The Destropic Principle

Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
The Destropic Principle

The Destropic PrincipleBy João Carlos Holland de BarcellosTranslated by Débora Policastro Abstract: The “Destropic Principle” is an argument that establishes that every universe is equiprobable, and the possibility of life is not a more special feature than any other. This opposes to the “anthropic principle” when it is used to argue that there is a necessity for a divinity, or multiple universes, in order to explain the configuration of our universe, particularly, the capability of harboring life.  In order to explain life in our universe, I will refute the “anthropic principle” when it is used as an argument of the necessity of a deity or multiple universes. I had already outlined this argument in my previous article on the theme, The Anthropic Principle and The Jocaxian-Nothingness” [1], but now I intend to go a little deeper in the analysis.  It is not a very intuitive argument, and that is why we should use an analogy to understand the idea behind. But first, I will summarize the anthropic principle and how it is used by creationists and religious people in general to justify God:  Introduction  The physical laws, usually written in the form of mathematical equations, are considered to be responsible for the characteristics of the universe and its evolution in time. These laws, as we know today, are composed by equations in which we can see some numerical constants (parameters). As examples we can cite, among others: the speed of light, the mass of the electron, the electric charge of the proton, etc. [2] It is argued, without demonstration, that a little alteration (it is not clear what would the magnitude of this alteration be) in any of these constants would make the possibility of life in the universe not feasible. Those who claim that also conclude that a universe created with physical laws generated at random would hardly be able to trigger life.  Handicap  In all fairness, we need to note that a universe with random laws does not need to follow the pattern of physical laws we have in our universe, that is, the mathematical equations that would define a randomly generated universe could be totally different from the ones we have in our current universe (in principle it would not even be necessary to describe such universes through mathematical equations). That way, the parameters we have today would not apply to any of the equations in this random universe. Thus, it is totally FALSE to claim that all possible universes can be described maintaining the same equations of our particular universe and varying only the constants present in them.  However, in order to refute the “anthropic principle” on its own support base, we should consider true the fact that all possible universes keep the same structure of equations as ours. We also assume that these equations are true, but knowing in advance that this is not true, since there is a theoretical incompatibility between the theory of relativity and the quantum mechanics. Besides that, we also suppose that any alteration in one of the fundamental constants would make the possibility of life impracticable, although no one has shown it yet.  An analogy  In order to understand the idea of the “Destropic Principle”, we will make an analogy with the real numbers of the equations which rule the several possible universes.  Suppose that each of the possible universes can be represented by a real number between zero and ten. We can justify that by thinking that we can concatenate all the fundamental constants in a single numeric parameter. In our analogy, the parameter “4,22341”, for example, would represent an U1 universe, which would be different from an U2 universe, represented by the parameter “6,123333...”, and so on.  Thus, each of these numeric parameters would completely define the characteristics of the universe represented by them.  Suppose there is a machine that randomly generates real numbers between zero and ten. Each generated number would be the parameter that would define a universe. We can see that the possibility of predicting what number the machine will generate is very small, almost zero. However, the machine will certainly generate a number.  Suppose our universe is represented by U1 (“4,22341&rdquoEye-wink. Then we can ask: what is the probability of the number of our universe being chosen, once there are infinite possible numbers? There are infinite real numbers between zero and ten, therefore it is almost impossible to foresee that the number “4,22341”, which is the parameter that defines the characteristics of our universe, will be chosen.  Thereby, when the machine generates a number representing a parameter of the universe, the answer to the question “How probable would the generation of a universe like ours be?” will be “As likely as the generation of any other specific universe”. Equiprobable In our model of random generation of universes all universes are equiprobable, since any real number between zero and ten would have the same probability of being generated. No universe is more likely to be generated than the other. So, whatever the number generated by the machine was, it would be as unlikely to be predicted as any other number. We then conclude that our universe is so likely to be generated as any other.  Life  However, someone could retort:“-Our universe is the only one where the possibility of life exists”.The possibility of life is a peculiarity of our universe. Any other generated universe would also have its specific peculiarities. For example: maybe one of them could be made of tiny colored crystal balls, the other could form elastic goos, others, perfect spheres, and so on. If, for example, the generated universe produced little blue crystal balls, then we could make the same exclamation: “-Only this universe produces little glowing balls!”Or:“Only in this universe there is possibility of producing elastic goos!” And so on. For us, humans, life can be more important than little glowing balls, or elastic goos, but this is only a human valuation. There is no logic reason to suppose that a universe with life is more important than a universe that produces little glowing crystal balls, or elastic goos. Therefore, we cannot claim that our universe is special and unique, because it is as special and unique as any other universe that was generated at random. All universes would have their specific features, generated by their also unique physical constants.  Another Formality  In order to clarify this idea, we can redo our argument using another formality:Suppose the universes are described by six fundamental constants (the exact number does not matter, the following reasoning is for any number of constants).Thus, any U universe could be defined by a system of equations that uses six basic constants. We represent this dependence as follows:U= U (A, B, C, D, E, F).Our U1 universe in particular is described in that formality as:U1= U (A1, B1, C1, D1, E1, F1) Now, consider a U2 Universe with constants different from U1:U2 = U (A2, B2, C2, D2, E2, F2)  As U1, by definition, contains the parameters of our universe, it will generate a universe that may harbor “life”, but cannot generate “lofe”. Similarly, U2 can generate “lofe”, but cannot generate “life”. “Lofe” is a random feature of U2, as the characteristic of being able to form a group of particles where the density is exactly 0,12221 (a random number), for example. Only U2 can generate “lofe”, and any change in the parameters would make the generation of “lofe” not feasible.  Of course, the same way, another universe, U3, with other constantsU3 = U (A3, B3, C3, D3, E3, F3)would not make “life” feasible, nor “lofe”, but would make “lufe” viable.“lufe” is a physical condition that occurs when the particles are subject to the regime of forces generated by the constants of U3 (A3…F3). Any change in one of these constants would make “lufe” not viable.  Note that there is no INTRINSIC importance about the universe generating “life”, “lofe”, or “lufe”. It does not make any difference to the generating machine or to the universe itself.   Especially because the universe and the random machine do not have consciousness or desires. What differs to the machine is the value of the fundamental constants, not what they will generate or not. For the generating machine and even for the generated universe, it is irrelevant if it will be able to harbor life, “lofe”, “lufe”, or present any other peculiarity. Each universe has its own feature. If U1 allows “life”, it does not allow “lofe”, nor “lufe”; if U2 allows “lofe”, it does not allow “life” nor “lufe”; if U3 allows “lufe”, it does not allow “life”, nor “lofe”. It goes that way for any generated universe.  Thus, we can see that our universe does not have anything special, once nothing is intrinsically special. “Life” is as important as “Lofe” or “Lufe”. The universe is not worried if “lofe” generates consciousness or not, nor if “lufe” generates a cluster of an incredible yellow glow which would never exist in U1 or if “lofe” generates micro colored pyramids with their own indescribably beautiful glow. That matters to humans, little egocentric beings of U1 that care about “life”, maybe because they are alive.  Thereby, the probability of generating a universe that has “lufe” is equivalent to another one that has “life” or “lofe”. There is nothing miraculous or magical about our universe that makes it REALLY special. Therefore, there is no sense in saying that the probability of our universe being that way is the work of some deity. Whatever the generated universe was, its probability of having that feature is exactly the same as the probability of our universe being exactly as it is.   It is like choosing at random a real number between zero and ten. They are all equally probable and difficult to be chosen. None is more or less special than the others.  

