# Stephen Hawking's last paper: multiverses follow the laws of physics



## Brian G Turner

The BBC reports that Stephen Hawking's last paper has been published, in which he tackled the idea of multiverses and asserted that they must follow the same laws of physics as in this universe:
Prof Hawking's multiverse finale

On the surface, it sounds simple enough, though I doubt most people would understand the maths involved. 

However... we've seen it suggested before that at least some mathematical constants may actually change over time.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Brian G Turner said:


> The BBC reports that Stephen Hawking's last paper has been published, in which he tackled the idea of multiverses and asserted that they must follow the same laws of physics as in this universe:
> Prof Hawking's multiverse finale
> 
> On the surface, it sounds simple enough, though I doubt most people would understand the maths involved.
> 
> However... we've seen it suggested before that at least some mathematical constants may actually change over time.



"The ... assessment indicates that there can only be universes that have the same laws of physics as our own."

Meaning that all our constants (although they might change miniscually over billions of years) are true and fixed. So it still leaves such problems as why do the charge of election and proton of hydrogen balance each other so exactly? That and many other unlikely coincidences that make physical existence possible at all?l


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> "The ... assessment indicates that there can only be universes that have the same laws of physics as our own."
> 
> Meaning that all our constants (although they might change miniscually over billions of years) are true and fixed. So it still leaves such problems as why do the charge of election and proton of hydrogen balance each other so exactly? That and many other unlikely coincidences that make physical existence possible at all?l


Everything seems unlikely when you only have one example to work from. There might be plenty of universes unrelated to ours that are soupy messes with no phyical matter possible.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Onyx said:


> Everything seems unlikely when you only have one example to work from. There might be plenty of universes unrelated to ours that are soupy messes with no phyical matter possible.


But Hawking is limiting them to universes that obey the laws we know? That's a big step back from  infinite multiverse? I don't know ...


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> But Hawkins is limiting them to universes that obey the laws we know? That's a big step back from  infinite multiverse? I don't know ...


The multiverse that Hawking is talking about is essentially all of the branchings of our original universe that are necessitated by quantum theory. It is like saying that all life on earth uses DNA because the first life used DNA.

I'm pointing out that you could step outside of that starting point and say - _what if there were other universes with completely independent starting points; would they be like ours? _The answer should be no, because those places aren't descendants of our quantum universe. Just as alien life might be organized around something besides DNA, and not obey chemical laws dictated by DNA based life. Hawking is talking about a specific kind of "multiverse", not all possibilities.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Onyx said:


> The multiverse that Hawking is talking about is essentially all of the branchings of our original universe that are necessitated by quantum theory. It is like saying that all life on earth uses DNA because the first life used DNA.
> 
> I'm pointing out that you could step outside of that starting point and say - _what if there were other universes with completely independent starting points; would they be like ours? _The answer should be no, because those places aren't descendants of our quantum universe. Just as alien life might be organized around something besides DNA, and not obey chemical laws dictated by DNA based life. Hawking is talking about a specific kind of "multiverse", not all possibilities.



Well I don't know exactly what he's saying because I can't do quantum maths. The quantum 'sum of all possible paths' (possibilities) I believe actually results in the vast number of such infinite possibilities cancelling each other out. So in reality it's a mathematical probability device that in reality leaves, for instance, the electron close within its most probable atomic radius.

Although semantically it could be anywhere in the universe, mathematically it's hugely vanishingly unlikely to be anywhere else but close within the atomic radius? Or ionised, but close by? Well, I don't really know.

So the 'infinite multiverse' sounds philosophically nice, but perhaps in his old age Hawking was really concluding that although infinitely many possibilities theoretically do exist, in reality they will largely cancel each other out and leave a reality close to that created by our own 'laws of nature'?


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> Well I don't know exactly what he's saying because I can't do quantum maths. The quantum 'sum of all possible paths' (possibilities) I believe actually results in the vast number of such infinite possibilities cancelling each other out. So in reality it's a mathematical probability device that in reality leaves, for instance, the electron close within its most probable atomic radius.
> 
> Although semantically it could be anywhere in the universe, mathematically it's hugely vanishingly unlikely to be anywhere else but close within the atomic radius? Or ionised, but close by? Well, I don't really know.
> 
> So the 'infinite multiverse' sounds philosophically nice, but perhaps in his old age Hawking was really concluding that although infinitely many possibilities theoretically do exist, in reality they will largely cancel each other out and leave a reality close to that created by our own 'laws of nature'?


Given the most simple view, that the multiverse is the documentation of all possible atomic paths, what would be the mechanism for cancellation? On a macro scale, you could go home or to the store: What about your decision to go home makes the version of you that decided on the store stop existing?


----------



## RJM Corbet

Onyx said:


> Given the most simple view, that the multiverse is the documentation of all possible atomic paths, what would be the mechanism for cancellation? On a macro scale, you could go home or to the store: What about your decision to go home makes the version of you that decided on the store stop existing?


Well, mostly because the random quantum possibilities can't ever be translated up to the movements of the macro physical experience, although they underpin it?


----------



## RJM Corbet

It's something like: if you thtow a ball,
you place a clock at every point in infinity, the clocks reading 12 o clock cancel those reading 6 of clock, those reading 3 cancel those reading 9 etc.

The further away you go, the more there are revolutions of the clocks  until it's only some clocks that dont make a full revolution that don't cancel each other? So the ball could land on Mars, but the overwhelming possibility is that it'll land closer? I think? Lol ...

EDIT: But of course they're not clocks measuring time, more like points on a wave.


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> Well, mostly because the random quantum possibilities can't ever be translated up to the movements of the macro physical experience, although they underpin it?


Schrodinger's Cat suggests that they can produce at least two paths. Even a multiverse with a few branches is a multiverse.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Onyx said:


> Schrodinger's Cat suggests that they can produce at least two paths. Even a multiverse with a few branches is a multiverse.


Ha! But everybody knows a real cat can't be both dead and alive at the same time? Lol. He was trying to illustrate quantum paradox?

EDIT: I don't think Hawking is rejecting multiverse, but infinite multiverse?


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> Ha! But everybody knows a real cat can't be both dead and alive at the same time? Lol. He was trying to illustrate quantum paradox?
> 
> EDIT: I don't think Hawking is rejecting multiverse, but infinite multiverse?


I don't think anyone suggested anything was infinite. The number of branches comes from the finite number of particles and the finite life of the universe.

And the Cat isn't a paradox. It is an example of how quantum events can have simple macro sized effects.


----------



## tinkerdan

Schrodinger's Cat is a thought experiment.
The unseen cat inside the box might be either dead or alive.
It can't be both. However we can't say which it is until we look in which case we either go on into the live cat universe or the dead cat universe.

You might say that the live cat universe is the optimist universe whereas the dead can universe is the pessimist universe. Unless you don't like cats then its the other way around.

Which leads to that inverse thought experiment where the cat is wondering whether the scientist outside the box is an cat lover or not.

It may be too soon to say that there are only universes that have our laws of physics. It could be that in some dimensional plane our physic like universes look like the bubbles on bubble-wrap that is all twisted together to almost coexist 'near' each other and that the flat areas around the bubbles are other universes that are too strange and that if we could travel to the other universes somehow; they would be the ones that are like ours and not the flat areas.

Anyway it would probably be easier to visit other Earths in other universes than to travel all the way to another habitable planet out there somewhere. Or maybe just as hard.


----------



## Onyx

tinkerdan said:


> Schrodinger's Cat is a thought experiment.
> The unseen cat inside the box might be either dead or alive.
> It can't be both. However we can't say which it is until we look in which case we either go on into the live cat universe or the dead cat universe.
> 
> You might say that the live cat universe is the optimist universe whereas the dead can universe is the pessimist universe. Unless you don't like cats then its the other way around.
> 
> Which leads to that inverse thought experiment where the cat is wondering whether the scientist outside the box is an cat lover or not.


I understood the experiment to show how observation collapses the wave function and determines whether the cat _had lived _or_ did die_ due to the as yet undetermined atomic decay. So it might be proper to say that it is "both", unless you truly don't believe that the act of observation is what completes the process. 

But regardless of what happens, we only have access to one or the other version of events, so it is essentially the same thing. But if you care about parallel universes running on the software, then it might be beneficial to look at the cat in a less deterministic way.


----------



## tinkerdan

I suggest that what it might prove is that the observer becomes a part of the experiment; which is something that needs to be taken into account with most if not all experiments.


----------



## RJM Corbet

But in a universe where for example the proton and electron had slightly different charges, atoms couldn't form and matter couldn't exist. If the cosmological constant was slightly different  the universe would either have collapsed or  flown apart immediately before it could form, etc. The electron exclusion principle, the speed of light, the Planck constant, the gravity constant. Laws of physics?


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> But in a universe where for example the proton and electron had slightly different charges, atoms couldn't form and matter couldn't exist. If the cosmological constant was slightly different  the universe would either have collapsed or  flown apart immediately before it could form, etc. The electron exclusion principle, the speed of light, the Planck constant, the gravity constant. Laws of physics?


I agree. You might have some universes that are soup, and others that have physics that cause the level of organization ours have, but with entirely different principles.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Onyx said:


> I agree. You might have some universes that are soup, and others that have physics that cause the level of organization ours have, but with entirely different principles.


I'm sure some future generations will look back on our standard model physics as we do at Newton's: inspired and functional for purpose, but the tip of the iceberg?


----------



## Serendipity

Time needs also to be considered... if a universe is close to being in balance it can last a long time before it decays into whatever mush is out there. The consequence for a multiverse is that there will be universes formed at the same time as ours, but are mushifying now as I type this. Only the more stable physics-wise will continue beyond the now. A lot of those will mushify in the future. What will happen is that fewer and fewer 'stable' universes that started at the same time as ours will stay in existence. 

Of course we might have (and I think this is highly likely) universes starting their existence after ours and the same paradigm will exist for those universes. 

Now here's an idea for Dr Who - he time travels to another universe where he has to slightly alter one of the laws of physics of physics constants!


----------



## Venusian Broon

tinkerdan said:


> I suggest that what it might prove is that the observer becomes a part of the experiment; which is something that needs to be taken into account with most if not all experiments.


There are many different interpretations of QM, all giving the same results but radically different universes/multiverses.

There are many-world interpretations (heavily favoured by cosmologists), local hidden variable interpretations (favoured by those who thought Einstein was on the right track) and Copenhagen interpretations (heavily favoured by experimental physicists and probably still the bulk of the physicist community), but there are a great many more.

Point is most of these don't have problems with the 'observer' and the Copenhagen interpretation has been criticised for a very vague definition of what constitutes a measurement. I shan't go further here but there does seem to be a philosophical problem with having subjective observers essentially destroying the deterministic nature of the wave equation. So I think at first you have to clear up what you mean by Observer. And I don't think we are near there at all!

