The Anthropic Principle Under Fire

[jocaxx]

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”). 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.

[DAN 1]

I admire the dedication and work put into this thesis.:naughty: My compliments and thanks to João Carlos Holland de Barcellos for providing us with his sincere thought and opinion.

 

I will be studying, when I can, his work for quite some time. I will do my best to set aside my intuition, so that I can better line up with his observations, in the hope of understanding them more thoroughly.

[Pyrotex]

My thanks to João Carlos Holland de Barcellos.

I would like to add something to his thesis.

We have the six universal constants (UC) of our universe, (U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, U6). He has made the point that these could be assumed to be equally likely numbers between 0 and 10, and that our set of UC, which we may call UC[1], are as likely as another other UC[N]. But we do not have to make that assumption.

 

I work in probabilities, as it concerns system failure analysis. Probabilities come in many different distributions, or "flavors". João Carlos Holland de Barcellos has suggested assuming a uniform distribution: 0.000001 is just as likely as 9.999999.

 

In the "real world" (no pun intended) we rarely see uniform distributions, unless they involve artifacts like dice or coins. Note that the probabilities that describe dice and coins involve only integers or ratios of integers, like 1/6 and 1/2. Out there in the Universe we do NOT see the tallest mountains being equally likely with the gentlest hills; we do NOT see the largest blue-giant stars being equally likely with the humblest red-dwarf stars; we do NOT see the heaviest life forms (whales) being equally likely with the lightest (ants, bacteria).

 

What we DO see most commonly are probabilities like the normal distribution and the lognormal distribution. When plotted, both of these distributions look like "bell-shaped" curves, with a peak near the middle and the "tails" at either end approaching zero probability. Extreme values of a UC would be unthinkably rare at values of 0.000001 and 9.999999. Median values of a UC around 5 (for the normal distribution), or around 3 (for the lognormal distribution) would be far more likely.

 

Any assumption regarding a multi-universe solution to the AP problem, needs to consider that since the set of values for UC[N] are "real" values, they are very unlikely to obey a uniform distribution. There will be values around the "peaks" that are far more likely than extreme values near 0 and 10.

 

This leads us to illustrating the probability of a universe being created with a set of UC[N] as a six-dimensional plot. Each dimension represents one of the six UC, and can take values from 0 to 10. The probability that this universe can take on a specific set of six values for its UC[N] can be represented by a single point in our plot -- and we can color that point according to the total probability: black and red meaning zero and low probabilities, shades of blue meaning the highest probabilities; with a red-orange-yellow-green-blue spectrum inbetween.

 

What we expect to see then, would be a six-dimensional cube that is mostly black and shades of red, with a fuzzy region somewhere near the "middle" that shades into orange-yellow, etcetera, surrounding a relatively tiny region of bright blue that surrounds the point where the "peaks" of all six distributions occur.

 

Why would a universe described by a point in the "blue region" be more likely than a universe described by a point in the "red region"? Your guess is as good as mine, but I would suggest that it has something to do with entropy. Universes that are too highly ordered (let's say this corresponds to UC with values near 10) and those that are too highly disordered (... values near 0) represent universes that can only take on a small number of possible states. A possible state would be (say) an enumeration of every particle in the universe and its position and velocity. A universe with only two particles would have an extremely small number of states, say 10^100. A universe filled with particles that were so crowded that only two particles could move at all might also have only 10^100 possible states. But a universe with median values of its UC[N], with lots of particles and lots of empty space for those particles to move around in, might have 10^100,000,000 possible states!

 

I assert without proof that the probability that a universe would be created having a particular set of UC[N], is proportional to the total number of states that universe will be able to take on!

 

Such a "median" universe would be almost infinitely more likely to be created than an "extreme" universe. We only have to assume that "extreme" values for the six UC would produce an "extreme" universe in some sense. (Say, in the number of particles, for example)

 

Conclusion. If the most probable universes are those with median UC values BECAUSE the probable universes have the most number of possible states, then they also are more likely to have the most states that represent complexity (measured any way you want). These universes would have the most number of ways that energy can be manifested, and the most number of ways that energy can be transformed. And the highest probability that there will be ways in which entropy in a local region can DECREASE rather than increase, by taking advantage of these available complex energy transformation paths.

