Custom Universe: Fine Tuned for Us?

2013 ,    »  -   151 Comments
150
6.81
12345678910
Ratings: 6.81/10 from 117 users.
Storyline
Custom Universe: Fine Tuned for Us?

In the earliest origins of time, as modern science has been able to define it, the universe was tightly squeezed into an almost unimaginably small space. Billions of stars and galaxies were then separated and spread out amongst the universe through a process which is known as the Big Bang.

If this expansion had been absolutely smooth and perfect, then modern scientific logic dictates that intelligent life as we know it could not exist. Our planet's inhabitants only exist in the imperfections - or fluctuations - of the universe's expansion. This conception has long puzzled the world's top scientists and astrophysicists, and it serves as the fascinating basis for Custom Universe: Fine Tuned for Us?

As the film's many revered and accomplished subjects attest, these imperfections resemble "fine-tunings", and it seems highly unlikely that they were the result of completely random coincidence. In fact, scientists are convinced that these fine-tunings were specifically designed to allow for the existence of intelligent life forms on our planet. For some, this evidence of chaotic order in the universe speaks to the presence of a higher power. Others have made it their life's quest to find an explanation for these mystifying concepts through scientific observation and reasoning.

As illustrated in the film, some of the theories which have resulted from these scientific explorations are a bit far-reaching. Are we living in a parallel universe? Are aliens responsible for our existence on the planet? Are we merely projections of a computer program that exists far into the future?

Or perhaps Earth is merely the one planet out of all the billions of planets in our galaxy which just so happened to be perfectly suited for the existence of life. This "multiverse" concept is one of the major theories which has captivated the attention of the scientific community in recent years. "If there are many, many universes with many, many different features, then it's no surprise that there's one that would fit us," explains mathematical physicist Brian Greene, one of the key subjects featured in the film.

From the outlandish to the tantalizing, the concepts explored in Custom Universe: Fine Tuned for Us? may hold the key to understanding whether our place in the universe is one of purpose or merely the result of a cosmic fluke.

151 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Fabien L'Amour

    I dislike that physicists decided to use the term "fine tuning" as if the universe was fine tuned by some intelligence. The only "fine tuning" here is the tuning needed in their equations and models for them to fit with what can be observed.

  2. Fabien L'Amour

    I think their premise is that without the way the universe was not uniform early on, you wouldn't get stars which led to more complex atoms like carbon, oxygen and the other elements that compose life.

    The intelligent part is probably a function of the lifespan of the universe in their mind. I am unsure what the limiting factors for intelligent life are to these scientists, it wasn't clearly explained at all.

  3. humanati

    Science isn't about silencing dissenting voices but dogma & indoctrination is...

  4. humanati

    Science isn't about silencing dissenting voices but dogma & indoctrination are...

  5. dewflirt

    Once you say 'what if' you can spout any other nonsense you like after it. Hard to argue against an if, they usually have an army of 'yes buts' to back them up. Of course, two wrongs don't make a right and even the stickiest but can find itself unseated ;)

  6. Pysmythe

    This whole idea (and that is largely apparently all it can be, too) of The Multiverse, as well as I can understand it, has lately started to look to me like "stacking the deck" against uncomfortable possibilities by our revered Elders of Science, so I've decided I'll have to exercise an unnatural inclination to skepticism about it. Do you wear the cloth? You may be sure that I don't trust you. Do you wear the academic cap? I'm starting to think you may have more riding on the idea than you're willing to admit, which is dangerous for the truth.

  7. dewflirt

    The truth is always in trouble when there are humans hunting it ;)

  8. Pysmythe

    And yet, what other choice do we have? : /

  9. dewflirt

    I don't know, but I guess we might as well enjoy the chase. It's a good stretch of the legs if nothing else ;)

  10. Fabien L'Amour

    I dare you to post it a 3rd time and expand your idea beyond the ...

  11. Pysmythe

    I just wish that I could get away from the deep suspicion of agendas on all sides... Yesterday, and the day before, I was reading up a little bit (ok, actually, a lot... as in, including reading the entire paper itself) on Penrose and Hameroff's Orch-OR idea, and how brutally it was attacked by Minsky, Tegmark, and others, evidently, as nearly as I can tell, purely as much for its extremely serious implications about the the nature and importance of Mind for the fundamental functioning of the universe, as for anything else. I might be wrong about that, but I do suspect some scientists are as incapable of admitting even the possibility of some purpose to the universe, which the Penrose/Hameroff paper suggests (at least to me), as religiously inclined people are of the other. Frankly, the very idea of it can be gut-wrenching, the realization that no one may be above such pettiness...

  12. dwest174

    You are so angry and hateful toward what you call "id nuts" that it is impossible to take you seriously, as your view is based on disgust.

  13. Fabien L'Amour

    The problem with using the term "fine tuning" is it implies it was tuned by some intelligence. Science usually finds the cause with observations and experiments. With fine tuning, they imply the cause without observing it.

  14. Fabien L'Amour

    The idea of multiple verses I am afraid will be impossible to prove scientifically as we can't escape our verse to observe them (if they indeed exist). If someone was to state multiple verses really exist without observation, that person would have entered the realm of faith without evidence.

  15. humanati

    Sorry Fabien, my mistake. I meant the comment for plentsje & posted it to you instead :o)

  16. humanati

    You have a strange view of science plentsje.
    Truth doesn't need defending & dissenting ideas shouldn't be silenced, marginalised or made to be taboo.
    Ironically, hese are features that are traditionally associated with tyranny, cults, & dogma.

    Science isn't owned by atheism, materialism, naturalism, or reductionism.

    You can do good or bad science whatever your worldview.

    If God exists, as many scientists believe He does, he is the greatest of all scientists.

    Science is under attack, but not by people who believe in God, but by people who are closed minded, corrupt, greedy, proud, powerful, liars & thieves.

    It is very difficult to keep searching for truth & going wherever it takes you because it takes you places you don't want to go & means admitting you were wrong.

  17. Pysmythe

    Exactly.

  18. Fabien L'Amour

    No problem, these things happen.

  19. dewflirt

    Now I wonder what purpose do you think the universe could have? If it's some sort of infinite computery brain thing, what was it asked and who asked it? Purpose sort of suggests that there should be an end product or an answer. The only reasons I can think of for making a universe, is to see how a universe might be made or to play out the life and death of your own. As for pettiness, that's just people. Luckily we get stuff done despite ourselves, otherwise we'd still be chasing dinosaurs with pointy sticks :)

  20. Pysmythe

    I'll edit this reply later on for a real answer to you, baby-sitting grandchildren currently...

  21. LostHearts

    If one were to believe that God is the greatest scientists, then how does one explain all his mutated mistakes along the way? I've seen stories and pictures of horribly mutated living beings in nature (including humans) that it is apparent this "great scientist" still has a lot of learning to do. Excellent reply, BTW.

  22. dewflirt

    'nuff said, have fun ;)

  23. guest

    blackholes are wormholes to other universes, when enough matter masses in our universe i.e when a star implodes/dies a new universe is born. no matter is lost when it enters a blackhole , instead it is blasted through into a new universe. the mysterious gamma ray bursts that come from quazars are the other side of blackholes, matter that is coming from another universe.

