even if you have a mathematical theorem that says its plausible?
It doesn't make it a reality.
"The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever."
They have no evidence.
Let alone any Proof.
At least my:
"conjectures"
is supported by an ancient text.)
Kaplan: "It also has a list of parameters which tell you how strong is the electrical force between the electron and the proton, and various other numbers, which predict the probability of scattering various particles."
(What is responsible
for the information contained in:
"a list of parameters"?
How about we "conjecture" some about that?)
"So if you ask what the mass of the electron is, it’s proportional to the mass of the Higgs boson. What’s the mass of the top quark, the heaviest quark? It’s proportional to the mass of the Higgs boson. The W weak force boson is proportional to the mass of the Higgs boson.'
(My "conjecture"?
All of that proportionality was designed that way by the conscious sentient transcendent intellect that designed and brought into existence the universe.
Hebrews 11:3
Through faith we understand
that the worlds
(As in subatomic ones and others)
were framed by the word of God,
so that things which are seen
were not made of
things which do appear.
Hey...I got a 3000 year old book that supports my positions. What do these people have besides:
"...but you could imagine"
? )
Kaplan: Now, if you take a quantum field theory that has a Higgs in it and all these other particles, and you estimate what the mass of the Higgs should be — what would be a typical mass of the Higgs in a quantum field theory with these particles in it — you get infinity, which is nonsense. And then you say, “Well, that’s OK. Because the reason I get infinity has to do with the fact that I’m assuming there are no new particles to arbitrarily high energy.” And the way that quantum field theory works and quantum theories work at all is that you have to incorporate what are … let’s call them quantum fluctuations in the calculations of any physical parameters. So you have a few parameters you put into your theory."
("you get infinity, which is nonsense"
Not really:
Ecclesiastes 3:11
He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.
Psalm 74:16-17
The day is thine, the night also is thine: thou hast prepared the light and the sun.
Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: thou hast made summer and winter.
And then you say, “Well, that’s OK. Because the reason I get infinity has to do with the fact that I’m assuming there are no new particles to arbitrarily high energy.”
(Wrong. The reason you get infinity is because the transcendent force that created the universe set the boundaries of knowledge. Thats my "conjecture" and I got a book that supports this belief.
And?
As far as needing:
"arbitrarily high energy"
to show there are
"new particles"?
These large and highest-energy particle colliders?
Like the large hadron Collider at CERN?
Just can not reach the energy levels needed to see if there are any or not.
So I reiterate:
Ecclesiastes 3:11
He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.
Psalm 74:16-17
The day is thine, the night also is thine: thou hast prepared the light and the sun. Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: thou hast made summer and winter.
and?
"So you have a few parameters you put into your theory"
Is that not design by an intelligent being?)
"But there could be plenty of other particles or new symmetries or other things for which, when you get to that energy"
(The energy level we cant currently get to. How convenient :-).
"There should be some new physics up there at some high energy and the Higgs mass should actually be roughly that scale."
(Oh there's some new physics up there at some high energy all right :-). It's the prime reality of the conscious, transcendent, sentient intellect that spoke the universe into existence to start with. Thats my conjecture...and yes, of course its supported with the same book:
Psalm 33:6
By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.)
"That what seemingly looks like nonsense with the Higgs mass is only a statement that there’s a new theory living just above it in energy and in mass."
(Oh there's a new theory just above it in energy and mass alright :-)
Actually?
It's an old theory :-)
It looks like nonsense because GOD almighty set the boundaries.
And there's a book that says so.
Thats my "conjecture" and hey...
at least I have an ancient text to base it upon :-)
Kaplan: Right. And in physics, because the Higgs is so sensitive to quantum fluctuations, we would call that a fine-tuned situation, one in which there really has to be an accident.
(Where else?
In any subject matter?
Do we say:
Look at how amazingly fine tuned that is?
It is just absolutely extraordinary.
It HAS to be an accident?
