6 ms·

What I'm saying with my argument is that the odds that we ended up in a "set" of universes similar to ours is exactly 0. (Which does not make it impossible.)

What I'm saying with my argument is that the odds that we ended up in a "set" of universes similar to ours is exactly 0. (Which does not make it impossible.) If the odds are 0, then it seems more reasonable that there is a better, more probable explanation that the universe is the way it is than chance. It's not based on what I want to believe, or even something from self-selection bias. It is something that can be calculated and either proven true or false, probably with set theory of some kind.

jlgreco 14y ago
In your dart example, would you say that whatever particular position a dart lands on would be better described by something other than chance?
- Xcelerate 14y ago
  Well, the crux with my example is that the dart lands exactly on 0.4. There is an infinite amount of real numbers between 0 and 1, so what is the probability it would land exactly on 0.4? Zero, of course. But that still doesn't make it impossible. I'm not saying no to the fact that it could have randomly landed there, but given that the probability is 0, I am saying that it is possible there is something else we have not discovered that provides a more probable explanation than chance. *A different type of analogy is the old spontaneous generation theory for maggots in meat. For a long time, people thought they just randomly appeared. Upon closer investigation, it turns out there were other, more deterministic processes going on.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    The probability that it lands on exactly. 4 is exactly the same as the probability of it landing on any other particular number. You place additional significance on . 4, but that is for cultural reasons. If I flip a coin 5 times in a row, HHHHH is just as likely as any other combination, but humans have the tendency to think that is weird or special. Anyway... If I understand your hangup correctly, it seems you are mistakenly thinking that all imaginable possible realities should have been equally likely (as positions on a random dart board would be). Of course this is not true; a reality where snakes developed internal organs that function as internal combustion engines which they use to power propellers is very unlikely indeed. The reason of course is that this reality did not arise by picking one randomly from a bag of all possible realities, but rather developed over time through random mutations that were selected for by natural selection. Now, of the possible realities random mutation and natural selection could have created, this world could be said to be equally likely. There is not some sort of "future purpose" as Penrose says, that is being driven towards.
  - Xcelerate 14y ago
    There is additional significance to 0.4. Maybe I didn't clarify that well enough in my original post. "0.4" represents the class of universes that support life in a comfortable way. What do I mean by comfortable? I mean that there are far, far more combinations of universe classes that would result in life that is painful (or even extremely painful). Short lifespans, constant agony as a result of different processes, etc. How do I know this? I don't -- it's just a conjecture (and everyone is just conjecturing too). I could be wrong. But it seems intuitively that there would be infinitely more permutations of a painful but life-supporting universe than the "comfortable" one we live in (I don't mean "comfortable" in the literal sense -- there's still plenty of pain in our world).
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Penrose was explicitly talking about biological evolution. If we are actually in a "fine tuned universe" discussion now, then all I have to say is "Anthropic Principle". I don't think there is much more meat there to discuss otherwise. We cannot (yet?) reason about any deterministic processes that may have lead the universe itself to have the constants it does. Of course we already know about many processes that support the formation and existence of life in this already existing universe. Stellar evolution for example, is a rather healthy branch of scientific inquiry. There are not "mysterious" things at play, unless Penrose and yourself are simply intending to imply that there are still things which we do not fully understand (which is obvious, and that is a very confusing way of stating something so obvious and universally recognized).
      - calinet6 14y ago
        Excellent summary, and very clear. I enjoyed reading your line of thinking. Thanks!
  - rwallace 14y ago
    Okay, what's the probability of the dart landing on 0.400000? About one in a million, right? It's not zero because the target is only specified to finite precision. Our universe is also only specified to finite precision; we don't know whether physics is ultimately continuous or discrete, but regardless, we can only measure anything to finitely many digits. So whatever the probability of our universe may be, it is at least greater than zero.
calinet6 14y ago
"What I'm saying with my argument is that the odds that we ended up in a "set" of universes similar to ours is exactly 0." I generally use the anthropic principle in the context of evolution and our existence on this planet—of all planets in the universe—versus our existence in this universe. You could certainly take it to that extreme, but it's a much deeper venture and we know so little concrete data about it. How many universes are there? Is it an infinite set, as some suggest? We don't know. Do they differ in their stability or cosmological constants? We don't know. How many universes have there ever been? We don't know. How much time has ever existed? We don't know. Does time even exist outside the 4-dimensional space of our universe? We don't know that, either. But we do have a very good theory about how we came about, as sentient lifeforms, on this specific planet around this specific sun in this specific universe. That's quite a lot, actually. If you can prove anything mathematically about the probability of our universe's existence by random chance as opposed to some outside factor, then book your flight to Stockholm. My most humble hypothesis is that you will require more data to run those numbers; data that we do not yet have. You could make some guesses, but that's all they'll be. In the end, it boils down to the age old endless question: originally it was "how were we created?"; then it was, "how was the Earth created?", then "how was the solar system created?", followed by galaxy, space, the universe, whatever's holding the universe, ad infinitum. At the ever-expanding edge of our knowledge, "God" seems as good a word as any to describe that mystery.

jlgreco 14y ago

In your dart example, would you say that whatever particular position a dart lands on would be better described by something other than chance?