  24. dave

    you sound pretty sure of things you cannot verify.

  25. Fabien L'Amour

    That is a belief, not scientific facts. Nobody ever proved wormholes exist.

  26. a_no_n

    lol but that is the standard scientific opinion.

    that's the opinion of all those "elders of science" that you just spent a comment railing against.

    It's only skepticism if it's informed.

  27. a_no_n

    "Science is under attack, but not by people who believe in God"

    It just so happens that the few people who aren't against science for the sake of their own personal profit tend to do so whilst waving a holy book about.

  28. dmxi

    seems like copied from 'interstellar'......a beautiful notion nearer to philosophy than current 'crude' scientific knowledge (yet?!).

  29. a_no_n

    I think that's more down to a lack of co-ordinated public outreach than anything else...Much like the God particle debacle. What was a throwaway sentance by a member of the team became the defining term for the discovery.

    That's going to start changing soon though i think, people are starting to realise the necessity for public outreach in science, podcasts like skeptics with a k, skeptics guide to the universe etc are a kind of privately made attempt to fill that void.

  30. Fabien L'Amour

    Chasing dinosaurs? I don't think humans ever chased dinosaurs ;)

  31. dewflirt

    They definitely did, I've seen films on the telly so it must be true ;)

  32. dryn

    do you think that pitagoras when he was looking at the sky, he ever thought that 2 thousand years after we will be standing at the moon? still when america was discovered? man you dont even now how our lives going to look like in next 10000 years ....

  33. Fabien L'Amour

    Let's say hypothetically that we could somehow create a wormhole or some other unknown way of teleportation. The main problem is how can you for sure state that you entered another verse or are not simply in another part of the universe we are in?

  34. Eric71Can

    If you find different laws of physics.
    But could lead to massive problems to your expedition :)

  35. Fabien L'Amour

    I wonder if it would it even be possible to enter a verse with different laws of physics.

  36. TGOBP

    I've chased chickens around.... Don't recall having a pointy stick though ;)

  37. TGOBP

    I suggest some do both. Ken Ham for example.

  38. TGOBP

    Likely not, depending on the changes, we 'our matter' might do all sorts of weird things like fly apart. Good question about a wormhole... if we could travel to somewhere far enough away but within our universe we'd probably not recognise the 'view', wouldn't know where we were visually.

  39. Fabien L'Amour

    What I was thinking was more about how could a wormhole be compatible with 2 different laws of physics verses. It would need a set of laws to exist in our verse but how could it connect with different laws at the other end?

  40. DarkSpirit

    There is a phrase that says
    “Coincidence is a small miracle in which God chooses to remain anonymous.”
    Does magic exist? Of course. Magic is allowed by science. Quantum theory allows the possibility of throwing a ball against a solid wall and having the ball passes through the wall as if by magic. Most of what we view as solid matter is empty space anyway so there is a possibility of the ball going through the wall, but that possibility is very small. Magic is the art of making something very unlikely to happen, happen. What happens is still allowed and within the laws of Science.

    Why should you care if something that seems very unlikely to happen actually happened? Life itself is a miracle anyway. How many times have you heard that one?

  41. vijay

    The world as one sees it , is created/manifested by the apparatus i.e. our own body that we inhabit. We experience it through senses that we call 'ours' as in 'my body' but it really isn't ours. It lives and we have to allow it to grow. If one were to stop eating food or drinking water , the body would panic and make you experience terrible plain until you relieve it. To me , this simply means that we are instruments of an energy that is pushing itself to exist and multiply against opposing forces , Decay/Death, that try to inhibit Life itself. We therefore tend to worship Life in the form of God with the hope that our prayers would minimize the drastic effects of aging or decay.

    This brings us to the important and most fundamental question ... Who am I/You ? I or You is the capacity to observe these opposing forces constantly working in a cyclic pattern of massive proportions which is hard for our apparatus to comprehend. But we inherently have the ability to experience , to examine and be aware our own self which can lead to a powerful awakening that is beyond the entrapments of the human body. Only then can the observer realize the ultimate truth that would reveal the magic of the universe - as above so below , as within so without - an experience unique to the observer alone because it manifests from him/her , the source.

  42. Fabien L'Amour

    A common saying is hardly proof of anything. Magic and miracles are supposed to defy the laws of physics. If it can be explained with physics, it is neither magic or a miracle.

    The definition of magic is : "the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces". The main goal of science is to explain the unknown and natural laws, it certainly cannot allow magic to exist within the laws of our universe.

  43. madmidgitz

    the answer to the title: no

    look up the anthropic principle, and you cant make statistical probabilities with a sample size of 1

    enough said

  44. deliaruhe

    This sounds like yet another argument for so-called "intelligent" design. I think I won't bother wasting my time on it.

  45. anna miller

    Meteors increasing, volcano eruptions increasing, earthquakes increasing, sun is heating up, increased agitation in our solar system, all points to the wisdom left to us by the Gnostics. Unfortunately, the high priests of science have divorced themselves from spirit.
    "Salvation/Redemption from a Gnostic point of view is not the conventional judeo-christian concept of liberation or salvation from sin, but rather is the liberation from a certain condition, a condition of which suffering is an integral part, namely our existential condition of unconscious existence in an unconscious world.. THAT is what the Gnostic wants to be redeemed from...." Dr. Stephan Hoeller

  46. Gristle

    it's amazing one can waste so much time and so many resources on such a broken claim. Oh well.

  47. llboudreau

    Well said! I think you are closer to defining a god than any theist/deist I have yet heard. Instead of looking outward and inventing a supernatural supreme being, we should instead look inward and try to come to grips with what and who we are. Man does not need an externel, invented god nor the attendant need tp prosyletize it by incorporating it in a relgious bubble.

  48. Fabien L'Amour

    I question the affirmation that Meteors, volcano eruptions and earthquakes are increasing. There were periods during the existence of this planet when these events were much more common and powerful than nowadays. Just look at the Siberian traps or the Yellowstone calderas, these were much more massive eruptions than any human ever set eyes on.

  49. hisxmark

    >>"In fact, scientists are convinced that these fine-tunings were
    specifically designed to allow for the existence of intelligent life
    forms on our planet."
    HEY! My "Bulls*it Detector" just exploded!

  50. Ivar Nielsen

    If the entire Universe supposedly once was packed into
    an orange, one certainly cannot imaging a tiny little god standing inside it,creating everything. So far so good and so much for "intelligent design" :-)

    Does this then count off the ancestral mythical ideas in their numerous cultural Stories of Creation? Not at all. It is said, "humans were created in the images of the deities" – but it is the humans who give names to the deities in the images of the humans, thus also personalizing all the creative forces and heavenly imageries.

    When pealing this human personalization of the deities off again, this leaves us to look at the very forces and imageries as they are, namely real cosmological forces and real heavenly objects and scenarios, leaving us to watch the Earth and its seasons around the Sun and the stars and star constellations on the night and also the very crescent contours of the Milky Way, which is an integrated part in all cultural Stories of Creation, especially since the southern and northern hemisphere Milky Way contours, in the human imagination, looks like “a huge woman and man in the Sky”, thus giving rise to the “Great Goddess and God in the heavens”.

