5 ms·

Here's a counterargument. Let's say there are two possible coincidences, A and B, each with an independent one-in-a-million chance. Coincidence A is necessary

Here's a counterargument. Let's say there are two possible coincidences, A and B, each with an independent one-in-a-million chance. Coincidence A is necessary for life to emerge, but B is irrelevant. Now let's say there are a trillion universes, with random settings. Only one in a million universes have coincidence A, but those are all the universes with observers. All the observers see coincidence A. Out of those million universes, we can expect to see only one universe with coincidence B. The vast majority of observers will only see the coincidence that allowed them to exist.

soulofmischief 2y ago
But how can you determine that you're not one in a million?
- DennisP 2y ago
  You can't, not for sure. But this does mean that we shouldn't expect to find gratuitous coincidences. Most likely, the apparent coincidences we observe in physics and cosmology will either be necessary, due to physical relationships we don't understand yet, or will be explainable by the anthropic principle.
  - soulofmischief 2y ago
    Would being one in a million itself be a coincidence though, one which we couldn't differentiate from coincidences explainable by the anthropic principle? "Most likely" doesn't satisfy me. It's easy to form conjectures, but there is a deep metaphysical problem when it comes to satisfactorily modeling a system from the inside. It's turtles all the way down [0]. Unless our universe is embedded within another system, and its configuration at least partially mirrors the configuration of the system it is embedded within [1], and this is recoverable, then we really just can't make many absolute claims about the nature of our universe's particular configuration. [0] And the only way out is by solving the deepest metaphysical problems which physics has not been able to touch, such as, "Why is there anything at all?" [1] An example might be the conservation of energy, or stationary action. If such principles were to hold even within a system our universe might be embedded in, we could start to narrow down a few things and maybe uncover some suprauniversal inevitabilities. The challenge is proving that without observing the universe from the vantage point of a host system, which would really mean proving the inevitability of such principles in any system of sufficient complexity.
    - GoblinSlayer 2y ago
      Anthropic principle explains only coincidences necessary for existence of life. If a coincidence isn't necessary for life, then it's not explainable by anthropic principle. Physics isn't unable to touch the problem "Why is there anything at all?", it only doesn't touch it because the problem was declared to be useless to think about, and you obviously can't touch it without thinking. The usual reason is that the thing kept existing since previous time.
      - soulofmischief 2y ago
        Not quite. It was declared useless to think about precisely because physics can't answer the most fundamental question of "Why". Richard Feynman went off on an interviewer for asking "Why are they doing that?" (regarding magnetic attraction/repulsion) precisely for this reason. [0] He considers it a waste of time to consider, because you fundamentally can't make meaningful progress on the problem with our current tools and understanding, and it's possible that no amount of tools or understanding can reach the bottom-most turtle. There are some things we may simply never know. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1lL-hXO27Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1lL-hXO27Q
        GoblinSlayer 2y ago
        That you can't make progress is not a fact, but an opinion. But it's a fact that you won't make progress if you don't try to solve problems. As another example, Lee Smolin disagrees with anthropic principle, because he believes anthropic principle doesn't allow to study such fundamental problems. At least he thinks solving these fundamental problems is science's business.
        soulofmischief 2y ago
        I agree that it's worth pursuing, but it turns into a metaphysical journey, and metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, not physics. We have to establish that it's even possible to answer these questions.

soulofmischief 2y ago

But how can you determine that you're not one in a million?

DennisP 2y ago
You can't, not for sure. But this does mean that we shouldn't expect to find gratuitous coincidences. Most likely, the apparent coincidences we observe in physics and cosmology will either be necessary, due to physical relationships we don't understand yet, or will be explainable by the anthropic principle.
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  Would being one in a million itself be a coincidence though, one which we couldn't differentiate from coincidences explainable by the anthropic principle? "Most likely" doesn't satisfy me. It's easy to form conjectures, but there is a deep metaphysical problem when it comes to satisfactorily modeling a system from the inside. It's turtles all the way down [0]. Unless our universe is embedded within another system, and its configuration at least partially mirrors the configuration of the system it is embedded within [1], and this is recoverable, then we really just can't make many absolute claims about the nature of our universe's particular configuration. [0] And the only way out is by solving the deepest metaphysical problems which physics has not been able to touch, such as, "Why is there anything at all?" [1] An example might be the conservation of energy, or stationary action. If such principles were to hold even within a system our universe might be embedded in, we could start to narrow down a few things and maybe uncover some suprauniversal inevitabilities. The challenge is proving that without observing the universe from the vantage point of a host system, which would really mean proving the inevitability of such principles in any system of sufficient complexity.
  - GoblinSlayer 2y ago
    Anthropic principle explains only coincidences necessary for existence of life. If a coincidence isn't necessary for life, then it's not explainable by anthropic principle. Physics isn't unable to touch the problem "Why is there anything at all?", it only doesn't touch it because the problem was declared to be useless to think about, and you obviously can't touch it without thinking. The usual reason is that the thing kept existing since previous time.
    - soulofmischief 2y ago
      Not quite. It was declared useless to think about precisely because physics can't answer the most fundamental question of "Why". Richard Feynman went off on an interviewer for asking "Why are they doing that?" (regarding magnetic attraction/repulsion) precisely for this reason. [0] He considers it a waste of time to consider, because you fundamentally can't make meaningful progress on the problem with our current tools and understanding, and it's possible that no amount of tools or understanding can reach the bottom-most turtle. There are some things we may simply never know. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1lL-hXO27Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1lL-hXO27Q
      - GoblinSlayer 2y ago
        That you can't make progress is not a fact, but an opinion. But it's a fact that you won't make progress if you don't try to solve problems. As another example, Lee Smolin disagrees with anthropic principle, because he believes anthropic principle doesn't allow to study such fundamental problems. At least he thinks solving these fundamental problems is science's business.
        soulofmischief 2y ago
        I agree that it's worth pursuing, but it turns into a metaphysical journey, and metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, not physics. We have to establish that it's even possible to answer these questions.