The Anthropic Principle Under Fire

[alexander]

I will try to be as neutral as possible while correcting some ideological issues...

 

if you wish simulate the real amount of the state of the universe

you have to simulate each particle of them.

It is not flawed, but it is not right. It is not entirely necessary to simulate every particle to model something in extreme detail, it's a common mistake, for example, if you were to model a brain, you would not necessarily need to model the spin of quarks and gluons, or even electron interaction between each particle in the brain. The same reason you can have proper light mapping in a model without modeling every photon as it travels from the sun and use groups of photons with ray tracing (vector-based) and only go into individual photons when an interaction occurs, such as when it hits some sort of a surface... Similarly, you can simulate a brain without a total level of detail, and similarly you can simulate a universe without having to simulate every particle at every point, and be very accurate. Accurate enough to know if the universe is going to work or not...

 

 

Another note, what is "random"

For something to be truly random, it has to fit within some sort of a curve, random is the absence of a pattern, but if you think truly random is complete absence of patterns of any kind, clusters, repitition, then that in itself would become a pattern, so with this confusing logic, we have to establish this notion that in order for something to be truly random, it can not be truly random. Universe, or in our case all the universes therefore can not have a truly random and thus linear distribution without having patterns, patterns of values that will work together to create a working universe, and patterns of values that will make universes more likely to to work as a universe.

 

And we can safely assume that there will be values that will not create a working universe, just like we can prove that there are values that will generate a working one.

 

Also, there should be no difference between a universe with or without life, intelligent or not, all working universes are equal. our universe will most likely not fit in the middle of that curve, but if you were to run statistics across the working universes with ones that were able or unable to produce life-like forms, i think it is quite likely that they will fall within a bell curve of universe constant proportions to with respect to each other, as a variable determining a universes ability to produce some sort of a life form... But that's just an out-there thought...

[Pyrotex]

You said , and I agree that UC will determine the "size" and the "quality" of our universe. but to KNOW the size and the quality you must KNOW the UC BEFORE create them !!

Then you cannot create the UC constants at random, 'you' need a pre-processing ( great intelligence) to TEST the constants Before generate them ....

jocaxx,

I think you need to slow down and take a deep breath.

You are not reading my posts correctly. Perhaps it is some difficulty you have with English. That's okay, I'm willing to be patient.

 

I do NOT create UC constants. I speak of "creating universes".

I do NOT test the UC constants. I speak of UC constants affecting the probability that a universe will be created.

 

Uniform distribution of UC may be random, but that is not the only random distribution.

The Normal distribution (a bell curve) is also a random distribution. Say you have 100 dice, each with six sides. I roll them all at once. The smallest number that can be rolled is 100. The largest number that can be rolled is 600. The average number that we expect to roll is 350. In fact, the probability of rolling any number between 300 and 400 is millions of times greater than the probability of rolling a 100 or a 600.

 

The distribution of the probability of rolling a particular number between 100 and 600 is a bell curve, peaking in the middle (350) and approaching zero at either end. It is close to a Normal distribution, and it is entirely random.

[modest]

While one cannot prove a negative, it isn't hard to show that life is inconceivable given slightly different fundamental constants.

 

"SLYGHTLY" is relative.

 

Please do not shout.

 

The website I quoted on big bang nucleosynthesis says,

After 1 second, the only reaction that appreciably changes the number of neutrons is neutron decay, shown at right. The half-life of the neutron is 615 seconds. Without further reactions to preserve neutrons within stable nuclei, the Universe would be pure hydrogen.

The reaction that preserves the neutrons is deuteron formation. The deuteron is the nucleus of deuterium, which is the heavy form of hydrogen (H2). This reaction is exothermic with an energy difference of 2.2 MeV, but since photons are a billion times more numerous than protons, the reaction does not proceed until the temperature of the Universe falls to 1 billion K or kT = 0.1 MeV, about 100 seconds after the Big Bang. At this time, the neutron : proton ratio is about 1:7.

We can calculate the change needed to remove all elements besides hydrogen from the universe.

 

The fundamental force responsible for the rate of decay of the neutron is the weak nuclear force and the fundamental parameter setting the strength of that force is the weak coupling constant which is approximately 10^-6.

 

The lifetime of a particle is inversely proportional to the square of the coupling constant. The mean lifetime of a neutron (*not* the half-life) is approximately 885.7 seconds. As the above quote reveals, we need our neutrons to decay in 100 seconds. The relationship is then,

[math]W_2=\sqrt{\frac{L_1 \cdot W_1^2}{L_2}}[/math]

where

W

₂

is the new weak coupling constant

L

₁

is the old mean lifetime of a neutron

W

₁

is the old weak coupling constant

L

₂

is the new mean lifetime of a neutron

this gives,

[math]W_2=\sqrt{\frac{885.7 \ s \cdot (10^{-6})^2}{100 \ s}}[/math]

[math]W_2=2.97 \times 10^{-6}[/math]

Therefore, if this particular fundamental constant were 0.000003 instead of 0.000001 the universe would be populated entirely with hydrogen. This would, as you say,

Besides that, we also suppose that any alteration in one of the fundamental constants would make the possibility of life impracticable, although no one has shown it yet.

make the possibility of life impracticable.

