tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post115351719915986386..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Thoughts on the Anthropic PrincipleSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-55088332979932744662010-01-09T11:08:11.379-05:002010-01-09T11:08:11.379-05:00I love "Anonymous"'s quote 2 posts a...I love "Anonymous"'s quote 2 posts above this one. Although his/her 4th paragraph is a bit out there, the first 3 (especially the 2nd) are beautiful.<br /><br />"As anthropic principle skeptics, physicists only adopt the anthropic principle when they have no other options, and they abandon it when something better comes along. It remains to be seen if string theorists will findSteven Colyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10435759210177642257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-59086618627841166402009-09-13T20:34:15.234-04:002009-09-13T20:34:15.234-04:00Well, a bit delayed but:
I don't have Feynman&...Well, a bit delayed but:<br />I don't have Feynman's direct quote, but most of us who believe in a "designer universe"/s don't think this is just for the benefit of <i>homo sapiens</i>. The term "anthropic" is loose and perhaps inartful - it is supposed to imply "of a nature congenial to, and likely to, elicit formation of sentient, intelligent entities."Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-86817203940353471432009-08-07T14:44:30.300-04:002009-08-07T14:44:30.300-04:00Blogs and other Internet fora strike me as having ...Blogs and other Internet fora strike me as having lost sight of the fact that "Anthropic Principle" was coined by the astrophysicist Brandon Carter in 1974. For some years after that, the phrase was only employed by cosmologists, for that matter, by people whose PhD adviser was Dennis Sciama. The high point of this research program is the 1986 monograph by John Barrow and Frank Tipler, Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1166615791650406532006-12-20T06:56:00.000-05:002006-12-20T06:56:00.000-05:00Oops ... here's the HTML link to my blog: The Anth...Oops ... here's the HTML link to my blog: <A HREF="http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_anthropic_principle.asp" REL="nofollow">The Anthropic Principle</A>.Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852211910001840777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1166614916338279642006-12-20T06:41:00.000-05:002006-12-20T06:41:00.000-05:00"The AP is not a theory, and I honestly have no id..."The AP is not a theory, and I honestly have no idea what the scientific status of 'principle' is supposed to be."<BR/><BR/>I think most proponents of the Anthropic Principle would say that the setting of, say, the cosmological constant would appear to be fine-tuned or else life could not exist. Yes, as you say, you can't use this principle to predict anything, and it is not scientifically usefulAndrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852211910001840777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1161078583964551512006-10-17T05:49:00.000-04:002006-10-17T05:49:00.000-04:00I guess I left before seeing this:Should your conv...I guess I left before seeing this:<BR/><BR/><I>Should your convictions ever result in an equation that allows us to compute some parameters in the standard model, I invite you to sent it to me.</I><BR/><BR/>Bee, you missed the fact that the background changes every time that you make a particle pair in the referenced stuff that you said that you "tried" to understand. That physics is about as Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1154536051396846122006-08-02T12:27:00.000-04:002006-08-02T12:27:00.000-04:00Hi anonymous, belly aching over fundamental causes...Hi anonymous,<BR/><BR/><I> belly aching over fundamental causes is only interesting when the selection method is dynamic.</I><BR/><BR/>Depends on what you mean with dynamic. I tend to agree with you that the selection is most likely dynamic, but I can very well imagine another quantity to vary over which is not time (not even necessarily a scalar). It then causes you more belly aches with the Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1154535147526763122006-08-02T12:12:00.000-04:002006-08-02T12:12:00.000-04:00Dear island,According to the physics that I've giv...Dear island,<BR/><BR/><I>According to the physics that I've given to you in the past</I><BR/><BR/>I have read the links you put here, and tried to understand your claims, but it seems to me we have a very different perception of what physics is. Your comments don't explain anything of what I asked, in fact, they don't remotely have anything to do with it. <BR/><BR/>Should your convictions ever Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1153932694242217102006-07-26T12:51:00.000-04:002006-07-26T12:51:00.000-04:00Some thinkers