Anthropic Principle

[Philosophy Explorer]

How many dimensions is real space?

As a maths enthusiast you should be embarrassed to ask such a foolish question.

Same question.

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

How many dimensions is real space?

As a maths enthusiast you should be embarrassed to ask such a foolish question.

Same question.

PhilX

You should be able to answer it yourself. What is a dimension?

[Philosophy Explorer]

You should be able to answer it yourself. What is a dimension?

I don't do boomerang questions.

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

I don't do boomerang questions.

And I don't do stupid ones.

[Philosophy Explorer]

I don't do boomerang questions.

And I don't do stupid ones.

No such thing as a stupid question.

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

No such thing as a stupid question.

Yes there is.

How many dimensions is real space?

This is a stupid question because there's no such thing as a real space. A space by definition is a mathematical object and thus it is an abstraction like any other mathematical object. How heavy is a five?

[Philosophy Explorer]

No such thing as a stupid question.

Yes there is.

How many dimensions is real space?

This is a stupid question because there's no such thing as a real space. A space by definition is a mathematical object and thus it is an abstraction like any other mathematical object. How heavy is a five?

Since there is no real space, then it follows there is no real Leo so who am I having a discussion with? Can Leo not exist? Could you prove there is no real space? (btw I can offer other definitions of space not involving math).

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

Could you prove there is no real space?

As it happens I can prove this but the burden of proof does not lie with me. If you wish to claim some sort of ontological status for a mathematical space then you contradict millennia of mainstream philosophy and the convention in such cases is that the burden of proof lies with he who represents the minority opinion. Perhaps you could start by specifying which space you're talking about. Is it the pseudo-Riemannian manifold of GR sometimes referred to as a hypersphere? Or is it one of the ten, eleven or 26 dimensional parameter spaces of string theory, all of which are regarded differently in different versions of the theory? Maybe you mean the non-local infinite-dimensional function spaces of QM or the non-commutative Hamiltonian space of quantum chromodynamics. Perhaps even the anti-de Sitter space needed to model eternal inflation in quantum loop cosmology. There are as many different spaces are there different sets of mathematical tools to deploy them in so you better start explaining what the fuck you're banging about, Phil.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Is that the best answer you can give?
How do you think the AP affects your view point?

Hobbes,

I had anticipated the AP independently so it doesn't affect my viewpoint (see what Leo said just above about physical constants). To go from randomness to life (more ordered) or intelligence (even more ordered) to me is nothing short of a miracle on earth. Why the constants are the way they are instead of being less or more is another mystery in our universe (on this last note, this can be taken as evidence for a multiverse as the odds are astronomical against the constants having this arrangement). As far as Leo saying that the constants can be replaced by better ones is nonsense unless he means more accurate constants.

PhilX

A miracle?? Are you sure you want to go down that path? How naive of you. In a universe with a 100 billion galaxies, each with a 100 billion stars, and most probably having planets, the chance is that the conditions for life are going to have happened numerous times and at numerous places.

The dice just happened to fall here. There is no mystery to this.

Calling a miracle is an obscene admission of your hopeless embroilment if the anthropic principle despite what you say - I don't think you have really understood AP yet.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Could you prove there is no real space?

As it happens I can prove this but the burden of proof does not lie with me. If you wish to claim some sort of ontological status for a mathematical space then you contradict millennia of mainstream philosophy and the convention in such cases is that the burden of proof lies with he who represents the minority opinion. Perhaps you could start by specifying which space you're talking about. Is it the pseudo-Riemannian manifold of GR sometimes referred to as a hypersphere? Or is it one of the ten, eleven or 26 dimensional parameter spaces of string theory, all of which are regarded differently in different versions of the theory? Maybe you mean the non-local infinite-dimensional function spaces of QM or the non-commutative Hamiltonian space of quantum chromodynamics. Perhaps even the anti-de Sitter space needed to model eternal inflation in quantum loop cosmology. There are as many different spaces are there different sets of mathematical tools to deploy them in so you better start explaining what the fuck you're banging about, Phil.

So Leo, which of these math models is our real space? Which one proves there is no real space? All you're proving is you can furnish a list of math models. Oh of course, you don't believe in real space which has preceded all of these math models you've listed. When you leave the house to do gardening, is it you or a math model that's doing the gardening? So I'm still waiting for your proof there is no real space.

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

Is that the best answer you can give?
How do you think the AP affects your view point?

