--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > Article should've been titled, "Why My Concept Of God Did Not Create The > > Universe", > > Not really, it doesn't matter what concept of god you use as a > creator, the point is it's unnecessary. And there couldn't have been > a creator *before* the universe because there was no such thing as time for > him/her/it to exist in. Unless you know something that > no-one else does..... > > > thereby answering its own question. Interesting stuff on cosmology. My > little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that bright.:-) > > Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking?
Leonard Susskind, a physics professor from Stanford University. For the record, he collected on a bet with Hawking by theorizing that information of matter going into a Black Hole is not lost. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why God Did Not Create the Universe. > > > There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our > > > worldno gods required > > > By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW > > > According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and > > > Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would > > > make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, > > > people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether > > > they ran around banging on pots. > > > Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many > > > myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people > > > turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reasonwith a good dose > > > of intuitionto decipher their universe. Today we use reason, > > > mathematics and experimental testin other words, modern science. > > > Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the > > > universe is that it is comprehensible." He meant that, unlike our homes > > > on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each > > > going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without > > > exception. > > > Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not "arise > > > out of chaos by the mere laws of nature." Instead, he maintained that > > > the order in the universe was "created by God at first and conserved by > > > him to this Day in the same state and condition." The discovery recently > > > of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some > > > back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand > > > Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of > > > the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a > > > benevolent creator. > > > Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly > > > design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar > > > system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar > > > systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the > > > billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and > > > obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the > > > world around them, they are bound to find that their environment > > > satisfies the conditions they require to exist. > > > It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: > > > The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of > > > environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know > > > the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us > > > exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun > > > separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth > > > were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would > > > freeze. That principle is called the "weak" anthropic principle. > > > The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a > > > stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The > > > strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes > > > constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and > > > content of the laws of nature themselves. > > > The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of > > > our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human > > > life, but also the characteristics of our entire universeand its > > > laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support > > > us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is > > > much more difficult to explain. > > > The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of > > > lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with > > > intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of > > > nature had to be such that heavier elementsespecially > > > carboncould be produced from the primordial elements, and remain > > > stable for at least billions of years. Those heavy elements were formed > > > in the furnaces we call stars, so the forces first had to allow stars > > > and galaxies to form. Those in turn grew from the seeds of tiny > > > inhomogeneities in the early universe. > > > Even all that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such > > > that some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could > > > disperse the heavier elements through space. In addition, the laws of > > > nature had to dictate that those remnants could recondense into a new > > > generation of stars, these surrounded by planets incorporating the newly > > > formed heavy elements. > > > By examining the model universes we generate when the theories of > > > physics are altered in certain ways, one can study the effect of changes > > > to physical law in a methodical manner. Such calculations show that a > > > change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, > > > or 4% in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or > > > all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know > > > it. Also, most of the fundamental constants appearing in our theories > > > appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest > > > amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many > > > cases unsuitable for the development of life. For example, if protons > > > were 0.2% heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms. > > > If one assumes that a few hundred million years in stable orbit is > > > necessary for planetary life to evolve, the number of space dimensions > > > is also fixed by our existence. That is because, according to the laws > > > of gravity, it is only in three dimensions that stable elliptical orbits > > > are possible. In any but three dimensions even a small disturbance, such > > > as that produced by the pull of the other planets, would send a planet > > > off its circular orbit, and cause it to spiral either into or away from > > > the sun. > > > The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting > > > intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form > > > a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these > > > coincidences? Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental > > > physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in > > > environmental factors. It raises the natural question of why it is that > > > way. > > > Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the > > > work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate > > > mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of > > > years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of > > > providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also > > > greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural > > > world that functions according to some deliberate design." > > > That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in > > > cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow > > > universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is > > > the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe > > > exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the > > > blue touch paper and set the universe going. > > > Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That > > > multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of > > > fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern > > > cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to > > > the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same > > > footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic > > > habitatnow the entire observable universeis just one of many. > > > Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only > > > a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny > > > and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense > > > the lords of creation. > > > Stephen Hawking is a professor at the University of Cambridge. > > > Leonard Mlodinow is a physicist who teaches at Caltech > > > From the book "The Grand Design" > > > > > >
