Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
video memory and d3d_texfree
by jcl
Today at 17:21
Experienced 2D|3D Character artist|Concept Artist@ Indie Prices|
by DeathstalkerArs
Today at 13:11
Master the plot function
by sdh309795gaas
Yesterday at 20:35
Fractal-Based Trendlines
by edu
Yesterday at 19:28
What are you working on?
by Realspawn
Yesterday at 14:57
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
Triton Wing
ZeaL
Computer Repair Simulator
Collider (working title)
Space Rider
Who's Online
12 registered (ibne, Iglarion, Dalla, Ayumi, Ezzett, Joaquin, alibaba, 3 invisible), 445 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
3dgamelight, izybikawu, janversa, Unsane, acaduseji
17608 Registered Users
Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#63656 - 02/13/06 01:37 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado ***** [Re: Damocles]
Blattsalat Offline
Senior Expert

Registered: 07/12/02
Posts: 5181
Loc: Austria
love those images! no matter if you belief in god or not but those "rock"

and no matter how small the chances are they are worth it. as everybodies single life or the whole CB based mankind.

so my conclusion would be: lets make babies! so we make sure no possibility gets skipped
_________________________
Models, Textures and Levels at:
http://www.blattsalat.com/
portfolio:
http://showcase.blattsalat.com/

Top
#63657 - 02/13/06 02:26 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: fastlane69]
jcl Online

Chief Engineer

Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 25416
Loc: Frankfurt
Quote:

How different is this from asking yourself "Had my mother and father not met, I would not be alive. Had my father procreated with another women or my mother with another man, I would not have been born and thus I would not be alive. Thus, for 100% of other combinations of human partners, they 'might' lead to another life, but certainly not 'ME'"




With the same argument you could "prove" that no one would ever win in a lottery due to the improbability of this. The flaw lies in mixing different probability concepts. There are millions of lottery tickets issued, thus the probability of someone winning is a hundred percent. Were there only one ticket ever issued, winning would certainly require some further explanation - at least for a curious scientist.

The same applies to the universe.

Quote:

For most of the past time of the universe, Carbon Based (CB) life was impossible. For most of the future time of the universe, CB life will again be impossible. As a matter of fact, if the universe truly is flat and ever expanding, then as the universes age approaches infinity, the window where CB life is sustainable approaches zero, thus making this universe devoid of life and asymptotically raising the probability that life doesn't exist in this universe to 100%.




Mostly true, though in fact for most of the past time, about 10 billion years, carbon based life was very well possible. But this is not the point here. It's about under which conditions life it possible at all at one time in the universe.

Quote:

And I agree with Whine that this whole dicussion is grossly ethnocentric and assumes that CB life is teh only type of life. We have no way of knowing there isn't some other form of life that can evolve in the quark-gluon plasma at the birst of the universe nor can we say with certainty that life won't evolve into something else in the cold, dark ends of time.




This is correct, but still not the point. Development of intelligent life, no matter whether based on carbon, silicon, or unknown processes requires an energy source and an environment allowing evolution. For instance, in a universe filled with nothing but a thin expanding gas - and that's a much more likely universe than ours - life can not develop.

BTW I like the rock images, too.

Top
#63658 - 02/13/06 02:48 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Blattsalat]
JetpackMonkey Offline
Serious User

Registered: 11/05/03
Posts: 1659
Loc: San Francisco
hahahha blattsalat

i put unknown process, but i sometimes think of the unknown process as like cosmic metaphysical mystery = 'god/mother nature' (without bibles and dogma). I like the many universe and string theory developments! Maybe they are correct! I'd like to think they are, and if they are the answers, do they (or any other grand unification theory) cancel out 'god' ?

Quote:

How different is this from asking yourself "Had my mother and father not met, I would not be alive. Had my father procreated with another women or my mother with another man, I would not have been born and thus I would not be alive.


BTW I like this simple looking question a lot because it evokes that ultimate koan: who are you?


Edited by Jetpack_Monkey (02/13/06 02:55)

Top
#63659 - 02/13/06 03:50 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: jcl]
fastlane69 Offline
Senior Expert

Registered: 03/29/03
Posts: 5377
Loc: USofA
Quote:

With the same argument you could "prove" that no one would ever win in a lottery due to the improbability of this.




