kantliebe (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} kantliebe) wrote,@ 2007-10-07 13:14:00 |
|
The Eternal Return
The basic problem is that it would appear that everything is created an infinite number of times. There exists the best and the worse of all possible worlds in an infinite number of copies. In the past I have collected quotes on this as follows:
All and Why
A set of theories have emerged that go a fair distance to explain what there is and why it is here in some sense. However, the ultimate questions of central importance to humans - God, purpose, meaning, mortality or immortality - cannot be so answered.
We start with the question of whether we should expect answers and find ultimately that we must rely on faith.
“There is no logical reason why the Universe should not contain surd or arbitrary elements that do no relate to the rest.
...
“The modern search for a Theory of Everything is the ultimate expression of the belief that there is an abbreviated representation of the logic behind the Universe’s properties that can be written down in finite form by human beings.” John D. Barrow
Plainly, the whole endeavor to explain what there is an why depends on an assumption that there is an explanation although things need not be explicable, particularly need not be explicable to human beings. (12/17/00)
The Physical Explanation
We can conjecture a reasonable theory of how the physical universe looks as it does by positing a “pregnant nothing.” By creating something out of nothing, God throws dice, or rather dice are thrown. This theory is explained by Professors Kaku:
"A remarkable consensus has been developing recently around what is called "quantum cosmology," where scientists believe that a merger of the quantum theory and Einstein's relativity may resolve these sticky theological questions. Theoretical physicists are rushing in where the angels fear to tread!
In particular, an appealing but starting new picture is emerging in quantum cosmology which may be able to synthesize some of the great mythologies of creation.
There are two dominant religious mythologies. According to Judeo‑Christian belief, the universe had a definite beginning. This is the Genesis hypothesis, where the universe was hatched from a Cosmic Egg. However, according to the Hindu‑Buddhist belief in Nirvana, the universe is timeless; it never had a beginning, nor will it have an end.
Quantum cosmology proposes a beautiful synthesis of these seemingly hostile viewpoints. In the beginning was Nothing. No space, no matter or energy. But according to the quantum principle, even Nothing was unstable. Nothing began to decay; i.e. it began to "boil," with billions of tiny bubbles forming and expanding rapidly. Each bubble became an expanding universe.
If this is true, then our universe is actually part of a much larger "multiverse" of parallel universes, which is truly timeless, like Nirvana.
As Nobel laureate Steve Weinberg has said, "An important implication is that there wasn't a beginning; that there were increasingly large Big Bangs, so that the [multiverse] goes on forever ‑ one doesn't have to grapple with the question of it before the Bang. The [multiverse] has justbeen here all along. I find that a very satisfying picture."
Universes can literally spring into existence as a quantum fluctuation of Nothing. (This is because the positive energy found in matter is balanced against the negative energy of gravity, so the total energy of a bubble is zero. Thus, it takes no net energy to create a new universe.)
As Alan Guth, originator of the inflationary theory, once said, "It's often said there is no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe itself may be a free lunch."
Andre Linde of Stanford has said, "If my colleagues and I are right, we may soon be saying good‑bye to the idea that our universe was a single fireball created in the Big Bang."
Although this picture is appealing, it also raises more questions. Can life exist on these parallel universes? Stephen Hawking is doubtful; he believes that our universe may co‑exist with other universes, but our universe is special. The probability of forming these other bubbles is vanishingly small.
On the other hand, Weinberg believes most of these parallel universes are probably dead. To have stable DNA molecules, the proton must be stable for at least 3 billion years. In these dead universes, the protons might have decayed into a sea of electrons and neutrinos.
Our universe may be one of the few compatible with life. This would, in fact, answer the age‑old question of why the physical constants of the universe fall in a narrow band compatible with the formation of life. If the charge of the electron, the gravitational constant, etc. were changed slightly, then life would have been impossible. This is called the Anthropic Principle. As Freeman Dyson of Princeton said, "It's as if the universe knew we were coming." The strong version of this states that this proves the existence of God or an all‑powerful deity.
But according to quantum cosmology, perhaps there are millions of dead universes. It was an accident, therefore, that our universe had conditions compatible with the formation of stable DNA molecules." Dr. Michio Kaku[1]
Similarly Alan Guth in “An Eternity of Bubbles” explains:
"Nonetheless, an understanding of the infinite tree of universes seems to be needed in order to make statistical predictions about the properties of our own universe, which is assumed to be a typical "branch" on the tree.
In studying a scenario such as this, cosmologists generally assume that the laws of physics are the same throughout this multi‑bubble universe. We don't really have any way of knowing, but our goal is to understand the consequences of the laws of physics as we know them, and not to idly speculate about other mythical worlds. Nonetheless, there is a possibility that the other bubbles could be very different from our own. While empty space appears to be devoid of properties, to a modern particle physicist empty space, also called the vacuum, is an enormously complicated substance. Particle‑antiparticle pairs are incessantly appearing and disappearing, and space itself is believed to break up into a poorly understood "quantum foam" when magnified enough so that distances as short as 10‑33 centimeter become visible. Because of this complexity, physicists do not know whether only one kind of empty space is stable, or whether there are many kinds. Other kinds of space might not be three‑dimensional, and they might alter the masses of elementary particles, or the forces that govern their behavior. If there are many kinds of space, the infinite tree of bubble universes would sample all the possibilities."