    OK, so we have some human imaginations of the two primordial
    deities, but what then about the ancient mythical knowledge of the creation itself? The Egyptian story of creation in the Ogdoad states this:

    (Remember, “deities is just creative forces” and “genders” is opposite but complementary qualities. “8 deities” subsequently is 8 fundamental qualities and elements which is taking part in all kind of creation/formation)

    Then we read:

    “The eight deities were arranged in four male-female pairs: Nu and Naunet, Amun and Amaunet, Kuk and Kauket, Huh and Hauhet. The
    males were associated with frogs and females were associated with snakes. Apart from their gender, there was little to distinguish the male gods and female goddesses; indeed, the names of the females are merely derivative female forms of the male name.

    Essentially, each pair represents the male and female aspect of one of four concepts, namely the primordial waters (Nu and Naunet), air or invisibility (Amun and Amaunet), darkness (Kuk and Kauket), and eternity or infinity (Huh and Hauhet).

    Together the four (complementary) concepts represent the primal, fundamental state of the beginning, they are what always was. In the myth, however, their interaction ultimately proved to be unbalanced, resulting in the arising of a new entity. When the entity opened, it revealed Ra, the fiery sun, inside. After a long interval of rest, Ra, together with the other deities, created all other things”.

    Mark this sentence: “Together the four concepts represent the primal, fundamental state of the beginning, they are what always was”.

    This does logically not speak of any beginning, but of an eternal and principle state, since “they are what they always was”. This story of creation logically doesn´t speak of a beginning at all, but of an eternal stage in which principally are set in motion by “stirring and swirling up the elements” to such degree that nuclear powers (Ra) formats and creates everything from this center.

    This telling specifically belongs to the pre- and creation of the MIlky Way which is mythologically confirm by the Egyptian "goddess", Hathor who has "a complexe connection to Ra"

    What then about the observed motions, which supposedly should confirm “a Big Bang”? If focusing on the scientific observation of “the Great Attractor” towards which center everything in the observable part of the Universe seems to move against, this very and highly speculative Big Bang idea falls to the ground as a scientific contradiction.

    My conclusion is: Don´t believe in linear modern speculations – interpret the numerous ancient Myths of Creation as real eternal knowledge of the cyclical and creative powers and their eternal motions of assembling and dissolving everything in the Universe, thus using the same amount of gaseous and particles in an eternal
    formation, dissolution and reformation.

    BTW: The entire Universe is ruled by electro-magneto dynamics in all kinds of charges and not "by gravity" - that´s all folks :-)

  51. Ivar Nielsen

    Unfortunately it seem posting links is "out of order" here, so do your own search on:
    "Native science/forefather.worship" (the divine pair) - "Ogdoad" and "Hathor".

  52. TGOBP

    Your understanding and usage of word definitions is still faulty. As Fabien correctly pointed out, 'magic' and 'miracles' are both, by definition, not possible within the context of science. Both reside in the imaginations of people and not in the 'real world', and not once have been proven otherwise. So no, 'magic' is most definitely NOT "allowed and within the laws of Science" as you claim.

    Which renders the rest of your 'life miracle' appeal nonsense, as is your usual standard.

  53. Patrick James Bayham

    god really likes beetles..he made so many different versions…
    therefore logically, according to some creation "scientists", the universe must be fine-tuned for beetles...

  54. dewflirt

    Maybe the friction of two universes different laws of physics rubbing against each other would be the cause of the wormhole? Problem solved! ;)

  55. dewflirt

    You were doing it wrong :)

  56. Fabien L'Amour

    I am more inclined to believe a catastrophic highly energetic event would happen in such a situation but who knows. We'll know as soon as we observe a wormhole to another universe or friction between 2 universes. ;)

  57. Richard Neva

    I fear this is too deep for me and have to bow out at this late hour…...

  58. dewflirt

    "Catastrophic, highly energetic event" They're making baby-verses? Now that's something I'd like to see, Mills and Boom - The Big Bang ;))

  59. Achems_Razor

    Really! go see James, 'amazing Randi' you might pick up a few bucks, a million that is.

  60. Jt

    Yeah, mine too, but wait! What if your bs detector is MY bs detector in another universe? Oh yeah, that's still a huge steaming heap.

  61. Jimmy Crackorn

    You just did!

  62. Jimmy Crackorn

    What you just said is a theology of its own. It's called Theosophy (see Blavatsky) and not to disrespect your opinion, which holds all the value of my own, but that idea - the one that we as humans can even begin to sort this thing out through deep talk of consciousness and obtaining more of it, mathematical puzzles, and the "outrageous capabilities" of the human mind albeit intertwined with consciousness or not - rings ridiculous and silly to me...and, oh yeah I almost forgot, Satanic, too. Now I imagine you're thinking "good and evil" aren't really true forces, but just crazy concepts we use to pass judgement on other beings like "ourselves" as a way to narrow the path to divinity we all so much deserve even while denying God's existence by simply calling ourselves gods who are just too dumb right now to make everything in our lives right and in perfect order until we manage somehow to once again become God through "higher consciousness" (by using Yoga or something). I'm a very angry and depressed person and I feel like I didn't get a fair shake at whatever this is all about, but I cannot fathom the idea that the answers lie within the soul casings we call ourselves by name when we struggle to get to the earth's moon.

  63. Jimmy Crackorn

    Jeez, me thinks thou wasteth thy time on this other being somewhere else on Earth whom you will probably never meet, but if you did you would never know it.

  64. Fabien L'Amour

    As you just did ;) Time enjoyed is not time wasted and it gave you something to read too so maybe I am wasting time on him but not every reader.

  65. Fabien L'Amour

    Looks like you found the foundation of a new theory that would explain the Big Bang or the roots for a new religion if you label these universes as Gods! :D

  66. llboudreau

    Reasoning and rational thought processes have greatly increased man's ability to make sense of his world. Granted, it is much easier to find and explain what makes up the physical material world rather than why we imagine the phantoms we invent in our own minds to explain the, dare I say, as yet unexplainable? However, with time, I expect philosophy, psychology and other disciplines to provide the most likely reasons for why people think the way they do. And when I say we should be looking inward for our own personal god it is because man has yet to come up with a reasonable or rational external god and when he believes he has, he poisons it by cloaking it in a man made construct called religion. In other words, man first invents the god and then invents a religion to manifest and reinforce his ongoing belief in that god and very quickly loses sight of the original concept of both.

  67. Sarah Fillmore

    Where does form come from? Even the scientists haven't a clue. Yet they are so sure of themselves. I find it entertaining how the scientists are as dogmatic in their anti-god views as the theists are in their pro-god views. At least the theists aren't condescending and snide like many scientists are. I don't have any answers, but while science impresses me with repeatable experiments based on evidence which works great for some things, it still can't provide me with the "why" of anything, which are of course the most interesting questions so I find their arrogance a bit ridiculous. As ridiculous as the theists who try to tell me that their particular creation story is *the one*. Human beings are such silly boastful creatures who take themselves so seriously.

