Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Friday, January 15 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1266
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:25:22 EST
From: David Bowman <dbowman@tiger.georgetowncollege.edu>
Subject: RE: Anthropic Principle IS a probability argument (long)
Regarding Jeff Zents' jump into the anthropic probability argument
discussion:
>I'd like to jump in here for a moment. While I appreciate the point that
>you both are trying to make I am puzzeled by your assumption that the
>universe could have been other than it is. I agree we can *imagine* that it
>is diffrent, but that is not more soundly based than good scifi. What I am
>looking for is the hard *evidence* that the universe could be other than it
>is. Or to put it in somewhat metaphysical terms: existence is what it is.
>Where is the evidence that it could be otherwise?
Glenn's answer is, I'm sure, different than mine. I don't have any
rigorous evidence that the universe could be different than it is, in
terms of the physical laws that describe it. My main objection to
Glenn's probability calculations is based on the observation that the
parameters describing the laws of nature at the more phenomenological
levels are themselves determined by the deeper level theories and are,
thus, not freely adjustable to take on just any old value one supposes.
Since we currently do not have a worked out viable Theory of Everything
we do not know which of the 1 1/2 dozen or so remaining parameters (of
the so-called Standard Model of physics) are themselves determined and
calculable by that theory which is not yet in hand. Presumably if such
a theory exists and it is found that it is unique in that it is
eventually proved that there can be no other theory which is both
internally logically consistent and also accurately describes all the
facts then we would expect that all of the residual parameters of the
Standard Model would be, at least in principle, calculable from the
unique TOE. This would indicate that the would could not be any
different than it is in terms of the laws of nature describing it. As
things stand now the non-calculable parameters of the Standard Model are
just adjusted agree with experiment and there is no a priori reason for
one set of these parameters over another set. A functioning in hand TOE
would presumably change this situation drastically.
Even though I expect that a unique TOE may tend to fix all the parameters
of all the laws of physics, I think that it would still not necessarily
fix the exact state or appearance of the universe. This is because of
the built-in indeterminism in the outcomes of events and processes
described by those laws coming from a combination of fundamental quantum
uncertainty in the outcomes of measurement-like interactions and the
amplifying effect of tiny microscopic changes to huge macroscopic ones
produced by the sensitive dependence on the initial conditions of the
classical limit of some of the relevant classical phenomenological
theories (i.e. chaos effects). It is also entirely conceivable that the
same fundamental TOE can describe a universe (or many universes) with a
wildly different structure including the phase domain structure of the
vacuum than the one we have resulting in wildly different
phenomenological behaviors than the ones seen in our universe. A
different vacuum phase domain for the TOE may possibly result in
different low energy (relative to the TOE) Standard Model parameters and
gauge interactions and thus completely different phenomenological
theories describing the universe on more everyday energy and distance
scales.
So it seems that there is still may be a lot of slack in the necessary
appearance(s) of the universe or at least in our vacuum phase domain of
the universe. Therefore I do not completely discount anthropic
arguments. I just don't think that they are necessarily very
convincing. The naive applications of them, such as a priori probability
calculations based on changing the parameters of low energy
phenomenological theories, are incorrect because the considered
parameters are determined by the deeper level theories. And more
sophisticated applications involving deep-level (high energy scale)
theories tend to be fraught with uncertainties caused by the lack of a
useful in-hand TOE. In spite of my pessimism concerning these kind of
arguments I still do get the feeling (and I think it is mostly just a
feeling) that the universe seems to be made with the likes of us in mind.
Of course this feeling may result ultimately more from my prior religious
disposition than from the bare physical evidence. I'm not sure.
In response to my prior comment:
>I don't know about whether or not it is an "implicit probability
>calculation" but I, for one, *do* profoundly get the feeling (from
>natural theology) that the universe is somehow made *for us*, or at
>least that we are meant to be here. I don't know if natural theology
>can go much (or any) further than this though.
