On Feb 10, 3:18 am, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > Brent and 1Z, > > The paper you referenced says the following: > "No doubt life, as we know it, depends sensitively on the parameters of our > universe. However, other forms of life might exist under different > conditions." > > I agree with that statement. Certainly there are other arrangements of laws > which would permit life to exist. The question is how often is it, among > all possible structures, that intelligent life is possible? It does not > appear easy. Try inventing your own set of physical laws which if followed > from the beginning to the end which would permit life to evolve and exist. > It takes a lot of consideration and thought for people to design virtual > realities which support artificial life (alife), even when it is very simple > compared to the life we know. Consider what is necessary just to support > evolution: > > 1. An chemistry rich enough to construct self-replicating machines > 2. The ability for life to reliably encode, read and copy information > (necessary to record results of natural experiments, as DNA does for us) > 3. Unreachable entities (in our case stars) which provide limited > energy/resources at a fixed rate for life forms to compete over during the > course of trillions of generations > 4. This energy source must not easily attainable or duplicated by life (if > fusion were biologically possible life would consume all the potential > energy long before it could evolve intelligence) > 5. No easy shortcut to get an unlimited or infinite amount of energy > (Something like the laws of thermodynamics, otherwise life has no incentive > to increase in complexity once it discovers such a trick) > 6. Re-usability or resupply of materials used by life (If biological > material or waste can't be broken down to be reused by other life forms then > such material or resources would run out) > 7. Long term stability of environment and constancy of physical laws, > otherwise life would be quickly wiped out or the validity of the information > recorded from natural experiments becomes invalidated > > I think the above rules are necessary not just for life as we know it in > this universe, but life anywhere. Our own universe seems just complex > enough, but no more complex than is necessary, to provide each of these > requirements.
It's much *bigger* than necessary. >What do you think the chances are that any random object in > Plato's heaven, or any random Turing machine will support intelligent life? > 1 in 10, 1 in 1000, 1 in a billion? > > I think the universe's apparent Fine-Tuning is controversial only to a few > general types of audiences: > 1. Physicists who believe in a grand theory of everything which will explain > logically why this universe has to have the physical laws it does, and why > no other physical laws are possible. > 2. Those who consider the idea that there are multiple universes to be > ridiculous or unscientific. > 3. Those who consider it only as a justification for intelligent design > theories. > > Fine-tuning is a direct consequence of the anthropic principle once one > assumes multiple universes. Say you were completely agnostic on the > question of there being other universes, but you decided the probability of > any random universe having those seven necessary properties necessary for > life was 1 in 1000. You must then decide between there being only one > universe (the one you see) and wonder why we were fortunate enough to hit > the 1 in 1000 chance to be alive, or you conclude multiple universes exist, > and there is no mystery or luck involved. One's confidence that there is > only 1 universe should be roughly proportional to the likelihood that life > exists in any randomly selected possible universe. > > That the Anthropic Principle + Mathematical Realism explains the appearance > of Fine Tuning is just one of its many attractions. Among the other appeals > of mathematical realism are that it answers some longstanding questions: > > Eugene Wigner's "The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of > mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift > which we neither understand nor deserve." > Einstein's "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at > all comprehensible." > John Wheeler's "Why these particular equations, not others?" > > If mathematical reality is taken as true the appearance of a physical > reality is a direct consequence. If one starts with a physical reality, > however, one > > I am curious to know at what point do you consider the items in this > progression to no longer be real and what point you begin to apply the label > of immaterial or abstract: > > 1. The matter and space beyond our cosmological horizon which we can neither > see nor interact with > 2. Other theorized cosmic inflation events (new big bangs) happening > elsewhere or very far away > 3. Events or people which exist in the distant past > 4. Other branches of the multiverse as postulated by Everett > 5. Other solutions to string theory which define other possible physics > 6. Altogether different physical laws and universes, defined by the > equations completely unlike those of string theory > 7. Universes which exist with simple rules, finite state automata like John > Conway's game of life > 8. Turing machines executing programs > 9. Mathematical structures defined by equations, such as the Mandelbrot set > 10. Simpler mathematical structures, spheres, circles, triangles > 11. Integers > > If Mathematical objects have an objective reality then what is abstract vs. > what is physical becomes a matter of perspective. You call this world > physical because it is the abstract mathematical object you find yourself > in, someone in another mathematical object / universe might consider this > one we inhabit to be abstract. I see no value in placing labels of > existence of "physically real" to anything which is possible, but a lot of > value from deciding possible things exist too. It answers many questions > and eliminates the apparent arbitrariness which is required for this to be > the only possible reality. Have scientists discovered any principle or > evidence which suggests this is the only possible universe? Yeah Occam's razor. Maybe falsifiability. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