Of course, generally speaking, as all interpretations give the same equations, we physicists tend to mostly fall into the 'shut up and just calculate it' school of thought.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Venusian Broon said:


> There are many different interpretations of QM, all giving the same results but radically different universes/multiverses.
> 
> There are many-world interpretations (heavily favoured by cosmologists), local hidden variable interpretations (favoured by those who thought Einstein was on the right track) and Copenhagen interpretations (heavily favoured by experimental physicists and probably still the bulk of the physicist community), but there are a great many more.
> 
> Point is most of these don't have problems with the 'observer' and the Copenhagen interpretation has been criticised for a very vague definition of what constitutes a measurement. I shan't go further here but there does seem to be a philosophical problem with having subjective observers essentially destroying the deterministic nature of the wave equation. So I think at first you have to clear up what you mean by Observer. And I don't think we are near there at all!
> 
> Of course, generally speaking, as all interpretations give the same equations, we physicists tend to mostly fall into the 'shut up and just calculate it' school of thought.


So what could Hawking really have meant by saying there can only be universes with the same laws of physics as our own? How would you interpret it? (For the layman, lol?)


----------



## Venusian Broon

RJM Corbet said:


> So what could Hawking really have meant by saying there can only be universes with the same laws of physics as our own? How would you interpret it? (For the layman, lol?)



Let's go down the rabbit hole...

Okay, first I should state, I'm not and was never a cosmologist - did a lot of 'bog standard' Quantum mechanics instead - so I'm sure I'm missing loads of details 

However, after getting slightly baffled at the BBC article (sometimes things can be oversimplified too much!) I pulled up the paper to take a look.

Hawkings-Hertog are looking at a form of the Eternal Inflation multiverse (here is an article I thought was quite nice in explaining this idea: Eternal Inflation and Colliding Universes)

So basically it is a 'multiverse' that is constantly inflating, peppered throughout with bubble universes - small patches of energy and matter. These smaller universes will continue to expand, but because they have formed can no longer keep up with the inflationary 'speed' of the mother multiverse. (It gives me the image of currants in a bun, if the bun was infinite and forever expanding ) We are, of course, one of these bubble universes in this model, and if the multiverse is eternally inflating, then there will be an infinite number of universes produced.

Originally when they had first proposed this theory in the 1980s, there was no way of telling if all these bubble universes were similar and in fact it was proposed that you would get a random set of conditions in each. This leads to the problem of that it is all just random chance that we find ourselves in a universe well suited to us. Which _might _be possible, but is a rather unsatisfactory explanation of where we came from!

So in this paper they have modelled a series of 'toy' universes (using gauge-gravity duality to model its Quantum wave function - this is where the connection with String Theory comes in) at the brink of exiting inflation and have calculated that it appears that there is a high probability that only a small range of bubble universes, measured via their boundaries, can come into existence at this point. Other weirder or radically different ones are essentially just not very likely at all.

They then state: "we conjecture that eternal inflation produces universes that are relatively regular on the largest scales."

So I suppose they are not saying that all the universe do have the same laws as ours, but instead conjecture that they should all, because of their formation, be reasonably similar. And I suppose therefore, by corollary, the laws should be similar.


However,

Note that:

- The Eternal Inflation model has it's own problems, it is not necessarily how our universe was formed*.
- They used simplified models of universes and more realistic model may not give the same results.
- And given what I said about QM interpretations above, the Eternal Inflation multiverse is not the same thing as the Many-body multiverse - that is a different beast! Also I believe the multiverse that might be built using M-theory (string theory) using 10-11 spatial dimensions is totally different again.


---------------------------------------------------
* In fact until we can experimentally find another universe how can we actually be sure that _any _multiverse actually exists?. To be fair, there are tentative suggestions that there might be imprints of another universe in the microwave background radiation, but really, it's not obvious that's the case.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Venusian Broon said:


> Let's go down the rabbit hole...
> 
> Okay, first I should state, I'm not and was never a cosmologist - did a lot of 'bog standard' Quantum mechanics instead - so I'm sure I'm missing loads of details
> 
> However, after getting slightly baffled at the BBC article (sometimes things can be oversimplified too much!) I pulled up the paper to take a look.
> 
> Hawkings-Hertog are looking at a form of the Eternal Inflation multiverse (here is an article I thought was quite nice in explaining this idea: Eternal Inflation and Colliding Universes)
> 
> So basically it is a 'multiverse' that is constantly inflating, peppered throughout with bubble universes - small patches of energy and matter. These smaller universes will continue to expand, but because they have formed can no longer keep up with the inflationary 'speed' of the mother multiverse. (It gives me the image of currants in a bun, if the bun was infinite and forever expanding ) We are, of course, one of these bubble universes in this model, and if the multiverse is eternally inflating, then there will be an infinite number of universes produced.
> 
> Originally when they had first proposed this theory in the 1980s, there was no way of telling if all these bubble universes were similar and in fact it was proposed that you would get a random set of conditions in each. This leads to the problem of that it is all just random chance that we find ourselves in a universe well suited to us. Which _might _be possible, but is a rather unsatisfactory explanation of where we came from!
> 
> So in this paper they have modelled a series of 'toy' universes (using gauge-gravity duality to model its Quantum wave function - this is where the connection with String Theory comes in) at the brink of exiting inflation and have calculated that it appears that there is a high probability that only a small range of bubble universes, measured via their boundaries, can come into existence at this point. Other weirder or radically different ones are essentially just not very likely at all.
> 
> They then state: "we conjecture that eternal inflation produces universes that are relatively regular on the largest scales."
> 
> So I suppose they are not saying that all the universe do have the same laws as ours, but instead conjecture that they should all, because of their formation, be reasonably similar. And I suppose therefore, by corollary, the laws should be similar.
> 
> 
> However,
> 
> Note that:
> 
> - The Eternal Inflation model has it's own problems, it is not necessarily how our universe was formed*.
> - They used simplified models of universes and more realistic model may not give the same results.
> - And given what I said about QM interpretations above, the Eternal Inflation multiverse is not the same thing as the Many-body multiverse - that is a different beast! Also I believe the multiverse that might be built using M-theory (string theory) using 10-11 spatial dimensions is totally different again.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------
> * In fact until we can experimentally find another universe how can we actually be sure that _any _multiverse actually exists?. To be fair, there are tentative suggestions that there might be imprints of another universe in the microwave background radiation, but really, it's not obvious that's the case.


Thank you! That's a very understandable account, VB. Lots to think about.

So here's the question: If the multiverse theory is really there not simply as an extension of the super-tiny extra dimensions of M Theory, but really to provide a possible explanation for the 'fine tuning' coincidences of physics that make our macro universe possible -- such as the cosmological constant, etc -- then how is all this going to impact on the anthropic concept of infinite universes of every possible sort -- where we inhabit this particular universe, with these particular laws, because it's the (only) one  that allows our existence?

Whew! That's a long sentence! But is it a reasonable question? Am I getting the proper gist?

Thanks again.

EDIT: Sorry I have edited that question several times to get it into shape.


----------



## Onyx

I don't think that there is an big coincidence going on. The anthropic principle pretty much means that the kind of life that pops up in a universe is going to be a product of that universe's physics, rather than just a happy coincidence. If physics didn't allow for life, than we wouldn't be here to remark on that. There could be universes outside the multiverse that are either much worse or much better for the creation of life, but that doesn't have anything to do with our multiverse.

Imagine buying 4 beans and planting them in concrete, iron filings, snow and damp soil. When the bean planted in soil grows, is that a coincidence? If you gave away the other three beans right after you planted them, what would your assumptions about planting beans be? 100% of the beans you observed grew, but only 25% of the beans you planted did.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Onyx said:


> I don't think that there is an big coincidence going on. The anthropic principle pretty much means that the kind of life that pops up in a universe is going to be a product of that universe's physics, rather than just a happy coincidence. If physics didn't allow for life, than we wouldn't be here to remark on that. There could be universes outside the multiverse that are either much worse or much better for the creation of life, but that doesn't have anything to do with our multiverse.
> 
> Imagine buying 4 beans and planting them in concrete, iron filings, snow and damp soil. When the bean planted in soil grows, is that a coincidence? If you gave away the other three beans right after you planted them, what would your assumptions about planting beans be? 100% of the beans you observed grew, but only 25% of the beans you planted did.


Yes, but the multiverse theories are there purely to prop-up the anthropic principle? It is very much conjecture with nothing approaching a shred of experimental evidence? Of course you will see where I'm going with this, which is not permitted in these particular forums ...


----------



## logan_run

We cant say a multiverse exist because we never been to one.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Of course. Taken to the extreme we end up not only with another universe where a monkey with a pencil writes Hamlet purely by chance, but with infinite such universes? Was Hawking unhappy with this logical progression of infinite other universes, and trying to limit them?

But limiting their nature makes coincidences like the  cosmological constant (fine tuned to 1 x 10 to the power 120) ridiculously unlikely as result of pure chance (monkey with pencil) and even more difficult to understand, especially when added to all the other fine-tunings, the electron/proton balance, etc?


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> Yes, but the multiverse theories are there simply in order to validate the anthropic principle? It is very much conjecture with nothing approaching a shred of experimental evidence? Of course you will see where I'm going with this, which is not permitted in these particular forums ...


I don't think so. There's the quantum "multiverse", which is a product of how our universe/multiverse deals with uncertainty.


And then there's the completely separate idea of any other universe that might exist outside of those rules. It might not have physics that would cause an internal "multiverse" due to uncertainty. It may have rules that cause life, or not. And there is nothing about the physics of our universe that would predict that such a place or places exist - they don't need to. It is simply an idea that, like there is more than one star and galaxy, maybe there are more than one universes. But if there are they don't have to operate anything like what we are able to even conceive of.

The "multiverse" could just be called the "universe" with the understanding that it includes all the timelines that we can't perceive, but are otherwise all descended from the same starting point as ours. That's something discreetly different than the very speculative suggestion that there could be completely separate "universes" that have zero connection to ours in origin, physics or time.


----------



## RJM Corbet

But what I'm saying is that multiverse theories are so conjectural that the alternative is at least equally likely: that we inhabit the only universe we can or will ever be able to prove or perceive?


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> But what I'm saying is that multiverse theories are so conjectural that the alternative is at least equally likely: that we inhabit the only universe we can or will ever be able to prove or perceive?


I'm not able to follow the math sufficiently well to determine just how conjectural it is. No one has seen dark matter, so it could be said to be conjecture as well. But if the math that describes the physics of our universe doesn't leave any room for anything but the multiverse, then it isn't just a daydream.

