Multiverses

[ellenmillion]

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator/

This is so relevant to what I'm writing that it's scary...

Comments

[calcamp.livejournal.com]

Interesting. And multiverses are always fun to think about.

But I really can't grasp why scientists have such a big problem with the idea that life could be as natural a force as gravity, influencing the universe just as strongly as any other natural force. I'm no scientist, but it just seems dismissive to me.

Why does life have to be ascribed either to an intelligent creator or a to cosmic accident, and nothing else? And why is multiverse theory any better? All I can see is that it makes the cosmic accident idea marginally more plausible if our's is not the only universe.

For people so into hard evidence, you'd think scientists would be more willing to acknowledge that the pervasiveness of life, or life-supporting structures, might MEAN something in itself, rather than pursuing any theory available to try and prove that life is insignificant and of no importance to the greater universe(s). It's not as if looking at the idea of life as a cosmic influence would have to lead straight to creationism.