An Accidental Universe

Hector,

Are you referring to your March 4th, post to Professor Andreas Albrecht, or to your March 4th, post to myself?

Tom,

Regarding "Who says "life" is necessarily defined by your narrow biological parameters?", Apparently you do. No one else, including me, has ever mentioned such things.

You continue to ignore the distinction between *a priori* and *a posteriori* probabilities. There is a reason why they do not allow people to bet on a horse race, after the race has been run. The same reason applies to the fine-tuning-multiverse hypothesis; "Predicting" that life will occur, after it *has* occurred, wins no great prize for logic.

Regarding "One cannot reasonably posit that 'no-life' is of zero probability given the 1.0 probability of 'life' in the observed universe. "

That is what I have been saying all along; "One cannot reasonably posit that 'no-life' is of zero probability", *a priori*. Are you now conceding that I am correct? And that the advocates of the multiverse hypothesis are wrong, since that is precisely what they do posit?

Rob McEachern

Constantinos

We cannot be aware of 'what is', because we are part of it and therefore cannot externalise ourselves from it. There is always the possibility of an alternative.

We can only be aware of what it is potentially possible for us to be aware of, ie we are trapped in an existentially closed system. But there is a physical process underpinning that. So, whilst it may or may not be a particular form of 'what is', it is definitive and definable, and constitutes 'what is' for us. The mind is part of the system which processes this, ie the component which is physically received.

The fact that we need the mind/sensory system to be aware/know that we have received a physical input is irrelevant in terms of physics. This is a recent evolutionary development that has utilised certain physical phenomena, and thus, in this context, they have acquired a functional role. Physical existence (which includes those phenomena and what caused them) occurs previously and independently. Indeed, much of it is never received by any sentient organism, but it still existed. And on many occasions, given our knowledge as to how the physical process works, we have to hypothesise what occurred in order to overcome some identified issue which meant that it was not received, or what was received was not what was the original physical output.

You keep confusing the role of the mind (plus sensory system) in physical existence, and what can constitute physical existence for us. All the mind does is process what was physically received, which enables us to know we received something. That something being the result of a physical interaction with something else. It is these somethings that we need to know, and that is inferable from the mind/sensory system processing output. They are not that. But, we can only ever be aware of (as opposed to create beliefs about) one form of these somethings, ie the form which enables detectability, because that reflects the underlying physical process which determines the existentially closed system we are trapped in. To put it simply: the mind/sensory system is a nuisance, because that adds a layer of 'enhancement/interference' to what physically existed, which has to be eradicated in order to discern what that was.

Paul

Rob

In essence, the whole argument goes back to A/not A. Where A is existence as knowable to us. An absolute extrinsic reference is never available, because that can only ever be the possibility of an alternative. That is, given A (where A is 'is'), there is always the logical possibility of not-A, however, this cannot be defined from within A, as a reference from within not-A is required for that. So all that can be defined is A, from within A, and that that is not not-A. But not what not-A is.

The corollary of this is that 'is' must be definitive in itself (ie a closed system), and therefore possible to define, albeit only from within. That is so because there is an absolute reference, which is 'of ', or 'not of', ie the only absolute reference there can be is the factor which determines inclusivity. In the context of existence the absolute reference is detectability (either actual or properly hypothesised), because we can only be aware of existence in this form.

Put simply, concepts such as multiverse are, by definition, belief. If we can detect something (either directly or properly hypothesised on that basis) then it is not another universe.

Paul

Rob,

"Regarding "Who says "life" is necessarily defined by your narrow biological parameters?", Apparently you do. No one else, including me, has ever mentioned such things."

Huh?!! Then you are obligated to say what you DO mean by "life." I have given you my definition.

"You continue to ignore the distinction between *a priori* and *a posteriori* probabilities. There is a reason why they do not allow people to bet on a horse race, after the race has been run. The same reason applies to the fine-tuning-multiverse hypothesis; "Predicting" that life will occur, after it *has* occurred, wins no great prize for logic."

Strawman after strawman. You fail to understand that there there *is* no a posteriori probability for life occuring. The existence of life is trivial, as is your argument.