Hobbes,

I had anticipated the AP independently so it doesn't affect my viewpoint (see what Leo said just above about physical constants). To go from randomness to life (more ordered) or intelligence (even more ordered) to me is nothing short of a miracle on earth. Why the constants are the way they are instead of being less or more is another mystery in our universe (on this last note, this can be taken as evidence for a multiverse as the odds are astronomical against the constants having this arrangement). As far as Leo saying that the constants can be replaced by better ones is nonsense unless he means more accurate constants.

PhilX

A miracle?? Are you sure you want to go down that path? How naive of you. In a universe with a 100 billion galaxies, each with a 100 billion stars, and most probably having planets, the chance is that the conditions for life are going to have happened numerous times and at numerous places.

The dice just happened to fall here. There is no mystery to this.

Calling a miracle is an obscene admission of your hopeless embroilment if the anthropic principle despite what you say - I don't think you have really understood AP yet.

What you said here can be used as an argument for the multiverse which I don't think you'll ever believe in. So Hobbes, what's your explanation for the earth events happening here instead of elsewhere in our universe (to the best of our knowledge?) How could life arise on our planet? Have plants and animals started at the same time
(the odds against this happening is astronomically high) as they're mutually dependent for their oxygen and CO2?
How did the human brain evolve - what random event led to the development of the human brain which occurred first before there was ever language development e.g.? Are you going to tell me that evolution knew there was going to be a need for humans to communicate with one another vocally or that it would be an advantage? How did evolution arrange for this involved process to happen which the scientists still don't know (although they come up with unproven theories?) And the best you can come up with is "The dice just happened to fall here." It seems the dice not only came up with one thing, but a whole series of events, each of which the odds against the event occurring are astronomically high, but for which the odds are higher still against (I listed just two examples).

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

Just ran across this article:

http://m.phys.org/news/2015-12-puzzle-e ... verse.html

This is the part I'm focused on:

"The LUNA experiment at the INFN Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy has observed a RARE nuclear reaction that occurs in giant red stars..."

How lucky we are.


PhilX

[Hobbes' Choice]

What you said here can be used as an argument for the multiverse which I don't think you'll ever believe in.

So usually your post are just a bit mad. This one is barking.

So Hobbes, what's your explanation for the earth events happening here instead of elsewhere in our universe (to the best of our knowledge?) How could life arise on our planet?

100,000,000,000 x 100,000,000,000 x the average number of earth type planets per system; like I said.

Have plants and animals started at the same time
(the odds against this happening is astronomically high) as they're mutually dependent for their oxygen and CO2?

This shows a woeful ignorance of evolution. The first living things do not comply with either 'plant' or 'animal'. Primitive bacteria need only the raw material and energy; subsequent bacteria exploited the by products of those primary producers and so on.

How did the human brain evolve - what random event led to the development of the human brain which occurred first before there was ever language development

Langauge pre-dates the evolution of humans. Look, if you are a god botherer just fucking say so and we can all go home and leave you to your confusion; until then try reading a fucking book.

e.g.? Are you going to tell me that evolution knew there was going to be a need for humans to communicate with one another vocally or that it would be an advantage? How did evolution arrange for this involved process to happen which the scientists still don't know (although they come up with unproven theories?) And the best you can come up with is "The dice just happened to fall here." It seems the dice not only came up with one thing, but a whole series of events, each of which the odds against the event occurring are astronomically high, but for which the odds are higher still against (I listed just two examples).

PhilX

Are you going to tell me that we've waited billions of years for humans to come along , yet it was all designed for us in the first place?? You might want to get a life with that book on basic evolution that you need to buy.

[Hobbes' Choice]

How lucky we are.


PhilX

Not really.
You you have an infinite number of monkeys one of them is going to be less smart than you.

[Obvious Leo]

So I'm still waiting for your proof there is no real space.

It was proven by Michelson and Morley and then subsequently confirmed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. Since physics is clearly not your bag, Phil, I'd suggest you steer clear of the subject. It seems evolution is not your gig either because biologists make no metaphysical distinction between "life" and "non-life" in the way that you seem to be doing. Both are just atoms configured in a particular way and "non-living" molecules evolve from the simple to the complex in exactly the same way as "living" ones do, namely by adaptation and selection. This even happens in interplanetary clouds of gas and dust so you might need to rethink your definition of life. Life is not a property of the atoms which encode for it.