 

you do not prove that other constants may counteract the effect of one and create other forms of life

Again, one cannot prove a negative. I simply said that life would be inconceivable in such a universe, and I truly cannot conceive of an intelligent life form evolving from nothing but hydrogen.

 

~modest

[Pyrotex]

.... Then you machime is very more complex than the universe it will be generate !! because it need simulate the universe to see how much state it will be.

... But it is what you want.

jocaxx,

I'm sorry, but you continue to misinterpret what I say.

And now you misinterpret what I want. :eek:

None of these statements are true.

If you will but listen, I will tell you what I am saying and what I want.

You cannot do that for me.

To know the size of the tree with a seed you need simulate the growing the tree from the seed. If the size was ok, you generate the seed !....

Wrong again.

You know that trees grow without simulation, right?

And yet, the height of trees (say, in California) can be graphed or charted:

the # of trees 10-11 ft tall;

the # of trees 11-12 ft tall;

the # of trees 12-13 ft tall; ... ;

the # of trees 499-500 ft tall.

 

This chart would display the distribution of tree heights.

It is not a uniform distribution.

It is entirely natural.

AND-- if we were to pick a random tree in California, the distribution would predict the probable height.

 

Likewise, there is no reason to expect the distribution of universes to be uniform, according to their UC.

I propose this as a suggestion.

I am not demanding that it is true.

[jocaxx]

It is not flawed, but it is not right. It is not entirely necessary to simulate every particle to model something in extreme detail, it's a common mistake, for example, if you were to model a brain, you would not necessarily need to model the spin of quarks and gluons, or even electron interaction between each particle in the brain.

 

No think so.

Because the nuember of the states to reach at some macroscopic configuration

depend on the number of the configuration of these sub-atomic particles.

 

I try to say that: We can have too much sub-atomic particles configurations to have

some final configuration. And the entropy depend on this total configuration not

only the macroscopic state. Because this I said "REAL amount".

 

 

Similarly, you can simulate a brain without a total level of detail, and similarly you can simulate a universe without having to simulate every particle at every point, and be very accurate.

 

Depend WHAT you want to know with this simulation.

For example if you want to know the weight of the brain , of course you only need knows

the number of the nerurons , the weight of each one , and not knows HOW they are linked with others.

 

 

 

For something to be truly random, it has to fit within some sort of a curve, random is the absence of a pattern, but if you think truly random is complete absence of patterns of any kind, clusters, repitition, then that in itself would become a pattern, so with this confusing logic

 

We can define "randon envent" as event without a cause.

In MQ there is random events, events that happen without something that cause it.

 

 

You are not reading my posts correctly. Perhaps it is some difficulty you have with English. That's okay, I'm willing to be patient.

 

Thank you :-)

 

 

I do NOT create UC constants. I speak of "creating universes".

 

But the Unverse depend on these constants.

The premisse is beginning with the constants to after generate the universe.

 

 

 

I do NOT test the UC constants. I speak of UC constants affecting the probability that a universe will be created.

 

How you will generate the universe without get the constants before?

 

 

 

Uniform distribution of UC may be random, but that is not the only random distribution.

The Normal distribution (a bell curve) is also a random distribution. Say you have 100 dice, each with six sides. I roll them all at once. The smallest number that can be rolled is 100. The largest number that can be rolled is 600. The average number that we expect to roll is 350. In fact, the probability of rolling any number between 300 and 400 is millions of times greater than the probability of rolling a 100 or a 600.

 

Ok,

But you agree that each number in each dice has EQUAL PROBABILITY?

The probability to fall "1" is the same to fall "2" and so on ?

I am suposing it , equal probability for each constants too.

You disagree? Why some numbers would have more probabolity than the others?

 

 

 

Therefore, if this particular fundamental constant were 0.000003 instead of 0.000001 the universe would be populated entirely with hydrogen. This would, as you say,

 

But between 0.0000010001 and 0.0000010002 there are INFINITE reaal numbers

and could get infinite different universes with life too.

But this is not the case because I am not refuting AP using this premisse.

.

 

 

Besides that, we also suppose that any alteration in one of the fundamental constants would make the possibility of life impracticable, although no one has shown it yet.

 

make the possibility of life impracticable.

 

 

You have to prove the change in the other constants could not compensate the change in the others.

 

 

Again, one cannot prove a negative. I simply said that life would be inconceivable in such a universe, and I truly cannot conceive of an intelligent life form evolving from nothing but hydrogen.

 

You would have to demonstrate that it is impossible to compensate some changing

to another changing in the other constants.

 

For example there is *infinite* numbers of the changing in this 3 constants (W1,L1,L2)

to get the SAME VALUE for W2 = Sqrt( L1 * M1^2 / L2 )

 

Do you understand?

 

 

 

To know the size of the tree with a seed you need simulate the growing the tree from the seed. If the size was ok, you generate the seed !....

