What would a designed universe look like?

[hgc]

I think a better question is: "What would a universe that formed under natural laws without a designer look like?"

This question is easy to answer.

I'm a little unclear about the "formed under natural laws" part. "Law," as used in science, is merely a term that is sometimes used to encapsulate reliably predictable natural phenomena. It's not as if the universe says, oh, gotta that 2nd law of thermodynamics, or I'll get a ticket!

 

[schlitt]

I'm a little unclear about the "formed under natural laws" part. "Law," as used in science, is merely a term that is sometimes used to encapsulate reliably predictable natural phenomena. It's not as if the universe says, oh, gotta that 2nd law of thermodynamics, or I'll get a ticket!

No the universe does not consciously decide how to act, but material interactions are constrained by what is possible.

 

[hgc]

No the universe does not consciously decide how to act, but material interactions are constrained by what is possible.

So then, back to "formed under natural laws." Did this constraining set of possibilities exist before the universe itself? Did they come into existence during the Big Bang? Do they exist at all, or are we just observing patterns?

 

[schlitt]

So then, back to "formed under natural laws." Did this constraining set of possibilities exist before the universe itself? Did they come into existence during the Big Bang? Do they exist at all, or are we just observing patterns?

Who knows? We can only describe what we observe.

There are plausible theories that the laws we hold at present time, were vastly different during the first fraction of time when the big bang occurred.

I personally believe that however the interactions which lead to our planet and our species resulting occurred, they were not guided by a supernatural being, and were possible without a guiding force similar to a human consciousness. Hence why I said “Formed under natural laws”.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Why would anything design a Universe with Transcendental numbers like π and e? All numbers should be rational.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

But this does not address the 30 or so parameters which do require such fine tuning. As I have said already, this is not left Field science, but mainstream physics. This is the reason why the unfalsifiable multiverse theory is currently in vogue. And whilst occam's razor is so liberally employed on this forum, an explanation for the existence of one universe, requiring an infinite number more is not especially satisfactory. A hypothesis that simply requires two universes, and one alien intelligence to serve as cosmic originator does not I think fare too badly with reference to occam relative to the multi-verse theory.

No, no. I pretty much agree with you there. I'm just pointing out that a universe in which our sort of life is possible actually could be slightly different.

 

[Michael C]

A hypothesis that simply requires two universes, and one alien intelligence to serve as cosmic originator does not I think fare too badly with reference to occam relative to the multi-verse theory.

I think it does fare badly. You'll need to explain where that alien intelligence comes from.

 

[Gate2501]

How about a universe in which humans become so advanced that we develop the technology to go back in time and create the big bang to assure our own existence!!!

I should start a cult with that one!

 

[Fredrik]

But this does not address the 30 or so parameters which do require such fine tuning. As I have said already, this is not left Field science, but mainstream physics. This is the reason why the unfalsifiable multiverse theory is currently in vogue. And whilst occam's razor is so liberally employed on this forum, an explanation for the existence of one universe, requiring an infinite number more is not especially satisfactory. A hypothesis that simply requires two universes, and one alien intelligence to serve as cosmic originator does not I think fare too badly with reference to occam relative to the multi-verse theory.

At first glance it might seem that a theory involving an infinite number of universes must be absurdly complicated compared to the alternative, but as Max Tegmark has pointed out, this isn't necessarily so. He used a pretty simple argument to make his point. Consider the set of rational numbers. It's not difficult to write a computer program that generates all the rational numbers, one at a time. The program will never finish of course, but that's not the point. The point is that the program has a finite size and is still "contains" all the rational numbers. But if you want to specify just one rational number, there's no upper bound on the amount of information you might need. For example, if p and q are large prime numbers, the shortest way to specify p/q is to specify p and q separately, but p and q can be arbitrarily large since there are infinitely many prime numbers.

For those who didn't get it, the point of this argument is just to show that a theory involving infinitely many universes might be less complicated than a theory involving just one. It's certainly not an attempt to prove that this idea is right.

 

[Robin]

How about a universe in which humans become so advanced that we develop the technology to go back in time and create the big bang to assure our own existence!!!

I should start a cult with that one!

I am pretty sure Isaac Asimov beat you to that one.

 

[Gate2501]

I am pretty sure Isaac Asimov beat you to that one.

BAH!

I actually do not know who that is.

 

[Robin]

A hypothesis that simply requires two universes, and one alien intelligence to serve as cosmic originator does not I think fare too badly with reference to occam relative to the multi-verse theory.

Given the observational data says "at least one universe", why would "two universes" fare better than "many universes' with reference to Occam?

Why would "exactly one universe" fare better with reference to Occam?

No, "many universes", "two universes" and "exactly one universe" are equal with respect to parsimony.

 

[vIQleS]

Oh what the heck - since this is probably one of the few last posts for a while for me. Let's derail this thread from the OP question.

My position: I believe the universe was created. I've never said it was designed in any manner that some here are taking it or Intelligent Design people seem to be taking it.

But I have heard lots of people use that argument against there being a God - including the most recent - which led to this thread. I have no further definition of "DESIGN" for this topic since I never use that term with God or creation.

Designed? I'm not even sure what that would mean for a God - who am I to judge? Some of your ideas are interesting though - thanks. I'll think on them. I haven't read any Intelligent Design arguments (other than some Fine Tuning observations) so I'm not sure what they are seeing. Maybe I'll look into them sometime.

It seems to me that the best way to answer the intent of this question (with out getting all nit-picky and pedantic) would be to list a few things that seem to have not been designed (or not well-designed).

