Before The Big Bang

[poliphilo]

According to Horizon it's no longer scientifically illiterate to wonder what happened before the Big Bang. A convenor asked a room full of mega brains, "Who believes there was something before the Big Bang?" and every hand went up- though some only to half mast. There are many theories to be considered. The one that sticks with me- probably because its so simple- is that the universe expands, contracts and expands again- like breathing in and out. 

Comments

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

The anthropogenic argument strikes me as being rather similar to the lottery winner who claims that, as the chances of his winning were so small, he must have been singled out by God for special favour - and that therefore God exists.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Actually, it's the opposite. The antropogenic argument is, "If we didn't exist, we wouldn't know we didn't exist, so the fact that we know we exist merely means that we exist, and therefore doesn't mean anything."

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Ah, then I beg its pardon. I have heard an argument like the one I just alluded to, but perhaps that's the one the anthropogenic argument is against!

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Exactly so. Now, the thing is -- if the universe was only created ONCE, I could see this as having some sort of validity. Not necessarily, but, I could see it. The odds against life and intelligence happening by random chance in ONE try are, well, "astronomical" is definitely far, far too small a concept for it. But if the universe is recreated infinitely, with different characteristics each time, then it's absolutely certain that life and intelligence will be created infinitely often, no mater how unlikely it is.

[veronica-milvus.livejournal.com]

You mean the "weak anthropic principle" and the "strong anthropic principle". They are worth a lookup on Wikipedia.