 

It is my belief that UC[1] of our universe represents a set of six UC values that taken together provide "universal laws" of physics and chemistry that define a maximally complex universe with a maximal number of possible states, leading to a maximal number of ways that matter can be combined, leading to a maximal probability of "life" (as WE know it, or in all its possible manifestations).

[jocaxx]

Thank You Pyrotex !

 

I do not agree very much with your explanation.

( excuse me by my poor English Ok?)

Let me try explain why:

 

First, our universe have already fullfilled with physical laws like UC[1], and the normal distribution you see in our universe have by cause its own constants (U1,U2,U3...,U6). What I want try to say is that the distribution of measures of things is consequence of the constants of our particular universe.

 

Perhaps, at another universe, with different constants, we would not have the normal distributions as the preference by nature.

 

Second, the normal distribution is indeed due some phisical (environment) retriction of the nature.

For example the human height have a normal distribution because we are menbers to the same species and we have to share largest portion of DNA that define height thus our height can not be 1 feet neither 1 miles because the humam being would not survive with this heights.

 

Thus I think all normal distribution is due some physical (environment) limitations of the nature.

 

But we are NOT talking about our universe specifically!

 

We are talking about the generation of the universe. Therefore we have to discard these limitations of our universe and not supose that has some "environment" limitations.

Because this I think the uniform distribution is more just/honest because it not favor one over the other.

 

Another point that i Disagre completely, is your assumption:

 

"...Let's assume that the probability that a particular universe with UC[N] would be created is proportional to the total number of states that universe can take on!..."

 

Its make no sense to me.

 

Because The "machine constatnt generator" would have to test each universe (set of constant) and see the number of state it can take BEFORE generate the constants !!?!?!?!

It is an absurd because it have to have a big intelligence to simulate the universe before generate the constant!:)

[Pyrotex]

Thank You Pyrotex !

You are very welcome.

I do not agree very much with your explanation....

That is perfectly okay with me.

First, our universe have already fullfilled with physical laws like UC[1], and the normal distribution you see in our universe have by cause its own constants (U1,U2,U3...,U6). What I want try to say is that the distribution of measures of things is consequence of the constants of our particular universe....

Ahhh.

I see that you may have a misunderstanding of "distributions".

Physical laws (determined by UC) can and do effect distributions of stars, planets, animals, atoms, etcetera.

But the UC cannot effect the distribution of UC.

I'm not talking about a "distribution" WITHIN our universe -- I'm talking about THE "distribution" of ALL universes.

 

What my post says is basically:

The sets of Universal Constants ( UC[N] ) for ALL possible universes have a "distribution". No proof is required. It's true by definition.

Given any number of universes, each with its own set of UC, we can plot on a graph how many times each particular set of UC occur. Maybe out of a jillion universes, our UC[1] (the ones that define our universe) occur exactly 17 times. We can plot the number of times each particular set of UC occur.

This plot IS the "distribution". The "distribution" is the plot.

Universal Constants have no control or effect over this distribution, because the distribution is merely a way to describe which UC occur, and in how many universes.

 

Given that the UC are real numbers (not integers) then we would not expect a uniform distribution. We should expect (this is my contention which I assert without proof) something like a normal distribution:

 

"extreme" UC[N] which create universes with a small number of possible universe states, would be very rare.

 

"median" UC[N] which create universes with large (maximal) number of possible universe states, would be vastly more common.

 

Does this help? :)

[Pyrotex]

A little back of the envelop math.

Let's assume the values for UC(1,2,3,4,5,6) each follow a normal distribution between 0 and 10, with the median value being 5.

 

Suppose that a UC value of "4" generates a universe that is only a tenth as likely as a universe with (the same) UC value of "5".

