Why are we here?

[BioBeing]

In religion vs science debates, religionists will often say that science is no good at answering the "big" question, like why are we here? A point I happily conceded: science cannot answer why questions like that. But I also contend that religion cannot answer them either, without unsatisfactory appeals to faith or Church dogma.

So what methods do humans have to address such questions? Can philosophy address them?

Or are they simply the wrong questions?

[David B]

Why shouldn't we be here?

Apart from the long odds against it, but then the odds against a golf ball landing on a particular blade of grass are long, but one hit it has to end up somewhere.

ETA Tim Minchin has a realistic response to those who think some kind fate led them to find their partners in life

http://www.youtube.com/user/timminchin?blend=2&ob=4

David

[Ozymandias]

Before we can answer that we need to ask "where are we?" and "who is this 'we' anyway?"

[BioBeing]

Why shouldn't we be here?

Apart from the long odds against it, but then the odds against a golf ball landing on a particular blade of grass are long, but one hit it has to end up somewhere.

So what you are saying is that it is the wrong question?

ETA Tim Minchin has a realistic response to those who think some kind fate led them to find their partners in life

http://www.youtube.com/user/timminchin?blend=2&ob=4

David

Will have to watch that from home. Love Minchin.

[BioBeing]

Before we can answer that we need to ask "where are we?" and "who is this 'we' anyway?"

But before that, we have to verify that we are not simply brains in vats...

[Jobar]

As stated, that's an open-ended question, and we can't answer it fully because we don't have total knowledge of the whole universe. Even if we did, the question then becomes "Why is the universe here?" For a truly complete answer we'd have to have some way of proving that reality has limits; a provable ending point.

[Rie]

Making the big leap and assuming it's all real then it's a bit like 'Gilligan's Island' that old series... the moral being we might as well make the most of it. Have fun. Build good places to live. Don't carry firearms and try to get on with each other.

[Roo St. Gallus]

And here I was under the impression I was here to open cans of cat food, on demand.

[Lurkalot]

As to why the universe is here i would say that that is the only way space can be filled.

[David B]

And here I was under the impression I was here to open cans of cat food, on demand.

I did literally LOL at that:D

David

[David B]

As to why the universe is here i would say that that is the only way space can be filled.

Ah, but if the string theorists are right there are many ways in which space can be filled.

David

[RexT]

In religion vs science debates, religionists will often say that science is no good at answering the "big" question, like why are we here? A point I happily conceded: science cannot answer why questions like that. But I also contend that religion cannot answer them either, without unsatisfactory appeals to faith or Church dogma.I totally agree.

So what methods do humans have to address such questions? Can philosophy address them? Yes, philosophy can address these kinds of questions. Logically, we determine that the question is out of our present empirical reach. So we have addressed it as much as currently possible. But will it remain forever out of reach? Who knows?

Or are they simply the wrong questions?In a way, yes. But it is entirely natural, even necessary for us to ask 'why' questions, like; why do I keep getting fired? Why implies causality, so we are looking for the cause of our existence in this case. I think we already have determined the cause of our existence, namely, evolution of life. But of course the question implies some ultimate cause for everything, which I'm doubtful we'll find even supposing there actually is an ultimate cause for everything.

[Free in Freeport]

We are here to push cantaloupes through our crotches!





(Sorry for the troll. Politesse cracked me up with that line, and I just had to use it once)

[Jobar]

Well, Lazarus Long *did* say

A zygote is a gamete’s way of producing more gametes. This may be the purpose of the universe.

:)

[Ozymandias]

Making the big leap and assuming it's all real then it's a bit like 'Gilligan's Island' that old series... the moral being we might as well make the most of it. Have fun. Build good places to live. Don't carry firearms and try to get on with each other.

That seems like a big leap of faith. Isn't truth more important?

[Rie]

Having fun and getting on with our fellow humans can be fun BUFG you know. And that's the truth. Some day we get off the island and then we hope that the ultimate truth will manifest. Frankly, I hope this ultimate truth will be fun too.

[Cath B]

And here I was under the impression I was here to open cans of cat food, on demand.

I did literally LOL at that:D

David

Same here!

[Eudaimonist]

In religion vs science debates, religionists will often say that science is no good at answering the "big" question, like why are we here?

I think that science can answer "why" questions as long as we don't mean "for what conscious purpose?" (unless we are focusing on human activities) but instead meaning "due to what cause?"

But science must also admit to the possibility that there is no infinite regress of causes, and that something must be uncaused, such as the existence of physical reality itself. In this sense, it may admit that there might not be an ultimate why for everything that happens, but so what? We can understand evolution, and we can understand our own purposes as human individuals. Isn't that enough?


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Berthold]

As to why the universe is here i would say that that is the only way space can be filled.

