Sorry to butt in. But it seems to me that when we find something that we do not underdstand, we naturally give it a name and definition just to be better able to talk about it.

Regarding the coincidences of constants- Smolin has offered a view that would result in finely tuned universes without the need for an intelligent creator.

He claims:
1. Universes come from black holes
2. Universes that produce the greatest number of black holes will predominate after enough time
3. Infinite time is enough time.
4. Our universe has its constants tuned to maximize the number of black holes.

1 + 3 are assumptions
2 follows from mathematics given 3
4 is demonstrable with mathematical physics. Smolin claims to have checked it, but I have never seen any such publication from him. You would think that he would author a book on that.

So the point of this is that here we have a non-verified theory that results in the present coincidence of constants without any anthropic needs. Also no need for god.

But it is not a sufficient condition to claim that a god or gods do not exist. I think the Celestine Prophecy type of coincidence is a better argument for the existence of god than the anthropic principle.

• re: black holes - harvey1 - January 22, 2002 - 15:42 UTC
  • Celestine Prophecy - yanniru - January 23, 2002 - 15:30 UTC
    • Synchronicity - harvey1 - January 23, 2002 - 16:16 UTC
      • A good example of circularity - yanniru - January 25, 2002 - 00:34 UTC
        • That doesn't make any sense to me - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 01:32 UTC
          • I do not understand - yanniru - January 25, 2002 - 14:42 UTC
            • You can never reach infinity via a finite process - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 15:29 UTC
              • Give me a week - yanniru - January 26, 2002 - 14:32 UTC
              • By the way, does evolution of BH multiverse produce - alexander - January 27, 2002 - 01:24 UTC
                • Still an open question in string theory - yanniru - January 27, 2002 - 18:49 UTC