Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL do you realize how large the Universe is? There is no doubt there are other life forms in the Universe. The fact that space is so vast is the reason why we have not encountered other life forms.
Are you aware that there are 300 billion stars in the Milky Way? If only 10% of these stars have planets around them..this means there are at least 30 Billion planets just in the Milky Way galaxy. There are over 100 billion galaxies in the observable Universe.
Space is not an easy frontier to cruse around and do field trips in. Do you realize that we can't even reach the closest Goldilocks planet in our Milky Way because it's over 4 Light Years (24 trillion miles) away from earth?
This is just one galaxy out of the 100 billion observable galaxies in our Universe.
The building blocks for life on earth all came from space. If evolution can occur on earth there is no reason to think that it's not occurring on other Goldilocks planets...keep in mind that whatever life is evolving elsewhere in the Universe will not necessarily look just like us. It could be another planet full of Dinosaurs or some other creature!
New findings suggest that the number is in excess of a trillion, potentially even two.
The universe is 13+ billion years old. Where are the other sentient life forms/machines that might take advantage of the this simple explanation offered under the anthropic principle? Statistics is a cruel mistress, you can't have it both ways.
A bigger knockdown against the anthropic principle is that it is incomplete without some variation of the multiverse theory.
An extraordinary universe will still be extraordinarily improbable (irrespective of observer selection), unless it can be explained how an ensemble of non-extraordinary universes can exist in parallel. To date, there's no substantive evidence that the multiverse exists, and some theoretical evidence that it doesn't, such as the Boltzmann Brain.
It's also irrelevant to the problem here, where we are postulating epistemically variant worlds. A postulated multiverse can account for physical fine-tuning, but it cannot account for mathematical truths because the very concept of the multiverse presupposes them.
New findings suggest that the number is in excess of a trillion, potentially even two.
Right. We can make estimates based on the observable universe, but it's a good guess that the actual universe is probably vastly larger. We have no idea how large the universe actually is, nor how many galaxies may have formed beyond the view of the observable universe. Thus the estimation of 2 trillion galaxies. In addition, there are smaller galaxies within the observable universe, like satellite galaxies or proto-galaxies, that are too small and faint to see at vast distances.
The universe is 13+ billion years old. Where are the other sentient life forms/machines that might take advantage of the this simple explanation offered under the anthropic principle?
Dead? Ignoring us? We can not understand each other? They can not get here? They have not picked our TV/ radio signals up yet? Intelligence is a lucky fluke? They are on their way? The anthropic principle says nothing about if they should exist or not, it just explains the apparent fine tuning of the universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimAZ
Statistics is a cruel mistress, you can't have it both ways.
A bigger knockdown against the anthropic principle is that it is incomplete without some variation of the multiverse theory.
It's still far more probable than some other theories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hightower72
An extraordinary universe will still be extraordinarily improbable (irrespective of observer selection), unless it can be explained how an ensemble of non-extraordinary universes can exist in parallel. To date, there's no substantive evidence that the multiverse exists, and some theoretical evidence that it doesn't, such as the Boltzmann Brain.
Two problems here. The first is there is no credible evidence against the idea of a multiverse. And as one universe exists, LaPlace’s Rule of Succession ((s+1)/(n+2)=2/3) means the chance of others occurring is about 67%.
The second is the probability of a Boltzmann Brain occurring here on earth is far less than that of an evolved brain. So while Boltzmann Brains should be more common in the universe, most of them must logically and mathematically occur in outer space. Instant death. Even if one was to appear on a habitable planet, it would have to be able to fend for itself, and to learn. That's the problem with thought experiments, when you look at them closely, they don't look as strong as people want them to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hightower72
A postulated multiverse can account for physical fine-tuning, but it cannot account for mathematical truths because the very concept of the multiverse presupposes them.
Perhaps 'mathematical truths' are just properties of the universe, just like PI is a property of a circle.
The second is the probability of a Boltzmann Brain occurring here on earth is far less than that of an evolved brain. So while Boltzmann Brains should be more common in the universe, most of them must logically and mathematically occur in outer space. Instant death. Even if one was to appear on a habitable planet, it would have to be able to fend for itself, and to learn. That's the problem with thought experiments, when you look at them closely, they don't look as strong as people want them to be.
You've not quite understood the Boltzmann Brain problem, though you've had a good go at it. As a syllogism:
1. It is vastly more probable for "Boltzmann Brain universes" to exist rather than worlds with extraordinary properties such as ours.
2. Our world is not a Boltzmann Brain universe.
3. Therefore, it is highly improbable that our world is a random member of a multiverse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
It's still far more probable than some other theories.
Two problems here. The first is there is no credible evidence against the idea of a multiverse. And as one universe exists, LaPlace’s Rule of Succession ((s+1)/(n+2)=2/3) means the chance of others occurring is about 67%.
Perhaps 'mathematical truths' are just properties of the universe, just like PI is a property of a circle.
I'm so glad you've tried to use probability theory to prove the multiverse.