  68. over the edge

    I would like to clarify a few things.
    -"scientists haven't a clue. Yet they are so sure of themselves." can you point me to these scientists? because all explanations are always under scutiny. As soon as an explanation with better predictive capabilities, and better explains the phonenom under examination the old explanations will be updated or discarded.

    _"scientists are as dogmatic in their anti-god views as the theists are in their pro-god views" Science has nothing to say concerning god. Also the majority of scientists are religious.

    -"At least the theists aren't condescending and snide like many scientists are" We have different experiences in this area I think.

    -" it still can't provide me with the "why" of anything" Science provides many "why" answers.

  69. dewflirt

    Bet you could type that with your eyes closed by now :)

  70. Achems_Razor

    It never ceases to amaze me why wannabe theists have the gall to try too lump all their religious mumbo-jumbo into the realm of pure science, science and scientists do not care about proving the man-made gods in recorded history, they only go by the scientific method. All you have to remember about your "form" is that "the Stars died so you could be born!"

  71. over the edge

    Sad but most likely true.

  72. Fabien L'Amour

    Explaining the "why" of anything implies there was a thought and a goal behind it all and falls under the theists view of the world. Science explains the "how" of things, it doesn't exclude there is a "why", it's outside of its realm of activities. Anyone is allowed to have an opinion including scientists but I am 100% certain no peer reviewed published scientific article has anti-god or pro-god arguments.

  73. badconduct

    Is it possible that a God of sorts created the Universe?
    Yes, it's possible.
    Is it a Biblical God?
    No, definitely not.

  74. Pysmythe

    Very sorry, Dewy, that it has taken me so long to get back to you on some kind of an answer here, but I've been pretty shackled down with various things going on, and not only grandkids, matter of fact, so that I hope you'll overlook my neglect, as it certainly wasn't intentional. But I'll try to keep this relatively brief... However, we'll see, I suppose, and, anyway, here goes. for what it's worth.

    The Penrose/Hameroff paper clearly suggests that the mind itself is necessary to the collapse of the wave-function; that is, that without its direct interaction, no such collapse could be manifest. In other words, that it takes an observer to effect the collapse, which seems extraordinarily strange to me, because, as they themselves suggest in their paper, this must mean that mind itself is tied quite directly into the very fabric of space-time itself... So that one can only be left to ask, assuming that they are correct about this, what might be, to say the least, the startling implications of this? Not, however, that the likes of me is going to pretend to delineate what the "purpose" might be in the last analysis... But I think we can all admit, if we're honest about it, that that is one hell of a thing to try to wrap one's head around...

    The other thing is, and which some here have evidently completely misunderstood, this notion of the Multiverse, assumed by some to be at present the mainstream view of our revered Elders, when, in fact, there is plenty of dissent still out there regarding it among those who've spent their lives in those sciences for which it would have an important bearing. I'll admit that it is GETTING to be the mainstream view, but that my problem with it is precisely this, as well as can be comprehended by a layman, who has, nevertheless, read nearly a literal ton of books on the subject: That problem is that it doesn't appear to be likely that any repeatable experiments will be possible which would conclusively demonstrate the existence of other universes OTHER THAN what higher mathematics would SUGGEST... But the difficulty here seems to me to be that the axioms of mathematics are often capable of suggesting all sorts of things which do NOT, in fact, necessarily conform to what is in fact reality. In other words, string theory posits upwards of 11 different diminsions, whereas we feeble humans are limited to a mere fraction of those, and with no chance of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt the sure existence of any others.

    Anyway, so this is basically the crux of my whole problem with this entire business... I mean, the very math itself more than suggests that we will never be able to access these other dimensions of a certainty... so that, in conclusion, it not only strikes me as disheartening, but DOWNRIGHT COMIC how it is that so many, from mere postal workers to pizza delivery men, are so willing to jump full up onto the wagon-train of science without much more of a moments thought, simply because the suspect ideas originate from the current High Priests of our Holy Sciences. Sorry, but my skepticism, contrary to the assumptions of fools who are sure they know something of my level of study about these things, is pretty well-grounded, in fact, whether or not the genuine fanatic is able to acknowledge that or not.

  75. dewflirt

    Haha, looks like we both are short of one dimension ;) Thought I was going to see your briefs then Mr P but instead you gave me long johns! Have about 20 things to do and I'll get back to you. Your absence is forgiven, hope all is well.

  76. Pysmythe

    'nuff said! :) But get back to me whenever you might have a few free moments, as for years now I've loved your unique take and perspective on things, that inimitable way you have with words and humour. However, I probably should add just one little meager caveat to all that post of mine above (not, that is, THIS one...) I suddenly felt "wise enough" to go ahead and put down: I think you probably know I'm NOT a drinker, except on very, very rare occasions... But on the night of my post I freely admit I had had a few... quite a few, in fact, lol. And I think it was probably due to that influence that led me to my, more or less, "oh, what the hell," attitude, as I was loosened up enough, I guess, to jump on in with as full an explanation as I could muster as to what has been bothering me about certain aspects of this whole business: I just don't don't see HOW on earth it can be considered sound science if an experiment, and one able to be repeated elsewhere, stands no chance of proving incontrovertibly the existence of alternate universes, outside of relying on what the mathematics merely SUGGESTS.

    Anyway... get back to me whenever you may wish to, old friend, old buddy. :) For sure, I look forward to your thoughts as always. It even strikes me that we could have a lot of fun, if not much else, about such a convoluted and bizarre topic...

  77. Pysmythe

    "Also the majority of scientists are religious."

    True, from all I've ever heard, too, and particularly so I think this is true among biologists and engineers. Very, very significant, too, that these professionals are able to separate personal belief from purely scientific research. One could hope that eventually the general population might be able one day to aspire to the same thing, but then there seems to be a sad and detrimental lack of imagination that runs pretty much rampant among those less educated, or, it might be better said, among those who just simply refuse to be educated regarding what nuances would allow them to reconcile their conflicts with those they were likely brought up to believe without questioning.

  78. Pino

    Interesting documentary....I have always loved documentaries about the universe and space and it's interesting that science has progressed a lot in its understanding of life and the universe. I believe that life is the result of an intelligent being ....ex: we know a camera needs a designer an engineer ,a camera focuses takes color film or pictures ,has a lens ,it's complex no one would say a camera formed itself, it's a product of chance,it would be absurd to believe that ....it definitely needed a maker ! Now what about the human eye ?we see in colour ,we can focus our eyes ,pupil adjusts for the right light intake our eyes have a lens very complexed ...so if a camera needs a maker what about the eye? Another example;a computer needs a maker what about the brain? Much more complexed than a computer .....The truth is the creator of life and all it's complexity is the same creator of the fine tuned universe ...
    In Isaiah ch:45:18 it says;" For this is what Jehovah says,The creator of the heavens the true God,The one who formed the earth,it's maker who firmly established it,Who did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited: "I am Jehovah and there is no one else".....
    Also in Isaiah 45:12 it says "I made the earth and created man upon it . I stretched out the heavens with my own hands ,and I give orders to all their army."