Ah, but if the string theorists are right there are many ways in which space can be filled.

David
Just, we won't be in most of those; in others, we would look rather differently, if "look" is even the right word. ;)

[Ozymandias]

Having fun and getting on with our fellow humans can be fun BUFG you know. And that's the truth. Some day we get off the island and then we hope that the ultimate truth will manifest. Frankly, I hope this ultimate truth will be fun too.

I am surprised that you think there is some "ultimate truth". Apologies if I am misunderstanding you, but this seems like a belief in the supernatural. I am fairly confident that when I am dead, I will rot in the ground and be gone forever.

I think faith in an afterlife often comes about through fear. Fear of death and fear of the unknown. I think it is important to overcome that fear and accept that you will die, and be no more, and the world will carry on barely noticing you have gone.

I think I have come to terms with this. I don't fear death (though to be honest, I still fear the path to death a little bit).

[RexT]

I think faith in an afterlife often comes about through fear. Fear of death and fear of the unknown. I think it is important to overcome that fear and accept that you will die, and be no more, and the world will carry on barely noticing you have gone.I agree.

I think I have come to terms with this. I don't fear death (though to be honest, I still fear the path to death a little bit).I think this pretty well sums it up for most of us, who, like you, try to be honest with ourselves.

The 'path to death' is life. There is no one path any more than there is one way to live. To fear death is to fear life. To wish for a 'perfect world' a 'perfect life' in some hereafter is to reject life. Life and death are not opposite things, they are the same thing, all part of the selfsame process. A process begins so it must end.

Thus have I come to terms with death.

[Ozymandias]

The 'path to death' is life.


That is all very poetic, but I was referring to the painful unpleasant bit near the end. (Or to be more concrete in my case, worrying if my MS will leave me any dignity of life by the end.)

[RexT]

The 'path to death' is life.


That is all very poetic, but I was referring to the painful unpleasant bit near the end. (Or to be more concrete in my case, worrying if my MS will leave me any dignity of life by the end.)It's not poetic, it's a fact. So maybe for you the end will be the worst part. But for some the worst comes early or somewhere in the middle.

[rog]

We are here to push cantaloupes through our crotches!





(Sorry for the troll. Politesse cracked me up with that line, and I just had to use it once)

I think, in a way, your are on the money here.

[Jack Willsson]

I think that science can answer "why" questions as long as we don't mean "for what conscious purpose?" (unless we are focusing on human activities) but instead meaning "due to what cause?"

But science must also admit to the possibility that there is no infinite regress of causes, and that something must be uncaused, such as the existence of physical reality itself. In this sense, it may admit that there might not be an ultimate why for everything that happens, but so what? We can understand evolution, and we can understand our own purposes as human individuals. Isn't that enough?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Well said Mark - I wish I'd said that - I agree wholeheartedly and I couldn't have put it better.

[Ozymandias]

The 'path to death' is life.


That is all very poetic, but I was referring to the painful unpleasant bit near the end. (Or to be more concrete in my case, worrying if my MS will leave me any dignity of life by the end.)It's not poetic, it's a fact. So maybe for you the end will be the worst part. But for some the worst comes early or somewhere in the middle.

People on this site can get so defensive sometimes. :dunno: I wasn't contradicting you (I attempted a compliment with the poetic comment) - I was just clarifying what I meant.

[Lurkalot]

My attitude to death is influenced by my belief in an infinite/eternal world where there must be an infinite number of earths if we could only travel far enough,
each with people identical to us. So i am just another one of an infinite number of Lurkalots, which is somehow rather consoling. :)

[Ozymandias]

My attitude to death is influenced by my belief in an infinite/eternal world where there must be an infinite number of earths if we could only travel far enough,
each with people identical to us. So i am just another one of an infinite number of Lurkalots, which is somehow rather consoling. :)

Are you serious?:eek:

I thought this was a secular site? :wtf:

[rog]

What's wrong with that? as an idea?

[Ozymandias]

What's wrong with that? as an idea?

First of all, the idea itself is ill-formed. Where are these infinite numbers of Earths? But maybe we can assume that he hasn't explained the entire theory, so we are just missing some important points.

But then, where is the supporting evidence? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[RexT]

People on this site can get so defensive sometimes. :dunno: I wasn't contradicting you (I attempted a compliment with the poetic comment) - I was just clarifying what I meant.You're making an assumption that I'm being defensive. You're wrong.

Anyway, maybe it was poetic, but I was stating what I believe is a fact, so I wanted to clarify that even if in some way it is sort of poetic.

[RexT]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.Indeed. The part of reality that we can presently observe is so vast that it boggles the mind. In fact, it's so vast that to suggest that it has any limits becomes an extraordinary claim itself. In the absence of any evidence that reality has a limit on how many worlds it has, I think it's quite reasonable to believe that it has no such limit. So I too believe it is infinite and eternal.

