The multiple universe theory

An interesting article in Harper’s Magazine by MIT physicist Alan Lightman on how the “multiverse” theory–which cosmologists are embracing apparently as their only alternative to Intelligent Design–is throwing down the very foundations of the scientific enterprise:

The history of science can be viewed as the recasting of phenomena that were once thought to be accidents as phenomena that can be understood in terms of fundamental causes and principles. One can add to the list of the fully explained: the hue of the sky, the orbits of planets, the angle of the wake of a boat moving through a lake, the six-sided patterns of snowflakes, the weight of a flying bustard, the temperature of boiling water, the size of raindrops, the circular shape of the sun. All these phenomena and many more, once thought to have been fixed at the beginning of time or to be the result of random events thereafter, have been explained as necessary consequences of the fundamental laws of nature—laws discovered by human beings.

This long and appealing trend may be coming to an end. Dramatic developments in cosmological findings and thought have led some of the world’s premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties, and that some of the most basic features of our particular universe are indeed mere accidents—a random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universe’s features in terms of fundamental causes and principles.

It is perhaps impossible to say how far apart the different universes may be, or whether they exist simultaneously in time. Some may have stars and galaxies like ours. Some may not. Some may be finite in size. Some may be infinite. Physicists call the totality of universes the “multiverse.” Alan Guth, a pioneer in cosmological thought, says that “the multiple-universe idea severely limits our hopes to understand the world from fundamental principles.” And the philosophical ethos of science is torn from its roots. As put to me recently by Nobel Prize–winning physicist Steven Weinberg, a man as careful in his words as in his mathematical calculations, “We now find ourselves at a historic fork in the road we travel to understand the laws of nature. If the multiverse idea is correct, the style of fundamental physics will be radically changed.” . . .

While challenging the Platonic dream of theoretical physicists, the multiverse idea does explain one aspect of our universe that has unsettled some scientists for years: according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. The recognition of this fine­tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist.

If such conclusions are correct, the great question, of course, is why these fundamental parameters happen to lie within the range needed for life. Does the universe care about life? Intelligent design is one answer. Indeed, a fair number of theologians, philosophers, and even some scientists have used fine-tuning and the anthropic principle as evidence of the existence of God. For example, at the 2011 Christian Scholars’ Conference at Pepperdine University, Francis Collins, a leading geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health, said, “To get our universe, with all of its potential for complexities or any kind of potential for any kind of life-form, everything has to be precisely defined on this knife edge of improbability…. [Y]ou have to see the hands of a creator who set the parameters to be just so because the creator was interested in something a little more complicated than random particles.”

Intelligent design, however, is an answer to fine-tuning that does not appeal to most scientists. The multiverse offers another explanation. If there are countless different universes with different properties—for example, some with nuclear forces much stronger than in our universe and some with nuclear forces much weaker—then some of those universes will allow the emergence of life and some will not. Some of those universes will be dead, lifeless hulks of matter and energy, and others will permit the emergence of cells, plants and animals, minds. From the huge range of possible universes predicted by the theories, the fraction of universes with life is undoubtedly small. But that doesn’t matter. We live in one of the universes that permits life because otherwise we wouldn’t be here to ask the question.

via The accidental universe: Science’s crisis of faith—By Alan P. Lightman (Harper’s Magazine).

I don’t understand why the theory of multiple universes–an infinite number of UNIVERSES with every possible variation, universes that we can’t even observe–is more credible than belief in a Creator!  Actually, the term used here is “more appealing.”  Since when do scientists base their beliefs on what they like?  I’m also wondering, if the infinite universes contain all possibilities, might one of them have a creator?  And how do we know that this universe, the one with the anthropic principle, might be the one that is intelligently designed?  I know, I know, I don’t understand the science, as some of you will be explaining to me, but it seems to be that the theory of multiple universes is unscientific, since it is non-verifiable, non-falsifiable, and eludes all empirical evidence.

HT:  Joe Carter

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • SKPeterson

    So, if I read this right, these scientists are actively seeking to abandon Science because it might lead to faith in God, by creating a theory that can explain God away, but has to be taken on faith.

  • SKPeterson

    So, if I read this right, these scientists are actively seeking to abandon Science because it might lead to faith in God, by creating a theory that can explain God away, but has to be taken on faith.