Mind you, I don't think it is likely to ever be important. There's nothing in these theories that makes it likely that the branches of the multiverse can interact and change what's in your lunch pail to what Universe 617 Corbet packed. But it may explain why certain types of calculations work.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Ha! Yes, but dark matter (or something) really does exist. There's too much gravity without it. Dark energy is the only explanation of the expanding universe. String theory is properly trying to chase down quantum gravity? These are all objective science. But multiverse theories are actually ideological, if you get my drift?


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> Ha! Yes, but dark matter really does exist. There's too much gravity without it. Dark energy is the only explanation of the expanding universe. String theory is properly trying to chase down quantum gravity? These are all objective science. But multiverse theories are actually ideological, if you get my drift?


Not really. Dark matter is a way of explaining a gravity problem without actually having a substance to point at. It could be that we simply don't understand gravity, and there are alternative theories that are based on the idea that we are doing the math wrong. Hawking wasn't just doing goof-off physics while the dark matter guys were doing the real work.

Maybe it would be more useful to say "The math of the universe may _require_ that everything operate _as if_ there is a functioning multiverse." Not that anyone has proved anything, but there is little functional difference between "as" and "as if" when you can't actually pull back the veil to check.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Or maybe you could say that the math of the existing universe would operate perfectly well without any conjectured multiverse? But the anthropic principle would not, lol?


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> Or maybe you could say that the math of the existing universe would operate perfectly well without any conjectured multiverse? But the anthropic principle would not, lol?


I realize you're joking, but I don't see any connection between the multiverse and the anthropic principle.


----------



## RJM Corbet

If you spin a combination lock back and forward enough times you will eventually hit the right combination purely by chance. Or if you keep typing in random letters and numbers you will eventually hit the password? If there are enough other universes around, eventually ours will pop out purely by chance. It's the monkey with a pencil.

The anthropic princople has to assume multiple other universes as the only way to explain the fine tunings that make the existence of life possible.

So, what if there aren't any other universes?


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> If you spin a combination lock back and forward enough times you will eventually hit the right combination purely by chance. Or if you keep typing in random letters and numbers you will eventually hit the password? If there are enough other universes around, eventually ours will pop out purely by chance. It's the monkey with a pencil.
> 
> The anthropic princople has to assume multiple other universes as the only way to explain the fine tunings that make the existence of life possible.
> 
> So, what if there aren't any other universes?


That may be, but those aren't necessarily the "other universes" implied by the quantum multiverse.

But the main point of the anthropic principle is that universe must automatically be compatible with the life that exists and observes it. Not that it had to come to be via a certain process.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Or put it another way: it doesnt matter how greatly the conditions suitable for life existing in 'our' universe -- and especially of life spontaneously arising from them -- (as a once-off string of coincidences) ignore all possible reasonable laws of chance by factors way beyond the sum of all the atoms in the universe, because the fact we're here proves it did happen?


----------



## Venusian Broon

RJM Corbet said:


> So here's the question: If the multiverse theory is really there not simply as an extension of the super-tiny extra dimensions of M Theory, but really to provide a possible explanation for the 'fine tuning' coincidences of physics that make our macro universe possible -- such as the cosmological constant, etc -- then how is all this going to impact on the anthropic concept of infinite universes of every possible sort -- where we inhabit this particular universe, with these particular laws, because it's the (only) one  that allows our existence?
> 
> Whew! That's a long sentence! But is it a reasonable question? Am I getting the proper gist?
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> EDIT: Sorry I have edited that question several times to get it into shape.



Don't apologise! These are tough issues, I think, to really grasp. I struggle constantly with them when I am called to think about them! But it's fun 

I have been busy for a day, so I couldn't get back to you - however it meant that I was thinking about your questions and the whole issue of the anthropic principle. (Although not when I'm doing 16kg kettle bell snatch intervals, they be b*tches for holding any coherent thought other than '_I_ _must...get...through...this'_)

Firstly I have to say before I get into details, the anthropic principle, of whatever flavour, could indeed be the truth. It really just comes down to belief at this point. A lot of the concepts we talk about with regards to multiverses/string theory/anthropic principle etc. are so far from being experimentally verified that they are barely science.

So why am I (and others) 'lukewarm' on the anthropic principle?

The _weak_ anthropic principle - that the reason we, intelligent beings, exist is that the conditions are right. This essentially, in my mind, becomes a tautology. Why do we exist? _Because the conditions are correct for our existence. _Why are the conditions correct for our existence? _Because if they weren't we wouldn't exist.
_
It's a scientific cul-de-sac. I believe we don't advance our scientific knowledge of our _cosmic origins_ if you believe this.

The _strong _anthropic principle - that the universe _must _have properties that allow intelligent life to develop lead to the following suggestions:
- _The universe was designed to produce intelligent life._ This is the sort of universe that religious people ascribe to, of course. But it also describes Simulation universes. Both I have yet to see any evidence for so I am dismissive of this idea, although as a Fortean I am open to all ideas. (Just give me the evidence. I'm not Woo-Woo, but a hard-nosed scientist!)
- _The universe needs an intelligent observer to come into being. _This is a 'cosmic Copenhagen interpretation' universe. The first observer caused the universe to 'Quantum mechanically collapse' from its imaginary status to a real state. I mentioned it in my post above about QM interpretations that there is still a lot of discussion about what an 'observer' and 'measurement' really mean so I think this suggestion is really just an artefact of a (likely) misunderstanding of QM.
- _An ensemble of universe are required for the existence of our universe. _This is the position Eternal Inflation model was in, in the paper we've been discussing in this thread. If the original proposition was true then there are infinite universes and it is just random chance that we are in the 'right one'. Again this is, I feel, an unsatisfactory answer. It doesn't let us delve deeper.

So what does the Hawkings paper do that gets us away from the final ensemble argument of the strong anthropic principle?

-Firstly they conjecture that purely from automatic consideration of how small elements of space-time interacts with the multiverse, they _naturally _give rise to universes that are like ours. We do not need to invoke design, the arrival of intelligent beings or postulate that _every single variation _must be generated.
-It is an extension of the Copernican principle. To summarise: Copernicus shifted the Earth from the centre of the universe to being one of a number of planets that orbited the sun. We have since extended this. Our sun is just an average star, we are in a unremarkable galaxy, and in a galaxy cluster that looks like many other galaxy clusters. Now our entire universe is just an average universe in some random place in a vast multiverse. I think hubris is damaging so feeling cosmically average is a good thing .


Honestly, it's almost pure belief. I can't substantiate this with proper evidence. But I wish to always go to the path of allowing continuing scientific progress.


----------



## dask

If you build it they will come?


----------



## RJM Corbet

Fortean:

Fortean Phenomena

Charles Fort - Wikipedia

I had to Google it, lol ...
(Just don't tell Brian Cox, ok?)
Thanks VB


----------



## Onyx

Venusian Broon said:


> The _weak_ anthropic principle - that the reason we, intelligent beings, exist is that the conditions are right. This essentially, in my mind, becomes a tautology. Why do we exist? _Because the conditions are correct for our existence. _Why are the conditions correct for our existence? _Because if they weren't we wouldn't exist.
> _
> It's a scientific cul-de-sac. I believe we don't advance our scientific knowledge of our _cosmic origins_ if you believe this.


I had always taken the weak anthropic principle to be a gentle reminder that our existence is not, necessarily, evidence of a conspiracy to produce intelligence or even of a good fortune. Get those stars out of your eyes, earthman: Of course you live where it is possible to have life.


Comedian Emo Phillips stated the basic problem well: _"I was thinking the other day about just how amazing the human brain is and that how it is the most important organ in the body. And then I realized what was telling me that!"
_
I would hope fundamental questions about our cosmological origins would be worth asking without serving our self importantance.


----------



## RJM Corbet

But without labouring the point: both the anthropic principle and multiverse 'theories' are really just beliefs? Opinions?


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> But without labouring the point: both the anthropic principle and multiverse 'theories' are really just beliefs? Opinions?


The weak anthropic principle is closer to an epistemological warning against a type of logical fallacy. Strong anthropic principle is any of number of belief systems about man's importance to existence.

The multiverse is a scientific theory that comes from physics, but it is essentially unprovable. But that doesn't mean it is just idle speculation any more than a theory about Napoleon's secret opinions might be - both are just not possible to test because you'd need to travel through time or between universes to do so. And that affects how seriously any physicist needs to concern themselves with the accuracy of a theory that can't be tested or even applied.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Or maybe the (weak) AP translates as: It IS because it IS? And the multiverse 'scientific theory' is bought TO physics as a vehicle to justify the AP? So we see the same idea from different angles.

Point is there's nothing approaching a shred of evidence? The fact some scientists believe something might be true doesn't make it science? Science is littered with broken theories/conjectures ...


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> Or maybe the (weak) AP translates as: It IS because it IS? And the multiverse 'scientific theory' is bought TO physics as a vehicle to justify the AP? So we see the same idea from different angles.
> 
> Point is there's nothing approaching a shred of evidence? The fact some scientists believe something might be true doesn't make it science? Science is littered with broken theories/conjectures ...


You keep relating the anthropic principle back to the multiverse, and I really don't think the two have anything to do with each other.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Onyx said:


> You keep relating the anthropic principle back to the multiverse, and I really don't think the two have anything to do with each other.


And I can't understand how you fail to see that they're twins? I do accept that they MIGHT be true. Do you accept that they might not? It's the best compromise we can come to here, imo?

EDIT: Goodnight, brother Onyx. Good discussion


----------



## Venusian Broon

RJM Corbet said:


> Fortean:
> 
> Fortean Phenomena
> 
> Charles Fort - Wikipedia
> 
> I had to Google it, lol ...
> (Just don't tell Brian Cox, ok?)
> Thanks VB



Cheers!



Fortean isn't really, at least in my mind, how that website describes it.

Here's a better 21st Century stance:

'(Charles Fort) was sceptical of scientific explanations, observing how scientists argued according to their own beliefs rather than the rules of evidence and that inconvenient data were ignored, suppressed, discredited or explained away. He criticised modern science for its reductionism, its attempts to define, divide and separate. Fort's dictum "One measures a circle beginning anywhere" expresses instead his philosophy of Continuity in which everything is in an intermediate and transient state between extremes...However, he cut at the very roots of credulity: "I conceive of nothing, in religion, science or philosophy, that is more than the proper thing to wear, for a while."'

However basically I think I'm attracted to "the stance of benevolent scepticism towards both the orthodox and the unorthodox."

So, putting into concrete terms. I don't think the Loch Ness Monster/String Theory/God exists, but I'm happy to listen and discuss evidence/theories/fancies that do propose their existence.


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> And I can't understand how you fail to see that they're twins? I do accept that they MIGHT be true. Do you accept that they might not? It's the best compromise we can come to here, imo?
> 
> EDIT: Goodnight, brother Onyx. Good discussion


Because they don't actually overlap.

