It is possible that proof of the existence of parallel universes radically different from our universe is still beyond the boundaries of science.
In the last ten years, an extraordinary claim has attracted the attention of cosmologists: the expanding universe we see around us is not the only universe, but there are billions of other universes. There is not one universe but a "multiverse". In articles in Scientific American and books, such as Brian Greene's latest book, The Hidden Reality, leading scientists talk about a super-Copernican revolution. In their view, not only is our planet one of many, but our entire universe is meaningless in an overall cosmic view. He is just one of countless universes, each busy with his own.
The term "multiverse" has several meanings. Astronomers are able to make observations at a distance of about 42 billion light years - our cosmic visual horizon. We have no reason to assume that the universe ends there. Beyond the horizon there could be many regions, perhaps even infinite regions, similar to the one we see. Each has a different initial distribution of matter, but the same laws of physics operate in all of them. Almost all cosmologists today (including me) accept the existence of such a type of multiverse, called by the cosmologist Max Tegmark "level 1". But some cosmologists go further than that. They suggest completely different kinds of universes, which have different physics, different histories, maybe a different number of spatial dimensions. Most of them will be lifeless, but in some of them life will actually flourish. Alexander Vilenkin is an enthusiastic supporter of such a multiverse, from "Level 2". It depicts a dramatic picture of an infinite number of universes, in which there are an infinite number of galaxies, of planets, and of people bearing your name and reading this article.
Similar ideas were raised already in ancient times in many cultures. The new element is the claim that the multiverse is a scientific theory, with all that implies regarding mathematical rigor and meticulousness and the ability to test experimentally. I am skeptical about this claim. I do not believe that the existence of those other universes has been proven or that it will ever be proven. Those who support the multiverse idea not only expand our perception of physical reality to a considerable extent, but actually redefine the meaning of the term "science".
Over the horizon
The proponents of the multiverse concept, in its broadest sense, provide different proposals that explain how such a multiplicity of universes came about and where they are found. According to the chaotic inflation model of Alan H. Guth, Andrei Linde and others, those universes may be in regions of space that are very far from ours. They may exist in different epochs in time, as suggested by Paul J. Steinhart and Neil Turok's cyclical universe model. They may exist in the same space as ours, but in a different branch of the quantum wave function, as suggested by David Deutsch. It is also possible that they have no location, and that they are completely disconnected from our space-time as suggested by Tagmark and Dennis Shyama.
Out of the multitude of these possibilities, the most accepted is that of chaotic inflation, so I will focus on it. However, most of my comments apply to all the other suggestions as well. The idea is that space is an eternally expanding space, in which quantum effects create new universes all the time, like a child blowing soap bubbles. The concept of inflation was already coined in the 80s of the 20th century, and physicists have included it ever since, basing themselves on string theory: the most comprehensive theory at their disposal for describing nature. String theory allows the bubbles to look very different from each other. In fact every bubble begins its life not only with a random distribution of matter, but also with random types of matter. Our universe contains particles such as electrons and quarks that act on each other through forces such as the electromagnetic force. Other universes may have very different particles and forces, that is, locally different laws of physics. The sum total of all permitted local laws is called the "landscape" of string theory (the landscape). In some versions of string theory, the landscape is vast, ensuring a very wide variety of universes.
Many physicists who talk about the multiverse, especially those who favor string theory, don't think too much about parallel universes when they are to themselves. In their eyes, the objections to the concept of the multiverse are not important. The correctness of their theories is measured by their internal consistency and in the future, hopefully, also in laboratory experiments. They use the multiverse as a working assumption, without addressing the question that preoccupies cosmologists: how did it form?
For the cosmologist the fundamental problem with all multiverse proposals is the existence of a visual cosmic horizon. The horizon is the limit up to which we are able to see, since the signals traveling to us at the speed of light (which is finite), would not be enough to reach us from more distant regions even if they left when the universe was created. All parallel universes are beyond the horizon and therefore we are unable to see them, and we never will be able to, regardless of technological developments. In fact they are too far away to have any effect on our universe. For this reason, none of the claims of the supporters of the multiverse idea can be directly verified.
Supporters of the idea claim that we can generally tell what is happening at a distance 1,000 times greater than our cosmic horizon, 10 times to the power of 100, 10 times to the power of a million or infinity - all from data measured within our horizon. This is an extraordinary extrapolation. It is possible that the universe is converging and closing on a very large scale, and there is no infinity there. It is possible that all the matter in the universe ends somewhere and beyond that there is empty space. Space and time may end at the singularity that bounds the universe. We simply have no way of knowing what is happening in reality, since we do not have, and never will have, information about those areas.
