|
|
Post by krkey1 on Feb 21, 2009 6:12:14 GMT
Where can I learn more about the Anthropic Principle and Kalam's Cosmological Argument? I am seeking books and other resources.
thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Feb 21, 2009 10:33:42 GMT
Try here first off for multiverse speculation tinyurl.com/demjdbI recommend the faraday institute lectures on cosmology (especially George Ellis, Rodney Holder is good on the basics) www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Multimedia.phpThe Kalam Cosmological argument is William Lane Craig's bag www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/Wouldn't recommend anything by Stenger (poor science) or from the indifels (lots of catchphrases, zero content). Would stick to repected cosmologists like Davies, Sir Martin Rees and John Barrow. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 21, 2009 11:17:19 GMT
Here are my suggestions. For a great background on many things relating to the universe, including the anthropic principle, I heartily endorse those on this forum who recommended I read Stephen Barr's Modern Physics and Ancient faith. I have just finished it, and it is a superb book - much more about modern physics than ancient faith, but a good basis for considering whether modern science supports the naturalistic assumptions generally made by scientists. The best book on philosophical proofs I've read is " God, Reason and Theistic Proofs" by Stephen T Davis (Edinburgh University Press). I think Davis is a christian, but he maintains a more rigorous and balanced approach than anyone else I've read. Two excellent books on the "fine-tuning" of the universe, which therefore touch on the anthropic principle, are " Just Six Numbers" by Martin Rees (1999) and " The Cosmic Landscape" by Leonard Susskind (2006) Some useful websites are: I hope that gives you a start, but others may have better references. |
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Feb 22, 2009 18:27:32 GMT
thanks everyone for all the information
|
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Feb 23, 2009 15:28:35 GMT
Hmmm, I was a bit puzzled by the Stephen Hawking article Unklee produced:
Recent publications (2004) by Stephen Hawking suggest that our universe is much less 'special' than the proponents of the anthropic principle claim it is. According to Hawking, there is a 98% chance that a universe of a type as ours will come from a Big Bang. Further, using the basic wavefunction of the universe as basis, Hawking's equations indicate that such a universe can come into existence without relation to anything prior to it, meaning that it could come out of nothing.
Then I remembered that the model Hawking proposes for the big bang is the 'everything but the kitchen sink theory' in which the universe creates every possible history including the one we are in. Of course if every possible history of the universe exists, it is no surprise that we end up seeing one which is so ideally suited to our existence. If one then combines that with the hartle-hawking no boundary proposal in which time is smoothed out, the universe need have no beginning and no fine tuning. Of course there is a 98% probability that this proposal is highly speculative bullnuts.
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 23, 2009 21:41:24 GMT
I think on this occasion you are perhaps being too kind - 99.9999% may be fairer!
Yes I have always thought the Hartle-Hawking idea was nothing more than a verbal trick, in a sense akin to the Ontological argument. In both cases you can make the words sound sensible, but no-one really believes them deep down.
|
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Feb 24, 2009 14:40:36 GMT
I think on this occasion you are perhaps being too kind - 99.9999% may be fairer! Yes I have always thought the Hartle-Hawking idea was nothing more than a verbal trick, in a sense akin to the Ontological argument. In both cases you can make the words sound sensible, but no-one really believes them deep down. I would have been harsher, but the filthy language checker on this forum forced me to say 'bullnuts'. What a 'plonker'. |
|