Portuguese version:  http://www.genismo.com/logicatexto26.htm 


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Firstly, there seems to be

Firstly, there seems to be something odd going on here.  The OP is a huge block of text but when it appears as a quote in the comment box it's very well formatted... any Mods got any suggestions to fix that?

 

Jocax wrote:

The physical laws, usually written in the form of mathematical equations, are considered to be responsible for the characteristics of the universe and its evolution in time.  
  Secondly, I'd take issue with this statement right here.  The physical laws are descriptions of characteristics of the universe, not causes or responsible agents.

 

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
  Quote: ... qualquer mods

 

 
Quote:
... any suggestions to fix that??
 Sorry, I Try but I coud not do it.The error persist.    .  
Quote:
 The physical laws are descriptions of characteristics of the universe, not causes or responsible agents.
 .But the Physicist suppose that the laws that the universe follow can be written by mathematic equations.Its the suppositions of the Anthropic principle too. .

 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
MichaelMcF wrote: Firstly,

MichaelMcF wrote:

Firstly, there seems to be something odd going on here.  The OP is a huge block of text but when it appears as a quote in the comment box it's very well formatted... any Mods got any suggestions to fix that? 

The problem is that the original post was cut'n'pasted from a website that used <div> instead of <p> for paragraph blocks. The way to fix it would be to simply change the <div></div> tags to <p></p> tags.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote:Quote:  The

Jocax wrote:


Quote:
 The physical laws are descriptions of characteristics of the universe, not causes or responsible agents.
 .But the Physicist suppose that the laws that the universe follow can be written by mathematic equations.Its the suppositions of the Anthropic principle too. .

That's a fallacy of equivalency. The physicist assumes the equations describe aspects of the universe. The strong anthropic principle assumes the equations cause or control the aspects of the universe. Physicists assume the equations are descriptive; the strong anthropic principle assumes the equations are prescriptive. There's a huge difference between the two.

 

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
   Quote: The physicist

 

  
Quote:
The physicist assumes the equations describe aspects of the universe. The strong anthropic principle assumes the equations cause or control the aspects of the universe. Physicists assume the equations are descriptive; the strong anthropic principle assumes the equations are prescriptive. There's a huge difference between the two.
 Indeed there is no diference. There is a biunivc correspondence between equations and the reality IF THE EQUATIONS OF THE PHYSICAL LAWS REPRESENT THE REALITY OF THE UNIVERSE then it is the same: The change in the some parameters would correspond another universeand the another universe would represent another set of equation or anothers parameters too. Must be one-to-one correspondence with the mathematical laws and the reality IF the laws in fact represents the reality. 

 


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Can you please reword the

Can you please reword the above, Jocax, so that it makes any sense at all?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote:  Quote:

Jocax wrote:

 

 
Quote:
... any suggestions to fix that??
 Sorry, I Try but I coud not do it.The error persist. 

 

Yah, don't just cut and paste from a web site.  Run it through a word processor as an intermediate step and that ought to fix it.  Actually, a text editor such as notepad++ would remove more possible errors than a word processor will.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
The Destropic Principle

 

The Destropic Principle

By João Carlos Holland de Barcellos

Translated by Débora Policastro

 

Abstract: The “Destropic Principle” is an argument that establishes that every universe is equiprobable, and the possibility of life is not a more special feature than any other. This opposes to the “anthropic principle” when it is used to argue that there is a necessity for a divinity, or multiple universes, in order to explain the configuration of our universe, particularly, the capability of harboring life.

 

In order to explain life in our universe, I will refute the “anthropic principle” when it is used as an argument of the necessity of a deity or multiple universes. I had already outlined this argument in my previous article on the theme, The Anthropic Principle and The Jocaxian-Nothingness” [1], but now I intend to go a little deeper in the analysis.

 

It is not a very intuitive argument, and that is why we should use an analogy to understand the idea behind. But first, I will summarize the anthropic principle and how it is used by creationists and religious people in general to justify God:

 

Introduction

 

The physical laws, usually written in the form of mathematical equations, are considered to be responsible for the characteristics of the universe and its evolution in time. These laws, as we know today, are composed by equations in which we can see some numerical constants (parameters). As examples we can cite, among others: the speed of light, the mass of the electron, the electric charge of the proton, etc. [2]

It is argued, without demonstration, that a little alteration (it is not clear what would the magnitude of this alteration be) in any of these constants would make the possibility of life in the universe not feasible. Those who claim that also conclude that a universe created with physical laws generated at random would hardly be able to trigger life.

 

Handicap

 

In all fairness, we need to note that a universe with random laws does not need to follow the pattern of physical laws we have in our universe, that is, the mathematical equations that would define a randomly generated universe could be totally different from the ones we have in our current universe (in principle it would not even be necessary to describe such universes through mathematical equations). That way, the parameters we have today would not apply to any of the equations in this random universe. Thus, it is totally FALSE to claim that all possible universes can be described maintaining the same equations of our particular universe and varying only the constants present in them.

 

However, in order to refute the “anthropic principle” on its own support base, we should consider true the fact that all possible universes keep the same structure of equations as ours. We also assume that these equations are true, but knowing in advance that this is not true, since there is a theoretical incompatibility between the theory of relativity and the quantum mechanics. Besides that, we also suppose that any alteration in one of the fundamental constants would make the possibility of life impracticable, although no one has shown it yet.