This is what the adherents to a strict religious orthodoxy (in this case scientism) do. The presuppose an outcome and then do not allow for any other possible explanation that doesn't support it.)
"And we would assume the same thing that whatever controls all of the dynamics associated with creating a Higgs boson, whatever it comes from"
(I'm gonna conjecture again here:
Hebrews 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,
so that
things which are seen
were not made
of things which do appear.)
"Strogatz : So let me get you on this. This is fantastic. You’re saying that in the story with the strong force, that was sort of exemplary. That’s given us a lot of intuition for how things are supposed to behave. That when we have the energy scale for the strong force, we see this zoo of particles, all kind of in the same zoo.
Kaplan: Exactly.
Strogatz: Right? I mean, they’re all in more or less the same scale, OK, give or take a factor of five here or 10 or two there. But is it like the Higgs is just this loner? It’s like the Higgs is the only thing in its own neighborhood? There’s no zoo?
Kaplan: So far, there’s no zoo.
Strogatz: Oh, my god."
(Exactly, he set the boundaries,
and there's a book that explains it.)
Kaplan: "So it’s — people were worried about it. I mean, it really was the ’70s, mid to late ’70s, when Ken Wilson pointed out that the pure Standard Model with just the Higgs is horribly fine-tuned, that there’s an instability just in the calculation or the contributions to the Higgs mass. And that instability is infinite unless you just say there’s some energy where there’s new physics.
(Anything but that. Anything but a finely tuned universe with parameters and laws (information) that set up the initial conditions for the possible development of life. See? That? That we just can not have, because it goes against our adherence to a strict religious orthodoxy that we are just not ever gonna give up.)
Strogatz : So this is great. Because this gives a real intellectual motivation that I was expecting there would be, but I never really understood what it was. I’ve heard this phrase “fine-tuning” forever, or for my whole scientific life, but I was never quite sure what it meant. And so at least in this respect, the Higgs, as good as it is, and as you know, valuable as it’s been to physics, it has created a lot of headaches, it seems. Because it’s turning out to have properties, this fine tuning… You’re telling me that the fine-tuning — whatever we call it — enigma, somehow the multiverse is going to help us address that? Is that the idea?
Kaplan: Yes.
(Anything is acceptable, except, fine tuning, that shows evidence of an intellect behind it. That? That they simply can not have as it violates their religious orthodoxy.)
Kaplan: "So what I would say is that fine-tuning doesn’t tell you the theory is wrong, it just tells you that it smells bad. You think, you know, “I have a theory it does such and such.” And you fine tune some of the parameters, you know, by one part in 1034, which is what you would need if the new physics is at the Planck scale, one part in 1034 for cancellation among all the different parameters just so, so that the Higgs ends up at a mass which is so completely different than the scale of the physics that generated the Higgs in the first place."
("And you fine tune some of the parameters"
Again, Is that not design?)
"So that, we’d say — well, that stinks.
Only because it challenges their strict religious orthodoxy would be my conjecture :-)
Hey, they got theirs?
I got mine. Conjecture(s) that is
It could be true, but maybe we should use that hint to explore what else is going on. And that’s where all these other theories came to say, “Oh, no, no, there could be new particles right around the mass of the Higgs."
("a variety of arguments"
vs
"scientific discoveries"
That just dont sit well with their particular religious orthodoxy.)
"It cancels infinities, the Higgs is composite, whatever, even extra dimensions, there’s no high energy scales.” But the other possibility is, it is fine-tuned and perhaps there’s a totally different type of explanation for why it is fine-tuned."
(Yeah...Hebrews 11:3 yo.)
"And now this is where you think, “Well, maybe we’re thinking parochially,” which is that we describe the laws of nature but we do it in a very rigid way. We say locally in spacetime, the part of the universe we’ve seen, this part has these static, unchanging, uniform across-the-space laws of nature, that’s all there is. And the Higgs mass is just super weird, and there must be some fine-tuning."
(Yeah...and some of us know why as well.)
