Does evidence imply the cosmos was intentionally programmed for conscious beings?

Does evidence imply the cosmos was intentionally programmed for conscious beings?

  • Total voters
    18
Aqueous Id said:
I vote to ban Nightshift.
Click to expand...

For what? Pointing out that there is a real field of investigation asking the question whether our universe has been designed, such as a computer program. You want to ban me because you have no understanding of the subject and you have been exposed for it.
 
exchemist said:
Well put. The fine tuning argument ignores the fact that the cosmos must have SOME combination of values for the "tuned" attributes and, if they had been different, something other than us would be here instead of us.

The argument has always annoyed me, as it seems just a more sophisticated way of restating the position I have always found so arrogant...
Click to expand...

I think the arrogance has come from your part due to a lack of understanding of why we consider these values especially important. They play fundamental roles in how our fields interact, the evolution of the universe when it was just young to a balance of symmetries in nature which no mathematician can ignore.

One such example, when the universe came into existence, it must have had it's own probability field $$\psi$$. There could be an infinite amount of different types of universes, physicists began to ask the question, who was around at the BB to observe it and collapse it's wave function? Of course, no biological entity was around and so the question of probability began to be asked, how probable was it that this universe came into existence? In a multiverse you may answer this question by saying the creation of universes are not that important. But what if parallel universes don't exist? Why then these specific set's of principles and laws? We find out that some of these laws are pivotal to having ''stable universes.'' If we are a fluke of nature, then the probability field question asks, ''if the wave function means the universe could have arose in any other state, why did it settle in this one out of an infinite other possibilities?'' Rest assured, some universes could have collapsed before they even reached an inflation stage. Some might reach the inflation stage but the inflation stage never ends. The fine structure constant might have also been slightly different, the result would have been an instability in the fields of the early universe.

These are some of the things you need to keep in mind, before you say it is arrogant.
 
Nightshift said:
Physicist Paul Davies would disagree with you.
Click to expand...


So? Paul Davies is not a "consensus". He is involved in astrobiology, a small subgroup of the astronomical community. The quote you offered is nothing more than Davies' personal interpretation of the findings of the physicists and cosmologists and what those findings mean to HIM. Not their interpretation of their findings.

The anthropic principle is not a consensus viewpoint. It is a minority viewpoint. It's not even discussed much among astrophysicists or cosmologists. It's considered to be unphysical to the consensus. Only a few even mention it and usually when speaking to the popular media.
 
quantum_wave said:
You seem exasperated with people who separate science and religion. It isn't a lack of knowledge about the several "fine tuned" arguments. If there were no indications of order in the chaos, then we wouldn't be around to agree or complain, so some order is a given. The Supernatural intention of any finely tuned natural laws though is excluded from science, so it follows that such discussion would be more appropriate in the Religion forum.
Click to expand...

You can turn a discussion of natural order into that of chaos? Why not a science topic into a religion. The two comparisons are nearly identical. Yet what makes it 'science' is really the fact we can study both religious behavior and natural order.
 
Walter L. Wagner said:
When galaxies collide, the stars within them don't collide (with very rare exception). Rather, the clouds of gas within them do collide, causing a burst of star formation. This is used to find merging galaxies, by searching for ones emitting lots of blue light (the signature of early star formation). Over time, the stars simply reorganize into a new, larger galaxy. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/galaxies/colliding.html
Click to expand...

Even if the stars do not collide those stars and their planets are thrown out and away from the galaxy they were in leaving them to drift away into space until the sun explodes and kills every living thing on those planets. The thrust of my statement is that no matter what the sun will explode one day in every galaxy killing everything in its surrounding solar system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4aFLXzFg6EU
 
Beaconator said:
You can turn a discussion of natural order into that of chaos? Why not a science topic into a religion. The two comparisons are nearly identical. Yet what makes it 'science' is really the fact we can study both religious behavior and natural order.
Click to expand...

I know this wasn't a quote to me, but I'd like to make it clear, I am not advocating anything religious. Religion is a belief system, I'm proposing there is evidence that perhaps there was a design in the universe, this may even mean we could be a simulation.
 
Nightshift said:
Not by himself no, which is why he said there is a consensus among several top scientists. I'd much prefer to listen to him than you, who has already formed an opinion on the subject.
Click to expand...

Several is not a consensus. I'm sure there is a consensus among believers in Bigfoot that such a beast exists. You can listen to him all you wish. He's a very good scientist, his work is top flight. The metaphysical conclusions he draws? Are just that,,,,, metaphysical conclusions, and he would agree with that characterization. Paul Davies would strongly disagree with anyone who uses his work as indication of "intelligent design". His arguments are only made to point out that "life as we know it" must arrive on the scene given the universe as it is. You misrepresent Paul Davies.

The anthropic principle is NOT an "intelligent design" discussion, it's a discussion of whether the universe and it's laws could have been different than what it is, it has nothing to do with a "designer".
 
Nightshift said:
...

One such example, when the universe came into existence, it must have had it's own probability field $$\psi$$. There could be an infinite amount of different types of universes, physicists began to ask the question, who was around at the BB to observe it and collapse it's wave function? Of course, no biological entity was around and so the question of probability began to be asked, how probable was it that this universe came into existence? In a multiverse you may answer this question by saying the creation of universes are not that important. But what if parallel universes don't exist? Why then these specific set's of principles and laws? We find out that some of these laws are pivotal to having ''stable universes.'' If we are a fluke of nature, then the probability field question asks, ''if the wave function means the universe could have arose in any other state, why did it settle in this one out of an infinite other possibilities?'' Rest assured, some universes could have collapsed before they even reached an inflation stage. Some might reach the inflation stage but the inflation stage never ends. The fine structure constant might have also been slightly different, the result would have been an instability in the fields of the early universe.

These are some of the things you need to keep in mind, before you say it is arrogant.
Click to expand...
I can tell that you have leanings toward the multiverse cosmologies. I'm courious as to if the multiverse is technically considered one universe with a potentially infinite number of "bubble universes" within it. If so, we certainly could have common ground on the basis that "if there could be one "Big Bang" why couldn't there be a potentially infinite number of them.

I see that you have responded to a post that quoted me below, and I noted that you were not claiming anything Supernatural. The thread was started by Pious though, and the initial poll results would seem to me to simply seperate those who say, "God did it", from those who follow the scientific method. That is all I mean to convey in my thinking that the thread started with religious intent.
 
If the Universe can be said in any way to be designed, it has been designed to create Black Holes. But if the Universe had come out much differently we would not be here to know anything about it. Is this the only possible Universe? Probably not, but it is the only one where we are possible. Are there other configurations that would support life? Probably, but this is the one we evolved to fit, so we are kind of biased to think this one was designed just for us. And there may be reasons why the parameters are exactly what they are and not other values, but a consciousness or intent is not needed for that.

Grumpy:cool:
 
Grumpy said:
If the Universe can be said in any way to be designed, it has been designed to create Black Holes. ...
Grumpy:cool:
Click to expand...
I'm sure you know that if the universe can be said in any way to be designed, you are talking about a designer. So why would you say that if there was a designer, the universe would be designed to create Black Holes? Are you saying that it is black holes that make life possible, or a designer that makes black holes possible, or both :shrug:?
 
What, Reiku's still here?

reiku posing as Nightshift said:
For what? Pointing out that there is a real field of investigation asking the question whether our universe has been designed, such as a computer program.
Click to expand...
That's Intelligent Design which has nothing whatsoever to do with either math or science. That very statement admits to trolling.

You want to ban me because you have no understanding of the subject and you have been exposed for it.
Click to expand...

No I want to see the ban already levied on you as Reiku and several of your sock puppets to be enforced.
 
