# Give me one set of laws of physics for alternate universe

Someone mentioned *values* as a necessary aspect of physical science.

Back to te deck of cards. What if only Aces (dual value of 1 and 13, in 4 different *flavors* (orders) were able to completely form a universe. But if the deck consisted of an infinite number of stacked decks and infinite permission to draw from the deck which is constantly being shuffled.,

Then if we draw any card below the dual value 1 and 13, it might have some of the required values, but never have the ability to form a universe. A probabilistic failure to thrive, if certain values (orders) are missing from the equation.

In the abstract I see some similarities with the maths of values in several conventional models of how our and possible other universes emerge, especially in string theory. I like the wave concept. .

Last edited:
But what is the basis for positing that every possible outcome (or even any fraction thereof) was explored?

Who says the deck was thrown at the ground more than once?

i.e. Why is there any reason to think that any more than one universe was created, and it happened to be this one?
Unless one knows how our universe came about, one can neither claim that we are the only one nor that there were an infinite, nor any number in between.
All we can say for sure is that it happened at least once. And all we can say is that this one does contain life capable of asking the question. But this is no indication at all of whether we are a miraculous coincidence or an absolute certainty. We are simply in a universe that has given rise to life.
Whatever the odds are that some perturbation in 'what went before' spawned a whole universe -

- the odds would be twice as unlikely again that it happened twice - i.e. two perturbations giving rise to two universes.

Logically, it happening a nigh-infinite number of times is nigh-infinitely unlikely.

i.e. even harder to fathom than it happening merely once.
No, the chance of something happening twice is not necessarily twice as unlikely as it happening just once.
A system/process may be such that the odds of giving rise to one are exactly the same as it happening an infinite number of times. Or even that multiple occurrences are more likely than a single event.
E.g. When you open a bottle of soda, what is the chance that a single bubble will form? Is it twice as likely compared to two bubbles forming, which would in turn be twice as likely as four, etc? No.
Any claim that two occurrences are half as likely as just one is to make some claim about the nature of "what went before".

And once you accept that we simply can not know whether we are a single throw of the cards or simply one of an infinite, you must accept that we can not know if we are a miraculous coincidence or an absolute certainty.

Again, what are the odds of you pre-determining an order of cards and then drawing then in that order on your first attempt? 1 in 10^68, or thereabouts.
What about if you did the exercise an infinite number of times... how likely is it that you would draw the order you pre-determined? Unsurprisingly, if you performed the exercise an infinite number of times you would end up with an infinite number of correct efforts. Such is the nature of the infinite.

Now, let's imagine that someone walked in on you while you were drawing that successful attempt. They would see you drawing something that looks like a magic trick, a miraculous coincidence, because they lack the knowledge of your numerous previous attempts. They would not have known that it was actually a certainty.
That person who walked in is analogous to us, only being able to observe the successful attempt with no knowledge of whether there have been other attempts or not.

Now, let's imagine that someone walked in on you while you were drawing that successful attempt. They would see you drawing something that looks like a magic trick, a miraculous coincidence, because they lack the knowledge of your numerous previous attempts.
Remove the directed, human element.
The deck of cards spontaneously fell off the table and landed in a heap.

Now we have to explain why the deck of cards spontaneously fell off the table many, many, many times, and how someone walked in only once.

Positing the spawning of multiple universes complicates the explanation. We now have to explain not just the creation of this universe but more universes, and indeed a plenitude of universes.

An hypothesis that creates more questions than it answers should be suspect (like in other discussions about UFOs and the existence of God). At the very least, it should be a less eligible candidate than a simpler hypothesis.

Indeed, the only reason to posit the spontaneous creation of more than one universe is as a rationalization for the seemingly miraculous constants falling the way they have.

Which is circular logic.

The shorter version:
"Wow. That deck of cards spontaneously fell off the table and landed with some cards stacked in a highly unlikely configuration."
"Nah, if the deck spontaneously fell off the table a vast number of times, and that we walked in at just the right moment, among all those times to see this unlikely configuration, it makes more sense."

Remove the directed, human element.
The deck of cards spontaneously fell off the table and landed in a heap.