 

An analogy

 

In order to understand the idea of the “Destropic Principle”, we will make an analogy with the real numbers of the equations which rule the several possible universes.  Suppose that each of the possible universes can be represented by a real number between zero and ten. We can justify that by thinking that we can concatenate all the fundamental constants in a single numeric parameter.

 

In our analogy, the parameter “4,22341”, for example, would represent an U1 universe, which would be different from an U2 universe, represented by the parameter “6,123333...”, and so on.  Thus, each of these numeric parameters would completely define the characteristics of the universe represented by them.

 

Suppose there is a machine that randomly generates real numbers between zero and ten. Each generated number would be the parameter that would define a universe. We can see that the possibility of predicting what number the machine will generate is very small, almost zero. However, the machine will certainly generate a number.

 

Suppose our universe is represented by U1 (“4,22341&rdquoEye-wink. Then we can ask: what is the probability of the number of our universe being chosen, once there are infinite possible numbers? There are infinite real numbers between zero and ten, therefore it is almost impossible to foresee that the number “4,22341”, which is the parameter that defines the characteristics of our universe, will be chosen.

 

Thereby, when the machine generates a number representing a parameter of the universe, the answer to the question “How probable would the generation of a universe like ours be?” will be “As likely as the generation of any other specific universe”.

 

Equiprobable

 

In our model of random generation of universes all universes are equiprobable, since any real number between zero and ten would have the same probability of being generated. No universe is more likely to be generated than the other. So, whatever the number generated by the machine was, it would be as unlikely to be predicted as any other number. We then conclude that our universe is so likely to be generated as any other.

 

Life

 

However, someone could retort:

“-Our universe is the only one where the possibility of life exists”.

The possibility of life is a peculiarity of our universe. Any other generated universe would also have its specific peculiarities. For example: maybe one of them could be made of tiny colored crystal balls, the other could form elastic goos, others, perfect spheres, and so on. If, for example, the generated universe produced little blue crystal balls, then we could make the same exclamation:

 

“-Only this universe produces little glowing balls!”

Or:

“Only in this universe there is possibility of producing elastic goos!”

 

And so on. For us, humans, life can be more important than little glowing balls, or elastic goos, but this is only a human valuation. There is no logic reason to suppose that a universe with life is more important than a universe that produces little glowing crystal balls, or elastic goos.

 

Therefore, we cannot claim that our universe is special and unique, because it is as special and unique as any other universe that was generated at random. All universes would have their specific features, generated by their also unique physical constants.

 

Another Formality

 

In order to clarify this idea, we can redo our argument using another formality:

Suppose the universes are described by six fundamental constants (the exact number does not matter, the following reasoning is for any number of constants).

Thus, any U universe could be defined by a system of equations that uses six basic constants. We represent this dependence as follows:

U= U (A, B, C, D, E, F).

Our U1 universe in particular is described in that formality as:

U1= U (A1, B1, C1, D1, E1, F1)

 

Now, consider a U2 Universe with constants different from U1:

U2 = U (A2, B2, C2, D2, E2, F2)

 

As U1, by definition, contains the parameters of our universe, it will generate a universe that may harbor “life”, but cannot generate “lofe”. Similarly, U2 can generate “lofe”, but cannot generate “life”. “Lofe” is a random feature of U2, as the characteristic of being able to form a group of particles where the density is exactly 0,12221 (a random number), for example. Only U2 can generate “lofe”, and any change in the parameters would make the generation of “lofe” not feasible.

 

Of course, the same way, another universe, U3, with other constants

U3 = U (A3, B3, C3, D3, E3, F3)

would not make “life” feasible, nor “lofe”, but would make “lufe” viable.

“lufe” is a physical condition that occurs when the particles are subject to the regime of forces generated by the constants of U3 (A3…F3). Any change in one of these constants would make “lufe” not viable.

 

Note that there is no INTRINSIC importance about the universe generating “life”, “lofe”, or “lufe”. It does not make any difference to the generating machine or to the universe itself. 

 

Especially because the universe and the random machine do not have consciousness or desires. What differs to the machine is the value of the fundamental constants, not what they will generate or not. For the generating machine and even for the generated universe, it is irrelevant if it will be able to harbor life, “lofe”, “lufe”, or present any other peculiarity. Each universe has its own feature. If U1 allows “life”, it does not allow “lofe”, nor “lufe”; if U2 allows “lofe”, it does not allow “life” nor “lufe”; if U3 allows “lufe”, it does not allow “life”, nor “lofe”. It goes that way for any generated universe.

 

Thus, we can see that our universe does not have anything special, once nothing is intrinsically special. “Life” is as important as “Lofe” or “Lufe”. The universe is not worried if “lofe” generates consciousness or not, nor if “lufe” generates a cluster of an incredible yellow glow which would never exist in U1 or if “lofe” generates micro colored pyramids with their own indescribably beautiful glow. That matters to humans, little egocentric beings of U1 that care about “life”, maybe because they are alive.

 

Thereby, the probability of generating a universe that has “lufe” is equivalent to another one that has “life” or “lofe”. There is nothing miraculous or magical about our universe that makes it REALLY special. Therefore, there is no sense in saying that the probability of our universe being that way is the work of some deity. Whatever the generated universe was, its probability of having that feature is exactly the same as the probability of our universe being exactly as it is.

 

It is like choosing at random a real number between zero and ten. They are all equally probable and difficult to be chosen. None is more or less special than the others.

 

Portuguese version:  http://www.genismo.com/logicatexto26.htm

 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
   Quote: Can you please

 

  
Quote:
Can you please reword the above, Jocax, so that it makes any sense at all?
 Sorry, but my English is not good, actually is very bad. I am saying that IF the equation actualy , in fact, represents the behavior of the universethen  a change in it will corresppond a change in the equation and vce-versa. 

 


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote:But the

Jocax wrote:

But the Physicist suppose that the laws that the universe follow can be written by mathematic equations.

Its the suppositions of the Anthropic principle too.
  Er... no.  The physicist doesn't suppose anything here.  The physicist knows that the Physical Laws are mathematical descriptions of observed effects.  What the physicist also knows is that these Laws are descriptions of the universe as we understand it.  There is nothing to say that the universe has to operate by the mathematical laws we have described, but observation does tend to suggest that our mathematical models are close.  The physicist also understands that these Laws weren't handed down from anywhere; they're not a framework given unto the universe that must be obeyed.