 

You know that trees grow without simulation, right?

 

No!

"I" ( I = machine generator) only have the equations.

I do not know what I will get before the simulation.

I can not knows HOW the universe will get only seeing to the constants.

"I" have to put the constants in the equations and simulate where will it lead.

 

Your example of the trees is because the trees have basicly the SAME DNA

our constants are the DNA of the universe. It is diferent.

 

Likewise, there is no reason to expect the distribution of universes to be uniform, according to their UC.

 

You are changing the original idea.

 

I am not saying about the distributing of universe but the distribution of the constants !

 

You wish distribute the constants according the states the universe, its is not this?

Remember you said:

 

"... I assert without proof that the probability that a universe would be created having a particular set of UC[N], is proportional to the total number of states that universe will be able to take on!..."

[Pyrotex]

...You are changing the original idea.

No. You did not understand the original idea. You are not familiar with basic statistics.

...You wish to distribute the constants according the states the universe, is not this?

Remember you said:

"... I assert without proof that the probability that a universe would be created having a particular set of UC[N], is proportional to the total number of states that universe will be able to take on!..."

You quote me correctly, but your interpretation is backwards from what I said.

 

Let's stop talking about simulations. I've done simulations for a living and I do not feel you understand the concept very well.

 

Let's stop talking about "infinite real numbers" because the mathematical way to solve that problem is trivial. -- You do not calculate an attribute for a universe with the EXACT values for UC. As you said, that would be impossible. Besides, it is meaningless to talk about the EXACT value of a Real number. There is no EXACT value.

 

The solution is, we speak of the values of UC within a range. For example, for any population of Real numbers, R, we can count the subset that have values (notice the plural) between 2.000 and 2.001. We ignore the fact that there are an infinite number of Real numbers within that range. We are ONLY CONCERNED with how many values of our set, R, fall anywhere in that range.

 

See any Statistics textbook on the subject of enumerating or counting Reals.

 

This means that we can ignore the fact that the probability of a UC being EXACTLY r (a Real number) is zero. We are not dealing with EXACT values. We are dealing with small ranges of values. The probability that some random value for UC falls within a range is typically greater than zero.

 

You have quoted me saying the above statement some 5 or 6 times now, I think. Yes, I wrote that. But your conclusion that it means that we must simulate universes is silly.

 

If we had a billion universes that we could observe, the solution would be simple. We would just come up with some convenient way to estimate the "size" of a universe. Then we would count the number of universes that fall within each range of "size", and plot the results. Done!

 

But we don't have a billion universes to observe. We have just one. My quote above is an hypothesis, an educated guess, of what we would see if we could observe a billion universes. No simulation is involved at any time. No simulation is required.

[Pyrotex]

...But you agree that each number in each dice has EQUAL PROBABILITY?

The probability to fall "1" is the same to fall "2" and so on ?

I am suposing it , equal probability for each constants too.

You disagree? Why some numbers would have more probability than the others?...

I do not disagree.

For a single die ("dice" is the plural), the probability for each of the six numbers being rolled is the same. The probability distribution would be the uniform distribution. This would plot as a straight horizontal line over the X axis from 1 to 6.

 

But to roll 100 dice all at the same time, we do NOT get a uniform distribution. We get a normal distribution (or something very close to it).

 

The reason is that there are 6^100 (six to the power of 100) ways to roll 100 dice. This is a bigger number than all the atoms in the visible universe. Really.

 

There is only ONE way to roll the value 100. (All dice come up "1") The probability of this happening is one chance in 6^100.

 

But for the average expected value of 350, there are (I estimate here) more than 10^20 unique ways of rolling a 350. The probability of this happening is more than a billion billion billion times as likely as rolling a 100.

 

The plot of the distribution will be a bell curve that peaks at a value of 350, and drops sharply on each side, approaching zero for values near 100 and near 600.

[alexander]

Depend WHAT you want to know with this simulation.

 

You seem convinced that the only way to simulate a universe is to track each subatomic particle. So in the brain model terms, you are saying that in order to simulate a fully working brain, you need to simulate it at a subatomic level, starting at the moment of the rna interaction at the moment of conception (and this is without taking it to the extreme), which in reality is not true. You don't have to track all subatomic particles at all times, because macroscopic things they make up act in very predictable and defined ways.

 

You seemed to have missed the point on ray tracing and photon mapping, let me reiterate myself, in order to accurately map light in a particular environment, we do not need to track the movements of every photon at every point, while traveling through unconstraining media, we can use vector analysis on packets of photons, then once the photons hit some sort of a media that will interact with how they act, you can use photon mapping to model the light interaction with that media, once the photons leave the media back into the predictable movement state, you can once again track packets of photons using vector representation... and you will be very accurate... This accurate:

or, if you are in a mood for a short video:

http://graphics.ucsd.edu/~henrik/animations/jensen-the_light_of_mies_small.mpg

 

Anyways, you are not correct in assuming that in order to simulate a universe accurately, you need to simulate it on the most microscopic level, that is just not true, you do need to simulate some parts of it at some times on a microscopic level...

