Our Universe: one of many or specially designed?

[QED]

Design amounts to a process of selection. Human designers design things by making intelligent selections. Our Universe has a number of critical parameters that have no apparent reason for their values, but if these values were even slightly different, we wouldn't exist. This suggests to some that the values were carefully selected by a sentient being who had the intelligence to know the exact values required for our existence.

I've illustrated this scenario in the following picture:



Here our Universe, with it's critical values, is all that exists -- besides its sentient, designer-creator.

However, other forms of selection are possible. The simple act of observation can create its own selection Effect. In the illustration that follows I have drawn our Universe surrounded by numerous other universes. Within this ensemble the vast majority could be expected to have parameters that would not support life (at least in a form that would be recognizable to us). But a tiny number might. We could, therefore, have selected our own Universe as one from many, simply as a consequence of it having a favorable set of parameters for our existence.



If we are only considering the empirical evidence furnished by scientific observations then both scenarios would seem to be functionally equivalent. How then can we claim that the apparent fine-tuning implies a designer-creator when we can see this potential for ambiguity?

[Furrowed Brow]

C'mon, that's not a definition, rather, you selectively cut that out of context with information that answers your own question.

OK Ill take your definition of the strong anthropic principle in the context you wish to show it.

The accusation that the point hasn't been made is more than just a little bit telling when context is manipulated to ones' desired appearance, rather than what is actually said.

Well give us your def in context, and well start with that.

BUT... the point that was well established within the context is that the subjectivity that is required is comparable to ignoring a guy standing over a body with a smoking gun, in order to say that he "probably" didn't do it, so we shouldn't investigate this possibility with at the very least, EQUAL earnest, to every other less-directly-implicated possibility.

Whoa there! Ive already pulled up Otseng for an equivalent point. That metaphor is just loaded towards the conclusion you want to .wellconclude. The design/intelligence argument is not equivalent to standing over a dead body with a smoking gun and asking how did X die. It is equivalent to standing over any dead body and asking what is the purpose in the cosmic scheme of death. Or better still standing over any new born baby and asking what is the purpose of life?

"the universe looks like a fix".

Well no it dont. Unless of course Davies is getting myself all entangled in the semantic garden.

So, lets define the strong anthropic principlewell your define it on your terms.. and see how the evidence stacks up without resorting to subjective value judgments that avoid words like "special".

[island]

No, the difference between a weak and a strong interpretation is the appearance of specialness that falls from the fact that the observed structure of the universe occurs in dramatic contrast to the natural modeled expectation in a manner that produces many fixed balance points that are commonly pointing directly toward carbon-based life.

Your weak metaphorical interpretation isn't what is observed, or you don't know why this means that it can't be called a black hole principle.

The pointed nature of otherwise unexpected physics made physicsts conclude that we ARE that mechanism, so Carter formalized the principle in order that John Wheeler could put forth his strong theory which derives exactly that.

[island]

The accusation that there is wilful ignoring of the implications of the evidence would carry weight if the special relevance of carbon based life to the universe is an objective assessment, and not a subjective value judgment.

Speaking of subjective value judgments that run directly contrary to the most apparent implication of the evidence:

But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun the plane of the earth around the sun the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.
-Larry Krauss

That's crazy

Wait just a cotton pickin minute here, Lawrence. BEFORE we start "explaining away evidence"... isn't it relevant that we openly recognize that this is direct observational evidence for a strong anthropic constraint on the forces?

Value judgements that willfully ignore the most apparent implication of the evidence aren't honest, and so the ToE, as well as quantum gravity hit thirty years of being stagnate and now on the verge of collapse if colliders don't start producing significant physics very soon.

All that need be done is give equal time to the most apparent implication.

[Furrowed Brow]

No, the difference between a weak and a strong interpretation is the appearance of specialness that falls from the fact that the observed structure of the universe occurs in dramatic contrast to the natural modelled expectation in a manner that produces many fixed balance points that are commonly pointing directly toward carbon-based life.

Having problems seeing what words like "specialness", "dramatic contrast" and "expectation" are doing in an objective analysis of the evidence. Ohand "fixed balance points" dont point.

Your weak metaphorical interpretation isn't what is observed, or you don't know why this means that it can't be called a black hole principle.

By Black Hole Principle I take it you mean the principle that Black holes - or any suitably abundant phenomena are more numerous than life, so it would be more objective to conclude that the universe if it were designed were designed for the sake of black holes. If this is not what you meant please advise.

The pointed nature of otherwise unexpected physics made physicists conclude that we ARE that mechanism, so Carter formalized the principle in order that John Wheeler could put forth his strong theory which derives exactly that.

for it states that the rules of the universe are such that intelligent life MUST eventually come into existence, just as predictably as galaxies, stars, and planets will.

So what does the SAP as you describe really mean? That life is no more a "special" trait of the universe than galaxies, stars and planets etc. If you keep teasing out that thread the rug of the SAP begins to disappear. This it how it disappears - If intelligent life must come into existence as predictably as stars, galaxies etc etc then by definition intelligent life is not special in this regard. To then single out life from all other predictable phenomena and formulate a special principle - namely the strong anthropic principle - is to mislead and purvey a confusion- by trying to stand intelligence life alone against the dramatic contrast of all other just as predictable phenomena. In short the SAP is an empty principle.

But lets run with this thread some more. Lets say that the parameters for life are more restrictive than say the parameters for the formation of galaxies. So if the constants of nature were tweaked only a little, wed lose life but a whole lot more tweaking would be needed to lose galaxies. I think it is something like this kind of thinking that motivates your advocacy of the SAP. Im sure youll correct me if I have misunderstood you.

Lets look at the evidence again. Galaxies are known to be abundant where life is not known to be abundant. Da ya think that might not have something to do with the more restrictive limits on the parameters that make for life? Now by what objective criteria does one raise those tighter restrictions for there being life as being more important or relevant to the state of the universe than the less restrictive parameters of other phenomena? Let me answer that for you - no objective criteria exist.

If you'll allow I think the above quote I started this post with should be rewritten.

So the difference between a weak and a strong interpretation is the appearance of specialness that falls from the aesthetic response to the observed structure of the universe that then appears in dramatic contrast to the natural modelled expectation in a manner that produces many fixed balance points that are then seen pointing directly toward carbon-based life.

I think that sentence is a more accurate assessment.

[Furrowed Brow]

The accusation that there is wilful ignoring of the implications of the evidence would carry weight if the special relevance of carbon based life to the universe is an objective assessment, and not a subjective value judgment.

Speaking of subjective value judgments that run directly contrary to the most apparent implication of the evidence:

But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun the plane of the earth around the sun the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.
-Larry Krauss

That's crazy

Wait just a cotton pickin minute here, Lawrence. BEFORE we start "explaining away evidence"... isn't it relevant that we openly recognize that this is direct observational evidence for a strong anthropic constraint on the forces?

Value judgements that willfully ignore the most apparent implication of the evidence aren't honest, and so the ToE, as well as quantum gravity hit thirty years of being stagnate and now on the verge of collapse if colliders don't start producing significant physics very soon.

All that need be done is give equal time to the most apparent implication.

So the implication is that the larger structure of the universe is in a weird way correlated to the plane of the earth.

Rather than weird why is the correlation not straightforward? Or do we have to do some reading into the data to draw the conclusion?

[otseng]

Ive already pulled up Otseng for an equivalent point. That metaphor is just loaded towards the conclusion you want to ...well... conclude. The design/intelligence argument is not equivalent to standing over a dead body with a smoking gun and asking how did X die. It is equivalent to standing over any dead body and asking what is the purpose in the cosmic scheme of death. Or better still - standing over any new born baby and asking what is the purpose of life?

I think it is similar. In the instance of the physical constants of the universe, the question is "how did it happen?" In the instance of the dead victim, the question is also, "how did it happen?"

For the universe, nobody is asking, "what is the purpose of creation?" or "what is the purpose of the values of the physical constants?"

I also brought up the story to show that in both cases we are dealing with forensics. That is, we have a set of data as a result of something that happened in the past. And we are trying to determine what happened.

There is no circularity. There are no slippery concepts. And it's a valid conclusion.

Otseng I think it is not that we have different conclusions here, but to reach those different conclusions we have to be using a whole different kind of logic.

Whilst interpreting the universe in terms of design/intelligence serves no purpose other than to support the idea that life is here on purpose, and idea dependent on there being design/intelligence.

The creator explanation doesn't require that the assumption that the universe is here for any particular purpose. The creator could've just created it on a whim and it would make no difference as a explanation.

Also, the inference of design derives from the empirical data and is not an assumption made beforehand.

Further, I see the relatedness in design/intelligence being evident in the components for life and also for the physical constants as evidence of a consistent explanation.

1/ General conclusions drawn from observation of this universe give zero logical support for any notion of optimal fitness. There is a huge semantic confusion.

How would this apply to the physical constants?

2/ Any insistence that there is no alternative to the conditions that make for life is inconsistent with invoking purpose, destiny or design, without invoking alternative non observed theoretical possibilities like multiverses, or just plain old philosophical counter factuals.

We are sure that deviations of the constants would make this a dead universe. I do not think there is much dispute about that.

3/ The singling out of life as a characteristic of a universe, singles out life as a special case. This is a value judgment not arguable for by way of statistics or science, or arguments of the form X is fit for life.

As I note above, what we are considering is forensic science. We look at the evidence of something that happened in the past and try to determine what happened. Just because it happened once does not make the pursuit a "value judgement" or that we need to use statistics.

[Confused]

Tell me, is it possible to have one constant be one value without having another one be the same? I mean if we look at all the constants. Can we say that one started a cascading effect. In other words, any constant developed after the initial one would have a value that was consistent with the previous constant and so forth. Sort of like the human bodies clotting cascade factors. If we change one constant would it effect all constants? Is it possible to determine if the constants it would effect would have been constants formed later on in the creation of the universe, but earlier constants would remain the same? I am trying to see if it is possible that constants came to be what they are by simply adapting to work with the previous constant. This would require no fine tuning, but instead, be a sort of evolution in and of itself.

I don't know if this is possible or not. So I am not postulating this could have happened. I am questioning if anyone know if it could or couldn't have occurred.

I think that it's important to remember that we shouldn't expect the constants or the rest of the anthropic coincidences to evolve contrary to the the least action principle, and in this context it is expected that they fall into place in accordance with the process that was started when the matter field was determined by the big bang.

But besides that, I think that you'd have a lot more trouble explaining how they randomly evolved into those balance points, than you would to find some good physical reason for why they are the way that they are.

You should read this paper by Sean Carroll. I call it, the only thing that this pseudo-fantasyLand string theorist has ever done for me...

But it's actually called:

Is Our Universe Natural?
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0512148

Ok, tell me if I am misinterpreting this. By your words, in context it is expected that the anthropic coincidences fall into place in accordance with the process that was started when the matter field was determined by the big bang. Is this refuting the possibility that one constant was originated and the rest followed suit based on the concept of a trickle down effect? Big bang leads to one constant which after several processes leads to another constant that is compatible with the original constant and so forth? Can you discount this. Sure it sounds like sci-fi. But if memory serves me correctly, when the idea for a Landscape to be used in the megaverse theory was formulated, it was formulated by 4 physicists riding a train to see an opera after a conference they had just been to about the string theory and its problems. The string theory originally failed in its purpose for hadrons with 3 major problems. The first major was the requirement 9 dimensions of space + 1 dimension of time. The second was the intended short range forces turned out to be long range forces that looked almost exactly like electromagnetic and gravitational forces, and the third was the notion that strings were to violent to interact with point like particles. The brainstorm these 4 physicists came to was rather than having the string theory explain hadrons because it insists on acting like gravity then let gravity be explained by the string theory. In effect, on one train ride, they negated the 2nd and 3rd problems by having the predicted force ranges be as predicted in reality and by making all matter strings rather than point particles.

My point to this post is that you are quick to discount the what ifs. If every theoretical physicist did this, where would physics be? Certainly not in the process of making a particle accelerator large enough to hopefully view a Higgs particle.

I may not know a good reason for the apparent way the current constants are, but explaining how they got to be what they are can go down numerous routes. You seem to be happy with saying, we can't explain it, so chalk it up to anthropic coincidences. My imagination may be broader.

I am sure you will tear this post apart, or simply insult me as you did in the previous. But at the very least, I might learn something. So cheers!!!

[Cathar1950]

As you might notice I don't have a lot to add but I am enjoying the thread becauise it is a pet interest.
But it seems the constants are built into what ever the nature of the universe is and it stands to reason (somehow) tha deviation from would would would have a universe that isn't only natural.
That is why they are constants.
In the case of the dead man and the smoking gun. It seems we might figure he had parents and someone made the gun. But the begining of the universe isn't so we don't know it had parents or if they where human or who make the gun.
Before the big bang or big inflation we are in the dark. We don't even know what time it is and have nothing to stand on.

[QED]

I have a story of two inspectors arriving at a crime scene.

Inspector Tom: What do you make of the victim? / what do you make of our existence?
Inspector Bob: He's dead. Of course. / We exist. Of course.
Inspector Tom: I know he's dead. The question is what happened? / I know we exist. The question is what happened to make us exist?

I think Tom is asking Bob a reasonable question. Bob is being a wee bit unhelpful with his reply:

Inspector Bob: It just is. There's no need for an explanation. / We just are. There's no need for an explanation.

So I think Tom is right to press Bob a bit harder as he does here:

Inspector Tom: Yeah, but how did he die? / Yeah but how did we come to exist?
Inspector Bob: If he wasn't dead, then we wouldn't be here. If he was alive, do you think we would be here? / If we didn't exist then we wouldn't be here. If we exist then we're bound to be here.

While a simple tautological truth, it doesn't make for an interesting conversation. So Tom does well to steer it towards some observational facts:

Inspector Tom: I think he got shot. Look at the hole in his head. / I think the constants of nature were specifically aimed at creating carbon-based life.
Inspector Bob: Yeah, but his twin brother is still alive....

Now, for the analogy to remain faithful, Bob would have to had said something that provides an alternative explanation for the apparent gunshot wound. Just randomly introducing a brother for no reason is besides the point.

Inspector Bob: Yeah, but he could have walked into a spike. /Yeah, but there could be other universes that have different constants that didn't manage to produce sentient beings like us.

Would be fair and to the point. The existence of the Twin has no bearing on the finding of the corpse. It does not offer an explanation for the apparent crime. It's a random embellishment that just happens to sound like a multiverse theory. The multiverse theory, on the other hand, supplies a pool of potential that we might have extracted our own existence from.

What follows rests upon the same illogical connection so doesn't have any relevance to this debate.

Inspector Tom: How do you know he has a twin?
Inspector Bob: Because we just happened to come across the dead one.
Inspector Tom: Maybe the other is dead too.
Inspector Bob: I actually believe that there are a bunch of brothers, one of them is alive.

The analogy never gets off the ground.

Inspector Tom: I think someone intentionally killed him. There's just one shot into the base of the neck.
Inspector Bob: Yeah, but who killed the killer?
Inspector Tom: It doesn't matter who killed the killer. We just know that there is a killer.
Inspector Bob: I'm sorry, but if you don't know who killed the killer, then you are obviously committing the tortoise logical fallacy.
Inspector Tom: Look, it's a small calibre bullet. The killer knew what he was doing.
Inspector Bob: Yeah, but do you see the killer? Look around. I don't see him.
Inspector Tom: I don't need to actually see the killer to know about the killer.
Inspector Bob: Do you know his name? Is it Joe, Bill, Don?
Inspector Tom: No, I don't know the killer's name. Let's just call him Kil for now.
Inspector Bob: How can you test your idea though? You can't kill him again.
Inspector Tom: We don't need to test the idea to determine he was intentionally killed. We just look at the clues left to determine what happened.
Inspector Bob: Thank God his brother is still alive.

I would have been only too happy to follow it all the way though in blue -- as I could at the beginning but once the analogy parted company with the logical role of the multiverse I could go no further.

[island]

Confused said:
My point to this post is that you are quick to discount the what ifs. If every theoretical physicist did this, where would physics be?

No, you're missing the point that the most apparent implications of the observed universe take precedence over theoretical "what-ifs", (unless you're debating with a creationist or someone who is using equally non-evidenced causes). That's what Richard Dawkins does when he invokes the anthropic principle in a multiverse, although the argument that this is no better than saying that godidit is reasonable if you adhere to Popper's requirement for falsifiability).

At least until somebody proves that non-falsifiable what-ifs are necessary to a proven ToE or maybe a valid theory of quantum gravity, then the non-falsifiable what-if becomes a feature of the necessarily preferred theory, so they are assumed until or unless somebody comes up with a more preferred theory.

Certainly not in the process of making a particle accelerator large enough to hopefully view a Higgs particle.

I may not know a good reason for the apparent way the current constants are, but explaining how they got to be what they are can go down numerous routes. You seem to be happy with saying, we can't explain it, so chalk it up to anthropic coincidences. My imagination may be broader.

No, I think I know exactly what it's all about, "Alfie", but that's original research, so I try to maintain a clear line between my ability to defend the known facts and my own personal beliefs.

I might start a thread but I'm not going there, here.

I am sure you will tear this post apart, or simply insult me as you did in the previous. But at the very least, I might learn something. So cheers!!!

Hey, I could have held you to the point, but I let it slide... so should you...

See if you can figure out why I might have been insulted first... but yeah, I'm overly sensitive becuase my interest is more than casual.

So I'm done with it, unless, maybe, you aren't...

Is this refuting the possibility that one constant was originated and the rest followed suit based on the concept of a trickle down effect? Big bang leads to one constant which after several processes leads to another constant that is compatible with the original constant and so forth? Can you discount this.

Absolutely not, but my point was that you should expect the "trickle down effect" to be related to a thermodynamic process that somehow derives this evolutionary feature via the least action principle. In fact, the "trickle down effect" is what Brandon Carter meant by "inevitably priveleged", because this is how the evolutionary physics derives a specific time/location anthropic preference.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/ma ... ropic.html

An energy conservation law will accomplish this, and that's the way that I understand it, as well. The observed configuration maximizes work... should give you a clue.

I keep telling people that they just need to give the observed strong implication equal time, and I keep getting told that I should instead use unproven or semi-established and speculative theories to pretend that it doesn't exist.

Sorry, that ain't science... it's an issue avoidance tactic that's common to the CrEvo "debate".