A few important questions to ponder
- Thread starter ThaG
- Start date
I read an interesting piece by a cosmologist/scientist, I dunno what the fuck
He said more and more academics are leaning towards some kind of simple (i.e. ID-like) solution to the problem of the existence of our universe because unified string theory would have to postulate an infinite amount of different universes to explain ours, all of which would have to be thrown out, and all other alternative theories of explaining the nature of reality and the origin of life are based on what he called shot in the dark theories that essentially say the universe can and does exist because it is simply 1 of billions of probabilities
sleepytime
He said more and more academics are leaning towards some kind of simple (i.e. ID-like) solution to the problem of the existence of our universe because unified string theory would have to postulate an infinite amount of different universes to explain ours, all of which would have to be thrown out, and all other alternative theories of explaining the nature of reality and the origin of life are based on what he called shot in the dark theories that essentially say the universe can and does exist because it is simply 1 of billions of probabilities
sleepytime
I think I have the book still. Hold.
K I dont have the book but I know what it is from.
found it
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]PAUL STEINHARDT
Albert Einstein Professor of Physics, Princeton University.
I believe that our universe is not accidental, but I cannot prove it.
Historically, most physicists have shared this point-of-view. For centuries, most of us have believed that the universe is governed by a simple set of physical laws that are the same everywhere and that these laws derive from a simple unified theory.
However, in the last few years, an increasing number of my most respected colleagues have become enamored with the anthropic principle—the idea that there is an enormous multiplicity of universes with widely different physical properties and the properties of our particular observable universe arise from pure accident. The only special feature of our universe is that its properties are compatible with the evolution of intelligent life. The change in attitude is motivated, in part, by the failure to date to find a unified theory that predicts our universe as the unique possibility. According to some recent calculations, the current best hope for a unified theory—superstring theory—allows an exponentially large number of different universes, most of which look nothing like our own. String theorists have turned to the anthropic principle for salvation.
Frankly, I view this as an act of desperation. I don't have much patience for the anthropic principle. I think the concept is, at heart, non-scientific. A proper scientific theory is based on testable assumptions and is judged by its predictive power. The anthropic principle makes an enormous number of assumptions—regarding the existence of multiple universes, a random creation process, probability distributions that determine the likelihood of different features, etc.—none of which are testable because they entail hypothetical regions of spacetime that are forever beyond the reach of observation. As for predictions, there are very few, if any. In the case of string theory, the principle is invoked only to explain known observations, not to predict new ones. (In other versions of the anthropic principle where predictions are made, the predictions have proven to be wrong. Some physicists cite the recent evidence for a cosmological constant as having anticipated by anthropic argument; however, the observed value does not agree with the anthropically predicted value.)
I find the desperation especially unwarranted since I see no evidence that our universe arose by a random process. Quite the contrary, recent observations and experiments suggest that our universe is extremely simple. The distribution of matter and energy is remarkably uniform. The hierarchy of complex structures ranging from galaxy clusters to subnuclear particles can all be described in terms of a few dozen elementary constituents and less than a handful of forces, all related by simple symmetries. A simple universe demands a simple explanation. Why do we need to postulate an infinite number of universes with all sorts of different properties just to explain our one?
Of course, my colleagues and I are anxious for further reductionism. But I view the current failure of string theory to find a unique universe simply as a sign that our understanding of string theory is still immature (or perhaps that string theory is wrong). Decades from now, I hope that physicists will be pursuing once again their dreams of a truly scientific "final theory" and will look back at the current anthropic craze as millennial madness. [/FONT]
K I dont have the book but I know what it is from.
found it
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]PAUL STEINHARDT
Albert Einstein Professor of Physics, Princeton University.
Historically, most physicists have shared this point-of-view. For centuries, most of us have believed that the universe is governed by a simple set of physical laws that are the same everywhere and that these laws derive from a simple unified theory.
However, in the last few years, an increasing number of my most respected colleagues have become enamored with the anthropic principle—the idea that there is an enormous multiplicity of universes with widely different physical properties and the properties of our particular observable universe arise from pure accident. The only special feature of our universe is that its properties are compatible with the evolution of intelligent life. The change in attitude is motivated, in part, by the failure to date to find a unified theory that predicts our universe as the unique possibility. According to some recent calculations, the current best hope for a unified theory—superstring theory—allows an exponentially large number of different universes, most of which look nothing like our own. String theorists have turned to the anthropic principle for salvation.
Frankly, I view this as an act of desperation. I don't have much patience for the anthropic principle. I think the concept is, at heart, non-scientific. A proper scientific theory is based on testable assumptions and is judged by its predictive power. The anthropic principle makes an enormous number of assumptions—regarding the existence of multiple universes, a random creation process, probability distributions that determine the likelihood of different features, etc.—none of which are testable because they entail hypothetical regions of spacetime that are forever beyond the reach of observation. As for predictions, there are very few, if any. In the case of string theory, the principle is invoked only to explain known observations, not to predict new ones. (In other versions of the anthropic principle where predictions are made, the predictions have proven to be wrong. Some physicists cite the recent evidence for a cosmological constant as having anticipated by anthropic argument; however, the observed value does not agree with the anthropically predicted value.)
I find the desperation especially unwarranted since I see no evidence that our universe arose by a random process. Quite the contrary, recent observations and experiments suggest that our universe is extremely simple. The distribution of matter and energy is remarkably uniform. The hierarchy of complex structures ranging from galaxy clusters to subnuclear particles can all be described in terms of a few dozen elementary constituents and less than a handful of forces, all related by simple symmetries. A simple universe demands a simple explanation. Why do we need to postulate an infinite number of universes with all sorts of different properties just to explain our one?
Of course, my colleagues and I are anxious for further reductionism. But I view the current failure of string theory to find a unique universe simply as a sign that our understanding of string theory is still immature (or perhaps that string theory is wrong). Decades from now, I hope that physicists will be pursuing once again their dreams of a truly scientific "final theory" and will look back at the current anthropic craze as millennial madness. [/FONT]
I think I have the book still. Hold.
K I dont have the book but I know what it is from.
found it
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]PAUL STEINHARDT
Albert Einstein Professor of Physics, Princeton University.
I believe that our universe is not accidental, but I cannot prove it.
Historically, most physicists have shared this point-of-view. For centuries, most of us have believed that the universe is governed by a simple set of physical laws that are the same everywhere and that these laws derive from a simple unified theory.
However, in the last few years, an increasing number of my most respected colleagues have become enamored with the anthropic principle—the idea that there is an enormous multiplicity of universes with widely different physical properties and the properties of our particular observable universe arise from pure accident. The only special feature of our universe is that its properties are compatible with the evolution of intelligent life. The change in attitude is motivated, in part, by the failure to date to find a unified theory that predicts our universe as the unique possibility. According to some recent calculations, the current best hope for a unified theory—superstring theory—allows an exponentially large number of different universes, most of which look nothing like our own. String theorists have turned to the anthropic principle for salvation.
Frankly, I view this as an act of desperation. I don't have much patience for the anthropic principle. I think the concept is, at heart, non-scientific. A proper scientific theory is based on testable assumptions and is judged by its predictive power. The anthropic principle makes an enormous number of assumptions—regarding the existence of multiple universes, a random creation process, probability distributions that determine the likelihood of different features, etc.—none of which are testable because they entail hypothetical regions of spacetime that are forever beyond the reach of observation. As for predictions, there are very few, if any. In the case of string theory, the principle is invoked only to explain known observations, not to predict new ones. (In other versions of the anthropic principle where predictions are made, the predictions have proven to be wrong. Some physicists cite the recent evidence for a cosmological constant as having anticipated by anthropic argument; however, the observed value does not agree with the anthropically predicted value.)
I find the desperation especially unwarranted since I see no evidence that our universe arose by a random process. Quite the contrary, recent observations and experiments suggest that our universe is extremely simple. The distribution of matter and energy is remarkably uniform. The hierarchy of complex structures ranging from galaxy clusters to subnuclear particles can all be described in terms of a few dozen elementary constituents and less than a handful of forces, all related by simple symmetries. A simple universe demands a simple explanation. Why do we need to postulate an infinite number of universes with all sorts of different properties just to explain our one?
Of course, my colleagues and I are anxious for further reductionism. But I view the current failure of string theory to find a unique universe simply as a sign that our understanding of string theory is still immature (or perhaps that string theory is wrong). Decades from now, I hope that physicists will be pursuing once again their dreams of a truly scientific "final theory" and will look back at the current anthropic craze as millennial madness. [/FONT]
K I dont have the book but I know what it is from.
found it
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]PAUL STEINHARDT
Albert Einstein Professor of Physics, Princeton University.
Historically, most physicists have shared this point-of-view. For centuries, most of us have believed that the universe is governed by a simple set of physical laws that are the same everywhere and that these laws derive from a simple unified theory.
However, in the last few years, an increasing number of my most respected colleagues have become enamored with the anthropic principle—the idea that there is an enormous multiplicity of universes with widely different physical properties and the properties of our particular observable universe arise from pure accident. The only special feature of our universe is that its properties are compatible with the evolution of intelligent life. The change in attitude is motivated, in part, by the failure to date to find a unified theory that predicts our universe as the unique possibility. According to some recent calculations, the current best hope for a unified theory—superstring theory—allows an exponentially large number of different universes, most of which look nothing like our own. String theorists have turned to the anthropic principle for salvation.
Frankly, I view this as an act of desperation. I don't have much patience for the anthropic principle. I think the concept is, at heart, non-scientific. A proper scientific theory is based on testable assumptions and is judged by its predictive power. The anthropic principle makes an enormous number of assumptions—regarding the existence of multiple universes, a random creation process, probability distributions that determine the likelihood of different features, etc.—none of which are testable because they entail hypothetical regions of spacetime that are forever beyond the reach of observation. As for predictions, there are very few, if any. In the case of string theory, the principle is invoked only to explain known observations, not to predict new ones. (In other versions of the anthropic principle where predictions are made, the predictions have proven to be wrong. Some physicists cite the recent evidence for a cosmological constant as having anticipated by anthropic argument; however, the observed value does not agree with the anthropically predicted value.)
I find the desperation especially unwarranted since I see no evidence that our universe arose by a random process. Quite the contrary, recent observations and experiments suggest that our universe is extremely simple. The distribution of matter and energy is remarkably uniform. The hierarchy of complex structures ranging from galaxy clusters to subnuclear particles can all be described in terms of a few dozen elementary constituents and less than a handful of forces, all related by simple symmetries. A simple universe demands a simple explanation. Why do we need to postulate an infinite number of universes with all sorts of different properties just to explain our one?
Of course, my colleagues and I are anxious for further reductionism. But I view the current failure of string theory to find a unique universe simply as a sign that our understanding of string theory is still immature (or perhaps that string theory is wrong). Decades from now, I hope that physicists will be pursuing once again their dreams of a truly scientific "final theory" and will look back at the current anthropic craze as millennial madness. [/FONT]
If that is thew case, than the big bang theory should be called the Big Bang Hypothesis.
:ermm:
Who said anything was true? I simply said there are other theories as to how the Mayans lived and died, and theories as to how the Egyptians lived. To be 100% honest, EVERYTHING we know about both civilzations is a hypothesis.
Were you there during the Egyptian reign? How about during the Mayan civilization? No? THen how do YOU know what happened? You dont. Thats all im getting at.
:ermm:
Who said anything was true? I simply said there are other theories as to how the Mayans lived and died, and theories as to how the Egyptians lived. To be 100% honest, EVERYTHING we know about both civilzations is a hypothesis.
Were you there during the Egyptian reign? How about during the Mayan civilization? No? THen how do YOU know what happened? You dont. Thats all im getting at.
The Big Ban is a well-established theory because it is supported by a wide body of evidence. This is what distinguishes a scientific theory from a hypothesis. In contrast, the crank proposals involving aliens are not supported by anything, they are products of the imagination of those who made them up.
The way you do science is by looking at the evidence, coming up with a hypothesis that explains as much of it as possible while ASSUMING AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE to be true and is consistent with the whole of well-established human knowledge accumulated before that, then trying to falsify this hypothesis.
You do not do science by saying "Hey, this looks cool, it would be great if it was true, let's see where we can fit it" and the explaining away the objections to your "method" as being the product of "closed-mindedness" and "intellectual arrogance"
I was not there but it makes no sense to try to explain what happened there by invoking highly improbable factors we have NEVER OBSERVED and have NO OTHER EVIDENCE FOR.
The way you do science is by looking at the evidence, coming up with a hypothesis that explains as much of it as possible while ASSUMING AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE to be true and is consistent with the whole of well-established human knowledge accumulated before that, then trying to falsify this hypothesis.
You do not do science by saying "Hey, this looks cool, it would be great if it was true, let's see where we can fit it" and the explaining away the objections to your "method" as being the product of "closed-mindedness" and "intellectual arrogance"
I was not there but it makes no sense to try to explain what happened there by invoking highly improbable factors we have NEVER OBSERVED and have NO OTHER EVIDENCE FOR.
Ill give you that, but again, the Big Bang theory is not 100% now is it? It is an IDEA of how the Earth was made. However, NO ONE was there WHEN the Earth came to be, so how can we be 100% sure? We cant. Plain & simple. I know yo like facts and evidence, but that doesn't mean that they always explain the whole truth.