The AP relates to how the laws of physics in a given universe make it likely to produce life.

The Multiverse relates to how the laws of physics in our universe make it likely to bifurcate its own 'time stream'. But each of those time streams are going to have the same physics because they came from the same starting "big bang". The multiverse is arguably just one universe but with all the possible versions represented. And those possible versions are just those that are possible from the same starting point.

When the "other universes" of Strong AP are referred to, they are not the universes that are in our multiverse with the same physics, but other truly separate universes that don't share our physics at all. They may or may not also be multiverses of their own.

Strong AP refers to unrelated universes, not the branches in our multiverse that are more alike than different.


----------



## dask

Whew!


----------



## RJM Corbet

Onyx said:


> Because they don't actually overlap.
> 
> The AP relates to how the laws of physics in a given universe make it likely to produce life.
> 
> The Multiverse relates to how the laws of physics in our universe make it likely to bifurcate its own 'time stream'. But each of those time streams are going to have the same physics because they came from the same starting "big bang". The multiverse is arguably just one universe but with all the possible versions represented. And those possible versions are just those that are possible from the same starting point.
> 
> When the "other universes" of Strong AP are referred to, they are not the universes that are in our multiverse with the same physics, but other truly separate universes that don't share our physics at all. They may or may not also be multiverses of their own.
> 
> Strong AP refers to unrelated universes, not the branches in our multiverse that are more alike than different.


Yes, but your very first statement is: 'The AP relates how the laws of physics in a given universe makes it likely to produce life.'

ie: The initial assumption of the AP is that there are other universes with different conditions, whether bufurcating or entirely separate.

There's also the assumption that particular conditions 'make it likely to produce life', when in fact even in the most perfect conditions the likelihood of life occurring is an essentially astronomically impossible chance of zillions of trillions to one. Enormously  UNlikely, in fact.

It is these hugely unlikely coincidences far greater than all atoms in the universe  occurring not just one but in a string, to which I am referring, and which you are treating as just normal.everyday 'physics'?


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> Yes, but your very first statement is: 'The AP relates how the laws of physics in a given universe makes it likely to produce life.'
> 
> ie: The initial assumption of the AP is that there are other universes with different conditions, whether bufurcating or entirely separate.
> 
> There's also the assumption that particular conditions 'make it likely to produce life', when in fact even in the most perfect conditions, the likelihood of life occurring is an essentially astronomically impossible chance of zillions of trillions to one. Enormously  UNlikely, in fact.
> 
> It is these hugely unlikely coincidences far greater than all atoms in the universe  occurring not just one but in a string, to which I am referring, and which you are treating as just normal.everyday 'physics'?



The "lesson" of the anthropic principle is that a life giving universe isn't a coincidence. And there is no "likelihood" to be judged from a single example.

String theory isn't likely or unlikely sounding. It is just another model of how physics functions, like relativity. How outlandish either sounds to human ears has nothing to do with whether it is accurate or not.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Onyx said:


> The "lesson" of the anthropic principle is that a life giving universe isn't a coincidence. And there is no "likelihood" to be judged from a single example.
> 
> String theory isn't likely or unlikely sounding. It is just another model of how physics functions, like relativity. How outlandish either sounds to human ears has nothing to do with whether it is accurate or not.


' ... a life giving universe isn't a coincidence.'

Given enough alternative universes?

Yes or No?


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> ' ... a life giving universe isn't a coincidence.'
> 
> Given enough alternative universes?
> 
> Yes or No?


No idea. What causes universes? Is it reasonable to presume more than one? Can something like a universe exist without being at least complicated enough to cause something like intelligent life? No way of knowing it's an "outside context problem". What's the likelihood of blue? How many times does nothing happen?


----------



## RJM Corbet

To me, that's like a naked Amazon Indian seeing a driverless car for the first time and assuming the thing just somehow assembled itself for no particular reason or purpose.


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> To me, *that*'s like a naked Amazon Indian seeing a driverless car for the first time and assuming the thing just somehow assembled itself for no particular reason or purpose.


What's "that"? And why would an Amazonian not assume that the car grew just like every other moving thing she's ever seen?

Overall, people are terrible at making assumptions about forces and processes that are outside their immediate experience, which is why it took so long for the earth to become round, for continents to drift and for baths to stop causing illness.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Onyx said:


> What's "that"? And why would an Amazonian not assume that the car grew just like every other moving thing she's ever seen?
> 
> Overall, people are terrible at making assumptions about forces and processes that are outside their immediate experience, which is why it took so long for the earth to become round, for continents to drift and for baths to stop causing illness.



But this is becoming circular. Baths, continents, flat earth all reached their end when science disproved them, although they may have encountered dogmatic resistance from fundamentalists.

The whole point here is that the AP IS NOT SCIENCE -- it's simply a belief and an opinion --and so the concept of other universes has to be proposed to support it. The 'multiverse' in this case being the one of separate bubble universes in an expanding 'motherverse' as previously discussed.


----------



## Vertigo

Venusian Broon said:


> ...
> - _The universe needs an intelligent observer to come into being. _This is a 'cosmic Copenhagen interpretation' universe. The first observer caused the universe to 'Quantum mechanically collapse' from its imaginary status to a real state. I mentioned it in my post above about QM interpretations that there is still a lot of discussion about what an 'observer' and 'measurement' really mean so I think this suggestion is really just an artefact of a (likely) misunderstanding of QM.
> ...



I'd never really come across this idea until very recently in Greg Egan's book Distress, where this is essentially put forward as the core principle that the book is built around. Not sure how convinced I am by it though!


----------



## Venusian Broon

Vertigo said:


> I'd never really come across this idea until very recently in Greg Egan's book Distress, where this is essentially put forward as the core principle that the book is built around. Not sure how convinced I am by it though!



I remember reading an article by Stephen Hawking that discussed something very similar, published in New Scientist decades ago. I assume this was possibly a layman's guide to a paper he had published on the subject!

I do think this Copenhagen interpretation idea survives because, I would (perhaps surprisingly) call it 'instinctive', at least once you've got your head around wavicles and decoherence part of it.

It's certainly much simpler to grasp 'intuitively' than all the hidden variable approaches which are mathematically very heavy, and it doesn't have the 'baggage' of huge numbers of universes being created that the many-worlds approach has.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Vertigo said:


> I'd never really come across this idea until very recently in Greg Egan's book Distress, where this is essentially put forward as the core principle that the book is built around. Not sure how convinced I am by it though!





Venusian Broon said:


> I remember reading an article by Stephen Hawking that discussed something very similar, published in New Scientist decades ago. I assume this was possibly a layman's guide to a paper he had published on the subject!
> 
> I do think this Copenhagen interpretation idea survives because, I would (perhaps surprisingly) call it 'instinctive', at least once you've got your head around wavicles and decoherence part of it.
> 
> It's certainly much simpler to grasp 'intuitively' than all the hidden variable approaches which are mathematically very heavy, and it doesn't have the 'baggage' of huge numbers of universes being created that the many-worlds approach has.



If a man talks alone in a forest, and his wife doesn't hear him, is he still wrong?

Sorry, just could not resist


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> But this is becoming circular. Baths, continents, flat earth all reached their end when science disproved them, although they may have encountered dogmatic resistance from fundamentalists.
> 
> The whole point here is that the AP IS NOT SCIENCE -- it's simply a belief and an opinion --and so the concept of other universes has to be proposed to support it. The 'multiverse' in this case being the one of separate bubble universes in an expanding 'motherverse' as previously discussed.


Again, the quantum inspired "mulitverse" is NOT a product of the AP in any way. It would exists with or without the AP, which is a completely separate idea about a completely separate problem in science. They don't really bear any similarity and there is no connection. 

The reason I mentioned flat earth is because you are trying to analyze whether string theory "makes sense", and I'm pointing out that the human brain isn't really built to make sense of even simpler physics, let alone multidimensional math that uses allusions like "strings" to offer a bone to laymen. Your sense of how right it sounds has no place in any discussion of whether it is a good theory or not.


----------



## RJM Corbet

But this thread is about macro bubble universes. Not string theory sub-atomic dimensions? I think?

In fact one of the problems is that string theory sounds intuitively good, but quantum reality is often counter-intuitive.

However I'm a layman getting out of my depth here. Really not equipped to judge string theory for or against ...


----------



## RJM Corbet

I'm not going to edit that further, although on reflection the bufurcating multiverse being referred to is obviously going to produce macro universes, or there'd be no point in bringing it up at all?

However the point I'm making is that one using science to refute the ignorant superstitions and misunderstandings of the uninformed masses, should make sure they are indeed using science?

Apologies for double posting ...

FINAL EDIT: I did not say the multiverse/many worlds theories were a 'product' of the AP. I didn't say they couldn't survive alone, I said the AP could not survive without them. There is a difference?


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> FINAL EDIT: I did not say the multiverse/many worlds theories were a 'product' of the AP. I didn't say they couldn't survive alone, I said the AP could not survive without them. There is a difference?


Considering that the underlying ideas of the AP are from Schopenhauer in the 19th century and Schrodinger's proposal of alternative histories dates to 1952, I would say that AP survived just fine without the multiverse for nearly a century.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Onyx said:


> Considering that the underlying ideas of the AP are from Schopenhauer in the 19th century and Schrodinger's proposal of alternative histories dates to 1952, I would say that AP survived just fine without the multiverse for nearly a century.



But Schopenhauer had no knowledge of the cosmological constant, the proton/electron equivalence of charge, etc. The list is long. In the absence of any other universe but 'our' own, perhaps  accepting the coincidences necessary for the AP to apply, while firmly rejecting any other possibility, is quite literally swallowing camels while choking on a gnat? Lol. 

Last I heard the LHC had still produced no evidence of Supersymmetry between fermions and bosons?


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> But Schopenhauer had no knowledge of the cosmological constant, the proton/electron equivalence of charge, etc. The list is long. In the absence of any other universe but 'our' own, perhaps  accepting the coincidences necessary for the AP to apply, while firmly rejecting any other possibility, is quite literally swallowing camels while choking on a gnat? Lol.


You have just illustrated why basic AP does not necessarily have anything to do with multiverses and is in no way dependent on them.


----------



## Amberlen

RJM Corbet said:


> If a man talks alone in a forest, and his wife doesn't hear him, is he still wrong?
> 
> Sorry, just could not resist



Yes
Roflmmao


----------



## RJM Corbet

Onyx said:


> You have just illustrated why basic AP does not necessarily have anything to do with multiverses and is in no way dependent on them.


Ok. I accept that. But the opinion of a 19th century philosopher can never be used in the name of science as a club to beat ignorant superstition with?

EDIT: Sorry, I've erased that link because I hadn't checked properly: it came from a fundamentalist anti evolution source. Sorry 

Better. Sorry. Goodnight: A bet about a cherished theory of physics may soon pay out


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> Ok. I accept that. But the opinion of a 19th century philosopher can never be used in the name of science as a club to beat ignorant superstition with?


