Questions without an answer

„Feynman embraced the idea that God somehow created the Laws of Physics and that everything else followed.“

And how is god supposed to exist before time and space if he created the laws of physics?

@tpr > „Feynman embraced the idea that God somehow created the Laws of Physics and that everything else followed.“ And how is god supposed to exist before time and space if he created the laws of physics?

tpr

God is not necessarily a physical entity, it could be a purely spiritual entity.
Feynman remarked about the asymmetry of beta decay: maybe He made the laws of physics slightly asymmetrical, so humans would not be jealous of His perfection.
Anyway, the creation myth is not the essence of religion.

God is not necessarily a physical entity, it could be a purely spiritual entity. Feynman remarked about the asymmetry of beta decay: maybe He made the laws of physics slightly asymmetrical, so humans would not be jealous of His perfection. Anyway, the creation myth is not the essence of religion.

crusader5

@MysteryPhantom7 said ^

Man there‘s a lot to respond to.
@IamNOTamod said ^

You can't scientifically prove or disprove it one way or the other. And this is a purely theoretical discussion.

And evolution seems less logical to you than a power higher than space and time that has no logical explanation, reasoning, origin whatsoever?
And in this case I‘m talking about the evolution of th...

the point about the planets doesn't make sense because of course life can develop in the universe, that isn't denied. but the the universe allowing life to actually HAVING THE CONDITIONS to develop are ridiculously low and statistically impossible, given that we don't live in an infinite multiverse (which we probably don't)

@MysteryPhantom7 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/lvPBIjMQ) > Man there‘s a lot to respond to. > @IamNOTamod said [^](/forum/redirect/post/QhoIsWcW) > > > You can't scientifically prove or disprove it one way or the other. And this is a purely theoretical discussion. > > And evolution seems less logical to you than a power higher than space and time that has no logical explanation, reasoning, origin whatsoever? > And in this case I‘m talking about the evolution of th... the point about the planets doesn't make sense because of course life can develop in the universe, that isn't denied. but the the universe allowing life to actually HAVING THE CONDITIONS to develop are ridiculously low and statistically impossible, given that we don't live in an infinite multiverse (which we probably don't)

tpr

"statistically impossible"

There are 10^22 to 10^25 planets in the Universe.
So a probability of 10^-22 to 10^-25 suffices.

"statistically impossible" * There are 10^22 to 10^25 planets in the Universe. So a probability of 10^-22 to 10^-25 suffices.

MysteryPhantom7

@crusader5

„the point about the planets doesn't make sense because of course life can develop in the universe, that isn't denied. but the the universe allowing life to actually HAVING THE CONDITIONS to develop are ridiculously low and statistically impossible, given that we don't live in an infinite multiverse (which we probably don't)“

Reasons why the chances are so low that none of this ridiculous amount of planets can have the conditions required? Also, everything develops in some way, just by existing in time...

@crusader5 > „the point about the planets doesn't make sense because of course life can develop in the universe, that isn't denied. but the the universe allowing life to actually HAVING THE CONDITIONS to develop are ridiculously low and statistically impossible, given that we don't live in an infinite multiverse (which we probably don't)“ Reasons why the chances are so low that none of this ridiculous amount of planets can have the conditions required? Also, everything develops in some way, just by existing in time...

crusader5

edited

@MysteryPhantom7 said ^

Reasons why the chances are so low that none of this ridiculous amount of planets can have the conditions required? Also, everything develops in some way, just by existing in time...

no I am talking about the constants of nature that are required. For example, if dark energy was 1/10^120 stronger, galaxies and therefore planets would never have formed at all. If it was 1/10^120 weaker, the universe would have collapsed. Similar things with the values of the strong nuclear force, the mass of the proton, etc.

@tpr

@MysteryPhantom7 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/B0PuQpY6) > Reasons why the chances are so low that none of this ridiculous amount of planets can have the conditions required? Also, everything develops in some way, just by existing in time... no I am talking about the constants of nature that are required. For example, if dark energy was 1/10^120 stronger, galaxies and therefore planets would never have formed at all. If it was 1/10^120 weaker, the universe would have collapsed. Similar things with the values of the strong nuclear force, the mass of the proton, etc. @tpr

MysteryPhantom7

edited

@crusader5 said ^

Reasons why the chances are so low that none of this ridiculous amount of planets can have the conditions required? Also, everything develops in some way, just by existing in time...

no I am talking about the constants of nature that are required. For example, if dark energy was 1/10^120 stronger, galaxies and therefore planets would never have formed at all. If it was 1/10^120 weaker, the universe would have collapsed. Similar things with the values of the strong nuclear force, the mass of the proton, etc.

Maybe that‘s why we only get to see the scenarios where it worked out? Who knows, maybe countless universes already collapsed?I don‘t get the problem with that?
After all that‘s how evolution worked for us? Only those who were good and strong enough survived? That‘s why animals are able to reproduce: because the ones who couldn’t didn‘t survive? Sounds logical to me.

@crusader5 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/ltQfPQM0) > > Reasons why the chances are so low that none of this ridiculous amount of planets can have the conditions required? Also, everything develops in some way, just by existing in time... > > no I am talking about the constants of nature that are required. For example, if dark energy was 1/10^120 stronger, galaxies and therefore planets would never have formed at all. If it was 1/10^120 weaker, the universe would have collapsed. Similar things with the values of the strong nuclear force, the mass of the proton, etc. Maybe that‘s why we only get to see the scenarios where it worked out? Who knows, maybe countless universes already collapsed?I don‘t get the problem with that? After all that‘s how evolution worked for us? Only those who were good and strong enough survived? That‘s why animals are able to reproduce: because the ones who couldn’t didn‘t survive? Sounds logical to me.

crusader5

@MysteryPhantom7 said ^

Reasons why the chances are so low that none of this ridiculous amount of planets can have the conditions required? Also, everything develops in some way, just by existing in time...

no I am talking about the constants of nature that are required. For example, if dark energy was 1/10^120 stronger, galaxies and therefore planets would neve...

-it is very unlikely that the big bang resulted from a collapse of a previous universe

@MysteryPhantom7 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/lErV9cvG) > > > Reasons why the chances are so low that none of this ridiculous amount of planets can have the conditions required? Also, everything develops in some way, just by existing in time... > > > > no I am talking about the constants of nature that are required. For example, if dark energy was 1/10^120 stronger, galaxies and therefore planets would neve... -it is very unlikely that the big bang resulted from a collapse of a previous universe

MysteryPhantom7

„-it is very unlikely that the big bang resulted from a collapse of a previous universe“

@crusader5 if you may quote where I said that.

> „-it is very unlikely that the big bang resulted from a collapse of a previous universe“ @crusader5 if you may quote where I said that.

crusader5

@MysteryPhantom7 said ^

„-it is very unlikely that the big bang resulted from a collapse of a previous universe“

@crusader5 if you may quote where I said that.

"Maybe that‘s why we only get to see the scenarios where it worked out? Who knows, maybe countless universes already collapsed?I don‘t get the problem with that?"

@MysteryPhantom7 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/oGHUW7At) > > „-it is very unlikely that the big bang resulted from a collapse of a previous universe“ > > @crusader5 if you may quote where I said that. "Maybe that‘s why we only get to see the scenarios where it worked out? Who knows, maybe countless universes already collapsed?I don‘t get the problem with that?"