Now we have to explain why the deck of cards spontaneously fell off the table many, many, many times, and how someone walked in only once.
No we don't. If you want to posit that the deck only fell once, that is your claim to support. I simply raise the possibility that there may have been more, even an infinite number. Can you discount that possibility?

As for why someone walked in... as explained, that person is analogous to us, the result of that specific arrangement of the cards. As such we could only have walked in at that time, as before then we didn't exist.
Positing the spawning of multiple universes complicates the explanation. We now have to explain not just the creation of this universe but more universes, and indeed a plenitude of universes.
I am positing nothing as a certainty nor putting probabilities to anything. I am simply saying that we do not know. And because we do not know it is entirely incorrect to start with the assumption that we are the only one.
An hypothesis that creates more questions than it answers should be suspect (like in other discussions about UFOs and the existence of God). At the very least, it should be a less eligible candidate than a simpler hypothesis.
An hypothesis needs something more than simply the result. It surely needs the ability to actually know something about what gave rise to the result. Otherwise it is simply an unknowable claim.

Indeed, the only reason to posit the spontaneous creation of more than one universe is as a rationalization for the seemingly miraculous constants falling the way they have.
Surely any hypothesis that turns the miraculous into the mundane is to be preferred over one that retains the miraculous?
But given that neither can be known, proven, falsified, why assume that it is the miraculously and ignore the mundane, other than through personal bias?
Which is circular logic.
No, it is just a matter of perspective on what can't be known. Bear in mind that it is not a claim that we definitely are just one of an infinite, only that it remains a logical possibility until knowledge is such as to dismiss it. And as a possibility it converts the apparent miraculous into the not-so miraculous.
That in itself says nothing about how we view our own universe. Even if others exist we can not know them. Heck, we can't even know the overwhelmingly vast majority of our own. So let's marvel in the splendour of what we can know without trying to assert that the existence of our universe is miraculous. It may be. It may not be. Are you claiming to know one way or the other?

The shorter version:
"Wow. That deck of cards spontaneously fell off the table and landed with some cards stacked in a highly unlikely configuration."
"Nah, if the deck spontaneously fell off the table a vast number of times, and that we walked in at just the right moment, among all those times to see this unlikely configuration, it makes more sense."
As explained, the person walking in is analogous to us. Or if you wish to think of it another way, imagine the house of cards looking at itself and going: "omg! The deck fell off the table and we are the result! What are the chances!"
It can not know whether or not there were an infinite number of such falling decks.

Have you ever seen YouTube videos of people doing quite astounding tricks like shooting a basket from the halfway line with their back to the basket? If you saw the video you'd initially think it impressive... one attempt, one great shot.
What you don't see is the likely high number of attempts that were also filmed and discarded due to failure.

Again, you posit some process that is continually making attempt after attempt - whether it be dropping cards or spontaneously generating universe after universe.

What you don't see is the likely high number of attempts
Your entire argument is premised on this ^.

Why is this a plausible precondition?

The only reason to posit it is to rationalize the very problem we're trying to explain.

Which is circular.

I say again: your card tossing example is goal-driven, by an intelligence. Very bad analogy.

Remove the goal. Posit a deck of cards spontaneously falling off a table. You've got to explain that a deck of cards is spontaneously falling off the table a vast number of times.

Last edited:
Again, you posit some process that is continually making attempt after attempt - whether it be dropping cards or spontaneously generating universe after universe.

Your entire argument is premised on this ^.

Why is this a plausible precondition?

The only reason to posit it is to rationalize the very problem we're trying to explain.

Which is circular.
It's as plausible as saying that it happened only once. Or twice. Or three times.
The answer is that we can not know what the answer is, thus any speculation is just that. I am not asserting anything, simply positing as a logical possibility that has as much evidence behind it as any other - i.e. none.

