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.
juju - first i will state that is the constants change with time but are constant across space, then it would be possible to tell if two events occur at the same time, by measuring the constants.
second, the lowercase typing is a habit i picked up elsewhere. a bad habit for sure, but not having to reach for shift is convenient (i peck with my right hand on the mouse at all times).thirdly lolcreationism. all religion was crafted as a political control scheme and is now mostly a vestigial part of society.Those arguments were opinionated, not to be taken literally. No, this is not just a back-pedal argument to cover myself. It really was just opinion. I already knew no one here would even think to accept it, so I threw it out there anyway. I was bored.
Unfortunately HoT, the fundamental constants control fundamental physical interactions and these are extraordinarily difficult, nigh-on impossible, to measure without being in a lab. We only know certain constants have changed from indirect evidence collected from examining old stars. We don't know how much the constants have changed, just that they have changed significantly. What you're saying in principle is correct, in practice it isn't possible to pricisely date events.
Our incapability to measure is irrelevant. If it is even theoretically possible to measure to that extreme level of precision, it turns the theory of relativity on it's head, because no longer are things relative to each other, but can be measured against the constant flow of time.
also the idea that the constants change is still speculation:Beginning with Paul Dirac in 1937, some scientists have speculated that physical constants may actually decrease in proportion to the age of the universe. Scientific experiments have not yet pinpointed any definite evidence that this is the case, although they have placed upper bounds on the maximum possible relative change per year at very small amounts (roughly 10−5 per year for the fine structure constant α and 10−11 for the gravitational constant G). (according to wikipedia)granted, my OP is just that, speculation, but you can't argue changing constants as truth to discredit mine, you can only argue it as a competing theory.get out of my blog and stop ruining my day asshole >:[
also physics degree my ass and further to seriously respond to your claim: even if the constants change, there are a lot of them, and they ALL have to fall in certain ranges to allow for life. so unless they fluctuate up and down a whole lot (but not too much), the odds of them all at the same moment reaching the special mix of values to support life is STILL unlikely. Given the age of the universe, any such fluctuation would then have to fall within a certain range of frequency, another value fine-tuned to support us.think of it graphically. all the lines (representing the value of each constant over time) have to all intersect on one of a few small points that generate conditions supporting life. And what happens if one of those lines drifts out of that acceptable region?It could all just be chance. We could be one bubble in a foamy multiverse. It could be the grand designs of some invisible creator. There is no way of knowing, sadly, so we have to go with the simpliest, most likely solution that the evidence allows for.
On a similar note, it's likely that life came to Earth from an interstellar object. Given that cosmological processes act as a way to transfer or store energy (for example, stars create fissile-stable elements), what is the thermodynamic nature of life within the universe?except you put the qualifier 'most likely,' putting bias into your science. that's a tremendous no-no. nor would i consider your proposal the simplest, given how carefully everything would have to be balanced in our singular universe under your theory. the multiverse is actually far simpler because the only stipulation required is "everything that can exist, does exist" and therefore ockham's razor (a convention that i find rather flawed in the first place) would point to a multiverse instead.
there is the potential for intelligent design, but if we assume the likely scenario that, regardless of a multiverse or not, a god probably is NOT 'hard-coded' into our universe, any intelligence that would have created life would itself have had to evolve via natural selection. or the atoms of that race just existed in that configuration with the big bang via the law of large numbers. or a race from a parallel universe with a hard-coded god made a wormhole and seeded us in this one. and the list goes on.The entirety of science is based on "most likely." You can never prove a theory, only display enough evidence to suggest that it is very, very likely to be correct. This is the basis of the scientific method.
If you believe evolution and if you believe the theory of planetary formation then a further layer of chance is something very simple and very believeable. You don't need to create an infinity of other universes to explain it; an infinity of universes that we have no evidence of. All you need is this universe and some constants that slowly change over time - two things that we do have evidence of. It is the simpler solution.A boring mod-comment: I've gone through and combined your double posts into single posts to neaten things up.planetary formation and evolution are not random chances that just so happened. they are a result of the law of large numbers and a very, very large universe. this is ENTIRELY different from universal constants which, if you assume a singular universe, had only one chance to get it exactly right. even if we take into account changing values, there is a very limited time frame (in the cosmological sense) for the values to all fall into precise ranges at the same time, and THEN they have to stay there long enough for life to eventually develop. I don't buy it.
Furthermore, the idea of changing constants is a hundred times more complicated because you need to explain why that happens, the rate at which it happens, and everything. so don't argue for simplicity when you are flat out wrong on that point, a multiverse is explained by a single sentence. And besides, like I said, ockham's razor is full of shit.