How can anyone say that this universe was designed for Humanity?

The point here is that people can believe that the universe was designed because it is highly unlikely that a universe whose laws and aspects "picked" at random would produce a universe where everything we know of (chemistry, 3 spatial dimensions, ect) would exist. As of today it is not a far fetched idea.

What is the Eternal Inflation Model? This is another new one on me. Do you have a reference on the web describing it or could you give a summary? Thanks.

The inflationary model (which is not the "eternal inflationary model") says nothing at all about other universes. There is a purely speculative suggestion that other universes could have inflated after the big bang. Both string theory and this don't have any evidence for other universes (yet).String theory at least has some promise that comes from the behaviour of the math. I take what the experts say for this. It is a major area of research because it seems to be getting somewhere.

This is a spurious argument because:As noted we have a sample of one, you can't calculate any probablity at all from that. So we have no idea if it was highly unlikely or not. We also don't know if the physical laws can vary at all or by how much so we dont know if they are "picked" in any way at all.AndIf they condistions were not as they are we wouldn't be here. If we weren't we wouldn't be asking the question why are we here?( a good answer is "Where else whould we be?" lol )If the condistions we different in some ways then something different would have evolved to fit in "perfectly". If they were different in other ways nothing would evolve. No questions would be asked.So the conditions may not be "picked" so that we are here. We are here so the conditions have to be something like they are. You've got it backwards.

No it is not as all modern science point to this universe being selected, if you will, at random

Ned,I lumped my replies in to one since I'm a little behind you in posts:1. I thought you might find it interesting to read that there are now string theories that posit 12 (count 'em!) dimensions: Error 404...2. In reply to your comments about the Eternal Inflationary Model (which is a variation on the Inflationary Model) see link here: No webpage found at provided URL: http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Primack/Primack1_6_4.html I apologize in advance for the heavy math. I don't necessarily espouse the point of view posited at this link, and for a short summation, the "Eternal Inflationary" model differs from other versions of the Inflationary Model by specifying that the inflation inherent in each version of false vacuum overrides the decay of the false vacuum--thereby creating conditions for the Infinite (some say Eternal) creation of universes. Not all, but most, Inflationary models call for this.3. The Inflationary Model (and variations) are all firmly based in theoretical physics...in fact, String theory is responsible for the research which led to the formation and calculation of the Inflationary Model. It's only as speculative as any of the string theories and in fact is supported by observations from both the HST and COBE!wr/Geno

But see, with only one universe as a sample you can't know that.It's like, I show up at your door with a little black box that says "3" on a screen on the front. I ask you "what are the odds that my box picked the number 3?"From one number, you can't know. For all you know, all the box can display is 3. Or, it rolls a 6-sided die and displays the number, so the odds are one in six. Or perhaps it picks a number between 1 and 1000. Or 1 and 1,000,000. Who knows? And unless you do, you can't give odds about what the box is going to display.

That's not the way I read it. What I think it says is that only our part of the universe is not still inflating. Not that there is an ongoing cration of universes.

quote:

---

try to imagine what might have preceeded it, in many versions of inflation the answer is ``eternal inflation'': in most of the volume of the universe inflation is still happening, and our part of the expanding universe (a region encompassing far more than our entire cosmic horizon) arose from a tiny part of such a region.

---

Ned,That's not the best website (too down in the weeds). This article by Alan Guth is much better (skim over the stuff you already know):
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/mysteries/html/guth_1.htmlLet me know what you think after reading that.wr/Geno

Thank you. Very interesting article.What I can't discern from it is how much is speculation and how much is actually required by the math.I once had a math-physics prof who did cosmology "on the side". He laughed and said it was fun because you could speculate all you wanted and there wasn't anything to prove you wrong.Since then (this was decades ago) we do have data that can pick and choose between speculations. I'm just wondering whether some others have moved into territory that allows for less restraint on the speculation.It does seem that it has some backing though. And Guth is someone who would know. I'll have to read more. Maybe Hawkings recent book would the the one.

quote:

---

As noted we have a sample of one, you can't calculate any probablity at all from that. So we have no idea if it was highly unlikely or not. We also don't know if the physical laws can vary at all or by how much so we dont know if they are "picked" in any way at all.

​

And

​

If they condistions were not as they are we wouldn't be here. If we weren't we wouldn't be asking the question why are we here?

​

( a good answer is "Where else whould we be?" lol )

​

If the condistions we different in some ways then something different would have evolved to fit in "perfectly".

---

Exactly. In that case, a race of five-dimensional, magnetically reproducing tubes of quivering luminescent jelly might be asking why the universe was fine-tuned to support their existence.

Ned,I admit ALL of this is based on theoretical physics and, your prof was partially correct--play with the numbers anyway you like--but, there are always implications in the outcomes and some of these are going to be more likely than others, some are going to match observation better than others, and some are going to be testable.If the Inflationary Model appeals to you, as we know it does to Guth, then the most elegant solutions require an infinity of universes stretching into the future (however, as the first article pointed out, not necessarily into the past). Guth follows this line.I've found two articles you might like:
Eternal Inflation: Mechanisms
and
Discover Financial ServicesThis last one talks about the non-zero probability that "something" can come from "nothing"...relates to a discussion currently going on here:EvC Forum: Can Nothing Exist?--I may have to modify my position about "nothing" now!wr
Geno

Thanks for the references. Now I'm a bit hungry for more details. It might be hard to find something one level more deep without getting in way over my head though .I think it suggests that there are an infinite number of "pocket" universes formed. Thus the "universe designed for us question" goes away. There are lots of universes. Many won't be able to support any life. Some will be able to. We are, of course, in one that does. It is not designed that way it is just one of many that happened.

Precisely!It's goofy as heck...and hard, hard to understand. But I think: these are the smartest guys on the planet--nobody is harder on them than their colleagues (the ones best positioned to refute them--not some quacks) and still Inflation Theory stands (over 20 years now) and conforms to evidence discovered after the theory was formulated --I'll take that as true prophecy! -- and is testable.Now I just wish I knew the math...wr/Geno

Me too!