This stipulation has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I can only presume that you think it does, which pretty much makes my case for me.
All we have stipulated is that it is this sort of universe which is of interest.
Linda
The fine tuning argument
- Thread starter Robin
- Start date
This stipulation has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I can only presume that you think it does, which pretty much makes my case for me.
All we have stipulated is that it is this sort of universe which is of interest.
Linda
Andrew Wiggin
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 2,915
The universe doesn't need to have observers, but no universe without observers has anyone to look around and say 'hey cool, life!'
A
Andrew Wiggin
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 2,915
Another fallacy I'm seeing here is something that for lack of vocabulary and the fact that I'm not an astrophysicist, I'll approach by analogy.
We know that our own planet has a set of properties that support life. We know this because we look around and see life, including ourselves. We can hypothesize that the exact conditions of this planet are necessary for life to exist, and therefore life doesn't exist anywhere but here, but there's no way to prove that. In fact, the great variety of life found here and the vast differences in the environments in which it is found (anywhere from algae that live on the antarctic ice sheet to creatures that live in superheated chemical laden water from volcanic vents in the deepest oceans) shows that a range of conditions can support life, and even if ONLY places with conditions somewhere within this range can support life, then these conditions are diverse enough to be less unlikely than they initially seem.
Similarly, I don't see any proof or even any way of proving that life would be made impossible by tiny changes in the conditions of the universe. More likely it would mean that life in a universe with different conditions would be different.
A.
We know that our own planet has a set of properties that support life. We know this because we look around and see life, including ourselves. We can hypothesize that the exact conditions of this planet are necessary for life to exist, and therefore life doesn't exist anywhere but here, but there's no way to prove that. In fact, the great variety of life found here and the vast differences in the environments in which it is found (anywhere from algae that live on the antarctic ice sheet to creatures that live in superheated chemical laden water from volcanic vents in the deepest oceans) shows that a range of conditions can support life, and even if ONLY places with conditions somewhere within this range can support life, then these conditions are diverse enough to be less unlikely than they initially seem.
Similarly, I don't see any proof or even any way of proving that life would be made impossible by tiny changes in the conditions of the universe. More likely it would mean that life in a universe with different conditions would be different.
A.
Singularitarian
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,007
It is true folks.
Imagine you where given a magickal set of cards, cards of an infinite amount. Each card is a universe and if only one of those cards are manifested ''or chosen by the proverbial assistent'', then the question to why this universe arose from so many persist. But if every card was played, then there was no choice but to have the tunings we have in this universe because there are an infinite amount of universes with large and small quantum differences to ours. Literally-speaking, multiverse theory removes the importance and superiority of this universe. It also redefined what ''universe'' is meant to mean.
Imagine you where given a magickal set of cards, cards of an infinite amount. Each card is a universe and if only one of those cards are manifested ''or chosen by the proverbial assistent'', then the question to why this universe arose from so many persist. But if every card was played, then there was no choice but to have the tunings we have in this universe because there are an infinite amount of universes with large and small quantum differences to ours. Literally-speaking, multiverse theory removes the importance and superiority of this universe. It also redefined what ''universe'' is meant to mean.
Singularitarian
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,007
Atually. recent evidence has shown the universe would still exist, but not as we know it. Particles and all arrays of systems take on bizarre natures. I will find the reference.
REF http://www.economist.com:80/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13226725
Last edited:
Singularitarian
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,007
For those who may not understand the reference, i wrote it in words which might help clarify it for the layman:
Qoutations from article, and bolded by my replies
''In the 1990s a physicist called Lucien Hardy proposed a thought experiment that makes nonsense of the famous interaction between matter and
antimatter—that when a particle meets its antiparticle, the pair always annihilate one another in a burst of energy''
This is due to the wave function. Because ultimately the observer-effect of Copehagen left the whole universe ghostly and unpredictable without
an observer, when two opposite particles of CP invariance, that is, an electron and a positron come together, they would normally anihilate. However,
since no one is around to define the collapse very well, such as an arbitrary observer, then it would have been possible for them not to release their
energies
''Dr Hardy’s scheme left open the possibility that in some cases when their interaction is not observed a particle and an antiparticle could
interact with one another and survive. Of course, since the interaction has to remain unseen, no one should ever notice this happening, which
is why the result is known as Hardy’s paradox.''
Needless to say, quantum decoherence, the ability for quantum wave in some kind of solution to decohere and collapse without an observer has been known
experimentally since 1996 by Dr Alain Aspect and his team. However, this takes time, and statistical averages still would allow Hardy's pardox
''The two teams used the same technique in their experiments. They managed to do what had previously been thought impossible: they probed reality without
disturbing it. Not disturbing it is the quantum-mechanical equivalent of not really looking. So they were able to show that the universe does indeed
exist when it is not being observed.''
