(April 12, 2025 at 9:58 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(April 7, 2025 at 9:38 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: Read Martin Rees 'Just Six Numbers'. Highly respected scientist and an atheist. He thoroughly details the fine-tuning of the universe and it leads him to claim we live in a multiverse. Its not circular reasoning, scientists could just as well have discovered a wide range of properties and constants could have produced life...but they didn't.

In this video Rees details that while his speculations about the constants preceded the theorems of inflation, it wasn't the work on the constants but rather the ideas and theorems concerning inflation that led to the supposition that there might be multiple universes, and that these universes might have different constants and laws.  He makes the point that inflation and string theory both play a role in the suggestion of a multiverse.  It was not his work on fine-tuning that led to it.  He says as much in the book that Drew cites, Just Six Numbers, which I will quote as well.

"[B]ack in the 1970s we speculated about this [fine tuning] and I wrote a paper with Bernard Carr ... I don't think at that stage we had any partcular view as to whether these counterfactual universes might be a consequence of a real physical theory but the development of the idea of inflation and the realization that our universe might go far beyond the observational horizon did lead one to speculate that may actually be places ... the inflationary idea was developed in 1980s and that led to the possibilities that there could be domains and at the same time the realization came about that perhaps different big bangs might as it were cool down differently, it was the idea that the laws of low energy physics in the world we inhabit may be the outcome of so-called phase transitions as a universe cools down and these may have happened differently in different universes and this leads to the idea that what we call universal laws might be as it were environmental accidents in our cosmic patch and not the deepest level of universal laws.  So I think the idea that there might be other big bangs became discussed widely after the development of inflation, and there have since then been other ideas involving other space times."





"This ‘multiverse’ concept, though speculative, is a natural extension of current cosmological theories, which gain credence because they account for things that we do observe. The physical laws and geometry could be different in other universes, and this offers a new perspective on the seemingly special values that the six numbers take in ours."

Martin Rees.  Just Six Numbers.

In the book you refer to he fields the hypothetical that universe had to be as it is. He rebuts the hypothesis because it begs the question why if a universe has to be in a certain configuration, why is it the narrow configuration that causes planets, star, galaxies, molecules and ultimately life to exist. It doesn't solve the problem only pushes it back. That's why he continues to believe in multiverse theory.

So in Drews sentence actually refutes Angrboda point 

Fancy that 

(April 13, 2025 at 1:54 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(April 13, 2025 at 1:42 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Black holes  are natural right? They're an extreme example of nature. Just as supernova's are an extreme example of a nova.

By that ‘logic’ a municipal sewer is supernatural because it’s an extreme example of a pit toilet.

You’re an idiot.

Boru

And just think yesterday you didn't know how to spell idiot and now you're using it in a sentence. Bravo.

(April 13, 2025 at 4:15 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: By the way how is it we haven't been able to create life? We already have all the ingredients. It was the result of a few simple rules right?

Because it takes a hundred million years.

Quote:Drew: You're living in a fantasy world

Now that's an irony overload. You're the one imagining a sky wizard with magical poers, that is not part of objective reality. 

Comedy gold.

(April 13, 2025 at 4:15 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: @Paleophyte Wrote:

Quote:It's hilarious that you're asking Google to make your arguments for you AND you're too lazy or dumb to strip the code from your post.

Its anal of you to worry about it.

Quote:No, have you? I note that you don't list all of the scientists that don't support your peculiar little worldview.

You're more anal retentive than I thought. I've never claimed I support multiverse theory. 

The micro world is dominated by quantum physics one of the most difficult things to understand is it simple? Is the double slit experiment where matter behaves differently if its being observed than not being observed? Any simple explanations for that?  Is the singularity from which its alleged the universe came from simple? Is whatever existed prior to the big bang is simple? Scientists describe it as where the known laws of physics break down. Even in biology it was thought at one time that single cells are simple but as they dug into it, it became vastly more complex than originally thought. Mindless natural forces without plan, intent or a degree in biology somehow figured out how to transform non-biological matter into living matter. A feat that still eludes scientists...shouldn't that have been simplicity in itself?

thank you for making my argument for me? Really not sure what you're trying to achieve with this. Let me simplify for you:

Quote:Step 1: Start with some very simple rules, aka fundamental forces.

We start with the big bang. Perhaps the most complex mystery we still know very little about. I watch just about every documentary there is on the big bang and never heard a single scientist claim its simple. Whatever caused the big bang was outside of spacetime and our laws of physics. 

Trigger warning I coped this from AI. 

The singularity at the heart of the Big Bang theory describes a point of infinite density and gravity from which the universe is believed to have emerged. This concept, while not fully understood, suggests that all the matter and energy of the universe was once compressed into a tiny, incredibly hot space, and then began expanding
 
Even though something like this appears to be what would happen if we rolled the universe back about 13.8 billion years ago. Still infinite density, infinite gravity? If that's not supernatural I don't what would be. Its nothing that happens in this universe. Black holes are close but they don't cause a universe to exist. Scientists claim the laws of physics don't apply to the singularity that became our universe.

In order to make a time-line for all the events that occurred from t-0 to the first 100 years is broken up to the smallest unit of time possible for us humans. 

Trigger warning I coped this from AI.


Planck time is the theoretical smallest unit of time, roughly 5.39 × 10^-44 seconds. It's the time it takes for light to travel one Planck length in a vacuum. This time is so small that it's generally considered the point where our current understanding of physics breaks down, and the concept of time itself might not be meaningful below this scale.


https://www.snexplores.org/article/what-...c-timeline

0 to 10-43 second (0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 sec) after the Big Bang: This earliest period is known as the Planck Era. It goes from the instant of the Big Bang to this minuscule fraction of a second afterwards. Current physics — our understanding of the basic laws of energy and matter — cannot describe what happened here.

Sounds simple to me...if it can't be described it must be simple.

10-43 to 10-35 second after the Big Bang: Even within this tiny span, known as the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) Era, major changes take place. The most important event: Gravity becomes its own distinct force, separate from everything else.

10-35 to 10-32 second after the Big Bang: During this short snippet of time, known as the Era of Inflation, the strong nuclear force separates from the remaining two unified forces: the electromagnetic and weak.

Quote:Step 2: Repeat those rules over and over again.

Like Tic Tac Toe or scissors, paper, rock? It probably wouldn't take more than a high school science project gone awry to cause a universe to exist. 

Quote:Step 3: More complex behaviours arise from the system. That's called "emergence". 

I call it the laws of physics and the four fundamental forces operating in space over time. The first emergence was matter over antimatter. Even though they always appear equal somehow there was more matter or the most oft repeated line in science, "We wouldn't be here". The universe started off with hydrogen, some helium and a little bit of lithium. Add gravity, the other 3 fundamental forces (all working in tandem) inside spacetime and stars begin to exist. That's a long way from having an earth like planet. For that to happen galaxies need to form. Because if they didn't...'we wouldn't be here'. However as it turns out for galaxies to form and not fly apart the universe has to be made up of mostly dark matter. What a lucky break for us humans it happened to exist in the right amount to keep galaxies together. You're a firm believer that natural forces didn't give a shit if earth existed, stars existed, bio friendly laws of physics existed, if dark matter existed. Mindless natural forces didn't give a rats ass if stars going supernova create new material needed for life. The only explanation is it happened to happen and what a lucky break for us who enjoy being alive. Galaxies staying together is necessary to cause second generation stars made of the new material for planets and the ingredients life and humans are made of. 

Quote:Step 4: Emergent behaviours are favoured by thermodynamics because they leads to more stable low-energy, high-entropy states more efficiently.
Step 5: Go back to Step 2 with the new emergent rules and do the Rinse, Lather, Repeat thing again.

You're living in a fantasy world where somehow matter is compressed infinitely, a little baking a little shaking and out comes a universe with all the laws of physics and properties to cause life to exist minus any plan or intent to do so. 

Quote:Step 7: If you let the system run for long enough then it gets complex enough to start asking pesky questions. Sentience is just an emergent property of biology, biology an emergent property of chemistry, and chemistry an emergent property of physics.

If only the list of scientists who claim we live in a multiverse were just a 10th the genius you are they'd abandon that theory like ugly on an ape. By the way how is it we haven't been able to create life? We already have all the ingredients. It was the result of a few simple rules right?

Noting in there about your unevidenced sky wizard, using inexplicable magic, someone give me a shout if  Drew ever tries to actually evidences that bit.

Quote:And just think yesterday you didn't know how to spell idiot and now you're using it in a sentence. Bravo.

Funny how he has to resort to an insult rather then refute the logic

Quote:By the way how is it we haven't been able to create life? We already have all the ingredients. It was the result of a few simple rules right?

1. Not being able recreate something doesn't mean it wasn't simple 

2. Life took millions of years and the resources of a entire planet under completely different conditions to develop we wouldn't live long enough to see the results 

3. We also can't recreate stars that doesn't mean they are the result of magic 

4. Use magic to create life ....Oh wait you can't ....lol

Quote:Drew You're living in a fantasy world

Says a man who thinks an invisible sky wizard did it all and thinks his personnel incredulity means anything

(April 13, 2025 at 4:51 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 13, 2025 at 1:54 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: By that ‘logic’ a municipal sewer is supernatural because it’s an extreme example of a pit toilet.

You’re an idiot.

Boru

And just think yesterday you didn't know how to spell idiot and now you're using it in a sentence. Bravo.

And you have the audacity to block others for being offensive. Fucking Hypocrite!