 

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3688
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
In one case, natural laws

In one case, natural laws precede the universe. In the other, the laws are merely derived from the universe. The laws exist cannot independently of the universe because they are abstractions of how the universe behaves, right?  

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
OK Jocax, I see where you

OK Jocax, I see where you are going now. Honestly, I can't really tell how much is being lost in translation against how much is your errors but you do seem to be clearer than you were in the last thread.

 

Anyway, I see so many errors and assumptions that it is not worth trying to correct them all. Even so, let me suggest that you start with an analogy to try and make your point before attempting an actual physics post. Let me show you what I have in mind:

 

Let's start with the Earth. Isn't it obvious that it is just right for us? So right in fact that if it were any different, we would not be here to have such a discussion...

 

Well, if by “the Earth” you mean the bits of dry land that are within (approximately) 40 degrees to either side of the equator and exclude frozen mountain tops, the insides of active volcanoes and so on, then yes, it is remarkably like the conditions under which we evolved.

 

Also, I would point out that if polar bears could have a similar discussion, they would not worry about dry land so much but they would exclude anywhere that is south of the Hudson Bay.

 

OK, what about the rest of the solar system? We have eight major planets, a dozen or so minor planets and a few dozen moons. The lot of them have one thing in common, in that they are just so different from our perfect environment that obviously nobody is there to have such a discussion (at least nobody with a biochemistry similar to our own).

 

However, there is one small problem here. The galaxy has certainly more than 100,000,000,000 stars. From what we have observed, many of them have planets and those that do seem to have something like 5 to 10 planets. Let's take Gliese 581 D as an example. It orbits a red dwarf star and it does so at a distance such that liquid water may exist on it's surface. From this we see that conditions rather different from our own may well be conducive to a biochemistry similar enough to our own that there could (in principal anyway) be beings there having similar discussions.

 

So yah, if we take the analogy of different planets as “island universes”, then we see that the anthropic principal is of astoundingly limited use for proving anything.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
  Quote:  The physicist

 

 
Quote:
 The physicist doesn't suppose anything here.  The physicist knows that the Physical Laws are mathematical descriptions of observed effects.  
 If they "know" then it is strongger than "suppose to" therefore follow my argument too:  The laws of universe can be written by mathematical equation and it is ENOUGH.   
Quote:
 What the physicist also knows is that these Laws are descriptions of the universe as we understand it.  There is nothing to say that the universe has to operate by the mathematical laws we have described, but observation does tend to suggest that our mathematical models are close.  
 But the BASE of the Anthropic Principle (A.P.) began with this assumption. If the universe can not to be written with mathematics the A.P. is destroyied too.    
Quote:
In one case, natural laws precede the universe. In the other, the laws are merely derived from the universe. The laws exist cannot independently of the universe because they are abstractions of how the universe behaves, right?  
 Wrong.The laws exist. If not we do not have stability of anything.We try to abstract some process in order to try to discover this laws (  or law). . 

 


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
http://hypography.com/forums/

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-and-cosmology/21609-the-jocaxian-nothingness.html

 

So you've invented a template. Big deal. Where's the action?

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
   Quote:Let's start with

 

  
Quote:
Let's start with the Earth. Isn't it obvious that it is just right for us? So right in fact that if it were any different, we would not be here to have such a discussion...   
  The Universe already had existed BEFORE have some one talking about it, It is not? 
Quote:
So dude, you used a computer which runs on electricity that may well have come from a nuclear reactor to send your message down wires which were put in place by the phone/cable company so that they could make millions of dollars only to use the internet to tell us that you don't believe in science?
  Could you point out WHERE I say something agaisnt the logic or the science?  If you dont know the anthropic principle go against the science not me, becouse it tell the life is something miraculous. Is not it? 

 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
  Quote:

 

 
Quote:
http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-and-cosmology/21609-the-jocaxian-nothingness.html   So you've invented a template. Big deal. Where's the action?
 I do not understand."whrre is the action"?  What are you meaning with this?  

 


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
I think too many people are

I think too many people are subscribing to the notion 'law requires a lawmaker', especially among those striken by the anthrop(omorph)ic principle Eye-wink


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
We don't have remotely

We don't have remotely enough information about the possible range of values those fundamental constants referred to in the 'Anthropic' argument have, or what possible combinations of values would allow something we might recognise as 'life' to emerge. It is extremely unlikely that the laws of physics we have currently deduced precisely describe even our Universe, let alone all possible universes with similar laws but different constants - even small departures or omissions could lead to vastly different consequences.

Some have attempted to estimate the total size of plausible 'islands of life possibility' within the multi-dimensional mathematical space defined by the fundamental 'constants', and it suggests that the possibilities are much greater than if we restrict ourselves to just varying one figure at a time. It would be like exploring only the edges of a cube in the case of three constants, rather than the whole volume, which is literally infinitely larger.

So the Anthropic Principle is not a good base to make such arguments on. It would be an argument from ignorance.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3688
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Wasn't there already a

Wasn't there already a thread on this topic?

Jocax wrote:
Wrong. The laws exist.

Let's see....what can I ask to clear this up? 

If these laws can exist without the universe, in what manner would they 'exist?' What would be meant by them existing? Do they have any physicality to them?

Jocax wrote:
If not we do not have stability of anything.

So, without transcendental laws, there is no stability? Is chaos some sort of a default state of things?

Jocax wrote:
We try to abstract some process in order to try to discover this laws (  or law).

But, why can't the laws simply be properties of the universe? Like, characteristics? You're claiming an additional step that seems unnecessary to me. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote:What are you

Jocax wrote:

What are you meaning with this? 

 

I mean that you have made a model of a static universe. I don't think you are wrong, only that you should consider applying some dynamic agents to the model and see where it goes. My bet would be that "life" (not "lofe" or "lufe" or whatever) would manifest no matter what initial conditions you configure into the matrice. It may LOOK very different from anything we are familiar with, but I think it would pretty much amount to the same.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If 'stuff' of any sort has

If 'stuff' of any sort has orderly or chaotic behaviour, that will be an attribute a property of the stuff, like its mass, density, transparency, etc, whatever may be applicable.

Any regularity of behaviour of anything is a property of the thing itself. Such regularities as we can identify can be described by mathematical expressions which can be referred to as a 'law'.

