Is there an order in the Universe?

Father of string theory admits that if we do not accept multiverse than science hard pressed to answer ID.

If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?

I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.


http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18825305.800.html

 

To be stuck with ID is to be stuck with being none the wiser. It's just a less honest way of saying - don't know.

 

David Joseph Bohm was an American-born quantum physicist, who made significant contributions in the fields of theoretical physics, philosophy and neuropsychology, and to the Manhattan Project. He was faculty memeber with Einstein at Princeton after the war.

His book has been recommended by the Dalai Lama who refers to Bohm as his scientific Guru.

Bohm's scientific and philosophical views seemed inseparable. In 1959, his wife Saral had found a book by the Indian philosopher J. Krishnamurti in a library and recommended it to him. He found himself impressed by the way his own ideas on quantum mechanics meshed with the philosophical ideas of Krishnamurti. Bohm's approach to philosophy and physics receive expression in his 1980 book Wholeness and the Implicate Order, and in his 1987 book Science, Order and Creativity

 

That was one very wise Roman philosopher! Definitely a quote for the ages. I don't think I've ever seen it stated more succinctly.

 

The anthropic principle -- as physics knows it admits that our universe must be fine tuned - or if it is did come about by random forces than there must be infinite multiverses.

If you really understand what the best minds in physics are saying - it is this - We as scientists must admit our universe must have been designed. (Given our current scientific understanding.)

Our only way out of that truth is to have faith and hope that there a infinite other universes out and we just happen to live in the one that works. Hey we know that is screwy but otherwise we have to admit some entity designed this universe which we cant do - we are faith based atheists.

 

The anthropic principle is a contentious collection of some general, some specific, some philosophical, some scientific and some non-scientific ideas discussed and argued for years in and out of science and physics. But in the main it boils down to truism. Anthropic principle afterall is to do with how human beings in geneal can observe the universe. As a principle it contains various points of view. The expression of one scientist's viewpoint does not speak for all scientists nor science on the subject.

That's possibly how you've gotten so mixed up with this. What's so useful about the scientific method is that unlike the Catholic church, one person does not decide for everyone else what is and what is not.

You don't need to be Einstein to realize that without a scientific explanation , of what within the anthropic principle is euphemistically and controversially called nature's 'fine tuning' , you are actually left without a scientific explanation. That doesn't give explanation. It gives no explanation. No explanation is not an explanation that goddidit.

The Scientific method doesn't permit scientists to make up explanations and then call it science. ID'ers make it their job to do that and there has never been any reason for scientists to be hard pressed to answer ID critics any more than to answer other superficial claims.

 

Check out the Irony here. A faith based atheist criticising scientific arguments by trying to associate them with religion and throwing in a little Catholici bashing. When religion was not even mentioned. This is very ironic. Atheists can't handle the truth.





STU deal with reality.

I can get all sorts of quotes from physcists - but the one I got you is pretty good. it came from the inventor of String Theory. I gave you the whole interview with the chair of the physics dept at Stanford. Leonard Susskind. Read it digest the science understand it.


Now here is a info about the origin the the anthropic principle.

The first to employ the phrase "anthropic principle" appears to have been the theoretical astrophysicist Brandon Carter, in his contribution to a 1973 symposium titled Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data honouring Copernicus's 500th birthday. Carter articulated the Anthropic Principle as an ecological correction, so called, of what is now called the Cosmological Principle. This Principle extends the principle of relativity so as to require that all observers experience the same laws of physics uniformly throughout the universe. Hence at any given time, the universe will be both homogeneous and isotropic, (in 3-D space). This defines a non-applicable principle of mediocrity, one precluding the existence of a mechanism favoring any particular time and location for the appearance of carbon-based life as we know it...

here are alternatives to the anthropic principle, the most optimistic being that a Theory of everything will ultimately be discovered, uniting all forces in the universe and deriving from scratch all properties of all particles. Candidate "theories of everything" include M-Theory and various theories of quantum gravity, although all theories of this nature are currently deemed speculative. Another possibility is Lee Smolin's model of cosmological natural selection, also known as fecund universes, which proposes that universes have "offspring" which are more plentiful if they happen to have features common to our universe. Also see Gardner (2005) and his "selfish biocosm hypothesis




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

But again STU you are not arguing the relevent point. Did you catch that last paragraph. There are alternative theories.... but they are considered too specluative.

The point is that many of the best minds in physics are postulating that if you do not accept that there are multiverses then you have to accept that our one univese is so incredibly fine tuned to life that randomness can not be a satisfactory explanation.

STU argue against that statement instead of trying to bash religion. Relgions has nothing to do with the points I have made.

Stick to the science you might learn something. This is not about your religions biases - Argue the science and you might be worth debating.

 

I don't know what planet you are on jem but when it comes to reality it isn't earth based.

I have given a description of what the anthropic principle is generally defined as. It fits pretty much with your wilkipedia definitions/explanations link. So what is your problem?

You have now declared what "the point" is. I will respond to it for the second time in a more direct way.
You do not know what you are talking about. Read what your "point" actually says....

"Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics."
That is one scientist's remarks not one scientist's science. Try to Note jem if you can... that is not science. Many of the "best minds in physics" as you put it, will disagree with his opinion. That too wwould not be science, but differing opinion.

"One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID."
He can't say that a "mathematically unique solution will emerge". Many of the "best minds in physics" are postulating a scientific solution will emerge.
He is stating ID is faith based not science based.

Now what is your point exactly? I mention the Catholic church once in comparison to your atheist/ religion whatever remarks and you shoot off into a persecution bash rant. You first mention religion, but you seem to have no recognition that you have introduced questions of religious attachments to your rather pathetic "point", making my reference reasonable in reply.

Why don't you grow up. If your religion will ever let you.

 

stu "the adult", hereto and ever after know as "the adult" lectures:

Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up. Why don't you grow up.

 

Excellent! I see that you are becoming as a little child; for such is the Kingdom of Heaven. Only, let us be vigilant, in our haste to become children, that we don't become babies and come out the other side of perception as the anti-child.

Blessings upon all little children.

Jesus