Seven arguments are questionable
Most supporters of the multiverse idea are cautious scientists, aware of this problem, but still believing that we can make educated guesses about what is happening in the other universes. Their arguments can be classified into 7 groups, each of which leads to a problem.
Space is infinite. There is almost no dispute that space extends beyond our cosmic horizon and that there are many regions of space that are out there, and we are unable to see them. If such a bounded multiverse exists, we can extrapolate what we see to those regions beyond the horizon, with increasing uncertainty as the regions are further away. This is how one can think about an ever-increasing diversity, and perhaps also about alternative physics in areas we are unable to see. The problem with this kind of extrapolation from the known to the unknown, is that no one can prove you wrong. How can scientists decide whether their description of a region of space-time beyond the horizon is a reasonable or unreasonable extrapolation of what we see? Can other universes only have different initial matter distributions, or maybe they can also differ in the fundamental constants of physics, such as the strength of the nuclear force? Any answer can be correct, depending on the assumptions.
Known physics predicts the existence of other regions. Different unified theories predict the existence of different entities, such as scalar fields - putative relatives of other fields that fill space, such as the magnetic field. Such fields are supposed to cause cosmic inflation and continue creating universes forever. The unified theories have a solid theoretical basis, but the nature of those supposed fields is unknown, and their existence has not yet been proven experimentally, much less their properties. In particular, physicists have not convincingly shown that the dynamics of those fields will result in different laws of physics operating in different universe bubbles.
The theory of the infinity of universes stands an important observational test. The cosmic background radiation reveals what the universe looked like at the end of its hot expansion era. Patterns in this radiation indicate that our universe has indeed gone through a period of inflation. But not all types of inflation go on forever and create endless bubble universes. The observations do not distinguish between different types of inflation. Some cosmologists, such as Steinhart, argue that eternal inflation would have led to different patterns in radiation than we see. Linda and others disagree. Who is right? It all depends on what one chooses to assume about the physics of the inflationary field.
The fundamental constants are exactly suitable for the existence of life. Our universe is characterized by a wonderful feature: the physical constants in it have values that correspond exactly to the existence of complex structures, including living things. Steven Weinberg, Martin Reese, Leonard Susskind and others claim that an exotic multiverse explains the apparent coincidence: if all possible values exist in a sufficiently large number of universes, surely there will also be some that are suitable for the existence of life. This logic is also used to explain the density of dark energy that is accelerating the expansion of the universe today. I agree that the multiverse is an acceptable explanation of this density value. It can even be argued that this is the only scientific explanation we have today. But there is no way to test it with observations. Moreover, most analyzes of the subject assume that the basic equations of physics are the same everywhere, and only the constants change, but if you accept the multiverse idea, this is not necessarily the case.
The fundamental constants fit the predictions of the multiverse theory. This argument refines the previous argument, according to which the universe is suitable for life, just as it should be expected to be. Proponents of the argument estimated the probabilities for different values of the dark energy density. The higher the value, the more likely it is, but also the universe that will be created is more hostile to the existence of life. The value we are measuring should be just high enough, but not too high, and indeed this seems to be the case. The argument fails because probabilistic considerations can only be applied if the multiverse exists. But if it does not exist, it is impossible to apply such considerations to it. The argument presupposes the desired result and is therefore simply not tenable if there is only one physical universe. Probability is a test of the internal consistency of the multiverse proposition, but is not a proof of its existence.
String theory predicts a variety of universes. String theory has turned from a theory that explains everything to a theory where almost anything is possible. As it stands today, the Torah predicts that many essential features of our universe are purely coincidental. If the universe is indeed singular, it seems difficult to explain those properties. How can we understand, for example, the fact that physics has exactly the same properties that allow life to exist? If our universe is, on the other hand, one of many, such properties are actually completely logical, there is no special reason for their existence, they are simply those that existed in our region of space. If we lived in another area, we would discover other features, if we could live there at all (living would be impossible in most areas). But string theory is not a theory that has stood the test of experience. It is not even a complete Torah. If we had proof that string theory was correct, its theoretical predictions could serve as an acceptable and experimentally based argument for the existence of a multiverse. We have no such proof today.
