====================================================
It is my understanding that the current candidates for GUT [Grand
Unification Theories] have quite a number of arbitrary constants. So if a
particular GUT, with particular arbitrary set of constants is able to
explain why the mass of the electron is as it is and other physical
constants are as they are, there is still the question of why the
arbitrary GUT constants take on the values they do. There would have to be
some logically prior theory in order to explain those constants. Even if
you get the whole system back to one constant with a value of, say 42
(which would prove the Hitchiker), one must still explain why that single
constant took that value.
All in all, it looks like a set of Russian Dolls to me.
Is there any comment from either David Bowman or Stan Szygmunt?
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm
================================================
I'll confine myself to a brief comment since Glenn asked for one :)
I basically agree with what Brian and Glenn have written on the
anthropic principle. It all comes down to initial conditions, I
believe. Even if one day a "theory of everything" is achieved which
explains why the electron mass is what it is (along with a whole raftload of
other "fundamental parameters"), that theory will BY NECESSITY involve
initial conditions. It is important to realize that a mathematical
theory is distinct from and independent of the initial conditions which
must be fed into it in order to predict how a particular system will evolve in
time. So even if such a supertheory is achieved, the question will then be
"Why THESE initial conditions which lead to the particular universe we
live in?"
Glenn, a question for you (since I'm not an expert in nonlinear dynamics):
While chaos theory describes the way a system's time-evolution is quite
sensitive to initial conditions, aren't there also mathematical equations
of motion which lead to very similar time evolution no matter what the initial
conditions? (Is this a "strange attractor"?) The existence of such systems
could be appealed to by those who seek to blunt the force of an anthropic
principle which depends on "fine-tuning" of initial conditions.
What do you think? And you, Brian?
Stan Zygmunt
^
|
|
(note the spelling, Glenn! :) )