You seem insistent upon there being only one time it happened. You can not know this. All we can know is that it has happened at least once.
So no, there is no circularity, simply the lack of acceptance of the premise that it has happened only once.
I say again: your card tossing example is goal-driven, by an intelligence. Very bad analogy.
I see that as simply quibbling on your part, to be honest. You know the purpose of the analogy as do I. Whether there be intelligence behind it or not is outside the purpose of the analogy.
Remove the goal. Posit a deck of cards spontaneously falling off a table. You've got to explain that a deck of cards is spontaneously falling off the table a vast number of times.
How do you know that it is spontaneously falling off a table? To claim it is spontaneous is to make similar unwarranted assertions, which is why the analogy is simply the deck falling and the form it takes upon landing. Everything else is outside the remit, I had hoped this was understood. If not before, I trust it is now?

So how do you know that it occurs just one time or even a vast number of times? Answer: you can't.
If the deck falls an infinite number of times then the arrangement is a certainty.
If the deck falls just once then it is miraculous coincidence.
That's the analogy. The method or reason or lack thereof for the deck falling is irrelevant.

How you see it, miraculous or a certainty or somewhere in between, is simply a matter of perspective.
Unless you can show why one should accept that it happened once and not more then the possibility of it having happened any number of times can not be dismissed.
That it happening an infinite number of times turns your "miraculous" into "certainty" is nothing to do with circular reasoning but everything to do with simple maths.

Again, I am not claiming that it did happen an infinite times, nor am I agreeing that it happened just once. To me it is an unknowable question. To posit it happening just once is as valid as positing it happening an infinite number. At best we can guess, but without any opportunity to know if the guess is correct or not.

Again, I am not claiming that it did happen an infinite times, nor am I agreeing that it happened just once. To me it is an unknowable question. To posit it happening just once is as valid as positing it happening an infinite number. At best we can guess, but without any opportunity to know if the guess is correct or not.
The only amendment I would make to this is that we cannot currently know whether it happened once or an infinite number of times. In the future we may be able to know. After all, we may have a few billion years to figure it out and we've already come quite far in the last 100,000.

The only amendment I would make to this is that we cannot currently know whether it happened once or an infinite number of times. In the future we may be able to know. After all, we may have a few billion years to figure it out and we've already come quite far in the last 100,000.
Perhaps, although I am inclined toward strong agnosticism on the matter: I don't think it's possible to know. It's like being stuck in an impenetrable box with no way to look outside of it to know how/why/who caused it - if indeed those questions even have meaning other than from our trapped perspective.
We might be able to ascertain how it is possible to create universes, but that doesn't answer how ours came about, it merely sheds some light on one method etc.

Perhaps, although I am inclined toward strong agnosticism on the matter: I don't think it's possible to know. It's like being stuck in an impenetrable box with no way to look outside of it to know how/why/who caused it - if indeed those questions even have meaning other than from our trapped perspective.
We might be able to ascertain how it is possible to create universes, but that doesn't answer how ours came about, it merely sheds some light on one method etc.
I have often opined, Sarkus, that the Ultimate answers to this 'Life/Universe/Existence/Everything' could most likely never be completely gleaned from within the "boundaries" of this 'Life/Uni...
Notwithstanding, that the true answer is, simply "42" !!!
And, as you kind of alluded to, even if we were able to glean, in it's entirety, "how ours came about", then it would only "shed light" on one of what could be any number of possible "method"'s.

Last edited:
It's as plausible as saying that it happened only once. Or twice. Or three times.
Simpler mechanisms create fewer unanswered questions than complex mechanisms.

Which is more plausible? That life exists on one other planet in the SS or that it exists on two or three?
Which is more plausible? That one impactor formed the Moon? Or two or three?
etc.

The answer is that we can not know what the answer is, thus any speculation is just that. I am not asserting anything, simply positing as a logical possibility that has as much evidence behind it as any other - i.e. none.
Yes, but they're cumulative.

All other things being equal, two spontaneous events are less likely than one spontaneous event.

You seem insistent upon there being only one time it happened.
Then you are completely misunderstadning my stance.

You know the purpose of the analogy as do I. Whether there be intelligence behind it or not is outside the purpose of the analogy.
No, it's critical. Your scenario seems superfically plausible because we're used to people doing goal-directed tasks multiple times in pursuit of a result.

Ask yourself how implausible it seems that a deck of cards falls off a table spontaneously many, many times.

