What Is Man?

[JimL]

Again Jim, even if your greater cosmos existed there would be nothing that would necessarily determine a universe like ours, that would still be chance event. It could just as well been that no universe was a life producing universe.

Not really seer. If the Greater Cosmos is eternal and of its own nature eternally determined as defined by its wave function then so to would be determined the baby universes that it births. Eternal and determined excludes chance!

[seer]

Not really seer. If the Greater Cosmos is eternal and of its own nature eternally determined as defined by its wave function then so to would be determined the baby universes that it births. Eternal and determined excludes chance!

Jim nothing in this Greater Cosmos determined that a universe like ours had to come to be.

[JimL]

Jim nothing in this Greater Cosmos determined that a universe like ours had to come to be.

How do you know that seer?

[seer]

How do you know that seer?

And how do you know it would? What makes you think it would? Based on what physical law or principle? Or could we even know what physical laws governed such a cosmos? How?

[tabibito]

Not really seer. If the Greater Cosmos is eternal and of its own nature eternally determined as defined by its wave function then so to would be determined the baby universes that it births. Eternal and determined excludes chance!

Interesting faith system. There's no evidence of a greater cosmos. It can't be detected. Why would I believe in the existence of something for which there is no evidence?

[JimL]

And how do you know it would? What makes you think it would? Based on what physical law or principle? Or could we even know what physical laws governed such a cosmos? How?

I don't know, I'm merely giving you the science, in so far as i understand it, and the interpretation thereof. The many worlds interpretation is the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, the other being the Copenhagen interpretation which says that we collapse the wave function and create the future by observing the future. I don't know about you, but that interpretation makes no sense to me at all. So, what makes me think, not know, but think, that this universe was determined to be? It is my understanding of quantum mechanics and how what I see as the only sensible interpretation of it predicts a Cosmos that evolves deterministicly, and if that be the case, then the baby universes that it births would need be determined as well, both in their origins and in their futures.

[JimL]

Interesting faith system. There's no evidence of a greater cosmos. It can't be detected. Why would I believe in the existence of something for which there is no evidence?

Not a faith system tabibito, faith is not based on the predictions of science. Btw, if you believe in a creator, you'll have to answer to that last question for yourself!

[tabibito]

Not a faith system tabibito, faith is not based on the predictions of science.

Ah but surely you have faith IN the predictions of science: the alternative would be to consider them unreliable.
And - errr - yeah. A faith system extrapolates from what is known to form hypothoses or predictions about what is to be expected from the unknown.

A faith system might extrapolate from (what is regarded as) historical data to determine what might be expected in the future. Such as God interacted with certain persons in a certain way, so we can expect that he will interact with people who roughly meet the same criteria in roughly the same way.

Another faith system might extrapolate from past data that around this day in every past year, in this location, there were 10 hours of daylight, ergo, we can expect that later this year, there will be a day of 10 hours daylight. Of course scenario A does present more difficulties for the development of faith than does scenario B. But - faith when it is boiled down, is confident expectation.

[Tassman]

Jim, the point is there is zero evidence, actual physical evidence, that the inflation theory is correct, or that the quantum world exists anywhere but in this universe.

That's simply not true. You continue to forget that science is a work in progress. The latest research on Inflation and its possible implications for the multiverse, was announced as recently as ten days ago:

http://www.space.com/25100-multivers...nal-waves.html

"It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse,"... "most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking the idea of a multiverse seriously." - Alan Guth, MIT theoretical physicist.

Other researchers agreed on the link between inflation and the multiverse.

"In most of the models of inflation, if inflation is there, then the multiverse is there," - Stanford University theoretical physicist, Andrei Linde.

Alan Guth and Andrei Linde, are two of the greatest names in physics, seer, and to be ignored at your peril.

[seer]

That's simply not true. You continue to forget that science is a work in progress. The latest research on Inflation and its possible implications for the multiverse, was announced as recently as ten days ago:

http://www.space.com/25100-multivers...nal-waves.html

"It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse,"... "most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking the idea of a multiverse seriously." - Alan Guth, MIT theoretical physicist.

Other researchers agreed on the link between inflation and the multiverse.

"In most of the models of inflation, if inflation is there, then the multiverse is there," - Stanford University theoretical physicist, Andrei Linde.

Alan Guth and Andrei Linde, are two of the greatest names in physics, seer, and to be ignored at your peril.

Tass, you link is from March, and has already been debunked:

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/bi...e-wrong-545203

Washington (AFP) - American astrophysicists who announced just months ago what they deemed a breakthrough in confirming how the universe was born now admit they may have got it wrong.

The team said it had identified gravitational waves that apparently rippled through space right after the Big Bang.

If proven to be correctly identified, these waves -- predicted in Albert Einstein's theory of relativity -- would confirm the rapid and violent growth spurt of the universe in the first fraction of a second marking its existence, 13.8 billion years ago.

The apparent first direct evidence of such so-called cosmic inflation -- a theory that the universe expanded by 100 trillion trillion times in barely the blink of an eye -- was announced in March by experts at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

The detection was made with the help of a telescope called BICEP2, stationed at the South Pole.

