> Glenn,
>
> Regarding the "Anthropic Principle", you may be interested in reading
> an article in the November issue of "Discover" Magazine. It discusses
> how the fundamental constants behind the universe are fine-tuned to
> allow life to exist, and that if they change, the universe as we know
> it and life itself would be impossible.
I read this last week but there are better sources of this kind of
information. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by Barrow and Tipler and
a 1993 seminar proceedings on the topic: F. Bertola and U. Curi, editors,
The Anthropic Principle, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993
>
> The article explores the possibility that our universe is
> one of a possibly infinite number of universes (a "multiverse"),
> and ours just happens to have the right numbers--otherwise we
> wouldn't be here. An atheist could use this kind of reasoning
> to avoid thinking about whether or not there may really be a Creator.
> Since we have no way to detect a parallel universe other than our own
> (outside of the "Sliders" sci-fi show :) ), this involves a leap
> of faith, just as it is to believe that someone intentionally
> adjusted the numbers.
The reason I don't think the multiverse option will work is because one is
moving beyond science at this point. If we can observe something, it is part
of this universe. If we can't--it isn't. By definition we can't observe
other universes so it is a concept that will forever remain outside of
science. THus to avoid the religious implications of the anthropic principle
(as Rees does in that Discover article) one must escape to a natural
religion which is outside of science. (I know Rees trys to say his view is
'verifiable' but it really isn't.
glenn
see http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 18 2000 - 01:36:48 EDT