"But the other possibility is,
some people call it a multiverse."
(If you postulate it?
You prove it.
Meanwhile?
I 'll be sitting on the highest peak of the mountain of ignorance with a bunch of others waiting on you to come to the realization that some have already known for 1000's of years.)
"Mundanely, the parameters could just be different in different patches of the universe. And the parameters that control the Higgs mass could be different in different places. And in fact, because the Higgs interacts directly or indirectly, with essentially every part of the Standard Model, then any parameter change in any part of the universe would change the mass of the Higgs, the properties of the Higgs."
(Yeah...now go prove it.)
"Now, you could imagine"
Look dude.
Imagine whatever you want.
It dont make it so.
Ecclesiastes 3:11
He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can
fathom
understand
(a difficult problem
or an enigmatic person)
after much thought.)
what God has done from beginning to end.)
"that the Higgs mass is naturally extremely heavy, and it’s near all of its family — the particles, the excitations, the dynamics that created the Higgs in the first place. That for typical values of the parameters and the full theory of the universe and of nature, that the Higgs mass is always roughly at that energy scale, a much higher energy scale than the one we’ve seen experimentally."
(You can not get to it. The almighty has set up boundaries so that you can't.)
"That would require an exponentially large number of universes to allow that to happen randomly."
(Thats where this theory goes off into something that is just not:
Plausible
(of an argument or statement)
seeming reasonable or probable.
For this universe to be an outlier?
(a person or
thing differing from all other members
of a particular group or set.)
Then you would need a universe for every different slight variation of parameters,
constants,
and initial conditions that you could ever have.
It's simply
absurd.
As in;
"wildly
unreasonable,
illogical,
or inappropriate."
"But who knows how big the universe is?"
(It's creator)
"Who knows how the parameters vary?"
(How did they get there to start with? And isn't this an example of information? And we know that where there is information? There is a "brain" behind it. Theoretical physicist are allowed their conjecture just not theologian's. Gotcha. Sarcasm BTW.)
"So this is in principle a possibility."
(A possibility?
Isn't necessarily plausible.
I'll concede a multiverse is a possibility.
It's just not plausible, reasonable or logical and not based on the evidence we have in front of us. Come again why people weren't postulating this when the steady state theory was in vogue again? Did something rattle your delicate dedication to your established religious orthodoxy? As in, time space energy and matter were all created and thus had a beginning? And that the "unified force" came with the time space energy and matter bundle so to speak?)
"But then you have to ask, well, why do we live in the aberrant universe with the really crummy cancellation that makes it very hard to discover anything?"
(I've already explained it several times.
The creator of it?
Set the boundaries of what we would
be able to figure out about it.
These people
(adherents of the strict orthodoxy of the religion of scientism)
are witnessing it
and yet still
do not want to accept it.
If these people dont want to accept what they do see
right in front of them?
(That Boundary conditions have been set by the creator of the universe and there's a book that says so.)
Then my question would be:
Why should anyone believe anything they want to conjecture about something they cant see and have no other evidence of?)
"But what we can imagine is
that the universe itself has different patches with different laws. "
(Imagine it all you want...where did it all come from should be waht we are conjecturing about. Not, how can we just make something up to get around all the fine tuning we see.)
"Nobody has explored the possible laws of nature from all possible underlying laws of nature."
(My conjecture is that the "Laws of nature" contain the information that governs matters existence. Information in humanity's combined collective experience has always been the result of a conscious sentient intellect. So what entity is responsible for the the information contained in the laws of nature? I got a book that backs up my conjecture.
These types have:
"YOU COULD IMAGINE")
Strogatz: "So if I can just try to — I don’t want to oversimplify what you said. But I think it sounds like what you’re saying is that if you happen to live in a hospitable patch, meaning that fine-tuning just randomly happened in your patch, you — “you” meaning “you molecules, you atoms” — have a shot at developing the kinds of structure that can lead to sentient introspective life —
Kaplan: Exactly.