Again, I'm not following you. You've been relating AP to the Schrodinger multiverse problem - what is suddenly the "ignorant superstition"? Weak AP is essentially against reading too much into our existence, and Strong AP can be used to make superstitious arguments. What are you talking about, because it sounds new to this conversation.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Perhaps 'weak AP' isn't saying ANYTHING? It's saying: Stop asking all those questions. BECAUSE what is, just is, and you'd better live with it, so there. 

Goodnight Onyx. I'm going offline now and doing some reading, bro ...


----------



## RJM Corbet

Here's the paper: Read Stephen Hawking's final theory on the Big Bang


----------



## Amberlen

I knew following you guys was going to be interesting, but who knew it was gonna be like a hard college course to even follow? Wow, I’ve already learned a lot just watching this thread...enjoyable debate...even if @Onyx doesn’t like me enough to say hi back on his timeline


----------



## Onyx

Amberlen said:


> I knew following you guys was going to be interesting, but who knew it was gonna be like a hard college course to even follow? Wow, I’ve already learned a lot just watching this thread...enjoyable debate...even if @Onyx doesn’t like me enough to say hi back on his timeline


Sorry, I didn't know that was a thing. Am I supposed to say hi on my timeline or yours?


----------



## Venusian Broon

Amberlen said:


> I knew following you guys was going to be interesting, but who knew it was gonna be like a hard college course to even follow? Wow, I’ve already learned a lot just watching this thread...enjoyable debate...even if @Onyx doesn’t like me enough to say hi back on his timeline



Hi @Amberlen! There's no real protocol for saying 'hi', it's all a bit random. Everyone is welcome!


----------



## Amberlen

@Onyx  *grins* no worries-you just did,no? I don’t know if it’s a thing or not


----------



## Amberlen

Venusian Broon said:


> Hi @Amberlen! There's no real protocol for saying 'hi', it's all a bit random. Everyone is welcome!


Lol- I know there’s no protocol, just my new friend @Onyx seems so serious, I felt he was in need of some teasing to crack a smile*whispers conspiratorially* I’m possibly quite wrong and therefore on His last nerve, but *winks* i just went with first feel of it


----------



## dask

This Hawking's thing, back and forth, back and forth, like a tennis match that won't end. Got a kink in my brain. If only life could be discovered somewhere other than Earth this AP stuff would make more sense. Right now my only solace is Occam's Razor: life came into being on Earth because of the universe, not the other way around.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Amberlen said:


> I knew following you guys was going to be interesting, but who knew it was gonna be like a hard college course to even follow? Wow, I’ve already learned a lot just watching this thread...enjoyable debate...



I've learned a LOT too! But hey, we haven't even started on abiogenesis yet, lol ...


----------



## Amberlen

RJM Corbet said:


> I've learned a LOT too! But hey, we haven't even started on abiogenesis yet, lol ...


Yea ok*googles abiigenesis* these discussions between you and @Onyx are going to require me to purchase notebooks


----------



## RJM Corbet

Amberlen said:


> Yea ok*googles abiigenesis* these discussions between you and @Onyx are going to require me to purchase notebooks


Well, I don't know. I have really gained a lot from this thread too, but I'm not sure most people have the appetite to push it further, Amberlen. I'm flattered to have somehow earned your following


----------



## RJM Corbet

However, lol: it's interesting that the huge edifice of modern science with all its research facilities and equipment, and with all its full knowledge of DNA, the Genome,  etc -- is still unable to create even the most basic living molecule from a non-living source -- while at the same time assuming that life will almost definitely spring up by happy accident anywhere in the universe that offers even the most basic conditions for it?

Ducks for cover ...

EDIT: Hawking defined life as anti-entropic and able to reproduce ...


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> However, lol: it's interesting that the huge edifice of modern science with all its research facilities and equipment, and with all its full knowledge of DNA, the Genome, etc -- is still unable to create even the most basic living molecule from a non-living source -- while at the same time assuming that life will almost definitely spring up by happy accident anywhere in the universe that offers even the most basic conditions for it?


Haven't they?

Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory


----------



## Vertigo

Onyx said:


> Haven't they?
> 
> Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory


His point still stands. Even knowing the chemical make up for the last half century we still find it exceedingly difficult to recreate (as opposed to simply modifying) life. Which I also feel, as @RJM Corbet  points out, casts some doubt on the optimistic belief that life will be abundant on any planet capable of supporting it. But this is not the thread for that discussion....


----------



## Onyx

Vertigo said:


> His point still stands. Even knowing the chemical make up for the last half century we still find it exceedingly difficult to recreate (as opposed to simply modifying) life. Which I also feel, as @RJM Corbet  points out, casts some doubt on the optimistic belief that life will be abundant on any planet capable of supporting it. But this is not the thread for that discussion....


Life came about by taking a planet with a surface area of 36 million square kilometers and bombarding it with lava, ash, radiation, lightning and meteorites for tens of millions of years to get a result that is lot like those monkeys we have working on the Shakespeare re-writes. No brief lab experiments can match the scope of that. You can only increase the reaction rate so much and not damage the delicate organic compounds you're trying to get to interact. 

In a few decades we went from making amino acids to ribonucleotides. How much faster would be required to count as optimistic?


----------



## Amberlen

RJM Corbet said:


> However, lol: it's interesting that the huge edifice of modern science with all its research facilities and equipment, and with all its full knowledge of DNA, the Genome,  etc -- is still unable to create even the most basic living molecule from a non-living source -- while at the same time assuming that life will almost definitely spring up by happy accident anywhere in the universe that offers even the most basic conditions for it?
> 
> Ducks for cover ...
> 
> EDIT: Hawking defined life as anti-entropic and able to reproduce ...



Why ya ducking?  Computers cars and anything else don’t assemble in their own-why then should it follow the most complex of things did? *shrugs-making no apologies for my belief*


----------



## RJM Corbet

Onyx said:


> Haven't they?
> 
> Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory


Well, the creation of RNA would be truly groundbreaking. So groundbreaking that it's occurring in 2009 in an article buried on page five, so to speak, seems suspect. If true, created from non-living chemicals, it would change everything. Creating the constituents of a chocolate pudding isnt the same as making one?
 Any substantiation?


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> Well, that would be truly groundbreaking. So groundbreaking that it's occurring in 2009 in an article buried on page five, so to speak, seems suspect. If true, created from non-living chemicals, it would change everything. Any substantiation?


The Wired article says the research was originally published in Nature.


----------



## Amberlen

RJM Corbet said:


> Well, I don't know. I have really gained a lot from this thread too, but I'm not sure most people have the appetite to push it further, Amberlen. I'm flattered to have somehow earned your following



Aren’t you the silver tongued devil
 you and @Onyx @BAYLOR are my friends here so far...
You and onyx have great discussions so idk about appetite, but I will always read them, even if I dont contribute and Baylor has given me a 6mth-year worth of book recommends
So what could be better? Sff books,great discussion,new friends and I even get to tease now and again


----------



## RJM Corbet

Onyx said:


> The Wired article says the research was originally published in Nature.



Yes. I've edited my post. It's an irritating habit. I assumed the article referred to the actual creation of RNA, not just some molecules which are part of RNA? It sounds too glib? I'm sorry, I'm really going to be out of my depth here. Biology isn't a subject I have any real knowledge of. I think @Vertigo is probably right, this isn't the right thread? You could create one? But my input would not be very useful, I'm afraid.


----------



## Venusian Broon

RJM Corbet said:


> However, lol: it's interesting that the huge edifice of modern science with all its research facilities and equipment, and with all its full knowledge of DNA, the Genome,  etc -- is still unable to create even the most basic living molecule from a non-living source -- while at the same time assuming that life will almost definitely spring up by happy accident anywhere in the universe that offers even the most basic conditions for it?
> 
> Ducks for cover ...
> 
> EDIT: Hawking defined life as anti-entropic and able to reproduce ...



I feel you are arguing a strawman here. Firstly, we don't have a full knowledge of genetics and cellular processes, that's on-going research. Secondly, we don't really know what the conditions were like on Earth when life first appeared which is important for trying to work out what happened. And thirdly, I'm not sure that 'science' assumes that life will almost definitely spring up by happy accident etc...

I think if we find fossilised bacteria on Mars or actual life on Europa then perhaps we can be a bit more optimistic on life's chances throughout the universe. Let's get some samples and evidence first, yeah?

Also, it's an interesting & fascinating problem but really most of the research labs and equipment are working on other things that have more tangible results on our lives! 

Personally I find it suggestive that we continually push back the likely origin of life on Earth further and further back, till we are actually close to the point (okay, about a couple hundred million years after formation, but that's pretty early given the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old or so) that the Earth-moon system formed. So _I_ sincerely believe that bacterial life forms pretty much as soon as it can in the universe, when the conditions are right. But that is purely my belief. I would like to see some evidence to back this up!


----------



## RJM Corbet

Seems they did actually create RNA, not just it's ingredients. Still a long way though from creating a living, anti- entropic, self reproducing ... thing?


----------



## RJM Corbet

Venusian Broon said:


> I feel you are arguing a strawman here. Firstly, we don't have a full knowledge of genetics and cellular processes, that's on-going research. Secondly, we don't really know what the conditions were like on Earth when life first appeared which is important for trying to work out what happened. And thirdly, I'm not sure that 'science' assumes that life will almost definitely spring up by happy accident etc...
> 
> I think if we find fossilised bacteria on Mars or actual life on Europa then perhaps we can be a bit more optimistic on life's chances throughout the universe. Let's get some samples and evidence first, yeah?
> 
> Also, it's an interesting & fascinating problem but really most of the research labs and equipment are working on other things that have more tangible results on our lives!
> 
> Personally I find it suggestive that we continually push back the likely origin of life on Earth further and further back, till we are actually close to the point (okay, about a couple hundred million years after formation, but that's pretty early given the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old or so) that the Earth-moon system formed. So _I_ sincerely believe that bacterial life forms pretty much as soon as it can in the universe, when the conditions are right. But that is purely my belief. I would like to see some evidence to back this up!


But VB isn't the whole peaceful science of space exploration about finding life elsewhere? Surely the same interest should be going into reproducing it in the laboratory? We can make anything else. My phone, laboratory diamonds, medical drugs etc, no problem. Why the excuses? 

I really am ignorant and would prefer to step-out of trying to debate this with my huge ignorance.


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> But VB isn't the whole peaceful science of space exploration about finding life elsewhere? Surely the same interest should be going into reproducing it in the laboratory? We can make anything else. My phone, laboratory diamonds, medical drugs etc, no problem. Why the excuses?
> 
> I really am ignorant and would prefer to step-out of trying to debate this with my huge ignorance.


