theory of everything

Posted by HeroofTime55 on March 7, 2010, 6:51 p.m.

there are something like 30 universal constants all with precise values. the masses of certain particles, the strength of certain forces, etc. we've measured these to a degree of precision.

there is no known reason as to WHY they are set at the values they are.

furthermore, it has been observed that, for a fair number of these constants, if the values were even slightly different from what they actually are, that the universe would be radically different. things like the inability of protons and neutrons to come together and form atoms, thus preventing any complex structure in the universe and life itself.

the fact that the constants are so finely tuned has prompted religious nuts to proclaim this as clear evidence that a god exists, because 'he designed the universe so perfectly fine tuned so as to support complex structure and life.'

if you are atheist, you reject this, and are left with the curious reality that our universe is indeed fine tuned to support complex structure and thus life. except you don't have an explanation, which is problematic.

the idea is, at the time of the big bang, a very large number of parallel universes all exploded from a single point, each of these universes having a different combination of values for the universal constants. much like the way we live on earth not because it was designed for us but because we wouldn't have evolved elsewhere, we exist in this universe not because it was designed for us but because the other universes were unsuitable to support life. in this multiverse, life happens somewhere, and it happens where it is most likely: this universe, this planet.

my theory extrapolates further on this: why only have multiple universes that merely tweak the values of fixed functions? why not have universes with a completely different set of functions entirely?

thus, any possible universe that can exist, does exist.

couple with the many worlds theory, and you have such an incredibly vast and most likely infinite number of universes, that everything you could conceivably imagine exists somewhere. that is inclusive of every work of fiction, every religion, every daydream and nightmare, everything. that is the nature of an infinite 'soup' of possibilities. something about an infinite number of monkeys and the works of shakespeare.

even if experimentation has shown that the monkeys mostly produce pages consisting entirely of the letter 's.' which ironically mirrors the theory, as most of the universes would likewise be rather uninteresting, consisting of a blob of energy which the rules of that universe prevent from collapsing into interesting or complex structure.

Comments

HeroofTime55 14 years, 8 months ago

DSG, that's bullshit. Dark matter and energy are not 'negative' it's just a name scientists have for matter and energy they haven't yet identified but which observation indicates must exist. Also, most of the mass-energy in the universe is in the form of dark energy, about 2/3 of everything. about a third is dark matter, and there's a tiny sliver of matter and energy that we have identified.

also anti-matter is also not negative matter. the particles have an opposite 'spin' so that when matter collides with anti-matter it converts both into pure energy.

negative matter and negative energy are ENTIRELY separate ideas.

Cesque- the defining idea of what a universe is is that the rules of one are casually separated from the rules of another. Though some folks think we can poke holes in space creating new universes and then go to them through microscopic wormholes.

but anyway the idea is that all these universes are parallel and came into existence at the same time with the big bang. so theoretically we might be able to detect something in the cosmic background radiation or something. i don't know exactly.

Toast 14 years, 8 months ago

Quote:
as most of the universes would likewise be rather uninteresting
That doesn't make any sense, assuming infinite universes. This is why infinity is so hard impossible to comprehend.

There would be infinite uninteresting universes, and infinite interesting ones. In fact infinite universes would just consist of me eating a tangerine and playing the bongos.

HeroofTime55 14 years, 8 months ago

think of it this way: consider all the numbers from 0.025 to infinity incrementing by .05. how many of these numbers have a decimal part that is less than .05?

exactly 5% of them.

in other words most have a decimal part greater than .05

there are different degrees of infinity.

Juju 14 years, 8 months ago

Quote:
there are something like 30 universal constants all with precise values.
It's well-known that several constants aren't constant, that they are constant in space but not time. There is no reason that all the constants don't change over time. The reason why it seems like they are fine tuned for life is that this is one of the only configurations that supports life - coincidence does not imply causation. You don't need the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics to generate life without intelligent design.

On another note, can we start using capitals?

MahFreenAmeh 14 years, 8 months ago

no

also no. again.

and finally, you don't exist.

ATOGAMES 14 years, 8 months ago

Try Time Travel.

It'l Blow your brain out.

Because we already understand the universe, were live proof of any problem someone refutes.

Zyzyx66 14 years, 8 months ago

I can't shake the feeling that you've missed something pretty crucial in your early logic.

Avenger 14 years, 8 months ago

Is it logical to assume that humans are flawed?

Is it logical to assume that, if humans are flawed, humans' logic is flawed?

Is it logical to assume that, if humans are flawed, and humans' logic is flawed, then our theory OF logic is flawed?

If that is flawed (our logic of logic?), then the Big Bang is flawed. If the Big Bang is flawed, then it couldn't have happened, or else we wouldn't exist (supposedly). This leaves one option in my mind. Creation. I'll leave it at that for now.

Juju 14 years, 8 months ago

Quote:
Is it logical to assume that humans are flawed?
It isn't logical to assume humans are flawed because that is an axiom, a lemma, a starting point from which to deduce answers; a process known as logic. An assumption is in no way logical because it is an assumption.

Quote:
Is it logical to assume that, if humans are flawed, humans' logic is flawed?
You're saying that humans have created logic when actually we have discovered logic. Also, what do you mean "humans are flawed?" Our behviour is flawed? Our reasoning is flawed? We were born with original sin?

Quote:
Is it logical to assume that, if humans are flawed, and humans' logic is flawed, then our theory OF logic is flawed?
It's very hard to use the Socratic method, Avenger, because if you get something wrong you come off as an asshole.

Quote:
If the Big Bang is flawed, then it couldn't have happened
Simply because our understanding is flawed doesn't mean something didn't exist - ever got to the right answer in maths where you made two mistakes that cancelled each other out?

Before you start using reductio ad absurdum arguments, remember that disproving the Big Bang (which you have failed entirely to do) does not prove any form of creation. Allow me to analogise: I can prove that I didn't eat an orange for breakfast but that doesn't prove I ate a grapefruit instead.

Toast 14 years, 8 months ago

Quote:
This leaves one option in my mind. Creation.
Haha. If there's one theory of the universe that irrefutably comes from flawed human logic and ideas, it's creation. In fact, science moved away from that idea the FIRST time we realized our thinking was flawed.