[Lurkalot]

First of all, the idea itself is ill-formed. Where are these infinite numbers of Earths? But maybe we can assume that he hasn't explained the entire theory, so we are just missing some important points.

But then, where is the supporting evidence? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Of course we haven't found any life elsewhere yet (and are unlikely to the way we are carrying on) but i believe if
conditions were favourable for us to evolve here then if we could look far enough we would find identical conditions elsewhere.
This is an act of blind but reasoned faith which i consider very secular. It contains no non-fictional non-physical beliefs (aka superstitions).
The physical world is everywhere forever.

[Jack Willsson]

The Universe isn't infinite. If it is we'll never know.

Infinity is a strange concept. It's not a quantity - any quantity would be far too small - it's a quality - i.e. "unendingness".

If the universe is not infinite then this infinite number of Earths is pure Pie in the sky - as are the worlds featuring Popeyes and Blutos which should exist by the same logic.

Burbling on about what we can't know has to be "poetic" (not to say loony).

[SRU1X]

Some things are so counter-intuitive. Such as the fact that everything alive today exists at the end of an unbroken chain of reproduction stretching back through several billion years. Not one of anybody's ancestors snuffed it before reproducing. That's an incredible (but inevitable) long chain.

On a bigger scale though, marvelling at why we're all here is surely like marvelling that we individually belong to the country we were born in - I feel proud to be a brit and no doubt others find it unthinkable that they wouldn't be an American (etc.) For an existential trip, imagine being born as the Queen of England or something like that!

[kennyc]

And here I was under the impression I was here to open cans of cat food, on demand.

I'm sure that is in the Bible somewhere. :D

[Jobar]

Some things are so counter-intuitive. Such as the fact that everything alive today exists at the end of an unbroken chain of reproduction stretching back through several billion years. Not one of anybody's ancestors snuffed it before reproducing. That's an incredible (but inevitable) long chain.

On a bigger scale though, marvelling at why we're all here is surely like marvelling that we individually belong to the country we were born in - I feel proud to be a brit and no doubt others find it unthinkable that they wouldn't be an American (etc.) For an existential trip, imagine being born as the Queen of England or something like that!

For each of us, our own ordinary everyday life is a thing of miraculous improbability.

How wondrously supernatural and miraculous! I draw water and I carry wood!
-P'ang Chu-Shih

[Rie]

Me too kenny. But as for the serious side... I believe we are here... or speaking for myself.. I am here to enjoy the journey as well as be hopeful re the destination.
There may well be a peace in death?

[Daydream]

For each of us, our own ordinary everyday life is a thing of miraculous improbability.


So true.

[SRU1X]

For each of us, our own ordinary everyday life is a thing of miraculous improbability.

It sure does appear that way but is it really so in a strictly probabilistic analysis? After all, self-selection effects are notorious for throwing probabilities (http://www.anthropic-principle.com/primer.html).

[Ozymandias]

For each of us, our own ordinary everyday life is a thing of miraculous improbability.

How wondrously supernatural and miraculous! I draw water and I carry wood!
-P'ang Chu-Shih

I think my life is pretty ordinary and unexceptional.

[Rie]

OH FUBG... don't you get goosebumps ever when something like shooting the red light goes unnoticed. I do. And with lots of other things but you are too dour to appreciate them.
I'll say a prayer to 'The Church of the Whatever The Vatican Doesn't Approve Of'.... just so that the veil of soggy dourness lifts for a moment. Amen.

[kennyc]

Just look up at the stars on a dark moonless night (away from the city lights).

Think about where you are in all that and tell me you don't feel special to even be seeing such wonders!

Man!

[Ozymandias]

OH FUBG... don't you get goosebumps ever when something like shooting the red light goes unnoticed. I do. And with lots of other things but you are too dour to appreciate them.
I'll say a prayer to 'The Church of the Whatever The Vatican Doesn't Approve Of'.... just so that the veil of soggy dourness lifts for a moment. Amen.

I am not sure what you mean. I don't deliberately jump red lights. You think it is a character flaw ("too dour") if I don't get a kick out of breaking the law? :confused:

[JamesBannon]

There is no ultimate "why?"; it's a silly question.

[kennyc]

There is no ultimate "why?"; it's a silly question.

But might there not be? Wait.....what?

[Haswell]

In one of my favourite films, ZULU, a frightened soldier says to his Colour Sergeant, "Why us Sarge, why us?"

The answer came "Because we're here lad, because we're here".

[kennyc]

In one of my favourite films, ZULU, a frightened soldier says to his Colour Sergeant, "Why us Sarge, why us?"

The answer came "Because we're here lad, because we're here".

