World Science Scholars

3.5 Genetic Code of the Universe Discussion II

discussion Discussion
Viewing 6 reply threads
    • One can argue that our universe appears to be finely tuned. For example, had the energy density in the early universe been much lower (and negative), the universe would have rapidly collapsed; were it higher, the universe would have expanded so quickly that galaxies would have never formed. Is it asking too much of science to explain such features? Should we accept them as lucky accidents? Or, as some would argue, acts of divine providence?

    • The multiverse provides us with a satisfactory answer to this question: In the multitude of universes, all options are open, all variations can and will happen. We just happen to live in a universe where we note the conditions or, if you like, finely tuned elements.
      To note that other universes might have intelligent life dealing with exactly the same questions, yet under totally different circumstances/ laws/ constants etc.

    • The multiverse theory is, in my opinion, a mathematical construct with no basis in reality. The suggestion that there may be a huge number of ‘parallel’ universes is uneconomic, and absurdly extravagant, especially in light of the fact that we see before us only one universe, and that no empirical evidence whatever supports the existence of any others. I’m more comfortable with the possibility that multiple universes exist only as superpositions of an unresolved quantum reality, and that, for reasons we may not understand, our singular universe is the one which has precipitated from an infinitely large number of possible (but unrealized) formulations.

    • This is an obvious problem to be explained, and the infinite experiments model of the multiverse could be a valid explanation

    • This would take us back to the anthropic principle. Obviously, the universe´s conditions are hospitable to us, or we would not be here to observe this (our) universe. So there is no lucky accident, but inversely, the laws were not ´made´ to make our existence possible. As Klaus Cormann says, ´other universes might have intelligent life dealing with exactly the same questions, yet under totally different circumstances/ laws/ constants ´. If these manifestations of life reasoned the same way like us, that would make another lucky accident (and so on ad infinitum).
      It´s like when you look at evolution: Nature did not set out to make us. We are just one variant whose development was possible under the evolutionary constraints.
      Most importantly: No reason at all to talk about divine providence. I agree with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris on all points here.

      • I agree with Ines – Evolution is blind, it steps from one position to another – if the new position is more favourable it becomes the ‘new norm’, if not, it is an evolutionary cul de sac.

    • Infinite experiments model of the multiverse could be a valid explanation

    • Science and research have ideas that may seem outrageous at times, but then the money from research tries to keep alive the basis for an economy.

      So the golden rule is better ideas for better economies- industrial, electronic, or quantum.

      The research sees the info gaps and pursues the edge of knowledge. This isn t wrong, it is progress.

      Anthropic designs in the universe allow for better physics.

You must be logged in to reply to this discussion.

Send this to a friend