Anthropic principle, mulitverse and God

interesting.

but these are no more than speculative thoughts. We could never devise an experiment to test them.

How much I wish these navel gazers would stop jetting round the world holding "workshops" on string theory, and apply their considerable talents to stopping war feeding the hungry curing disease and generally working out how we are all going to live together in the dawning anthropocene.

well if we can devise an experiment to test the multiverse hypothesis, we can probably do the same for the existence of God.

How much I wish these navel gazers would stop jetting round the world holding "workshops" on string theory, and apply their considerable talents to stopping war feeding the hungry curing disease and generally working out how we are all going to live together in the dawning anthropocene.

It is not just religion which divides people--and in fact, the history of wars in the modern age (since about 1500) strongly suggests that politics will always trump religion, even if the latter is used as the casus belli. In fact, the largest barrier today to economic and social equity in the world is capitalism, which seeks the lowest wages and the least burden of fair labor law and environmental responsibility.

I don't see an impassible either-or dilemma here. Except, perhaps, for the exhorbitant funds spend on space research, scientific research may really pay off someday in practical benefits (atomic fusion comes to mind).

If it were true, wouldn't all be harmonious, and we would not be building nuclear weapons and otherwise murdering each other, constantly?

If it were true, wouldn't all be harmonious, and we would not be building nuclear weapons and otherwise murdering each other, constantly?

edgarblythe wrote:

If it were true, wouldn't all be harmonious, and we would not be building nuclear weapons and otherwise murdering each other, constantly?

Never happen. Security and fear demand nukes. Why do you think America, Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel built nukes. It's the only way to guarantee you won't be attacked.

Everyone says Iran is building one. No evidence but those with nukes can understand why, esp. after our president declared it an enemy and threatened to attack it. As long as we have Bush's and Olmert's we will be encouraging others to build nukes for protection.

xingu wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

If it were true, wouldn't all be harmonious, and we would not be building nuclear weapons and otherwise murdering each other, constantly?

Never happen. Security and fear demand nukes. Why do you think America, Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel built nukes. It's the only way to guarantee you won't be attacked.

Everyone says Iran is building one. No evidence but those with nukes can understand why, esp. after our president declared it an enemy and threatened to attack it. As long as we have Bush's and Olmert's we will be encouraging others to build nukes for protection.

All of which suggests that better technology isn't the path to security. How secure will we be when every country who wants them (and perhaps a few terrorist organizations) has nuclear weapons? It should be obvious that science alone is not the key to a better world. Humanity must mature before we destroy ourselves. The collective ego must be dissolved so that identification with a particular tribe, religion, race, or belief system isn't used as an excuse for destroying those who we perceive to threaten our identity.

I'm not arguing that we should just lay down our weapons. That can't happen until there is a higher consciousness in the world. In the meantime, we have to protect ourselves as best we can. I do think the U.S. could use its power to build more constructive alliances in the world instead of wasting time, money, and lives in a pointless war in the Middle East. The money we've spent in Iraq could have been used to develop alternative energy sources, instead of making a grab for some of the remaining Middle East oil, under the guise of fighting terrorism.

What alternative energy sources had you in mind? Or is it just a question of inventing something?

The cost of fossil fuel energy will continue to increase over the long term, so we have to explore whatever alternatives exist. What choice do we have?

there is no obvious or easy alternatives to satisfy our insatiable demand for energy.

Initially I was going to post this in the science section but it does deal with religion and I suspect it will get moe readership in the religion section.

A very interesting topic emerging in the world of physics and something I suspect we will hear more about.

Quote:

We are meant to be here

People are not the result of a cosmic accident, but of laws of the universe that grant our lives meaning and purpose, says physicist Paul Davies.
By Steve Paulson
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/07/03/paul_davies

there is no obvious or easy alternatives to satisfy our insatiable demand for energy.

People are not the result of a cosmic accident, but of laws of the universe that grant our lives meaning and purpose, says physicist Paul Davies.

Words like "meaning" and "purpose" are human categories, derived from human experience, and so we're projecting them onto nature and saying, well, the best way of understanding the universe is to say it behaves in a purpose-like manner.

We're trying to construct a picture of the universe which is based thoroughly on science but where there is still room for something like meaning and purpose. So people can see their own individual lives as part of a grand cosmic scheme that has some meaning to it. We're not just, as Steven Weinberg would say, pointless accidents in a universe that has no meaning or purpose. I think we can do better than that.

If future scientists are human beings, they may be stuck with the same problems that we have. The way we think, the way we like to analyze problems, the categories that we define -- like cause and effect, space-time and matter, meaning and purpose -- are really human categories that cannot be separated from our evolutionary heritage. We have to face up to the fact that there may be fundamental limitations just from the way our brains have been put together. So we could have reached our own human limits. But that doesn't mean there aren't intelligent systems somewhere in the universe, maybe some time in the future, that could ultimately come to understand. Ultimately, it may not be living intelligence or embodied intelligence but some sort of intelligent information-processing system that could become omniscient and fill the entire universe. That's a grand vision that I rather like. Whether it's true or not is another matter entirely.

Steve 41oo wrote:

there is no obvious or easy alternatives to satisfy our insatiable demand for energy.

There are other alternatives. They just aren't as cost effective within our present structure.

But as the cost of oil goes up, the economic cost equation will change.