I said "Regarding 'One cannot reasonably posit that 'no-life' is of zero probability given the 1.0 probability of 'life' in the observed universe."

You replied, "That is what I have been saying all along; 'One cannot reasonably posit that 'no-life' is of zero probability", *a priori*. Are you now conceding that I am correct?'"

Holy crap. Do you know anything about probability? *You* are the one imagining the false dichotomy of "life--no-life." Because the probability of life in *our* universe is 100% does not imply that there are no universes incapable of sustaining life. Instead of rigging the odds based on your personal belief in the excluded middle to a binary choice of 0 or 1, consider that objectively there are universes sustaining on a continuum of 1 (life, i.e., the presence of self aware organisms) to 0 (no presence of self aware organisms). Three-valued (two endpoints and a middle).

"And that the advocates of the multiverse hypothesis are wrong, since that is precisely what they do posit?"

Rob, you apparently do not grasp the many-worlds or multiverse hypotheses. One has to understand first the principles of statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics before making a valid argument against these interpretations. You started out thinking that it is so easy to refute the hypotheses that your base knowledge of statistic is enouogh. You found out that it isn't. So you turned to your philosophical prejudices where your arguments, to the extent that they are coherent at all, are trivial.

Tom

Paul,

Are you a robot? I am pulling the plug ...

Constantinos

Rob,

Just accept that anyone postulating multiverses cannot be proven wrong. You have fallen in the rabbit hole.

Tom,

To repeat my question further down this thread, how do multiples of zero add up to something?

Tom,

"Then you are obligated to say what you DO mean by "life."

I already did. On March 1st at 21:22, I said:

"Let p(Un) be the probability that Universe number "n" has initial conditions and physical laws, such that they result in "intelligent life-forms", that attempt to understand how they came to exist."

I think entities "that attempt to understand how they came to exist", is a bit broader than "your narrow biological parameters".

John,

"Just accept that anyone postulating multiverses cannot be proven wrong. You have fallen in the rabbit hole."

I have always accepted that. But as I fall, I have also come to accept that, the multiverse hypothesis has not explained anything that needs to be explained. It is this latter point, where Tom and I differ in opinion. Tom believes that it actually explains something. But he has yet to explain either *what* it explains, or *how* it succeeded in explaining it.

Rob McEachern

Rob,

I said, "Then you are obligated to say what you DO mean by 'life.'"

I already did. On March 1st at 21:22, I said:

"Let p(Un) be the probability that Universe number "n" has initial conditions and physical laws, such that they result in 'intelligent life-forms', that attempt to understand how they came to exist.'"

What intelligent life forms are not biological? What do you mean? Maybe we agree.

Tom

Reposted to the correct thread.

Rob,

I said, "Then you are obligated to say what you DO mean by 'life.'"

I already did. On March 1st at 21:22, I said:

"Let p(Un) be the probability that Universe number "n" has initial conditions and physical laws, such that they result in 'intelligent life-forms', that attempt to understand how they came to exist.'"

What intelligent life forms are not biological? What do you mean? Maybe we agree.

Tom

Rob,

You wrote to John, "Tom believes that it (multiple universes) actually explains something. But he has yet to explain either *what* it explains, or *how* it succeeded in explaining it."

It isn't a matter of belief. The many worlds hypothesis does explain something -- it explains quantum mechanics in just as valid a manner as the Copenhagen interpretation, Bohmian mechanics, or any other intepretation of QM.

The new and critical thing that Albrecht introduces, is an implied explanation of the "equaly likely" hypothesis at the center of probability theory.

In standard quantum theory supported by Bell's theorem, the "equally likely" principle is applied to the "experiment not done" as well as the result of the experiment whose result (according to CI) represents a collapse of the wave function. One cannot avoid concluding nonlocality from this interpretation, because obviously if the wave function collapses, all results are *not* equally likely, in the locality which includes the experiment.

If the wave function does not collapse, all the physics is local -- meaning that measurement results, the physically real part of physics, are equally likely among all parts of the wave function and there is no such thing as nonlocality.

