For Christians - why is the Universe so big?

g__day,

Your right the bible has no relevance to the question of the universe.

God or an Intelligence/s is another thing.

The Bible has limited relevance - the sequence of creation and a directed intelligence is fine, especially if the story was originally edited by a primitive mind.

I see it has a signal to noise issue.

All this talk about what chances were that our universe would support life makes me wonder how can one know what OPTIONS were there to choose from in the first place?
If you want probability you need the context of possibility first. I think it is only a great delusion coming up with numbers for that. As far as we know, there is no other option but our universe here.

It seems extremely naive to parametrize a physical theory (physical constants) and then speculate as if all possible values for them were valid in the first place, and based on this come up with some probability as if there was God who used random number generator to set them up.

We may not understand why these constants appear to us in a numerical form, which are really constant and which aren't, some of them pop from a new theory (M theory is known for that) and maybe there are no constants at all, just an illusion we have with our limited understanding.

Who knows how big the Universe is? We only know that observable part of the universe is about 15 billion light years in each direction (cosmologically, using proper time), and we still aren't sure of that.

I think reading popular science tends to give the wrong impression (from journalists) that these things are 'known'. When you look into some serious stuff you discover just how careful the real scientist is. Interpretations, predictions and speculations are difficult to get from a hardworking investigator.

g - day

You have allowed an excellent thread to degenerated into bullshit.

MY GUESS is that you have absolutely no more idea about the probability of a universe without a god than I do -- and I have nothing of any value to base a guess about that.

Besides, even if your probability estimate (which obviously you pulled out of thin air) were correct...

...it is a very large number supposedly against no-god...

...if the universe happens to be infinite, that number becomes almost a sure bet.

Frank - What are you trying to say?

By nature of the definition to know the probability of a Universe without a God you need to know a distribution curve (and whether you are running f or p tests). Are you proffering a distribution curve?

You are quick to throw around high praise and serious criticism with very vague and unclear statements of what has set you off.

A few points for you:

1. Your correct - but its not my probability function, I made a statement to show the question was mis-constructed. Noted theoretical physicists discussing the Anthropic Principle have expressed their understandings on the chance of intelligent life in our Universe being a random event (there was a Scientific America last year that focused on why the laws of physics are so well tuned to support life). The expressions on probability the 1 : 10 ^ 40,000 for even a single cell organism with 2,000 enzymes randomly forming (see link above
http://www.able2know.com/go/?a2kjump=http%3A%2F%
2Fwww.aish.com%2Fspirituality%2Fphilosophy%
2FThe_Design_Argument.asp ).

Theroetical physicists independently say the cricital physical constants have to be so well balanced to support life the chances are is 1 : 10 ^ 120 of it happening randomly. The same numbers were mentioned by a theoretical physicst in the series "Putting God on Trial" who added "if we want a debate to include an athesist point of view nowadays we have to go outside to the philisophy department".

To criticise the Authors of the probability statement that concerns you - the referenced one you believe I made up on the spot - I refer you to "The Edge of Physics" Spring edition 2003 of Scientif America
http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?
sequencenameCHAR=item&methodnameCHAR=resource_getitembrowse
&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEID_CHAR=6C2FAA19-0087-C3FE-547CDF8E4C786808
and also recommend "The Once and Future Cosmos" Which is the Fall 2002 edition.

2. "it is a very large number supposedly against no-god" - the context of this point is unclear, what are you saying?

If you are pondering are their infinite membranes of distinct existence seperate from our Universe fine - Scientic America reported on this too http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0001572B-C4D4-1E95-8EA5809EC5880000 also read Jean-Pierre Luminet, Glenn D. Starkmen and Jeffrey R. Weeks "Is Space Finite" Scientic Americia Vol 12, Number 2, Pages 58 - 65 and Nima Arkani-Hamed, Savas Dimopoulos and Gerorgi Dvali "The Universe's Unseen Dimensions" Pg 66 - 73 of that same edition

If you mean something else - please say what you mean with greater clarity!