Xcelerate 14y ago
Well, the crux with my example is that the dart lands exactly on 0.4. There is an infinite amount of real numbers between 0 and 1, so what is the probability it would land exactly on 0.4? Zero, of course. But that still doesn't make it impossible. I'm not saying no to the fact that it could have randomly landed there, but given that the probability is 0, I am saying that it is possible there is something else we have not discovered that provides a more probable explanation than chance. *A different type of analogy is the old spontaneous generation theory for maggots in meat. For a long time, people thought they just randomly appeared. Upon closer investigation, it turns out there were other, more deterministic processes going on.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  The probability that it lands on exactly. 4 is exactly the same as the probability of it landing on any other particular number. You place additional significance on . 4, but that is for cultural reasons. If I flip a coin 5 times in a row, HHHHH is just as likely as any other combination, but humans have the tendency to think that is weird or special. Anyway... If I understand your hangup correctly, it seems you are mistakenly thinking that all imaginable possible realities should have been equally likely (as positions on a random dart board would be). Of course this is not true; a reality where snakes developed internal organs that function as internal combustion engines which they use to power propellers is very unlikely indeed. The reason of course is that this reality did not arise by picking one randomly from a bag of all possible realities, but rather developed over time through random mutations that were selected for by natural selection. Now, of the possible realities random mutation and natural selection could have created, this world could be said to be equally likely. There is not some sort of "future purpose" as Penrose says, that is being driven towards.
- Xcelerate 14y ago
  There is additional significance to 0.4. Maybe I didn't clarify that well enough in my original post. "0.4" represents the class of universes that support life in a comfortable way. What do I mean by comfortable? I mean that there are far, far more combinations of universe classes that would result in life that is painful (or even extremely painful). Short lifespans, constant agony as a result of different processes, etc. How do I know this? I don't -- it's just a conjecture (and everyone is just conjecturing too). I could be wrong. But it seems intuitively that there would be infinitely more permutations of a painful but life-supporting universe than the "comfortable" one we live in (I don't mean "comfortable" in the literal sense -- there's still plenty of pain in our world).
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Penrose was explicitly talking about biological evolution. If we are actually in a "fine tuned universe" discussion now, then all I have to say is "Anthropic Principle". I don't think there is much more meat there to discuss otherwise. We cannot (yet?) reason about any deterministic processes that may have lead the universe itself to have the constants it does. Of course we already know about many processes that support the formation and existence of life in this already existing universe. Stellar evolution for example, is a rather healthy branch of scientific inquiry. There are not "mysterious" things at play, unless Penrose and yourself are simply intending to imply that there are still things which we do not fully understand (which is obvious, and that is a very confusing way of stating something so obvious and universally recognized).
    - calinet6 14y ago
      Excellent summary, and very clear. I enjoyed reading your line of thinking. Thanks!
- rwallace 14y ago
  Okay, what's the probability of the dart landing on 0.400000? About one in a million, right? It's not zero because the target is only specified to finite precision. Our universe is also only specified to finite precision; we don't know whether physics is ultimately continuous or discrete, but regardless, we can only measure anything to finitely many digits. So whatever the probability of our universe may be, it is at least greater than zero.

calinet6 14y ago

"What I'm saying with my argument is that the odds that we ended up in a "set" of universes similar to ours is exactly 0." I generally use the anthropic principle in the context of evolution and our existence on this planet—of all planets in the universe—versus our existence in this universe. You could certainly take it to that extreme, but it's a much deeper venture and we know so little concrete data about it. How many universes are there? Is it an infinite set, as some suggest? We don't know. Do they differ in their stability or cosmological constants? We don't know. How many universes have there ever been? We don't know. How much time has ever existed? We don't know. Does time even exist outside the 4-dimensional space of our universe? We don't know that, either. But we do have a very good theory about how we came about, as sentient lifeforms, on this specific planet around this specific sun in this specific universe. That's quite a lot, actually. If you can prove anything mathematically about the probability of our universe's existence by random chance as opposed to some outside factor, then book your flight to Stockholm. My most humble hypothesis is that you will require more data to run those numbers; data that we do not yet have. You could make some guesses, but that's all they'll be. In the end, it boils down to the age old endless question: originally it was "how were we created?"; then it was, "how was the Earth created?", then "how was the solar system created?", followed by galaxy, space, the universe, whatever's holding the universe, ad infinitum. At the ever-expanding edge of our knowledge, "God" seems as good a word as any to describe that mystery.