How does one demonstrate this? -- I think Albrecht is on exactly the right track: clock ambiguity makes the observer choice of clock -- i.e., a varying scale of timekeeping -- a free variable. That this leads to different initial conditions in the classical analysis verifies (so far only in computer simulation, but this research is very new) that there is no singularity at creation; every "big bang" is an equally valid cosmological initial condition. This comports with what Einstein tells us about the absence of a privileged observer frame. Relativity and QM meet and shake hands.

Tom

Tom,

In answer to your question:

"What intelligent life forms are not biological? What do you mean?"

I mean, for example, an intelligent machine. Over twenty years ago, I wrote a book "Human and Machine Intelligence: An Evolutionary View", in which I predicted that such things will exist within my lifetime - a prediction that can be falsified.

You stated that:

"The many worlds hypothesis does explain something -- it explains quantum mechanics in just as valid a manner as the Copenhagen interpretation, Bohmian mechanics, or any other intepretation of QM."

In my FQXI essay, I agree that all such interpretations are equally valid. But I also stressed the point, that none of them *explain* anything. They are not part of *THE THEORY*, they were created external to the theory, per se, and slapped onto it, after the fact, like a post-it note.

Regarding:

"In standard quantum theory supported by Bell's theorem..."

I think we both agree that Bell's *purported* theorem is not valid, although we have quite different reasons for our mutual conclusion. Invalid theorems support nothing.

Regarding:

""equaly likely" hypothesis at the center of probability theory. "

To me, probability theory is a branch of mathematics. Physical observations and theories can explain nothing about mathematics. Mathematics however, can be used to describe low-information-content phenomenon, like physics; In that sense (and no other) it can explain something.

Now if you want to consider the proposition that "The new and critical thing that Albrecht introduces" explains why the mathematics of probability theory has been found to be a useful tool for developing physical theories, that might be of some interest. But The Equally Likelihood hypothesis, has more to do with physicists, than physics. It is primarily concerned not with "what is?", but with what do we "intelligent life forms" known about what is. In other words, it has less to do with what happened at the dawn of creation (or anything else outside ourselves), than with what is presently going on within our minds.

Rob McEachern

Tom,

From the perspective of the ancients, Apollo's Chariot explained the sun crossing the sky.

Isn't another possible explanation that all perspective is "local"? Then it is the focusing of the information/measuring it, that is the collapse, but the larger, non-collapsed/non-measured is open to an infinity of perspective, but each collapses to its own view. Swarm awareness synthesizes objectivity not otherwise accessed. Ie, no god's eye view is possible.

Rob,

I wouldn't equate intelligence with awareness. Intelligence is processing information, while awareness is motivated. A computer is intelligent, but not motivated, while an ant is motivated, but not that intelligent. What motivates life is the simple binary code of attraction to the beneficial and repulsion of the detrimental, aka, hope and fear. Computers process ones and zeros/on and off. For biology, life is the on and death is the off. Consider, for a moment, how these conversations progress, as everyone promotes their particular view of reality as truth and progress is often a power function of latching onto authority and riding it. For example, Tom arguing CI and multiworlds as viable explanations, rather than patches over the unknown, without seeing the age old pitfalls of appeals to authority. He is motivated, rather than objective. For him, "off" isn't an objective choice, but the wrong direction. The larger society has the same impulse, as "growth" is viewed as an unparalleled good, while sustainability is an afterthought. Now a true intelligence would view sustainability as the logical goal and growth as only one side of a larger cycle. Thus logic is often viewed as "cold" and unemotional. Institutions do not have a reverse, but they do break down.

John,

I've tried to stay out of this one, because Rob is doing a bangup job of making all of my points, but I do wish to agree with you when you say: "I wouldn't equate intelligence with awareness. Intelligence is processing information, while awareness is motivated." That was a basic definition in my first FQXI essay where the point was elaborated on in hundreds of comments. To me it's a big deal, thanks for bringing it up. By the way, you keep coming up with some real jewels. I especially liked your remark above about replacing infinities in one theory of the universe with infinite universes.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

John,

I wouldn't equate intelligence with awareness either. But I have a more stringent definition of intelligence than you do. No computer yet built is intelligent, that is still some years away. But they are very knowledgable, and becoming more so, far faster than any "life-form" ever did.