  79. over the edge

    You are comparing non living things that are demonstrably designed and not subject to natural selection to living things that are. You are comparing apples to dragons. You go on to state " it's a product of chance". Who other than creationists claim that the evolution of life is the result of chance? That is a strawman and not relevant to the conversation. Finally when it comes to the eye. There are at least two major faults with your analysis. We have many examples of the stages of development of the eye. The human eye sprcifically has multiple issues that should not be there is they were designed from scratch. But are easily explained if they are the result of gradual change and the repurposing of earlier components

  80. Achems_Razor

    The universe is not fine tuned for us at all, we have adapted to only the earth as it is through the process of evolution. Go out in space and see how long you would last without protective gear and breathable air.
    You are making claims that your gods created everything, who then created your gods? Just because some bronze age myths circulated about your man made gods, when they thought that the earth was flat and the center of the universe, was written down in the man made bibles, about the man made religions, does not prove it true!

  81. Brian Sinclair

    The gap between living things (cells) and non living things is so immense that I personally find it impossible to accept that it could ever happen on it's own.

  82. dewflirt

    As soon as someone goes Quantum I, like most people, have a little panic and hide in the petticoats of mothers best guess. Probably a wrong guess but at least it's comfortable. The problem is that we are told that anyone that thinks they understand quantum, doesn't understand it at all. To the lay thinker, that puts us all on an even footing with the scientists. We don't know almost as much as they don't. And then, just to spangle us completely, someone pipes up and tells us that quantum means ANYTHING is possible SOMEWHERE but it probably needs 11 dimensions. Well, I can only deal with 4, I can't even begin to comprehend 5 and more than that basically means you can have magic if you like. So now you can have multiverses, branes and strings and things that do and don't exist at the same time AND harbour secret hopes that a sparkly pegacorn is waiting for you if only you could flutter your lashes at the wave form in just such a way that it goes weak at the knees and collapses before you... Honestly, I have no idea how we collapse waves, I immediately think of flat-pack realities, indecipherable ikea instructions and a bag that feels worryingly light on fixings. So, does anything exist or does it only exist in the eye of the beholder? Who knows what I see? Do those cold lonely telescopes out in space see what is real or do they see what we want them to see? I can't believe that we have built our expectations into a mechanical eye, and would the waves collapse for a thoughtless thing. Maybe we should ask the Universal AC? There is as yet, insufficient data for a meaningful answer (I think) ;))

  83. Fabien L'Amour

    If proof of life was to be revealed on another planet, would you still hold the same belief? It's really hard to comprehend why an intelligent superior being would have started life with such simple micro-organisms doing virtually nothing for millions of years instead of fast forwarding it to intelligent life as soon as possible.

    I encourage you to google "exploring life's origins" for a website that explains how life could have happened simply from chemistry.

  84. Brian Sinclair

    Another doc I viewed on this site spoke of the time it would take life to evolve, and the age of our universe since the big bang. It stated that it would have taken billions and billions of years ( I forget the exact number) with the bottom line that there wouldn't be a higher life form somewhere out there. Now the chances of all the pieces successfully falling into place for life to once again spontaneously arise from non living matter somewhere on another planet would be against great odds.

  85. Fabien L'Amour

    The odds are small but there are about 300 billions stars in our galaxy and we can observe billions other galaxies. It's now becoming evident from observations that most of these stars have planets orbiting them. I find it hard to believe that out of current estimates of the total stellar population at roughly 70 billion trillion, earth is the only planet to have the conditions for life to develop.

  86. Brian Sinclair

    Life would then have to spontaneously arise from nothing on that other planet with just the right conditions somewhere out there in the cosmos, somehow then hitch a ride on an asteroid or comet and travel who knows how many billions or trillions or more miles and find it's way here to earth, another planet with just the right conditions. Given we've only had 13 billion or so years since the big bang, consider please the amount of time it would take for life to evolve, coupled with travel time from another distant planet. Many things hard to fathom as possible.

  87. Fabien L'Amour

    That's not what I meant, I meant the process of life evolution doesn't have to be a single event in the universe. If it can appear somewhere under the right circumstances, there is no reason to think it can't happen elsewhere under the same circumstances. The chemistry of the universe is uniform, proposing these reactions could only happen once is almost impossible to explain. Actually, the same proposition is valid if you believe in a creator, these is no proof whatsoever life wasn't created elsewhere on Earth #2.

    Also the time needed is irrelevant, we have proof it happened here on this planet which is estimated at 4.5 billion years of age and the oldest known fossils are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old. So less than 1 billion years was necessary for life to appear.

  88. Achems_Razor

    You have to go by logical steps, so in other words your gods or whatever decided to blow up the stars, supernovas etc: to load the early universe with all the material needed to form matter, eventually us carbon units over billions of years. Or are you a creationist that the earth and universe are only 6000 years old? and everything was spoken into existence.

  89. Pete

    You know when I was 6 or 7, at catholic school, I remember a priest telling us how god created everything, I simply asked the same as you say here, he said 'he just is' - I replied but how? he had no answer!
    I am not religious in any way shape or form, just to clear that up.
    Was hoping could find some common ground, so long as stay off the other subject. Find all aspects of universe very interesting indeed.

  90. Pete

    I've seen an interesting doc recently, it's not on here, was on bbc in uk - Horizon, secrets of the solar system - put's another spanner in the works as to how lucky earth was, wont give it away in case you all not seen it.
    Think about how much life could be out there, even if was 0.0001% per galaxy with planets of potential, that's a fairly large number.

  91. Jedidiah Gurl

    I agree with Pino.

    I saw on this discussion the word "creationist" mentioned? Creationist believe at least the following two things:

    1) The earth was created in six literally, 24 hour days.
    Does the Bible say that? - No. The word day in the Bible represents various amounts of time. (Genesis 2:4, Psalm 90:4.) Even researching the original language word "day" in the Genesis creation account does not translate to a literal 24 hour day.

    2)Age of the earth. Some creationist believe the earth is only a few thousand years old.
    Does the Bible say that? - No. In fact, in the Genesis account at Genesis 1:1 the earth and the universe were created BEFORE the six creative does.
    So is the Bible antiscience? Not at all.
    Of course, scientist and the Bible will not always agree.

  92. Prodromos Regalides

    This is a speculation of scientists on what happens at a scale so huge, our feeble human brain would fry if it somehow tried to comprehend it all. Still, an interesting theory. We should however come out of our shell
    and travel to the stars, if we are to make a better sense of it. Relying only on telescopes and probes won't make it.

  93. Pete

    Is it something we can ever answer through science - how did it all truly begin? is there anything after life?
    i won't dismiss the existence of a creator all out, if there is such a thing can the truth only be found when life ends?
    I can't possibly fathom how we can ever know what was before our understanding of time beginning,
    I just believe that the universe itself is an immense complexity of wonder - can science only take us so far?
    will we discover other life out there or is it only us?
    I think we all deep down, want to believe that there is something after life or what is it all about?
    If there is just nothing and existence ends, time was started some how, from nothing! so nothing is something?
    but then you ask if there is a creator, where did the creator come from and so on....It boggles the mind to think about this , theories on multi-verse,simulation, etc.
    It's fascinating, and certainly gives our lives more meaning. Can science prove the ultimate question - but to imply it was all made for us?
    Such a implication can only be of religious mentality, it'd be great to finally put religion and all it's horrors behind us?

