Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Neil deGrasse Tyson destroys argument for intelligent design [View all]cpwm17
(3,829 posts)220. Certainly details about the Multiverse are speculative
but it would be exciting if scientists could give scientific evidence. That might never happen.
I'm convinced that there is some form of multiverse because of the Anthropic Principle:
http://www.gotquestions.org/anthropic-principle.html
The Anthropic Principle is the Law of Human Existence. It is well known that our existence in this universe depends on numerous cosmological constants and parameters whose numerical values must fall within a very narrow range of values. If even a single variable were off, even slightly, we would not exist. The extreme improbability that so many variables would align so auspiciously in our favor merely by chance has led some scientists and philosophers to propose instead that it was God who providentially engineered the universe to suit our specific needs. This is the Anthropic Principle: that the universe appears to have been fine-tuned for our existence.
Consider protons, for example. Protons are the positively charged subatomic particles which (along with neutrons) form the nucleus of an atom (around which negatively charged electrons orbit). Whether by providence or fortuitous luck (depending on your perspective), protons just happen to be 1,836 times larger than electrons. If they were a little bigger or a little smaller, we would not exist (because atoms could not form the molecules we require). So how did protons end up being 1,836 times larger than electrons? Why not 100 times larger or 100,000 times? Why not smaller? Of all the possible variables, how did protons end up being just the right size? Was it luck or contrivance?...
The question for us now is, with so many universal constants and cosmological parameters defining our universe, and with so many possible variables for each one, how did they all just happen to fall within the extremely narrow range of values required for our existence? The general consensus is that we are either here by fortuitous luck against tremendous odds or by the purposeful design of an intelligent Agent.
Some proponents of the here-by-chance perspective have sought to level the odds against fortuitous luck by hypothesizing a scenario whereby our universe is just one among many in what has come to be termed a multiverse. This gives nature many more chances to get it right, bringing the odds against its success down significantly.
Consider protons, for example. Protons are the positively charged subatomic particles which (along with neutrons) form the nucleus of an atom (around which negatively charged electrons orbit). Whether by providence or fortuitous luck (depending on your perspective), protons just happen to be 1,836 times larger than electrons. If they were a little bigger or a little smaller, we would not exist (because atoms could not form the molecules we require). So how did protons end up being 1,836 times larger than electrons? Why not 100 times larger or 100,000 times? Why not smaller? Of all the possible variables, how did protons end up being just the right size? Was it luck or contrivance?...
The question for us now is, with so many universal constants and cosmological parameters defining our universe, and with so many possible variables for each one, how did they all just happen to fall within the extremely narrow range of values required for our existence? The general consensus is that we are either here by fortuitous luck against tremendous odds or by the purposeful design of an intelligent Agent.
Some proponents of the here-by-chance perspective have sought to level the odds against fortuitous luck by hypothesizing a scenario whereby our universe is just one among many in what has come to be termed a multiverse. This gives nature many more chances to get it right, bringing the odds against its success down significantly.
With an infinite multiverse, our existence is guaranteed no god or nearly impossible odds required.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
231 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Hey, watch it. I had some schmevidence with my steak the other night, loved it.
randys1
Nov 2015
#118
The thermodynamic argument behind Intelligent Design has a simple mathematical error.
DetlefK
Nov 2015
#3
I think of it as a nuclear reactor that is 93 million miles away from the nearest elementary school
eridani
Nov 2015
#159
The smallest features in microprocessors are 15-20 nm. The smallest feature in an organism is <1nm.
DetlefK
Nov 2015
#226
That's either Lazarus Long or Jubal Harshaw speaking from Robert A. Heinlein's typewriter !
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2015
#18
And certainly some folks- like 12 steppers- are comfortable doing all sorts of semantic gymnastics
Warren DeMontague
Nov 2015
#167
Unfortunately, that requires a couple of very uncomfortable admissions that theists aren't ready to
Warpy
Nov 2015
#106
And even that seems implausible when you think about it. We're used to everything having...
ChisolmTrailDem
Nov 2015
#181
Would you like the Noah's Ark antibiotics or the ones that were intelligently designed?
Bernardo de La Paz
Nov 2015
#19
Being "created" by something was a way for early manking to make sense of the world.
ladyVet
Nov 2015
#20
Why would you post something that clearly wrongly attributes a quote to someone?
tabasco
Nov 2015
#119
Possibly the most idiotic piece of bumper sticker non-wisdom ever floated by the bs brigade.
Warren DeMontague
Nov 2015
#168
yet there is no evidence that a higher power doesnt exist. Enjoy your high horse.
7962
Nov 2015
#187
It is not somehow, science can give you the play by play down to what the atoms are doing.
Rex
Nov 2015
#75
Not at all hard to hash out. You have billions of years and trillions of objects colliding together
Rex
Nov 2015
#82
But now you're left with the harder problem of explaining where God came from ...
GeorgeGist
Nov 2015
#141
Also the mere fact of thousands of religions in the world, compounded with all the unknown
Rex
Nov 2015
#89
I started with encounters with Conway's program, referenced in Peter Gleick's book on Chaos.
immoderate
Nov 2015
#109
that is what often hangs me up is the beginning of the beginning of the universe
restorefreedom
Nov 2015
#49
The problem is that you have a problem of infinite regress, something had to have caused that...
Humanist_Activist
Nov 2015
#110
The thing is that the Big Bang is practically the only gap left for the "God of the gaps" to occupy.
Humanist_Activist
Nov 2015
#117
The Big Bang, from what we can tell, is the literal beginning, there was no "before"...
Humanist_Activist
Nov 2015
#160
He argues for a multiverse, not an infinite universe, those are different things...
Humanist_Activist
Nov 2015
#209
They could have triggered it maybe, but I doubt any information traveled from previous universes...
Humanist_Activist
Nov 2015
#216
You seem to forget that life on Earth is fine tuned for conditions on Earth, not the other way...
Humanist_Activist
Nov 2015
#114
Even if that assertion is true as you excerpted it(uncredited I might add), I don't...
Humanist_Activist
Nov 2015
#207
There are millions of planets in this galaxy; many are at the right distance from their sun
muriel_volestrangler
Nov 2015
#172
And an article on more recent thinking about the origins of cells, and the use of energy:
muriel_volestrangler
Nov 2015
#175
Loved Neil on with Bill Moyer speaking about Religion, Science and the Universe.
Stellar
Nov 2015
#51
I don't believe we're important enough to have a creator. Humans are fairly close to being nothing.
BlueJazz
Nov 2015
#153
Atheists can be pretty quick to congratulate themselves on debate points ...
King_Klonopin
Nov 2015
#161
Actually those only disprove a benevolent god, however, the fact is that...
Humanist_Activist
Nov 2015
#211