> Greetings Randy:
>
> "And of course, it's the fact that there ARE intelligent beings here and that the universe IS special that's so interesting, and in fact
seems unexplainable by science."
>
> You misunderstand. The universe is special, not because of any intrinsic characteristic, but because we (the intelligent beings) believe
it is special.
Perhaps this is just a difference in perspective. To me the
"specialness" of the universe is based on the seemingly fine-tuned
physical constants that make my life possible here(although the fact
of this fine-tuning may not be as evident as I previously thought).
This specialness is independent of my belief in it.
Also, the fine-tuned nature of the constants is not unexplainable; it just hasn't been explained yet. There is a difference.
Would it be more accurate to say that there "may" be a difference? Until
this explanation is found there's no guarantee that it ever will be found
is there?
>
> "This statement seems to describe the universe itself as a thinking entity that 'needs' to create intelligent beings and places
constraints on it's own physical constants to do so."
>
> Not really. This is another of those counter-intuitive ideas, but the SAP does not necessarily imply an intelligent universe (though some
versions do). It simply takes the WAP one step further to say that if intelligent life is needed to make the universe "real", the universe
will order itself in whatever way necessary to create that life.
I take it then that the universe is not considered to be "real" unless
it is perceived. Which entails, I suppose, that the universe is not
self-aware. This statement also seems to give the universe the power to
change it's own physical constants, which would make them not very
constant. This doesn't quite resonate with me. Am I misunderstanding you
here?
>
> "I'm familiar with the oscillating universe theory but according to the last reading I had done there was no scientific evidence for it."
>
> That's not the problem. You wouldn't expect any evidence to survive the Crunch/Bang cycle. The real problems are as you stated: is
there enough mass to close the universe and will the Big Crunch rebound into a Big Bang. The jury is still out on the amount of mass that
the universe contains, as long as there is still a possibility for cold dark matter. As for whether the Big Crunch will rebound into a Big
Bang, the models say yes, if the universal mass is sufficient.
Wow, that last statement certainly is counter-intuitive.
>
> "What is the baby universe theory?"
>
> The theory is based on preliminary attempts to combine quantum mechanics with general relativity. The models so far devised describe the
state of nothingness as typified by a vacuum as an inherently unstable condition filled with latent energy where neither space nor time as
we understand the concepts exist. One can thus visualize a vacuum at the Planck level (10^-33 cm) as being a writhing foam. One prediction
of this visualization that has been verified is that normal space-time vacuum can produce what are called virtual particles. For about
10^-21 sec an electron-positron pair can simply appear out of nothing, then disappear again. Very, very, very occasionally, however, one of
these particles doesn't disappear. The nothingness before the Big Bang might have been energetic enough to create virtual universes, with
the occasional possibility that these baby universes rapidly expand into full-fledged universes instead of simply disappear again.
This is even more counter-intuitive. Let me make sure I understand this.
You are saying that science has observed the creation of matter. That
where before there was only nothingness a new particle has appeared out of
nowhere(literally). That this is not a case of the particle simply
entering the experimenter's perception but of it actually arising from
nothing. Is this correct?
Then you say that the "nothingness before the Big Bang MIGHT have been
energetic enough...". Does the "might" mean that present research is
inconclusive or that no research is possible on this question at the
present time? And what is meant by the term "virtual" universe. It seems
to me that a universe either has to exist or not exist with no partial
state in between.
To extrapolate this idea, is it believed possible for a full-fledged
universe to simply come into being from nothingness?
>
> "Is there any research to support this theory?"
>
> Yes, but not the kind you're probably thinking of. At the risk of setting off the cosmologists in the group, cosmological research
consists primarily of playing mathematical "what-if" games: if conditions
were like this, what would be the results? Whenever these games make testable predictions then secondary cosmological research - in the
form of examining the universe we know of - can be done. These games have proven very successful, however. One of the first two,
relativity and quantum mechanics, led the way to the Big Bang, electroweak, grand unified and inflationary theories, to name a few.
Attempts to combine quantum mechanics and relativity are leading to a theory of everything, hyperspace and superstring theories, as well as
a possible verification of wormholes and loopholes that will allow superluminal communication and travel. What determines whether these
games are successful are primarily whether they are logically consistent and can accurately predict the current structure of the universe,
and secondarily whether they make testable observable predictions.
>
But do I correctly understand you to say above that there is
observational evidence of matter's creation to buttress this theory?
> "But are there any methodological restrictions on scientific theorizing that prevent postulating the existence of a universe we cannot
possibly measure as a way of explaining date we can measure?"
>
> Only if your reason for postulating the existence of another universe is to explain the conditions of this universe; that would be ad hoc
and so unacceptable. But if the postulated existence of other universes is a prediction of some model unrelated to the question of the
conditions of this universe, and if that model is logically consistent and makes other successful predictions, then you can legitimately use
its postulates to explain mysteries in other models.
>
> Kevin L. O'Brien
>
Okay. So if I'm taking this all in correctly we have a theory that the
universe exists for no known reason(the baby-universe theory) and a theory
that an unnumbered series of universes have existed(the oscillating
universe theory) but no evidence for the existence of parallel universes.
By the way Kevin, I appreciate you taking the time to explain all this
to me.
Randy Bronson