Glenn wrote:
>Of course it must be a probability argument. If it were not one why does
>the following statement (by you) lead ultimately to the feelings described
>above?
concerning my comment:
>There are very many ways for life (as we know it) to be impossible by
>making a slight adjustment of just a relatively few fundamental
>constants (e.g. number of dimensions of space & time, numbers of
>generations of elementary particles, coupling constants and mixing angles
>for the fundamental interactions, the masses of the elementary particles,
>etc.) whose values determine all the rest of the phenomenology of the
>physical world.
to which Glenn further responded:
>The usage of the word 'slight adjustment' implies that it doesn't take much
>change. And when you compare this to the possibility that it could have
>taken a huge change in the above parameters to kill off life, the concept
>of an implicit probability argument becomes clear. If it took a huge
>change in all the physical constants to prevent life, then we would say,
>'it is easy to create a universe compatible with life'. Any value would, in
>those circumstances lead to life. The constants could take on a wide range
>of values and the taking of any of those values would be compatible with
>life. But since only a slight change prevents life, the universe appears
>precariously balanced.
>
>So, in this sense I will defend the approach I used to calculate
>probabilites if not the example.
This argument *still* relies on the possibility that those parameters
can somehow be considered as freely adjustable. I'm not so sure of this
for the reasons stated in the first part of my post. It also implicitly
assumes an effectively more-or-less uniform distribution for the values
of the parameters that also are presumed to be essentially independent.
How do you know such a wide distribution (of independent parameters) is
supposed to be correct? I can imagine a prior distribution that is
sharply peaked around the values of the parameters that we happen to
have.
<Snip Glenn's stuff about the necessity of 3 *spatial* dimensions.>
>In other words if the universe can accomodate any dimensionality it would
>NOT be specially adjusted to our existence. It would be JUST the
>dimensionality chosen by historical accident. But what we have is a
>universe in which only one value allows life. It is like flipping a coin
>and having it not be heads nor be tails but land on the coin's edge. This
>is theoretically possible, but highly improbable. But mathematically we
>contemplate euclidian and non-euclidian spaces with from 0 to 3.5 billion
>dimensions (3.5 billion is the number of dimensions in the phase space of
>the human DNA). So there is no mathematical restriction on the
>dimensionality of any space we wish to contemplate. But only with a 3D
>universe can we exist. At the very least the odds against randomly
>choosing a 3d universe compatible with life from those mathematically
>contemplated (at least occasionally) is 1/3.5 billionths. And if any of
>those dimensionalities allowed for life, then the odds would be 1. And if
>the dimensionality probability were 1, then once again, we would say it is
>easy to create a universe with life. To me this is a probability argument.
But what if it can be proved that the dimensionality of spacetime must be
10 (as the most viable superstring theories claim) in order for any TOE
to be logically internally consistent and free of embarrassing
singularities that cause the theory to break down in any of various ways.
And further, what if the TOE predicts that 6 of those 10 dimensions
*must* be compactified into a well-defined tiny closed compact subspace
(whose effects cause all the nongravitational interactions in nature)
according to the built in logic of the TOE so that there *must* be 4
extended (noncompact) dimensions of spacetime left whose signature
requires that 1 of them be a temporal dimension and the other 3 be
spatial in character? In this case the spatial dimensionality of the
universe would *not* be freely adjustable from a choice of some
3.5 x 10^9 possibilities, but rather, would *necessarily* be 3. In this
case not only would a universe with other than 3 spatial dimensions be
impossible for life forms that wish to communicate with propagating
signals, but it would be impossible for the logical consistency required
of *any* universe that behaves according to the rules of logic.
>Thus I contend that the anthropic principle IS a probability argument and
>if used one is implicitly calculating probabilites to get the "feeling (from
>natural theology) that the universe is somehow made *for us*". If one can
>do this, then your's and Howard's objections to probability calculations
>would be inconsistent.
How so?
> So, if you feel that the universe is designed for
>us, then it must be possible to calculate probabilities.
Why?
> If you can't
>calculate probabilities, then the anthropic principle fails entirely and
>this universe is NOT designed for us--or at least there is no evidence of
>that design.
Huh? This seems to be a non sequitur unless I'm missing something. I'm
not necessarily claiming there must be evidence of design or not in such
a situation (i.e. me not being able to calculate various parameter
probabilities). I just don't see the logic of the statement.
David Bowman
dbowman@georgetowncollege.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 22:44:31 -0400
From: Tempting Tear-Outs <temptingtearouts@1stconnect.com>
Subject: Hi
===>> FREE 1 yr USA Magazine Sub sent worldwide-200+ Choices! Up to $81.00
value!
To be removed from our mailing list, please send email to:
temptingtearouts@1stconnect.com with the subject line of "remove."
