Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: If the universe was fine tuned for our life...
December 4, 2014 at 1:48 pm
(This post was last modified: December 4, 2014 at 1:48 pm by robvalue.)
My brain can't take any more. I have to stop looking at this thread.
Posts: 5706
Threads: 67
Joined: June 13, 2014
Reputation:
69
RE: If the universe was fine tuned for our life...
December 4, 2014 at 1:52 pm
(December 4, 2014 at 1:48 pm)robvalue Wrote: My brain can't take any more. I have to stop looking at this thread.
Whimp. 
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Posts: 7045
Threads: 20
Joined: June 17, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: If the universe was fine tuned for our life...
December 4, 2014 at 1:55 pm
Pfft, this is lightweight stuff compared to the Mt. Rushmore of bullshit His_Travesty is carving in his own thread.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: If the universe was fine tuned for our life...
December 4, 2014 at 7:44 pm
(This post was last modified: December 4, 2014 at 8:26 pm by Heywood.)
(December 4, 2014 at 1:38 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Sorry but that is an absurd prediction. We have one universe which appears to be governed by rules many of which we have discovered. But our "rules" are really just descriptions of how things in the universe behave. There is no evidence that the rules "created" the universe by describing it. The rules are merely us humans describing things.
The sub-realities you have defined really are created by the rules, to the extent that they exist at all. But they really do not exist except as a set of rules. We cannot create real space merely by making up rules for how that space should work, no matter how complex or internally consistent the rules are.
To induce anything about the the construction of the real world based upon these sub-realities you have to assume that the the real world is a great deal more like a sub-reality than we have any reason to believe it is. Or you have to believe that sub-realities described by an intellect, cause those sub-realities to exist in any way other than as a thought experiment.
What is exactly absurd about the prediction? One of the two conjectures must be true.
A)Sub realities always require intelligence to come into existence.
B)Sub realities do not always require intelligence to come into existence.
There is nothing absurd about thinking about these two conjectures and looking for reasons to favor one over the other. Can you think of a good reason to favor B over A. The only reason I can think of to favor B is that it might be more consistent with your world view.....but this is not a good reason. There is good objective reason, however, to favor A over B. That good reason is that we always observe sub realities requiring intelligence to come into existence. We never observe sub realities not requiring intelligence to come into existence.
When you say, "We have one universe which appears to be governed by rules many of which we have discovered. But our "rules" are really just descriptions of how things in the universe behave. There is no evidence that the rules "created" the universe by describing it. The rules are merely us humans describing things." I interpret this to mean you think the concept of a subreality is nonsensical. Is that a fair interpretation?
One assumption made by my argument is that the real world is a sub reality. If you don't accept this assumption....you're not going to accept the argument. It seems to me that you do not accept this assumption. Right now I don't really care to go into detail why I believe this assumption. I have covered it in other threads. It has to do with causality, the nature of randomness, quantum mechanics, and what Bells theorem tells us. I'm going to ask you to accept this assumption as true for the sake of the argument we are having....just to see if by accepting it you reach the same conclusion I have.
Last, you claim sub realities are not really real....well I have argued why from certain perspectives they are real. You don't do anything to refute my argument on this point. You don't even say my argument on this point is wrong. You simply re-iterate your claim that sub realities provided as examples by me, you, and others....are simply are not real. I am asking you here to address the argument I made on this point and show why it is wrong.
Leonard Susskind talks about the apparent fine tuning. Leonard is a well known and very well respected in the physics world. He is considered one of the fathers of string theory. He agrees the universe appears to be fine tuned for our existence....I disagree and claim it is fine tuned for emergent complexity....but non the less we both agree it is fine tuned. When he talks about the cosmological constant being precisely fine tuned....it is to one part in a trillion..trillion..trillion..trillion..trillion..trillion..trillion..trillion..trillion..trillion. Change it that much and there is no sustained emergent complexity.