 

Let's stop talking about simulations. I've done simulations for a living and I do not feel you understand the concept very well.

enjoy the pic, if you haven't seen it before, 4 years of referring to it, and it still startles me every time i link to it :lol:

 

I am of the same opinion...

[Pyrotex]

Alexander,

that is awesome! AWESOME!!

AWESOME!!!

 

Wowie-kazowie, Batman. YEAH! That's what I'm talking about!

 

Most folks who have NOT done simulations for a living (or a dedicated hobby) have no idea what it takes, and what it doesn't take, to do a simulation. There are multiple dimensions of "resolution" to be defined. I have seen simulations of heavy stars going supernova, simulations of white dwarf stars colliding, simulations of galaxies colliding! Most of those simulations were executed in just a few days time (or a few hours), because the programmers were careful in selecting their "resolutions".

 

Simulating a universe is not that big a deal. Here is an example. There are many others. Again, by carefully selecting your "resolutions", the simulation of the entire universe from Big Bang to present time does not have to take more than a couple of days.

[modest]

Therefore, if this particular fundamental constant were 0.000003 instead of 0.000001 the universe would be populated entirely with hydrogen. This would, as you say,

 

But between 0.0000010001 and 0.0000010002 there are INFINITE reaal numbers

and could get infinite different universes with life too.

 

It's hard to tell if you're serious or if you're obfuscating, but either way your objection is just not useful and what you are implying is not correct. Also, when you type a word in caps it looks like you are SHOUTING it.

 

You are correct that there are an infinite (an uncountably infinite) amount of real numbers between 0.000001 and 0.000003. But, this does not address the probability of a randomly picked real number on the number line falling between 0.000001 and 0.000003. For example,

there are an infinite number of points on AB and a different infinite number of points on BC. This does not imply that a randomly placed point on AC will just as likely be on AB as BC.

 

I agree with Pyrotex in that you need to consider the relevant range of values rather than the cardinality of the set of real numbers between those values. The difference between 0.000001 and 0.000003 is 0.000002. The difference is *not* "a set of real numbers of infinite size". The latter looks an awful lot like an act of obfuscation.

 

But this is not the case because I am not refuting AP using this premisse.

 

Refuting the strong anthropic principle by saying something like "there is no reason to assume life is the preferred outcome of a universe with random fundamental constants" is very agreeable. It is, in fact, a common objection to the SAP. But, you have taken it one step further asserting a principle of your own—what you call the destropic principle (although I'm not sure what destropic is supposed to mean).

 

Your proposed principle asserts that any conceivable universe (any combination of fundamental constants) is as likely as any other. That very well may not be true. How could you know? The SAP errs in assuming that intelligent life is the preferred condition and you err in assuming there is no preferred condition. We don't yet know enough to make either assertion.

 

You have to prove the change in the other constants could not compensate the change in the others.

 

Do you know what "prove a negative" means?

 

Again, one cannot prove a negative. I simply said that life would be inconceivable in such a universe, and I truly cannot conceive of an intelligent life form evolving from nothing but hydrogen.

 

You would have to demonstrate that it is impossible to compensate some changing

to another changing in the other constants.

 

For example there is *infinite* numbers of the changing in this 3 constants (W1,L1,L2)

to get the SAME VALUE for W2 = Sqrt( L1 * M1^2 / L2 )

 

Do you understand?

 

This is the comment that I refuted:

Besides that, we also suppose that any alteration in one of the fundamental constants would make the possibility of life impracticable, although no one has shown it yet.

I have now shown that an "alteration in one of the fundamental constants" does indeed make intelligent life inconceivable. If you think that altering one of the other fundamental constants will undo the effect of raising the weak coupling constant then I welcome your demonstration. If you don't then there's really no further point in discussing it.

 

~modest

[jocaxx]

You do not calculate an attribute for a universe with the EXACT values for UC.

 

No thinks so.

You can calculate the atribute FROM the UC. I Think depend on the atribute !

For atributes like forces, for example it is trivial:

You put the UC values in the formula and see the result. :-)

Why do you think it is impossible?

 

But for another atributes you are right,

like the entropy of the current state of universe for example.

 

 

 

The solution is, we speak of the values of UC within a range. For example, for any population of Real numbers, R, we can count the subset that have values (notice the plural) between 2.000 and 2.001.

 

How do you will know WHAT is the LIMIT of the range in these constants

that IMPLIES some important physical changes (like the rupture of the stability of the atom )

without an experimental values for it?

And HOW you will get this experimental value without some simulation?

 

 

 

And another aproach is that some formulas were created with experimental values.

Perhaps with diferent constants we would have different forumulas too.

 

 

 

 

Therefore, if this particular fundamental constant were 0.000003 instead of 0.000001 the universe would be populated entirely with hydrogen.

 

This example is good.

The compute of the formula is almost like some simulation.

You have to puts the constants in the formula if with SOME MIND

or COMPUTER ( where it come from ), compute the result to after

generate the constnats of the universe. This computation is similar as a simulation.