Looking for alien life tantalizes the public, but there are all sorts of reasons to explore space. Finding life out there might be interesting, but it is also a hazard and potential barrier to exploration and exploitation.


----------



## BAYLOR

Onyx said:


> Looking for alien life tantalizes the public, but there are all sorts of reasons to explore space. Finding life out there might be interesting, but it is also a hazard and potential barrier to exploration and exploitation.



Even if we found  a planet capable of supporting life, It's  possible that we may  never be able set foot on it . Why? This is speculation on my part but, I think that the bacteria and viruses in our bodies could prove to be harmful to the biosphere of the planet . And bacteraia and viruses  from that planet  could pose an equal danger to us and life on earth.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions. - PubMed - NCBI

I can't attach the actual PDF but there's the paper for anyone who can decipher it. (Well, apparently not. Sorry. But if you google around you'll find it.)

In honesty, it may be a degree of evidence for the process of abiogenesis.

But that's it. I'm out of this one, chaps, lol ...


----------



## Onyx

BAYLOR said:


> Even if we found  a planet capable of supporting life, It's  possible that we may  never be able set foot on it . Why? This is speculation on my part but, I think that the bacteria and viruses in our bodies could prove to be harmful to the biosphere of the planet . And bacteraia and viruses  from that planet  could pose an equal danger to us and life on earth.


We could wear those space suit things.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Of course I'm still reading it, lol


----------



## BAYLOR

Onyx said:


> We could wear those space suit things.



The explorers would never vibe able to remove those suites .


----------



## Onyx

BAYLOR said:


> The explorers would never vibe able to remove those suites .


Not even after they went through a sterilization and airlock?

There isn't a lot of difference between isolating biological hazards and exploring a planet with no viable atmosphere.

Given that free oxygen appears to be the result of biological processes like photosynthesis, it is super unlikely that space explorers will ever find a planet with a breathable atmosphere that doesn't have life on it. So airlocks and spacesuits are going to be de rigueur for the foreseeable future on any wild planet. If there is a breathable atmosphere, we'll need to worry about alien germs as much as infecting the aliens. Otherwise, it will be an atmosphere we created.


----------



## Amberlen

Do you guys even consider maybe there is another planet we can exist on-without spacesuits or airlocks? I’m curious to know if you do or is all alien bacteria and harmful gas?


----------



## Onyx

Amberlen said:


> Do you guys even consider maybe there is another planet we can exist on-without spacesuits or airlocks? I’m curious to know if you do or is all alien bacteria and harmful gas?


Like I said, it would be really miraculous to have free oxygen in the atmosphere without some sort of life process to separate it from ammonia, CO2 or water as it is normally found in the wild. You could have a planet that has a non-breathable atmosphere that is the right pressure and temp for use with SCUBA gear, but that would still be odd without life to regulate the temp out of the greenhouse or ice age zones.

It is more likely that there'd be a place full of life that is fundamentally different in organization that earth life just doesn't interact with it, like our biologics are plastic to each other.

That's off the top of my head. I'm interested in hearing something different.


----------



## RJM Corbet

RJM Corbet said:


> Seems they did actually create RNA, not just it's ingredients. Still a long way though from creating a living, anti- entropic, self reproducing ... thing?


But no they didn't create RNA did they? They managed to create a couple of its constituent 'ribonucleotides" or something? So in fact they finally managed, after many years and much effort, to make one or two buttons and the press gave us the emperor's new clothes? So I wasn't being such a fool after all.

I feel much better now


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> But no they didn't create RNA did they? They managed to create a couple of its constituent 'ribonucleotides" or something? So in fact they finally managed, after many years and much effort, to make one or two buttons and the press gave us the emperor's new clothes? So I wasn't being such a fool after all.
> 
> I feel much better now


I guess it depends on what you meant by "basic living molecule".


----------



## RJM Corbet

Onyx said:


> I guess it depends on what you meant by "basic living molecule".


Viable, non- entropic. We'll drop self reproducing for now, if you like. Also there's no need to limit it to trying to reproduce possible early conditions: how about reproducing life under ANY conditions?

Aw, c'mon: ribonucleotides are NOT living molecules under any definition. And that's obvious even to someone as uneducated in biological sciences as I am. The more anyone tries to justify this as creating 'life' the more desperate they sound, imo.

EDIT: Hawking left 'viable' off his definition, in order to admit viruses. And went on to propose computer viruses as artificially created life. Desperate ...


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> Viable, non- entropic. We'll drop self reproducing for now, if you like. Also there's no need to limit it to trying to reproduce possible early conditions: how about reproducing life under ANY conditions?
> 
> Aw, c'mon: ribonucleotides are NOT living molecules under any definition. And that's obvious even to someone as uneducated in biological sciences as I am. The more anyone tries to justify this as creating 'life' the more desperate they sound, imo.
> 
> EDIT: Hawking left 'viable' off his definition, in order to admit viruses. And went on to propose computer viruses as artificially created life. Desperate ...


No molecules are "living", so I'm not sure what you're talking about.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Onyx said:


> No molecules are "living", so I'm not sure what you're talking about.


Well then, I must mean a combination of molecules that become a viable etc, entity? Ok?


----------



## Amberlen

I suppose I just wonder why it is out of bounds to think there is a similar to earth type of planet with similar life....not exact of course,but you know some sort of vegetation, animals? Other humans? Idk....this sort Of discussion based on actual science is out of my foray, but I don't like to think it is an impossibility.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Amberlen said:


> I suppose I just wonder why it is out of bounds to think there is a similar to earth type of planet with similar life....not exact of course,but you know some sort of vegetation, animals? Other humans? Idk....this sort Of discussion based on actual science is out of my foray, but I don't like to think it is an impossibility.


Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Should cover the issue, lol


----------



## RJM Corbet

Amazingly the brightest scientific minds on Earth explain all this away by citing the 'weak AP' = "Well, that's just the way things are. So what?" 

Really. Really, they do ...


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> Amazingly the brightest scientific minds on Earth explain all this away by citing the 'weak AP' = "Well, that's just the way things are. So what?"
> 
> Really. Really, they do ...


Could you explain what you mean by that? 




RJM Corbet said:


> Well then, I must mean a combination of molecules that become a viable etc, entity? Ok?


No combination of molecules "become viable". Put any life form through a sieve and you'll have all the molecules of life, but they won't self organize into life.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Onyx said:


> Could you explain what you mean by that?
> 
> 
> 
> No combination of molecules "become viable". Put any life form through a sieve and you'll have all the molecules of life, but they won't self organize into life.



I rest my case.

Life is what animates the form.


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> I rest my case.


I'm sorry, that simply doesn't make any sense. You coined the term "life molecules" as if you believe they exist. You can't make a case that science has failed because it didn't provide something you _now_ say is made up.

The overall theme of your posts in this thread is that you think science or scientists have somehow been duplicitous. But as the discussion goes along you appear to change your mind about the specifics while sticking to the theme of the failings of science. I apologize if this seems overly critical, but shouldn't you be more familiar with the material you'd like to critique before you pass judgement on its failings?


----------



## RJM Corbet

No I'm saying some parts of science are arrogant. Science has not created or come close to creating life. Its a wonderful and mysterious thing. Some parts of science may have lost all sense of wonder -- and yes, reverence -- at the real complexity and beauty of this one universe we can be sure of.

We've worked the AP discussion to death and must agree to disagree on the validity of the weak AP as an explanation for anything. And I've said I'm not knowledgeable about biology, so I'm not going to get into a detailed discussion of molecules and nucleotides and genes etc, because I don't know enough. I will read and learn from what anyone says.


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> No I'm saying some parts of science are arrogant. Science has not created or come close to creating life. Its a wonderful and mysterious thing. Some parts of science may have lost all sense of wonder -- and yes, reverence -- at the real complexity and beauty of this one universe we can be sure of.


Respectfully, you should become more familiar with the tenants of science before you imbue an academic methodology with anthropomorphic characteristics like arrogance.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Onyx said:


> Respectfully, you should become more familiar with the tenants of science before you imbue an academic methodology with anthropomorphic characteristics like arrogance.


I am not imbuing academic methodology with anthropomorphic anything. I'm saying that methodology for all its true grandeur and brilliance  -- for which I have the most enormous respect -- still has 96% of this universe to account for under labels dark matter and dark energy and still has no explanation for fine-tunings except for the pathetic weak AP (and now a new desperate theory of 'naturalness' which is in effect saying: Well, we can't explain it yet, but one day we will be able to).

And most of all, some people of that academic methodology while trumpeting their intellectual superiority over other mere mortals, while taking life, the universe  and everything apart to find out how it works -- and wonderful work they are truly accomplishing -- cant' put it back together.

Some seem to have lost all sense of humility before the universe to the extent of perhaps even assuming one day to be able to control it.

I am a layman. I can't be expected to have to do quadratic equations or whatever to look for deeper explanations for life, the universe and everything. Newton, Einstein, even Feynman, were essentially humble beings, working to unravel the secrets of a 'greater power' imo. I don't see that around much nowadays.

I really want to leave it there ...


----------



## Brian G Turner

And... time to get back to multiverse theory. 

Here's Wikipedia's coverage of it: Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia

My introduction was through reading David Deutsch, who remains a vocal proponent of it. While he's done a lot of ground-breaking work with quantum technology, he's now trying to re-imagine the laws of physics in terms of changing states of information - something he calls "Constructor Theory":


----------



## RJM Corbet

Brian G Turner said:


> And... time to get back to multiverse theory.
> 
> Here's Wikipedia's coverage of it: Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia
> 
> My introduction was through reading David Deutsch, who remains a vocal proponent of it. While he's done a lot of ground-breaking work with quantum technology, he's now trying to re-imagine the laws of physics in terms of changing states of information - something he calls "Constructor Theory":


I look forward to watching that -- once I'm in a wi-fi zone, because you tube devours my G4 data allowance, lol


----------



## Onyx

Brian G Turner said:


> My introduction was through reading David Deutsch, who remains a vocal proponent of it. While he's done a lot of ground-breaking work with quantum technology, he's now trying to re-imagine the laws of physics in terms of changing states of information - something he calls "Constructor Theory":



The video doesn't really say what it is, but more why it should be. This article is a little more specific:
Constructor theory - Wikipedia

Interestingly, one theory I've read about the dark matter problem also says that it is only a requirement if physics has to work in either direction of time. If you take away this requirement, then the extra gravitation of non-baryonic becomes unnecessary to model galactic rotation and the expansion rates of the universe.

I can see how a quantum computer's ability to test and discard all "impossible" or incorrect solutions would apply to a constructor problem. But it gets confusing when they relate it back to systems that are so complex that just programming the computer model would take millions of years. Using it for orbital mechanics makes more sense.