FOR MORE INFO: please "cut out" the below form on the "cut" lines shown,
and fax it, for the fastest reply to: 1-718-227-9125 (this
is a fax # in the USA)
or send via smail (first class mail or airmail) to:
Tempting Tear-Outs
Att. Free-catalogue-by-email Dept
3835 Richmond Ave. Suite #200
Staten Island NY 10312-3828
USA
SORRY, BUT.... our software is not set up to accept the below form via
return email; WE CAN ONLY acknowledge forms sent in via fax or smail.
- --> IMPORTANT complete directions, to ensure that you get a reply, and more
info follow, below the reply form and the catalogue options.
*------------cut here/begin-------------------------------------------*
Name (First Middle Last):
Internet email address:
Smail home address:
City-State-Zip:
Country:
Work Tel. #:
Work Fax #:
Home Tel. #:
Home Fax #:
Cellular (Mobile) Tel. #:
Beeper (Pager) Tel. #:
How did you hear about us (name of person/company who referred you or the
area of
the internet that you saw us mentioned in): Referred by: Tempting
Tear-Outs
011499-l-hi
Name of USA mags you currently get on the newsstand or in the store:
Name of USA mags you currently get on a subscription basis, through the mail:
Name of USA mags you would like price quotes on when we call you:
Catalogue version desired (list number of choice below):
*------------cut here/end--------------------------------------------*
CATALOGUE VERSION CHOICES:
1. This version can be read by everyone, no matter what type of
computer you use, or what type of software you use. It is a simple
format, with just our entire catalogue pasted into the body of a
single email message, 316K in size. If you use pine or elm on a unix
system or an advanced software version such as Eudora Pro 3.0 or
later, you will most likely receive it as a single email message.
However, if your software limits incoming email messages to a
certain size, say 32K or so, then your software will split it into
multiple email message parts. Whether you receive it as a single
email message or multiple part email messages, you can easily
paste it into one whole text document with your word processor, in
about 10 minutes or so.
2. For more advanced computer users: attached plain ascii text file
~316K - you must know how to download an attached text file and
then be able to locate it on your hard drive or system home
directory; it can then be opened with any pc or mac word processing
software. If in doubt, don't ask for this version. This isn't for
internet *newbies.* Better to order option 1 and spend a few minutes
pasting them into one whole text document with your word processor,
than to waste hours trying to figure how to deal with this option.
This version is great for doing keyword searches and jumping around
within the catalogue with your word processing software, if your
normal email reading software doesn't allow this.
VERY IMPORTANT DIRECTIONS TO ENSURE THAT YOU GET A REPLY:
1. you must call from an "unblocked number," ie. one that is not blocked
from caller id. We are very sorry for this requirement, but our fax
software requires this before it allows an incoming fax call to connect.
If you have a blocked number, you must first unblock it. In most cases
this means dialing *82 from a touch-tone phone (or 1182 from a rotary
phone) before you dial 1-718-227-9125. NOTE: If you are not sure if
your number is blocked, just try dialing our fax # normally. If you don't
get a recording telling you your number is blocked, your number has been
transmitted and you may press the start button on your fax when you hear
the fax tone from our fax.
2. no reply forms can be accepted by email....only via fax or smail.
3. your form must be typewritten or printed out on your computer printer
before you fax it; sorry, but *no* handwritten forms will be acknowledged.
If you can't find someone with a typewriter or a computer printer, we
apologize for not being able to reply to you.
4. faxes with cover pages will be rejected. You must send *only* the
reply form.
5. forms not *completely* filled in will not be acknowledged.
6. you will receive a reply within 1 business day directly from the
company making the offer via email. Therefore you must have an email
address. If you read this message, then you must have an email address, or
access to one, at least. :-)
7. your fax must not exceed 1 page in length. Faxes of 2 or more pages
will be sensed, then auto-terminated and deleted. Your fax goes directly
onto our 5.0 gigabyte hard drive and we must limit all incoming faxes to 1
page.
8. all faxes must begin with:
*------------cut here/begin-------------------------------------------*
and must end with:
*------------cut here/end--------------------------------------------*
9. Any fax not conforming to this format will be sensed by our software,
then auto-terminated and deleted from the hard drive, before any human ever
gets to see it.
10. The type on your fax must be dark and legible. If in doubt, please
print it out darker before faxing it in. If we can't read it, we can't
reply to you or send you our FREE catalogue. :-(
11. If this all seems too complicated for faxing, just do it the old
fashioned way via smail!!!
WHO WE ARE:
Tempting Tear-Outs is an advertising company that brings potential new
customers to the companies they advertise for.