  • rlewer

    So the odds are infinity to one that our universe could come about by chance. 0 times any number always equals 0. When will someone say that the emperor has no clothes?

  • rlewer

    So the odds are infinity to one that our universe could come about by chance. 0 times any number always equals 0. When will someone say that the emperor has no clothes?

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    SciFi made the multiverse popular. Solve all your continuity errors with one word or two depending on creative writing skills.

    Also, I think the mulitverse idea is a mathematical concept predicted by the same/similar formulas physicists have used to predict things like the Higgs Boson.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    SciFi made the multiverse popular. Solve all your continuity errors with one word or two depending on creative writing skills.

    Also, I think the mulitverse idea is a mathematical concept predicted by the same/similar formulas physicists have used to predict things like the Higgs Boson.

  • http://gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    All that one need do to squelch this thinking is to point out that, if true, there is a universe where all the physicists think that Jerry Falwell is absolutely right about everything, and are proud of it.

  • http://gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    All that one need do to squelch this thinking is to point out that, if true, there is a universe where all the physicists think that Jerry Falwell is absolutely right about everything, and are proud of it.

  • Dennis Peskey

    First, I feel compelled to issue a special laudatory note to Dr. Veith for stating the obvious rather than engaging in an onomastic gymnastic feat of denial. Perhaps a bit bombastic to be sure, but consider the evidence.

    In the article, the adjectives employed to describe the physical number of “multi’s” necessary in a multiuniverse theory were, in order, 1. multiverse; 2. many different, self-consistent universes (kudo’s for alliteration); 3. vast number; 4. accidental universes; 5. uncalculable; 6. countless; 7. zillions of universes; finally, concluding with the current rage, string theory, and this comment, ” “It has been estimated that the “string landscape” contains 10500 ( edit note: should be 10X10 to the 500 power) different possible universes. For all practical purposes, that number is infinite.

    In twelve short words, Dr. Veith drove straight to the illogical heart of the matter, “I don’t understand why the theory of multiple universes–an infinite number“. Succinct, direct and correct. Give this man a gold star or a few hundred trillion. Where Calvin feared to tread in faith, our current day physicists charge in without faith, logic, mathematical basis or any remnant of reason. They are guilty of the logical fallacy of assigning a finite quantity to the infinite.

    And these scientists are cognizant of this fallacy – they know their sin and it is infinite, hence they ponder greatly and speak softly choosing their words with great caution lest their fraud be exposed. Apparently, their frustration struggling with gravity has unhinged these poor devils from their rational roots. Where they now tread, reason and logic no longer accompany them. They have stared into the depths of the Law of Identity and denounced this as heretical; in so doing, the Law of Non-Contradiction, the Excluded Middle – oh, don’t be verbose – Logic itself has been abandoned.

    All this they are willing to sacrifice in the name of their false god so they can continue to deny the evidence of the true God. If they could only grasp a few more bites of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they believe then the marriage of Gravity with Quantum Mechanics would consummate the birth of the final Theory of Everything. I’ll not wish them luck in this venture since luck is predicated on randomness and they have abandoned this as well. They do qualify entirely for the Captain Kirk award – they truly seek to go where no man has gone before – without logic, reason, science or God to guide them. Bon voyage!
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    First, I feel compelled to issue a special laudatory note to Dr. Veith for stating the obvious rather than engaging in an onomastic gymnastic feat of denial. Perhaps a bit bombastic to be sure, but consider the evidence.

    In the article, the adjectives employed to describe the physical number of “multi’s” necessary in a multiuniverse theory were, in order, 1. multiverse; 2. many different, self-consistent universes (kudo’s for alliteration); 3. vast number; 4. accidental universes; 5. uncalculable; 6. countless; 7. zillions of universes; finally, concluding with the current rage, string theory, and this comment, ” “It has been estimated that the “string landscape” contains 10500 ( edit note: should be 10X10 to the 500 power) different possible universes. For all practical purposes, that number is infinite.

