} >Actually, I think that this is a pretty good argument against the
} >hypothesis that we're living in a false vacuum and that it's
} >easy to induce a phase transition. If it were that easy, then
} >someone else would probably have done it by now.
} We see two things: an old universe and an empty universe. This theory
} explains one (emptiness) at the expense of the other (age). Your
} choice between this theory and a theory that advanced life is just
} very very unlikely depends on your prior expectations. If you can't
} swallow life being that unlikely, you might rather swallow us remaining
} in such a remarkably old universe.
I don't get it. I assume "this theory" refers to "Changed space-time
kills people off"; the point of the poster I forwarded was that life
still has to be unlikely, or we'd be dead already because the universe
is old. So it doesn't help anything.
-xx- Damien R. Sullivan X-) <*> http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix
"Some would sooner die than think. In fact, they often do." -- B. Russell