MORE ABOUT THE COMPANY MAKING THE FREE OFFER:
The company making the offer is a magazine subscription agency based in the
USA. They have over 1,100 popular USA titles available to be shipped to
*any* country, including of course, to anywhere in the USA! They offer a
FREE 1 yr. subscription to your choice of over 200 of the titles in their
catalogue to any new customer using them for the first time. The
dollar value of the freebies, based on the subscription prices directly
from the publishers, ranges from $6.97 all the way up to $50.00!
For new customers in the USA, there is no charge for FPH (foreign postage &
handling), so the freebie is 100% free! For new customers living
overseas, the only charge on the freebie would be for the FPH (foreign
postage & handling).
Their president has been in the magazine subscription business since 1973
and they are very customer-service oriented. They will even help you with
address changes on your magazines, even if you move from one country to
another country. They have thousands of happy customers in over 59
countries.
Their price guarantee is very simple: they guarantee that their
subscription prices are the lowest available and they will BEAT any
legitimate, verifiable offer before you pay them or match it afterwards, by
refunding you the difference in price PLUS the cost of the postage stamp
you would use sending in the special offer to them, even 6 months after you
pay them, as long as it was current at the time of your offer. Does that
sound fair? Wouldn't it be great if everything you bought came with
that price guarantee?
Sometimes they are less than half of the next best deal out there,
sometimes just a little cheaper, but always you get the lowest rates
without having to shop around. With 1,100+ titles on their list, they
would like to think that they have also the best selection around!
Within the USA, for their USA customers, they are cheaper than all their
competitors and even the publishers themselves. This is their price
guarantee. The 1 yr. freebie that you get with your first order is
completely free!
Overseas, (even after you factor in the cost of the FPH (foreign postage &
handling) and the conversion from USA Dollars to your currency), on the
average, they are generally around one-fourth to one-half of what the
newsstands overseas charge locally for USA magazines. On some titles they
are as little as one-tenth of what the newsstands charge. They are also
the cheapest subscription source for delivery overseas, including directly
from the publishers themselves! Some publishers don't even offer
subscriptions overseas.........but overseas subscriptions are this
company's specialty! They feel that magazines should not be a luxury
overseas. In the USA, people buy magazines and then toss them after
reading them for just a few minutes or hours. They are so cheap in the
USA! Well, this company would like to make it the same way for their
overseas customers. They are also cheaper than all their competitors in
the USA and overseas, including the publishers themselves! It is also
*highly unlikely* you will find any of their USA competitors calling you
overseas, in order to offer that personal touch, just to sell you a couple
of magazines! But that is what this company specializes in and loves
doing! Around one-half their business comes from overseas, so they are
very patient with new customers who only speak limited English as a 2nd
language. Subscription prices quoted for overseas consist of the
subscription price, plus the FPH. You add the two together and that is
your total cost. The exception is the 1 yr. freebie you get with your
first order. On that title, you pay *only* the FPH for the 1 yr. term.
Their prices are so cheap because when you deal with them, you cut-out all
the middlemen.
HERE IS HOW YOU CAN GET MORE INFO AND GET STARTED WITH THEM:
Simply fax or smail back to us the reply form listed at the top of this
message. We will then forward your form on to the subscription agency.
They will then email their "big and juicy" catalogue to you, in whichever
of the two formats you chose. The catalogue is FREE and makes for hours
of fascinating reading, on its own. It includes the complete list of
freebies, a complete list of all the titles they sell, as well as detailed
descriptions on most of the titles, along with lists of titles by category
of interest and their terms of sale.
They will then give you a friendly, no-pressure, no obligation, 5-minute
call to go over how they work and to answer any questions that you might
have, as well as give you up-to-the minute price quotes on any titles you
might be considering. They will call you in whatever country you live
in, taking the time difference into account. As they like to
emphasize the personal touch they give to each new customer, all first-time
orders can only be done via phone, so they can answer all your questions
completely and personally. Once you have placed your first order via
phone, you will be able to place future orders and make inquiries on your
account, get price quotes, etc., all via email, if that is most convenient
for you.
Within the USA, they accept payment via check over the phone, Mastercard,
Visa, American Express, Diner's Club and Carte Blanche. Overseas, they
accept Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Diner's Club and Carte Blanche,
even if your credit card is a local one in local currency (that most
merchants in the USA would not normally be willing to accept).
