... From: email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 3:10 AM Subject: Re: [creationevolutiondebate] Alec...Re:Mar 1, 2002 1 of 58View Source----- Original Message -----From: atomicbohr@...Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 3:10 AMSubject: Re: [creationevolutiondebate] Alec...Re: Erbrich's paperIn a message dated 2/28/02 12:59:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, POLIVER@... writes:
Yes Mike, these other universes would lie beyond our horizon of space and time and are for all intents and purposes irrelevant, but no one is losing that much sleep over it... except for you! Why is that?
Secondly, Mike... we can get our sticky fingers on at least one universe. Can you say the same?
You are confusing two different points. We can "see" a universe of about 13 billion light years [US billion not British]. Since inflation is accepted it is possible that all we are seeing is part of our universe not all of it.>Pete: Even though I didn't mention that, I will add that we can also see the galaxies forming. The early galaxies are different, and we can continue to observe them evolving into the galaxies of today. This gives us a secondary timeline which reinforces our current understanding of the universe being around 13 billion years old.>
The multiverse is different it is the actual birthing of separate universes with different dimensionless numbers to get universes with different properties.>Pete: I am well aware of this, Mike. The Big Bang that created our space-time, marks our horizon. How am I confusing anything?>
You also might want to read up on some cosmology. What you view as reality is only a very small subset of Reality that evolution has allowed yo to see. For instance, the keyboard I am typing this to you with while it appears solid to me in Reality is not.>Pete: The reason that it appears solid to you is because of the negative and positive forces of the atoms of the keys, repelling the negative and positive forces of the atoms in your fingertips. But for a particle with no charge, (like a neutrino) can, and do, pass straight through your keyboard without blinking an eyelid.... BUT SO WHAT?? Do you really see God "fine-tuning" all of this or something?Perhaps you are reading too much. Mostly people only delve into quantum mechanics and such things only if they really really need to. Too much of it is not good for one's health!! :-)MikePete
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
... I do. It does not mean unfalsifiable . ... M-theory incorporates supergravity as well as the original string theories (making it an outgrowth ofMar 8, 2002 58 of 58View Source
>I do. It does not mean "unfalsifiable".
>> >In fact the current incarnation of - or perhaps a replacement for -
>> string theory, M theory already includes versions which use
>> interactions between universes to explain aspects of ours.
>> Noooo! Don't tell Mike that, Paul. Now we're going to have to put up with
>> his whining and wheezing for another thousand years!!! :-)
>Do either of you understand the term "highly speculative"?
> Either or both ofM-theory incorporates supergravity as well as the original string
>you might want to read or if you have read, reread, THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE by
>Brian Greene. Greene has written a well praised account of the status of
>string Theory, and yes he uses the term to discuss M Theory.
theories (making it an outgrowth of superstrings). And it looks like
the strings may not really be strings - but membranes coiled up in
one of those additional dimensions cosmologists are so fond of.
> Near the end ofI think, Mike that it would benefit you to read the quoted section closely.
>the book in the chapter, Reflections on Cosmology, p 368 of the trade PB
>edition, Greene writes, "Rather than being the epitome of poetic grace in
>which everything fits together with inflexible elegance, the multiverse and
>the Anthropic principle paint a picture of a wildly excessive collection of
>universes with an insatiable appetite for variety. It will be extremely
>hard, if not impossible, for us ever to know if the multiverse picture is
>true. Even if there are other universes, we can imagine that we will never
>come into contact with any of them. But by vastly increasing the scope of
>'what's out there'- in a manner that dwarfs Hubbell's realization that the
>Milky Way is but one galaxy among many-the concept of the multiverse does at
>least alert us to the possibility that we may be asking too much of an
Greene does NOT dismiss the possibility of proving the multiverse as
you do. Green does NOT dismiss the possibility that interactions
with other universes may be detected.
Mike if I thought you were being consistent on the issue shouldn't
you hate Greene for daring to be so friendly to the multiverse
"The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of
immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals
in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala
Guide to Taoism_