 

 

 

 

 

We are ONLY CONCERNED with how many values of our set, R, fall anywhere in that range.

 

In order you see the LIMIT of your range you need calculate or simulate it.

Then you need something more intelligente than only generate the constats at random.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I wrote that. But your conclusion that it means that we must simulate universes is silly.

 

If I undertand your approach, you need some machine that compute the limits of the range

and also the limits of the rupture of the atom or anothers importants limits

to classify that constants.

 

This is my objection. Randomly Generate constants is simpler and do not need

intelligence as pre-requisite.

 

 

If we had a billion universes that we could observe, the solution would be simple. We would just come up with some convenient way to estimate the "size" of a universe. Then we would count the number of universes that fall within each range of "size", and plot the results. Done!

 

But HOW you can do this BEFORE generate the constants?

You do not have the universe yet !

 

It why i do not understand you saying. Did you get?

 

 

 

But we don't have a billion universes to observe. We have just one.

 

not even a single. The generator of the constant do not have universe yet.

Even so, you would need some OBSERVER in this generator to see and understand the universe,

its is more complex than a random generator of constants.

 

 

 

You seem convinced that the only way to simulate a universe is to track each subatomic particle.

 

I Said:

" Depends on WHAT you want to know with this simulation."

 

I Think to knows the amount of the states possible it is important.

 

 

 

 

So in the brain model terms, you are saying that in order to simulate a fully working brain, you need to simulate it at a subatomic level, starting at the moment of the rna interaction at the moment of conception (and this is without taking it to the extreme), which in reality is not true. You don't have to track all subatomic particles at all times, because macroscopic things they make up act in very predictable and defined ways.

 

I Agree with you that depending on you have to reach you do not need simulate

subatomic particle at all.

 

But thetre is important scientist, leke Roger Penrose, that do not think so.

See the Wiki:

 

"The quantum mind hypothesis proposes that classical mechanics cannot fully explain consciousness,

and suggests that quantum mechanical phenomena such as quantum entanglement and superposition may play an important part in the brain's function and could form the basis of an explanation of consciousness."

 

 

 

there are an infinite number of points on AB and a different infinite number of points on BC. This does not imply that a randomly placed point on AC will just as likely be on AB as BC.

 

I did not say this.

I am saying is if you need do some calculus (or simulation ) *before* you generate the constants

then you need some intelligence that mus be explained too.

But if that constatns were generated at random this intelligence would be not necessary.

We can not disccuss the anthropic principle assuming pre-existence of the God or some

intelligence at all.

 

 

Your proposed principle asserts that any conceivable universe (any combination of fundamental constants) is as likely as any other.

That very well may not be true. How could you know?

The SAP errs in assuming that intelligent life is the preferred condition and you err in assuming there is no preferred condition.

We don't yet know enough to make either assertion.

 

 

Because I am suposing that constants were generated at random, like the dice:

The propability to fall "1" in the die is equal the propability of fall "2" and so on...

 

This is the more "honest" way to chose contants at random.

 

Beucause this I named "destropic principle" and not "destropic theorem".

(destropic = destroy, this principle destroy the antrhopic principle)

 

 

 

 

 

You have to prove the change in the other constants could not compensate the change in the others.

 

Do you know what "prove a negative" means?

 

Of course you can prove the negative.

Did you hear about "prove by absurd" ?

 

I have now shown that an "alteration in one of the fundamental constants" does indeed make intelligent life inconceivable.

 

I am not sure. Because you see only one efect. If you change one constant

a *lot* of changing will occurs, you have to see all possibilities

in all forces and all fields too, and not only in one of them like "weak coupling".

Perhaps if you get all changin in all forces you still could get some kind of life.

[alexander]

Depends on WHAT you want to know with this simulation.

First of all, don't shout at me, i'm pretty sure i know a little more about simulations then you do, having written quite a few, and Pyro definitely know a lot more, especially universe and atomic models, due to the nature of his work, so you can not accept what we are telling you, but you have no background to be able to leverage your opinion on how it works in practice.

Secondly, I am telling you that in order to have an accurate model, meaning a virtual representation, meaning know everything about the universe, one does not need to track each subatomic particle of that universe at all times from the creation of the universe!

 

>Again, one cannot prove a negative. I simply said that life would be inconceivable in such a universe, and I truly cannot conceive of an intelligent life form evolving from nothing but hydrogen.

You would have to demonstrate that it is impossible to compensate some changing

to another changing in the other constants.

> You have to prove the change in the other constants could not compensate the change in the others.

> Do you know what "prove a negative" means?

> Of course you can prove the negative.

> Did you hear about "prove by absurd"

Please read through the tutorials here: Rules of Debating

A) You are arguing a mute point, modest clearly showed you that with a small change in relationships of constants you can have a universe populated only with hydrogen, and that in such a universe he can not conceive of intelligent life evolving from hydrogen. You said that this doesnt prove that you can't counter that with other constants, which is not an argument, but a move in a completely different direction. Then you started a flame war where you are saying that modest can't prove what he said, and he clearly showed that you can have the universe populated with hydrogen, and added that he, not the math, but he personally, can't conceive of a life form forming, which is an argument he made first with some backing to it. According to the rules of debate it is up to you to prove him wrong.