3. Same with your second point, the number of what objects makes what belief or rule a sure bet?

I am happy to respect your individual views but I truthfully don't follow what precisely you are trying to say. I can say that Hawking's and other seem to be saying our Universe is not infinite. Anyone who holds with the big bang is likely to view the Universe as finite unless time goes on to infinity.

Relative

Life and DNA aren't my forte - but for an excellent short introd on how hard it is to get Life I refer you to http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm

"Stuart Kauffman, for instance, identifies life with "the emergence of self-reproducing systems of catalytic polymers, either peptides, RNA, or others" (The Origins of Order,1993, p.340). Adopting this theoretical perspective, Kauffman develops a mathematical model in which "autocatalytic polymer sets . . . are expected to form spontaneously" (p.288). Kauffman is attempting to lay the foundation for a theory of life's origin in which life is not a lucky accident, but an event that is to be fully expected:

I believe [life] to be an expected, emergent, collective property of complex systems of polymer catalysts. Life, I suggest, 'crystallizes' in a phase transition leading to connected sequences of biochemical transformations by which polymers and simpler building blocks mutually catalyze their collective reproduction (p.287)."

Again its Scientific Amerian last year that ran a special edition on this one. They interviewed leading theoretical physicists, they examined the Anthropic Principle, they mapped 11 dimensional membranes and discussed which combinations could support life.

I agree theories change - look at Einstein form 1915 - 1935, several leading contemporaries complained he changed his theories every year!

The Diameter of the Universe I was initially surprised to learn is not twice the age of the Universe in light years, because I am told i) Inflation immediately after the big bang ii) spacetime is unfolding not merely expanding and iii) quintensence is once again accelerating the expansion.

I don't pretend to understand all the theoretical physics, but if noted Astronomers say the Universe is 10 ^ 40 billion light years in diameter I recognise their calculations.

That S.A. link I gave you - the quotes the diameter of the Universe as 8 * 10 ^ 26 metres http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/0001572B-C4D4-1E95-8EA5809EC5880000_2.jpg

From an astronomy site "the universe has a diameter of 40 billion light years. Forty billion is equal to 4 x 10^10. One light year is just a bit less than 5.87 trillion miles - i.e. 5.87 x 10^12. So, the diameter of our universe is more than 2.35 x 10^23 miles" (ed. which is around 8 * 10 ^26 metres).

* * *

But rather than be dismissive or confrontational - why not rather add your views or suggestions?

* * *

Since starting this thread I am pondering a possible direction to answer why so many stars:

To support life in this Universe you need certain physical constants to be extremely fine tuned, perhaps these constants are in some way tied to the starting conditions of the Big Bang. Maybe if there was discernibly more or less initial Energy in the Big Bang several of our Universal Constants would take on slightly different values and life wouldn't be possible. Maybe trillions of stars are need to get the physical constants well enough tuned to support life.

Pure speculation that I will try and look into. If the was x% more or less energy in the Big Bang - which of our critical Universal constants might be different? MOND seems to show a link between Gravity and the size and age of our Universe after all...

I see that since 2001 this idea is gaining ground http://physicsweb.org/article/world/14/10/3

Frank,

This was well beneath your usual standard, and you should retract it.

No one "allowed" this thread to do anything. What you have termed as bullshit, is merely a set of illustrations of the contradictions inherent in any claim that modern science has somehow displaced the idea of God from rational thought. No one here (as far as I can see) has made a claim that science proves the existence of God. On the contrary several posters here have repeatedly asserted that they are distinct things, that certainty is not available, but that something in our nature often inclines us to the belief in God. Our science leaves open lots of possibilities, ranging from superstring theory to M theory and multiple universes, and all still suffused with quantum uncertainty - hardly a closed system and hardly complete.

Gotta play a poker tournement right now, but I will be back to reply to both g-day and George in a bit. (Although I hope I last long enough in the tournement for it to be a rather long bit.)

Good luck ! May the force be with you.