So are you saying we should leave? :confused: :dunno:

:D :D :D

[SRU1X]

Never mind "Why are we here?". What the heck are we? All our estimates are based on instrumental measurements via the senses. Just because a mass or distance appears relatively great or small, we have no absolutes to work with. We simply can't make objective assessments about the framework that these kind of questions are meant to probe - from within that framework.

I think this chimes in well with Professor Nick Bostrom's question Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (http://www.simulation-argument.com/) Without understanding what makes conscious awareness happen in the first place we are, I'm sorry to say, somewhat lost - even in the most familiar of territories.

[Jack Willsson]

"The Universe is a particle of matter in a ginormous football boot."

Daft statement but no dafter than some more seriously made ones.

What would constitute evidence that it's a false statement?

[Ozymandias]

There is no ultimate "why?"; it's a silly question.

Agreed :thumbup:

[kennyc]

Never mind "Why are we here?". What the heck are we? All our estimates are based on instrumental measurements via the senses. Just because a mass or distance appears relatively great or small, we have no absolutes to work with. We simply can't make objective assessments about the framework that these kind of questions are meant to probe - from within that framework.

I think this chimes in well with Professor Nick Bostrom's question Are You Living In a Computer Simulation? (http://www.simulation-argument.com/) Without understanding what makes conscious awareness happen in the first place we are, I'm sorry to say, somewhat lost - even in the most familiar of territories.

No different that the question, maybe I'm the only living person and my brain is making up everything else. or Can we trust our senses. If we see or hear something how can we prove it is really out there?

Best argument I've seen is - we can't - we have to assume it and keep putting one foot in front of the other.

[Ozymandias]

No different that the question, maybe I'm the only living person and my brain is making up everything else. or Can we trust our senses. If we see or hear something how can we prove it is really out there?

Best argument I've seen is - we can't - we have to assume it and keep putting one foot in front of the other.

For me, the reaction is a little different. The only picture of the world and knowledge about reality comes from our observations. We make the assumption that our observations are real, since otherwise we would have no information to work with. Then we construct a model of the universe to conform with those observations.

Now, a universe where we are making everything up, or where we are in a computer simulation or whatever, either has observable consequences or it doesn't. If it does, then we can test these consequences to determine which scenario is correct. If it doesn't then there is intrinsically no difference between the scenarios. Which scenario we are in becomes an invalid question, since we are defined by our observations and reactions to these observations.

[kennyc]

I think we are saying the same thing.

[Valheru]

The difference between Science and Religion is that Science turns the question "Why are we here?" into a boring tedium. Science creates many more, much more interesting, questions to ask.

[SRU1X]

No different that the question, maybe I'm the only living person and my brain is making up everything else. or Can we trust our senses. If we see or hear something how can we prove it is really out there?

Best argument I've seen is - we can't - we have to assume it and keep putting one foot in front of the other.

For me, the reaction is a little different. The only picture of the world and knowledge about reality comes from our observations. We make the assumption that our observations are real, since otherwise we would have no information to work with. Then we construct a model of the universe to conform with those observations.

Now, a universe where we are making everything up, or where we are in a computer simulation or whatever, either has observable consequences or it doesn't. If it does, then we can test these consequences to determine which scenario is correct. If it doesn't then there is intrinsically no difference between the scenarios. Which scenario we are in becomes an invalid question, since we are defined by our observations and reactions to these observations.

Short of descending into hopeless Solipsism I think we can trust our senses in so far as they yield a (mostly) coherent account that can be independently corroborated with others. My point is more to do with the sort of expectations we have about such things as "the size of the universe" and the reasons behind some of us baulking at the idea of theories such as Everett's "many worlds" (http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm) I recently realised that while the notion of the entire universe branching is about as unparsimonious as it gets in the realm of atoms arranged in space - but in information terms it's a simple as adding one extra bit to the cosmic word-length :)

[Prosthetic Head]

And here I was under the impression I was here to open cans of cat food, on demand.

I did literally LOL at that:D

David

I second that LOL

[Jobar]

The Huffington Post tries to answer this question.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/why-are-you-here-new-theo_b_781055.html

Biocentrism, a new theory of everything, provides the missing piece. Although classical evolution does an excellent job of helping us understand the past, it fails to capture the driving force. Evolution needs to add the observer to the equation. Indeed, Niels Bohr, the great Nobel physicist, said, "When we measure something we are forcing an undetermined, undefined world to assume an experimental value. We are not 'measuring' the world, we are creating it." The evolutionists are trying to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They think we, the observer, are a mindless accident, debris left over from an explosion that appeared out of nowhere one day.

Cosmologists propose that the universe was until recently a lifeless collection of particles bouncing against each other. It's presented as a watch that somehow wound itself up, and that will unwind in a semi-predictable way. But they've shunted a critical component of the cosmos out of the way because they don't know what to do with it. This component, consciousness, isn't a small item. It's an utter mystery, which we think has somehow arisen from molecules and goo.