try to evade the question of why "th...Some thinkers try to evade the question of why "the" existing universe has just the right constants to support life through the multiple universes argument, sometimes the idea that *all* logically possible universes exist. Then we are just the lucky ones developing in one of the tiny fraction of hospitable physical-type universes. (I have to make that last caveat because if all platonic realms Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1153887664027280392006-07-26T00:21:00.000-04:002006-07-26T00:21:00.000-04:00I tend to hate this discussion.. The parameters ar...I tend to hate this discussion.. The parameters are what they are (in fact you are guarenteed that they are something), and belly aching over fundamental causes is only interesting when the selection method is dynamic. Everything else is tautological.<BR/><BR/>For some extreme examples of taking principles of mediocrity (also sometimes with slight abuse of terminology called the Copernican Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1153847387848050012006-07-25T13:09:00.000-04:002006-07-25T13:09:00.000-04:00In addition to this, I am convinced there is anoth...<I>In addition to this, I am convinced there is another explanation. If you don't share this opinion, I don't mind, but I myself am not willing to give up the requirements I have on scientific investigations.</I><BR/><BR/>According to the physics that I've given to you in the past and that I've linked here today, as well as the conversation that I had with this astronomer/cosmologist/instructor, islandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774086177497447408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1153846482704334582006-07-25T12:54:00.000-04:002006-07-25T12:54:00.000-04:00Wait a minute. Having reviewed everything that wa...Wait a minute. Having reviewed everything that was said I see that I did explain how and why <I>the ecobalanced nature of the anthropic coincidences' is optimized for life</I>.<BR/><BR/>The coincidences are all balanced between diametrically-opposing, cumulatively-runaway, tendencies, like the near-perfect "flatness" of the universe has us hanging in the balance between runaway expansion and islandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774086177497447408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1153842267334044922006-07-25T11:44:00.000-04:002006-07-25T11:44:00.000-04:00haha... okay, I'm guilty... and I realized it afte...haha... okay, I'm guilty... and I realized it after I'd posted.<BR/><BR/>I'll spend time on the next post and try to be more clear.<BR/><BR/>I'll be back!... ;)islandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774086177497447408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1153841977926296422006-07-25T11:39:00.000-04:002006-07-25T11:39:00.000-04:00Dear island,speaking of talking to a wall...And ye...Dear island,<BR/><BR/>speaking of talking to a wall...<BR/><BR/><I>And yet, I had just finished telling you that there is a greater liklihood that life will be found in galaxies that exist in the balance, due to the goldilocks constraint, than is the expectation for finding life in galaxies that do not fit this criterion.</I><BR/><BR/>I repeat again, could you please clarify what you mean with <ISabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1153840234086335002006-07-25T11:10:00.000-04:002006-07-25T11:10:00.000-04:00Bee said:Have re-read your post. I neither found a...Bee said:<BR/><I>Have re-read your post. I neither found any reasons you have given, nor have you explained what a greater likelihood for intelligent life means - see my previous comment.</I><BR/><BR/>And yet, I had just finished telling you that there is a greater liklihood that life will be found in galaxies that exist in the balance, due to the goldilocks constraint, than is the expectation islandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774086177497447408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1153834182445693282006-07-25T09:29:00.000-04:002006-07-25T09:29:00.000-04:00"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."... Weinbe..."It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."<BR/><BR/>... Weinberg's bound doesn't apply to *us* in particular, but to any form of life that needs gravitationally bound systems of a given size to live in. That seems a lot more robust than talking about oxygen or atoms or protons.