what if paradox

Hi,

When I wrote "To say any universe is small (or young or any
other comparative quality) is only meaningful if there is a
yardstick. In this universe, in my mind, there is none yet for
itself, let alone others." it provoked several replies.

But not one actually answered the question!

"Small" is a *relative* value, not absolute.

So I'll paraphrase the question - small compared to what?

nightbat, you said "The yard sticks are observed co peer
confirmed one Universe Phil" which seems meaningless as it
probably means something I didn't question - that there is only
one universe - and nothing else.

Philosophically, I have to doubt that there is actually only one
universe but we're not talking philosophy - we're talking
science.

Now, it's possible that the word "small" may have a different
meaning in this context, a meaning I'm not familiar with, or
maybe the poster used it by mistake meaning something else (not
a criticism - I'm not perfect either). If so could someone
please elucidate.

Take care,
Phil.

"Sleep quicker,
we need the beds."

http://www.philaypee.co.uk

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:11:25 -0500
nightbat wrote:

nightbat wrote

Ray Vingnutte wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 05:37:19 -0500
nightbat wrote:

nightbat wrote

Luigi Caselli wrote:

"Phil Aypee" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Hi,

To say any universe is small (or young or any other comparative
quality) is only meaningful if there is a yardstick. In this
universe, in my mind, there is none yet for itself, let alone
others.

But if there are such yardsticks available in science then
please tell me what they are.


Luigi
Small means that in our universe you can have only one reality.
So anything is not possibly and not likely. Life conditions are limited.

In a multiverse solution you can have infinite realities... and in this
theory you can say that (almost) anything is possibly or likely in some of
these universes.
And there's no need to claim that we won an incredibly unlikely lottery.
With infinite tickets someone (us) took the right one...

In the biggest lottery in Italy you have only 1 on 625.000.000 possibility
to win.
But selling millions of tickets every extraction someone every 10-20 times
wins.
If they sell only one ticket it's a bit more difficult to win...

Our universe fine tuning conditions are a lot more unlikely...
So you really need lots of tickets (universes)...

Luigi Caselli

nightbat

The yard sticks are observed co peer confirmed one Universe Phil
and step out of the sci fi no evidence box Luigi for a moment. Try
thinking in terms of one scientifically observed immense Universe
permitting many many ticket galaxies.

Ray
Those galaxies all bought the same ticket or done the same set of numbers. The numbers are all the same whichever galaxy your in.

nightbat

Perhaps the same present known applicable math numbers Ray, but
by no means always the same number potential particular real world
mixing and reducing applicable factors. For life to exist and evolve
requires exacting proper conditions perhaps not conducive in all
theoretical, observable, or possible galaxies, their formations,
including residing stars or planets. However your life analysis
propensity is correct, life begets life is true, where it science
possibly cause deduced originated is the question. All life preexistent
absent even in imaginary multiverse theory gives you the same answer on
both sides of dimensional evaluation or any possible applied
mathematical equation.

Aha, hold on, because look at it like this, if you want to be sure of an
event happening then you need to increase the chances of that event happening, ie you have so many planets, so many solar systems, so many
galaxies etc etc until the chances of that event happening become an
almost certainty, if not a full certainty. I am of course referring to life here. Look at life on this planet, it is very diverse, if you could go back say 4 billion years could you have predicted that we humans would eventually evolve?, I would say no because we know that the course of life on this planet has not been straightforward and has not only been subject to influence down here but to external influence for example comet/asteroid impacts. We could so easily not have evolved and the dino's could have survived and continued, you even have to accept the possibility that no intelligent life would have evolved at all here.

But....with so many stars in each galaxy, and with so many galaxies in the universe and with the stuff/goo that is required to make life possible spread literally all over the place then one has to ask is it likely that the universe could go on and on and no intelligent life form at all, you see the problem here, the numbers are just so huge that it must be inevitable that intelligent life was going to form somewhere amongst all this. And with the numbers so huge and the goo everywhere is it likely that we are the only intelligent life to have evolved in this universe?, the numbers are so huge only a fool would place a bet that we are alone.

Now here's the crunch you won't like Nightbat, the same must surely apply to the universe itself, to get a universe like this one that is so finely tuned, so hideously finely tuned, so suspiciously finely tuned to support life one either has to ponder the possibility that this universe is just one of many considering multi or a infinite number of universes or that this universe is a complete setup mate.






the nightbat

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 15:02:11 +0000
(Phil Aypee) wrote:

Hi,

When I wrote "To say any universe is small (or young or any
other comparative quality) is only meaningful if there is a
yardstick. In this universe, in my mind, there is none yet for
itself, let alone others." it provoked several replies.

But not one actually answered the question!

"Small" is a *relative* value, not absolute.

So I'll paraphrase the question - small compared to what?

nightbat, you said "The yard sticks are observed co peer
confirmed one Universe Phil" which seems meaningless as it
probably means something I didn't question - that there is only
one universe - and nothing else.

Philosophically, I have to doubt that there is actually only one
universe but we're not talking philosophy - we're talking
science.

Now, it's possible that the word "small" may have a different
meaning in this context, a meaning I'm not familiar with, or
maybe the poster used it by mistake meaning something else (not
a criticism - I'm not perfect either). If so could someone
please elucidate.

I think it has just been turned into a play on words, if I say the universe is big it's just the same, I mean big in relation to what??
Yes it's big compared to the size of a planet, it's big compared to the size of a galaxy. Is it small? well we don't know the size of the universe, we can only see out to about 13-14 billion years and the universe must be larger than that, but how large no one knows, you could say that the observable part that we can see may be small in relation to the overall size of the universe, whatever that may be.