  94. Pysmythe

    If only you knew how many replies to this I've started drafting in my mind over the past days, only to cut them off... and it wasn't entirely due to pure laziness. You're right to allude to Feynman's comment about the incomprehensibility of the Quantum world, too... I could go on and mention what a loop the news about Dr Mersini-Houghton's paper that came out back in Sept of last year threw me, the one in which she PROVES mathematically that black holes are not possible... but after I caught my breath about this and did a little further reading on it, I THINK the impact of this paper is "simply" that they cannot form in the ways in which it has been previously thought. Because for sure they, or something quite close enough to what has been the idea of them, are there. I mean, we've got pictures!

    I could go on a bit, but... and I understand that science is a continuing process... and Mersini-Houghton herself has been a real hero of mine over the past several years, but... I'm starting to think that QM, Cosmology, Physics in general, etc., are becoming like the subject of politics is to this old man... It's increasingly easy for me to end up baffled, confused, or downright outraged... I like keeping up with the subject as best I can, but breaks from it periodically may be increasingly in order. Good thing I've got more of an artistic bent to fall back on, as it's generally much easier to "juggle the greys" with a mindset like that, anyway. I ought to just stump back off to my subpar fugues for a while and consider those the best math I can handle...

  95. Brian Sinclair

    Thats part of the problem! Humans cant say where god came from, or what was here before the big bang. Where did all this energy come from? When did it "begin"? It could not have a beginning according to our understanding because we know before the "beginning" there was a "time" before that! Infinity then must go both directions, into the past and the future.

  96. Achems_Razor

    Are you referring to the "god of the gaps"?
    Don't know about infinity, according to quantum mechanics, even Einstein, there is no spacetime/time, everything is illusion and static.

  97. DigiWongaDude

    Hey :)
    1) As far as I'm aware, the wave can be collapsed without the presence of mind. Using a camera as an observer in the double slit experiment, for example, produces the same scattering as a mindful observer (as I barely recall). If it were possible to show the mind had a particular influence on the outcome of an experiment, that would be remarkable indeed, and might somehow be used to collect a certain prize offered by James Randi? Perhaps I should read that paper. :)

    2) Just as the 4th dimension (time) reveals itself to the 3rd dimension*, I imagine the effects of the 5th dimension should be available to the 4th, and so on, and on.. So in theory at least, there might be a way of detecting the presence of a 5th dimension.

    [*the third dimension can leave a 'footprint' on the 2nd dimension and so on too - I'm thinking of a 3-D cube sitting on a 2-D flat piece of paper ... (interestingly, the 'footprint' of a sphere would be a single point, no matter the size of the sphere in that scenario).]

    How then... might we sense the effects of a 5th dimension in time? I wonder. Imagine if one day we somehow discovered that the 5th dimension has something to do with mind, meaning that it was right in front of us the whole time!

    Good to hear your thoughts :)

  98. Pysmythe

    Way too much science to qualify for the Randi prize, I think. It's not like telekinesis, or some such thing, it's actually much more "intimate" than something like that, from what I can gather. The paper is one hell of a slog, and there's some math in it, but I can hunt down the link and send it to you, if you like. Regarding your first point, I think their response might ultimately be similar to, "well, yes, but it still takes an observer to observe what has been observed."

  99. dewflirt

    See now, I'd be inclined to suggest you enjoy the science and leave the politics be for a while. Science will always be as true as it can, workplace politics on the other hand, is nothing more than a game of lies. Or gradations of inveracity ;)

  100. Pysmythe

    I don't want to risk arguing with you (even though I know what you really mean), but science is often only as true as the corporate and government money that funds it will allow, as well as often being dependent upon the good graces of entrenched researchers or institutions that have built careers and reputations upon certain theories being accepted as Gospel, wherein it can be very difficult for a credible new idea to gain any kind of a foothold. Science is NOT as "pure" as many laymen suppose, and this is part of what I was getting at in labeling as foolishness the currently more or less unstated perception of scientists by many as some sort of High Priests. They are not the sole arbiters of "truth," they are human, and a great many of them will fight just as unscrupulously for their sandwiches as most of the rest of us. This holds science back, and is part of what annoys me, whereas the often almost childlike acceptance of any "pronouncement" of it, as if from on high, by so many of us, who usually aren't in much of a position to judge its veracity, is both amusing AND annoying.

  101. dewflirt

    Whoever said science was pure? It's got people in it, people are not neutral. And I don't think I said science was THE truth, only that it can only give its best truth yet and that has to go through more non neutral people to get to us. I have 3 1/2 days to learn trickynometry, I'd like to understand why the answers I get are true but right now I'll settle for getting the answers right, I can learn the proofs after the test but in the mean time I have to trust that there is proof and that my teacher knows her stuff. She's done her best to make it understandable and she's not lied to me yet because I know the stuff she tells me gives me true answers. Now take climate change, everyone that knows anything knows it's real. They gave us the facts and hard facts alone gave us deniers, they simplified the truth and some felt we weren't getting the whole truth. Now they have to go back to basics, tell us the science and explain it better. We like to believe what we like to believe and doubt what we don't understand. The difference between a high priest and those with knowledge is that priests can't give you the proof ;)

  102. DigiWongaDude

    Suggesting "well, yes, but it still takes an observer to observe what has been observed." and supposing that would be the response...

    ...So the camera observes the scattering, but does NOT collapse the wave until some future point WHEN observed by mind (if mind collapses the wave).

    That would mean the wave did not actually collapse until the FUTURE time, when mind collapsed it.

    It would further imply the present is changeable (relative to an observer). Holy Ravioli Batman!

  103. Brian Sinclair

    Not familiar with "the god of the gaps"...I was thinking of "He Who Causes to Become" who, as you put it, loaded up our universe with the building blocks for life.

  104. Achems_Razor

    There is no he, her, it, that loaded up any universe/universes if you are referring to any man made gods. No one knows what came before the BB, and the BB does not mean explosion. Am not trying to sound condescending but you may find many references to what you are seeking by googling for the info.

  105. Brian Sinclair

    "He" "Her" of course just human expressions we use to exchange ideas about our origins.
    We know life only comes from pre-existing life.

  106. Brian Sinclair

    Even the "simplest" bacteria cell is astonishingly complex as compared to any non living matter. Life only comes from pre-existing life. That is why so many now believe that the spark of life, or the precise chemistry of life HAD to be dropped off here in some way. They can not see how in any way it ever could have happened all on it's own. Of course because life's origins are so far off our understanding not all chemists, atheists or otherwise, agree. Bear in mind that these are intelligent, educated people with years of study and all with equal access to the same information who wonder if possibly someone or something was behind it all.

  107. Brian Sinclair

    Maybe one day all will be revealed to us.

