An Accidental Universe

John, I have no idea how you think your question is relevant to this thread.

Tom

Tom,

I did read it and should go back and reread it, but modeling motion as an infinite series of points does raise questions about the assumptions involved. What is a dimensionless point? Is it inert? How does a sequence of seemingly inert points actually capture motion, as opposed to simply charting its trajectory? Why is a seemingly motionless point somehow more conceptually fundamental than motion?

I do thank you for carrying on these discussions, even when I do question the formalisms.

Paul,

So having fixed 'what is' physics you are now fixing math? Math as math needs no fixing as it is 'inherently valid'. But your view of math leaves much to be fixed in your reasoning.

Constantinos

Tom,

It would refer back to Rob's point about the observer as a store of prior information. What is information in the first place, without a particular top down point of reference, model, frame,etc. Otherwise the entire universe is one infinite process/equation.

Tom,

Regarding - "It's trivial that of a countable infinity of equally likely initial conditions, at least one will have the potential necessary to create and sustain organisms with the capacity to question how they came to exist (weak anthropic principle)."

The state "No Life, Ever", is not impossible, a priori. No countable infinity of coin flips will produce an elephant. An infinite number of trials cannot produce that which is not possible.

The observation, to be explained, is this: The *a posteriori* probability of intelligent life existing is known to equal 1. I think, therefore I am.

The single universe theory, which attempts to explain the above observation, is this: A single universe, modeled via random, independent statistics, is highly unlikely to produce intelligent life , it must be "fine tuned" to accomplish this, and that is highly improbable, given the initial conditions.

Consequently, that theory utterly disagrees with the observations - it is a total failure.

The multiverse hypothesis was an attempt to avert this total failure.

But, as explained above, it also is a total failure, in this regard.

The problem does not lie with the number of universes required to explain the observation. The problem lies with the assumption that all those universes function entirely via random, independent processes.

Regarding - "the issue is whether we can use the multiverse hypothesis to calculate a singular initial condition of our own universe." No hypothesis can do that. As I described previously, no entity has enough memory, to record all the observations that would be required in order for such a hypothesis to be modeled, in enough detail, to compute the initial conditions.

Rob McEachern

Paul,

Your typical long response is indicative of how convoluted and con-fused your reasoning is. We mask contradiction the same as we cover up a lie. With long elaborate made-up explanations and excuses.

For example, you write "What we know, given that this is generated on the basis of valid presumptions and due process, must be deemed to be what is (with the caveat 'as at this time', but that is irrelevant to the point, just a reflection of how knowledge must accumulate)."

"deemed to be what is" ??? "generated on the basis of valid presumptions and due process" ???

And you see no contradiction of "what is" independent of you in any of that? Where did you create such thoughts but not in your mind? 'out of mind'?

Your reasoning of "what is" is no more than an egotistical assertion of self-experience and of what you think "what is" is! And need others to also think the same. The mark of 'metaphysical knowledge' of "what is". Exactly what I urge we should avoid! But have no problem if you continue to think this way. As long as you don't expect others to think the same.

But I can't take any more time sorting this out for you. Or I will need to charge you for my professional services!

Constantinos

Rob,

"The state 'No Life, Ever', is not impossible (sic), a priori. No countable infinity of coin flips will produce an elephant. An infinite number of trials cannot produce that which is not possible."

This is called the 'argument from design' fallacy. It does not apply to the Albrecht hypothesis, if indeed it applies to anything at all.

"The observation, to be explained, is this: The *a posteriori* probability of intelligent life existing is known to equal 1. I think, therefore I am."

And this is known as the 'Descartes dualism fallacy', easily refuted. Again, no relation to the Albrecht result.

"The single universe theory, which attempts to explain the above observation, is this: A single universe, modeled via random, independent statistics, is highly unlikely to produce intelligent life , it must be 'fine tuned' to accomplish this, and that is highly improbable, given the initial conditions."

Once again, a strawman, off topic argument.

"Consequently, that theory utterly disagrees with the observations - it is a total failure. The multiverse hypothesis was an attempt to avert this total failure."

No it wasn't. One must understand that the Everett many worlds hypothesis from which the multiverse derives, is an explanation of quantum mechanical experimental results.

"But, as explained above, it also is a total failure, in this regard."

Which is known as the 'fallacy of false dichotomy.' The failure of your strawman does not imply failure of the many worlds hypothesis, which in fact is a quite successful interpretation of quantum phenomena.

"The problem does not lie with the number of universes required to explain the observation. The problem lies with the assumption that all those universes function entirely via random, independent processes."

Then you are obligated to show that a Bernoulli trial is not random and not independent of all other Bernoulli trials. Good luck.

"Regarding - 'the issue is whether we can use the multiverse hypothesis to calculate a singular initial condition of our own universe.' No hypothesis can do that. As I described previously, no entity has enough memory, to record all the observations that would be required in order for such a hypothesis to be modeled, in enough detail, to compute the initial conditions."

Which is known as the fallacy of 'argument from ignorance.'

Rob, I'm disappointed that you started off with serious interest in this topic and reverted to long refuted fallacious assertions.