Everything that can happen - happens. There are physicists and philosophers who, when they come to explain why nature obeys certain laws and not others, assume that nature never made such a choice: all imaginable laws apply wherever it is. The idea is somewhat influenced by quantum theory, which, as Murray Gal-Man said about it, claims that anything that is not forbidden must exist. A particle moves in all possible trajectories, and what we see is the weighted average of all those possibilities. This may be true for the entire universe, therefore the multiverse exists. The problem is that astronomers don't have the faintest chance of measuring this multiplicity of possibilities. In fact, we can't even know what those possibilities are. The proposed hypothesis has meaning only in the face of an unprovable organizing principle that determines what is allowed and what is not, for example, that every mathematical structure necessarily occupies some physical region (Tegmark's proposal). However, we have no idea what things such a principle requires, except for the fact that it must include the world we see around us. And we have no way of ascertaining the existence or nature of such an organizing principle. In some ways this is an attractive idea, but its proposed use for reality is only speculative.
Lack of evidence
Although the theoretical arguments are lacking, cosmologists have also proposed various experimental tests for parallel universes. The cosmic background radiation may contain traces of other bubble universes, if for example our universe collided with another bubble in the past, as the inflation scenario predicts. The background radiation can also contain remnants of universes that existed before the big bang in an infinite cycle of universes. In such ways it is really possible to find real evidence for other universes. Some cosmologists have even claimed to have seen remnants of such universes. However, these claims are hotly contested, and many of the hypothetical possibilities of multiple universes will not lead to observational evidence. Therefore, with such observations, only certain types of multiverse models can be tested.
Another experimental test is to look for changes in one or more of the fundamental constants, which will strengthen the assumption that the laws of physics are not so immutable after all. Some astronomers claim to have found such changes. But most think this evidence is dubious.
A third test is measuring the shape of the visible universe: is it spherical (with positive curvature), hyperbolic (with negative curvature) or "flat" (no curvature)? In multiverse scenarios, the universe is usually not spherical, because a sphere closes in on itself, and has a finite volume. Unfortunately, this test is not clean. The universe beyond our horizon can have a different shape than the visible part. Moreover, not all multiverse theories reject spherical geometry.
A better test is the topology of the universe: does it look like a hoop or a pretzel? If so, it would have a finite size, which would surely disprove most versions of inflation and in particular the many universes scenarios based on chaotic inflation. Such a shape will cause cyclical patterns in the sky, such as giant circles in the cosmic background radiation. Observers looked for such patterns and failed to find them. But this failure cannot be seen as a point to the credit of the multiverse.
Finally, physicists can expect to prove or disprove some of the theories that predict a multiverse. They might find observational evidence against chaotic versions of inflation or discover mathematical or experimental inconsistencies that would force them to abandon the string theory landscape. Such a scenario would greatly weaken the motivation to support the multiverse idea, even if it would not dismiss the idea entirely.
Too much room for maneuver
All in all, the arguments in favor of the multiverse are inconclusive. The main reason is the extreme flexibility of the proposal: it is more an idea than a well-defined doctrine. Most of the proposals are a patchwork of different ideas, and are incoherent on their own. The underlying mechanism for eternal inflation does not cause the physics to be different in every region of the multiverse. For this to happen, it has to be coupled to another speculative theory. Although it is possible to connect the two, the connection is not bound by reality.
The main step in justifying the multiverse is extrapolation from the known to the unknown, from the observable to the unobservable. When you extrapolate to different things, you get different results. Since multiverse theories can explain almost anything, any observation can be explained by some version of the multiverse. The various "proofs" actually lead us to the fact that we must accept a theoretical explanation and not insist on an experimental examination of the idea. But meeting an experimental test has been the main requirement in science until today. If we become more persistent in demanding solid data, we will find that we will also give up the main reason for the success of science in the last centuries.
There is some truth in the fact that one satisfactory explanation for a whole spectrum of phenomena has greater weight than a multitude of separate arguments for the same phenomenon. If the one explanation assumes the existence of unobservable things, such as parallel universes, we may feel obliged to accept their existence. But there is a central issue here: how many unobservable things does the same explanation require? Do we assume more or less things than the number of phenomena we are trying to explain? In the case of the multiverse we assume the existence of an enormous, perhaps even infinite, number of unobservable things to explain just our one universe. It is very difficult to reconcile such an assumption with the principle of the English philosopher William of Occam from the 14th century: "One should not assume more things than necessary."