:) Calling someone's logic "absurd" because "I don't think so, but i can't prove it" is childish at best, and looks more like trolling. Be warned, trolling and non compliance with the rules of debate are both not allowed here for various history-proven reasons.

 

This is my objection. Randomly Generate constants is simpler and do not need

intelligence as prerequisite.

Not all combinations will yield a universe, intelligence aside all together, not all values will work according to our physics model, and clearly we can not "simulate" a universe with our physics model if the values don't work, therefore no universe, we can agree on that, no?

The probable values model will both decrease the total amount of values needed to be generated, and increase the probability of having values for a working universe, one we can simulate...

 

Note, we can not simulate a universe with fundamentally different physics then our own...

[Pyrotex]

(1)--No thinks so.

You can calculate the attribute FROM the UC. I Think depend on the atribute !

For attributes like forces, for example it is trivial:

You put the UC values in the formula and see the result. :-)

Why do you think it is impossible?

...

(2)--How do you will know WHAT is the LIMIT of the range in these constants

that IMPLIES some important physical changes (like the rupture of the stability of the atom ) without an experimental values for it?

And HOW you will get this experimental value without some simulation?

...

(3)--This is my objection. Randomly Generate constants is simpler and do not need

intelligence as pre-requisite.

...

(4)--But HOW you can do this BEFORE generate the constants?

You do not have the universe yet !....

My responses:

(1) Your statements make no sense. We cannot calculate universe attributes from the UC. Physics does not know how to do this, or even if it is possible. Nobody is saying we need to.

(2) This sounds like you have fallen out of a tree and hit your head. There are NO experimental values. Nobody is calling for experimental values.

(3) The normal distribution is ALSO randomly generated, as I PROVED with my example of 100 dice. There are many randomly generated distributions. All are equally "honest". You should get some training in probability.

(4) You are still obsessed with simulations. No simulations are necessary. You are not making sense.

 

I have given you a negative reputation point for your last post.

You are not debating well.

You ignore what we say.

You bring up arguments that are silly or nonsense.

You interpret our arguments in a silly way.

I suggest you go back and read all the posts of the last few days and think carefully about what has been said.

I recommend you listen to my advice so that you will be able debate well and successfully.

Good luck.

[jocaxx]

First of all, don't shout at me,

 

I am not shuting, I am just enphacizing what is important.

But, sorry, I wll try control my Caps Lock.

 

i'm pretty sure i know a little more about simulations then you do, having written quite a few, and Pyro definitely know a lot more, especially universe and atomic models, due to the nature of his work, so you can not accept what we are telling you, but you have no background to be able to leverage your opinion on how it works in practice.

 

I think it is not a valid argument.

It seens "Argumentum ad hominem" falacy.

 

 

 

 

Secondly, I am telling you that in order to have an accurate model,

meaning a virtual representation, meaning know everything about the universe,

one does not need to track each subatomic particle of that universe at all times from

the creation of the universe!

 

I repeat, depend on woh much accuract "you" want. As more accurate "you" need more details "you" have to put in you model.

 

 

You are arguing a mute point, modest clearly showed you that with a small change in relationships of constants you can have a universe populated only with hydrogen,

and that in such a universe he can not conceive of intelligent life evolving from hydrogen. You said that this doesnt prove that you can't counter that with other constants,

which is not an argument, but a move in a completely different direction.

 

I do not agree because two points:

Is not true that changing one constant it will have necessarly a world with hydrogen

because another constant could compensate the change. If was said

the changing in *only* a single constant will generate an hydrogen cosmos it would be different.

See this example: W2 = X1 * X2

Then if X1 --> X1 * 1.01 and X2 --> X2 /1.01

you still have W2 the same value.

 

 

Therefore it is not a different direction.

 

 

Then you started a flame war where you are saying that modest can't prove what he said, and he clearly showed that you can have the universe populated with hydrogen, and added that he, not the math, but he personally, can't conceive of a life form forming, which is an argument he made first with some backing to it. According to the rules of debate it is up to you to prove him wrong.

 

Second, I said it is necessary see what happen wich the rest of the forces and fields.

It is possible that changing one constant it will change completely the structure

of the universe and we do not have hydrogen-cosmo,

perhaps another kind of universe that still could go to life.

Do you understand?

Even changing only one constant all universe would change and not only a single force

because there is too much relationchip between them.

Because this I said no one still demonstrate life is impossible if some constant

would slightly changed.

 

Calling someone's logic "absurd" because "I don't think so, but i can't prove it" is childish at best, and looks more like trolling.

 

I think it is an indirect way to "shut" me too (value judgments about my person).

Is there some rule of debate with it too?

 

 

Not all combinations will yield a universe, intelligence aside all together, not all values will work according to our physics model, and clearly we can not "simulate" a universe with our physics model if the values don't work, therefore no universe, we can agree on that, no?