  108. Brian Sinclair

    A doc I seen on the subject of an infinite universe tried to propose that a monkey on another planet identical to ours is typing shakespheare (sp?)
    and is going to complete the entire bard...because it is infinity after all. Why wouldn't he be typing, with infinite possibilities out there?!
    I don't buy it.

  109. Fabien L'Amour

    If you start with the premise it HAD to be dropped off here in some way, there is no point trying to explain it with science, you have a conclusion before doing any experiment or observation.

    The only logical thing one can say is that the origin is unknown, not that it came from a force outside the universe that can't be explained in any way. Replacing something unknown with something even more mysterious is not a valid explanation at all.

  110. Brian Sinclair

    I agree. I think that we need to keep searching for a better explanation than that which has so far been presented.

  111. Brian Sinclair

    God liked the beetles but most evolution "scientists" prefer the monkeys!

  112. Pete

    What's it called, I'll check it out?
    Seen other docs like that, all these theories are interesting - something that science may never be able to answer or can it!
    Where space and time are concerned, do we even know which questions to ask?
    Here's a theory of mine, maybe to understand the ultimate answer, we need to understand many other universes with different laws of physics and scientific results, putting them all together - or could that just be the first step!
    I believe our science and continuous discoveries are taking us in the right direction, with a big step for us to find other intelligence out there along the way.

  113. Brian Sinclair

    I know I saw it on this site...it may have been a "Through the Wormhole" episode or I may have found it after a doc search here on "Infinity".
    I think your theory is a good one. Too bad we only live 80 years or so because astronomers are just starting to make amazing strides!

  114. Fabien L'Amour

    Earth is indeed in a lucky spot with the correct distance from the sun, its moon, it's tilt and the protection giant planets give it from stellar objects. But you only need a second planet out of the trillions out there with similar conditions, I find it very plausible that life could have evolved elsewhere.

  115. Pete

    Absolutely, that figure I mentioned, would come to 300,000, assuming 300 billion in our galaxy alone, say 1% resulted in life, that's 3000 and 1% of those resulted in intelligent life to our standard or way beyond then I make that 30 - but up those percentages and/or multiply across the known universe - I believe it's teeming with life!

  116. Fabien L'Amour

    That's more of a poor thought experiment to illustrate infinity. It is highly improbable given the intellect and behavior of monkeys.

  117. Brian Sinclair

    Yeah, you need to see it for yourself to believe it! They actually have a computer running non stop simulating this hypothetical chimpanzee !
    You say highly improbable (which I agree with you 100%) but he says not only is it possible it is absolutely inevitable! In fact, there are also more Fabien L'Amour's out there as well, and Brian Sinclairs. Except perhaps these alternates are taking different paths. For example, YOU would be trying to convince ME there is a God out there and there is actually a purpose to all this beauty and awesomeness we have discovered! And in another universe you and I are car-pooling to work every day at the sawmill or WalMart!!
    Infinite possibilities...

  118. Fabien L'Amour

    Hopefully, they aren't funded with public funds. That research seems to be an absolute waste of time and computing power.

  119. Pete

    This theory is possibly a waste of funds, but any theory is worth pursuing, until proven or dis-proven.
    You're not going to like this opinion of mine and I don't want to go off topic in this subject, but I believe it is this exact 'mindset' or the fact in our world everything still comes down to funding that holds humanity back - another reason I believe our culture/society needs to move on.
    The possibilities out there are endless - can market/funding ever really get us there?
    I believe if we grew up long ago, humanity would already be well on the way to the stars, forget the moon or mars!

    I realise I base that on no real evidence before you shoot me down - just my personal belief.

  120. Fabien L'Amour

    You will have to explain how simulating a monkey typing on a typewriter is not a waste of funds. Even if it indeed typed something that makes sense, it is by no mean a monkey at all so it's not even a valid experiment.

  121. Pete

    I've not seen this particular doc, but the theory as explained by Brian is on infinite universe, so the point of the monkey is just to put a picture in our minds of the possibility - a silly one all be it.
    My point was if funding was not an issue then we could happily speculate and demonstrate all theories without considering it a waste.
    Improbable, how do we know, this example is to portray an image of the unknown - no more than that, I find these type of docs interesting.

  122. Fabien L'Amour

    I have no problem with the thought experiment, I have a problem with wasting funds,energy and talent with an experiment that will only prove a computer can spit out letters at random into something legible if you give it enough time.

  123. Pete

    I would disagree on wasting energy or talent, the computer is more than capable to do this without using much energy and if a person or group have the time or desire to show a theory then that is their choice. As is our choice if we watch or accept the possibility.
    Funds though is an area open to definite debate.

  124. Fabien L'Amour

    The thought experiment is sufficient, anyone with logic can guess it's possible. Having hard data that demonstrates it serves absolutely no purpose.

  125. Pete

    But that's what individuality is all about, our minds require images to represent an experiment if you will, particularly if not educated in a particular area.
    It comes down to a belief in science I suppose, it's not just about the 'how' but arriving at the 'why' - Images being a good way to expand the mind rather than just hard data.
    What's your opinion on creation of our solar system and how that simulation has set in many minds?
    That is based on as much data we have come to understand but not set in stone, ie the recent comet landing has re-opened a thought on that!
    Without images, would be harder for many to grasp!
    Well that's what I think any way.

  126. Fabien L'Amour

    Are we still talking about a computer randomly spitting out Shakespeare? You think seeing the text coming from a computer would be an image needed to be seen even if it takes a million years? I think it's a complete waste of time.

  127. Pete

    A computer will spit out whatever we programme it to, images included - if someone sees a point to that, why not?
    It may well take a million years for data to prove an image or correct it.
    But that's the freedom we do have, to choose a doc with images or go by hard data only.
    We are all entitled to our opinion and science, through theory, however we do it wlll have to arrive at the truth in the end or be open to admit that data may have been wrong.
    Personally I like simulations for these type of docs to help me understand so not a waste of time to me.

  128. Fabien L'Amour

    Ok, I'll have to disagree that the monkey simulation is a valid experiment that will amount to anything of interest and I hope not one cent of my income taxes goes to finance it.

  129. Pete

    Fair enough, I've enjoyed this discussion.

  130. DigiWongaDude

    Just a thought... imagine an infinite universe with, therefore, a potential infinite amount of monkeys typing away... in order to produce the entire works of Shakespeare correctly, somewhere out there would be a monkey getting it right on the very first attempt. So any more than a single attempt, by each monkey, would be a waste of effort. What else can we say about this? Well... because we are talking infinity there would actually be an infinite amount of monkeys getting it right first time too! Infinity + randomness = ?

  131. Pysmythe

    Oh, I wasn't suggesting that YOU hold that sort of view, but was just making the observation in a general sense, although I do believe most of us are susceptible to some of the pitfalls. ANYway...

  132. Abdullah

    It is only the power
    of God before, through and after the universe.