Supporters of the multiverse idea give another argument: there is no good alternative to the idea. Even if scientists see the multiplicity of parallel universes as a tasteless idea, if it is the best explanation available, we will have to accept it. On the other hand, if we abandon the idea, we will need an acceptable alternative. The search for alternative ideas depends on the kind of explanations we are willing to accept. Physicists have always hoped that the laws of nature are inevitable, meaning that things are the way they are because there is no other way they could be. But we have not been able to show that this is the case. There are other options as well. The universe could just be random. Or in some sense, things are meant to be as they are, that is, there is some intention or purpose underlying existence. Science cannot determine this question, since these are metaphysical issues.
Scientists have proposed the idea of the multiverse as a way to solve deep questions about the nature of existence, but the proposal leaves the fundamental questions unanswered. All the same questions that arise regarding the universe, arise again regarding the multiverse. If the multiverse exists, was it created out of necessity, out of coincidence, or out of intention? This is a metaphysical question that no physical theory can answer - neither about the universe nor about the multiverse.
To move forward, we need to preserve the principle that experimental examination is the heart of science. We need some kind of causal connection between the things we offer - otherwise where is the limit? The relationship can also be a bit indirect. If something is unobservable but its existence is required to explain the properties of other things that have been proven to exist, this can be considered a proof of its existence. But then the duty of proof is necessary for the argument. The challenge I pose to the proponents of the multiverse is: can you prove that the unobservable parallel universes are indeed necessary to explain the world we
See? And is the relationship necessary and inevitable?
Skeptic as I am, I think that considering the idea of the multiverse is a great opportunity to examine the nature of science and the basic essence of existence: why are we here? It leads to new and interesting insights and is therefore a useful research program. Examining the idea requires us to be open minded, but not too open. It is a delicate craft. Parallel universes may or may not exist. The question remains open. We will have to live with the ambiguity. There is nothing wrong with a philosophical hypothesis based on science, such as the multiverse idea. But we have to recognize that it is what it is.
About the author:
George F. R. Ellis (Ellis) is a cosmologist and professor emeritus of mathematics at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. He is one of the world's leading experts on Einstein's theory of general relativity and wrote together with Stephen Hawking the masterpiece book "The Structure of Space-Time on a Large Scale" (Cambridge University Press 1975)
57 תגובות
Avitar, we do not know of a process that causes an inanimate substance to become a self-replicating molecule. And even if we knew one such process it would not be enough. In order to calculate probability we must take into account all the possible processes (in our case these are chemical processes) that lead to the creation of life. And of course we don't know and we don't have the tools to know this (for now).
Name: It is not so clear to me what exactly you wrote. But according to my impression, you want to negate the concepts that we humans invented for the purpose of exploring the world and the foundation of asking questions and understanding things. And I find it strange.
The claim about the uniqueness of the universe derives from his claim that physical constants were different but only slightly. If the initial conditions were different but only slightly, we could not have come into existence. And I mean life in general and those with consciousness trying to understand the world in particular.
And having consciousness are not the same physical gestures that you mention, it is possible to program a computer that in response to a photon of a certain wavelength will play a recording of "I see red", and only those who do not understand how computers work will be mistaken to think that the computer experiences the color red.
To the point and anyone who thinks that in the universe rare conditions exist for our existence,
You don't need to assume parallel or alternative universes to understand that both the idea that the universe is specifically tuned for the existence of life and the opposite idea, that the tuning of the universe is bad for the existence of life - both are incoherent ideas:
What is the origin of the term "condition"?
Living beings over time develop a skill to fulfill their desires in their living environment. They learn to cause desirable occurrences, to prevent undesirable occurrences, or to prepare accordingly when they recognize that an occurrence of a certain type is about to occur.
Human living beings with language are able, through the acts of making various sounds, to turn these tendencies, which were previously only implicit, into explicit. We do this, for example, by using the phrase "conditions for..." to indicate situations that, when they are met, we tend to conclude that other situations are met. This is how we say that eating food in starvation conditions will preserve the conditions for life, and that inside the crater of a volcano there are no conditions for life. That is, whoever falls there will die immediately.
This is the origin and manner of use of the phrases "there are conditions for..." and "there are no conditions for...".
The first thing that is clear from this is that whoever comes to the conclusion that the conditions for his activity at this moment are not met, will simply be wrong automatically. At any given moment it is impossible to engage in the search for the conditions for various scenarios of occurrence and prove that the conditions for our present moment are not met. In advance, the conditions for our existence here and now are necessarily met.
