I am increasingly, and increasingly often, amazed at how capable otherwise rigorously logical scientists are to ignore some of the most basic rules of their discipline in order to make sense of the inexplicable.
In the article below Alan Lightman is quoted as explaining that the reason that there exists this miraculous balance of various natural laws that allows life to exist on this planet, when even the slightest tweaking of any of these laws would create a cosmos in which life as we know it couldn't exist, is because there are ten gadzookillions of alternate universes (one of the implications of quantum mechanics -- although there are other ways of explaining quantum mechanics, so it is not proven only entirely possible based on what we so far know).
Alan's premise is that out of so many many many versions of the cosmos, one of them was bound to have the conditions in which we exist.
But, all other things being equal, there is no likelihood that one outcome is more or less likely than any other.
Point being that it is no more miraculous or bizarre than there could be only only this, one, universe as it is that there would be this universe out of 'leventy-seventy bazingion universes. IN fact, the converse is true: it is far less likely per laws of chance that there be a gazillion different universes than there be just one.
Luck is luck. You either win or you lose. As far as there being a cosmos in which life like us could arise, we won. Period.
The article:
"We Are a Cosmic Accident"
No comments:
Post a Comment