4 ms·

Anthropic arguments only work if there's a mechanism for generating other versions besides the one you're observing. For example, you could use the anthropic ar

by pontus 5y ago

Anthropic arguments only work if there's a mechanism for generating other versions besides the one you're observing. For example, you could use the anthropic argument to explain why earth is in the "goldilocks zone" because there are plenty other planets out there at varying distances from their sun. So, if you want to make the argument that 3d is preferred for some reason you need to acknowledge that there are other universes out there with 2d, 4d, etc that just can't sustain life and that therefore life only finds itself in the subset of universes that have three dimensions.

guerrilla 5y ago
> So, if you want to make the argument that 3d is preferred for some reason you need to acknowledge that there are other universes out there with 2d, 4d, etc that just can't sustain life and that therefore life only finds itself in the subset of universes that have three dimensions. Or you can make the argument that no other universes other than a 3D one can support life, i.e. that 3D is necessary for life. Then you can conclude if life, then 3D.
- pontus 5y ago
  I disagree. If there really is only one universe which is 3D, this argument does not in any way explain why it is 3D. If you use Bayesian probability, you would in this case start with p(3d) = 1 since there's only one universe which is 3d and then end with p(3d | life) = 1. In other words, there's no explanatory power in the observation that there's life. If instead you say that p(3d) = 1/1000 because maybe the multiverse has all sorts universes out there but you also say that life is only possible in 3d, i.e. p(life | 3d) > 0, but p(life | not 3d) = 0, then you go from p(3d) = 1/1000 to p(3d | life) = 1. In other words, the observation of life does have explanatory power.
  - GoblinSlayer 5y ago
    When you assume 3D, there's no need to explain it, because it's assumed from the start. 3D needs to be explained if it's not assumed.

by pontus 5y ago

guerrilla 5y ago

> So, if you want to make the argument that 3d is preferred for some reason you need to acknowledge that there are other universes out there with 2d, 4d, etc that just can't sustain life and that therefore life only finds itself in the subset of universes that have three dimensions. Or you can make the argument that no other universes other than a 3D one can support life, i.e. that 3D is necessary for life. Then you can conclude if life, then 3D.

pontus 5y ago
I disagree. If there really is only one universe which is 3D, this argument does not in any way explain why it is 3D. If you use Bayesian probability, you would in this case start with p(3d) = 1 since there's only one universe which is 3d and then end with p(3d | life) = 1. In other words, there's no explanatory power in the observation that there's life. If instead you say that p(3d) = 1/1000 because maybe the multiverse has all sorts universes out there but you also say that life is only possible in 3d, i.e. p(life | 3d) > 0, but p(life | not 3d) = 0, then you go from p(3d) = 1/1000 to p(3d | life) = 1. In other words, the observation of life does have explanatory power.
- GoblinSlayer 5y ago
  When you assume 3D, there's no need to explain it, because it's assumed from the start. 3D needs to be explained if it's not assumed.