The only meaning of the "fine tuning" is that if we go through all the places in the universe at all moments in its history, and ask the question whether the conditions for life are met in them, and we insist on using the physical parameters that are supposedly "specially tuned", then we must be especially precise in the values that we Put them in their place in the equations, otherwise we will come to the conclusion that nowhere and at any time in the universe did conditions exist for life **including on Earth here and now**, and this is simply a mistake. But the meaning of this fact is simply that we have here a task that requires precision and care in its execution. We know many other such tasks: for example, walking on a log over a river or walking on a tightrope, but the fact that such tasks exist is trivial and does not say anything about the so-called uniqueness of the universe.
The existence of the aforementioned "special parameters" with the laws of nature that are related to them should not surprise us because the events in which all the concepts of physics entered our language are physical events in every respect: someone made a physical gesture and pointed to something in the world and then pierced the sound, "Sun" , "water", "carbon", "electron", "the strong nuclear force", etc. The events in which these concepts came into use can be described in the physics of our universe - entry of photons into the eye, electrochemical activity in the brain, and a tendency to react from now on in a certain way to certain stimuli.
The common analogy, in this context, between the conditions for life in our universe and between being saved from a firing squad, is fundamentally wrong because in the execution situation, we simply recognized from our familiarity with the world, that the conditions for not killing us existed in advance. But, as mentioned, this is a completely different situation from the situation in which we talk about the universe as a whole in which the conditions for our existence are necessarily met.
Shmulik, Chen
I claim that the power of the believers and especially of the extremist currents among them is growing,
The religious leaders have clear and definitive answers much, much more than science
These answers have nothing to do with the truth or if any reality,
And they are not based on facts at all, only on legends and stories,
Despite all this, the percentage of believers is growing.
Apparently most people can be convinced quite easily, they are not ignorant, they are innocent..
Shmulik
Why fight? Isn't our universe enough to fight with all the other universes?
Of course it is... the chance of the formation of self-replicating molecules and so on..
Israel Shapira you are a genius.
I think you will be able to get a counter rabbi appointed alongside a universe rabbi.
Avitar, there is no serious calculation of the probability of creating life.
To calculate probability, you have to take all the possible processes to create life and multiply each of the processes by the chance that it will occur.
1) We do not know any process that leads to the creation of life. 2) We do not know all the possible processes that will lead to the creation of life.
Therefore there is no such calculation.
You see the universe from your "point of view", without any connection to reality.
and attributes to him character traits that correspond to humans.
which is done out of a personal, emotional, and spiritual need.
And not from facts, transparency, and unbiased evidence.
According to what I read in the books, the probability of creating life despite all the stars in the universe and the time of its formation still has a significant difference here..
Danny, as you say: "The fact that they are thousands and millions of light years away from us, and we do not have the technology to study them, does not mean that there is no life in them."
This is how you can equally say: "The universe has intelligence, and it is also interested in life, the universe thinks, and has considerations between good and bad, and it also does experiments, and creates and creates life." And just because you don't have the technology to investigate it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
rebel
Thank you for the clarification. I think you are right.
Your Honor will get up now and go home.
Ariel I think I used your analogy correctly.
And regarding your argument about the large number of stars that provide a probability for the creation of life, this fact probably only strengthens my claim, which after your example I can formulate it as follows: if in our universe the chance of creating life is so small, then in another universe where the laws were different even by epsilon , the chance of creating life was literally zero.
Yael,
I understand that you also fell into the trap of the waiting response because you used a bad word (next time try to write the name without the letter "w").
Anyway, I just wanted to say that I agree with you.
It also seems to me that a breakthrough like the one you are talking about is possible in exactly the same way that the discovery of the "imaginary" number i paved the way for many discoveries in mathematics and technology
Multidimensional - not a scientific theory
Closer to religious belief than science.
Danish.
If your comment is directed at me then there is no argument between us.
My response was formulated in such a graphic way. This is why the word 'attempt' is in quotation marks.
Israel Shapira,
Show me that it was you who didn't understand what "Rabbi Yakom" is...
According to my understanding, it means that there are many independent universes,
Just like there are many independent galaxies…
The universe does not have intelligence like you, and it is not interested in life, the universe does not think, and has no considerations between good and bad, and it also does not do experiments, and does not create and create life.
You attribute your attributes to the universe
No one said that there is no life on other planets, nor does the atmosphere there have to be exactly one to one like on Earth, so that life could thrive.
The fact that they are thousands and millions of light years away from us, and we do not have the technology to study them, does not mean that there is no life in them.
point.
As soon as I released my comment it was clear to me that someone would take my analogy further and distort its meaning.
It's just an analogy.
She came to show the order of things. First the universe was created. Then life was created in it. It is not that in one factory they created the universe and in another factory they created life and since they were created by the same specification then they fit each other.