Rob McEachern

Jim:

I am sorry , The meanings of words ,some times when writing, we give words the meaning we just have in this moment in mind, this produce confusions. Is one of the reasons because nobody find out "the time nature". We know what we are meaning, the problem is transmitting these with written words in a way that everybody understand the same that we understood (my language is Spanish).

In march 5th you wrote:

In my view, the Earth`s rotational motion is the fundamental physical mechanism responsible for maintaining our confusion over the nature of time. I answer: "First there is no confusion about "the nature of time"( which is the physical existence), because we already find it, is "movement" "time" is just a remnant word.

My answer was the last part of my post, and I wrought it, because I thought that with the first part of my post it was clear, that the so called "time" was "movement" but I think I was wrong.

I explain in march 5th post : "We believe that, when we are looking at a clock, we are measuring "time", wrong we are measuring "movement". With the "constant" "uniform" or "regular" hour hand "movement" on the clock dial, we are measuring the earth constant rotational "movement" fraction, represented by the numbers on it, we just has measured "movement" with "movement" (and no "time" with "movement") We are not conscious that we are doing this, but as you see, can be physically proved. Two millenniums ago or more that we think we are measuring "time", it is hard to let it aside".

In short with the clock "constant" "movement"

we are measuring the earth "constant" rotational "movement" fraction,

represented by the dial numbers

We are measuring that and no the so called "time".

With this alone we are physically proving that with the clock we are measuring "movement" When I said "the nature of time" it is because is how physicist called it. In short when they want to know "What they are measuring" I answer them, you are measuring "movement" and no "time" because this, does not exist. The "movement" they are measuring is an existing physical quality or property of physically existing things, this is what they were looking for. "movement" (the nature of time).

I hope is clear now, as an old man I take the privilege to give an advise, we should read slow and with full attention on a subject as slippery as this.

The earth "constant" rotational movement is not responsible for maintaining the confusion over (the nature of time) but to explain why it is "movement".

I answered you, many other questions, and you say nothing about it.

I was referring at my post of march 4th, not to the one to Albrecht.

Hector

Dear Hector,

I think you might find J.C.N. Smiths FQXi competition essays very interesting, if you have not read them already

"Rethinking a Key Assumption About the Nature of Time" by J. C. N. Smith, 2012

"On the Impossibility of Time Travel" by J. C. N. Smith, 2009

He very clearly expressing the idea of passage of time being synonymous with changing configuration of the universe.

Edwin,

Thanks. I have to admit to being a bit free form in my thinking and this makes me focus. While that point about motivation vs. objectivity might seem pointed at Tom, it is coming from my own experiences of trying to understand my own impulses and people close to me. There was a recent neurology experiment showing that people with their emotional centers harmed, but their more intellectual centers functioning, were quite capable of coherent observations, yet utterly indecisive. We all are, to some extent, switches in a swarm mind.

Rob,

I did assign some further definition to intelligence, than you meant, but to try to make the argument about how awareness and information processing fit together. Like energy being conserved, awareness follows the open circuit. It doesn't collapse, but nor does it expand to follow all paths. Many of those branches are dead ends. Every last living entity is an open circuit back to the origin of life, but in every generation, the vast majority are genetic dead ends. So there is very much motivation for being the ones to survive.

Hector,

In your post of March 4th, addressed to myself, you mentioned physics. Your first sentence is, "general relativity mathematically proved, that velocity and gravity slow time, later on were also experimentally proved with several experiences, also reach technology with the GPS (time dilation)."

While I did take Astronomy and Physical Geography at university level, I did not take Physics and Mathematics. Therefore, I am not in a position to address General Relativity, Mathematics, and Gravity.

My own decades long search for the Nature of Time, did not, and does not, rely on university level Physics and Mathematics.