Please expand on this. My birth statement is factual: if my mom and dad hadn't procreated, I would not be alive, yet these is no mystery to my existence or how I came to be. However, your universal birth statement is not factual: if the constants do not align correctly, we have no way of knowing that in fact CB life won't again exist at some point in time in the past or future. But I have no idea where your lottery statement fits in.

Quote:

There are millions of lottery tickets issued, thus the probability of someone winning is a hundred percent.




Absolutely not...the probability of someone winning is not 100%...We see empirical evidence of this all the time: Tickets can get lost and people may not know they win and thus never claim their prize. As a matter of fact, this causes the jackpot to increase and leads to much joy and fanfare in the US.

Quote:

Were there only one ticket ever issued, winning would certainly require some further explanation - at least for a curious scientist.




Assuming I don't lose the winning ticket, this is an example of pulling a mystery out of circular logic...One winning ticket is issued, I have that ticket, so I win. What further explanation is needed?

A curious scientist with only one data point would hardly spend any time musing on how that one data point came to be...they would just accept that this is all they can get for the time being and move on. Remember that scientists are not numerologist...we use numbers as a tool, not as a divining method...if we see "42" come out of our calculations, we don't instantly scream "OMG, Douglas Adams was right! How did he know??" nor if we see 666 do we scream "The devil!! the devil!!". Likewise, realizing that the constants of nature are balanced (for now) so that we can live is just a fact and inspires no more scientific curiosity than wondering why DOG spelled backwards is GOD.

Quote:

The same applies to the universe.




I assume that in your analogy, the tickets are the universe. If that's the case (and again, I'm working with a core mis-understanding of what you are trying to say with your lottery analogy), then you are saying that if one million universes are issued, teh probability of life existing on one of them is 100% (where life=winning) since we are alive. But by using the lottery, you have skewed the analogy to state that only one universe can have life and the others can't (since in a lottery, only one person wins). But it is certainly possible that in this galactic lottery, everyone is a winner (CB or non-CB life is everywhere) and since we only know that we are the winner (and don't know the other winners), we feel like something special is going on.

Another way to interpret your analogy is that the tickets are the constants in nature. In this case, the millions of lottery tickets represent the millions of possibilities for these constants to combine. But as above, you are working with the assumption that only one ticket wins (our ticket; our constants) and that the other tickets are losers. Again we don't know that this is anything special since we have no way of stating that other non-CB life doesn't exist nor that other unknown physical processes won't again lead to the conditions necessary for CB life.


Quote:

BTW I like the rock images, too.




In their case, one would never question that some concrete physical process or at worst, just "coincidence" enabled them to balance, yet when people are confronted with balance on a cosmic scale, there "obviously" must be something non-physical to it.


Ultimitely, these questions remain in the realm of philosophy and meta-physics and thus everyone's opinion is as good as the other, but they do not cross over into the realm of science.

Top
#63660 - 02/13/06 06:46 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: fastlane69]
jcl Online

Chief Engineer

Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 25416
Loc: Frankfurt
The question (it's only one) does not cross over because it's already there.

The question of probability for a certain event, be it a certain nuclear reaction or a Big Bang with a certain combination of nature constants, is essential for science. Such a question - or more precise, why a certain event does happen despite the current theory says it's unlikely - can lead to important discoveries.

In my opionion the Universe Paradox is among the 10..20 most important scientific questions at the beginning of this century. Sure, the God explanation won't get us much further, but once we understand more about the laws of physics in time scales below Planck time, we can seriously examine into explanations 3) and 4), and can possibly find the answer to the question.

As to the lottery anlogy, I admit that I don't know your US lottery rules. In German lottery there are always several winners, thus the universe analogy would probably indeed work with our lottery only. Especially since when multiple universes exist, there are probably infinitely many. Thus, the probability for intelligent life would indeed be 100%. But I think you got my point

Top
#63661 - 02/13/06 09:32 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: jcl]
fastlane69 Offline
Senior Expert

Registered: 03/29/03
Posts: 5377
Loc: USofA
Quote:

why a certain event does happen despite the current theory says it's unlikely - can lead to important discoveries.