"It can be shown that if the laws were different, but if the billionths of a percent were a little bit different, or if the historical events on Earth were a little bit different, we wouldn't have come into existence at all."
Very right!
And for proof look at the billions of other stars in our universe.
Now imagine that each and every one of them had an "attempt" to create life. Billions of "attempts" on billions of stars. Billions of possibilities.
Yes, most of these "experiments" did not produce life simply because the oxygen/nitrogen/hydrogen ratio was not accurate to the billionth of a percent or because the historical events turned in dead-end directions. But he comes up with one "successful" experiment, and claims, in his arrogance, that it is more than one in a billion.
Point, there is no argument between us.
You say "there is no logical chain that leads to the fact that something started full of something", and that's exactly what I'm saying too. Later we both reach the only logical conclusion. You stop there and I continue a little further. The conclusion is "impossible" and the next step is to expand the logic.
Logic is some kind of set of rules that can be presented as a set of algebraic equations in a space with two values, "true" and "false". This space is not perfect, because there are actions from which it is possible to reach only one of these values but not the other. Just as in algebra it turned out that there are numbers (which for historical reasons are called "imaginary") whose values are square roots of negative numbers, so also in logic it turns out that there is a value whose application to itself creates a "lie".
The development of this is interesting and fascinating, but I will stop here so that you do not say that I am saying things that only I understand.
The universe is adapted for life from your point of view, since you exist, you can say that.
Whereas things were different but only slightly, probably someone else, somewhere else, would have said it in your place.
The universe really doesn't care who lives and who doesn't, and why
And there is no evidence that life cannot exist in other stars, galaxies, and universes.
point.
We hear a lot about how the universe is specially adapted for the existence of life, and if things were different but only slightly, we wouldn't be here at all.
So maybe for the ignorant and lazy among us, you could clarify what is meant, including specific examples, or maybe some nice link, so that we have a basic idea of what it is about.
Ariel, you cannot compare water that compares its shape to a glass where there is no special meaning to any shape of the glass and you can pour the water in any way you want and the glass will always be filled with it, and the fact that we were created. It can be shown that the laws were different, but if the billionths of a percent were a little bit different, or if the historical events on Earth were a little bit different, we would not have come into existence at all.
That is, the universe is meant for us. Of course it can be argued that the universe exists for cats as well, but I don't think they have consciousness so they don't exist in the sense that we exist.
Yuval Chaikin,
There is no logical chain that leads to the fact that something started full of something, it is not possible. You can say that but it makes no sense and is therefore meaningless. If there is something now it means there was always something.
Grace,
I'm saying a little more than the universe is tuned to us, it seems the universe is tuned to us. If a little thing were different we wouldn't exist. But it is also clear that we are not the goal, because we will die one day. But still it seems that everything is tuned so that we will be.
It is true that Rabbi Yakum is a kind of refuge, but an explanation will still be required as to why the laws are like that in the first place.
Alon R.
Thank you for the clarification. I wasn't sure, now I am.
the great rabbi
I think you have misunderstood the meaning of the term "universe rabbi". There is no reference to "the rabbi will stand up and speak his word". This is simply a basic concept in the hierarchy of universes, in which the lowest rank is the deputy universe, above it is a sub-universe, sub-universe, universe, and the highest rank is the rabbi universe, according to whose word anything will rise or fall.
By permission of Marnan and Ravbanan
I sat and carefully read this important and holy article.
In the article I read dozens of times the request that the rabbi would rise,
Despite this, I would like to say that the rabbi sat and did not get up because he was tired of the article.
And in honor of the month of April,
I wish a good month to the entire House of Israel
is it april fools? They talk about God and no one screams that there isn't? Science can't answer all questions? What's going on here? Maybe in the end you will join me in the yeshiva..
Aria,
I didn't mean to be precise with these numbers in the analogy.
The uncertainty principle states that the universe operates deterministically
As said, everything is expected and permission is given
Alon K.
I don't understand why you come here and just respond in verses when no one cares??
God does not exist, there is no such thing as magic, there is no one in heaven who rules over us, so please do not respond with nonsense
Mirom - where did you get the numbers of species in the world. As far as I remember - the number of known species is one and a half million and the estimate for all existing species - thirty million (not "know for sure that there are billions"). Regarding the extinct species - I think I once read an estimate of one hundred extinct for every one that exists and that brings us to about three billion that ever existed.
