God does not Exist: Therefore there is no self to pity, hate, defend, or feed.

[Dr. Zaus]

There could be an "infinitely larger number of universes". There is no way to tell at this time, maybe never. That said, Life exists within our Universe and regardless of how many universes may exist, the Probability of it existing in this one is 1.

Our existence within the Universe is consistent with the Laws that exist within it.

consistent: yes, but infinitely improbable.

Fom the perspective of any rational (non-God-magic) explanation for our universe, that is a 1 in infinity.

This is a major issue in physics:

 

[flexy]

a priori sentient life should emerge infinitely more often in much much less complex universes.

How do you know about the number of sentient beings/entities in "the universe"? Heck we JUST learned, some years ago, that practically all stars have planets.

We have no idea about the amount of sentient beings in the universe, we have no idea whether our position/status in the universe is special.

 

[Charmonium]

Why?

If existence is random then we should see a nearly infinitely larger number of universes, where the question of "Is the universe consistent" is answered with no.

To be clear: random fluctuations in at the quantum level should eventually produce our universe: but the probably of being a thinking being and living in a universe that's anything as complex as ours is infinitesimal.

This is NOT a post-hoc argument "look at all we want though we must have been guided" it's exactly the opposite: a priori sentient life should emerge infinitely more often in much much less complex universes.

It's really not infinitesimal if you consider the fact that there are 100's of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars and probably some multiple of that in planets.

You might find the concept of Boltzmann brains interesting in trying to decide what is and isn't likely.

http://physics.about.com/od/thermodynamics/f/BoltzmannBrains.htm

 

[flexy]

It's really not infinitesimal if you consider the fact that there are 100's of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars and probably some multiple of that in planets.

You might find the concept of Boltzmann brains interesting in trying to decide what is and isn't likely.

http://physics.about.com/od/thermodynamics/f/BoltzmannBrains.htm

I came across this not too long ago and even posted something about it here, YET I cannot see the "paradox" or I seem to not understand something.

While the common notion is that the (current) universe "came about" from a quantum fluctuation I don't assume that a young, just born universe is "incredibly complex".

The universe as well undergoes evolution, a spiral galaxy is not "popping out" in all its complexity from one instant to the other. A planet is not being "born" entirely developed, complex and swirling with life.

So, where from comes the idea that something like a Boltzman brain should (hypothetically) possible, assuming that something very complex like a brain would appear spontaneously?

There will be random fluctuations in the thermal radiation that lead to all sorts of unlikely events--including the spontaneous generation of galaxies, planets, and Boltzmann brains."

As said, galaxies, planets are not born "complete"..and the answer to that alleged "paradox" (why there are no Boltzmann brains) might just be that the spontaneous event that will lead to the creation of galaxies, planets etc. is not so complex *per se*. The complexity is a result of later evolution. In the same way as our brains are.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Why?

If existence is random then we should see a nearly infinitely larger number of universes, where the question of "Is the universe consistent" is answered with no.

To be clear: random fluctuations in at the quantum level should eventually produce our universe: but the probably of being a thinking being and living in a universe that's anything as complex as ours is infinitesimal.

This is NOT a post-hoc argument "look at all we want though we must have been guided" it's exactly the opposite: a priori sentient life should emerge infinitely more often in much much less complex universes.

There's no natural probability distribution over an infinite set. Saying that X is more probable than Y is meaningless.

To answer your question about the appearance of consistent patterns in our universe, I humbly submit that we have "tuned" our consciousnesses to a particular framework from which we produce our own physical, biological, corporeal patterns by abstracting and reacting to certain patterns from the environment in which we've chosen to dwell. We have "synchronized" our conscious focus with the present moment in order to participate in the universe.

In other words, the patterns themselves are in your mind. Their seeming persistence and relative regularity is a consequence of the co-synchronization of your consciousness with the rest of physical reality.

You are only able to create the physical pattern of you in this reality because you are to some extent in sync with many deeper physical rhythms of the universe -- the orbits of the planets and resultant terrestrial climate and seasons, the tides and the rotation of the planet, even particular bands of frequencies of light and sound.

In still fewer words, mud puddle fits its hole perfectly. News at 11.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

To answer your question about the appearance of consistent patterns in our universe, I humbly submit that we have "tuned" our consciousnesses to a particular framework from which we produce our own physical, biological, corporeal patterns by abstracting and reacting to certain patterns from the environment in which we've chosen to dwell. We have "synchronized" our conscious focus with the present moment in order to participate in the universe.

