4 ms·
It also kind of is not, inasmuch as it doesn't argue that there's the possibility of a universe where a "slower" speed of light (whatever that might mean) would
by JdeBP 2y ago
It also kind of is not, inasmuch as it doesn't argue that there's the possibility of a universe where a "slower" speed of light (whatever that might mean) would not permit the existence of humans. It merely argues that the speeds of the human-centric world have to be small fractions of c, whatever value c is, by dint of how the macroscopic relates to the subatomic.
In natural units, in all such theoretical universes, c is 1; and all that this argument really states is that humans and similar atom-based things have to move at very small fractions of 1.
- ithkuil 2y agoI.e. it's not that light it's fast but rather it's us who are slow
- kibwen 2y ago> In natural units, in all such theoretical universes, c is 1 I think this could be an instance of falling prey to the same sort of assumptions that the anthropic principle is intended to expose. For example, imagine theoretical universes where the speed of light is non-constant, or varies depending on where you are, or changes over time, etc.
- griffzhowl 2y agoI'm not sure this affects the argument. Even if c were to change, creatures made of atoms would still have to be in conditions where their velocities relative to the objects around them are low compared to c, otherwise they would disintegrate on contact. There are other assumptions about atoms that go into this of course, but the goal of the article is to explain why any creatures made of atoms would think of the speed of light as very fast compared to the interations they're accustomed to.