Anthropic Principle
Note that if some of the finely‑balanced quantities were not finely‑tuned
then our Universe would have grossly different properties. The properties would in fact be so different that it is highly likely that life (as we know it) would not develop and be around to ask the question of why the Universe is special. That is, selection effects would say that it is only in universes where the conditions are right for life (thus pre‑selecting certain universe) is it possible for the questions of specialness to be posed.
This statement and variants of this statement are the gist of the Anthropic Principle. Note that the Anthropic Principle is probably true and says that there is nothing mysterious about why our Universe is special. However, it does not rule out the possibility that there is a deeper level to our understanding of the Universe which makes our Universe the most probable universe from the plethora of all possible universes. This still may be true but is not required philosophically or scientifically.
"Uns Christen fällt es sicherlich leichter, ausgehend von der Botschaft des Christfestes sowie des Evangeliums insgesamt, Antworten auf existenzielle Fragen der Menschen zu finden." Stoiber
This is probably not true. 12/17/00
May 13, 2001
It is clear that a universe that has life on it like us is wildly improbable. The only ways to explain our existence then are (i) intelligent creation or (ii) a huge number of tosses of the dice that makes improbable events possible. There does not seem to be any basis, a priori or posteriori, on which to pick among between the options. One may either indulge in a preference for God or a preference for an impersonal algorithm that must lead to all things given enough opportunities.
The Darwinian, having gotten so far without a God to design anything, is loath to allow a designer for the universe. We may sympathize with his desire for a unified set of explanation, but his plot does not work when contemplating potentially unique events. Without time and many, many chances, there is no way to explain the world save by resorting to design. By assuming many tosses of the dice, our Darwinian hero makes the same sort of aesthetic choice as the man of religious faith.
The prospect that horrified old Nietzsche, the Eternal Return, requires more than just a huge number of universes. The number must be infinite and the number of different types of universes finite.
There is a temptation to assume an infinite number once one has assume a huge number. But it does not seem to be a legitimate step, just a natural one.
We are free, indeed, to assume it is all is unique if we wish to. (5/24/01 printed)
[1]Prof. of theoretical physics at the City Univ. of New York and author of Hyperspace: a Scientific Odyssey through the 10th Dimension (Oxford Univ. Press).
The basic problem is that it would appear that everything is created an infinite number of times. There exists the best and the worse of all possible worlds in an infinite number of copies. In the past I have collected quotes on this as follows:
All and Why
A set of theories have emerged that go a fair distance to explain what there is and why it is here in some sense. However, the ultimate questions of central importance to humans - God, purpose, meaning, mortality or immortality - cannot be so answered.
We start with the question of whether we should expect answers and find ultimately that we must rely on faith.
“There is no logical reason why the Universe should not contain surd or arbitrary elements that do no relate to the rest.
...
“The modern search for a Theory of Everything is the ultimate expression of the belief that there is an abbreviated representation of the logic behind the Universe’s properties that can be written down in finite form by human beings.” John D. Barrow
Plainly, the whole endeavor to explain what there is an why depends on an assumption that there is an explanation although things need not be explicable, particularly need not be explicable to human beings. (12/17/00)
The Physical Explanation
We can conjecture a reasonable theory of how the physical universe looks as it does by positing a “pregnant nothing.” By creating something out of nothing, God throws dice, or rather dice are thrown. This theory is explained by Professors Kaku:
"A remarkable consensus has been developing recently around what is called "quantum cosmology," where scientists believe that a merger of the quantum theory and Einstein's relativity may resolve these sticky theological questions. Theoretical physicists are rushing in where the angels fear to tread!
In particular, an appealing but starting new picture is emerging in quantum cosmology which may be able to synthesize some of the great mythologies of creation.
There are two dominant religious mythologies. According to Judeo‑Christian belief, the universe had a definite beginning. This is the Genesis hypothesis, where the universe was hatched from a Cosmic Egg. However, according to the Hindu‑Buddhist belief in Nirvana, the universe is timeless; it never had a beginning, nor will it have an end.
Quantum cosmology proposes a beautiful synthesis of these seemingly hostile viewpoints. In the beginning was Nothing. No space, no matter or energy. But according to the quantum principle, even Nothing was unstable. Nothing began to decay; i.e. it began to "boil," with billions of tiny bubbles forming and expanding rapidly. Each bubble became an expanding universe.
If this is true, then our universe is actually part of a much larger "multiverse" of parallel universes, which is truly timeless, like Nirvana.
As Nobel laureate Steve Weinberg has said, "An important implication is that there wasn't a beginning; that there were increasingly large Big Bangs, so that the [multiverse] goes on forever ‑ one doesn't have to grapple with the question of it before the Bang. The [multiverse] has justbeen here all along. I find that a very satisfying picture."