...... Note, we can not simulate a universe with fundamentally different physics then our own...

 

I do not know if i undertand but I have said in the original text:

"...

In all fairness, we need to note that a universe with random laws does not need to follow the pattern of physical laws we have in our universe, that is, the mathematical equations that would define a randomly generated universe could be totally different from the ones we have in our current universe (in principle it would not even be necessary to describe such universes through mathematical equations). That way, the parameters we have today would not apply to any of the equations in this random universe. Thus, it is totally FALSE to claim that all possible universes can be described maintaining the same equations of our particular universe and varying only the constants present in them.

However, in order to refute the “anthropic principle” on its own support base, we should consider true the fact that all possible universes keep the same structure of equations as ours.

..."

 

 

 

 

Your statements make no sense. We cannot calculate universe attributes from the UC. Physics does not know how to do this, or even if it is possible. Nobody is saying we need to.

 

I thought you said the constant would have generated based on amount of possible state of the universe.

What are you meaning when said:

 

"I assert without proof that the probability that a universe would be created having

a particular set of UC[N], is proportional to the total number of states that

universe will be able to take on! "

 

How calculate the number of states if you are saying it is impossible now?

 

 

 

This sounds like you have fallen out of a tree and hit your head.

There are NO experimental values. Nobody is calling for experimental values.

 

How can you apreciate a lot of limit of the rupture of the atom and others structures

to know what is the range necessary to constants fit in?

 

 

 

You are still obsessed with simulations. No simulations are necessary. You are not making sense.

 

Tell me how I can get the "the total number of states that universe will be able to take on"

before I generate the constants. I dont know how you can get this information before generate the constants.

[Pyrotex]

... It seens "Argumentum ad hominem" fallacy.

...

I thought you said the constant would have generated based on amount of possible state of the universe. What are you meaning when said:

 

"I assert without proof that the probability that a universe would be created having a particular set of UC[N], is proportional to the total number of states that universe will be able to take on!"

 

How calculate the number of states if you are saying it is impossible now?

jocaxx,

let us take a look at what I said, the quote in blue above.

 

I do not say we have to calculate the number of states.

I do not say that we even need to know the number of states.

In fact, I do not say or imply that it is even possible to know the number of states.

I say nothing of simulations.

I say nothing about calculating the number of states from the UC.

 

I said:

-- if universes are randomly created,

-- and if these universes have random sets of UC,

-- then I think that some UC would show up more often than other UC,

-- and this might be related to the number of potential states the universe has.

 

Any mention I have made of "simulations" was done as a means of explaining the concept so that you would understand. Any examples I gave of knowing or calculating the number of states of a universe was also done to help explain. And that is all. And EVERY time I tried to explain, you did NOT understand. So, I am not going to explain what I meant to you any more. You are a waste of my time.

 

jocaxx,

if you say even one more time that I'm demanding to simulate universes, or that I want to calculate the number of states in a universe -- I'm going to get very upset. Then I'm going to conclude that you are lying. Then I'm going to have you suspended for a while, until you come to your senses.

[alexander]

I am not shuting, I am just enphacizing what is important.

Please restrain from using capitals for doing that, using bold or italic or better yet underlined characters, is much better for emphasizing.

 

It seens "Argumentum ad hominem" falacy.

I don't think it's a fallacy, if both myself and Pyrotex have more expertise on the subject then you do, and within the definition of the simulation it states that

"The act of simulating something generally entails representing certain key characteristics or behaviours of a selected physical or abstract system."

and since we are talking about computer systems:

"There are many different types of computer simulation, the common feature they all share is the attempt to generate a sample of representative scenarios for a model in which a complete enumeration of all possible states would be prohibitive or impossible."

 

We presented a valid argument, which wasn't much of an argument, it was more of a correction of what you've said, you can choose to not accept it, but it is a valid correction that i felt, needed to be added.

 

As more accurate "you" need more details "you" have to put in you model.

and there is still no need to track each subatomic particle at all times through the simulation, your model resolution may change, depending on events, but if you did what you are proposing we would have to to accurately model the universe, it would both be impractical, and just a bad simulation program design.

 

Is not true that changing one constant it will have necessarly a world with hydrogen

because another constant could compensate the change.

uh, i thought you said yourself

Randomly Generate constants is simpler and do not need

intelligence as pre-requisite.

if the UCs are randomly generated, then we would have universes made of hydrogen as well as universes with other materials, there is no constant compensation, therefore your debate with modest null.

 

If the UCs are generated to fit within a certain part of a certain curve (for example where all the universes consistent of more then one element, one, you have just discredited your argument with Pyro, and two, then what you are simulating is not a full representation of possible universes, and are investigating only a certain case of that theory.

 

So, which argument are you willing to acknowledge as wrong in this false dilemma?

 

I think it is an indirect way to "shut" me

No, this is a way for a moderator to tell you that you need to change the tone of your posts because it looks like you are trying to provoke people to get into a flame war with yourself; which is called trolling.