Stuff, whether 'ordinary' matter or energy, or the stuff of nominally empty space, and any regularity of behaviour or composition it displays, is what is observed as fundamental.

Any mathematical description of its behaviour is part of our way of describing it, just like simpler attributes like density and size, which can be assigned a single figure rather than a formula. 

Regularity and order in behaviour of some entity typically is determined by details of its physical structure, NOT by some Platonic mathematical formula.

Any formula we have devised to describe the behaviour of an actual entity is only an approximation, it does NOT precisely define the beviour in any ultimate sense.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote:   Quote:Let's

Jocax wrote:

 

Quote:
Let's start with the Earth. Isn't it obvious that it is just right for us? So right in fact that if it were any different, we would not be here to have such a discussion...

 

The Universe already had existed BEFORE have some one talking about it, It is not?

 

Well yes, the universe did exist before we did. I am not sure how that relates though. The anthropic principal holds that the "here and now" are what matters. As far as the anthropic principal goes, I will state that it conflicts with the Copernican principal. We do not live in a special place.

 

There is a sense in which we do though. 10^9 years ago, the universe was not complicated enough for life as we know it to have existed. 10^9 years from now, the universe will be so different that life as we know it probably will not exist. So we do exist in a special part of space-time.

 

However, you missed my basic point.

 

There are many ways that we might not exist. There are many ways that life (as we know it) might exist. In fact, we don't even know that life as we don't know it might exist. In some other universe with different physical constants, there might be other “people” who hold that “the universe” is “just right” for them.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
  Quote: If these laws can

 

 
Quote:
If these laws can exist without the universe, in what manner would they 'exist?' What would be meant by them existing? Do they have any physicality to them?
 You do not understand. You had said: "The laws exist cannot independently of the universe because they are abstractions of how the universe behaves, right?  " I am not saying that laws exist without the universe ! I am saiyng its exist independently of our abstracion.    
Quote:
So, without transcendental laws, there is no stability? Is chaos some sort of a default state of things?
.You are not understanding.Do you think , for example, the ligth speed would be constant in the vacuum withou laws?   
Quote:
 why can't the laws simply be properties of the universe? Like, characteristics?  
 YES!I Agrre with this.But is the same at the end: characteristics of the universe = laws ! Smiling 

 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
 Quote: I mean that you

 

Quote:
I mean that you have made a model of a static universe. 

I don't think you are wrong, only that you should consider applying some dynamic agents to the model and see where it goes. My bet would be that "life" (not "lofe" or "lufe" or whatever) would manifest no matter what initial conditions you configure into the matrice. It may LOOK very different from anything we are familiar with, but I think it would pretty much amount to the same.
  Perhaps I mean the static conditions are some laws. because we are thinking laws are static condictions where things are governed by. But I thing your bet is pretty dificult, but it is very difficult to simulattethe development of  a whole universe until reach to life.perhaps OUR UNIVERSE BE A SIMULATION Smiling  .  
Quote:
Regularity and order in behaviour of some entity typically is determined by details of its physical structure, NOT by some Platonic mathematical formula.
 When I mention LAWS I dont say equations tha make some aproximation, I am meaning ans suposing tha the universe behave exactly as the equations-laws describe.Our lawa can not be, in reality, the laws of the universe. 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
So you are merely observing

So you are merely observing that there is some regularity in the fundamentals of reality.  OK.

That has been already observed, long ago.

Now what is your point?

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
 Quote: There are many ways

 

Quote:
There are many ways that we might not exist. There are many ways that life (as we know it) might exist. In fact, we don't even know that life as we don't know it might exist. In some other universe with different physical constants, there might be other “people” who hold that “the universe” is “just right” for them.

 It is possible, becauthe this I gave a Handicap to those that claim the oposite:  "... HandicapIn all fairness, we need to note that a universe with random laws does not need to follow the pattern of physical laws we have in our universe, that is, the mathematical equations that would define a randomly generated universe could be totally different from the ones we have in our current universe (in principle it would not even be necessary to describe such universes through mathematical equations). That way, the parameters we have today would not apply to any of the equations in this random universe. Thus, it is totally FALSE to claim that all possible universes can be described maintaining the same equations of our particular universe and varying only the constants present in them.However, in order to refute the “anthropic principle” on its own support base, we should consider true the fact that all possible universes keep the same structure of equations as ours. We also assume that these equations are true, but knowing in advance that this is not true, since there is a theoretical incompatibility between the theory of relativity and the quantum mechanics. Besides that, we also suppose that any alteration in one of the fundamental constants would make the possibility of life impracticable, although no one has shown it yet.  ..." 

 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
 Quote: So you are merely

 

Quote:
So you are merely observing that there is some regularity in the fundamentals of reality.  OK.

 That has been already observed, long ago. Now what is your point?
  This regularity are named LAWS and can be described by mathematic equation. Starting at this point , comes the Antrhopic principle and the destropic principle. 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote: Quote: So you

Jocax wrote:

 

Quote:
So you are merely observing that there is some regularity in the fundamentals of reality.  OK.

 That has been already observed, long ago. Now what is your point?
  This regularity are named LAWS and can be described by mathematic equation. Starting at this point , comes the Antrhopic principle and the destropic principle. 

But regularity as such does not lead to or refute either 'principle", "athropic' or "destropic". The fact that we use math equations to describe the regularity is utterly irrelevant, that is just another way to affirm that the regularity exists.

It does not address the question of why there is such regularity. You need to follow the logic the other way.

This tends to follow from the idea that there is a finite lower limit to the size of entities, which seems to around the Planck scale, or not much less than the size of quarks and electrons. And also that energy can only have multiples of some discrete finite value, or 'quantum'.

This means that at the fundamental level, there can only be a relatively small number of different ultimate particles. This means that when we have large quantities of matter, it will contain only a limited number of types of constituents, such as atoms.

Large assemblages of identical units tend to spontaneously form regular patterns, like the hexagonal pattern formed by a collection of identical spheres packed together in a single layer.

This 'quantization' is in fact the fundamental principle that allows order to form and, more importantly, to persist. It stops atoms and other structures from falling apart by progressive tiny changes of energy levels - such levels can only change in discrete steps, which means that as long as disturbing forces are less than that threshold, the atom remains in exactly the same state indefinitely.

So the finite lower limit on the size of the steps by which anything can change is what determines that we have order and regularity, persisting thru time.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3688
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote:I am not saying

Jocax wrote:
I am not saying that laws exist without the universe ! I am saiyng its exist independently of our abstracion.

