Page 12 of 28
Re: Where is "here"?
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 12:10 pm
by raw_thought
The anthropic principle is not saying that we create reality. It is saying that there is an objective reality. That reality is filled with constants that are outrageously fit for life. There are 2 options
1. Our universe is fine tuned for life and that implies a fine tuner,God.
2. There are many universes,each one with different constants. The overwhelming majority are unfit for life. However, a tiny percentage are fit for life. It is not a miracle that we inhabit that universe. See post at the top of the page before this one.
Re: Where is "here"?
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 12:23 pm
by raw_thought
If our universe is alive or self determined has nothing to do with the anthropic principle. It obtains if the universe is alive or not alive.
To say that the universe fine tunes itself is to simply equate the universe with God. I personally have no problem with that. But it still has nothing to do with the multiverse being the only alternative to God.
Yes, it is a valid semantic point that the universe is defined as all that exists. I really do not care if you call them parallel worlds or parallel universe.
True, we cannot know those worlds. But that does not mean that they dont exist.*
If they do not exist, then there must be a God. I am agnostic. All I know is that either there is a God or there are multiple universes.
* The multiverse is like modus tollens, untestable but obviiusly the only alternative to God.
Re: Where is "here"?
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 12:29 pm
by raw_thought
Obvious Leo wrote:raw_thought wrote:Modus tollens is like the anthropic principle, untestable but obviously true.
Inasmuch as both are statements of the bloody obvious I agree. Inasmuch as either is of the slightest relevance to the observer problem in physics I completely disagree. If the universe were unsuitable for life then there would be nobody in it to observe it but in terms of profundity I don't rate this conclusion very highly.
Ok, you accept the anthropic principle. It then follows that a multiverse is the reason that the constants in our universe.are so outrageously fit for life.
Therefore there is a God or a multiverse. Well OK, I am being sloppy. The multiverse is the only explanation as to why our universe's constants are so outrageously suited for life that does not require God.
I call that a profound insight!
Re: Where is "here"?
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 12:40 pm
by raw_thought
I suppose you would say that if I said that the only two options for life are evolution or God, you would want an empirical test. That would be impossible as the two propositions are opposites.
Please read that again. I am not saying that there is not empirical proof for evolution. I am saying that there can be no empirical proof that there are two options.
Re: Where is "here"?
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 12:50 pm
by raw_thought
raw_thought wrote: The multiverse is the only explanation as to why our universe's constants are so outrageously suited for life that does not require God.
I call that a profound insight!
Re: Where is "here"?
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:05 pm
by raw_thought
It is true that the Evert many worlds theory adds support to the multiverse theory. As does Lewis. However, the multiverse theory is supported by the anthropic principle combined with the fact that our universe is filled with constants outrageously suited for life. The multiverse theory appreciates evertt but does not require him.
Re: Where is "here"?
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 2:28 pm
by Greta
raw_thought wrote:If our universe is alive or self determined has nothing to do with the anthropic principle. It obtains if the universe is alive or not alive.
To say that the universe fine tunes itself is to simply equate the universe with God.
All animals, including us, fine tune themselves constantly, mostly unconsciously. A living universe need not be akin to the usual definitions of deities.
raw_thought wrote:The multiverse is like modus tollens, untestable but obviiusly the only alternative to God.
There's also the "cosmic accident" model. I don't think it likely myself, but it's one possibility.
Re: Where is "here"?
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:41 pm
by Obvious Leo
The mathematical constants are not a function of reality but a function of the way we model reality. There are an infinite number of different ways in which we can model reality so the constants are what they are because of the particular way we've chosen. That's your multiverse.
The constants in the SM change all the time because the model is continuously being fine tuned. The gravitational constant G is now known nor or be a constant at all and neither is the fine structure constant, alpha. In due course they will all go the way of phlogiston because there can be no such thing as a constant in a relativistic universe.
The multiverse and god are the same explanation, namely science of the gaps. An explanation which explains everything is an explanation which explains nothing and both of these explanations assume that which they seek to establish, namely that the universe had a beginning. On what grounds do you make this assumption?
Re: Where is "here"?
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:42 pm
by raw_thought
But is it likely that the universe fine tunes constants ( like plank's constant and the speed of light) in order to create life?
Re: Where is "here"?
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:44 pm
by Obvious Leo
raw_thought wrote:
Um, yeah, it has nothing to do with the observer problem. We were talking about the anthropic principle.
The anthropic principle is the observer problem because we don't observe reality at all. We MODEL it.
Re: Where is "here"?
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:47 pm
by Obvious Leo
raw_thought wrote:But is it likely that the universe fine tunes constants ( like plank's constant and the speed of light) in order to create life?
The speed of light is NOT a constant and this is very easily proven. The speed of light is merely OBSERVED TO BE A CONSTANT in the referential frame of the observer.
Re: Where is "here"?
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:51 pm
by raw_thought
????
The speed of light is the same for any observer. That is basic physics.
Re: Where is "here"?
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:54 pm
by raw_thought
Mathematical constructs are not just made up. They inform us about reality.
Re: Where is "here"?
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:56 pm
by raw_thought
Obvious Leo wrote:raw_thought wrote:
Um, yeah, it has nothing to do with the observer problem. We were talking about the anthropic principle.
The anthropic principle is the observer problem because we don't observe reality at all. We MODEL it.
As you said when a definition applies to everything it.is meaningless. Not everything is related to the observer problem in physics.* Note IN PHYSICS. I assumed you were talking about the double slit experiment.
Also, an explanation that explains everything is not meaningless. It might be false but it isnt meaningless. For example, God does explain everything.
The difference between the God hypothesis and the multiverse hypothesis is that the multiverse hypothesis can explain why our constants are perfect for life without appealing to an ineffable (unexplainable) God.
* If as you say, everything is the observer problem and only a model of reality that does not correspond to reality, then everything is unknowable.
Re: Where is "here"?
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:02 pm
by raw_thought
Light is different because of time dilation. If I am on a train that is going 45 mph (a mathematical construct!
) and I walk to the front at 20 mph, that means that from the ground outside the train I am going 65mph. However, if I shine a flashlight, those photons are travelling relative to me at 186,282 mps. Relative to the ground they are going the same speed 186,282 mps.