The force was with me, but a pair of K's were also -- in the second hand of the tournement. The three A's I ran into suprised the hell out of me -- I can tell you that. Unfortunately, the surprise came after I went "all in."
G'bye 10:30 no-limit Hold 'em -- and back to A2K.

Oh, well -- there's always tomorrow.



Back to business:

It really doesn't matter whose estimates are being used, G -day.

None of us knows if the thing we call the universe -- is actually the UNIVERSE.

What we see -- the stars that form the basis of your question -- may be a tiny, tiny fraction of what actually exists.

And we have no real knowledge of how long all of this has existed. Even Stephen Hawkins acknowledges that we do not know if the Big Bang is a solitary event -- one in a series of events happening cosecutively -- or even one in a series of events happening consecutively and concurrently.

Even if the "odds" against "all this" happening randomly without the aid of a God are a gazillion, bazillion to a factor of a gazillion, bazillion to one against -- if it turns out that EXISTENCE and the UNIVERSE are infinite -- then the chances of "all this seeming order" happening randomly without the aid of a God become odds on.

But we really don't know -- and your question can just as easily be asked of Christians: Why is the universe so small? Why, if GOD is infinite -- and all those "omni" things -- why would the GOD limit Itself to only a few hundren billion galaxies each containing only a paltry few hundred billion stars each?


In my opinion, this thread was excellent -- up until you started to posit that the "odds" against a "God" were great. And that was the reason for my remarks.




Out of deference and respect for both you and George -- I withdraw the characterization of "bullshit." I'm a street person and no insult was intended.

g__day,

I admire your interest in current physical theories, and definitely share your enthusiasm about wanting to know the Universe.

Life and DNA is 'not my forte' also, and I don't quite understand what cited Stuart Kauffman and others are researching on this topic. I know that the general idea has always been to prove that you can create life from 'inanimate matter' using electricity, heat, light, etc. I believe that is possible without a doubt. Talking about probabilities is considering exact conditions and extent of such a 'life generating process'. When I have some time I might read something about it.

The diameter of the universe is a curious thing; it didn't surprise me a lot when I learned that it depends on the model or theory used to predict it, as well as Hubble constant and other factors ( inflation theory makes the Universe considerably larger) and it should be made clear that we don't have a clue (apart from what certain models tell us ) about the size of the universe. I repeat here :We only know that observable part of the universe is about 15 billion light years in each direction (cosmologically, using proper time), and we still aren't sure of that.




Basically I think that thinking about 'probability of our universe' is thinking in the wrong direction. If I were a physicist, which I am not, I'd look into ways of eliminating constants, especially dimensionless. I think this is generally what is attempted in various string theories (string types, superstring types, supergravity and now the M) but I don't like the string theories because they are hiding constants behind geometries and strange happenings (read because I can't understand the math). I like what Roger Penrose has been doing with his 'Emperor's new mind' book series, his approach appeals to me aesthetically and philosophically (read the math is much simpler).

On the constructive side : I am still for the infinite universe. I believe there is little theoretical problems, and zero evidence, against this.
It seems philosophically more sound that in the first instant the universe turned from zero to infinity, than from zero to some finite size. Like turning 0/1 to 1/0, flipping a galactical sand-clock around.

Nicely done, Frank. For an ill-tempered SOB, you are a good guy.

Perhaps God was trying to teach you something about long odds.

Gentlemen. Im strongly with frank. i have no idea why the pronouncement of the M theory (which may or may not even be valid) or quantum theory has anything at all to do with your concept of a deity. While you dont say "M-Theory proves god', you do infer a strong connection that im having trouble with envisioning any connection

" because the sky is blue, fish can swim'