How did inert, random bits of carbon ever morph into that Japanese guy who always wins the hot-dog-eating contest?

In short, attempts to explain the nature of the universe, its origins, and what's really going on require an understanding of how the observer, our presence, plays a role. According to the current paradigm, the universe, and the laws of nature themselves, just popped out of nothingness. The story goes something like this: From the Big Bang until the present time, we've been incredibly lucky. This good fortune started from the moment of creation; if the Big Bang had been one-part-in-a-million more powerful, the cosmos would have rushed out too fast for the galaxies and stars to have developed. If the gravitational force were decreased by a hair, stars (including the Sun) wouldn't have ignited. There are over 200 physical parameters like this that could have any value but happen to be exactly right for us to be here. Tweak any of them and you never existed.

But our luck didn't stop with the laws, forces, and constants of the universe. Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, A. afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, A. africanus, A. garhi, A. sediba, A. aethiopicus, A. robustus, A. boisei, Homo habilis, H. georgicus, and H. erectus -- among other hominid species -- all went extinct. Even the Neanderthals went extinct. But alas, not us! Indeed, we happen to be the only species of Hominina that made it.

Our special luck continues in the present time. Asteroids could strike Earth at any time, producing a surface-charring blast of heat, followed by years of dust that would freeze and/or starve us to death. Nearby stars could go supernova, their energy destroying the ozone layer and sterilizing the Earth with radiation. And a supervolcano could shroud the Earth in dust. These are just a few (out of billions) of things that could go wrong.

Just another presentation of the anthropic principle.

[BWE]

it does seem like that question ought to take a back seat to "what are we here." doesn't it?

[Ozymandias]

Just another presentation of the anthropic principle.

Anyone who invokes the Anthropic principle should be taken out at dawn and shot.

[kennyc]

.....Biocentrism, a new theory of everything, provides the missing piece.....

Just another presentation of the anthropic principle.

Exactly.....and no more helpful than goddidit...

[BioBeing]

Church sign:

"There are some questions that cannot be answered by Google"

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-458358

Very witty, but this is what I meant when I started this thread. True, Google cannot answer them. But what you makes you think you can?

[BioBeing]

The Huffington Post tries to answer this question.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/why-are-you-here-new-theo_b_781055.html

Biocentrism, ...

Just another presentation of the anthropic principle.

What a snivelling pile of junk. :bang:

[JamesBannon]

There is no ultimate "why?"; it's a silly question.

Agreed :thumbup:

Well, to answer a question "why?", one must agree on what it is we can take to be "known", otherwise we just get an infinite regress. *


* This argument isn't mine. I first heard it in a video featuring Feynmann talking about magnetism.

[Rie]

I reckon we are here to work out why we're here. In the process of doing this we learn to love life and meditate upon the unknown things such as death. There is a beautiful piece of music called "Death and the Soldier" by Stravinsky. It's heart rending and there ain't no fear at all in it.

[Eudaimonist]

Just another presentation of the anthropic principle.

Anyone who invokes the Anthropic principle should be taken out at dawn and shot.

With a wet noodle, perhaps.

They should be taken out at dawn, and told to meditate on the shape of puddles.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[kennyc]

Puddles are good, particularly the edges.

[FormerComposer]

On another site, an e-friend said: "Why" is the single most damaging word in human discourse because of its unnoticed implications. "How" is always applicable. ~ Jason Spicer
I like it because it highlights the distinction between science and "other ways of knowing." By focusing on the "why", what is actually happening is often missed. Focusing on the "how", in contrast, often leads to an understanding of the "why" (or at least some possibilities). Sometimes, there is no "why" behind or beyond the "how".

For Big Picture issues, I find asking "why" to be an astonishing level of anthropomorphizing. Why would a universe be doing something for a reason? And, I just fell into the trap myself. A more useful question would be how could there be reasons for the universe's behavior. Once questions of physical / cosmological cause & effect have been answered, is there anything left unanswered?

To ask "why" is to fall into the watchmaker trap that has caught so many anti-evolutionists. To ask "how" is to attempt an understanding of the world.

[Schneibster]

Just another presentation of the anthropic principle.

Anyone who invokes the Anthropic principle should be taken out at dawn and shot.Steven Weinberg has produced strong evidence that supports it as a cause of the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant. You haven't presented any that refutes him. Good luck with that.

[Ozymandias]

Steven Weinberg has produced strong evidence that supports it as a cause of the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant.

No he hasn't.

[Rie]

I dunno. It just seems really stupid to ask for any reason for our manifest existence. Ok, so let's get all worked up about not being born with instructions tied to our little tiny feet.... this to me is a kind of depair.

