[ 3 / a / adv / an / asp / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / g / gd / int / jp / k / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / o / out / p / po / sci / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wsg / x]

/sci/ - Science & Math

<< back to board
[Delete this thread]

Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)10:08 UTC+1 No.6660113 Report

Is the anthropic principle bullshit?

What is the current scientific consensus on multiple universes/string theory?
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)13:05 UTC+1 No.6660221 Report

>>6660113
>Is the anthropic principle bullshit?
Yes.

It's like if one person survived a plane crash, someone asks them "How is it you survived?", and they reply "Well if I hadn't I wouldn't be here to answer you".

The anthropic principle asks "Why is it that our universe is fine tuned for life?"
And answers "Well if it was not we would not be here to observe it."

In both cases the statement is true, but does nothing to explain the occurrence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
"only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing and reflecting upon any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld."

>What is the current scientific consensus on multiple universes/string theory?
By definition a parallel or alternate universe is completely unknowable to us.
With our current technology "strings" are unable to be observed.
You can assume that these things exist, but we have no way of knowing.

Science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.
>experiments and observation

Scientists may or may not have an interest in these topics, but the topics themselves are unscientific.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)13:19 UTC+1 No.6660228 Report

>>6660221
I feel like it's more about the gamblers bias rather than giving an explanation.
That just because an outcome was unlikely, it does not mean it was special when it happens.

Humans have the intuition to be suspicious when unlikely things happen, even if they know intellectually that it is still possible. As a result, they have the feeling that there must have been some kind of reason that made it happen or at least more likely than the others.
Like the gambler, who get's the double he needed three times in the row and somehow figures that "he's on a roll", attributing more to what happened than what was actually at play.

The anthropic principle is kinda the answer to the existential gamblers bias, i.e. theism.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)13:25 UTC+1 No.6660234 Report

the weak anthropic principle is a matter-of-course observation but completely useless for making any kind of predictions or further conclusions

the strong anthropic principle is unsupported, unsupportable nonsense
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)13:40 UTC+1 No.6660244 Report

>>6660228
The fine tuning of the universe is so unlikely that it is mathematically impossible.

Lets examine the most probable parameter from (pic related)

Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 1037
PS
Luck also does not explain why the universe is the way it is.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)13:42 UTC+1 No.6660245 Report

>>6660244
>The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 1037

One in 10 to the 37.
I guess I can't post superscript.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)13:44 UTC+1 No.6660248 Report

>>6660244
>Luck also does not explain why the universe is the way it is.
probability is incapable of explaining anything. "explanations" are interpretations, which is outside the realm of probability
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)13:45 UTC+1 No.6660249 Report

>>6660113
I've heard it claimed that Hoyle's prediction of 3 He -> C fusion resonance was predicted using anthropic principle reasoning.
Not sure whether it totally qualifies though.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)13:45 UTC+1 No.6660250 Report

>>6660248
I'm glad you agree.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)13:51 UTC+1 No.6660254 Report

>>6660244
Unlikely =/= Mathematically Impossible

Either we missed something or not and it simply happened.
Impossible things don't happen.
Unless you believe in Zombie-Jesus.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)14:03 UTC+1 No.6660264 Report

>>6660250
Probability also says that given enough trials anything that is possible can and will happen. Flip all of your dimes once, and get a million heads in a row. Assuming the universal constant numbers being what they are is as probable as them having different values, the fact that there is a universe in which those values can give rise to atoms, matter domination, stars, galaxies and planets forming, all of the stuff necessary for sentient life, must exist. You cannot possibly know the total number of trial universes which may have existed.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)14:08 UTC+1 No.6660267 Report

>>6660254
What I mean is that the event is so unlikely that it would not happen due to chance alone.
i.e. It must have an intelligent cause.

It seems your argument is we are here therefore it can happen on its own.
You have assumed that it did happen on its own.
This is known as assuming the conclusion.

>>6660264
>You cannot possibly know the total number of trial universes which may have existed.
Nor can you.
Also
>may have existed
Speculation
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)14:13 UTC+1 No.6660275 Report

>>6660267
>It must have an intelligent cause
Also speculation
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)14:16 UTC+1 No.6660279 Report

>>6660267
Unlikeliness implies it is still probable. Also nothing happens "due to chance". Way to prove gamblers bias.

Go back trolling at /b/.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)14:16 UTC+1 No.6660280 Report

>>6660275

The faces on Mt Rushmore.

It is mathematically impossible for it to have formed by natural forces, therefore it was obviously created by intelligence.

It is there so it is obviously not a complete impossibility, but it is still very much an impossibility that it happened on its own.

Which is more improbable of occurring without an intelligent agent involved.
The extremely fine tuned universe, or the faces on Mt. Rushmore?
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)14:19 UTC+1 No.6660284 Report

>>6660280
>finding the watch argument
You had me going there for a moment, Anon.
Well played.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)14:24 UTC+1 No.6660285 Report

>>6660280
>mathematically impossible

I think you mean, extremely improbable
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)14:24 UTC+1 No.6660286 Report

>>6660284
If you found a watch, would you assume no one had made it?

If so why?
If no then why not apply that very same logic elsewhere?
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)14:26 UTC+1 No.6660287 Report

>>6660280
>>6660286
You use impossible when you mean improbable, and don't understand probability at all.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)14:27 UTC+1 No.6660288 Report

>>6660221

>first post
>answers OP's questions concisely and without any namecalling

Am I still on 4chan?
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)14:33 UTC+1 No.6660293 Report

>>6660221
>It's like if one person survived a plane crash, someone asks them "How is it you survived?", and they reply "Well if I hadn't I wouldn't be here to answer you".