Thats what Im getting out of this. As far as DNA you 9g-day) inferred that dNA gives us reason to condier a deity. Again I fell off the melon truck on that one.
The DNA molecule is a very long helical crystal that has an affinity with many inorganic similarly structured molecules. Curly inorganic crystals are structured because they are "doped" with other elements in the lattice. This causes them to take on a series of very weird shapes, including helices. Its what reactions cause them to do. We can create the structures in a lab

dNA is an elegantly economikc molecule composed of acids sugars, and hydroxyls. it records the unique features of many orders of living things without having to 'reinvent" itself. The very amino acids, that are arranged in the gene of a shrew are the same ones and same orders that are preserved in a monkey.The DNA molecule is like a plain old mechanical item. However, it can be accessorized and morphed into different unit plans. (Please dont start with the old story that a pile of metal cannot turn itself into a 747) we are talking about living , self replicating systems that employ the dNA blueprint to replicate themselves into thei parents. However, deep in the genetic structure of each living thing is a built in diversity that allows the carrying organism to adapt to changing environments, or they die.
in lifes history 99.99% of organisms died whenever they were challenged by a changing environment. a small percentage lived and adapted they "evolved'. so , if god were active, she was a bumbling trial and error God who, curiously enough, had no control over the changing environment(Not a good thing for an omnipotent deity) We are beginning to really understand how dNA works, reacts, and records the changes that occured to those species that managed to survive, and its not that mysterious (oh it requires us to read up on latest discoveries)

however, as we learn more and more about life itself ( the strongest argument for a God), we discover, by data and facts, that god is gradually becoming irrelevant.

why is this thread choosing to spread its margins out way beyond my screen? is it just me?

Long web addresses
Stretch everyone's screens and make
Baby Jesus cry.

truth
When I use the terms, universe or cosmos, I try to be aware that I am, in the process, creating something. Well, not a "thing" (out there) but an idea of what is. Knowledge is a function of the knower. TO ME, a "universe" is actual inconceivable because that suggests a thing (an idea of a thing) that cannot conceivably be bounded. I can't imagine the nature of a boundary in this regard. What would it possibly look like (assuming some kind of appearance to eyes such as mine)? And what could possibly be on its exterior? So I prefer to think of a boundless universe. But that means it is not a thing, definable by a boundary and thus distinguishable from things outside of that boundary. I cannot imagine the "size" of such a reality. Indeed, it cannot have size as I think of size. And as someone mentioned earlier or elsewhere the standard of measurement is totally provincial. Man is the measure of all things, in this respect. The size of the cosmos would be even more than a zillion holycrapillions, and that's big. The bottom line for me is that terms like finite and infinite have only mathematical meaning. And math is a reflection of the structure of our minds, not necessarily of the universe. It is my strong opinion that we do not have the neurological capacity to grasp the nature of the total and ultimate scene, any more than an ant--even the smartest ant ever--can figure out what we are talking about (just as I do not know what I'm talking about).

No it's not you. Out of curiousity I researched and it's g__days post, a particular part with the large link that causes the page to not wrap correctly. HTML is not perfect, you know

Posting just for test :

To criticise the Authors of the probability statement that concerns you - the referenced one you believe I made up on the spot - I refer you to "The Edge of Physics" Spring edition 2003 of Scientif America <a href="http://www.able2know.com/go/?a2kjump=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciamdigital.com%2Fbrowse.cfm%3FsequencenameCHAR%3Ditem%26methodnameCHAR%3Dresource_getitembrowse%26interfacenameCHAR%3Dbrowse.cfm%26ISSUEID_CHAR%3D6C2FAA19-0087-C3FE-547CDF8E4C786808" target="_blank">http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?sequencenameCHAR=item&methodnameCHAR=resource_getitembrowse&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEID_CHAR=6C2FAA19-0087-C3FE-547CDF8E4C786808</a> and also recommend "The Once and Future Cosmos" Which is the Fall 2002 edition.

we should start over. i cant read anything without annoying horizontal scrolling. maybe someone can ask g-day to edit out the offending link and we could just get the route url

truth
But it's not happening to my PC, Farmerman. So what does that mean?

JL, you have a resolution equal or greater than 1280x1024, and farmerman has 1024x768 or less.

I think once we get on the next page it will be ok.

Or g__day could edit his post and remove the long link "The Edge of Physics" Spring edition 2003 of Scientif America "