On 8/22/2012 1:09 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/22/2012 2:44 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/22/2012 4:36 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Nothing "in the theory" suggests that landscapes are a problem! But that is kinda
my point, we have to use meta-theories of one sort or another to evaluate theories.
Occam's Razor is a nice example... My point is that explanations should be hard to
vary and get the result that one needs to "match the data" or else it is not an
explanation at all. One can get anything they want with a theory that has landscapes.
"The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to the large number of
possible false vacua in string theory. The "landscape" includes so many possible
configurations that some physicists think that the known laws of physics, the standard
model and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occur in at least
one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those portions of the
landscape that are suitable for supporting human life, an application of the anthropic
principle that selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations.
In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10500. The large
number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and
different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one
assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one
with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete, being a version of the
subset sum problem."
Boom, there it is! The computation problem!
NP-complete problems, or just N-problems, are ones that consume a lot of computational
resources for large problems. But the required resources are finite and the problems
are solvable. So what's the problem?
It is all about how big the finite problems grow to and whether or not their demand
for resources can be kept up with the load. It seems to me that Nature would divide up
the labor into as many niches as possible and have a distributed "on demand" system
rather than a single top down computation system.
But you're trying to explain nature. You seem to be assuming nature as a limited resource
in the explanation, thus assuming the thing you're trying to explain. Bruno at least puts
his explanation in Platonia where the resources are infinite.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at