----------



## Amberlen

@RJM Corbet so, i read your link on fine tuning....i am not sure whether i agree on the premise or not, but i dont suppose i have to decide either way, as my end understanding was that it is all theory.unproven to date. I am possibly odd girl out here in that i DO believe that there was and is an "intelligent design" to the universe..in effect, a Creator, who i call God- but at the same time, that doesnt mean i believe in Genesis verbatim, nor do i think that automatically means i can't believe there are other lifeforms, inhabitable planets, planes, dimensions,"multiverses (nods @Onyx ) or what have you. Our creation in my mind, doesnt necessarily translate that there was nothing before, or since.*shrug* maybe that will be perceived as naive, idk, i just also like to think i dont know, what i dont know.


----------



## Brian G Turner

Onyx said:


> Interestingly, one theory I've read about the dark matter problem also says that it is only a requirement if physics has to work in either direction of time. If you take away this requirement, then the extra gravitation of non-baryonic becomes unnecessary to model galactic rotation and the expansion rates of the universe.



That sounds very interesting - the whole concept of Dark Matter bugs the heck out of me. It's like we're back to the Victorian concept of The Ether again.

Btw, just a general reminder that we don't discussion religion or spiritual beliefs here - too likely to invite an argument.


----------



## Amberlen

i got you @Brian G Turner ....not discussing, just stating where i was at, or coming from


----------



## Onyx

Brian G Turner said:


> That sounds very interesting - the whole concept of Dark Matter bugs the heck out of me. It's like we're back to the Victorian concept of The Ether again.
> 
> Btw, just a general reminder that we don't discussion religion or spiritual beliefs here - too likely to invite an argument.


I think it is this gentleman:
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/case-dark-matter/


I think it is impossible to separate any Strong AP discussion from "religion", so I hope the guide can be the avoidance of scripture based argument for particular "theories". I like what Amberlen articulated by saying one can adhere to a particular "theory" without presuming that the story could be more complex or unbounded than the information offered.


----------



## BAYLOR

No one has come up with a Theory of Everything  an Likely never will, at least in lifetimes.


----------



## Onyx

BAYLOR said:


> No one has come up with a Theory of Everything  an Likely never will, at least in lifetimes.


What have you read that led you to that conclusion?


----------



## Amberlen

Onyx said:


> I think it is this gentleman:
> The Man Who's Trying to Kill Dark Matter
> 
> 
> I think it is impossible to separate any Strong AP discussion from "religion", so I hope the guide can be the avoidance of scripture based argument for particular "theories". I like what Amberlen articulated by saying one can adhere to a particular "theory" without presuming that the story could be more complex or unbounded than the information offered.


 *blushes at the compliment* thanks. i mean, at the end of the day, dont we need to know where everyone is starting from to form a better understanding? i think so....


----------



## BAYLOR

Onyx said:


> What have you read that led you to that conclusion?



They haven't  found way bring together strong force which  is Gravitation and  weak force within is Electromagnetism .


----------



## Onyx

BAYLOR said:


> They haven't  found way bring together strong force which  is Gravitation and  weak force within is Electromagnetism .


They haven't. I was wondering why you believe that they never will. Is there some speculation among physicists that it is impossible?


----------



## BAYLOR

Onyx said:


> They haven't. I was wondering why you believe that they never will. Is there some speculation among physicists that it is impossible?



With all computing power we have at our command , one would have thought we would cracked it by now  or we would be close to doing so.


----------



## Onyx

BAYLOR said:


> With all computing power we have at our command , one would have thought we would cracked it by now  or we would be close to doing so.


It appears that we are still taking cosmological measurements and running particle experiments. Maybe we haven't gathered all the data, yet?


----------



## BAYLOR

Onyx said:


> It appears that we are still taking cosmological measurements and running particle experiments. Maybe we haven't gathered all the data, yet?



Our confinement to one planet and solar  system limits us a bit.  If we could go to a neighboring  star system or two , maybe. get near a neutron star without  getting torn to pieces and collect some date. ,explore  a nebula .  Try to test fo Dark matter in space .  I think it would be helpful in our quest  if we could see some of these things up close. That is, assuming our civilization lives long enough to do that. But , even if do get to explore and do all those things , we still may not find the great theory everything because we may find that the universe and its underpinnings are whole bigger then we can ever grasp.


----------



## Brian G Turner

BAYLOR said:


> With all computing power we have at our command , one would have thought we would cracked it by now  or we would be close to doing so.



We aren't anywhere near as advanced as we might like to think we are. 

Besides, there's a clear warning from the recent past - at the end of the 19th century, it was widely known that science had explained everything we could possibly need to know about the universe. There were just two pesky - but very minor - issues still unresolved, one relating to violet light, and the other to black body radiation.

Both were solved by some young patent clerk who popped along with a paper about photons as quanta. That effectively opened the new field of quantum mechanics, for which the clerk was awarded the Nobel Prize - before he went on to rewrite the laws of gravity under the name of "special relativity". 

Uncertainly is a good thing - science is all about facing mystery - and it's clear we have yet to peel back a very fundamental layer of understanding about how the the universe works. Maybe Deutsch is onto something after all.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Amberlen said:


> @RJM Corbet so, i read your link on fine tuning....i am not sure whether i agree on the premise or not, but i dont suppose i have to decide either way, as my end understanding was that it is all theory.unproven to date. I am possibly odd girl out here in that i DO believe that there was and is an "intelligent design" to the universe..in effect, a Creator, who i call God- but at the same time, that doesnt mean i believe in Genesis verbatim, nor do i think that automatically means i can't believe there are other lifeforms, inhabitable planets, planes, dimensions,"multiverses (nods @Onyx ) or what have you. Our creation in my mind, doesnt necessarily translate that there was nothing before, or since.*shrug* maybe that will be perceived as naive, idk, i just also like to think i dont know, what i dont know.


No, I'm on your side. Take the car apart and surmise all you like: the (philosophical) problem isn't with progression, but with origination. How did the Big Bang originate? How did life originate? We don't have plausible answers to these questions and so should not evade them by essentially saying: Don't ask?


----------



## Amberlen

Those are the big questions,no? Lol
Although it may be we never have the answer while in this conscience state. Me personally, I like to believe if there is other life somewhere besides earth, it’s better than an algae or amoeba- I hope for it to be something cool and sentient-maybe even a good looking hawty


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> No, I'm on your side. Take the car apart and surmise all you like: the (philosophical) problem isn't with progression, but with origination. How did the Big Bang originate? How did life originate? We don't have plausible answers to these questions, and so should not evade them by essentially saying: Don't ask?


No one is saying "don't ask". Weak AP is saying "before you ask, are you sure you question doesn't contain a perceptual bias?"

"What force hauls the sun across the sky?" is a reasonably articulated scientific question. Unfortunately, it becomes very difficult to test because it contains an assumption about what we observe, and that assumption poisons both the question and the useful conclusions.

"Why is the universe so great for supporting life?" Several huge assumptions in this - the first is that life is a process of particular importance or interest from a universal viewpoint, and the second is that life is well supported. But in the first case life seems to be so ineffectual that everywhere we look we see neither life nor its artifacts. On a cosmological scale, the incidence of life appears to have as much effect on the mass and energy of the universe as a stray calcium ion has in your brain.

In the second case, is a universe that is largely vacuum and entropy evidence of conditions that are supportive of life? Would a truly pro-life universe resemble the Antarctic we find ourselves in, or would it be like a jungle, so dense with self organizing life that you could "walk" to the next star on the backs of other organisms?

We have a single point of reference. We know of no life outside a single lineage of DNA based life on (possibly) two planets in one solar system in one galaxy. Like the Drake equation, we don't have anything to attach real probabilities to these questions. And just as Drake's equation has its answering Fermi's Paradox, our fundamental wonder at our good fortune has the AP to bring some reason back to our perceptions.


I'm a fan of life, but I am also acutely aware of how dumb, slow, distractable and mortal I am. I don't feel like a success story as much as a privileged cockroach that found a lifetime supply of spoiled food to munch on as I ponder my existence. It is quite possible that the existence of 7 billion super-monkeys is relatively unimportant in universal terms, which I accept as unimportant to my daily happiness.


----------



## Amberlen

i feel like before this discussion ends, we may find the answer to what came first? the chicken or the egg?


----------



## RJM Corbet

Never mind assumptions, perhaps someone has answers, lol?


----------



## RJM Corbet

Onyx said:


> ...
> 
> I'm a fan of life, but I am also acutely aware of how dumb, slow, distractable and mortal I am...


Compared to what?


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> Compared to what?


Compared to what I can imagine. I have been rather clever at times, but don't operate that way constantly. I dream of flying, but none of my ancestors ever had wings. I desire to live for millennia, but I know getting past a century is a push. There is evidence all around the natural world that we could be better, faster, stronger, smarter, healthier, longer lived and more empathetic, so it isn't hard to scale that up to imagining what a real super being would be like.

In this thread we've discussed a variety of fundamental physics theories, and I'll bet not a single one of us is intelligent enough to follow the underlying math to its logical conclusions - the number of people capable of that are incredibly rare. But I can certainly imagine a world populated with Feinmans and Fermis.


----------



## Amberlen

RJM Corbet said:


> No, I'm on your side. Take the car apart and surmise all you like: the (philosophical) problem isn't with progression, but with origination. How did the Big Bang originate? How did life originate? We don't have plausible answers to these questions and so should not evade them by essentially saying: Don't ask?


i dont think anyone is saying "dont ask" i think people just tend to want the question asked that "they" want asked. plus, tbh, obvious elements of the debate (from my perspective at least) are out of bounds, which effectively negates a whole aspect that i find credible. but whatever, im not sweating it. i think people should be more open and friendly too, but that doesnt work out often either.lol, at the end of the day, its just what should be a respectful debate.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Amberlen said:


> i dont think anyone is saying "dont ask" i think people just tend to want the question asked that "they" want asked. plus, tbh, obvious elements of the debate (from my perspective at least) are out of bounds, which effectively negates a whole aspect that i find credible. but whatever, im not sweating it. i think people should be more open and friendly too, but that doesnt work out often either.lol, at the end of the day, its just what should be a respectful debate.


No, not don't ask, but don't ever even dare consider a 'higher power' than human intelligence, perhaps? No thought may ever swing that way (in the world of science) and every amazing  contortion will be accepted to resist the possibility? Gotta leave it there, lol, and go take a walk in the bluebell woods ...


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> No, not don't ask, but don't ever even dare consider a 'higher power' than human intelligence, perhaps? No discussion may ever swing that way, and every amazing  contortion will be accepted to resist the possibility? Gotta leave it there, lol ...


Every discussion of Strong AP, like Elon Musk's obsession with the universe as a simulation, is the consideration of a "higher power".