 

Then a universe with UC values {5,5,5,5,5,5} would be one million times more likely than a universe with UC values {4,4,4,4,4,4}.

[jocaxx]

Physical laws (determined by UC) can and do effect distributions of stars, planets, animals, atoms, etcetera.

But the UC cannot effect the distribution of UC.

 

But it was exactly what you are saing when have said:

 

"... "...Let's assume that the probability that a particular universe with UC[N] would be created is proportional to the total number of states that universe can take on!..." ..."

 

Because the probability ( the chance to generate UC constants) depend on the UC of the universe (= the constants itself)!

 

 

 

The sets of Universal Constants ( UC[N] ) for ALL possible universes have a "distribution". No proof is required. It's true by definition.

 

Ok, I agree.

 

 

Given any number of universes, each with its own set of UC,

we can plot on a graph how many times each particular set of UC occur.

 

Ok, But,

Probablily only a single point for UC generated because

the probability to choose 2 REAL numbers twice at random is praticaly zero!

 

 

This plot IS the "distribution". The "distribution" is the plot.

 

Ok

 

 

Universal Constants have no control or effect over this distribution, because the distribution is merely a way to describe which UC occur, and in how many universes.

 

Ok but this goes AGAINST you said:

"... "...Let's assume that the probability that a particular universe with UC[N] would be created is proportional to the total number of states that universe can take on!..." ..."

.

 

 

 

Given that the UC are real numbers (not integers) then we would not expect a uniform distribution.

 

I do not agree with it. Because:

natural numbers (integers) are real numbers too.

We do NOT know HOW the parameters are generated.

 

 

 

 

"extreme" UC[N] which create universes with a small number of possible universe states, would be very rare.

 

every universe generated has the same probabiliti because there is "impossible"

to generate the same REAL number twice:

How the probability to geterate PI (3,14,15,92...) twice at random? ( zero!)

 

because this each universe is single.

I could make myself understood?

:-)

[Pyrotex]

But it was exactly what you are saying when you said:

 

"... "...Let's assume that the probability that a particular universe with UC[N] would be created is proportional to the total number of states that universe can take on!..." ..."

 

Because the probability (the chance to generate UC constants) depend on the UC of the universe (= the constants itself)!

 

...I could make myself understood?

:-)

Hmmm... you may have a point here. Perhaps I made a mistake. Let's review the argument:

 

==If the selection of UC determine the total possible number of "states" that the universe can ever possibly have (let's call this the "size" of the universe);

 

==and if the selection of UC determines the nature of the physical laws within that universe (let's call this the "quality" of the universe);

 

==and if the "size" of the universe determines the probability that that particular set of UC values will be "picked" in the creation ANY universe;

 

==Then [you say] the distribution of ALL sets of UC values, is determined by the quality of our (or any particular) universe? :)

 

No, I don't think that is right.

 

The problem is (I think) you have to be "standing in the right place" for this to make sense. You could be standing here on Earth, inside our universe; you could be standing in some other universe; you could be standing OUTSIDE all universes -- in a virtual meta-universe.

 

My conjecture makes sense if you are standing OUTSIDE all universes.

 

First, I do some math magic and make a list of all possible UC[N]. Don't ask how, just pretend with me. :evil:

 

Now, for each possible UC[N] I use a different math magic and determine how many states (the "size") of any universe created with that particular UC[N].

 

I then generate the SUM of ALL SIZES of all possible UC[N]. Call this the "Total-Size".

 

Then, we start creating universes. Zillions of them them.

 

My conjecture is:

 

The probability that a universe will be created with UC[X] is proportional to:

 

Size( UC[X] ) / Total-Size

 

Bigger universes are more likely to be created than small, puny universes.

[Pyrotex]

...

"...Let's assume that the probability that a particular universe with UC[N] would be created is proportional to the total number of states that universe can take on!..."

 

Its make no sense to me.

Yes, this is a big stretch for even above-average minds.

 

Because The "machine constant generator" would have to test each universe (set of constant) and see the number of states it can take BEFORE it generates the constants !!?!?!?!