That's our introduction of our client that we represent. We hope that we
have piqued your interest and that you will take the next step to get their
free catalogue! Thank you for your time and interest.
- --
Tempting Tear-Outs.
For more info on advertising rates, please write us on your company
letterhead, w/business card, via smail to: Tempting Tear-Outs, 3835
Richmond Ave. Suite #200, Staten Island NY 10312-3828, USA.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:35:14 GMT
From: etlgycs@etluk.ericsson.se (Gary Collins)
Subject: RE: Anthropic Principle IS a probability argument (long)
David Bowman wrote:
> My main objection to
> Glenn's probability calculations is based on the observation that the
> parameters describing the laws of nature at the more phenomenological
> levels are themselves determined by the deeper level theories and are,
> thus, not freely adjustable to take on just any old value one supposes.
> Since we currently do not have a worked out viable Theory of Everything
> we do not know which of the 1 1/2 dozen or so remaining parameters (of
> the so-called Standard Model of physics) are themselves determined and
> calculable by that theory which is not yet in hand. Presumably if such
> a theory exists and it is found that it is unique in that it is
> eventually proved that there can be no other theory which is both
> internally logically consistent and also accurately describes all the
> facts then we would expect that all of the residual parameters of the
> Standard Model would be, at least in principle, calculable from the
> unique TOE. This would indicate that the would could not be any
> different than it is in terms of the laws of nature describing it. As
> things stand now the non-calculable parameters of the Standard Model are
> just adjusted agree with experiment and there is no a priori reason for
> one set of these parameters over another set. A functioning in hand TOE
> would presumably change this situation drastically.
>
> Even though I expect that a unique TOE may tend to fix all the parameters
> of all the laws of physics, I think that it would still not necessarily
> fix the exact state or appearance of the universe. This is because of
> the built-in indeterminism in the outcomes of events and processes
> described by those laws coming from a combination of fundamental quantum
> uncertainty in the outcomes of measurement-like interactions and the
> amplifying effect of tiny microscopic changes to huge macroscopic ones
> produced by the sensitive dependence on the initial conditions of the
> classical limit of some of the relevant classical phenomenological
> theories (i.e. chaos effects). It is also entirely conceivable that the
> same fundamental TOE can describe a universe (or many universes) with a
> wildly different structure including the phase domain structure of the
> vacuum than the one we have resulting in wildly different
> phenomenological behaviors than the ones seen in our universe. A
> different vacuum phase domain for the TOE may possibly result in
> different low energy (relative to the TOE) Standard Model parameters and
> gauge interactions and thus completely different phenomenological
> theories describing the universe on more everyday energy and distance
> scales.
>
> So it seems that there is still may be a lot of slack in the necessary
> appearance(s) of the universe or at least in our vacuum phase domain of
> the universe. Therefore I do not completely discount anthropic
> arguments. I just don't think that they are necessarily very
> convincing. The naive applications of them, such as a priori probability
> calculations based on changing the parameters of low energy
> phenomenological theories, are incorrect because the considered
> parameters are determined by the deeper level theories. And more
> sophisticated applications involving deep-level (high energy scale)
> theories tend to be fraught with uncertainties caused by the lack of a
> useful in-hand TOE. In spite of my pessimism concerning these kind of
> arguments I still do get the feeling (and I think it is mostly just a
> feeling) that the universe seems to be made with the likes of us in mind.
> Of course this feeling may result ultimately more from my prior religious
> disposition than from the bare physical evidence. I'm not sure.
>
Hi David,
'Scuse me for butting in, especially since I really don't know much about this
at all (but I do find it all very interesting). What I would like to ask is
along the lines of: if the parameters were different, couldn't that just mean
that there were different 'underlying rules of nature?' Is there any reason
why these rules have to be the way they are, or indeeed that there should be
any at all? How much is really 'fixed and unalterable' and how much simply
appears to be so because we live in the particular universe that we do?
If a TOE is eventually found, I would ask the same kind of question - would it
be conceivable for there to have been a different TOE, different laws,
different parameters? If the universe were not 'made for us' but just came
into being of its own accord, as atheists bust believe (either that or the
universe itself is somehow eternal) would it still be constrained to be much
the way it is (in terms of the 'deep laws; however deep you want to go) or
could everything have been very different?
This is probably very philosophical and possibly unanswerable, I don't know.
But I would be interested to hear what you have to say on it.
regards
/Gary
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1266
********************************