At the level of our DNA I believe we are so synchronized. What we call 'physical reality' is an emergent property of random fluctuations which just so happen to be patterned in such a way as eventually the question "what am I" could be asked.

In this way the universe, as we look out, isn't one of many multiverses; it is one of an infinite set of ways of seeing exactly what is there.


BUT

We should have infinitely more Boltzmann brains here and there than life like ours.

Further different Boltzmann brains should appear that can tell of other ways to 'appear' (as we've just figured out) and manipulate or take interest in that alternative pattern...

If puddles fit hole's perfectly then there should be a LOT of holes: going at differnet temporal orders, creating stasis-connections (LIKE but NOT DNA) influencing and interacting in nearly infinite different ways.

And with all that said we want to deny a God like being?

 

[sandorski]

At the level of our DNA I believe we are so synchronized. What we call 'physical reality' is an emergent property of random fluctuations which just so happen to be patterned in such a way as eventually the question "what am I" could be asked.

In this way the universe, as we look out, isn't one of many multiverses; it is one of an infinite set of ways of seeing exactly what is there.


BUT

We should have infinitely more Boltzmann brains here and there than life like ours.

Further different Boltzmann brains should appear that can tell of other ways to 'appear' (as we've just figured out) and manipulate or take interest in that alternative pattern...

If puddles fit hole's perfectly then there should be a LOT of holes: going at differnet temporal orders, creating stasis-connections (LIKE but NOT DNA) influencing and interacting in nearly infinite different ways.

And with all that said we want to deny a God like being?

What boggles my mind is how the last question fits with all the previous statements. Clearly we don't understand everything, but "God" isn't an answer. It is an easy fallback position for those uneasy in not Knowing. History is full of people who used that "answer" and turned out to be completely wrong. Even the brilliant Isaac Newton used that "answer" when stumped, then was proved wrong a century later.

At some point, even if one believes in a god, one has to realize that just plugging "God" into a hole of our understanding is just foolishness.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

We should have infinitely more Boltzmann brains here and there than life like ours.

I don't accept the presuppositions that lead to that paradox -- particularly that energy and extent of the universe is finite, hence my point about probabilities over infinite sets being meaningless, and moreover casting doubt on the claim that the universe as a whole can be treated as a thermodynamic system.

Secondly, I reject the presupposition that a brain is strictly required for self-awareness.

{snip}

And with all that said we want to deny a God like being?

Well, the word "God" can mean a lot of things. Even as an atheist I can accept Spinoza's god because I know what he means when he uses the word. These other classical ideas about the Abrahamic god are plainly preposterous, however.

 

[flexy]

What boggles my mind is how the last question fits with all the previous statements. Clearly we don't understand everything, but "God" isn't an answer. It is an easy fallback position for those uneasy in not Knowing. History is full of people who used that "answer" and turned out to be completely wrong. Even the brilliant Isaac Newton used that "answer" when stumped, then was proved wrong a century later.

At some point, even if one believes in a god, one has to realize that just plugging "God" into a hole of our understanding is just foolishness.

I do NOT want to reject the idea that some form of sentient being/intelligence/entity (or plurals) is behind the universe. It's, well, possible.

It's also well "possible" that "the universe" is some type of organism and we're like microbes on a grain of sand, forever doomed never ever being able to even grasp the reality of this universe/organism.

What I reject tho is our classic idea of god as taught in Churches etc., much there doesn't make sense.

 

[Mai72]

Most people don't even ask themselves "is there a god?" They just believe what they are told and that's it. If you grew up Catholic you are a Catholic. If you grew up Muslim, then you're a Muslim. But, it's good to critically question the religion you grew up with. It's healthy.

I was fortunate to live in SE Asia, and when I was there I got to experience Buddhisim. This experience changed my outlook on the religion that I was brought up with which was Catholicism. If you've never had experiences with other cultures and their religious beliefs you don't know any better. So, you think that most people pray one way or that your religion is the "right religion." It's ignorant. And I've noticed that people who have never traveled and experienced other cultures are normally ignorant.

I personally have been following buddhisim lately. The 4 noble truths and the eightfold path speak to me more than anything that I've learned as a Catholic worshipper.

 

[Charmonium]

That's a really good point. I'm not sure it's essential to directly experience other cultures to learn this lesson but I imagine it helps a great deal.

I spent a few years in college studying religion and learning about Buddhism is one of the single most valuable experiences in my life. It completely changed my perspective. I'm not a believer/follower but just trying to wrap your head around the concepts will force you to see things differently.