RE: [asa] Multiverse math

Gordon said:
"How can you look at a single measurement and determine that the value you get must have been randomly selected? It might be that it was selected for some additional reason besides causing existence to be viable."

As I understand it, there is no compelling reason for the exact values for the constants, other than that they are in the viable range for life to exist. If the multiverse hypothesis were true, then you'd expect these values to fall within a range, but other than that, be random (not special in any other way). (Because any other random number wouldn't generate life so we'd never see it.) The constants do appear to be randomly sitting within the range they need to be. There is no 'exact value' that they need to be!

Bill said:
"I personally don't see why the narrow range for life as we know it to exist is relevant. The "intuition" of the argument is that there appears to be no reason why any value should obtain and not others, whether or not life should arise or not. This is why I have intentionally posed the argument as not anthropic."

I read this book "Many worlds in one" http://www.amazon.com/Many-Worlds-One-Search-Universes/dp/0809067226/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251848624&sr=8-1 .
I took it that it was very important to confront the anthropic principle, and the multiverse theory does that by explaining the exact constants aren't special in any way other than being in the right narrow range.

Bill said:
"But apparently many others find the compulsion to a multiverse to be akin to a cosmological argument."

...because it (many worlds) answers the anthropic principle argument, which is a very strong case for creationism. If not many worlds, how else to explain creation without God?

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of gordon brown
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 4:30 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Multiverse math

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, Dehler, Bernie wrote:

>

> "3) Since it is possible that these parameters can take on other values,

> they will."

>

>

>

> Maybe a different way to state it is like this:

>

> 3. Since these values fall within a small range, the actual numbers aren't

> special but appear to be randomly selected.

>

>

>

> For example, let's say a certain constant is 1.5667 and it must be between

> 1.5000 and 1.6000 for existence to be viable. Amazing, it is 1.5667! Yes,

> but it could have been 1.5571 or 1.5001, etc. The actual number is in the

> life-giving range, but other than that, it is special in no way. I think

> that makes a compelling argument.

>

How can you look at a single measurement and determine that the value you

get must have been randomly selected? It might be that it was selected for

some additional reason besides causing existence to be viable.

Gordon Brown (ASA member)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 1 19:48:59 2009