A side note: I personally don't believe in the multiverse theory. I believe that the universe naturally fine tunes itself into a stable condition, and stable conditions (big surprise) happen to support life. (But hey, what do I know.) — Purple Pond
A side note: I personally don't believe in the multiverse theory. I believe that the universe naturally fine tunes itself into a stable condition, and stable conditions (big surprise) happen to support life. (But hey, what do I know.) — Purple Pond
I'm not a musician. I like music but am not a musician. However, if I were to sit in front of a piano and press the keys at random long enough I'm sure I could play some sections of Beethoven or Motzart. In other words the supposed order, ergo the anthropic principle, is just a phase in the chaos that is the true nature of the universe. What I mean is there is no order, therefore no fine-tuning. We've all seen order/patterns in random numbers I believe. — TheMadFool
Suppose you where watching a random stream of characters on a computer screen. Its all random jumble then you see the string 'I know you are watching me!' come up. The chances of that happening are 1/128^27 (assuming 128 possible characters). Would you assume you 'just got lucky' or would you assume a computer programmer was having a joke with you? Which is the more likely explanation? — Devans99
If the time involved was 13.8 billion years (current estimated age of the universe) I'd be very cautious about inferring a better chance for it being a joke over just plain simple luck. — TheMadFool
Devans99
1.7k
That is the weak anthropic principle (WAP) you have given.
The problem with the WAP is that it says that the universe must support life, it does not say why the universe supports life:
[1] By random coincident we got lucky and a billion to 1 shot came off
[2] Universe was fine tuned to support life
[2] is much more likely than [1]. So IMO the WAP does not put a dent in the fine tuning argument. Neither does the strong anthropic principle (SAP). — Devans99
Either there is no trick involved, in which case I gave the answer above or it is fixed in which case the sample space is 1 and the probability is 1 — Devans99
Devans99
1.7k
↪Frank Apisa
Yes I do; there are about 20 constants in physics that all have to be about where they are now for life to exist. The chances of that happening by chance are astronomically small.
I not saying that the universe is definitely fine tuned for life; merely it is incredibly likely that the universe is fine tuned for life. — Devans99
You're committing the same fallacy with fine-tuning. You're presuming that the sample space for the event {the universe being fine-tuned for life} must be {all the values you can imagine these variables could have}. Just like at first glance you presume that the sample space for the event {the top card is mine} was all the cards it could be. — Isaac
So with the universe. How are you justifying you selection of the sample space {all the values I can imagine these variables having}? — Isaac
The expansion rate could be set at any conceivable value - it is not derived from some underlying determinant- so it contributes to the large sample space of possible/feasible universes. — Devans99
I'm not sure either of you understand probability at all.
If I shuffle a deck of cards, you pick one at random, I shuffle the deck again. What is the probability that the top one is your card, and what sample space do you use to determine the likelihood? — Isaac
But it looks like the laws of physics and the standard model have been constant since the singularity. The Big Bang theory predicts things back to a few fractions of a second before the singularity. It is supported by the evidence of the CMB radiation.
We can still observe photons emitted 400,000 years after the Big Bang as the CMB radiation. These photons are the same photons as we see today, same properties, nothing seems to have changed with the standard model. — Devans99
Yes I understand. A particular phase in the chaos could last billions of years. Just think of it in terms of human history. There are periods of peace (order) but actually these are just intervals between war (chaos) which I'm suggesting as the true nature of reality. — TheMadFool
So we imagine countless billions of years throughout which the physical laws and constants are evolving. Eventually, by sheer luck, they hit a configuration that supports life. What mechanism then 'fixes' the universe in that life supporting configuration? Surely something would change to produce a non-life supporting universe again? — Devans99
1/52 I believe. If wrong please correct. Thanks. — TheMadFool
the universe's expansion rate is set such that matter can still cluster into stars and planets yet it is expanding fast enough that the whole thing does not collapse back into one big black hole. The expansion rate could be set at any conceivable value — Devans99
Like with the cards example. It turns out it was a magic trick, the number of cards in the deck was not the correct sample space from which to extrapolate the probability of my card being on top — Isaac
You have given no justification as to why this card trick analogy applies; the universe is not tricking use; it could very easily have come out different. — Devans99
Basically, one cannot simply presume the sample space, it's context dependant and so requires no less justification than the statistical technique applied to it. — Isaac
You have not given a context where my assumption of a large sample space for possible physical constants etc... does not apply — Devans99
It doesn't apply right here. There's no reason at all to think that the correct sample space is the number of possible values you can think of. Why would it be? Why would it have anything at all to do with what you're capable of thinking of? — Isaac
How do you know that it is possible for the expansion rate to be any other value? Certainly it's not because the laws of physics allow it, they obviously don't. It's not because maths allows it, maths allows it to be an infinite amount of values, which would mean any value is infinitesimally unlikely, which, by your own definition of infinity, is the same as undefined. So what is your reason for choosing some very large number (but not actually infinity) for the sample space of all the possible values the expansion rate could have? — Isaac
There are two possible universes: Those where there are intelligent creatures who ask questions about the universe, and those where there are no such creatures. — Purple Pond
Does that make any sense to you? Am I missing or misunderstanding anything? — Purple Pond
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.