The problem with such discussions is that they are intrinsically non-rational because they rely on information that is necessarily not possible to discover independently. But all of science is something that can be recreated at any time in complete isolation if the right questions are asked - no one has to import the "answers" from a source that is necessarily from outside our plane of existence. So there is a basic incompatibility between science and any explanation that cannot be derived from scratch. If it could be observed that some fundamental religious tenants arise spontaneously in isolated populations, that would make discussions of faith have some interaction with science, but as it stands none of the messages to humanity from external sources have ever occurred in such a manner. There is no New World Buddha or Mohammad that transmitted their Strong AP information sets to those portions of humanity in the egalitarian manner that underlies most evangelizing belief systems. That doesn't mean Islam is right or wrong, but it does mean that the faith behaves like a social meme rather than as a discrete bit of information fundamentally woven into the structure of the cosmos, ready to be revealed to anyone who asks the right questions, like Planck's constant.

Lot's of questions and answers are not scientific, and that's fine. No one needs to provide the science behind my love for my wife or the film's of Whit Stilman.


----------



## BAYLOR

Onyx said:


> Every discussion of Strong AP, like Elon Musk's obsession with the universe as a simulation, is the consideration of a "higher power".
> 
> The problem with such discussions is that they are intrinsically non-rational because they rely on information that is necessarily not possible to discover independently. But all of science is something that can be recreated at any time in complete isolation if the right questions are asked - no one has to import the "answers" from a source that is necessarily from outside our plane of existence. So there is a basic incompatibility between science and any explanation that cannot be derived from scratch. If it could be observed that some fundamental religious tenants arise spontaneously in isolated populations, that would make discussions of faith have some interaction with science, but as it stands none of the messages to humanity from external sources have ever occurred in such a manner. There is no New World Buddha or Mohammad that transmitted their Strong AP information sets to those portions of humanity in the egalitarian manner that underlies most evangelizing belief systems. That doesn't mean Islam is right or wrong, but it does mean that the faith behaves like a social meme rather than as a discrete bit of information fundamentally woven into the structure of the cosmos, ready to be revealed to anyone who asks the right questions, like Planck's constant.
> 
> Lot's of questions and answers are not scientific, and that's fine. No one needs to provide the science behind my love for my wife or the film's of Whit Stilman.



There are more things in Heaven and Earth , Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophies "

*William Shakespeare *


----------



## BAYLOR

Amberlen said:


> i feel like before this discussion ends, we may find the answer to what came first? the chicken or the egg?



Or without Time , how could the Big Bang  have ever happened ?


----------



## RJM Corbet

I quite understand that, the need for absolute objectivity, and the blind adherence to religious texts and dogmas: but Onyx -- perhaps there REALLY IS a higher power? Perhaps it's not just wishful thinking/imaginary friend/opium of the people, etc. It makes at least as much sense as a monkey with a pencil?  That's all ...


----------



## RJM Corbet

BAYLOR said:


> Or without Time , how could the Big Bang  have ever happened ?


Time started at the BB-- time, space, energy, everything ...


----------



## BAYLOR

[Q


RJM Corbet said:


> Time started at the BB-- time, space, energy, everything ...



Without time, how do you have events?


----------



## RJM Corbet

BAYLOR said:


> [Q
> 
> 
> Without time, how do you have events?


Time for bed. Nite nite


----------



## Onyx

RJM Corbet said:


> I quite understand that, the need for absolute objectivity, and the blind adherence to religious texts and dogmas: but Onyx -- *perhaps* there REALLY IS a higher power?


No reasonable scientist would argue otherwise.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Onyx said:


> No reasonable scientist would argue otherwise.


Thank you! That's all I needed to hear!


----------



## dask

RJM Corbet said:


> Time started at the BB-- time, space, energy, everything ...


Since matter cannot be created or destroyed the little nugget that was the big bang was always here, wasn't it. Since everything that is everything was in that nugget, there would've been time also, wouldn't there?


----------



## RJM Corbet

dask said:


> Since matter cannot be created or destroyed the little nugget that was the big bang was always here, wasn't it. Since everything that is everything was in that nugget, there would've been time also, wouldn't there?


I don't know. It wasn't a nugget of anything. It was the moment that time and everything else came into existence, from nothing. There was matter and anti-matter. In fact I believe it's energy that can't be destroyed, not matter? It wasn't like a little pea floating in space waiting to explode. There was no space or time?

EDIT: Sorry, before I'm corrected: matter wasn't created ar the BB. It was when the forces and sub-atomic particles came into being, that later cooled and started to form pockets of hydrogen, after the antii particles had been destroyed, etc ...


----------



## dask

I read somewhere it was a very small and very dense particle that blew at the big bang. I thought matter and energy were equivalents of each other in some way. Aren't sub-atomic particles matter?


----------



## RJM Corbet

dask said:


> I read somewhere it was a very small and very dense particle that blew at the big bang. I thought matter and energy were equivalents of each other in some way. Aren't sub-atomic particles matter?


I don't think so, dask. Only when they combine to form atoms?


----------



## Onyx

Energy = Mass x Speed of Light squared.


----------



## dask

RJM Corbet said:


> I don't think so, dask. Only when they combine to form atoms?


Okay, thank you. Still, I remember something about the photon, a sub-atomic particle, bending as it passes a gravitational field. Doesn't that make it mass or matter? (Probably not but still have to ask.)


----------



## Foxbat

Objects that take up space and have mass are called matter. Mass is the meaurement of the resistance to acceleration (a change in the state of motion). The particle/wave conundrum probably makes it uncertain (nod to Heisenberg) whether a sub atomic particle is actual matter or not.
Just my opinion


----------



## RJM Corbet

dask said:


> Okay, thank you. Still, I remember something about the photon, a sub-atomic particle, bending as it passes a gravitational field. Doesn't that make it mass or matter? (Probably not but still have to ask.)


No, a photon definitely isn't matter, because it has no mass. An electron has mass (very little) but is a 'point like' particle -- impossible to actually visualise, I think? An atomic explosion converts matter into energy? I'm really not that sure ...


----------



## RJM Corbet

Foxbat said:


> Objects that take up space and have mass are called matter. Mass is the meaurement of the resistance to acceleration (a change in the state of motion). The particle/wave conundrum probably makes it uncertain (nod to Heisenberg) whether a sub atomic particle is actual matter or not.
> Just my opinion



Yes, you're correct:
What Is the Definition of Matter?


----------



## RJM Corbet

Onyx said:


> I think it is this gentleman:
> The Man Who's Trying to Kill Dark Matter


I enjoyed the article. It's a very clear explanation for lay people. It all sounds good -- cutting edge theoretical research -- but of course someone outside the mathematical mechanics can't really judge. Thank you for posting it, and apologise for just having got to reading it.

Essentially the apparent evidence of dark matter is really the attempt by dark energy to re-enter space occupied by visible matter?


----------



## dask

dask said:


> Since matter cannot be created or destroyed the little nugget that was the big bang was always here, wasn't it. Since everything that is everything was in that nugget, there would've been time also, wouldn't there?





RJM Corbet said:


> I don't know. It wasn't a nugget of anything.





dask said:


> I read somewhere it was a very small and very dense particle that blew at the big bang.



"If the universe has been expanding constantly, it is logical to suppose that it was smaller in the past than it is now, and that at some time in the distant past it began as a dense core of matter." Isaac Asimov, *An Intelligent Man's Guide To The Physical Sciences*.



dask said:


> I thought matter and energy were equivalents of each other in some way.





RJM Corbet said:


> An atomic explosion converts matter into energy? I'm really not that sure ...



"Einstein's mathematical treatment of energy shows that mass could be a form of energy - a very concentrated form, for a very small quantity of mass would be converted into an immense quantity of energy. Einstein's equation relating mass and energy is now one of the most famous equations in the world." (See post #153 above.) Isaac Asimov, *An Intelligent Man's Guide To The Physical Sciences*.

This is in no way an attempt to win an argument or parade falsehood as truth. I'm just trying to document the reasons I say some of the things I do. For those now focusing their crosshairs, don't forget to slip on your bib. Should give me the time I need to duck behind that big rock.


----------



## RJM Corbet

dask said:


> "If the universe has been expanding constantly, it is logical to suppose that it was smaller in the past than it is now, and that at some time in the distant past it began as a dense core of matter." Isaac Asimov, *An Intelligent Man's Guide To The Physical Sciences*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Einstein's mathematical treatment of energy shows that mass could be a form of energy - a very concentrated form, for a very small quantity of mass would be converted into an immense quantity of energy. Einstein's equation relating mass and energy is now one of the most famous equations in the world." (See post #153 above.) Isaac Asimov, *An Intelligent Man's Guide To The Physical Sciences*.
> 
> This is in no way an attempt to win an argument or parade falsehood as truth. I'm just trying to document the reasons I say some of the things I do. For those now focusing their crosshairs, don't forget to slip on your bib. Should give me the time I need to duck behind that big rock.


It appears that 'point particles' like quarks and electrons cannot be destroyed. But when an atom is split, the break-up releases pure energy in the form of light and gamma rays and x-rays, etc? Heat is a form of pure energy? I'm not at all clear.


----------



## Onyx

dask said:


> "If the universe has been expanding constantly, it is logical to suppose that it was smaller in the past than it is now, and that at some time in the distant past it began as a dense core of matter." Isaac Asimov, *An Intelligent Man's Guide To The Physical Sciences*.
> 
> 
> "Einstein's mathematical treatment of energy shows that mass could be a form of energy - a very concentrated form, for a very small quantity of mass would be converted into an immense quantity of energy. Einstein's equation relating mass and energy is now one of the most famous equations in the world." (See post #153 above.) Isaac Asimov, *An Intelligent Man's Guide To The Physical Sciences*.
> 
> This is in no way an attempt to win an argument or parade falsehood as truth. I'm just trying to document the reasons I say some of the things I do. For those now focusing their crosshairs, don't forget to slip on your bib. Should give me the time I need to duck behind that big rock.



I don't think you're off base. It is relatively straight forward - energy can be directly converted to mass and vice versa. What is maybe the wrinkle is that there is no "pure energy" - if it hasn't coalesced into mass, it is a specific no-mass form like a photon. So it might be easier to think about energy existing as various forms of particles, and only some of those particles concentrating energy to bind it up as "mass" (whatever that is).


----------



## RJM Corbet

Thanks, good explanation.

Wild stuff:

Most Particles Decay — Yet Some Don’t!



dask said:


> "If the universe has been expanding constantly, it is logical to suppose that it was smaller in the past than it is now, and that at some time in the distant past it began as a dense core of matter." Isaac Asimov, *An Intelligent Man's Guide To The Physical Sciences*.


It was an INFINITELY small, infinitely dense 'something/nothing' where apparently physics breaks down?


----------