The Rule of Succession applies to situations in which a proposition is testable through repeated experimentation, where failure and success rates are observable. It presupposes (1) our natural laws and processes, and (2) the logical and mathematical axioms.
For it to prove the existence of other universes, all other universes (and the multiverse as a whole) must obey the same natural laws as our own. Not only is that scientifically untenable, it defeats the whole purpose of the multiverse theory in explaining fine-tuning.
Furthermore, because the rule presupposes logic and mathematics as understood in our world, if you refer to it to prove the existence of the multiverse, you're actually disqualifying Minsky's argument against the necessity of the logical axioms.
The Big Bang is a model that comports with the available evidence and is testable. Yours is merely a conjecture, which apparently is partly based on your fondness for an 'endless cycle'.
We should not conflate the scientific concept of theory, which is rigorous and demanding, with the colloquial use of the term, which is used to describe any whimsy a person pulls out of their ass.
Note to all:
The Big Bang theory does not go back to the beginning, or the singularity of the universe. It goes back extremely close to that point, to the end of what is known as the Planck Epoch, which ended about one quattuordecillionth (ie, about 1 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000th) of a second after the beginning. Which is to say, the Big Bang model explains things back to that point. However, our current physics does not allow us to explain that first 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000th of a second. This is not trivial. However, "we don't know" is a reasonable admission at this point, just as is once was - before gravity and fusion were understood - to explain that bright orb which crossed the sky each day, or regarding diseases before technology allowed the field of microbiology to develop.
It's worth pointing out that reputable scholars in cosmology have proposed similar theories to bobspez, including odd variations of this model, such as Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology.
You've not quite understood the Boltzmann Brain problem, though you've had a good go at it.
The Boltzmann Brain != Boltzmann universes (although they share the same basic principle). Perhaps if you were more clear in your terms?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hightower72
1. It is vastly more probable for "Boltzmann Brain universes" to exist rather than worlds with extraordinary properties such as ours.
2. Our world is not a Boltzmann Brain universe.
3. Therefore, it is highly improbable that our world is a random member of a multiverse.
1 is dependent on the cosmological model, and you need to prove 2 is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hightower72
The Rule of Succession applies to situations in which a proposition is testable through repeated experimentation, where failure and success rates are observable. It presupposes (1) our natural laws and processes, and (2) the logical and mathematical axioms.
For it to prove the existence of other universes, all other universes (and the multiverse as a whole) must obey the same natural laws as our own.
No. All the rule of succession does with a value of 1 is give the probability that other universes exist. It says nothing about the properties of other possible universes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hightower72
Furthermore, because the rule presupposes logic and mathematics as understood in our world, if you refer to it to prove the existence of the multiverse, you're actually disqualifying Minsky's argument against the necessity of the logical axioms.
I don't recall Minsky talking about the idea of a multiverse in that video. But then I did have it playing in the background while I played with the cat.
Even if he was, it presupposes no such thing. The logic and maths could be completely different as long as that alternate universe was capable of creating intelligent life.
The Boltzmann Brain != Boltzmann universes (although they share the same basic principle). Perhaps if you were more clear in your terms?
1 is dependent on the cosmological model, and you need to prove 2 is true.
The terms "the Boltzmann Brain" or "the Boltzmann Brain problem" often refer to both the paradox and the discourse surrounding it. At least that's how I understand it based on what I've read. You're right that I could have clarified that more.
I think Premise 1 assumes standard inflationary cosmology in most instances. I'll need primary sources to verify this.
Premise 2 doesn't really need proof because the proposition that it is false disqualifies itself as a meaningful statement. If you claim to be a Boltzmann brain rather than a human, any statement or induction you make is non-cognitive and categorically unreliable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
No. All the rule of succession does with a value of 1 is give the probability that other universes exist. It says nothing about the properties of other possible universes.
You are actually agreeing with what I'm saying, at the root of it.
These odd assumptions about the properties of other universes are absurdities that follow if you believe the Rule of Succession applies where it isn't relevant. In this case, if you use it to predict the existence of the multiverse. ie. Reductio ad absurdum.
The rule presupposes a physically orderly, finely tuned, mathematically describable spacetime, so it can't be used to explain why our world has these properties to begin with, and it's not relevant to extra-spatiotemporal processes beyond our natural laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
I don't recall Minsky talking about the idea of a multiverse in that video. But then I did have it playing in the background while I played with the cat.
Even if he was, it presupposes no such thing. The logic and maths could be completely different as long as that alternate universe was capable of creating intelligent life.
He refers to "possible worlds", which is an allusion to some modally realistic variant of the world ensemble.
All probability theories are based on logic and mathematics. You can't use a theory to disprove its own first principles. This means that you can't use a theory to describe domains of existence in which its first principles don't hold true.
Last edited by Hightower72; 04-01-2018 at 11:36 AM..
Reason: declutter
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Boltzmann Brain != Boltzmann universes (although they share the same basic principle). Perhaps if you were more clear in your terms?
