On 5/24/2011 5:39 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
*From:* meekerdb <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:30 PM
*To:* [email protected]
<mailto:[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.
I asked it when I was about twelve years old.
>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?
You must be a friend of Wojech Langer. He's the guy who keeps
criticizing Vic for attacking ID'ers and New-Agers. Langer wants Vic to
direct his energy against the real threat - the Young Earth
Creationists. It's a lot easier to tell somebody else what work they
should do than to do it yourself.
Brent
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.
--
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.