    In twelve short words, Dr. Veith drove straight to the illogical heart of the matter, “I don’t understand why the theory of multiple universes–an infinite number“. Succinct, direct and correct. Give this man a gold star or a few hundred trillion. Where Calvin feared to tread in faith, our current day physicists charge in without faith, logic, mathematical basis or any remnant of reason. They are guilty of the logical fallacy of assigning a finite quantity to the infinite.

    And these scientists are cognizant of this fallacy – they know their sin and it is infinite, hence they ponder greatly and speak softly choosing their words with great caution lest their fraud be exposed. Apparently, their frustration struggling with gravity has unhinged these poor devils from their rational roots. Where they now tread, reason and logic no longer accompany them. They have stared into the depths of the Law of Identity and denounced this as heretical; in so doing, the Law of Non-Contradiction, the Excluded Middle – oh, don’t be verbose – Logic itself has been abandoned.

    All this they are willing to sacrifice in the name of their false god so they can continue to deny the evidence of the true God. If they could only grasp a few more bites of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they believe then the marriage of Gravity with Quantum Mechanics would consummate the birth of the final Theory of Everything. I’ll not wish them luck in this venture since luck is predicated on randomness and they have abandoned this as well. They do qualify entirely for the Captain Kirk award – they truly seek to go where no man has gone before – without logic, reason, science or God to guide them. Bon voyage!
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • MichaelZ

    “The fool hath said in his heart…”
    …and that foolishness is beginning to show in their work.

  • MichaelZ

    “The fool hath said in his heart…”
    …and that foolishness is beginning to show in their work.

  • Patrick Kyle

    “But this is not a theory that can be scientifically tested. Other universes, by definition, are not accessible. The multiverse is metaphysics — just as subject to the scientific method as the existence of heaven.”

    Quoted from your DEc 21 post on the God particle.

  • Patrick Kyle

    “But this is not a theory that can be scientifically tested. Other universes, by definition, are not accessible. The multiverse is metaphysics — just as subject to the scientific method as the existence of heaven.”

    Quoted from your DEc 21 post on the God particle.

  • steve

    Multiverse theory is:

    - the multi(ple theories for explaining physical actions that can’t yet be otherwise explained by the current models of a Creator-less uni)verse theory

    - the everyone gets a chance at having a theory names after them theory

    - the everyone is correct since there are no observations to falsify theory

    - the no more probably but much less likely to get me laughed out of a dinner party with my pseudo-intellectual buddies than discussing Intelligent Design theory theory

    - the it won’t help me get published but at least I can get s spot with George Noory theory

    - the I’m getting old and my career is faltering and I haven’t yet come up with a plausible Theory of Everything theory so I’m just throwing in the towel theory

    What did I miss?

  • steve

    Multiverse theory is:

    - the multi(ple theories for explaining physical actions that can’t yet be otherwise explained by the current models of a Creator-less uni)verse theory

    - the everyone gets a chance at having a theory names after them theory

    - the everyone is correct since there are no observations to falsify theory

    - the no more probably but much less likely to get me laughed out of a dinner party with my pseudo-intellectual buddies than discussing Intelligent Design theory theory

    - the it won’t help me get published but at least I can get s spot with George Noory theory

    - the I’m getting old and my career is faltering and I haven’t yet come up with a plausible Theory of Everything theory so I’m just throwing in the towel theory

    What did I miss?

  • Donegal Misfortune

    They finally figured out what plagues man the most. I am so relieved. I am glad all these grants go to fund all these wonderful findings at our universities..or should I say, multiversities?

  • Donegal Misfortune

    They finally figured out what plagues man the most. I am so relieved. I am glad all these grants go to fund all these wonderful findings at our universities..or should I say, multiversities?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I’m not sure it’s true that “cosmologists are embracing [the multiverse theory] apparently as their only alternative to Intelligent Design”. I’m more inclined to see it as a consistent result of the basic philosophy underlying most scientific assumptions these days — namely, the lack of a Creator. Maybe those sound the same, but the difference to me is one of negative vs. positive motivation.

    That is to say, I don’t see scientists desperately grasping for “anything but Intelligent Design” theories, hoping against hope to forestall their inevitable conversion to Deism or whatever.

    No, the multiverse theory seems to really be just an extension of evolution’s basic ideas: basically, that the fact that Things Just Work can be explained — since they necessary must be explained without a Creator — given enough options. In other words, the seemingly insane probabilities of this universe (and its life forms) don’t seem so improbable if you give things a certain scope.

