Re: [asa] Multiverse math

Paul Davies has something interesting to say about multiverse speculations.
From The Goldilocks Enigma:

"If we are prepared to entertain the notion that there exists limitless
possible universes that are unobservable from this one, why sould we rule
out the existence of limitless simulated, or fake universes, too? No reason
at all. In fact, not only have we no reason to rule them out, we have every
reason to rule them in."

His argument more or less goes: If there is a superabundance of real
universes, then - unless there's something special about human consciousness
- there are going to be a superabundance of fake universes as well. Some
civilizations (infinite number?) in the universes where life is possible
will reach a level of technology capable of simulating a universe, or at
least a reality. And what's more, you can have nested simulations -
simulations within simulations within simulations, etc. And if for any one
universe capable of supporting intelligent life, you thereby have a universe
where 1 to n fake universes can be hosted, you're in an interesting dilemma.
Namely, it seems we're more likely to be living in a fake universe than a
real one. While Davies doesn't point out the following, I will: If we're
living a simulated universe, then atheism is false and deism or some variety
of theism is true.

Davies goes on, I think, to mention that multiverses may 'solve' fine-tuning
of our universe at the cost of having to explain fine-tuning of the
multiverse-generator. In other words the fine-tuning problem doesn't go away
- it shifts up a level.

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> 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, 1 Sep 2009 20:49:35 -0400