4 ms·

The WAP accounts for high improbability by positing a multiverse, but (at least as I understand it) it doesn't predict high improbability, even if there is a mu

by _greim_ 12y ago

The WAP accounts for high improbability by positing a multiverse, but (at least as I understand it) it doesn't predict high improbability, even if there is a multiverse. Also, in a multiverse scenario, the improbable thing might not be the formation of life, but the fine-tuning of the laws of physics which allows the formation of life. In which case life might be relatively common.

danieltillett 12y ago
Also, in a multiverse scenario, the improbable thing might not be the formation of life, but the fine-tuning of the laws of physics which allows the formation of life. In which case life might be relatively common. If we assume that this tuning is not an all or nothing event then the larger the possible universe size the more likely it is that we lie within an region where the features are tuned just enough to let one intelligent life form arise. You can think of the tuned conditions that allow life to be common to be a bullseye that is surrounded by tunings that are close enough to allow life to occur infrequently. If you were to pick a region at random out of the regions that contain intelligent life then it is likely that you would pick one of the surrounding regions not the bullseye. This is also an explanation for Fermi's paradox.
- dTal 12y ago
  You must factor in that such a region would contain a low percentage of the total number of civilizations intelligent enough to consider the question. A well-tuned universe would be teeming with life - it is therefore more likely that we find ourselves in such a universe (which was the point of the GP). You can think of it, not as a bullseye, but as a gaussian spot. It strikes me that the issue at play here is how one chooses to "sample" the anthropic principle, for want of a better term. When you say "pick a region at random", you assume a uniform probability distribution over the set of all universes supporting life (which incidentally is not possible if the number is infinite). But you don't say how to resolve the probabilities with universes containing multiple intelligent life forms - you do select randomly among those too? If so, shouldn't you rather be picking "randomly" from the set of all intelligent life forms in all universes in the first place?
  - danieltillett 12y ago
    Yes it all concerns the shape of the distribution. I have not assumed any any sort of distribution by the way as I have no means of estimating it. It may be possible in the future to estimate how well tuned a universe could be made for the appearance of intelligent life and also how large the surrounding non-tuned space could be. In the mean time we can only speculate :)

by _greim_ 12y ago

danieltillett 12y ago

Also, in a multiverse scenario, the improbable thing might not be the formation of life, but the fine-tuning of the laws of physics which allows the formation of life. In which case life might be relatively common. If we assume that this tuning is not an all or nothing event then the larger the possible universe size the more likely it is that we lie within an region where the features are tuned just enough to let one intelligent life form arise. You can think of the tuned conditions that allow life to be common to be a bullseye that is surrounded by tunings that are close enough to allow life to occur infrequently. If you were to pick a region at random out of the regions that contain intelligent life then it is likely that you would pick one of the surrounding regions not the bullseye. This is also an explanation for Fermi's paradox.

dTal 12y ago
You must factor in that such a region would contain a low percentage of the total number of civilizations intelligent enough to consider the question. A well-tuned universe would be teeming with life - it is therefore more likely that we find ourselves in such a universe (which was the point of the GP). You can think of it, not as a bullseye, but as a gaussian spot. It strikes me that the issue at play here is how one chooses to "sample" the anthropic principle, for want of a better term. When you say "pick a region at random", you assume a uniform probability distribution over the set of all universes supporting life (which incidentally is not possible if the number is infinite). But you don't say how to resolve the probabilities with universes containing multiple intelligent life forms - you do select randomly among those too? If so, shouldn't you rather be picking "randomly" from the set of all intelligent life forms in all universes in the first place?
- danieltillett 12y ago
  Yes it all concerns the shape of the distribution. I have not assumed any any sort of distribution by the way as I have no means of estimating it. It may be possible in the future to estimate how well tuned a universe could be made for the appearance of intelligent life and also how large the surrounding non-tuned space could be. In the mean time we can only speculate :)