After weeks in which they avoided the media, the team published its work Thursday in the US journal Physical Review Letters.

In a summary, the team said their models "are not sufficiently constrained by external public data to exclude the possibility of dust emission bright enough to explain the entire excess signal," as stated by other scientists who questioned their conclusion.

Having said that, inflation may have happened, but not all inflation theories necessarily lead to a multiverse conclusion, and a multiverse is not necessarily past-eternal. The fact is Tass, we may never know.

[seer]

I don't know, I'm merely giving you the science, in so far as i understand it, and the interpretation thereof. The many worlds interpretation is the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, the other being the Copenhagen interpretation which says that we collapse the wave function and create the future by observing the future. I don't know about you, but that interpretation makes no sense to me at all. So, what makes me think, not know, but think, that this universe was determined to be? It is my understanding of quantum mechanics and how what I see as the only sensible interpretation of it predicts a Cosmos that evolves deterministicly, and if that be the case, then the baby universes that it births would need be determined as well, both in their origins and in their futures.

But Jim, scientist can only understand (mostly) the quantum world in this universe, then they extrapolate, i.e. your many worlds reference. But how do we even know if the greater cosmos is even governed by quantum mechanics? Perhaps there are completely different laws of physics. How would you know?

[Tassman]

Tass, you link is from March, and has already been debunked:

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/bi...e-wrong-545203

queried!http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/G..._contents.html

Having said that, inflation may have happened, but not all inflation theories necessarily lead to a multiverse conclusion, and a multiverse is not necessarily past-eternal.

No, not all inflation theories necessarily lead to a multiverse. But most do. And a multiverse is not necessarily past-eternal but it probably is.

The fact is Tass, we may never know.

[seer]

Not “debunked”, queried! There’s a difference.

But while Alan Guth, MIT theoretical physicist (who was NOT affiliated with the new study) expressed due caution he went on to say: "It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done”. And 'Inflationary Theory' still provides plausible answers to the flaws in 'Big Bang theory'. In short, it’s the more comprehensive theory of the two.

http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/G..._contents.html

And, given ‘inflation’, Guth goes on to say that virtually all models of inflation can only lead to a multiverse.

Science is a work in progress. And it seems 'Inflationary Theory' is going the same way as the 'Expanding Universe Theory; which was originally queried, just as Inflationary Theory is being queried, but subsequently shown to have been correct.

But let's be honest Tass, there is still no physical evidence for inflation theory. It has some good explanatory power, if, and only if, you begin with certain assumptions. As the last page of your link suggests.

BTW: My mistake re the dating of the article; what’s four months between friends.

No problem...

No, not all inflation theories necessarily lead to a multiverse. But most do. And a multiverse is not necessarily past-eternal but it probably is.

I don't know how many do or don't. The point is, even if inflation theory is correct it does not necessitate a multiverse, and there certainly is nothing to suggest that this greater universe is past-eternal, according to Alexander Vilenkin, at this stage, it is just the opposite - the multiverse would not be past eternal. It could be eternal into the future but not into the past.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

[firstfloor]

Another good website for all things science is here:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...bicep2-results
It is not quite true to say that there is no evidence for inflation because it is not an idea plucked out of thin air for no reason. It is instead a candidate solution to a number of cosmic conundrums first proposed in the 1980’s and it is still on the table. I do not know if it has any serious rivals yet.

[seer]

Another good website for all things science is here:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...bicep2-results
It is not quite true to say that there is no evidence for inflation because it is not an idea plucked out of thin air for no reason. It is instead a candidate solution to a number of cosmic conundrums first proposed in the 1980’s and it is still on the table. I do not know if it has any serious rivals yet.

From your link:

Yesterday, researchers from the Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization (BICEP2) telescope at the South Pole revealed that they have detected the first evidence for the primordial B-mode polarization of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The astronomers claimed that the primordial B-mode polarization signal – which is related to primordial gravitational waves that flowed through the early universe – is the first direct evidence for cosmic inflation.

See FF, this would be physical evidence for the inflation theory. Its too bad that it probably was wrong:

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/bi...url=1406812640

Washington: American astrophysicists who announced just months ago what they deemed a breakthrough in confirming how the universe was born now admit they may have got it wrong.

The team said it had identified gravitational waves that apparently rippled through space right after the Big Bang.

If proven to be correctly identified, these waves -- predicted in Albert Einstein's theory of relativity -- would confirm the rapid and violent growth spurt of the universe in the first fraction of a second marking its existence, 13.8 billion years ago.

The apparent first direct evidence of such so-called cosmic inflation -- a theory that the universe expanded by 100 trillion trillion times in barely the blink of an eye -- was announced in March by experts at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

The detection was made with the help of a telescope called BICEP2, stationed at the South Pole.

After weeks in which they avoided the media, the team published its work Thursday in the US journal Physical Review Letters.

In a summary, the team said their models "are not sufficiently constrained by external public data to exclude the possibility of dust emission bright enough to explain the entire excess signal," as stated by other scientists who questioned their conclusion.