Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure (book section 1/2)

[meekerdb]

On 9/13/2014 1:10 PM, LizR wrote:
Well, me neither, but it includes infinities - atoms would probably collapse - 
etc.

The Hilbert space for an atom, even a hydrogen atom, is infinite dimensional.

But just a guess hence the provisos. Personally I would imagine most mathematical 
universes wouldn't support life though.

Sure, but you'd guess that about physical universes too just from observing how rare life 
seems to be in our universe.  It's hard to say anything useful though because there's no 
canonical measure to apply.  I've had this discussion with proponents of fine-tuning 
arguments too.  They pick on some variable and say it's "fine tuned", but with respect to 
what measure.  The notional variable range is infinite, so whether it's "fine tuned" or 
"coarse tuned" depends on how you slip in some intuitive measure.

Brent


On 13 September 2014 17:49, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net 
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 9/12/2014 10:25 PM, LizR wrote:
    On 13 September 2014 08:17, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
    <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

        On 9/12/2014 2:20 AM, LizR wrote:
        On 12 September 2014 14:19, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
        <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:


            One counter argument is to note that math has been "unreasonably
            effective" in Ptolemaic astronomy, Newtonian physics, fluid 
dynamics,
            non-relativistic quantum mechanics, and other theories which we now 
think
            were mere approximations.  This seems much more consistent with
            mathematics being descriptive rather than prescriptive.


        Or equally consistent, at least. Assuming that maths is broader than 
what is
        required to describe (or generate) our universe, this is equally 
consistent
        with the MUH.
        I don't think it's equal.  If MUH is true then all those other 
mathematical
        theories must be realized in some other universes where they are not 
just
        approximations.  Then it's no longer the case that mathematics is 
unreasonably
        effective in picking out our universe; it could "pick out" any one of them. 
        Either it would just be chance that we're in THIS mathematical universe, or
        there's an anthropic selection that prevents intelligent beings in 
universes
        with different mathematical bases.

    It seems obvious to me that there would be an anthropic selection effect. 
Organisms
    (probably) couldn't exist in a universe made from, for example, Newtonian 
physics -
    you (probably) need quantum physics for fidelity of reproduction, and maybe 
for
    making brains.

    Yes, I agree that there's bound to be some anthropic selection, although 
I'm not
    sure why a Newtonian universe is ruled out by that.  Quantum physics, as 
we've
    formulated it depends on a continuum.  I would expect that most continuum 
based
    theories could support intelligent life simply because they permit lots of
    information.  But it's very speculative.

    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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.