Take care,
Phil.

"Sleep quicker,
we need the beds."

http://www.philaypee.co.uk

Hi Ray One perfect universe can only happen with trillions of failed
universes.(chaos rules the spacetime of the many) A failed universe is a
universe without an observer. Nature created humankind so the universe
could see itself.A universe + an observer = the realistic feature of our
spacetime,and what a great beautiful view we have.that goes out some 15
billion LY. Bert

"Phil Aypee" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Hi,

When I wrote "To say any universe is small (or young or any
other comparative quality) is only meaningful if there is a
yardstick. In this universe, in my mind, there is none yet for
itself, let alone others." it provoked several replies.

But not one actually answered the question!

"Small" is a *relative* value, not absolute.

So I'll paraphrase the question - small compared to what?

Philosophically, I have to doubt that there is actually only one
universe but we're not talking philosophy - we're talking
science.

Small means that our universe compared to infinite universes is a "local"
place where we live...
I don't understand why you and other like nightbat are so worried about
thinking to multiverse theory.

To explain the incredible fine tuning of this universe you have only four
solution:
1. By chance
2. Because we live in it (anthropic principle)
3. There is a creator
4. This is one of infinite universes

Thinking about the four solutions:
1. Do you really think it's likely we won a lottery with maybe 1 on 10^120
probability to win?
2. Too human centric, it's difficult to think that physical constants can
have only their present value.
3. Maybe, but not easy to accept without lot of faith
4. By far the most likely, this solution easily explain the fine tuning of
our "local" universe. And there is no need to communicate between different
universes.
They could be completely isolated. The important thing if there is at least
one of these right for our lives and we live in it. And so we can observe
only this one and the other ones can exist outside our reality without
creating problems to our philosophy or science.

If you think there is only one universe you have to accept the creator idea
or more likely that we live in a huge simulation (interesting variation of
the creator idea).
Solution 1 or 2 are almost statistically impossible to accept.

Luigi Caselli

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Hi Ray One perfect universe can only happen with trillions of failed
universes.(chaos rules the spacetime of the many) A failed universe is a
universe without an observer. Nature created humankind so the universe
could see itself.A universe + an observer = the realistic feature of our
spacetime,and what a great beautiful view we have.that goes out some 15
billion LY. Bert

So you accept multiverse solution, if I understand.

Luigi Caselli

(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in message ...
Hi Ray One perfect universe can only happen with trillions of failed
universes.(chaos rules the spacetime of the many) A failed universe is a
universe without an observer. Nature created humankind so the universe
could see itself.A universe + an observer = the realistic feature of our
spacetime,and what a great beautiful view we have.that goes out some 15
billion LY. Bert


Bert, wouldn't it be great to have a peep hole into one of those universes run amok?

Doouble-A

HI Luigi,

You said "Small means that our universe compared to infinite
universes is a "local place where we live..." then you said " I
don't understand why you and other like nightbat are so worried
about thinking to multiverse theory." but I'm afraid you're
mistaken about my views.

I actually consider the idea that there are a finite number of
universes ridiculous (and have for over 30 years). An infinite
number seems far more reasonable.

But what I find fascinating is that, if there are an infinite
number of universes each with their own variations of physics
then there must be an infinite number of universes *each* of
which is the only universe.

But that's just an interesting speculation.

Take care,
Phil.

"Sleep quicker,
we need the beds."

http://www.philaypee.co.uk

Hi Double-A Universes that ran amok Hmmmm Could be a universe that
only created gamma photons(ours did that in the beginning) Maybe some
with just blackholes created from the explosion of their BB,and not by
super dense large stars(novas).It takes many monkeys to write the
history of our universe from the start of its creation right up to our
spacetime. It took just as many failed universes to make this the truth.
It took many failed pie crusts for me to create one that melts in your
mouth. It took trial and error but over time one had to come out just
right.Universes are no different. Bert

"Luigi Caselli" wrote in message
...
"Phil Aypee" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Hi,

To say any universe is small (or young or any other comparative
quality) is only meaningful if there is a yardstick. In this
universe, in my mind, there is none yet for itself, let alone
others.

But if there are such yardsticks available in science then
please tell me what they are.

Small means that in our universe you can have only one reality.
So anything is not possibly and not likely. Life conditions are limited.

In a multiverse solution you can have infinite realities... and in this
theory you can say that (almost) anything is possibly or likely in some of
these universes.
And there's no need to claim that we won an incredibly unlikely lottery.
With infinite tickets someone (us) took the right one...

In the biggest lottery in Italy you have only 1 on 625.000.000 possibility
to win.
But selling millions of tickets every extraction someone every 10-20 times
wins.
If they sell only one ticket it's a bit more difficult to win...

Our universe fine tuning conditions are a lot more unlikely...
So you really need lots of tickets (universes)...

Luigi Caselli



The belief in a multiverse, founded by neither evidence, observation nor
logic, is a manifestation of a human being's search and striving for the
absolutely deepest level of inferiority complex possible to attain.

IOW, those with inferiority complexes were overjoyed each time a discovery
was made which increased the perceived size of the Universe.

Now that your science has taken you about as far as it can take you in terms
of the size of the observable Universe, people like you keep the trend going
with your imaginations.

You envision either an infinitely large Universe or an infinite set of
Universes in order to make yourself feel as small as you can possibly feel.

This then justifies your overwhelming and decidedly overbearing sense of
superiority over other people.

If you are not already seeing a psychologist, I would certainly like to take
a closer look at you, if you don't mind.

Dr. Yubiwan, Ph.D.