How do you know that it is spontaneously falling off a table? To claim it is spontaneous is to make similar unwarranted assertions,
Because we're not bringing a sentience into the scenario to start things in motion.

So how do you know that it occurs just one time or even a vast number of times? Answer: you can't.

I do not claim to "know" anything except the basic mathematics of probability. Two spontaneous events is less likely than one spontaneous event.

If the deck falls an infinite number of times then the arrangement is a certainty.
We are left with explaining an infinite number of spontaneous events.
If the deck falls just once then it is miraculous coincidence.
We are left with explaining one spontaneous event.

Unless you can show why one should accept that it happened once and not more then the possibility of it having happened any number of times can not be dismissed.
Because that is the nature of probability. A fraction of 1.0 will always be smaller than 1.0.

Again, I am not claiming that it did happen an infinite times, nor am I agreeing that it happened just once. To me it is an unknowable question.
Of course it's unknowable. You misunderstand my stance again.

If you say all possibilities are equally likely, regardless of the fact that some have more preconditions than others, then you open the door to God being a perfectly plausible explanation.

The reason God is generally not considered a plausible candidate for the creation of the universe is because, as an explanation, it raises more questions than it answers.

Occams' razor: don't create more entities ( or conditions) without warrant.

The only reason to posit the nigh-infinite spawning of universes - each with their own permutation of Cosmological constants** - is to find an answer to this problem. But again, that's circular.

** another implicit precondition by the way. You posit, not only
- a nigh-infinite number of universes being spawned, but additionally, that
- those spawned universes arise with different properties.

A pounding surf spawns many many small rocks, but it doesn't spawn an infinite variety of shapes. The force creating small rocks doesn't run through permutations of cubes, tetrahedrons and dodecahedrons.

The "Cosmo-Constant Permutations" model is getting more complex. Harder to explain.

Last edited:
Simpler mechanisms create fewer unanswered questions than complex mechanisms.
And in the case of the universe we have zero knoweldge of what formed it - thus there is no "simpler mechanism". Further, a "simpler mechanism" is not necessarily one that gives rise to just a single instance.
Which is more plausible? That life exists on one other planet in the SS or that it exists on two or three?
Given that we have an idea of what is required for life as we would recognise it, this example is not the same category as being discussed.
Which is more plausible? That one impactor formed the Moon? Or two or three?
Given that we have an idea of what it takes to form planetary objects, this example is not the same category as being discussed.
Yes, but they're cumulative.
What is cumulative?
All other things being equal, two spontaneous events are less likely than one spontaneous event.
And there you are asserting it to be a spontaneous event. Where is your evidence of such? Where is your evidence that it was not formed by an underlying process that gives rise to multiple universes?
Does your soda bottle only produce a single bubble upon opening?
Then you are completely misunderstadning my stance.
Then perhaps elucidate so that I can understand.
No, it's critical. Your scenario seems superfically plausible because we're used to people doing goal-directed tasks multiple times in pursuit of a result.
No, it's not critical. It's irrelevant. The analogy begins with the falling deck and ends with the formation of the cards. That's it. Any attempt to read more into it is simply a red herring.
If that wasn't clear before, I trust it is now. So please no more red herrings. Ignore the cause of the deck falling. That was outside the purpose of the analogy, and to be considered outside. Clear?
Ask yourself how implausible it seems that a deck of cards falls off a table spontaneously many, many times.
And there you are again asserting it to be a spontaneous event.
Because we're not bringing a sentience into the scenario to start things in motion.
One doesn't need to bring a sentience into the scenario for it not to be spontaneous. Any non-sentient cause would mean that it is not spontaneous.
I do not claim to "know" anything except the basic mathematics of probability. Two spontaneous events is less likely than one spontaneous event.
And there you are asserting it yet again to be a spontaneous event.
I'm assuming you find it miraculous that your soda bottle produces many bubbles?
We are left with explaining an infinite number of spontaneous events.