I'll give you half credit. Yes the "machine universe creator" {NOT the constant generator} would have to test each set of constants and see the number of states in the corresponding universe, before it generates the universe {NOT the constants}.

I believe you are confusing the Universal Constants (UC) and the Universes.

 

What was "created" by the multi-universe theory was universes. What I am saying is that universes with some UC are far more likely to be created than universes with other UC.

It is absurd because it must have to be a big intelligence to simulate the universe before generatig the constant!:)

Again,... before generating the universe.

 

Wait a second. There are many natural processes that "create" things. Trees are created. Lakes are created. Are all trees created the same size? No. Then we must accept that the probability of very large trees being created is not as much as the probability of an average tree being created. We say this because average trees are more common.

 

Did it require an "intelligence" to simulate growing trees, knowing soil conditions, climate and DNA? No. It's just a Natural Process. It's not intelligent and it doesn't have to know anything.

 

In the same manner, I say that universes are created. By Natural Processes. And those Natural Processes automatically and without any conscious effort create some kinds of universes more often than other kinds. Just as they create some kinds of trees more often than other kinds of trees.

 

My humble theory is just an effort to (1) explain WHY some universes would be more common than others and (2) explain why the most common kinds of universes are also the most likely to have Life.

[jocaxx]

and if the selection of UC determines the nature of the physical laws within that universe (let's call this the "quality" of the universe);

 

==and if the "size" of the universe determines the probability that that particular set of UC values will be "picked" in the creation ANY universe;

 

You said , and I agree that UC will determine the "size" and the "quality" of our universe.

but to KNOW the size and the quality you muts KNOW the UC BEFORE create them !!

 

Then you can not create the UC constants at random, 'you' need a pre-processing ( great intelligence)

to TEST the constants Before generate them IN ORDER to generate them according the premisse (distribition)

you choice. it is an absurd because you would have some kind of GOD to know HOW the universe would be with a set of constants

before generate them.

 

 

 

 

==Then [you say] the distribution of ALL sets of UC values, is determined by the quality of our (or any particular) universe?

 

 

You said this when you wrote:

 

" I assert without proof that the probability that a universe would be created having a particular set of UC[N], is proportional to the total number of states that universe will be able to take "

 

 

 

 

No, I don't think that is right.

 

ME TOO !! :-)

 

 

 

First, I do some math magic and make a list of all possible UC[N]. Don't ask how, just pretend with me.

 

Why some UC ca not exist?

I dont think this restriction is necessary. Why it would be necessary?

 

 

Now, for each possible UC[N] I use a different math magic and determine how many states (the "size") of any universe created with that particular UC[N].

 

I then generate the SUM of ALL SIZES of all possible UC[N]. Call this the "Total-Size".

 

It is impossible because the real numbers are infinite !!!

 

Every sum will result infinite !!

 

 

 

My conjecture is:

 

The probability that a universe will be created with UC[X] is proportional to:

 

Size( UC[X] ) / Total-Size

 

 

I dont agree.

You are creatin your distribution this way.

The choice of the UC must NOT need follow this rule at all!

Its is YOUR particular distribution that demand an immense amount of processing.

 

I'll give you half credit. Yes the "machine universe creator" {NOT the constant generator} would have to test each set of constants and see the number of states in the corresponding universe,

before it generates the universe {NOT the constants}.

 

Then you machime is very more complex than the universe it will be generate !!

because it need simulate the universe to see how much state it will be.

 

It goes against occan's razzor.

 

 

 

Did it require an "intelligence" to simulate growing trees, knowing soil conditions, climate and DNA? No. It's just a Natural Process. It's not intelligent and it doesn't have to know anything.

 

But it is what you want.

 

To know the size of the tree with a seed you need simulate the growing the tree from the seed.

If the size was ok, you generate the seed !

you need to have some GOD :eek: to simulate the growing the tree as you want simulate the size of the universe.

[Pyrotex]

Well, Jocaxx,

at this point I don't know what to say. I have explained myself three times over and you are still declaring that I "said" or "want" things that I am sure I did not say and do not want.