    As such, if plants and animals (et al.) all seem to be in a delicate balance right now, it’s just because that’s been hammered out through random chance over billions of years. And if our universe likewise seems to be in a delicate balance, well, it’s just random luck in one of (way more than) billions of universes.

    Through enough zeroes into your framework, and any nagging improbabilities of our existence can be smoothed over, is what I’m saying.

    Which isn’t to say that I fundamentally disagree with any such framing. It depends. I mean, the odds of meeting your (future) spouse were also one-in-several-billion, technically, but to us, the odds were much smaller than that.

    Anyhow, agreed, this isn’t actually science.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I’m not sure it’s true that “cosmologists are embracing [the multiverse theory] apparently as their only alternative to Intelligent Design”. I’m more inclined to see it as a consistent result of the basic philosophy underlying most scientific assumptions these days — namely, the lack of a Creator. Maybe those sound the same, but the difference to me is one of negative vs. positive motivation.

    That is to say, I don’t see scientists desperately grasping for “anything but Intelligent Design” theories, hoping against hope to forestall their inevitable conversion to Deism or whatever.

    No, the multiverse theory seems to really be just an extension of evolution’s basic ideas: basically, that the fact that Things Just Work can be explained — since they necessary must be explained without a Creator — given enough options. In other words, the seemingly insane probabilities of this universe (and its life forms) don’t seem so improbable if you give things a certain scope.

    As such, if plants and animals (et al.) all seem to be in a delicate balance right now, it’s just because that’s been hammered out through random chance over billions of years. And if our universe likewise seems to be in a delicate balance, well, it’s just random luck in one of (way more than) billions of universes.

    Through enough zeroes into your framework, and any nagging improbabilities of our existence can be smoothed over, is what I’m saying.

    Which isn’t to say that I fundamentally disagree with any such framing. It depends. I mean, the odds of meeting your (future) spouse were also one-in-several-billion, technically, but to us, the odds were much smaller than that.

    Anyhow, agreed, this isn’t actually science.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Whoops, meant to say “theism” up there (@10).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Whoops, meant to say “theism” up there (@10).

  • rlewer

    Todd

    The term “multiverse” hides what the theory really is. It calls for an INFINITE amount of universes to accomodate the odds. There is a big difference between many and infinite. They really are impossible odds.

  • rlewer

    Todd

    The term “multiverse” hides what the theory really is. It calls for an INFINITE amount of universes to accomodate the odds. There is a big difference between many and infinite. They really are impossible odds.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Rlewer (@12) said:

    It calls for an INFINITE amount of universes to accomodate the odds.

    Please back up that assertion. Where are you getting that, since your entire assertion (also @2) depends on it.

    Certainly the Harper’s article disagrees with your assertion, referring to “an enormous number of universes”, “many different self-consistent universes”, “a vast number of universes”, “zillions of universes”, and, perhaps most specifically,

    In the past few years, however, physicists have discovered that string theory predicts not a unique universe but a huge number of possible universes with different properties. It has been estimated that the “string landscape” contains 10^500 different possible universes. For all practical purposes, that number is infinite.

    What you say — “there is a big difference between many and infinite” — is true enough. But the article points to there being “many” universes in this theory, and not necessarily a literally “infinite” number.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Rlewer (@12) said:

    It calls for an INFINITE amount of universes to accomodate the odds.

    Please back up that assertion. Where are you getting that, since your entire assertion (also @2) depends on it.

    Certainly the Harper’s article disagrees with your assertion, referring to “an enormous number of universes”, “many different self-consistent universes”, “a vast number of universes”, “zillions of universes”, and, perhaps most specifically,

    In the past few years, however, physicists have discovered that string theory predicts not a unique universe but a huge number of possible universes with different properties. It has been estimated that the “string landscape” contains 10^500 different possible universes. For all practical purposes, that number is infinite.

    What you say — “there is a big difference between many and infinite” — is true enough. But the article points to there being “many” universes in this theory, and not necessarily a literally “infinite” number.