(So? What entity is responsible for the information in DNA? Where did that come from, how did it get there?
And
to say that all of these:
"just randomly happened"?
In the absence of any other evidence to support that claim?
Is absurd.
As in
illogical,
unreasonable,
and highly inappropiate
given the available
"information" :-).
we have.)
Kaplan: "Exactly. We’re observers, but we’re part of the system. And so we have to be in a place where the laws of nature are such that in this region, we would be created. So we have a, what we’ll call an observational bias."
(I get observational bias I really do. A fish in the deep sea doesn't know there's air above. But it doesn't come close to explaining WHY is it that "we have to be in a place where the laws of nature
are such
that we would be created"
(My conjecture is?
Somebody wanted us to be able to see his creation
and to be able to enjoy it with them.
Why else would we be put in a spot so conductive to scientific observation?
Another random event I'm sure...please...people...come on.)
"And so the value of the cosmological constant here in this universe could have been any value, really. And it too is fine-tuned compared to at least the highest energy scales that we can imagine in physics, which in this case again is the Planck scale."
(What entity is responsible for all of this fine tuning exactly? I got a conjecture but by now you already know what it is :-) and that there is a book that backs it up :-).
Strogatz : "It’s so interesting. This is so, I mean, you have to feel kind of blessed to be alive to think about this. Maybe literally blessed, because if you want to get theological — I happen to not be religious, but if a person is religious, it’s kind of tempting to go there, right? That these are two miraculous things that had to happen. These numbers had to be fine-tuned for us. OK, I don’t know."
(What is the better argument exactly?
A kazillions universes and we just happened to be in this one?
People...please.)
Kaplan: "You could also say, no, there is a Supreme Being that has set the number the way they are because the Supreme Being really wanted life to exist."
(There is a book from outside this time space continuum that says exactly that.
Genesis 1:26-27
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.)
And yes, you could think of it in that way. I don’t have a model for the multiverse that I’m in love with. But I certainly also don’t have a model for an All-Seeing Creator setting these things up either. So I don’t personally find them compelling in the sense that my day job is to try to figure out what the heck is going on. And neither of those really have a lot of teeth."
My conjecture is?
I'd go with the ancient text that gets time space energy and matter right in the first ten words. Thats plenty enough teeth for me.
Genesis 1:1
The Beginning
In the beginning
(Thats Time
Past present and future
Trinity #1)
God created
(Thats energy)
the heavens
(Thats space
Height width and depth
Trinity #2.)
and the Earth.
(Thats matter
Solid liquid and gas
Trinity #3.)
Three trinities in the first 10 words that just happen to explain time space energy and matter.
Thats not enough teeth?
Seriously?
Where is the other book that even comes close to that?
(And thank you for that Dr. Kent Hovind,
I'm gonna spread that as far and wide as I possibly can.)
Kaplan: "I’m not saying that the multiverse is not true."
(Okay ill do it for you then, its a bunch of manufactured horse dung to get around the problem of the fine tuning we see in the universe and there isn't one piece of any evidence to support it.)
"But if you want the multiverse to solve the problems of our universe, it does this sort of mediocre job of it."
(Maybe there is a reason for that?
Hum?
Maybe?
Talk about not having any teeth :-)
Let alone not being able to observe it
or have any evidence of it whatsoever.)
"A cosmological constant, just the way it works in general relativity, it gives you the opposite sign, it tends to speed up expansion. And it speeds up expansion proportional to itself, in a way, so we would describe it as exponential expansion. And so what happens is, when the cosmological constant eventually becomes the dominant energy of the universe, it starts to expand the universe exponentially fast. And if that happens too early in the history of the universe, there is no time for anything in the universe to form. Galaxies don’t form or stars don’t form or any sort of clumping of matter whatsoever would not have a chance to form because the cosmological constant expansion would blow everything apart. Nothing gravitational would form in the early universe. So all the structure that lives in this universe, that seems to be the important source of nontrivial things, interesting things, stars, planets, LIFE, blah, blah, blah. If the cosmological constant was too big, there is no time in which those things could be created."
