What makes you say that the evidence for multiverses is low.
The problem with this view is that its both teleological and anthropocentric. In both cases - an organism on one planet (Earth) attempting to ponder their own existence, using tools they have developed by way of the current evolutionary threshhold of their own brains. In many ways the "The Universe is so infinitely large so life must sure exist" argument, is very similar to the "God of the Gaps" argument in religion - where religious people assume the existence of God because humans can't fully explain the nature of the Universe.
Because there is literally (as of now) 0 evidence about it. It is the same as the evidence for God, nada.
Ok. You are right that there is no evidence of multiverses. I have to agree with you on that.
If we didn't happen to live in a Universe that allowed galaxies and stars and planets to exist, we wouldn't be around to speculate on it. The properties of our Universe are no more or less likely than any other possible Universe, so while it's super unlikely, one kind of super unlikely Universe had to exist. If you win the lottery, do you wonder why me?
If we assume an infinite number of universes (or well, 10^500 given by string theory) then sure, by sheer chance some of them would support life, and of course, an observer would happen to be in one of them. Asking why we are here instead of some dead universe, would be similar to asking why that particular spermatozoid who made me managed to get the egg cell.
I realise now that bringing the word "purpose" into it opens up another can of worms, the point I'm trying to make is that the laws of physics and the universe seem to revolve around the creation and existence of life, those constants and rules aren't just inclusive to Earth, so it's a fair thought to think that there's a mutual connection. I also like to concentrate more on the sun rather than Earth when thinking about these likelihood of life out there, like I've said before they're the engines of life after all
That's the first I've heard of the 'axis of evil' but after having a proper look into it, very interesting. It's also bizarre how I've never heard of it before, almost seems like physicists have completely ignored it like it wasn't discovered in the first place. You sourced out any reasonable theories why this happens?
This is again anthropocentric imo. As stated above, the Universe doesn't care either way, which is something humans seem to have difficulty embracing. Its quite likely that life is little more than an emergent property of a set of conditions that exist in rare places throughout galaxies and the Universe - much like consciousness is likely little more than an emergent property of increasingly complex neural networks. Neither are magical or special. They simply exist without meaning. Its us humans who invent these concepts to help us ascribe meaning to the answers we would like to be true.I realise now that bringing the word "purpose" into it opens up another can of worms, the point I'm trying to make is that the laws of physics and the universe seem to revolve around the creation and existence of life, those constants and rules aren't just inclusive to Earth, so it's a fair thought to think that there's a mutual connection. I also like to concentrate more on the sun rather than Earth when thinking about these likelihood of life out there, like I've said before they're the engines of life after all
I wouldn't necessarily say, designed for life. More like, designed for the universe to not immediately crash and to have long enough time for the atoms to be created. A universe with a long life that supports atoms being created, has a high chance of resulting with planets and stars. Then having life becomes trivial given enough time.I realise now that bringing the word "purpose" into it opens up another can of worms, the point I'm trying to make is that the laws of physics and the universe seem to revolve around the creation and existence of life, those constants and rules aren't just inclusive to Earth, so it's a fair thought to think that there's a mutual connection. I also like to concentrate more on the sun rather than Earth when thinking about these likelihood of life out there, like I've said before they're the engines of life after all
As far as I know, there is no plausible theory about it. I think that physicists hate it cause it just makes no sense. It does not necessarily bring back Earth (to be more technical, the Solar System cause Earth is slightly misaligned) at the center of the universe, but it kind of hints that way. It just shouldn't be like this, and the physicists were hoping that it will go away with better measurement, but unfortunately, the evidence seems to have gone stronger after the Planck telescope.
True I guess it was! I give the existence of life in the universe more significance than that personally, but I suppose that's where I keep slipping up!
Nice read
Without anyone to observe the universe, would it really exist?
It depends on what you think triggered the birth of our universe, the event termed the big bang.
Sure, assuming that there are infinite universes, then by sheer chance alone we end where we are.