But that statement is true, and in fact highlights the different value we put on information dependent on the outcome. If they survived, everybody wants to know the knitty gritty. If they died, nobody fucking cares they just chalk it up to 'died in a god damned plane crash.'
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)14:33 UTC+1 No.6660295 Report

>>6660287
>still feeding this troll
Srsly, /sci/?
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)14:34 UTC+1 No.6660296 Report

>>6660286
It's not logic. It's inductive reasoning. Which doesn't apply to a universe.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)14:43 UTC+1 No.6660302 Report

>>6660288
>Am I still on 4chan?
Yes, but this can only mean one thing.
Clearly we have entered into some sort of alternate reality.

The multiverse is true.

>>6660293
The point is the answer given does not explain the outcome.

>>6660296
>It's not logic. It's inductive reasoning. Which doesn't apply to a universe.
>Which doesn't apply to a universe.
Why not?
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)14:45 UTC+1 No.6660304 Report

>>6660221
>It's like if one person survived a plane crash, someone asks them "How is it you survived?", and they reply "Well if I hadn't I wouldn't be here to answer you".
You're misrepresenting the actual question the anthropic principle is meant to rebuke. We can explain very well HOW intelligent life got here. The question is not HOW intelligent life exists but WHY intelligent life exists.

If you asked the survivor WHY he was the only one to survive, he would give you much the same answer. There is no reason why, it just happened that way and here I am. No, the anthropic principle is not bullshit. The question "Why are we here?" is bullshit. It implies that there is a default condition of the universe (life not existing, or nothing existing). But the only "default" condition of the universe is the one we've observed.

>By definition a parallel or alternate universe is completely unknowable to us.
Not necessarily. There may be some evidence of processes in the universe that would necessitate an event horizon forming. What is completely unknowable is what the parallel universe is like, not necessarily whether it exists.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)14:46 UTC+1 No.6660307 Report

>>6660302
Because to make the argument you would have to have experienced universes being created by gods.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)14:52 UTC+1 No.6660312 Report

>>6660244
>The fine tuning of the universe is so unlikely that it is mathematically impossible.
What is the probability of an event having occured when you've observed that it occured? 100%

Probability is conditional. It's based on what knowledge you have and don't have. You were not around before the universe began, before the "parameters" of the universe were "set". Attempting to pretend that you were and calculating a probability from a viewpoint that may have never even existed makes zero sense. You don't understand probability. Where is your proof that the parameters were chosen randomly?
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)14:56 UTC+1 No.6660317 Report

>>6660280
Mt. Rushmore isn't something that had the possibility to shape the matter that was to eventually observe it if, hypothetically, a bunch of faces in a mountain did arrive by chance. the comparison is fallacious and a misrepresentation of the issue.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)15:00 UTC+1 No.6660321 Report

>>6660267
>What I mean is that the event is so unlikely that it would not happen due to chance alone.
That would be an event with probability zero. Anything with a probability above zero can happen due to chance.

>It seems your argument is we are here therefore it can happen on its own.
>You have assumed that it did happen on its own.
No, we haven't assumed anything, we've observed that it happened. The probability that what we've already observed occured is 100%.

What is the probability of John Smith having won the lottery today given you've observed him win the lottery today? 100%

Do you claim there's a conspiracy whenever an extremely unlikely event happens? Becuase extremely unlikely events happen all the time. The most "unlikely" event we could imagine is that the universe is the particular way it is at this point in time, yet that HAS to occur. What you are doing is attempting to put a special significance on an event when there really is none. The question "why do we exist?" is an idiotic one.
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)15:02 UTC+1 No.6660323 Report

>>6660280
First of all, you don't understand what "impossible" means.

The reason we know Mt. Rushmore was created by intelligence is because we have these things called history textbooks. The information of how Mt. Rushmore exists is not missing. You really don't understand probability,
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)15:22 UTC+1 No.6660334 Report

>>6660302
>The point is the answer given does not explain the outcome.

But of course it does. The answer or evidence is the actual universe we live in. What conditions are good for life? The ones we are witnessing, at the very least.

From there it is natural to start ruling out deviations in order to narrow down the list of other conditions that could support life. EG: wrong number of spatial/temporal dimensions --> wrong amount of hard gamma/UV from the sun --> too much heat in general --> not enough water --> presence of organic compounds --> etc etc etc
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)15:40 UTC+1 No.6660345 Report

>>6660296
>inductive reasoning is not logic and doesn't apply to the universe
[citation needed]
I mean can you not explain why this is or did you forget you're posting in a science board
>>
Anonymous 07/23/14(Wed)15:43 UTC+1 No.6660350 Report

>>6660307
So a written eye witness account of the creation of a universe is all the proof I need right?
>>
Anonymous 07/24/14(Thu)11:09 UTC+1 No.6662122 Report

>>6660245
>10^37
Not impressed.
String theory spews out 10^500 different universes(**), so lotterywise each one of those 10^37 incidents should come about 10^463 times. In that league, 10^37 is a mere drop in the ocean, if even that.

(**)
Ways of wrapping the extra dimensions in a Calabi-Yau manifold. These determine the string vibration landscape which gives different basic constants for fundamental particles.
>>
Anonymous 07/24/14(Thu)11:17 UTC+1 No.6662128 Report

>>6660345
>not knowing what induction is
>on a science board
It means this:
>>6660307

>>6660350
No, because it isn't about proof. It's about having enough data to make the reasonable induction and deduction.
Meaning "universes are created by gods" would have to be observed often enough to make the preposition with the same confidence as "all swans are white".
>>
Anonymous 07/24/14(Thu)14:47 UTC+1 No.6662284 Report

>>6660280
This is beyond retarded
All the content on this website comes from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster. 4chanArchive is not affiliated with 4chan.