We, along our universe and all creatures great and small did come to be, so either it all goes in a circle with no starting point or somehow our existence did come to be with a little help of some unknown sort.

At some point the feeling of awe came to be also and then some bright spark of Jewish origin decided to cash in on the awe and mystery and ...voila!...we had organised (more or less) religion. St. Effing Paul, being bored on the road to Damascus, cooked up some good promotional ideas for the new little religion and then after a few hundred years, we had the Vatican. 'Seasy if you think money and the fact that most 'wisdom' was imparted by word of mouth, since nobody but those with a bit of influence with the middle classes, could read or write.

I go with the awe factor without the organised religion bit. And I am happy to admit I'm here because I'm here... since nobody of the awe prediliction argues the toss.

[MrFungus420]

We're here because our ancestors survived.

Demanding that the entire universe be arranged so that the life of each individual person has a meaning seems more than a little self-centered to me.

[Rie]

We used to drunkenly wander the streets around the University singing a song that went like this "We're here because we're [I]here[/I because we're here].... This song had the beauty of needing only a few grey cells to rememvber the words.... But maybe we were right?

[RexT]

It's good to be here, whatever the reason.

[kennyc]

In the shuffling madness
Of the locomotive breath
Runs the all time loser
Headlong to his death
He feels the piston scraping
Steam breaking on his brow
Old Charlie stole the handle
And the train, it won't stop going
No way to slow down, o-oh


-- Ian Anderson "Locomotive Breath"

[Schneibster]

Steven Weinberg has produced strong evidence that supports it as a cause of the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant.

No he hasn't.You're unfamiliar with WMAP?

[Rie]

What are you guys talking about?:confused: I mean if I too don't know what WMAP means then I must be misguided?

[Schneibster]

It's the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. It's the first survey of the sky in every direction, from orbit rather than the ground, in the microwave at the frequency expected for the flash from the Big Bang redshifted down 13 billion years, capable of detecting differences of one part in 100,000. The Wikipedia article says, WMAP's measurements played the key role in establishing the current Standard Model of Cosmologyand I don't see this as hyperbole. For the first time, we really have actually directly observed the remaining radiation from the birth of our universe, or pocket universe, whatever you want to call it, in sufficient detail to make statements about its antecedents; we've even possibly observed wave trains in our universe that appear to be the fingerprints of the creation of other universes like ours at around the same time, or location, or whatever that means in whatever dimensionality obtains in the substrate universe in which all these pocket universes pop into being. We're no longer shooting in the dark, and this has happened very, very quickly, in just the last ten or fifteen years. As a matter of fact, some of the results of crunching the data from WMAP have yet to be found, because the crunching's not done.

[Eudaimonist]

Yes, with WMAP, it's an exciting time to be alive.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[David B]

I watched an interesting documentary on Dark Flow yesterday. Yet another Dark phenomenon invoked to get the observations fit theory.

Exciting times indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow

David

[Schneibster]

I should have been more exact: the discovery of the echoes of the Big Bang in the CMBR using WMAP data are complete; the discovery of the echoes of other pocket universes' Big Bangs in our universe appears, based upon the data we've extracted from WMAP so far, to be in progress at this time. It could, of course, turn out that we haven't actually seen anything from another pocket universe; but it could have turned out that there was nothing there in the first place, and that would have been more likely. So we've already found something that's unlikely unless there are other universes like ours out there somehow or other.

[Schneibster]

I watched an interesting documentary on Dark Flow yesterday. Yet another Dark phenomenon invoked to get the observations fit theory.

Exciting times indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow

DavidIndeed. This is part of the data analysis that shows the signatures of other universes; read the last paragraph of the "Criticisms" section, in case of edits here it is for posterity: In March 2010 it was reported by Discovery News that NASA's Goddard Space Center confirmed this could be the effects of a sibling universe or a region of space-time fundamentally different from the observable universe. Data on more than 1,000 galaxy clusters have been measured, including some as distant as 3 billion light-years. Alexander Kashlinsky claims these measurements show the universe's steady flow is clearly not a statistical fluke. Said Kashlinsky: "At this point we don't have enough information to see what it is, or to constrain it. We can only say with certainty that somewhere very far away the world is very different than what we see locally. Whether it's 'another universe' or a different fabric of space-time we don't know."The quote from Kashlinsky is from here (http://news.discovery.com/space/dark-flow-universe.html), and other material in the above quote as well.

[David B]

The name of the documentary (a BBC Horizon) was 'Is everything that we know about the universe wrong'.

I don't know about the legality of it, but there seem to be loads of torrents.

ETA and http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/is-everything-we-know-about-the-universe-wrong/

David

[Schneibster]

Nice. I'll see if I can find it and watch it. Thanks!