I will repeat my well-known position the subject-
Opponents of the "multiverse" idea make use of Ockham's Razor by arguing that if many universes exist, then it is much more difficult to explain them than to explain one single universe. But if we think about it a bit, it seems that it is actually much easier to explain the existence of the universe if there are an infinite number of universes, than if there was a single universe.
If only one organism existed on the entire planet, and it didn't appear that any other organism ever existed - then we would be in trouble. But since we know for sure that there are billions (low threshold) of species in the world and a much higher number of extinct species, then the explanation for the existence of the single organism becomes much simpler.
In the case of the Rabbi Yakum theory, Ockham's Razor clearly came at the hands of the opponents of the theory!
arsenate
With such conclusions, why are you here (referring to this article)?
The energy balance scheme in the universe is equal to zero
The scheme of the balance of matter in the universe is zero
This means, the universe is full of matter and anti-matter, positive energy and negative energy, real matter and unreal (simulated) matter, dark matter and light matter, dark energy and light energy, in short, everything in the universe has the anti-matter that sums it up to zero.
From this assumption it is possible to conclude that the same supreme power, God, can at will by the power of his speech, create as many universes as he wishes...
to Ernest,
The fact that we do not know the scientific explanation for any natural phenomenon does not strengthen the position of religion or God.
On the contrary, science learns more and more over time, compared to religion, which has no connection with God at all, does not retreat and does not explain anything.
If the religion gets stronger it is only from ignorance and ignorance, like the strengthening of Islam in the world.
There is a huge development in a variety of technological, scientific and cultural fields.
Much more data, information, findings, experiments, theories, discoveries, developments,
The important central questions have remained unanswered since the dawn of human history,
Regarding universe/world, life, time, nature, beginning/end and more.
It is a mistake to take a formula or a scientific theory/theory, however developed it may be
and deduce from it the laws of the universe.
And as time passes and the research deepens and develops, more and more the state of having no answer,
Religion will become stronger and stronger, it has no need to prove, present findings and do experiments,
Just talk, write and convince.
A theory must meet the condition of a practical or theoretical tool that can confirm or enhance it.
As long as she does not meet this condition, she is just a story.
Omniscient is just as true as God exists.
Both are stories and nothing else, the foolish believer will invest in them.
rebel…
You're right. According to the logic that guides us (or the one we built based on experience) "nothing grows from nothing". But in this particular question, simple logic is not relevant. This is a question that has been debated for thousands of years and a solution has not yet been found within the framework of logic. The accepted solutions come from religion and theology, but not from science. As long as we stick to the "logical" conservation laws (mass, energy, etc.), we will not find a solution to the question of the origin of the universe. The system of logic rules needs to be expanded, and this can be done just as we expanded the number fields to obtain the square root of negative numbers.
Israel.
What I wrote appears in Isaiah chapter XNUMX verses XNUMX and XNUMX:
Thus and to whom do you imagine me, and I will say, Holy. When your eyes are lifted up and see who created these, who brings out the number of Zbom; For all of them, in the name of which he will be called, from many powers and brave strength, no one is absent.
A question for Alon R.
Do you happen to know what is written in: Isaiah M, so-so?
But maybe, and only maybe
Between the undefined (before the big bang) and after it, there is some kind of connection.
If we can only understand it, we may not find a reason, but we may be able to reach some way of thinking, which will help us understand what is really going on here, or at least how we are supposed to look at things.
I would so like to meet extraterrestrials, hear what they have to say on the subject 🙂
to Yuval Chaikin,
Your conclusion that everything started "full-of-nothing" does not make sense...
It is highly doubtful whether humanity will ever be able to answer this goddess…
Certainly not now...
point,
Last night all kinds of thoughts started flooding me:
Where is this universe located? Where are we set? Why is anything even defined?
When you dig into it, it's so frustrating and wonderful at the same time.
And it is not exactly correct to say that the universe is adapted to us, the laws on which it is based created us in the end, but look at what a meaningless surface you can exist on, the universe is definitely not here for you.
I'm interested in how some basic elements (hydrogen, nitrogen) and certain forces of nature eventually created DNA, etc.
It's amazing that we still don't know how a living cell is created, after all it must be some kind of process that creates a mix between certain elements under certain conditions, right?
Once we understand this, things will become much simpler.
If this is the case, you can always ask the question you probably meant, why was all of this defined in such a strict manner?
We may have to come to the realization that we are simply limited in perception.
Just as the world of quantum mechanics seems strange to us (an electron can appear in two places at the same time), so do these questions about moving into the universe. Any hypothesis we come up with will be inspired by this universe, so we'll never know.
