An Accidental Universe

Rob,

What is the 'excluded middle', that lies between proposition (1) life is possible, and proposition (2) life is not possible?"

How do you propose that life is not possible? The issue with your logic, Rob, is that you have some unstated personal idea of what "life" means, and everything that is not-life in your terms is therefore impossible, As I said, your view is highly anthropocentric (as in fact, are most opinions here; yours just happens to be a reasonable one).

If you relaxed your criteria for "life," we would be in accord. As a result, though, there would be a continuum of life -- or consciousness -- from the simplest to the most complex structures and organisms. You would find the true case is that not-life is not possible in the most general terms, and that

therefore the equally likely hypothesis applies only to the initial condition; there is no boundary between life and not-life, which in turn implies no boundary between the subtlest quantum phenomena and the most stately classical.

"Or more generally, what is the excluded middle between proposition 'A' and not 'A'? It cannot have anything to do with probability; 'not possible' means probability = 0, not just some infinitesimally small value."

True. However, your premise is flawed. Constructive mathematics (computer results, being digital, are always constructive) judges proofs by 3-valued logic: "constructively true," "constructively false" and "unproven." Your 2-valued case for not-A is nonconstructive and unproven. The same applies to proofs for nonlocality in quantum theory -- Albrecht's hypothesis restores locality by free choice of clock, and as a consequence discovers Nature's free choice of initial conditions.

Tom

Rob,

Trying to catch up on my internet reading, I perused the Backreaction blog of the ever-poignant Bee Hossenfelder . In her 27 January 2013 entry, "Misconceptions about the anthropic principle" (and it's clear to me that she's addressing the weak, trivial, version of that principle) Bee writes:

"There are a lot of arguments floating around that go like this: If the value of parameter x was just a little larger or smaller we'd be (expletive deleted). The problem with these arguments is that small variations around one out of two dozen parameters leave out most possible combinations of parameters. You'd really have to consider modifications of all parameters together to be able to conclude there is only one supportive of life, which is however not a presently feasible calculation. And though this calculation is not feasible, the claim that there is really only one combination of parameters that will create a universe hospitable to life is on shaky ground already ..."

and then she goes on to link a paper that " ... put forward a universe that seems capable of creating life and yet is entirely different from our own."

'Nuff said. One cannot begin with a premise that life is impossible in any universe but our own -- that's a false dichotomy.

Tom

Paul,

Though we cannot truly know "what is" we certainly do know our observations and measurements of "what is". You take these as "what is". I don't. The word "know" comes from the Greek word for "mind". I use it in the true meaning of what it actually means! And that explains our differences. As we cannot 'know' anything that is not in our mind. In the same way as we cannot know another human being. But can only know our observations and experiences and understanding of that human being. Do you truly know your wife?

As for science, in my view it concerns our observations and measurements and understanding of "what is". What we can only know truly. That too often physicists take this as "what is" (and not our observations of "what is") is a metaphysical pitfall of Physics. I argue so in my essay, The Metaphysics of Physics.

You argue you can truly know what is 'out of your mind' while I argue we cannot know it truly. While I am being 'in my mind', you are 'out of your mind' thinking you know "what is" out of both our minds. I cannot say this any more clearly. We are not communicating.

Constantinos

Tom,

"How do you propose that life is not possible?"

Billions of years ago, before life appeared *anywhere*, it is not obvious that it ever would. That is the claim made by those proposing the "fine-tuning" argument. It is *logically* possible that it never would, since any proposition that is not self-contradictory *necessarily* remains a logical possibility.

The fine-tuning argument is based on the assumption, that life appears very unlikely to occur, given any plausible set of initial conditions. I merely point out that it is only one very small step in logic to go from *very unlikely* to *not possible*.

You quoted Bee as saying:

"the claim that there is really only one combination of parameters that will create a universe hospitable to life is on shaky ground already ..."

That is *exactly* my point. Note the use of the word *universe*, not *multiverse*. It was not an accident. Bee means that a multiverse is superfluous, since a mere universe is sufficient, for all intents and purposes, as the saying goes.

Bear in mind that I believe that life is almost *inevitable*, given *any* initial conditions, within our one-and-only universe; because it is based on very non-random, non-independent, self-selecting processes. I have merely been pointing-out that the fine-tuning-multiverse hypothesis, based on poorly conceived, random-independent-variables probability arguments, are logically inconsistent (since they fail to consider the logical possibility of "no life"), unnecessary and "on shaky ground" indeed.

Rob McEachern

Rob,

Who says "life" is necessarily defined by your narrow biological parameters?

"I merely point out that it is only one very small step in logic to go from *very unlikely* to *not possible*."