  • SKPeterson

    The question isn’t one of probability in the context of infinity, but rather how probable any given state might be. This is something unknown; we have no idea what the distribution of possible other universes might be and we only have a sample set of 1. If multiverses exist, we might be the norm, in which multiple universes just like us are the expectation (expected by Whom?) and not the outlier. Or, we could be the outlier, perhaps so far outside in a long tail that our probability of existing is effectively 0. Again, no way of knowing.

  • SKPeterson

    The question isn’t one of probability in the context of infinity, but rather how probable any given state might be. This is something unknown; we have no idea what the distribution of possible other universes might be and we only have a sample set of 1. If multiverses exist, we might be the norm, in which multiple universes just like us are the expectation (expected by Whom?) and not the outlier. Or, we could be the outlier, perhaps so far outside in a long tail that our probability of existing is effectively 0. Again, no way of knowing.

  • rlewer

    Todd,

    I thought that Stephen Hawking used the term infinite, but I cannot find the citation so I may be wrong.

  • rlewer

    Todd,

    I thought that Stephen Hawking used the term infinite, but I cannot find the citation so I may be wrong.

  • http://homewardbound-cb.blogspot.com ChrisB

    They’ve been trying to get away from a creator since the genesis of big bang theory. Some of them are more honest about this than others.

  • http://homewardbound-cb.blogspot.com ChrisB

    They’ve been trying to get away from a creator since the genesis of big bang theory. Some of them are more honest about this than others.

  • http://www.confessionalsbytes.com/ Jim Pierce

    Interestingly enough, the multiverse theory resembles the much older paradigms in metaphysics dealing with modal possibilities. The Medieval philosophers such as John Duns Scotus systemtized talk of possible and actual modes of existence into a logic (modal logic). I remember studying Saul Kripke’s “possible world semantics” in metaphysics courses in college. It looks like physicists have caught on… it just took a long time. :)

  • http://www.confessionalsbytes.com/ Jim Pierce

    Interestingly enough, the multiverse theory resembles the much older paradigms in metaphysics dealing with modal possibilities. The Medieval philosophers such as John Duns Scotus systemtized talk of possible and actual modes of existence into a logic (modal logic). I remember studying Saul Kripke’s “possible world semantics” in metaphysics courses in college. It looks like physicists have caught on… it just took a long time. :)

  • http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

    “We now find ourselves at a historic fork in the road we travel to understand the laws of nature. If the multiverse idea is correct, the style of fundamental physics will be radically changed.”

    “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.” Yogi Berra.

  • http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

    “We now find ourselves at a historic fork in the road we travel to understand the laws of nature. If the multiverse idea is correct, the style of fundamental physics will be radically changed.”

    “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.” Yogi Berra.

  • Peter

    I always like to relate to things and events I can experience. Like watching a pan of water on my stove. I see the water start to move in swirls, according to the differnces in temperature. Then small bubbles of dissloved air, escaping the water, start to appear. Then bubbles of steam form on the bottom of the pan, first forming and imploding without leaving a trace. Then gaining pressure they try to get to the surface. Then, finally getting to the surface, they explode. First bubbles appear from nowhere (as far as I can see). Then bubbles appear from nowhere and implode without leaving a trace. Then small bubbles appear on the bottom from nowhere, rise, gain volume, get to the surface and explode without leaving a visible trace. Now, I hear the universe seems to behave exactly the same way. It appeared out of, apparently, nowhere, expands (through the medium of black matter?), and will eventually explode into another medium (intrauniverse?) without leaving a trace. At the same time many, many other bubbles / universes are created, expand, implode, rise to the surface and explode.
    Maybe somebody, way up there, is observing my universe / bubble in his pan for just a fleeting moment and forgetting about it, almost at the same time. Insignificant in his universe.
    Are we as important as we think we are? Yes, on our very local level, we are. Are we invulnerable? Of course not. Will we be missed when we dissipate into the intrauniversal medium? Of course not. We ignorantly colide subatomic particles. Maybe they are universes. Maybe somebody above is about to load our universe into it’s LHC, billions of our years in the future, but only a split second from it’s NOW. And it’s universe, etc. etc. etc. will be loaded into someone’s apparatus vigintillion years from now.
    Who says there was a beginning or and end? To what? A Creator? Of what?