<BR/><BR/>The result of applying 'anthropic considerations' to lambda is quantitatively not so good since we could have a Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1153775038135543812006-07-24T17:03:00.000-04:002006-07-24T17:03:00.000-04:00Hi Cynthia,I see, sorry for the misunderstanding. ...Hi Cynthia,<BR/><BR/>I see, sorry for the misunderstanding. The one question is to what 'things' in the universe 'mediocrity' is applied to - certainly not on an elementary particle level. But then the other question was still what mediocrity means. I.e. a random distribution for momenta of the 'mediocre things' is not going to do it. <BR/><BR/>I guess for me this whole issue is much too messy toSabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1153773048673210982006-07-24T16:30:00.000-04:002006-07-24T16:30:00.000-04:00Dear Q,I'm most captivated by your strong anthropi...Dear Q,<BR/><BR/>I'm most captivated by your strong anthropic description of our solar system.;-)<BR/><BR/>Best wishes,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1153769698210044182006-07-24T15:34:00.000-04:002006-07-24T15:34:00.000-04:00Cynthia, far be it for me to wish to disagree with...Cynthia, far be it for me to wish to disagree with you, however let us not call this dancing out of step, but as in ice-skating I propelling you up into the air, you pirouetting gracefully triple twirl and landing on your feet.<BR/><BR/>"all possible universes converge [into] one".<BR/><BR/>Subtle, but You changed or substituted [in] for [into]<BR/><BR/>Hi Cynthia!<BR/>How about all 'possible' QUASAR9https://www.blogger.com/profile/00593390598251093182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1153765711119923262006-07-24T14:28:00.000-04:002006-07-24T14:28:00.000-04:00Hello Bee,My point: Mediocrity is not a "black and...Hello Bee,<BR/><BR/>My point: Mediocrity is not a "black and white" issue. Doubtlessly, there is a "spectrum of grays" to mediocrity. I was simply reflecting upon the extreme end of the mediocrity spectrum: the extreme end of fixed randomness, in turn, the heat-death. Obviously, the universe does not exemplify this extreme end of the mediocrity spectrum. Otherwise, we -as sentient beings- would Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1153758349521739752006-07-24T12:25:00.000-04:002006-07-24T12:25:00.000-04:00Hi Cynthia,Therefore, mediocrity taken to the utmo...Hi Cynthia,<BR/><BR/><I>Therefore, mediocrity taken to the utmost extreme translates into a universe in a stagnant heat-death. </I><BR/><BR/>Well, I don't think that is the intention of the principle. As used e.g. by Garriga and Vilenkin (<A HREF="http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0210358" REL="nofollow">astro-ph/0210358</A>, p. 2) it says<BR/><BR/>"[...] the mediocrity principle, according to Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1153757154888023622006-07-24T12:05:00.000-04:002006-07-24T12:05:00.000-04:00your 'explanation' (in terms of the Lagrangian) do...<I>your 'explanation' (in terms of the Lagrangian) does not explain the to some extend exact simple rational ratios between the radii of the different planets while the picture with the Platonic solids does exactly this.</I><BR/><BR/>The point is that there might just not be anything to explain. If you take enough numbers and multiply, add, exponentiate them around you will always be able to Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1153747160254438702006-07-24T09:19:00.000-04:002006-07-24T09:19:00.000-04:00Q,It appears that the first part of your comment i...Q,<BR/><BR/>It appears that the first part of your comment is expressing a more extreme version of the "B" statement. More specifically, the Principle of Mediocrity is the foundation for the "B" statement. Therefore, mediocrity taken to the utmost extreme translates into a universe in a stagnant heat-death. On a more upbeat note, the Universe can overcome this classical heat-death via low entropyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1153722638588236162006-07-24T02:30:00.000-04:002006-07-24T02:30:00.000-04:00Let me just add to your example with the orbits of...Let me just add to your example with the orbits of the planets that your 'explanation' (in terms of the Lagrangian) does not explain the to some extend exact simple rational ratios between the radii of the different planets while the picture with the Platonic solids does exactly this.<BR/><BR/>However, there is also a more natural explanation in terms of long time stability (Urschleim wouldn't Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06634377111195468947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1153664669185649842006-07-23T10:24:00.000-04:002006-07-23T10:24:00.000-04:00Dear island,Not too big, not too small, not too ol...Dear island,<BR/><BR/><I>Not too big, not too small, not too old, not too new... etc... every galaxy that exists in balance is predicted to have a greater likelihood for intelligent life for the reasons that I've given.</I><BR/><BR/>Have re-read your post. I neither found any reasons you have given, nor have you explained what <I>a greater likelihood for intelligent life</I> means - see my Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.com