Tom

John,

The exchange of information between particles does not require a privileged frame.

Tom

Tom,

No, but any structure arising from that quantum level is its own frame. Otherwise it is just a universe of quantum activity. It would be bottom only, as there would be no structure arising from it and so no top down frame.

" ... any structure arising from that quantum level is its own frame."

No it isn't. It's another's frame as well. That's why the fundamental quantum unit is "bit," not "it."

Tom

Tom,

You misquoted me, via the "sic" you inserted. That is why you fail to comprehend. You read what you want to hear, rather than what was said. Read what I said.

You also have not comprehended what 'Descartes dualism fallacy' is. Dualism refers to Descartes assumption that the statement "I think, therefore I am. I am a thinking thing.", implies that "I am not an embodied thinking thing". It has nothing to do with the first statement by itself.

Everett's many worlds hypothesis was ignored for thirty years, as a useless metaphysical interpretation of QM, until people became interested in the "fine-tuning" problem. It was hoped that it would provide a way out of the problem, but it cannot.

Regarding "the many worlds hypothesis, which in fact is a quite successful interpretation of quantum phenomena", the word "successful" is an odd word to use to characterize any "interpretation of quantum phenomena". What, exactly, is your criteria for success? It certainly cannot be falsifiability.

If you wish to argue that everything is characterized by random, independent statistics, then please explain why you think mathematical physics employes so many differential equations, to describe behaviors. These are explicit statements that the future *depends* on the past, in a very specific, non-random, non-independent fashion. Why bother with all that, if *you* can prove it's all just a matter of "Bernoulli trials".

Rob McEachern

Sorry, Rob, I thought you meant "The state 'No Life, Ever', is not *possible*, a priori." Because that's the only way that your statement makes sense. To say that 'no life ever' is impossible a priori means that life precedes itself. Is that what you mean to say? You follow with:

"No countable infinity of coin flips will produce an elephant. An infinite number of trials cannot produce that which is not possible."

Which also makes no sense.

If you mean OTOH, that only life is possible -- that no theory of dead matter (isn't that what you mean by 'memoryless particles?') can produce life (in general, dynamic relations, even fundamental quantum interactions), then we agree strongly -- my essay last year, "The Perfect First Question," concludes the same.

I think I want to stop here, until this is cleared up. I hate to think I misrepresented what you said.

Tom

Tom,

"No it isn't. It's another's frame as well. That's why the fundamental quantum unit is "bit," not "it.""

That does raise the issue of whether reality is "it" from "bit," or "bit" from "it."

As you observe, "bit" is dependent on a frame, so presumably "it" is not. Does that mean "it" doesn't exist, or that we simply don't have a frame by which to define it?

John,

"Does that mean 'it' doesn't exist, or that we simply don't have a frame by which to define it?"

Or:

As relativity has it, all rest frames are equally valid. And thus -- given continuous spacetime -- clock ambiguity, in which any choice of clock is valid, for a potential infinity of initial conditions.

Tom

Tom,

Going back and rereading it, this was the paragraph which gave me pause:

"For instance, are we going to say that a line is made of infinitely many points? This would suggest that the gradual addition of things of one kind (points) gives rise ultimately to something of a different kind altogether (a line). How do you make this leap over dimensionality? How do you get from something that has no dimension at all (a point) to something that has a real dimension (a line)? In the same way, how do you get from lines to surface? At which stage of the addition will you get there? Infinity is troublesome because it seems to imply that once you can add something up infinitely many times you can actually change something from one kind to a totally different kind. That's one kind of problem."

A point has no dimension. Its extension is zero. So no matter how many times you add zeros, they still equal zero. Infinity multiplied by zero still equals zero. That's why it seems the real question, that which is overlooked, what is the absolute, ie. zero.

Tom,

As a measurement, wouldn't a clock constitute a form of frame? So the "it" or "bit" question is; Does the clock, ie. units of measure, precede or arise from the "it" of what is being measured? Is the "bit" of time generated by the "it" of action, or is action emergent from the bits of time? It from bit, or bit from it?

Tom,

" all rest frames are equally valid. And thus -- given continuous spacetime -- clock ambiguity, in which any choice of clock is valid, for a potential infinity of initial conditions."

Is there an infinite rest frame? Would it be possible to define any finite rest frame moving relative to it? To what degree would these sub-frames be "valid" in comparison, such as what level of atomic activity would be possible in a finite rest frame moving at C, relative to an infinite rest frame?

"As a measurement, wouldn't a clock constitute a form of frame?"

You're so exasperating, John. Is a picture frame a form of painting? Is the frame around your wall clock a form of clock?

"Is there an infinite rest frame? Would it be possible to define any finite rest frame moving relative to it?"

No. I could explain why, but I don't think I will.

Tom

Tom,

"Is the frame around your wall clock a form of clock?"

So the ticks of the clock don't frame the interval? (Ticks being "bit" and interval being "it.")

"No. I could explain why, but I don't think I will."

Yea. You guessed were that's headed, the whole centrifugal force as argument for space as inertial debate.