Nightshift said:
For what? Pointing out that there is a real field of investigation asking the question whether our universe has been designed, such as a computer program. You want to ban me because you have no understanding of the subject and you have been exposed for it.
Click to expand...
Just curious Nightshift, but why in the world would you respond to a post like that. It is off topic, it has accusations you don't need to respond to, and it is from a member who is not a moderator. It has no "on topic" content. Ignore comments like that and take a minute to answer my on-topic questions to you. Do you consider the multiverse to be one universe made up of "bubble universes" that don't individually fulfill the meaning of the word "universe"?
 
quantum_wave said:
Do you consider the multiverse to be one universe made up of "bubble universes" that don't individually fulfill the meaning of the word "universe"?
Click to expand...

I personally don't agree with multiverse theory, just because it is too easy to create universes. Avoiding that and trying to remain objective about it, I think you are asking do all the universes make one universe?

The interesting thing is that the universe is a closed system, it is closed spatially and is a domain that is called self-consistent. It is almost meaningless to think about universes other than this one, they never interact with our universe directly so observing them is impossible. A universe is supposed to encompass everything, if parallel universe theory is right, then the universe would appear to be nothing special and in a bizarre twist of new thinking, it can no longer encompass the whole. What you are describing is like viewing universes on the branch of one single tree. It's possible. They'd have to contribute to whole tree which may be the true definition of the ''whole/universe.''
 
Nightshift said:
I personally don't agree with multiverse theory, just because it is too easy to create universes. Avoiding that and trying to remain objective about it, I think you are asking do all the universes make one universe?

The interesting thing is that the universe is a closed system, it is closed spatially and is a domain that is called self-consistent. It is almost meaningless to think about universes other than this one, they never interact with our universe directly so observing them is impossible. A universe is supposed to encompass everything, if parallel universe theory is right, then the universe would appear to be nothing special and in a bizarre twist of new thinking, it can no longer encompass the whole. What you are describing is like viewing universes on the branch of one single tree. It's possible. They'd have to contribute to whole tree which may be the true definition of the ''whole/universe.''
Click to expand...
Thanks for that response. You are right that I would consider any other Big Bang arenas as part of a greater landscape. The whole universe would then encompass the entire landscape of the greater universe with any or all of its individual Big Bang arenas. How does that all tie in to the topic of whether or not the cosmos was programmed?
 
quantum_wave said:
Thanks for that response. You are right that I would consider any other Big Bang arenas as part of a greater landscape. The whole universe would then encompass the entire landscape of the greater universe with any or all of its individual Big Bang arenas. How does that all tie in to the topic of whether or not the cosmos was programmed?
Click to expand...

It could be a very special kind of quantum computer that was programmed to ''start up'' the initial conditions at the BB. This would be a very sophisticated computer indeed, capable of advanced memory and speed. We could be inside one of these quantum programs, inside one of these branches. The computer would not be inside spacetime but if it was it would be projecting the present from our future horizon, in a holograph.
 
Nightshift said:
It could be a very special kind of quantum computer that was programmed to ''start up'' the initial conditions at the BB. This would be a very sophisticated computer indeed, capable of advanced memory and speed. We could be inside one of these quantum programs, inside one of these branches. The computer would not be inside spacetime but if it was it would be projecting the present from our future horizon, in a holograph.
Click to expand...

There is already a name for that, it's called Laplace's Demon.
 
Nightshift said:
It could be a very special kind of quantum computer that was programmed to ''start up'' the initial conditions at the BB. This would be a very sophisticated computer indeed, capable of advanced memory and speed. We could be inside one of these quantum programs, inside one of these branches. The computer would not be inside spacetime but if it was it would be projecting the present from our future horizon, in a holograph.
Click to expand...
I'll grant you that; it would be a very special computer, a very special program, and very "intended" initial conditions. What you describe is what I call preconditions to our big bang. You have trumped me by the "preconditions" that you are hypothesizing.

A simple question comes to mind. That kind of universe do the programmers and implementors of such initial conditions live in. Obviously our Hubble view is entirely contained with their universe, but mostly outside of ours.
 
Here's a thesis at the heart of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey: Science is engaging and entertaining. See link above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top