The universe doesn't care; nevertheless humans are the most significant thing in the universe. Not because humans were created or have an inherent purpose, but because of what humans can do. We can create temperatures colder than anything occurring "naturally" and hotter than the core of the sun in labs. In principle, we are able to compute/simulate/emulate every process in the universe that is allowed by the laws of physics to arbitrary accuracy. There are obviously practical barriers to do that, but we know that it has to be possible. If anything in the universe has cosmic relevance, its intelligent actors.
And. You will note that I have agreed with that.
Indeed. When you think about the universe, it's fair to say that stars are the most vital entities when it comes to existence. So when you ask the question: "What is the sun's greatest creation?" The answer has to be Earth and the complex life that occupies it. I don't mean for it to sound so intentional, but when you look at the sun, everything that it produces and provides, and the roadmap from the birth of the star to now, all of it leads up to the creation of life and supporting the existence of it. It's the difference between Earth being a cold empty piece of rock floating through space, and what it is today. So I think people should pay a lot more attention to the sun when talking about the chances of life beyond our solar system and think about why stars do the things they do.
I'd love to know the answer! It's an interesting thought that I've had myself recently. A 14 billion year old universe without consciousness to benefit from its existence, apart from Earth though of course.. It doesn't quite add up.
Did Earth exist before humans? Did it exist before the first replicators (life)? Do the galaxies far away that we cannot observe exist?
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/does-the-universe-exist-if-were-not-looking
I know that based on quantum mechanics, the observer is not only a passive agent and directly affects the experiments by her observations. And of course, the light we see is essentially seeing in the past.
Do they not say in physics that time doesn't exist in space? Or something along those lines. Therefore the universe isn't any age at all? To us as humans it may see it is that old, but also if you and i were standing next to each other and you left earth and travelled far and away into space for a very long time and then back again, i would have aged faster than you despite us being apart the same amount of time. I'm sure i saw that explained somewhere by professor Brian Cox.
Haha yeah definitely a stretch, a very interesting and thought provoking one nonetheless.
Sorry missed this, you're talking about time dilation there I think, and the study of spacetime.
I've just realised, if the axis of evil can be used as evidence that we are in fact privileged observers of the universe, couldn't it be also used as potential evidence for Wheeler's theory that the universe exists and forms as it interacts with conscious matter?
there is nothing like a privileged observer. Systems (=humans are also systems) get entangled with their environment by bumping into each other. On the very small scale, decoherence is reversible, but on the bigger scale its not. That is what gives rise to the "classical" nature of our world despite its quantum mechanical underpinning. It has zero to do with consciousness. Consciousness in its own rights is special, less understood and more surprising than any quantum mechanics, but there is no known link.
Time exists everywhere. But as Einstein told us, it is relative and not fixed.
How does the universe know whether anyone is observing it or not.
How does present observation determine the state of a photon from the distant past? I don't think there's a straight answer, as it means time doesn't have the same effect on entangled systems. The idea that both states exist until it is experienced, how do photons know when it's being experienced? Does it mean that the measurement of experience exists on a subatomic level, I've no idea personally.
Deep thoughts from a deep mind.
Time exists everywhere, but if you go very fast or are inside a particularly massive gravity well it will run slower for you compared to someone on Earth (for example). You would both experience time in the same way, mind.
It depends on the definition, and the depth of its existence. What if consciousness isn't just restrained to biological life and the simplest forms of experience inside the universe is all that is required for it to exist at a subatomic level. As the complexity of the universe grew, the complexity of consciousness grew right alongside it. Complex life is consciousness at its current highest form, the same way the Sun and Earth is the universe at its current highest form. Maybe the universe and consciousness coexist, in exactly the same way life and consciousness does. Very out there I know, but no one fully understands it yet, so there's room for outlandishness.
but we do understand how observations influence quantum states. Pretty much everything can be an "observer". Thats why its so hard to build quantum computers, because you have to cool down the system to extremely low temperatures to prevent decoherence.
Exactly. The observer does not need to be a human or someone with consciousness or even 'life'. In Copenhagen's interpretation, nothing is said about the observer, in many-world interpretation it is anything that entangles with that particular quantum states.
many-worlders argue their case very well and give pretty straight-forward answers to most of the questions.