Beyond that, "Why?" questions, it's just a term that man created, it's not a word in the lexicon of the universe..
point,
Good question. The way we understand the universe, as a chain of developments from the simple to the complex, leads to the conclusion that everything started from nothing
point.
I will try to answer your second question with an example.
Take an empty glass and pour water into it.
The water in the glass fits exactly to the shape of the glass. It is neither a coincidence nor a force majeure. The shape of the glass, as it is, determined the shape of the water
The universe is as it is. It is we who are retroactively adjusted to the nature of the universe.
You might be missing out...
Let's assume for a moment that there is no God, because who created God?
Now let's assume for a moment that the universe was created in the big bang, so who created the "laws of physics" that cause the singularity to create a big bang? Why would a singularity produce the universe with the constants that exist in our universe? And if you don't need a "reason" or "conditions" to create a universe, then who made the choice that you need conditions or you don't need reasons? Why don't we see evidence of "non-causal" phenomena if this is the pre-universal "nature"?
It's a bit of "philosophy of science"... once all science was philosophy, today science is desperately looking for breakthroughs.
There are 2 difficult questions that cannot be answered, and the article tries to give an answer only to the second question:
1) Why is there anything at all, why is there simply nothing.
2) How is it that we were created, why is the universe adjusted exactly to our creations.
I'm starting to think that the religious knew the answer all along.
Something that is above nature, and beyond our perception.
By the way, not long ago I saw a program on the History Channel about parallel universes, until a certain segment came on that said "Imagine a universe where the Second World War did not take place, or the events of September 11th did not take place", at that moment I turned off the TV with nerves for damaging my intelligence!! Everyone who spoke there on the show is an idiot as far as I'm concerned. I already wanted to send a critical letter to the history channel for canceling this episode.
I won't even begin to detail why the whole concept (as they presented it) is just dumb.
Interesting article… Thanks!
To the respondent Alon R. Your argument does not make sense God was invented by humans in Mesopotamia 6000 years ago and the universe has existed for about 14 billion years, therefore your argument is a flower crow.
This article sounds tested like:
Is it possible to talk about things that cannot be talked about?
That's exactly what I just did.
But I can't do that.
The article, on the other hand, does clearly explain why God does not answer when bacteria ask him if he exists or simply slander him.
If the big bang theory blows up (I'm not sure), and even if it doesn't,
There is still no possibility other than a super-heavenly factor,
Possessing unlimited powers, and unfathomable by the human mind, who stands behind this whole enterprise,
Now it is clear that he is far above and beyond the understanding of science.
"Lift up your eyes and see who created these, who brings out the number of their army, to all of them in the name of Yikra, mighty in power and mighty in strength, no one is absent" (Isaiah XNUMX:XNUMX)
A- Can we expect 42 billion light years? What about the limit of the theory of relativity?
In the article, the "Big Bang" theory is buried
Alon R.
Well what's going on? was i right
If not, then you must have meant: "King Shaul Mofaz". Right?
Leibniz claims that this is the best of all possible worlds, since God is good.
This claim is completely equivalent to all other metaphysical claims.
Alon R.
I ordain you as a rabbi in a parallel universe and you will serve your Rabbi God there. Successfully.
And for our purposes
We will never be able to prove the existence of a parallel universe because any shred of proof that comes from there will instantly turn the two universes into one.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Alon R.
I know: the answer is "Shaul Mofaz".
Science closes itself in all directions.
Every additional piece of information about the universe, about the universes surrounding it, and about the limitations of the human race to appreciate what already exists around it, strengthens the clear recognition that everything around us was created by a supreme, divine power, sublime from the eye, the heart and the mind, and incomprehensible.
"Lift up your eyes and see who created these, who brings out the number of their army, to all of them in the name of Yikra, mighty in power and mighty in strength, no one is absent" (Isaiah XNUMX:XNUMX)
My problem with the multiverse idea is not its actual existence, but a secondary component that scientists attach to it. Every time we make a decision or face several options at the same time, the universe splits into all the possibilities. And it's not just us - even quantum particles split the universe with their "decisions".
The universe has a finite amount of energy and mass. I don't know where the scientists manage to extract so much energy, that will split the universe for every puff that someone releases or doesn't release into the air. It's ridiculous. I have no problem with the idea that there are many universes in addition to our own; But to create an entire universe just because an atom moves to the right instead of the left? It is already metaphysics and not physics.
But minor. I'll probably eat the hat one day.