Kepler was alone to work out his three laws, without lot of money at the time. How many scientists have worked closely or indirectly on the multiverse during these 30 years, and with what budget?
Whatever, thank you for your interesting comments.
I agree with you of course. But be cautious not to dismiss a scientific hypothesis just because it matches common sense.
1 Like
The Higgs boson was predicted in 1964, and discovered in 2012. 48 years between prediction and discovery.
It took the construction of an incredibly huge and powerful machine to discover, technology that simply didn’t exist in 1964. And a colossal international collaboration of tens of thousands of people. Fundamental questions in science are hard and slow.
That’s annoying, and frustrating, and we’d all like to know more and sooner rather than later. I’m sure they’d have liked knowing about penicillin in the 1300’s too.
It’s certainly hard to predict how much time should pass between with humans first asking a question and us figuring out an answer. Like with the case of how does the sun actually produce light. It wasn’t until maybe like 1000 A.D. that we even figured out a little bit about what light was but despite all of that we had no idea how our sun worked. There was the famous apologist who wrote that because we can’t explain how the sun produced light in 1696 that was an argument for God. And then it wasn’t until the 1900s where we began to understand how the sun produces light.
But then there was a discrepancy in the expected vs. measured neutrino flux which resulted in the young earth creationist community writing for decades about the missing neutrinos from the sun suggesting that we don’t even understand how our star produces light. I guess the alternative is that God supernaturally created the sun 6000 years ago. But then we found those neutrinos. There isn’t a great track record of looking at the unknowns of science as an argument for God. And the fine-tuning argument is based on things we don’t know. One can be filled with and wonder at a creator, but a direct supernatural creation of the physical constant finds it’s strength in a lack of understanding in a variety of ways.
3 Likes
We know there are more than two functional sequences, so it doesn’t.
1 Like
take even more than the number of sand grains on earth. its still nothing.
Then you had no need to concoct such an extremely unrealistic scenario.
1 Like
Of course - that’s why evidence is so important. Evidence can point to the truth whether it is intuitive or counter-intuitive.
2 Likes
what here is unrealistic? this is actually what happened according to evolution- many very different proteins somehow evolved from a common sequence.
This: "im talking about a theoretical scenario. according to that scenario there are only 2 possible functional sequences out of 10^100. "
1 Like