The choice of words in the article is somewhat, surprisingly misleading. It has been known from a quantum mechanical viewpoint and even speculated
by nuerophysicists that reality would exist, just not very well defined. Dr Fred Alan Wolf once said, ''you might be lucky enough to see an atom quantum
leap at the corner of your eye,'' suggesting that events will still happen, even if not collapsed by any direct measurement.
''What the several researchers found was that there were more photons in some places than there should have been and fewer in others. The stunning result,
though, was that in some places the number of photons was actually less than zero. Fewer than zero particles being present usually means that you have
antiparticles instead. But there is no such thing as an antiphoton (photons are their own antiparticles, and are pure energy in any case), so that cannot
apply here.''
Basically, if current theory on photons is correct, then the results are showing that Hardy's Paradox explains how mathematically consistent objects
equivalent to antipartners would behave is certainly polorized photons cancelling each other out in some parts of space, but not in others. Needless to say
and totally unrelated to your questions, is that i raised the idea that we might have our contentions on antiphoton possibilities wrong, but there is
my two cents
Qoutations from article, and bolded by my replies
''In the 1990s a physicist called Lucien Hardy proposed a thought experiment that makes nonsense of the famous interaction between matter and
antimatter—that when a particle meets its antiparticle, the pair always annihilate one another in a burst of energy''
This is due to the wave function. Because ultimately the observer-effect of Copehagen left the whole universe ghostly and unpredictable without
an observer, when two opposite particles of CP invariance, that is, an electron and a positron come together, they would normally anihilate. However,
since no one is around to define the collapse very well, such as an arbitrary observer, then it would have been possible for them not to release their
energies
''Dr Hardy’s scheme left open the possibility that in some cases when their interaction is not observed a particle and an antiparticle could
interact with one another and survive. Of course, since the interaction has to remain unseen, no one should ever notice this happening, which
is why the result is known as Hardy’s paradox.''
Needless to say, quantum decoherence, the ability for quantum wave in some kind of solution to decohere and collapse without an observer has been known
experimentally since 1996 by Dr Alain Aspect and his team. However, this takes time, and statistical averages still would allow Hardy's pardox
''The two teams used the same technique in their experiments. They managed to do what had previously been thought impossible: they probed reality without
disturbing it. Not disturbing it is the quantum-mechanical equivalent of not really looking. So they were able to show that the universe does indeed
exist when it is not being observed.''
The choice of words in the article is somewhat, surprisingly misleading. It has been known from a quantum mechanical viewpoint and even speculated
by nuerophysicists that reality would exist, just not very well defined. Dr Fred Alan Wolf once said, ''you might be lucky enough to see an atom quantum
leap at the corner of your eye,'' suggesting that events will still happen, even if not collapsed by any direct measurement.
''What the several researchers found was that there were more photons in some places than there should have been and fewer in others. The stunning result,
though, was that in some places the number of photons was actually less than zero. Fewer than zero particles being present usually means that you have
antiparticles instead. But there is no such thing as an antiphoton (photons are their own antiparticles, and are pure energy in any case), so that cannot
apply here.''
Basically, if current theory on photons is correct, then the results are showing that Hardy's Paradox explains how mathematically consistent objects
equivalent to antipartners would behave is certainly polorized photons cancelling each other out in some parts of space, but not in others. Needless to say
and totally unrelated to your questions, is that i raised the idea that we might have our contentions on antiphoton possibilities wrong, but there is
my two cents
westprog
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 8,928
There's no way to prove it, but I think we can make certain assumptions about universes that last less than a millionth of a second, or consist entirely of diffuse hydrogen.
Singularitarian
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,007
Of course things can be proved that is unless the theory is beyond rationality. The theory in question however is not.
Think of this as a cautionary tale to your response.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
yes but there are also an infinite number of possible universes where that does not happen, say the fine structrure constant can only vary .01% from it's current value.
There are an infinite number of values between the current value and the one where is fails. So how do you say that there are a higher number of universes where the value doesn't work, fine there are an infinite number of universes where it does work. two mutual sets of infinity, neither is bigger.
Now gravity on the other hand can vary widely.
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
Imagining a set of cards is the same as assuming there is more than one card. So FT fails even without a mulltiverse. I can't simply assume the universe could exist in any other variations. Maybe it can, maybe it can't. All we know for sure is that one set of constants is possible. We have no evidence other ones are yet. And while it's great fun to theorize other types of universes, it's not proof that we just happened to get lucky with this one.