Re: [asa] Multiverse math

Hi Bill,

For "simulated universe" think 'The Matrix'

For more on Davies' position see his paper 'Universes galore: Where will it all end?' available as a .pdf at;

http://miniurl.org/AgA

Note that he acknowledges that his conclusions are "at best bizarre, at worst absurd" - it is, after all, a reductio ad absurdum.

Blessings,
Murray Hogg

wjp wrote:
> Schwarzwald:
>
> I am presuming that a "fake" universe is one that is not real.
> Later you seem to be saying that a "fake" universe is a "simulated"
> one.
>
> I frankly have no idea what you're trying to say. I can only make sense
> of this if I attempt to adopt some form of Idealism or Platonism, where
> ideas have a kind of independent reality.
>
> You'll have to come at this again if I'm to make any sense of it.
>
> bill
>
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 20:49:35 -0400, Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>

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 22:43:32 2009