[David B]

I'm watching it again now. It's on my satellite box hd.

Don't worry that it takes a sort of historical approach to the development of the Standard Model. It gets to the newest stuff, having gone through the background first.

David

[Ozymandias]

Steven Weinberg has produced strong evidence that supports it as a cause of the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant.

No he hasn't.You're unfamiliar with WMAP?

WMAP hasn't provided your evidence for the anthropic principle either. If you want to make extraordinary claims you need to provide evidence.

[phands]

I think the "why" part is the problem. It sneakily implies purpose.

I prefer the Spike Milligan answer from the Goon Show....."Everybody's got to be somewhere".

[Schneibster]

Steven Weinberg has produced strong evidence that supports it as a cause of the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant.

No he hasn't.You're unfamiliar with WMAP?

WMAP hasn't provided your evidence for the anthropic principle either. If yuo're just going to lie when challenged, there's no point in talking to you.

[Rie]

But that's when arguments get interesting Schneibie! Everyone loves a good slug it out fight!

[Schneibster]

If you want to make extraordinary claims you need to provide evidence.Since I'm in the habit of proving what I say, I'll note here that this is an implicit lie: WMAP is extraordinary evidence, by the definition "extra-ordinary;" it is the first time evidence with this level of accuracy and depth has ever been available. It is therefore a lie to imply that it is not.

[Schneibster]

But that's when arguments get interesting Schneibie! Everyone loves a good slug it out fight!Nope. It's boring. That's the point where communication stops, the point where someone just lies. Nothing further of any interest will occur until that lie is expunged.

[Ozymandias]

If you want to make extraordinary claims you need to provide evidence.Since I'm in the habit of proving what I say, I'll note here that this is an implicit lie: WMAP is extraordinary evidence, by the definition "extra-ordinary;" it is the first time evidence with this level of accuracy and depth has ever been available. It is therefore a lie to imply that it is not.

Unfortunately, as great as WMAP was, it had fuck all to say about the anthropc principle, so your argument sort of falls flat on it's arse.

[Eudaimonist]

I'm curious which version of the anthropic principle WMAP supports, and what is the evidence it provides?


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Ozymandias]

I'm curious which version of the anthropic principle WMAP supports, and what is the evidence it provides?


eudaimonia,

Mark

It doesn't. He is just spouting crap again.

[Schneibster]

If you want to make extraordinary claims you need to provide evidence.Since I'm in the habit of proving what I say, I'll note here that this is an implicit lie: WMAP is extraordinary evidence, by the definition "extra-ordinary;" it is the first time evidence with this level of accuracy and depth has ever been available. It is therefore a lie to imply that it is not.

Unfortunately, as great as WMAP was, it had fuck all to say about the anthropc principle, so your argument sort of falls flat on it's arse.Ummm, you're unfamiliar with the concept of "supporting evidence?" Perhaps you missed the actual argument:

WMAP shows a) the Big Bang happened, and so did inflation, the evidence is incontrovertible, and as a result we are now talking about "the Standard Model of cosmology" which did not exist prior to the year 2000, and b) is in the process of proving that there are places "out there" past the event horizon of the universe that have very, very different conditions than those that obtain here. For example, one interpretation of the WMAP data shows that the entire universe is moving in the direction that is pointed to by a line from the Solar System toward the constellation Hydra (IIRC) and this in turn indicates the likely gravitational influence of one or more other pocket universes whose cosmological constants are high enough to have caused them to collapse, which makes them black holes as far as anyone outside them is concerned, and those are close enough to have introduced the visible bias during inflation. The data are not certain yet, but are strong- and there is no other interpretation, unless you like a random directional bias no one can understand. Finally, c) there is a running thread already linked that supports Eternal Inflation, which explicitly supports the Anthropic Principle as I have outlined above.

If you have no sensible response, why not just admit it and move on? What you're doing now is just denying, which is, as I have pointed out, an implicit lie, and which I assure you is not contributing to your credibility in any way, shape, form, or fashion.

[Ozymandias]

Hmmm. Perhaps you just have a misunderstanding about what the Anthropic Principle actually is. None of the findings in that you outlined above would support an anthropic principle because they are all explained by exactly the same physics with the same fine tunings. To provide evidence for the anthropic principle you have to provide evidence that the fine tunings are in fact real and not just some artifact of an as yet unknown higher theory. Further, you have to provide evidence that these fine tuned parameters are different in different parts of the universe, with a sufficient spread of values that some regions will inevitably have the values we observe. You have certainly not done that.

For example, if you could provide empirical evidence for the existence of the 10^500 string theory vacua then you might have a point.

[rog]

Schneibster & Fat Ugly Bald Guy:

You can have a slanging match about this in SS, I will move it on request or if it continues to be this snarky.