 

The problem with infinities of real numbers is a simple workaround. Think "histogram".

 

I disagree with your disagreements, and seem unable to explain to your satisfaction.

I suggest we let (or encourage) someone else to join this conversation and see what they have to say about it all.

[Boerseun]

Then you can not create the UC constants at random, 'you' need a pre-processing ( great intelligence) to TEST the constants Before generate them IN ORDER to generate them according the premisse (distribition) you choice. it is an absurd because you would have some kind of GOD to know HOW the universe would be with a set of constants before generate them.

Hey. Who knows. Maybe the Big Dude has an old XT which is more than sufficient to run the most complex simulations imaginable - he does have infinity to wait, after all.

Even a sliderule and some paper will be sufficient. Once again, infinite time comes into play...

Then you machime is very more complex than the universe it will be generate !!

because it need simulate the universe to see how much state it will be.

I can simulate an entire city on my computer using very simple software. Cities are strange and wonderful places, and enormously difficult to simulate because of all the variables and unknowns. The universe as we know it operates according to certain laws that are set in stone - forget the unintentional Mosaic pun there for a second. Thus, simulating a city should be infinitely harder to simulate than simulating the macro universe. You don't need a machine bigger or more complex than the universe to simulate it. We've got shorthand for everything - maths and science. When discussing big numbers I can either talk of a googolplex or I can write it out. Writing it out will fill the universe with paper. Or I can just say "googolplex". How beautiful is that? Same with simulations. We use shorthand.

It goes against occan's razzor.

So does the entire Anthropic Principle. See, we figure that everything is the way it is in order for us to be here. And so it seems - the air we breathe suits us down to a "t". The sunlight we receive from the sun is just right to allow us to lounge around in it with our pineapple drinks. Everything here is so awesome because everything here is a prerequisite for us being here.

That's poppycock, and a confusion of causality, at best.

Everything is not the way it is in order for us to come to the fore, we came to the fore because everything is the way it is. Think about it. If we lived in some sort of a sulphuric-acid hell with a red sky and carnivorous sable-toothed peacocks, we would lovingly think of it as "home", and we will not be able to imagine living anywhere else. We would think of a planet with a blue sky and a temperature allowing liquid water as a frozen hell. We would philosophize about how awesome nature is that everything worked in such a way as to fill our planet with sulphur and heat it to 800C so that we can be there.

 

Read Pyrotex's postings again. The different possible universes he's talking about is crucial to the discussion. Imagine the different states gravity can take on. Let's say at the moment of the Big Bang, an imaginary coin is tossed as to how gravity will feature. This coin has an infinity of sides. Out of that infinity, it lands on "Gravity is inverse-squared". That is how gravity seem to be working, and it results in stable orbits and a planetary configuration that allows us humans to eventually come out of the mix and wonder about it. But here's the kicker - the rest of that coin's infinity of sides is equally probable - but will not result in any witnesses to mull over the awesomeness of it all.

It does not make those alternate configurations any less probable or any less valid. But it also says nothing about humans. We're not "special" in any way, if the coin landed differently, we just wouldn't have been here to record it. As simple as that. We are the result of an epic coin toss that went down billions of years ago. And the Anthropic Principle is a bit of a confusion of causality. Everything is not the way it is in order for humans to pop out. We popped out the way we are because everything is the way it is. If things were any different, we would have popped out slightly differently and we simply wouldn't have noticed - we would have marvelled at that universe and how awesome it is that that universe suits us like a glove.

[jocaxx]

Hey. Who knows. Maybe the Big Dude has an old XT which is more than sufficient to run the most complex simulations imaginable - he does have infinity to wait, after all.

Even a sliderule and some paper will be sufficient. Once again, infinite time comes into play...

 

NOPE.

To do a real simulation you have to simulate EACH existent PARTICLE.

But there is MORE than 1 particle to simulate each particle. For example:

To simulate an eletron you need too many atoms in you computer and in you HD

because its necessary maore than one atom by particle to be simulated.

 

Beyond this, you have to explain HOW the INTELLIGENCE ( to make a simulation )

comes to existence !!

 

 

 

 

 

I can simulate an entire city on my computer using very simple software.

 

Not in the perfect simulation.

Could you computer simulate coconut bird that falls into the windshield of the car causing a terrible accident?

Sometimes, tinny detail change all. It is the chaos theory.

because thos its almost impossible simulate the entire city and mainly the origin of the life

where tinny detail make a big difference.

 

 

 

Everything here is so awesome because everything here is a prerequisite for us being here.

 

NOPE.

We are here BECAUSE the conditions are favorabel NOT because we MUST exist THEN the conditions must be favorable. Did you see the difference?

[Boerseun]

NOPE.

To do a real simulation you have to simulate EACH existent PARTICLE.

There's a vast difference between the terms "simulate" and "duplicate".

But there is MORE than 1 particle to simulate each particle. For example:

To simulate an eletron you need too many atoms in you computer and in you HD

because its necessary maore than one atom by particle to be simulated.

Why would you want to do that? And why are we having this discussion, in any case? This is pretty much off-topic.

Beyond this, you have to explain HOW the INTELLIGENCE ( to make a simulation ) comes to existence !!

You are referring to Pyrotex's posts above which you clearly have missed the context of.

Not in the perfect simulation.

Could you computer simulate coconut bird that falls into the windshield of the car causing a terrible accident? Sometimes, tinny detail change all. It is the chaos theory.

because thos its almost impossible simulate the entire city and mainly the origin of the life

where tinny detail make a big difference.

You have missed the point entirely. Chaos theory, like any other element in this universe, might just be unique to this particular universe. Like gravity works inverse squared here, it might be that another configuration of the universe gravity works totally different, balls fall up, blue is red, cockroaches only walk in reverse and there is no chaos. I have a sneaky suspicion that you are being willfully obtuse.

Everything here is so awesome because everything here is a prerequisite for us being here.

NOPE.

We are here BECAUSE the conditions are favorabel NOT because we MUST exist THEN the conditions must be favorable. Did you see the difference?

As an example of said suspicion I have regarding your intentions, I offer the paragraph of my post you quoted from in its entirety:

Everything here is so awesome because everything here is a prerequisite for us being here.

That's poppycock, and a confusion of causality, at best.

You have got the proverbial cat by the balls, and I doubt if either me or Pyrotex can help you. Don't build a strawman by selectively quoting me. Members with that kind of attitude tend to not last very long. Do you understand?

[modest]

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.

 

While one cannot prove a negative, it isn't hard to show that life is inconceivable given slightly different fundamental constants. For example, during big bang nucleosynthesis deuteron formation stopped neutron decay when the universe was about 1 billion Kelvin (about T = 100 seconds). Had the universe expanded more slowly or had the strong nuclear force been weaker there would have been time for all the neutrons to decay into protons making the only element in the universe hydrogen,

 

After 1 second, the only reaction that appreciably changes the number of neutrons is neutron decay, shown at right. The half-life of the neutron is 615 seconds. Without further reactions to preserve neutrons within stable nuclei, the Universe would be pure hydrogen.

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

 

A universe with no neutrons and only hydrogen makes intelligent life inconceivable.

 

We then conclude that our universe is so likely to be generated as any other...

 

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.

 

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...

 

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...

 

I don't see any reason your argument needs to rest on the probability of every universe being equally likely. You simply seem to be arguing that there is no reason to assume that life is the preferred condition. This is a common objection to the strong anthropic principle.

 

The weak anthropic principle asserts only that there is intelligent life in our universe and therefore the fundamental constants need to take on certain values to be consistent with that observed fact. I don't think you would disagree with the WAP (weak anthropic principle). The WAP is essentially a tautology implying nothing more than "if things were different they would be different".