While far from dismissing scientific curiosity, when it comes to this question, I strongly disagree with the core assumption that say's that our universes present configuration is likely or unlikely...

No one has any basis of comparason for that statement and the only "proof" offered is that if the constants were different, then life wouldn't exsist.

Well, in order for the constants to be different, the physics would be different and then all bets are off and we can say anything we want!

Hence you can say that changing the constants would lead to no CB life and I can say changing the constants changes the physics and that this new physics would lead again lead to CB life and there is no way for either of us to be proven right or wrong...hence there is no way that this line of questioning will ever lead to discovery since it's fundamentally nothing more than the question "Why are we here?" but with physical constants thrown in just to make things more interesting.

So while I ceratainly encourage people to find out why these constants are what they are, the idea that these the constants are "special" and somehow tied into life in this universe is just philosophy and not science.

BTW, I'm not trying to be thick-headed, but I really didn't get your point about the lottery as a counter-point to my father/mother/son circular arguement.

Top
#63662 - 04/12/06 18:24 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Damocles]
zazang Offline
User

Registered: 10/04/03
Posts: 702
Humans are eventually bound by logic.Human brain can never go into a realm that does not follow logic and we ascertain truth by "measurement"
.Even the statements I'm making are based on that.
The deeper questions like "How the universe started" etc are beyond the sphere of human logic...Just as talking in English is beyond the capability of an ant...

Top
#63663 - 04/13/06 02:26 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: zazang]
Marco_Grubert Offline
Expert

Registered: 09/02/03
Posts: 3236
Loc: San Diego, CA
..what fastlane said

Top
#63664 - 04/13/06 04:18 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Marco_Grubert]
Matt_Aufderheide Offline
Expert

Registered: 10/03/03
Posts: 4114
Questions like this are academic. The Universe is the way it is and that's that. The apparent probability of it turning out this way was 100%, meaning that while any one outcome may be improbable, one outcome is certain to happen. This is how it happened.

The same arguement applies to those who claim that if conditions on Earth were slightly different, life couldn't exist.

It just as easy to say that if conditions were different, life could exist, but it would just be different.

..Unless I'm missing something here, this is not a paradox at all.
_________________________
Sphere Engine--the premier A6 graphics plugin.

Top
#63665 - 04/13/06 04:58 Re: Das Anthropische Prinzip / The Universe Parado [Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
Irish_Farmer Offline
User

Registered: 02/24/04
Posts: 718
Loc: Wisconsin
This isn't a very interesting question (no offense). For me it doesn't go far back enough to the foundation. Sure, there could have been slight changes that would change everything (except the core of physics) so what Matt said is true. Its pointless to ask why, because the simple fact of us being able to ask the question is kind of the answer to the question.

"I'm here because I can ask why I'm here," if you will. That may be circular reasoning, but in the context of the argument, that's as far as you need to go. At least in my opinion anyways.

The truly interesting question for me is one that science will never be able to explain...ever. Maybe you can try and prove me wrong, but from what I've heard from scientists, they've had to dodge this question.

If the universe also began in a sort of primordial state, where it was either smaller than it is now (relative to what? maybe it would be more accurate to say that relative to infinite space, all of matter was compacted into a tiny sphere), or literally nothing existed which became something, you're just begging the question. Where did this more basic universe come from? Something more basic? Where did that come from? Eventually it will all have to lead back to nothing. Saying it was always there is a cop out. You can say time keeps circling back on itself, but then why is there even time at all? Or to say that the probability of the existence of anything is 100% in this case also begs the question, where did probability come from? To say that it always existed is simply to take for granted its existence.

That's all I have to say, I don't want to hijack the discussion so you can continue on if you please.

However, it didn't seem to me that in JCL's original post, he was talking about changing constants. He was simply asking what if conditions hadn't been just right. Which definately is different than asking what it would mean if the physical laws of our universe were different, but I could be wrong about who said what.


Edited by Irish_Farmer (04/13/06 05:02)
_________________________
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."

Top
Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >


Moderator:  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes Wörterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite