Fine-Tuning Problem in Cosmology

[Toontown]

How much would you bet on this universe being a simulation?

If you mean a simulation inside a computer, I wouldn't bet a penny of your money on it, because it has been shown mathematically that a computer capable of running such a detailed simulation would have to be bigger than the visible universe and use more energy than is available in the visible universe.

A simulation running outside a controlling apparatus like a computer wouldn't be a simulated universe. It would be a real universe. IOW, the universe is it's own simulator.

 

[Dr. Keith]

If you mean a simulation inside a computer, I wouldn't bet a penny of your money on it, because it has been shown mathematically that a computer capable of running such a detailed simulation would have to be bigger than the visible universe and use more energy than is available in the visible universe.

I appreciate you looking out for my financial interests.

A simulation running outside a controlling apparatus like a computer wouldn't be a simulated universe. It would be a real universe. IOW, the universe is it's own simulator.

I was mainly trying to tease out who is arguing for what in this thread. This is not a field I have a huge amount of interest in or familiarity wit the terms, so I'll likely abuse them, shortly.

Fudbucker seemed to be arguing that the FTP points to this universe being a simulation and you seemed to be somewhat in agreement with him, but arguing more for an inflationary model. I was just trying to determine if you thought the inflationary model pointed to a simulation or if you were simply arguing that the FTP pointed to an inflationary model. From this post I gather it is the latter or something else entirely that I've misunderstood.

 

[Toontown]

I'm not arguing against inflation.

Well, it was the topic of this thread.

That is a good question. The basic answer is, of course: Because it is possible.

... But I realize that much of the debate has moved away from the initial topic.

Hans

1. Good. I don't recommend betting against it.

2. I disagree. I am also quite certain that the typical "puddle fallacy" invocation is itself a fallacy. A self-aware puddle is well advised to question how a conscious-puddle-generating pothole exists - particularly when the puddle has no reason whatsoever to suspect the particular pothole in question is the only possibility, and has reasons to suspect otherwise. In fact, I would go so far as to claim that the failure to ask that question, choosing instead to invoke the fallacious "puddle fallacy", would be very near the summit of intellectual bankruptcy. Fortunately, the people who move science forward are not given to such intellectual awkwardness.

3. You could "answer" everything with a tautology. Why this and not that? Because this and not that. Nothing to see here. Move along. We'd still be living in caves, but we'd only need one Earth to be cave-dwellers instead of the 2 Earths we currently need to sustain the current civilization. So you may be on to something, in a strictly utilitarian sense.

 

[Mudcat]

Does a universe without life preclude the possibility of a 'fine tuner'?

Does a universe with life necessitate the possibility of a 'fine tuner'?

In the end does it matter either way?

We are here. Whether we are here because some Stone Age war God allows us to be, or because some strange alien crash landing on our planet millions of years ago, or because of chance... We are here.

And if we weren't here then it wouldn't even matter.

 

[Toontown]

Does a universe without life preclude the possibility of a 'fine tuner'?

Does a universe with life necessitate the possibility of a 'fine tuner'?

In the end does it matter either way?

We are here. Whether we are here because some Stone Age war God allows us to be, or because some strange alien crash landing on our planet millions of years ago, or because of chance... We are here.

And if we weren't here then it wouldn't even matter.

Fudbucker has explained this, but I guess it needs explaining again and again, the whack-a-mole nature of forum discussion being what it is...

When cosmologists speak of "fine tuning", they do not mean that they believe a supernatural being has been at work fine tuning the universal constants. They simply mean they recognize that the appearance of fine tuning is very probably a vital clue to the nature of the universe and should not be ignored.

Unless you're a mudcat who just doesn't give a rat's ass, in which case you wouldn't be a cosmologist (or interested in it) in the first place, so (to you) it wouldn't matter.

Look into 'genetic programming' for a good example of how repetitive random trial and error can produce stunning, functional results which look like the work of an intelligent programmer. But it's really just a fast but mindless computer very quickly and repetitively trying random code until something accidentally works. I've read the results of this mindless approach to programming can be quite elegant, but tend to look messy and can be quite convoluted and difficult to follow. So, if you see something that works, but looks messy and arbitrary, and is convoluted and difficult to follow, that might well be a clue that it is not the work of a thinking designer.

 

[Dr. Keith]

When cosmologists speak of "fine tuning", they do not mean that they believe a supernatural being has been at work fine tuning the universal constants.

Ahh, but I think Fudbucker does. He seems to think we are in a simulation "designed" by beings outside of, or beyond, our universe. So, while you like his arguments, I get the felling you are not on the same page.

 

[Aridas]

Ahh, but I think Fudbucker does. He seems to think we are in a simulation "designed" by beings outside of, or beyond, our universe. So, while you like his arguments, I get the felling you are not on the same page.

I'm not particularly convinced that he regards it as more than a possibility, at this point, on the other hand. I don't think I recall reading him treating at as more than that, regardless. As I recall, he did say that it would be more supportable, if, for example, certain results suggested that a multiverse was not actually the case, but not that he actually thinks that it's the case, at the moment.

 

[Dancing David]

You know there is no simple answer to that. However:

It all fits inflation and nothing else, as these laureates will explain.

http://www.kavliprize.org/events-and-features/2014-kavli-prize-astrophysics-discussion-laureates

The LHC was built as a means to understand the high energy physics necessary to fully flesh out inflation theory and make it fully predictive.

But I'll go ahead and make my prediction now, leaving naysayers to perch on that crumbly ledge that's about to break off. I predict that inflation with variable constants is real and will eventually be as accepted as relativity. Like Tegmark today, I would have bet everything I have on it 20 years ago.

And where is a citation about my question?

Where are the ranges and constrains of the constants, and any other support for the totally speculative and moot FTA?

 

[MRC_Hans]

1. Good. I don't recommend betting against it.

I don't know. It is the longest bets that pay best.

2. I disagree. I am also quite certain that the typical "puddle fallacy" invocation is itself a fallacy. A self-aware puddle is well advised to question how a conscious-puddle-generating pothole exists - particularly when the puddle has no reason whatsoever to suspect the particular pothole in question is the only possibility, and has reasons to suspect otherwise.

It is not a fallacy, it is an analogy. Very few analogies carry past the immidiate level.

3. You could "answer" everything with a tautology. Why this and not that? Because this and not that. Nothing to see here. Move along. We'd still be living in caves, but we'd only need one Earth to be cave-dwellers instead of the 2 Earths we currently need to sustain the current civilization. So you may be on to something, in a strictly utilitarian sense.

Nah, the point is that finding out how the universe was created and what the chances were is a job for people with long titles, longer educations, and very expensive equipment. Till they do, the rest of us are stuck with guesswork and simple analogies. Bleak, I know, but that's how it is.

Fudbucker realizes this by linking to a number of articles by such people. Unfortunately, that makes most of these discussions rather pointless.

What we might discuss, however, are the implications of the possible conclusions.

Hans

 

[smartcooky]

6. The theory that we live in a simulation could solve the fine-tuning problem because it's possible the universe that's running the simulation doesn't have a fine-tuning problem- they programmed it into the simulation for some reason. Maybe as a hint that we do indeed live in a simulation.

It also might explain why coastlines (especially fjords) look so fascinating, as well as why 7 x 6 = 42.

 

[tsig]

Ahh, but I think Fudbucker does. He seems to think we are in a simulation "designed" by beings outside of, or beyond, our universe. So, while you like his arguments, I get the felling you are not on the same page.

"Why is the universe designed/fine tuned for life"?

Begs the question by assuming that the universe was designed for life.

 

[Dr. Keith]

"Why is the universe designed/fine tuned for life"?

Begs the question by assuming that the universe was designed for life.

Agreed.

I'm wondering how we determine why the simulator's universe was designed for simulations.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I'm not particularly convinced that he regards it as more than a possibility, at this point, on the other hand. I don't think I recall reading him treating at as more than that, regardless. As I recall, he did say that it would be more supportable, if, for example, certain results suggested that a multiverse was not actually the case, but not that he actually thinks that it's the case, at the moment.

He called it a possible solution, but I see it as simply moving back one layer, not solving anything.

 

[Fudbucker]

He called it a possible solution, but I see it as simply moving back one layer, not solving anything.

It would only move it "back one layer" if the universe where our simulated universe resides in has its own fine-tuning problem. There's no reason to think that it would.

The simulation theory is one possibility, among many, that would explain fine-tuning. I rank inflation resulting in a multiverse of universes with random constant values as the most probable hypothesis.

 

[Dr. Keith]

It would only move it "back one layer" if the universe where our simulated universe resides in has its own fine-tuning problem. There's no reason to think that it would.

Why not? How would it exist or support simulations if it wasn't fine tuned?

 

[Fudbucker]

Why not? How would it exist or support simulations if it wasn't fine tuned?

One possible explanation: the "real" universe (the one running the simulation) may be a cyclical universe. That would explain away the problem as well as a multiverse does. Or the values of their physical constants might not even appear fine-tuned. Or they have a natural explanation for why the universe is the way it is.

Lots of reasons why there might not be a fine-tuning problem in the "real" universe. Perhaps they programmed one in to get us used to the idea, instead of springing it on us all at once. Maybe they want us to be at a certain tech-level before we start finding these kinds of clues. Who knows. It's possible (and according to Bostrom's argument, there's already a decent chance we're in a simulation).

 

[John Jones]

Simulations all the way down.

 

[Dr. Keith]

One possible explanation: the "real" universe (the one running the simulation) may be a cyclical universe.

Wouldn't it be easier to apply that solution to this universe? Why add a layer?

Or the values of their physical constants might not even appear fine-tuned.

Or they may be able to see that just because the "appear" fine-tuned does not actually make them fine tuned?

Or they have a natural explanation for why the universe is the way it is.

Something like: If it wasn't we wouldn't be here to observe it?

Lots of reasons why there might not be a fine-tuning problem in the "real" universe.

All seem to apply equally well to this universe.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Simulations all the way down.

It seems a long time since I first referenced turtles in this thread, and yet this made me smile.

 

[Aridas]

Simulations all the way down.

Doesn't have to be. Even "supernatural creators" of some varieties don't necessarily have to invoke the turtles all the way down bit, though, depending on how they are claimed to have come to be. That the most popular versions that we do see invoke it doesn't negate that.