Susskind favors the multiverse explanation for the apparent fine tuning BTW. Watch the vid...its good stuff.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: If the universe was fine tuned for our life...
December 4, 2014 at 8:38 pm
(December 4, 2014 at 7:44 pm)Heywood Wrote: What is exactly absurd about the prediction? One of the two conjectures must be true.
A)Sub realities always require intelligence to come into existence.
B)Sub realities do not always require intelligence to come into existence. If one of those sub realities (X) generates a sub realty (Y), does that make sub reality (X) intelligent?
Think about your answer. 
Quote:Leonard Susskind talks about the apparent fine tuning. Leonard is a well known and very well respected in the physics world. He is considered one of the fathers of string theory. He agrees the universe appears to be fine tuned for our existence....I disagree and claim it is fine tuned for emergent complexity....but non the less we both agree it is fine tuned.
We exist not because the universe is "fine tuned", but rather because if it were not the way it is, we would not be here as we are. So, out of the vast number (I would say "infinite", but it would seem that word 'freaks' too many people out.) of possible universes, in a "multiverse" scenario, how many are not like ours? How many support different life, similar life, no life?
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: If the universe was fine tuned for our life...
December 4, 2014 at 8:49 pm
(December 4, 2014 at 8:38 pm)IATIA Wrote: (December 4, 2014 at 7:44 pm)Heywood Wrote: What is exactly absurd about the prediction? One of the two conjectures must be true.
A)Sub realities always require intelligence to come into existence.
B)Sub realities do not always require intelligence to come into existence. If one of those sub realities (X) generates a sub realty (Y), does that make sub reality (X) intelligent?
Think about your answer.
The short answer to your question is yes.
Our reality is intelligent because you are intelligent and you are a component of our reality. You consider yourself conscious but is your foot conscious? How about your spleen....is that conscious? Really only one component of you is conscious and that is your brain....nevertheless it is perfectly valid to consider all of your components together as a conscious entity. I view our reality the same way.....it is an intelligent conscious entity.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: If the universe was fine tuned for our life...
December 4, 2014 at 8:58 pm
Does intelligence require sentience or does sentience require intelligence?
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: If the universe was fine tuned for our life...
December 4, 2014 at 9:24 pm
(December 4, 2014 at 8:58 pm)IATIA Wrote: Does intelligence require sentience or does sentience require intelligence?
As far as I know a cockroach is not sentient but does have a rudimentary intelligence. It would seem that intelligence is not dependent on sentience.
Posts: 66521
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: If the universe was fine tuned for our life...
December 4, 2014 at 9:43 pm
(December 4, 2014 at 1:22 pm)Heywood Wrote: The reason this prediction currently holds is because everything that has thus far been presented as satisfying this definition requires intelligence to come into existence. If our reality satisfies this definition then the prediction likely holds for it as well. Procedural generations very specifically -do not- require intelligence to come into existence. Nothing so far presented fits your definition.
Quote:Like I keep saying....if you can come up with something that satisfies the definition but doesn't require intelligence to have come into existence...then you demolish my argument. The more times you examine things and find that they satisfies the definition and requires intelligence to come into existence....while never finding a thing that satisfies the definition but does not require intelligence to come into existence, the more likely it becomes that all things which satisfy the definition require intelligence to come into existence. This is the induction.
..........lol?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: If the universe was fine tuned for our life...
December 4, 2014 at 9:56 pm
(December 4, 2014 at 9:43 pm)Rhythm Wrote: (December 4, 2014 at 1:22 pm)Heywood Wrote: The reason this prediction currently holds is because everything that has thus far been presented as satisfying this definition requires intelligence to come into existence. If our reality satisfies this definition then the prediction likely holds for it as well. Procedural generations very specifically -do not- require intelligence to come into existence. Nothing so far presented fits your definition.
Can you provide an example of a procedural generated thing which did not require intelligence?
|