Universes can literally spring into existence as a quantum fluctuation of Nothing. (This is because the positive energy found in matter is balanced against the negative energy of gravity, so the total energy of a bubble is zero. Thus, it takes no net energy to create a new universe.)
As Alan Guth, originator of the inflationary theory, once said, "It's often said there is no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe itself may be a free lunch."
Andre Linde of Stanford has said, "If my colleagues and I are right, we may soon be saying good‑bye to the idea that our universe was a single fireball created in the Big Bang."
Although this picture is appealing, it also raises more questions. Can life exist on these parallel universes? Stephen Hawking is doubtful; he believes that our universe may co‑exist with other universes, but our universe is special. The probability of forming these other bubbles is vanishingly small.
On the other hand, Weinberg believes most of these parallel universes are probably dead. To have stable DNA molecules, the proton must be stable for at least 3 billion years. In these dead universes, the protons might have decayed into a sea of electrons and neutrinos.
Our universe may be one of the few compatible with life. This would, in fact, answer the age‑old question of why the physical constants of the universe fall in a narrow band compatible with the formation of life. If the charge of the electron, the gravitational constant, etc. were changed slightly, then life would have been impossible. This is called the Anthropic Principle. As Freeman Dyson of Princeton said, "It's as if the universe knew we were coming." The strong version of this states that this proves the existence of God or an all‑powerful deity.
But according to quantum cosmology, perhaps there are millions of dead universes. It was an accident, therefore, that our universe had conditions compatible with the formation of stable DNA molecules." Dr. Michio Kaku[1]
Similarly Alan Guth in “An Eternity of Bubbles” explains:
"Nonetheless, an understanding of the infinite tree of universes seems to be needed in order to make statistical predictions about the properties of our own universe, which is assumed to be a typical "branch" on the tree.
In studying a scenario such as this, cosmologists generally assume that the laws of physics are the same throughout this multi‑bubble universe. We don't really have any way of knowing, but our goal is to understand the consequences of the laws of physics as we know them, and not to idly speculate about other mythical worlds. Nonetheless, there is a possibility that the other bubbles could be very different from our own. While empty space appears to be devoid of properties, to a modern particle physicist empty space, also called the vacuum, is an enormously complicated substance. Particle‑antiparticle pairs are incessantly appearing and disappearing, and space itself is believed to break up into a poorly understood "quantum foam" when magnified enough so that distances as short as 10‑33 centimeter become visible. Because of this complexity, physicists do not know whether only one kind of empty space is stable, or whether there are many kinds. Other kinds of space might not be three‑dimensional, and they might alter the masses of elementary particles, or the forces that govern their behavior. If there are many kinds of space, the infinite tree of bubble universes would sample all the possibilities."
Anthropic Principle
Note that if some of the finely‑balanced quantities were not finely‑tuned
then our Universe would have grossly different properties. The properties would in fact be so different that it is highly likely that life (as we know it) would not develop and be around to ask the question of why the Universe is special. That is, selection effects would say that it is only in universes where the conditions are right for life (thus pre‑selecting certain universe) is it possible for the questions of specialness to be posed.
This statement and variants of this statement are the gist of the Anthropic Principle. Note that the Anthropic Principle is probably true and says that there is nothing mysterious about why our Universe is special. However, it does not rule out the possibility that there is a deeper level to our understanding of the Universe which makes our Universe the most probable universe from the plethora of all possible universes. This still may be true but is not required philosophically or scientifically.
"Uns Christen fällt es sicherlich leichter, ausgehend von der Botschaft des Christfestes sowie des Evangeliums insgesamt, Antworten auf existenzielle Fragen der Menschen zu finden." Stoiber
This is probably not true. 12/17/00
May 13, 2001
It is clear that a universe that has life on it like us is wildly improbable. The only ways to explain our existence then are (i) intelligent creation or (ii) a huge number of tosses of the dice that makes improbable events possible. There does not seem to be any basis, a priori or posteriori, on which to pick among between the options. One may either indulge in a preference for God or a preference for an impersonal algorithm that must lead to all things given enough opportunities.
The Darwinian, having gotten so far without a God to design anything, is loath to allow a designer for the universe. We may sympathize with his desire for a unified set of explanation, but his plot does not work when contemplating potentially unique events. Without time and many, many chances, there is no way to explain the world save by resorting to design. By assuming many tosses of the dice, our Darwinian hero makes the same sort of aesthetic choice as the man of religious faith.
The prospect that horrified old Nietzsche, the Eternal Return, requires more than just a huge number of universes. The number must be infinite and the number of different types of universes finite.
There is a temptation to assume an infinite number once one has assume a huge number. But it does not seem to be a legitimate step, just a natural one.
We are free, indeed, to assume it is all is unique if we wish to. (5/24/01 printed)
[1]Prof. of theoretical physics at the City Univ. of New York and author of Hyperspace: a Scientific Odyssey through the 10th Dimension (Oxford Univ. Press).