[David B]

I'm curious which version of the anthropic principle WMAP supports, and what is the evidence it provides?


eudaimonia,

Mark

AFAICS it provides some confirmatory evidence of Guth's inflation model (perhaps the set of models consistent with Guth would be better) in which there are loads of pocket (or bubble if you prefer) universes with different rules, most of which could not support life as we envisage it, or can envisage it. That we find life in a pocket universe that can support it is unsurprising, which is a weak anthropic principle.

David

[Schneibster]

rog, I'm not gonna back down and you're gonna break the surface tension and destroy the argument if you fuck with it any more. Quit pushin' and leave the snark alone; it's an inevitable part of getting someone to back off of emotional arguments and stick to the facts, however irrelevant facts may be in a philosophical argument. ;)

Besides, it appears to have worked.

[Schneibster]

Hmmm. Perhaps you just have a misunderstanding about what the Anthropic Principle actually is. Nope. The Anthropic Principle states that the conditions found in our universe are necessary and sufficient to the existence of life, proven by our existence, and logically requires, as I said, proof that a particular condition affects the evolution or characteristics of life in such a way that if it did/did not obtain, life would not exist. In addition, it must be shown that the condition is only one of many possibilities of nearly equal probability, and both Eternal Inflation and string physics make this so, and are the only combination of cosmology and high energy physics that does so. We are currently searching for evidence of Eternal Inflation in WMAP data, and so far finding it that we are proposing separate universes to explain the data, which is a prerequisite to using the Anthropic Principle to explain the existence of life in this area of the universe. And this argument is already been used, by Leonard Susskind, to support string physics; quite ably, IMHO.

Sounds like you're projecting; in fact, it is you who does not understand the Anthropic Principle, or anyway the logical arguments pro and con regarding it.

None of the findings in that you outlined above would support an anthropic principle because they are all explained by exactly the same physics with the same fine tunings. To provide evidence for the anthropic principle you have to provide evidence that the fine tunings are in fact real and not just some artifact of an as yet unknown higher theory. Further, you have to provide evidence that these fine tuned parameters are different in different parts of the universe, with a sufficient spread of values that some regions will inevitably have the values we observe. You have certainly not done that.

For example, if you could provide empirical evidence for the existence of the 10^500 string theory vacua then you might have a point.The WMAP data is doing that, precisely as I have stated in multiple threads, and provided good evidence, none of which you have refuted, to support my assertion. You also have failed to provide any data to support your own; you just keep repeating I'm wrong without supporting it, which is as I have already indicated IMHO lying. This post is no different; you're just making the claim again, after saying something that is equally obviously a lie to start with followed by this repetition without supporting data.

The only reasonable explanation of the fact that everything in the observable universe is moving toward the direction pointed to by a line from Earth to the constellation Hydra is that there was a strong gravity gradient toward that direction during inflation. This means that there is strong gravity in that direction, much stronger close to its source than is consistent with the conditions that obtain in our area of the universe, because if there was gravity that strong here our area would have undergone collapse billions of years ago, obviating the history of life on Earth that we know has happened.

That is precisely the anthropic argument, and there it is derived from what you claim is not evidence of it.

You're lying again.

[Ozymandias]

Hmmm. Perhaps you just have a misunderstanding about what the Anthropic Principle actually is. Nope. The Anthropic Principle states that the conditions found in our universe are necessary and sufficient to the existence of life, proven by our existence, and logically requires, as I said, proof that a particular condition affects the evolution or characteristics of life in such a way that if it did/did not obtain, life would not exist. In addition, it must be shown that the condition is only one of many possibilities of nearly equal probability, and both Eternal Inflation and string physics make this so, and are the only combination of cosmology and high energy physics that does so. We are currently searching for evidence of Eternal Inflation in WMAP data, and so far finding it that we are proposing separate universes to explain the data, which is a prerequisite to using the Anthropic Principle to explain the existence of life in this area of the universe. And this argument is already been used, by Leonard Susskind, to support string physics; quite ably, IMHO.

Sounds like you're projecting; in fact, it is you who does not understand the Anthropic Principle, or anyway the logical arguments pro and con regarding it.

Maybe you would find this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) useful.

The WMAP data is doing that, precisely as I have stated in multiple threads, and provided good evidence, none of which you have refuted, to support my assertion.

You haven't provided evidence. You have provided hearsay. Please give us the reference to the WMAP publication that claims they provide evidence in support of the anthropic principle. If you cannot do that, then you are clearly misrepresenting WMAP.

[Lurkalot]

WMAP shows a) the Big Bang happened, and so did inflation, the evidence is incontrovertible

The evidence is controvertible Schneib,
Remind me how this claim is supported, plenty of people including myself have not been convinced of the arguments for it.
But make this request secondary to your discourse with FUBG.
One at a time. ;)