We are left with explaining one spontaneous event.
No, in both cases we are left with explaining an effect. The cause might or might not itself lead to the conclusion that it has happened just once or perhaps many times before. To assume one over the other is to input bias into the question.
But again, your miraculous soda bubbles must keep you up at night with wild amazement, right?
Because that is the nature of probability. A fraction of 1.0 will always be smaller than 1.0.
What exactly are you assessing as 1.0 and what are you assessing as being a fraction of 1.0?
Of course it's unknowable. You misunderstand my stance again.
If it's unknowable then by definition you can not assign probability, and you can not assert that the universe is more likely the only one or just one of an infinite. So which are you arguing: it is unknowable, or that it is more likely to be a single occurrence rather than one of an infinite?
If you say all possibilities are equally likely, regardless of the fact that some have more preconditions than others, then you open the door to God being a perfectly plausible explanation.
Why do some have more preconditions? What makes you think that?
As for God, you'd have to define what you mean by God before I can answer.
The reason God is generally not considered a plausible candidate for the creation of the universe is because, as an explanation, it raises more questions than it answers.
Certainly some explanations of God do. But you'd have to define God before I will address that issue here.
Occams' razor: don't create more entities ( or conditions) without warrant.
So what conditions do you think there are for the creation of the universe that you know about? Name one, please? And Occam's razor is a matter of where one should concentrate their efforts, not what is correct or not, not what is valid or not, not what is logical or not. And in the absence of knowledge of what conditions are actually needed, who is to say what conditions are valid or necessary?
The only reason to posit the nigh-infinite spawning of universes - each with their own permutation of Cosmological constants** - is to find an answer to this problem. But again, that's circular.
No, the reason to posit it is to highlight that to do otherwise is to assign bias to an answer that we can know nothing about. The rest is just a by-product.
** another implicit precondition by the way. You posit, not only
- a nigh-infinite number of universes being spawned, but additionally, that
- those spawned universes arise with different properties.
Are you claiming that such is impossible? And you would know this... how? Simply put, if you can not know at all how the universe was formed then you can make no judgement about whether the existence of our universe is miraculous or a certainty.
A pounding surf spawns many many small rocks, but it doesn't spawn an infinite variety of shapes. The force creating small rocks doesn't run through permutations of cubes, tetrahedrons and dodecahedrons.
And when you know how our universe was created, I look forward to the discussion.
Your scenario is getting more complex. Harder to explain.
It may sound more complex, but in the absence of any knowledge about what it takes, who is to say what is more or less complex? Who is to say whether our universe is the result of miraculous coincidence or a certainty. When you know what is required to create a universe, then at least we can apply Occam's razor to theories about how such conditions arise. But we're not even at that stage. I don't think we can ever be. And as such we can not say whether our universe is miraculous or a certainty. To consider it one or the other is to apply an unwarranted bias.

who is to say what is more or less complex?
Absolutely can.

Multiple, distinct events (such as this permutation versus that permutation, nevermind times a bajillion) is by definition more complex than a single event.

That's really the crux of it.

I have often opined, Sarkus, that the Ultimate answers to this 'Life/Universe/Existence/Everything' could most likely never be completely gleaned from within the "boundaries" of this 'Life/Uni...
Notwithstanding, that the true answer is, simply "42" !!!
And, as you kind of alluded to, even if we were able to glean, in it's entirety, "how ours came about", then it would only "shed light" on one of what could be any number of possible "method"'s.
Ah, yes, the question being what is six times nine.
But yes, I agree.

Can scientist create atom of different structures in lab?

Can scientist create atom of different structures in lab?
Why bothering answering you? You'll just tell us why it can't be done. And you won't read any of our responses anyway.

Why don't we just lead with you telling us that science s all nonsense.

Ah, yes, the question being what is six times nine.
But yes, I agree.
Grok'd!

Can scientist create atom of different structures in lab?
Virtually, i.e. computer simulations, models, etc.
In Reality : http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/making-new-elements -
" Last year, scientists in Germany set out to create the heaviest known element in the universe: element 119. For five months, they attempted to fuse the atoms of two lighter elements to form one large atom with 119 protons in its nucleus. Like other artificially created superheavy elements (those with 103 or more protons), element 119 will decay in a fraction of a second. ..."
- the ^above^ quoted from, and more at Link : http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/making-new-elements