I was going to start a thread, for example, about how you'd design a human (i.e. what's wrong with the existing design, and what would you do better).

That seems to be a good place to start - I'm sure there are lots of things in the wider universe that people can think of as well...

I would leave out earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes--essentially any natural disaster that could aimlessly harm innocent people.

Murder, rape, wars, famine, racism, horrible disease would not exist. There wouldn't be a word for violence.

If I was the creator, I would show up everynow and then--because I can do anything. Any prophecies I had would actually agree with science.

I would get it right.

The universe we have today has the design of an initial random event. The universe exploded into existence and then physics took over. Eventually, evolution took over. And here we are.

glenn

Yeah - something like that...

Take a look at the Earth for example. Was there really no way an infinitely intelligent being wielding all power in existence could have designed a planet to generate the requisite magnetic field and still have a stable crust? Or failing that an intelligent species that could exist on a planet without a magnetic field?

But people will simply say "oh earthquakes were part of God's purpose", in other words the world was designed to look undesigned.

Take diseases. Was there really no way an infinitely intelligent being wielding all power in the universe could have designed a sentient species that was resistant to diseases like cancer?

But people simply say "oh, cancer is part of God's plan". In other words the biosphere was designed to look undesigned.

Or that.

OK - in simple list form:

* Aging - getting old is hard and unpleasant. why not perfect health and then (after about 100 years or so) fade away peacefully)
* Waste disposal - I think someone mentioned this... Why is it so close to the sexual organs etc. And an even better question: Why waste at all, why not design the body to be able to digest and utilise anything that's eaten.
* Getting fat. I'd make this optional. (if it was the only thing i was changing - hunter/gatherers may still need to store fat. If the above change is implemented then they can just eat dirt and rocks).
* Superpowers. Like flying and stuff.

I'm sure i can think of more, but that'll do for ACS to be going on with for now...

 

[MattusMaximus]

In reference to the OP, I would have to say that a designed universe would definitely have a beer volcano and stripper factory in heaven

 

[MattusMaximus]

I am pretty sure Isaac Asimov beat you to that one.

BAH!

I actually do not know who that is.

HERETIC!!! You'd better hide...

 

[H'ethetheth]

I will give this a go...

Since I am a geeky engineer, you will get a limited viewpoint. Even though I haven't done much design work, I always had one thing on my mind...to get the design perfect. I wanted anything I did to be the best of the best.

fast forward.

I am creating a universe...a good one...the best. I have every ability that can be imagined. I can create matter, energy; I can define everything.

I would leave out earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes--essentially any natural disaster that could aimlessly harm innocent people.

Murder, rape, wars, famine, racism, horrible disease would not exist. There wouldn't be a word for violence.

If I was the creator, I would show up everynow and then--because I can do anything. Any prophecies I had would actually agree with science.

I would get it right.

The universe we have today has the design of an initial random event. The universe exploded into existence and then physics took over. Eventually, evolution took over. And here we are.

glenn

That's all fine if you have unlimited resources allocated to this particular design. What if, with your infinite power, your manager wants you to create an infinite number of universes? Maybe then you'll want to make cost effective universes.

 

[slingblade]

BAH!

I actually do not know who that is.

And you call yourself a gamer? I am shocked, just shocked, I tell you!

See? That's me, shocked.

What is the world coming to when supposed rock music lovers have no clue who The Beatles are, and computer game afficianados have no idea who's responsible for great hulking chunks of their world?

Excuse me, I have to go away and weep now, for the future.

 

[Mashuna]

And you call yourself a gamer? I am shocked, just shocked, I tell you!

See? That's me, shocked.

What is the world coming to when supposed rock music lovers have no clue who The Beatles are, and computer game afficianados have no idea who's responsible for great hulking chunks of their world?

Excuse me, I have to go away and weep now, for the future.

It could be worse, Sling. I recently spoke to someone who told me they knew about Asimov. They'd just watched 'I Robot', on DVD.

It's just all flavours of wrong.

 

[shadron]

I actually do not know who that is.

I sentence thee to start a thread on the properties of resublimated Thiotimoline, and the OP had better be a good one.

Pulling together several themes in this thread, I would recommend (to the SF readers out there) Heinlein's "Job: A Comedy of Justice". It is a great satire of fundamentalist christian religion and of the roots of religion. And, of course, being Heinlein, sex and relationships and solipsist fantasy. In the end, the hero of that story finds that art is the answer to the design, as Hokulele expressed about 2 pages back. In particular, performance art on a bogglingly massive scale.

 

[shadron]

I will give this a go...

Since I am a geeky engineer, you will get a limited viewpoint. Even though I haven't done much design work, I always had one thing on my mind...to get the design perfect. I wanted anything I did to be the best of the best.

fast forward.

I am creating a universe...a good one...the best. I have every ability that can be imagined. I can create matter, energy; I can define everything.

I would leave out earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes--essentially any natural disaster that could aimlessly harm innocent people.

Murder, rape, wars, famine, racism, horrible disease would not exist. There wouldn't be a word for violence.

If I was the creator, I would show up everynow and then--because I can do anything. Any prophecies I had would actually agree with science.

I would get it right.

The universe we have today has the design of an initial random event. The universe exploded into existence and then physics took over. Eventually, evolution took over. And here we are.

glenn

I can see where you're coming from, but it sounds awfully uhhh...boring... to me. Are you sure you want to do that? No challenges, no variety, no big waves to clean up the beach? Even in Camelot it was allowed to rain after sundown, I hear.

Well, to each his paradise, I suppose. Would you use a random number generator in it? (Oops - didn't mean to start another of those discussions here.)