On Jul 2, 2013, at 5:25 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/2/2013 3:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
But what is the basis for the assumption that it's possible to
derive a unique set of physical laws mathematics alone?
It's not an assumption, it's a working assumption by those who want
to work on the problem instead of resting on the anthropic principle.
I'm not saying physicists should pack their bags and go home, only
that they should remain open to the possibility that some things,
such as a unique value for the fine structure constant, may not be
explainable from within the theory itself.
So far they've been vindicated.
Physicists can dismiss the anthropic principle when they can show
the values for the dimensionless constants can be derived by some
more fundamental (non-anthropic) principle(s).
What if they show that intelligent life is possible over a factor of
10 range for the constant? How about a factor of 2? 1.1? 1.0001?
Sorry hit send button too early.
If we compare the percentage of possible programs that are supportive
of conscious observers in relation to all programs of the same length,
we can derive something like chaitin's constant.
The smaller that number is, the more surprised we ought to be that our
universe lucked out if there is only one universe.
Given the apparant ease at which tinkering with various constants
leads to catastrophy, we might conclude that the conditions that lead
to spontaneous complexity growth are rare.
What if they show that all the dimensionless constants can be
derived except for one. Will we then apply the anthropic principle
to that one?
I don't see we shouldn't, but this reveals another issue: let's say 0
are explained. Then we must wonder why that one meta principle is
fine tuned in the face of all mathematical possibility.
The anthropic principle starts to look like god-caulking - stuff to
fill gaps.
The more we fill in the gaps of what the physical laws are, the more
relevant Wheeler's question becomes: Why these laws and not others?
When we wonder about other possibilities we find no justification from
physics itself why these laws. To answer that question requires a
metaphysics. Something other physicists seem would prefer to be kept
under the rug.
Jason
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