    This is the short answer, and you can find
    logical, detailed and trusted answers by asking people behind this website:
    Almustafa Open University

  133. Brian Sinclair

    Regarding infinity I suppose absolutely anything would be possible...My personal,non-scientific,nothing to back me up gut feeling is that the universe is not infinite. I "see" the galaxies expanding out into the vast universe of absolute nothingness awaiting the arrival of new stars with outstretched open arms. What I see as infinite is the "nothingness" that is there before the birth of these new galaxies.
    As for science, one thing IS for certain. It's history has been full of surprises! :-)

  134. micky

    Its about time you stopped believing in a man in the sky

  135. Ibra

    its right to say
    all your PERFECT IMPERFECTIONS !

  136. Shed Skin

    OK I liked this & would easily view it again. 6.91 is too harsh. It's more like a 7.5 or 8.0. It asks the question & failz to answer it, but it's quite a tough question. I too was raised with a strong idea of science & a weaker dose of religion. Currently I have experience of God, but science is as valid as ever.
    Of course it has some limitations--it was designed by human being to serve human beings. God is an old idea & as such has been misused & abused by human beings. Still God is real, here, now & valid, bulletproof, immaculate. You think dark matter is subtle yet rules our universe? Love is subtle yet rules our universe. Constant overpowering bliss doesn't necessarily make any sense but the divinely beautiful thing is that is doesn't have to make any sense & was not designed to make any sense. What about that which is beyond human thought? Can't conceive it? There's a reason. Well, soon enough some algorithm/program will deliver the New Gospel to us, to the tune of Of COURSE there's a God, you silliest of divine creation, you may now go regain union with this/these god/dess(es). Then we'll all agree on how obvious it was the whole time.

  137. fender24

    Well, so far the evidence tell us we're all alone. intelligent life is unique. All other planets look dead, and we happened to get the one planet in close enough distance from the sun with a small enough moon. Evidence tell us we got from nothing to here right. just a big bang is all it takes, andpoof we are here and have the power to actually discuss this matter. By chance we could have been brainless zombies walking around. This doc ask How fine tuned is our universe? hah Ask Penrose.
    Chance has no power, it can not cause anything or create a universe. If you believe in chance, its more likely our universe only consisted of hydrogen or gass, with no heavy elements or life. Why should chance exactly have us in mind? and place us where we are in our solar system, why not little to the left? like it has a will of its own? What about nothing. Is it more likely that the hawkin's theory of "nothing" is the cause for us being here?. nothing would just continue being nothing. Like how does nothing knows its pregnant with an universe? Nothing is not a creative force. It can't be God right? some intelligent force mixing it all up then leaves it for our guessing? But there is no escaping the fact that after all the knowledge we've collected the universe is intelligent and we still haven't figured it out.

  138. llboudreau

    Science wasn't "designed by human being(sic) to serve human beings." Science was developed (dare I say "evolved") over time as man's knowledge and understanding of his world through observations and study became formalized into the various scientific disciplines we have today. God on the other hand was invented by ignorant men to explain the natural world to ignorant people before science allowed for natural explanations. It amazes me that otherwise intelligent people will use the Bible, which is basically a collection of fairy tales, as a science text.

  139. Guitar Tuner

    Everything is perfect! Enjoy the ride

  140. coryn

    Seriously, if you were an all powerful, omniscient 'god', is this the kind of world you would create? Where every living thing can stay alive only by eating some other living creature?

    Now, read it again and think about it.......

  141. Eric71Can

    I would say no but honnestly, i wonder much more on how i could, by any realistic way, get to the edge of this universe.

  142. Fabien L'Amour

    I suppose one would need a spacetime machine or a way to travel faster than light. But then if you get to the edge you would be expanding it further, not leaving it, as I understand the big bang theory.

  143. southab403

    Weren't we 'fined tuned' to the universe via evolution?

  144. coryn

    That's my understanding, for if the universe is evolving as many agree, all elements of it would likely be evolving together, as there are no 'gaps' if there is no 'creator', or 'supreme being', that pulls strings at will, and I personally see little evidence of that. It is extremely hard to believe, but evolution is happening over unimaginable time spans. And how bizarre that there is so little that men can agree upon, we even seem to revel in discovering novel, new answers, new possibilities such as multiple universes and black hole universes.

    I think our (my!) brains are too small to comprehend it all, it seems so vast.......

    Peace....

  145. L. E. Alba

    I find the concept of "deep time" unfathomable but I should. I'm a being with a local sense of time limited by my lifespan. Deep time is the underlying theater of operations upon which the force of natural selection works. Given that immense stage, Darwin said it best in the last paragraph of OOS:
    "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object of which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

  146. Rock Quarry

    The earth was not designed for humans, humans happened to emerge from the planet, but it was not made for humans so to speak, we are a by product.

  147. Eric71Can

    A single atom can pass through a wall, but it's very, very unlikely that all atoms of a ball, go through that wall. So unlikely that it would be accepted to use the term Impossible.

  148. DarkSpirit

    What that was deemed impossible is now simply unlikely and that maybe what Magic is all about, to make something unlikely (though possible), happen by tweaking the odds.

    Can we predict the future? Most people would say no. But can you predict what would happen to this pencil if I throw it up in the air? Yes you can, it would likely come down due to the force of gravity. So in a sense, we can predict the future. Then how come we can't predict the movements of the stock market and the weather as easily? Our concept of causality is flawed. Think about it.

  149. Peter Mullen

    There is no need to speculate about multiverses, any longer, it seems to me. It has been conceived, therefore it / they, then exist, as far as i'm concerned. If reactions of ions in the human brain assembled their respective charges into a vision, a thought, a dream, then that reality exists somewhere, somehow, in some dimension, and evolves / morphs into the broader movie, which is the rest of existence the rest of space time continuum.

    With all respect to Lawrence Krauss, and others, it seems foolish to cling to the idea that things, matter, anti matter, dark energy, dark matter, light spring from (nothing), which begs the question. Is (nothing) (something), the human mind conceived it, therefore nothingness must exist as well? It seems ludicrous to assume that a singularity should expand (outward?) without a preexisting force to push / pull it apart. And if that singularity existed, even as a theoretical point of infinitesimal smallness, at some point that singularity becomes the something it's not suppose to be as in ("it"). Is there a demarcation line, or is it like the point of awakening, did our manifestation simply turn around to see it's own reflection?.

    It's enough to drive you mad. Infinitesimal smallness, and nothingness are as mind numbing as eternal space time, backwards, or forwards. I suspect one day a new equation, or new fundamental (looking glass particle) will help us along. I should be a fun ride. "I think I need a drink." Fun Documentary, thanks for leaving us all hanging on the edge of the cliff. Thanks a lot!

  150. Terry Chambers

    I guess I'm feeling sorry for phyicists. They're constantly searching for answers that conform to their expectations. From what I understand, human consciousness is their least concern -- Seems to be a boogieman to their egos, a threat that they wish to ignore or deny. B.F. Skinner said consciousness doesn't exist. If the "big bang" was actually the beginning, why not consider that consciousness was born at the same time? I currently suspect that awareness is the key to existence, but not the other way round. Pahoa, Hawaii

  151. mike m

    To all above:
    I am right
    and u are wrong
    I love it!

Leave a comment / review: