On 2/1/2007 7:33:42 AM, Charlie Bell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On 01/02/2007, at 10:22 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote: > > > > > Heh! > > > I'm thinking more along the lines of Pi, C, or Planks Constant > having > > differing values. > > > I know that's > what you meant, but it still seems to be a wrong-way- > round argument. Even if those constants were different, whatever the > universe described was like (assuming there was at least some form > of > matter and some form of chemistry)
Well....that is pretty much what I was getting at, that chemistry might not be possible in some configurations. Or that even atoms might not be possible. WRT that, I think it is a valid question. >might be able to form life on one > tiny speck amongst all its vast space, and that life might say > "isn't > it amazing, this universe seems perfect for life". To take > Douglas > Adams' puddle a step further, it's like a shower of rain in the > middle of the Sahara and a tiny puddle formed in a hollow of rock > saying that it seems to fit the hole perfectly, even as the rest of > the desert is parched and the puddle itself is evaporating in the > sirocco. > That is certainly true and I agree. If there is chemistry there is always some potential for life. But if there is no chemistry in a universe it would likely be an uninteresting place. (Though there could be room for some sort of sapience quite different from our own.) I think I understand your objections. Such discussions tread quite close to the playground of the ID crowd and I'm not interested in their fanciful ontologies. What I'm actually interested in knowing is if the daughter universes "inherit" the physical properties of the parent universe or if they are a complete reformulation of a timespace from scratch. For me, it is the difference between barely relevant and completely irrelevant.<G> xponent Continuui Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