 

The strong anthropic principle on the other hand asserts that intelligent life *must* exist and therefore the fundamental constants needed to be very nearly exactly what they are. If they needed to take on their present value and they did so by random then it was indeed an extraordinary and miraculous thing. This has been much criticized for pretty much the same reasons you are describing. There is no reason to assume that a universe populated with intelligent observers is somehow preferred over one that is not.

 

As wikipedia says,

 

Many criticisms focus on versions of the Strong Anthropic Principle, such as Barrett and Tipler's anthropic cosmological principle, that tend to describe the existence of life as a necessary prerequisite for the observable constants of physics. In a lecture titled "The Confusion of Cause and Effect in Bad Science," the paleophysicist Caroline Miller said:[55]

"The Anthropic Principle is based on the underlying belief that the universe was created for our benefit. Unfortunately for its adherents, all of the reality-based evidence at our disposal contradicts this belief. In a nonanthropocentric universe, there is no need for multiple universes or supernatural entities to explain life as we know it."

Similarly, Stephen Jay Gould [56] ,[57] Michael Shermer[58] and others claim that the stronger versions of the Anthropic Principle seem to reverse known causes and effects. Gould compared the claim that the universe is fine-tuned for the benefit of our kind of life to saying that sausages were made long and narrow so that they could fit into modern hotdog buns, or saying that ships had been invented to house barnacles. These critics cite the vast physical, fossil, genetic, and other biological evidence consistent with life having been fine-tuned through natural selection to adapt to the physical and geophysical environment in which life exists. Life appears to have adapted to physics, and not vice versa.

Anthropic principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Douglas Adams also makes a rather colorful analogy,

 

. . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

 

~modest

[modest]

Such a "median" universe would be almost infinitely more likely to be created than an "extreme" universe. We only have to assume that "extreme" values for the six UC would produce an "extreme" universe in some sense.

 

If the fundamental constants, or the 'dimensionless parameters' are further whittled down to a theory of everything having no free parameters then I think you will be exactly correct. It may currently seem arbitrary that the 6 parameters take on the values that they do, but maybe a future theory will show that the values are interrelated in order for the universe to work logically and be... I guess... 'functional'. If they are interrelated then the distribution couldn't be uniform.

 

I guess that would only be true if the discussion were limited to the values of the free parameters, because someone could argue that a different universe might have a different theory of everything.

 

It reminds me of Dr. Dick's analysis where he asserts that any information—no matter what its content—can be explained with his fundamental equation from which the usual laws of physics can be derived. :)

 

~modest

[jocaxx]

To do a real simulation you have to simulate EACH existent PARTICLE.

 

There's a vast difference between the terms "simulate" and "duplicate".

 

 

if you wish simulate the real amount of the state of the universe

you have to simulate each particle of them.

 

 

 

Why would you want to do that? And why are we having this discussion, in any case? This is pretty much off-topic.

 

because you said:

"Hey. Who knows. Maybe the Big Dude has an old XT which is more than sufficient to run the most complex simulations imaginable - he does have infinity to wait, after all."

 

 

Everything here is so awesome because everything here is a prerequisite for us being here.

That's poppycock, and a confusion of causality, at best.

 

You have got the proverbial cat by the balls, and I doubt if either me or Pyrotex can help you.

Don't build a strawman by selectively quoting me.

Members with that kind of attitude tend to not last very long. Do you understand?

 

No I dont understand.

Do you think the conditions we have in our universe was selected in order to we are here,

or not?

 

While one cannot prove a negative, it isn't hard to show that life is inconceivable given slightly different fundamental constants.

 

"SLYGHTLY" is relative.

For example, Between 1,0000001 and 0,0000002 exists INFINITES numbers, then it is possible

infinite different states that goes to life too.

 

 

 

A universe with no neutrons and only hydrogen makes intelligent life inconceivable.

 

you do not prove that other constants may counteract the effect of one and create other forms of life

 

 

 

This has been much criticized for pretty much the same reasons you are describing.

There is no reason to assume that a universe populated with intelligent observers is somehow preferred over one that is not.

 

Yes , I Agree.

But i thing all kind of universe is also equaly likely.