 

But taking into consideration that it could just be bad English, there is still a problem with your statement:

Do you know what "prove a negative" means?

Did you hear about "prove by absurd" ?

You can not claim "reductio ad absurdum" because you haven't actually shown anything to contradict Modest's argument, and all that modest was saying is that the burden of proof is on you to show him how he can be wrong.

 

I do not know if i undertand but I have said in the original text:

good, so we are on the same page, for the purpose of the argument, both sides are assuming that the physics, the equations, are the same for all universes and constants in question. Therefore not all constant values will generate a viable, working universe, constants will vary the universe from being infinitesimally small to being infinitely large, both ends do not work as working universes under our physics model because a universe under a certain size will be a black hole which will slowly evaporate, and on the other spectrum, we will have a universe so large that any formed particles in them will never actually interact. So having both perspectives there seems to me, like it is not equiprobable for a universe to work rather then not based on the uc values... and that's, if i understand correctly, Pyro's argument

[jocaxx]

Pyrotex:

 

"I assert without proof that the probability that a universe would be created having a particular set of UC[N], is proportional to the total number of states that universe will be able to take on!" .

.

I do not say we have to calculate the number of states.

 

Pyrotex,

Maybe I undertand what could be the reason of this confusion.

When I said "you have to calculate the number of states" I do not

want to say *you* as your person , as some individual.

I want to say that the "generator* of the constants that use *your* idea to generate constants.

 

Then instead to say

"the generator of the constants that need to calculate the constants according your idea"

I put in a simple form:

"you have to calculate"

Because, of course, you do not could be there and you are not god or something like that to create universes !

 

Another confusion is about universe itself.

 

I agree with you that a lof of the constants UC could produce almost the same universe ( similar characteristics ).

Then if we make the distribution not using the *UC* parameters but the characteristic (phenotipe) of the universe generated by UC

we probabily will get some normal distribution like you sais.

 

What I am emphacizing is that the UC itself woud have a linear distribution but the characteristics of the universe generated by UC not,

it could be a normal distribution according some characteristics...

Perhaps it is also some misunderstanding...would that be?

 

 

if you say even one more time that I'm demanding to simulate universes, or that I want to calculate the number of states in a universe -- I'm going to get very upset. Then I'm going to conclude that you are lying. Then I'm going to have you suspended for a while, until you come to your senses.

 

Sorry I think I could express me very well.

Of course you are not god , neither could be there to generate universe !

 

------------

Alexander:

 

"There are many different types of computer simulation,

the common feature they all share is the attempt to generate a sample of representative scenarios

for a model in which a complete enumeration of all possible states would be prohibitive or impossible."

 

Because this I said that would be necessary a big intelligence (like god) to know the number of state of the universes

before generate them.

 

 

 

and there is still no need to track each subatomic particle at all times through the simulation

 

I insist: depend on how much accuracy is necessary.

For example in order to model a nuclear fission "you" have to consider subatomic particles like neutrons

in "your" model.

 

 

if the UCs are randomly generated, then we would have universes made of hydrogen as well as universes with other materials,

there is no constant compensation, therefore your debate with modest null.

 

My debate with modest was about this sentence:

"...Besides that, we also suppose that any alteration in one of the fundamental constants would make the possibility of life impracticable,

although no one has shown it yet. ..."

 

I said depend on *how much* this changing is made. If the changing is very tinny I thing it is no problem.

 

 

If the UCs are generated to fit within a certain part of a certain curve (for example where all the universes consistent of more then one element, one, you have just discredited your argument with Pyro, and two, then what you are simulating is not a full representation of possible universes, and are investigating only a certain case of that theory.

 

See this words "to fit".

This the essency of the Anthropic Principle that criationits love.

Generate UC *to fit* according some characteristics like life *require* some intelligence for the generator of the UC.

Dou you agree??

Its my point with Pyro.

"We" have to consider some intelligent generator to choice these UC in order to life is possible.

because this I am against this model.

There is no necessity of god or inteligent generator of UC because our universe is not speciall at all!

Only for us it is special not for the universo or anything else.

 

You can not claim "reductio ad absurdum" because you haven't actually shown anything to contradict Modest's argument, and all that modest was saying is that the burden of proof is on you to show him how he can be wrong.

 

I understood "prove a negative" as it were impossible to do, and prof a negative statement could be done with "reductio ad absurdum".

If I misunderstand what he said I apologize.

 

But I think is true that when it change only a single constant happen a lot of things in the universe

and not only aspect of it. In order that we can not say the world will be only hydrogen particle.

because it have a lot of interactions between universes elements.

 

So having both perspectives there seems to me, like it is not equiprobable for a universe to work rather then not based on the uc values...

 

I think I found another reason of misunderstanding:

 

When I said about the "equiprobable universe" I am *not* talking necessarily about the consequence of the UC parameters ( characteristic of the universe)

but I am pointing the UC parameters that generate them.

 

So I thing is true that diferent parameters produce diferent universe.

If the parameters are ramdom generated ( linearly ) then these universe are equiprobable.

(not these characteristics)