Thanks for the lesson; however, I already know how the scientific method works.
What does this have to do with anything? Who said anything was cool? You are obviously missing the entire point I am getting at, but I am not surprised. Because you are a science major, you COMPLETELY biased and have a closed mind. This is why it is nearly impossible to discuss ANYTHING with you.
Sometimes, things are not always what they seem, and even though I love facts just as much as the next guy, you can NOT replace first hand witness...period. I am a firm believer in that if i DID NOT see it happen with my own eyes, how can i be fore SURE that it happened? Even if its 99.9% proof positive, if I was NOT there to see, that .01% still lingers. And I wish you could understand that, but alas, that will never happen. It is what it is.
Thats my point, NOTHING WAS OBSERVED. There are no first, second, or third hand witnesses to how went on back then. So how can we be FOR SURE what went down>
LOL..no evidence? Uhhh...how about the goddamn PYRAMIDS. There is STILL no set theory as to how they were built, only GUESSTIMATES, SPECULATION, and THEORIES.
Again, your problem is that you just ACCEPT what is put out there. NO ONE was there to actually WITNESS what happened...so how can ANYONE know for SURE? There is a simple answer for that...WE CAN NOT. We can only formulate the most PROBABLE theory or idea that would fit what is found in artifacts, writings, and ruins.
If you can not understand the concept of correlation does not imply causation, then we can not carry on this debate any further.
Seeing is believing.
Thanks for the lesson; however, I already know how the scientific method works.
What does this have to do with anything? Who said anything was cool? You are obviously missing the entire point I am getting at, but I am not surprised. Because you are a science major, you COMPLETELY biased and have a closed mind. This is why it is nearly impossible to discuss ANYTHING with you.
Sometimes, things are not always what they seem, and even though I love facts just as much as the next guy, you can NOT replace first hand witness...period. I am a firm believer in that if i DID NOT see it happen with my own eyes, how can i be fore SURE that it happened? Even if its 99.9% proof positive, if I was NOT there to see, that .01% still lingers. And I wish you could understand that, but alas, that will never happen. It is what it is.
Thats my point, NOTHING WAS OBSERVED. There are no first, second, or third hand witnesses to how went on back then. So how can we be FOR SURE what went down>
LOL..no evidence? Uhhh...how about the goddamn PYRAMIDS. There is STILL no set theory as to how they were built, only GUESSTIMATES, SPECULATION, and THEORIES.
Again, your problem is that you just ACCEPT what is put out there. NO ONE was there to actually WITNESS what happened...so how can ANYONE know for SURE? There is a simple answer for that...WE CAN NOT. We can only formulate the most PROBABLE theory or idea that would fit what is found in artifacts, writings, and ruins.
If you can not understand the concept of correlation does not imply causation, then we can not carry on this debate any further.
Seeing is believing.
ThaG-
Are there different degrees of evidence? If so, how do we determine and at what point do we determine where evidence is not supportive to the degree that it can not be considered evidence at all?
Is the best possible answer considered evidence?
Because if the evidence we use to convict murderers is proportionate to the evidence used to support the Big Bang Theory, then all murders would walk.
Are there different degrees of evidence? If so, how do we determine and at what point do we determine where evidence is not supportive to the degree that it can not be considered evidence at all?
Is the best possible answer considered evidence?
Because if the evidence we use to convict murderers is proportionate to the evidence used to support the Big Bang Theory, then all murders would walk.
What is not to understand?
It is the point in which the universe began to expand. As the universe was expanding it began to cool and in turn matter was created. Galaxies are moving away from us; this event in reverse would bring them back to their point of origin - "evidence".
yawn.
My questions remain unanswered.. at least tell me to "fuck off" so I'll know you are incapable of doing so.
PS: Please don't waste my time by elaborating on the BBT or providing more "evidence". It is/was not my intent to go into detail about this. I would have much rather said "you are in error" but that would have brought about more senseless posts from you (which is becomming comonplace).
It is the point in which the universe began to expand. As the universe was expanding it began to cool and in turn matter was created. Galaxies are moving away from us; this event in reverse would bring them back to their point of origin - "evidence".
yawn.
My questions remain unanswered.. at least tell me to "fuck off" so I'll know you are incapable of doing so.
PS: Please don't waste my time by elaborating on the BBT or providing more "evidence". It is/was not my intent to go into detail about this. I would have much rather said "you are in error" but that would have brought about more senseless posts from you (which is becomming comonplace).