Okay then, I agree. Of course they exist independent of our abstractions.

Jocax wrote:
You are not understanding. Do you think , for example, the ligth speed would be constant in the vacuum withou laws?

Again, you confuse me. The way I understand "laws" is that they do not determine the physical world. The physical world determines the laws; or, rather, the characteristics of the physical world ARE the laws, i.e. the fact that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum IS the law.

Your question implies that there is some law of "the constancy of the speed of light," and that if this law did not exist, then the speed of light would not be constant, correct? This doesn't make any sense to me. Light being constant in a vacuum results from the physical properties of the individual protons. I don't understand how you're defining "laws," but if protons still hold all the same physical properties, light would inevitably travel at the same velocity. So, in order for any 'law' to have any effect on the velocity of light, it must be synonymous with some of light's physical properties. If that's the case, then sure, I'll agree with that; it would make this entire part of the discussion rather pointless. If it's not synonymous with some physical properties, then, well, that the heck is it, and how could it affect the speed of light?     

Jocax wrote:
YES!I Agrre with this.But is the same at the end: characteristics of the universe = laws ! Smiling

Right.  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3688
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:So you are

BobSpence1 wrote:

So you are merely observing that there is some regularity in the fundamentals of reality.  OK.

That has been already observed, long ago.

Oh, BobSpence cleared up all my confusion with one sentence. Yay.

Jocax wrote:
This regularity are named LAWS and can be described by mathematic equation. Starting at this point , comes the Antrhopic principle and the destropic principle.
  

Well, now I'm starting to get confused again. 

How does the strong anthropic principle follow from this?

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:But

BobSpence1 wrote:
But regularity as such does not lead to or refute either 'principle", "athropic' or "destropic".

 

OK, that was obviously a mistype. Even so, it merits going in my sig.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
 Quote: But regularity as

 

Quote:
But regularity as such does not lead to or refute either 'principle", "athropic' or "destropic". The fact that we use math equations to describe the regularity is utterly irrelevant, that is just another way to affirm that the regularity exists.

 The important in this two principles is that its suppose that there is correspondence one-to-one betwen regularity (laws) and mathematic equation that describes them.   
Quote:
This tends to follow from the idea that there is a finite lower limit to the size of entities, which seems to around the Planck scale
 But it depend on the parameters adopted.The planck constant is one of the parameters possible.  
Quote:
the characteristics of the physical world ARE the laws, i.e. the fact that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum IS the law.  
 Ok, I Agree.But that laws are suposed to described by mathematcs equation too.  
Quote:
Your question implies that there is some law of "the constancy of the speed of light," and that if this law did not exist, then the speed of light would not be constant, correct?
 It is enough say the light have velocity = 'c' it implies  that the light must be constant velocity too. 

 


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote: there is

Jocax wrote:

 there is correspondence one-to-one betwen regularity (laws) and mathematic equation that describes them

 

 

Or maybe not...?

 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote:Quote: But

Jocax wrote:
Quote:
But regularity as such does not lead to or refute either 'principle", "athropic' or "destropic". The fact that we use math equations to describe the regularity is utterly irrelevant, that is just another way to affirm that the regularity exists.
  The important in this two principles is that its suppose that there is correspondence one-to-one betwen regularity (laws) and mathematic equation that describes them. 
Well of course: mathematics is the language we use to describe such regularity, such 'LAWS'. But so what? That is not saying much more than things like "there is a one-to-one correspondence between the symbols in a phonetic alphabet and the speech sounds they describe". You are just saying that there is, in principle, a mathematical equation which accurately describes the regularities of the fundamentals of reality.However, that that doesn't make it any easier to discover those regularities. In fact it is still a trivial and irrelevant point.  The maths is just the formal language we use to describe the regularities. 
Quote:
 
Quote:
This tends to follow from the idea that there is a finite lower limit to the size of entities, which seems to around the Planck scale
 But it depend on the parameters adopted.The planck constant is one of the parameters possible. 
 Not necessarily. My point was that this is the unit in terms of which the other constants are determined. It has no 'size' in itself - what is variable is the scale of other properties relative to the Planck Scale. If all you have a number of fundamental lengths, all you have is a set of relative sizes. If you claim the Planck Scale is a parameter, what are you expressing its size in terms of?  

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
  Quote:  there is

 

 
Quote:
 there is correspondence one-to-one betwen regularity (laws) and mathematic equation that describes them
 Or maybe not...?  
 If not , then the our laws are NOT the same that the real laws of the universe.Indeed , it is not the same, but the pyisicist agree that they can be writen by mathematics equacion.     
Quote:
However, that that doesn't make it any easier to discover those regularities. In fact it is still a trivial and irrelevant point.  The maths is just the formal language we use to describe the regularities.  
 Well, the important is that if we supose it exist then we can understand what the Anthropic Principle mean, and then refute it in the same bases.    
Quote:
 
Quote:
But it depend on the parameters adopted.The planck constant is one of the parameters possible.  
 Not necessarily. My point was that this is the unit in terms of which the other constants are determined. It has no 'size' in itself - what is variable is the scale of other properties relative to the Planck Scale. If all you have a number of fundamental lengths, all you have is a set of relative sizes. If you claim the Planck Scale is a parameter, what are you expressing its size in terms of?   
 The plank constant can be a parameter. See the wiki:" In physics, a dimensionless physical constant (sometimes fundamental physical constant) is a universal physical constant. Because it is a dimensionless quantity, its numerical value is the same under all possible systems of units. Fundamental physical constant may also refer (as in NIST) to universal but dimensional physical constants such as the speed of light c, vacuum permittivity e0, Planck's constant h, or the gravitational constant G.   " 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The point is that it is NOT

The point is that it is NOT a matter of a 'one-to-one' correspondence, or nothing.

Our equations have become progressively refined to more closely match reality, but it is unlikely that they will ever match precisely, or at least we may never be able to prove it.

You don't appear to understand what the Anthropic principle means. It is not about math equations, it is about assessing the likelihood of a the physical constants being in the range that would give rise to a Universe suitable for life. But I have already pointed out why we do not have remotely enough information to assess that.

