Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not suggesting a 1 in a billion occurence happening twice isn't special. On the contray, AP suggests that if you could flip the universe again, we probably wouldn't be here.
Your conclusion defies common sense; if a billion to one chance occurs twice in a row we would conclude what I said above. It appears you would simply refuse to flip the coin again and say "There's no need to; any result is possible." I submit that would make you a very poor detective.
I re-iterate, I have made no statement about "a billion to one chance occuring twice". It is irrelevant. I'm not sure why you are talking about multiple occurences. Unless you believe the universe has been created twice, and both times we resulted?
Originally posted by PullhardI really don't care what AP suggests; according to what we know so far, a universe hospitable to life was highly unlikely but here it is. That deserves a better answer than a shrug and "S**t happens".
I'm not suggesting a 1 in a billion occurence happening twice isn't special. On the contray, AP suggests that if you could flip the universe again, we probably wouldn't be here.
I re-iterate, I have made no statement about "a billion to one chance occuring twice". It is irrelevant. I'm not sure why you are talking about multiple occurences. Unless you believe the universe has been created twice, and both times we resulted?
You said this: BTW, as you allude to, reflipping the coin is the weaknest in you analogy. We don't need to reflip it.....
When you say "we don't need to reflip it" I presume that you were referring to the analogy. If you weren't you should repair your sentence structure as it refers to the coin. Someone who didn't reflip the coin because they say "we don't need to: it'll almost certainly come up tails this time, so why bother", would be poor detective. Get it?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderHere one attempt to understand the universe.
I really don't care what AP suggests; according to what we know so far, a universe hospitable to life was highly unlikely but here it is. That deserves a better answer than a shrug and "S**t happens".
You said this: B ...[text shortened]... tails this time, so why bother", would be poor detective. Get it?
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-1998-6/node1.html
Originally posted by no1marauderTo apply the coin analogy to the creation of the universe, we do not need to re-flip the coin (i.e. there is no parallel to a coin re-flip). Clear enough?
You said this: BTW, as you allude to, reflipping the coin is the weaknest in you analogy. We don't need to reflip it.....
When you say "we don't need to reflip it" I presume that you were referring to the analogy. If you weren't you should repair your sentence structure as it refers to the coin. Someone who didn't reflip the coi ...[text shortened]... 'll almost certainly come up tails this time, so why bother", would be poor detective. Get it?
I really don't care what AP suggests;
Why bother debating then? Apparently your stance is in conflict with AP, so shouldn't you, by definition, care what its premise is? Or do you ignore anything you don't immediately agree with?
1 edit
Originally posted by PullhardSince all you're doing is restating AP over and over again there isn't any sense debating you; I'll find a parrot. If you're satisified with the premises I gave - 1 universe, entirely unlikely to be life hospitable but it is - and believe AP provides a sufficient "answer", bully for you. I'd say a parrot has more intellectual curiousity than you. Shrugging and saying "Whatever" which is the equivalent of AP doesn't do it for me.
To apply the coin analogy to the creation of the universe, we do not need to re-flip the coin (i.e. there is no parallel to a coin re-flip). Clear enough?
[b] I really don't care what AP suggests;
Why bother debating then ...[text shortened]... e is? Or do you ignore anything you don't immediately agree with?[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderprobability theory : even if taken to the extremes of possible occurances an equation still comes out a certainty if given an infinite number of chances.
Since all you're doing is restating AP over and over again there isn't any sense debating you; I'll find a parrot. If you're satisified with the premises I gave - 1 universe, entirely unlikely to be life hospitable but it is - and believe AP provides a sufficient "answer", bully for you. I'd say a parrot has more intellectual curiousity than you. Shrugging and saying "Whatever" which is the equivalent of AP doesn't do it for me.
Originally posted by PullhardA principle implying something isn't a coherent theory; there is work being done on Multiverses which could supply the infinite number of universes which would make a life hospitable one unremarkable. So far, however, this is largely speculation.
Strong anthropic principle implies this (there is strong and weak).
Originally posted by no1marauderIsn't a designer really just speculation too?
A principle implying something isn't a coherent theory; there is work being done on Multiverses which could supply the infinite number of universes which would make a life hospitable one unremarkable. So far, however, this is largely speculation.
Originally posted by frogstompOf course. It is, however, speculation based on some observable facts as spelled out in this thread. Multiverses seem, at first glance, to be an attempt to escape from the logical implications of the unlikelihood of only one universe which is life-hospitable existing. It may well be that "multiverses" can be "proven" to the extent that other hypotheses have been proven by the rigourous application of the scientific method, but they certainly have not been so far.
Isn't a designer really just speculation too?
Originally posted by no1marauderAgain I must stress that it's still speculation that the gravitational constant might have other possible values. Gravity is a gauge field and gauge fields are created by the interaction of sub-atomic exchange particles. Implying that there is a possibility of different values for the constants of this universe is implying that other universes do exist.
Of course. It is, however, speculation based on some observable facts as spelled out in this thread. Multiverses seem, at first glance, to be an attempt to escape from the logical implications of the unlikelihood of only one universe which is life-hospitable existing. It may well be that "multiverses" can be "proven" to the extent that other ...[text shortened]... by the rigourous application of the scientific method, but they certainly have not been so far.
Even a designer would have to exist somewhere before he designed, wouldnt he?
Originally posted by frogstompNo, not really. The scientific possibility that the force strengths could be different if they were left to random chance does not preclude the possibility that they were not the result of random chance.
Again I must stress that it's still speculation that the gravitational constant might have other possible values. Gravity is a gauge field and gauge fields are created by the interaction of sub-atomic exchange particles. Implying that there is a possibility of different values for the constants of this universe is implying that other universes do exist.
Even a designer would have to exist somewhere before he designed, wouldnt he?
2nd Question: I don't know. I have been careful to use the word "designed" in quotes; perhaps the universe itself is in some sense sentient and "designed" itself. Did the universe have to exist somewhere before it existed? Would a designer have to exist before he existed? That's a little tooooooooo metaphysical for me; for now, I'd be content with figuring out if there are other universes or MetaLaws; once I've got that nailed down I'll work on whether the universe and/or its designer (if there is one) existed somewhere before they existed here.