(There is a really simple answer to that:
Theism
belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
Just because it goes against one preferred religious orthodoxy? Doesn't mean it isn't true. And besides, all of what was just said above? Is that not indicative of design? So to what entity would you ascribe the design to? There's one metaphysical explanation for the universe design and creation that is head and shoulders above the others. You can not be in something that hasn't been created yet. Something outside of it had to have created it. This is the "conjecturing" these rigid adherents to the religious orthodoxy of scientism wanna stay as far away from as possible. They would much rather be conjecturing about things that have absolutely NOTHING pointing in their direction (as in absolutely no evidence) than to have you consider the one metaphysical explanation for the universes design and creation that sits head and shoulders above all the others.
And remember:
"...to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning."
It is exactly what they are doing.)
"So all you need is that structure forms before the cosmological constant takes over. And weirdly, in our universe, the cosmological constant is roughly just big enough, keeping all other parameters fixed, such that matter just had a chance to form."
(Matter alone is primary. Without it there is no need for space to put it in, time to know when it was formed, or the energy needed to create it in the first place. More evidence of a transcendent theistic force at work would be my conjecture.)
"But we’re in the most populous type of patch of the universe, where the cosmological constant is as big as it could be without destroying us or without causing us not to form."
(I Reiterate:
More evidence of a transcendent theistic force at work would be my conjecture.)
"So the fine-tuning/landscape of possible universes, the multiverse, all of that is a statistical argument."
(And it's absurd.
It's really not complicated.
You have to have way to many universes in order
to get this one
(in which all the fine tuning took place in)
to be an accident
Possibility?
Sure.
Plausible?
Hardly.
And this time? I didn't even feel the need to say there's a book that says there were boundary conditions set up :-) by the uncreated creator.)
"what you’re really asking about the initial conditions of the universe."
(Initial conditions would contain information.
Information is always the result of a conscious intellect throughout humanities existence.
So to what entity do you ascribe the information behind the "initial conditions' of the universe to?
This is the
"conjecture"
they wanna stay away from and for good reason.
It upsets their apple cart so to speak.
Meanwhile?
They are busy trying to sell you the conjecture that they are much more comfortable with.)
"There are deeper explorations to do, of course, but what the questioning that came up in the birth of the use of the multiverse to explain parameters are in some sense warning signs that there are certain things that we may never get the answer to. And there are plausibility arguments for not ever coming up with an explanation for the mass of the Higgs, or the cosmological constant. But they certainly don’t mean that there isn’t a different or even better explanation than the multiverse."
(Parameters contain information.
To what intellect do you ascribe the information as having come from is the question.
Not:
"How do we work around all this information being present in our universe or local patch thereof".
"there are certain things that we may never get the answer to"
No kidding.
There is a 3000 year old book that said it long before y'all ever came to that conclusion but I forgot, it doesn't have enough "teeth." to suit.
"But it hasn’t landed us on a solution. And just like the universe has certain limits, there’s an observable universe, and there’s a certain finite amount that can be discovered in the universe just because of the potentially finite lifetime, if it is. Similarly, all humans have finite life. And there may be a finite capacity to discover all of the laws of nature."
(I'd go with that:
"there may be a finite capacity to discover all of the laws of nature"
Hey?
It got time space energy and matter correct in the first ten words.
"I personally have not been completely sold on the multiverse as explanations for these things, but I think they are plausible."
Possible doesn't necessarily mean plausible.
Again, my conjecture is:
It's only gaining traction
(Multiverse hypothesis)
as a way around the fine tuning we see in our observable reality and it does absolutely nothing to answer where the information contained in the initial conditions of the universe came from to start with.
There is one metaphysical explanation that is far above any other for the universe's design and having coming into existence.
How about we conjecture about that instead?
No comments:
Post a Comment