On Feb 11, 8:17 pm, Jason <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 11, 1:39 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 10, 3:18 am, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> 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. > > I think there are probabilistic reasons for this. Imagine there were > 3 universes, one with 10 conscious observers in it, one with a 100 > billion observers in it, and one with a Gogol observers in it. If you > were one of those observers, which one do you think you would find > yourself in?
I'm me in any unjverse that contain me, however many other people there are. > > >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. > > Occam's razor has to do with simplicity of theories, not elements of > reality. That's debatable > When it was first discovered that star light had the same > spectral lines as sun light it was a simpler theory to conclude stars > were distant suns, despite the fact that it implied the existence of > untold trillions of other suns and planets. The theory that all > universes exist is about the simplest possible theory of everything, > it explains all observations. Is it falsifiable? > Including those which trouble single > universe theories, such as quantum randomness and fine tuning. > > Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