True, but completely irrelevant to the discussion.

"You quoted Bee as saying:

'the claim that there is really only one combination of parameters that will create a universe hospitable to life is on shaky ground already ...'

That is *exactly* my point. Note the use of the word *universe*, not *multiverse*. It was not an accident. Bee means that a multiverse is superfluous, since a mere universe is sufficient, for all intents and purposes, as the saying goes."

You should have read the whole thing.

"Bear in mind that I believe that life is almost *inevitable*, given *any* initial conditions, within our one-and-only universe; because it is based on very non-random, non-independent, self-selecting processes."

So what? It is trivial that life (self aware organic life) exists in our universe with probability 1.

"I have merely been pointing-out that the fine-tuning-multiverse hypothesis, based on poorly conceived, random-independent-variables probability arguments, are logically inconsistent (since they fail to consider the logical possibility of 'no life'), unnecessary and 'on shaky ground' indeed."

I repeat -- you should have read the whole thing. Bee is not defending the (weak) anthropic principle -- she is explaining it in the context of physics:

"As Lee Smolin likes to point out, the mentioning of 'life' in the anthropic principle is entirely superfluous verbal baggage (my words, not his). Physicists don't usually have a lot of business with the science of self-aware conscious beings. They talk about formation of large scale structures or atoms. Don't even expect large molecules. However, talking about 'life' is arguably catchier."

My point is that your invoking the emergence of "life" as a criterion for your assumption of 'no-life' is a non-starter. One cannot reasonably posit that 'no-life' is of zero probability given the 1.0 probability of 'life' in the observed universe. As I said: it's a false dichotomy.

Tom

Hector,

I`m not able to understand your statement, ""time" is "movement""?

In my view, time itself does not exist as a real thing or force in reality. I would not say that `time is motion`, I would say `time is measured by motion`.

In the effort to be as clear as possible, I would actually say, `duration elapsing is measured by motion`.

Our timeless Universe endures. We measure that continuing endurance with clock mechanisms or the Earth`s rotational motion. In my view, the Earth`s rotational motion is the fundamental physical mechanism responsible for maintaining our confusion over the nature of time.

The Earth`s rotational motion is a real existent thing. The time, or duration that elapses, while the Earth rotates, is not.

How did this go from probabilities to the nature of biological sentience?

Given we only know of life on this planet, it seems reasonable to use life/not life as q convenient initial binary choice. It seems difficult enough just figuring out things like gravity and time to veer off into far more difficult questions.

Focus.

Jim:

I am preparing a deep explanation for you in two or three steps , mean time I am going to answer some of the questions you made.

"I`m not able to understand your statement, ""time" is "movement""?

Of course there is no prove of "time" existence, the only prove we have is the existence of the word "time", that's why I called the remnant word, that probably originated in an important concept for primitive men. Forget about "time".

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.

That's no mater if you think you are measuring "time" or "movement" anyway you are measuring "movement" as we always did., so we are not saying what Barbour and Rovelli said, they say "time" does not exist, because they got tired looking for it and failed, but with it, they also implied "movement", so they propose a Physic static without "movement", wrong.

After we measure "movement" with the clock, comparatively with it, we measure "movements" which are not "constant", "uniform" and "regulars", those "movements" has lengths, when we are measuring it since the beginning to its end, we are measuring its duration.

"In my view, time itself does not exist as a real thing or force in reality. I would not say that `time is motion`, I would say `time is measured by motion".

Sure "time" does not exist. That's why you can't say "time is measured by motion", because if you say it you are recognizing "time" existence.

"In the effort to be as clear as possible, I would actually say, `duration elapsing is measured by motion".

No, what we are measuring is "movement" with "movement", by "duration elapsing" I understand you want to say "the length of duration" or "the duration period"

When people say "duration" I understand what they mean but the dictionary definition is of no use, because they will define it using the word "time" and if we don't know what the word "time" means, we don't know what duration means. That's why I made a new duration "definition": Is the period of change or transformation that movement allows and men limit. After that I can say that of course is measured by motion every "movement" is measured by "movement".

"the Earth`s rotational motion is the fundamental physical mechanism responsible for maintaining our confusion over the nature of time"

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. and the earth rotational motion is the origin of sunrises and the period length between sunrises, give origin to days and the Egyptians manage to divide them in equal 24 hours and Sumerians the hour in 60 minutes , and the minute in 60 seconds. Certainly over there, originated the process of measurements that give origin to the word "time" forgetting that they were measuring (at that moment) "sun passages" "sun movement", please don't blame earth constant rotational movement. This it was to long.

Hector

Jim:

You understand my post of march 4th? because you say nothing about it.

Hector

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