|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:18 am Post subject: The Multiverse, Science's God? |
 |
|
The Alternative to the Intelligent Creator
| Quote: |
Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way and�in this universe, anyway�life as we know it would not exist.
Consider just two possible changes. Atoms consist of protons, neutrons, and electrons. If those protons were just 0.2 percent more massive than they actually are, they would be unstable and would decay into simpler particles. Atoms wouldn�t exist; neither would we. If gravity were slightly more powerful, the consequences would be nearly as grave. A beefed-up gravitational force would compress stars more tightly, making them smaller, hotter, and denser. Rather than surviving for billions of years, stars would burn through their fuel in a few million years, sputtering out long before life had a chance to evolve. There are many such examples of the universe�s life-friendly properties�so many, in fact, that physicists can�t dismiss them all as mere accidents. |
Dawkins criticizes theists for adding an unnecessary entity into an explanation of the universe: God.
I'm going to turn around and put Science on the hook for inventing an unnecessary entity: The Laws of Nature. As opposed to mere traits or habits of nature, Science asserts that all of nature can be explained through the existence of laws. These laws need merely be discovered, and we can explain all the secrets of the universe.
The weakness of this system, this laws of nature, is that we find there are just so many laws to sustain our fragile existence. We feel overwhelmed. We invent the multiverse.
Personally, I find Modern Science's belief system fascinating and intriguing and even somewhat compelling. But I think we can safely say that once we get to Multiverses and String Theory, we've gone a little beyond the bounds of the Scientific Method and into Materialist Philosophy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 1:33 pm Post subject: Re: The Multiverse, Science's God? |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Science asserts that all of nature can be explained through the existence of laws. These laws need merely be discovered, and we can explain all the secrets of the universe. |
Yes. But unlike religion that puts a just-so story on the table, science does the hard work of finding evidence for or against its just so stories. Science is quite prepared to abandon this just so story. Are you prepared to abandon your god belief?
It might comfort you to find your god in this gap but then people have put god into a lot of other gaps that have been filled by plain old materialism. Lightning for starters. What kept the stars from falling to earth?
| Quote: |
| The weakness of this system, this laws of nature, is that we find there are just so many laws to sustain our fragile existence. We feel overwhelmed. We invent the multiverse. |
No. That's not the reason some physicists propose a multiverse. Such falls out of the math. You're arguing a non sequitur. Such a silly claim. Please don't simply makes stuff up.
And an all powerful god could make intelligent life that can live in any universe. No? An intelligent god could make life that lives in hard vacuum and we would just assume hard vacuum was tuned to life.
| Quote: |
| Personally, I find Modern Science's belief system fascinating and intriguing and even somewhat compelling. But I think we can safely say that once we get to Multiverses and String Theory, we've gone a little beyond the bounds of the Scientific Method and into Materialist Philosophy. |
This why these are only hypotheses and not part of the standard model.
So where did god come from? Answer me that? If the laws of nature need a law maker, a god needs a god maker. If you're allowed to argue there is just one thing that simply, I'll argue the same, but it's the laws of nature.
Last edited by mindmetoo on Sun Nov 16, 2008 2:00 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 1:59 pm Post subject: Re: The Multiverse, Science's God? |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Are you prepared to abandon your god belief? |
| Quote: |
| It might comfort you to find your god |
| Quote: |
| So where did god come from? Answer me that? |
I'm agnostic. 
| Quote: |
| No. That's not the reason some physicists propose a multiverse. Such falls out of the math. |
Could you enlighten me? I'm sure that'll make you look more scientific than calling me silly.
| Quote: |
| Science is quite prepared to abandon this just so story. |
I'm not really sure if this just-so story is capable of verification. And if a multiverse, why not God? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 2:24 pm Post subject: Re: The Multiverse, Science's God? |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
The Alternative to the Intelligent Creator
| Quote: |
Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way and�in this universe, anyway�life as we know it would not exist.
Consider just two possible changes. Atoms consist of protons, neutrons, and electrons. If those protons were just 0.2 percent more massive than they actually are, they would be unstable and would decay into simpler particles. Atoms wouldn�t exist; neither would we. If gravity were slightly more powerful, the consequences would be nearly as grave. A beefed-up gravitational force would compress stars more tightly, making them smaller, hotter, and denser. Rather than surviving for billions of years, stars would burn through their fuel in a few million years, sputtering out long before life had a chance to evolve. There are many such examples of the universe�s life-friendly properties�so many, in fact, that physicists can�t dismiss them all as mere accidents. |
|
Humans require certain conditions to live, therefore we shouldn't be surprised with the existence of those conditions. Otherwise we wouldn't be here, in this form or at least wouldn't have evolved this way.
Linde may or may not be right about the multiverse. It is no means scientific consensus as you seem to be implying. It is not even a theory as as far as I can tell it is currently untestable.
edit or maybe not..just saw mm2 links..ill look at them after work
It is possible that there are parts of the universe that are untestable. However we explain the universe by using universal laws. Do you suggest we stop looking for such laws or just that 'science' stop asserting that such laws exist? The latter, I would say depends on who you talk to. The former will not happen.
I wouldn't call the belief in the laws of nature a belief system as many such laws have already been found. It is logical to suppose that there are others to be found. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 2:32 pm Post subject: Re: The Multiverse, Science's God? |
|
|
The Copenhagen Interpretation is just an interpretation of probability models. This isn't Baconesque materialism at all, its Cartesian mathematical constructive reality. IOW, sci fi.
As for the Brane, it is also a mathematical construct related to String Theory. Although I do understand its trying to help explain inconsistancies in gravity.
| Quote: |
| If a god why not a staypuff marshmallow man? Science really doesn't care what you call your gaps. |
Because multiverses are so much COOLER than marshmellow men.
| JMO wrote: |
| I wouldn't call the belief in the laws of nature a belief system as many such laws have already been found. It is logical to suppose that there are others to be found. |
But a coherent and self-contained system of laws would definitely be a belief. Its true that I might believe in habits or traits of nature, things that tend to happen (i.e. laws we have verified to a reasonable extent), but to craft an entirely explainable world: that's human faith at work. To be fair, that belief may turn out to be true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:27 pm Post subject: Re: The Multiverse, Science's God? |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
| No. That's not the reason some physicists propose a multiverse. Such falls out of the math. |
Could you enlighten me? I'm sure that'll make you look more scientific than calling me silly. |
I'll take a brief stab at this.
The observed behavior of certain sub-atomic particles can be very accurately described with mathematics if we take into account that they may exist in more dimensions. If we leave them to our perceivable 3 dimensions, the math required to describe their behavior becomes far more complex. Since these multi-di | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