The Planck constant IS unique - the article you quoted made the same point I did, in other words - it is DIMENSIONLESS.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
  Quote: the point is that

 

 
Quote:
the point is that it is NOT a matter of a 'one-to-one' correspondence, or nothing.
 It is important in order to think about the CHANGES in this constants e what it mean to the universe.   
Quote:
Our equations have become progressively refined to more closely match reality, but it is unlikely that they will ever match precisely, or at least we may never be able to prove it.
 It does not matter.The important of these principles is that is suposed the existence of  a set of equation that is dependent from some parameters. We do not need know the real equation that govern the universe but only believe that it exists and depend on those parameters.  
Quote:
You don't appear to understand what the Anthropic principle means. It is not about math equations, it is about assessing the likelihood of a the physical constants being in the range that would give rise to a Universe suitable for life.  
 No.The parameters are related to the universe in the way they appear in the equations.Because this relation, is said that a change in the constant would change te universe an in its capacity fo life generation. 
Quote:
But I have already pointed out why we do not have remotely enough information to assess that.
 The Destopic principle begins to "agree" with the Antropic Principle  giving some "handicap" to it and after,destroying it showing that even it was true (changes in constant would not be able to take life),it would not matter at all. Because any other universe also have it specific propertiesin order that any change in the constants would incapacity them to have its properties.Life is not more special than another characteristic. Only to US life is special, not for the universe itself. 

 


Eliyahu
Posts: 1
Joined: 2011-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The physical laws,



Quote:
The physical laws, usually written in the form of mathematical equations, are considered to be responsible for the characteristics of the universe and its evolution in time. These laws, as we know today, are composed by equations in which we can see some numerical constants (parameters). As examples we can cite, among others: the speed of light, the mass of the electron, the electric charge of the proton, etc. [2]
It is argued, without demonstration, that a little alteration (it is not clear what would the magnitude of this alteration be)


Bs'd

That magnitude is at least one part on 10^173 parts.

Quote:
in any of these constants would make the possibility of life in the universe not feasible. Those who claim that also conclude that a universe created with physical laws generated at random would hardly be able to trigger life.
Handicap
In all fairness, we need to note that a universe with random laws does not need to follow the pattern of physical laws we have in our universe, that is, the mathematical equations that would define a randomly generated universe could be totally different from the ones we have in our current universe (in principle it would not even be necessary to describe such universes through mathematical equations). That way, the parameters we have today would not apply to any of the equations in this random universe. Thus, it is totally FALSE to claim that all possible universes can be described maintaining the same equations of our particular universe and varying only the constants present in them.


 Who says only universes like ours which can be described by math can exist?   He is attacking a straw man.

Quote:
However, in order to refute the “anthropic principle” on its own support base, we should consider true the fact that all possible universes keep the same structure of equations as ours. We also assume that these equations are true, but knowing in advance that this is not true, since there is a theoretical incompatibility between the theory of relativity and the quantum mechanics. Besides that, we also suppose that any alteration in one of the fundamental constants would make the possibility of life impracticable, although no one has shown it yet.


It is nonsense to say that  "no one has shown it yet".  There is no scientist who denies the anthropic principle.

Quote:
An analogy
In order to understand the idea of the “Destropic Principle”, we will make an analogy with the real numbers of the equations which rule the several possible universes. Suppose that each of the possible universes can be represented by a real number between zero and ten. We can justify that by thinking that we can concatenate all the fundamental constants in a single numeric parameter.
In our analogy, the parameter “4,22341”, for example, would represent an U1 universe, which would be different from an U2 universe, represented by the parameter “6,123333...”, and so on. Thus, each of these numeric parameters would completely define the characteristics of the universe represented by them.
Suppose there is a machine that randomly generates real numbers between zero and ten. Each generated number would be the parameter that would define a universe. We can see that the possibility of predicting what number the machine will generate is very small, almost zero. However, the machine will certainly generate a number.
Suppose our universe is represented by U1 (“4,22341&rdquoEye-wink. Then we can ask: what is the probability of the number of our universe being chosen, once there are infinite possible numbers? There are infinite real numbers between zero and ten, therefore it is almost impossible to foresee that the number “4,22341”, which is the parameter that defines the characteristics of our universe, will be chosen.
Thereby, when the machine generates a number representing a parameter of the universe, the answer to the question “How probable would the generation of a universe like ours be?” will be “As likely as the generation of any other specific universe”.


This is a bad variation on the cardgame or dice story.   It doesn't cut any mustard, chances for our universe remain abysmall. 

Quote:
Equiprobable
In our model of random generation of universes all universes are equiprobable, since any real number between zero and ten would have the same probability of being generated. No universe is more likely to be generated than the other. So, whatever the number generated by the machine was, it would be as unlikely to be predicted as any other number. We then conclude that our universe is so likely to be generated as any other.

Life
However, someone could retort:
“-Our universe is the only one where the possibility of life exists”.
The possibility of life is a peculiarity of our universe. Any other generated universe would also have its specific peculiarities. For example: maybe one of them could be made of tiny colored crystal balls, the other could form elastic goos, others, perfect spheres, and so on. If, for example, the generated universe produced little blue crystal balls, then we could make the same exclamation:
“-Only this universe produces little glowing balls!”


Well, that would NOT be possible, because in order to say: "-Only this universe produces little glowing balls!" you need life, and that is what is missing in that little glowing balls universe.



Quote:
Or:
“Only in this universe there is possibility of producing elastic goos!”


Well, that would NOT be possible, because in order to say: "Only in this universe there is possibility of producing elastic goos!" you need life, and that is what is missing in that universe.

That points out how important and special life is.

~

Quote:
And so on. For us, humans, life can be more important than little glowing balls, or elastic goos, but this is only a human valuation. There is no logic reason to suppose that a universe with life is more important than a universe that produces little glowing crystal balls, or elastic goos.~~


If you think that consciousness is not more important than non-consciousness, then there is something terribly wrong with you.

If you really think so, you might as well kill yourself.  But most people are very afraid to die, so they realize how important is consciousness.

Life is much more important than little glowing balls.

Quote:
Therefore, we cannot claim that our universe is special and unique, because it is as special and unique as any other universe that was generated at random. All universes would have their specific features, generated by their also unique physical constants.

