On 5/24/2011 5:39 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
*From:* meekerdb <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:30 PM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
*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 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.

--
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.

Reply via email to