From: meekerdb
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:30 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: MULTIVERSE HYPOTHESIS and natural laws
On 5/24/2011 10:04 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
snip
[meekrdb]
They seem determined to find fine-tuning:
"To see that this is so, let us look at a concrete example: the cosmic
landscape of
string theory may contain about 101000 structurally different universes, but
they share
common features, such as this: all of them possess physical laws of the
quantum type.
None of these universes may be ruled, for instance, by a Newtonian physics
structure. This
is an interesting detail, as the huge importance of quantum effects for the
appearance of
the chemical structures basic for life makes us suspect that, if the
multiverse contained only
worlds based on variations of classical physics, not one of them would be apt
for the
existence of life. Therefore, whatever the enormous size of the superstring
cosmic
landscape, it is still a biophile scenario which suggests design, in contrast
with the
unrealized possibilities of completely sterile multiverses."
So if physicist come up with a theory that explains all the parameter values,
they will say, "The theory is a fine-tuned choice among many theories, almost
all of which do not explain the parameters." If physicist come up with a
theory showing that a wide range of parameters and theories produce life
friendly universes, they will say, "Yes, but among all the infinitely many
possible parameter sets and theories this one is of measure zero." If
physicist come up with a theory that *every* universe is life friendly, they
will say, "What clever design to make all universes life friendly."
Brent
"A theory that will explain anything fails to explain at all.
--
[SPK]
Fine tuning is just another way of asking the question: What am I and what
the hell am I doing here? If you have never asked that question then I wonder
if you are an automaton. From what I read of the paper, the authors concluded
that none of Tegmark’s universes can be used to answer the question. Vic seems
to be happy to deconstruct the question without shedding any light on it at
all. Honestly, he is spending way too much time arguing with religious dingbats
and their “Intelligent Design” noise. Why should the dingbats get to control
that question?
I salute Bruno for, among many things, working hard to recapture cosmogony
from the crazies and it is to his work that I am aiming my questions, not to
knock them down, but to sharpen his arguments.
Onward!
Stephen
--
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.
