5 ms·
To some extent, actually, yes. Here's a way of doing it. Let us say that a hyper-advanced civilization has the ability, through simulations or otherwise, of c
by DarkShikari 18y ago
To some extent, actually, yes. Here's a way of doing it.
Let us say that a hyper-advanced civilization has the ability, through simulations or otherwise, of calculating the odds of life arising in a universe with given initial conditions and fundamental constants (to some rough accuracy). They can test billions of possible initial states, including our own, and use that to see whether we lie in a very probable location in phase space or an improbable one. If the location is probable, it strongly supports the multiverse theory.
If the location is improbable, the theory is likely false. For example, if the average probability of life arising in a given universe in some chunk of phase space that includes ours is 40%, and ours is in a subsection of that phase space with a 30% probability, the multiverse theory is not falsified. If ours is in a subsection of that phase space with a 0.000001% probability (far lower than average), it suggests that multiverse is unlikely, because our existence seems to be in violation of pure chance.
The same method can be used to falsify evolution. Test billions of simulations of the Earth's development of life, and see where our species falls statistically. If we're in a probable area of the phase space (phase space of possible sentient creatures to evolve), our understanding of evolution is likely correct, and if we're in a very improbable area (many many standard deviations away from the most likely), our understanding must be flawed somewhere.
- swombat 18y agoDown-modded for basic misunderstanding of the scientific method.
- DarkShikari 18y agoExactly how? Or are you just going to respond with a useless one-liner rather than actually explain your objection? Statistical analysis of probabilities is a method of analyzing the odds of a theory's validity. If a theory requires that reality be extremely improbable, that theory is highly unlikely. And when there's absolutely nothing else you can do, its the only option other than blind faith. I'll repeat this again: If a theory requires that reality be extremely improbable, that theory is highly unlikely. The entire point of the Anthropic Principle is to attempt to answer this question by stating that if reality was not improbable as such, we wouldn't exist to ask that question. Do you object to this concept? How is this concept a violation of the scientific method?
- swombat 18y agoI warmly invite you to consult the wikipedia page on the scientific method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method In it, you will find the "essential elements" of the scientific method: * Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry) * Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject) * Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory) * Experiments (tests of all of the above) The last two elements are missing from your approach, and it is hence unscientific. Please note that the anthropic principle is not a scientific theory, it is a wild guess at why things might be what they are. If a theory requires that reality be extremely improbable, that theory is highly unlikely. This is a very wild conjecture with no substantiating evidence. It is wholly equal to blind faith, and in no way superior to it.
- DarkShikari 18y agoPlease note that the anthropic principle is not a scientific theory, it is a wild guess at why things might be what they are. It is wholly equal to blind faith, and in no way superior to it. So, by your logic, the anthropic principle is wholly equal to blind faith? Sure, its not strictly science, and more of a logical argument than a scientific experiment (much like my original post), but really? Equal to blind faith? If you are that deluded, I'm not even going to bother arguing this. This is pointless. Go get yourself a source a bit better than Wikipedia and educate yourself.
- swombat 18y agoWikipedia has become a fairly good reference for these sorts of basic principles. In terms of intellectual "worth thinking about"-ness, the anthropic principle may be more worthwhile than blind faith, but in terms of science, it is equally worthless. You need to revise your understanding of how science works, or else you'll only continue to blunder around.