Another Formality
In order to clarify this idea, we can redo our argument using another formality:
Suppose the universes are described by six fundamental constants (the exact number does not matter, the following reasoning is for any number of constants).
Thus, any U universe could be defined by a system of equations that uses six basic constants. We represent this dependence as follows:
U= U (A, B, C, D, E, F).
Our U1 universe in particular is described in that formality as:
U1= U (A1, B1, C1, D1, E1, F1)

Now, consider a U2 Universe with constants different from U1:
U2 = U (A2, B2, C2, D2, E2, F2)
As U1, by definition, contains the parameters of our universe, it will generate a universe that may harbor “life”, but cannot generate “lofe”. Similarly, U2 can generate “lofe”, but cannot generate “life”. “Lofe” is a random feature of U2, as the characteristic of being able to form a group of particles where the density is exactly 0,12221 (a random number), for example. Only U2 can generate “lofe”, and any change in the parameters would make the generation of “lofe” not feasible.
Of course, the same way, another universe, U3, with other constants
U3 = U (A3, B3, C3, D3, E3, F3)
would not make “life” feasible, nor “lofe”, but would make “lufe” viable.
“lufe” is a physical condition that occurs when the particles are subject to the regime of forces generated by the constants of U3 (A3…F3). Any change in one of these constants would make “lufe” not viable.

Note that there is no INTRINSIC importance about the universe generating “life”, “lofe”, or “lufe”. It does not make any difference to the generating machine or to the universe itself. Especially because the universe and the random machine do not have consciousness or desires. What differs to the machine is the value of the fundamental constants, not what they will generate or not. For the generating machine and even for the generated universe, it is irrelevant if it will be able to harbor life, “lofe”, “lufe”, or present any other peculiarity. Each universe has its own feature. If U1 allows “life”, it does not allow “lofe”, nor “lufe”; if U2 allows “lofe”, it does not allow “life” nor “lufe”; if U3 allows “lufe”, it does not allow “life”, nor “lofe”. It goes that way for any generated universe.

Thus, we can see that our universe does not have anything special, once nothing is intrinsically special. “Life” is as important as “Lofe” or “Lufe”. The universe is not worried if “lofe” generates consciousness or not, nor if “lufe” generates a cluster of an incredible yellow glow which would never exist in U1 or if “lofe” generates micro colored pyramids with their own indescribably beautiful glow. That matters to humans, little egocentric beings of U1 that care about “life”, maybe because they are alive.

Thereby, the probability of generating a universe that has “lufe” is equivalent to another one that has “life” or “lofe”. There is nothing miraculous or magical about our universe that makes it REALLY special. Therefore, there is no sense in saying that the probability of our universe being that way is the work of some deity. Whatever the generated universe was, its probability of having that feature is exactly the same as the probability of our universe being exactly as it is.


It is like choosing at random a real number between zero and ten. They are all equally probable and difficult to be chosen. None is more or less special than the others.


Saying life is equal to no life is of course nonsense.   If the writer or this artikel really believes so, let him then commit suicide in order to prove his point.


Eliyahu


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
For US the life is

For US the life is important, but NOT  for the Universe.   The life is important  for  being who have life.     The important is that statisticly any characteristics is equally probably  like show the article.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote:For US the life

Jocax wrote:

For US the life is important, but NOT  for the Universe.   The life is important  for  being who have life.     The important is that statisticly any characteristics is equally probably  like show the article.

You are already wrong - the probability of any specific set of 'characteristics' arising will vary over an enormous range.

This is taking the error of assuming that logically any binary outcome must be taken as "50/50" to an extreme length.

The original anthropic proposition only considered the consequence of varying one 'constant' at a time. More careful analysis, estimating the total probability space of life-friendly universes in the n-dimensional space where all possible combinations of constants, suggested that the original conclusion of improbability was likely in error by many orders of magnitude.

It is like a case where three variables are involved, and the possibility space could be represented as a cube, where all the points within the cube represented all the possible combinations of values of the variables. The original estimate effectively only considered the possibilities encompassed by the points lying along the three edges meeting at the 0,0,0 point. Which is an infinitely small fraction of the total space of possibilities.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
  You do not understand:

 

 

You do not understand: No matter what type of feature. VC setting between life and this life is not arbitrary, it could be between a universe with pink bubbles and another without them. The odds of getting pink bubbles would also be negligible. We could get other features, for example, of a universe that would allow perfect elastic collisions and the other not allowed. The odds would also be negligible.
That is, any characteristic peculiar possibilities have very small compared to all other possibilities. Life is just one of the possible features. It is only important for humans that has life.

OuvirLer foneticamente

 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
If I understand where you

If I understand where you are going (the language barrier is a bit confusing) then you are making an unwarranted error in your use of the anthropic principal. Allow me to explain:

 

Basically, the idea that you seem to be going for is one where you take the parameters of the universe and assume that if any of them were a bit different, then life would not be possible. Really, not so much.

 

As an example, let me take one unnamed parameter and say that the allowable range is +-0.01 or one percent. OK, now if there was a second universe (in whatever sense that means) that was exactly like our own except for this one parameter. Here the difference happens to be +0.001. In such a universe, life would still be possible.

 

So how many such universes might there be? To get to that, you would need to make some assumptions. Let's say that only rational numbers are allowed as possible values. Here is the problem: Between any two points on a number line, there are an infinite number of rational numbers.

 

Now, consider if we take a second parameter into consideration. The overly simple analysis would be that doing that would further constrain the possible “allowed” combinations. However, one again, this is just not true. What we are looking at here is the possible number of curves in a finite area. This gets us to aleph-one possible universes that can support life.

 

A third parameter would raise the bar even further to the number of solids in a finite volume which brings us to aleph-two possible universes that can support life.

 

Please note that I am not really considering much about multiple universes. Although the physics community has been toying with those ideas for a while now.

 

The thing being that the anthropic principal really does not say all that much past the fact that our universe is within the possible configurations which can support life and we are here and able to consider the matter.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The proportion of possible

The proportion of possible Universes capable of supporting some form of intelligent life, which could be based on many different combinations of basic Laws, is NOT necessarily negligible. Even within one Universe such as ours, there is speculation that the 'constants' could vary significantly between regions sufficiently far away from each other to have lost touch with each other early on, as their separation speed in the expansion exceeded the velocity of light.

Combine all this with the possibility of repeated chains of 'Big Bangs', which now seems more likely, with the discovery of Dark Energy, then given sufficient time, the probabilty of life becomes far from negligible, without any other strange hypotheses.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1, just wondering

BobSpence1, just wondering if you have read anything by Brian Greene?

 

He is one of the major players in M/String theory but I find his books to be fairly accessible to my level of understanding. His latest is titled “The Hidden Reality”. It covers, one chapter at a time, each of the major schools of thought on multiple universe theory.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=