|
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-dimension models describe this behavior so well, it's hypothesized that these dimensions may exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:51 pm Post subject: Re: The Multiverse, Science's God? |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| 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. |
'
Quarks are just an interpretation. Electrons are just an interpretation. I'm not sure what your point is. Out of the math falls the possibility that a multiverse solves certain problems in QM. Out of the math fell relativity. It was just an interpretation until we tested it.
| Quote: |
| 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. |
Again, I'm not sure what your point is. You claimed:
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.
Some negative emotion led to a multiverse hypothesis. It's quite beyond me where you came to that conclusion. Like how relativity fell out of the math, it neatly solved several problems (Einstein didn't go "I can't explain the orbit of Mercury and I can't stand the idea god must keep Mercury in its orbit, so I'm going to invent relativity), a multiverse falls out of the math and neatly solves certain problems (like gravity or wave/particle duality).
| 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. |
| Quote: |
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. |
I think you're making an error best illustrated by this proposition: a dog is a cat. Both have fur, two eyes, sharp teeth, tails, etc. Understanding how things are different is what makes them different. Science hasn't crafted an entirely explainable world. It's even prepared to accept god is behind something if your evidence is compelling. Most religions have core beliefs that the true believer will not abandon no matter how much evidence (cf Rteacher, Junior, Fiveeagles). Science is prepared to abandon any theory in the face of evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 6:05 pm Post subject: Re: The Multiverse, Science's God? |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
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. |
Well I'm not sure anyone is crafting an entirely explainable world. I would say so far we have been able to explain some of the world and identify universal constants(scientific laws). Therefore it is reasonable to assume that there are other constants out there to be discovered, including presumably one law that encompasses all the others.
This is a working assumption. If you are looking for something, you must assume that it exists on some level. This is not the same as saying that everything in the universe can definitely be explained by science. I don't think 'science' is saying that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:09 pm Post subject: Konglishman |
|
|
I think that the problem of determining whether or not there is a God (not that it could actually be done without God's cooperation) should be related to the problem of understanding consciousness. After all, God would be the ultimate form of consciousness.
Currently, I don't think anyone can pretend to be able to explain how consciousness arises.
For one thing, everything in the universe ultimately boils to physics.
Now, just imagine that you have an infinitely powerful computer which is able to model all of the most intricate details of the quantums functions and particles describing a person. Well, when describing the brain of the person in this matter, when will you be able to point to some complicated set of quantum functions, etc. and say the person is seeing the color green? It is impossible to be done.
Mathematical symbolism no matter how complicated or sophisticated, is incapable of relaying the information of what it actually means to see a particular color or hear a particular sound to someone who is blind or deaf.
This means consciousness will quite likely forever remain beyond our understanding.
Hence, I think it is impossible for us to rule out the idea of ultimate consciousness, or in other words, God.
Now, just playing the devil's advocate, lets suppose the multiverse idea is correct. Perhaps, in one of the universes, there is a God... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Multiverse schmultiverse
| Quote: |
The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.
It is, of course, a big step from the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle-something that is routinely observed in particle accelerators-to the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of the universe. But the loophole is there. If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event.
|
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
The OP is using word such as "belief" and "theory" in the wrong way. He is attacking science, but incorrectly. Some scientists do go beyond what science is and create philosophies. But the attack on science is stupid and so are the people who do it. Science is a process, nothing more, nothing less. Scientists are on the other hand people. A scientist can actually be extremely intelligent and figure out the mysteries of the universe, yet still believe in a book written 2000 years ago by a failing empire in need of control based on stories handed down over generations started by ignorant peasants. 
Science can not be attacked, as there is nothing to attack. It is a process where you have an idea and try to see if it is right or wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
People are wondering what my point is.
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| But the attack on science is stupid and so are the people who do it. |
I agree and think the attack on the concept of God is stupid and . . .
Edit:
| JMO wrote: |
| This is a working assumption. If you are looking for something, you must assume that it exists on some level. This is not the same as saying that everything in the universe can definitely be explained by science. I don't think 'science' is saying that. |
I think this is a good response. Although certainly science can accompany a certain realm of free will or a domain outside these laws. Of course we'll never know the final answer to this question, ever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Science can not be attacked, as there is nothing to attack. It is a process where you have an idea and try to see if it is right or wrong. |
Attacking science is like shouting at a yardstick for having numbers ruled off in inches or demanding Office Depot starts including invisible numbers on the ruler. A ruler measures that which can be measured. Science measures that which can be measured. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Science can not be attacked, as there is nothing to attack. It is a process where you have an idea and try to see if it is right or wrong. |
Attacking science is like shouting at a yardstick for having numbers ruled off in inches or demanding Office Depot starts including invisible numbers on the ruler. A ruler measures that which can be measured. Science measures that which can be measured. |
But the yardstick makers, and those who set the laws by which measurements will be taken, these people are all fair game.
If Science is a community, and I think there's a fair argument that one can refer to it as such, and that community means academicians and prestigious members (people who have been awarded prizes 'by Science'), then it can never be beyond scrutiny. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