  • Peter

    I always like to relate to things and events I can experience. Like watching a pan of water on my stove. I see the water start to move in swirls, according to the differnces in temperature. Then small bubbles of dissloved air, escaping the water, start to appear. Then bubbles of steam form on the bottom of the pan, first forming and imploding without leaving a trace. Then gaining pressure they try to get to the surface. Then, finally getting to the surface, they explode. First bubbles appear from nowhere (as far as I can see). Then bubbles appear from nowhere and implode without leaving a trace. Then small bubbles appear on the bottom from nowhere, rise, gain volume, get to the surface and explode without leaving a visible trace. Now, I hear the universe seems to behave exactly the same way. It appeared out of, apparently, nowhere, expands (through the medium of black matter?), and will eventually explode into another medium (intrauniverse?) without leaving a trace. At the same time many, many other bubbles / universes are created, expand, implode, rise to the surface and explode.
    Maybe somebody, way up there, is observing my universe / bubble in his pan for just a fleeting moment and forgetting about it, almost at the same time. Insignificant in his universe.
    Are we as important as we think we are? Yes, on our very local level, we are. Are we invulnerable? Of course not. Will we be missed when we dissipate into the intrauniversal medium? Of course not. We ignorantly colide subatomic particles. Maybe they are universes. Maybe somebody above is about to load our universe into it’s LHC, billions of our years in the future, but only a split second from it’s NOW. And it’s universe, etc. etc. etc. will be loaded into someone’s apparatus vigintillion years from now.
    Who says there was a beginning or and end? To what? A Creator? Of what?

  • André Coutinho

    time and space are at each other like good is bad, this is due to the balance, this balance without knowledge of origin, however I guide myself by the logic of giving it a more loyal not only to science as the world around us, we know that in nature nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed, as we now know the area, the evidence is not quite what we assume will be like another universe, can be variations in the forces and their rules, like the laws as we know them are quite different for example if there are planets orbiting a chance they will or simply a route back and forth, we can put a lot of questions and theories assume, because we have no certainty anything, our primitive science will do nothing for us to achieve our goal, who we really are? how to apply the concept of a creator in this sense, it is not logical. only science has the flexibility to be able to explain this and not faith, this is for those who do not want to understand where you are and I will, science does not have to be seen directly but abstractly for what our eyes see is stopped or not is because we know that there is, by assuming the movement of electrons seen really know that they are moved constantly leading me to wonder how our mind that we have purpose we feel that there is something for clarifying and understanding and not do we know this is because we have been educated to think in many ways but there are many others that have not yet explored, I am sure that many or all of the answers we seek to get through our minds in recent years science has suffered small steps of progress to but great for her humanity, we must think of the way, these undiscovered progress through science or mathematics but through our minds all started there and that is where are the answers we need is to exercise and have crazy ideas or assertions does not matter anything goes and everything is little.
    google translator is not perfect xD
    Andrew Coutinho

  • André Coutinho

    time and space are at each other like good is bad, this is due to the balance, this balance without knowledge of origin, however I guide myself by the logic of giving it a more loyal not only to science as the world around us, we know that in nature nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed, as we now know the area, the evidence is not quite what we assume will be like another universe, can be variations in the forces and their rules, like the laws as we know them are quite different for example if there are planets orbiting a chance they will or simply a route back and forth, we can put a lot of questions and theories assume, because we have no certainty anything, our primitive science will do nothing for us to achieve our goal, who we really are? how to apply the concept of a creator in this sense, it is not logical. only science has the flexibility to be able to explain this and not faith, this is for those who do not want to understand where you are and I will, science does not have to be seen directly but abstractly for what our eyes see is stopped or not is because we know that there is, by assuming the movement of electrons seen really know that they are moved constantly leading me to wonder how our mind that we have purpose we feel that there is something for clarifying and understanding and not do we know this is because we have been educated to think in many ways but there are many others that have not yet explored, I am sure that many or all of the answers we seek to get through our minds in recent years science has suffered small steps of progress to but great for her humanity, we must think of the way, these undiscovered progress through science or mathematics but through our minds all started there and that is where are the answers we need is to exercise and have crazy ideas or assertions does not matter anything goes and everything is little.
    google translator is not perfect xD
    Andrew Coutinho


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X