tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post4483882365522052679..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: The multiverse hypothesis: Are there other universes besides our own?Sabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger145125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-90835468384510378082019-12-05T21:55:36.379-05:002019-12-05T21:55:36.379-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jesús Merinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09085774921848258626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-38012451538495580772019-09-06T19:47:12.748-04:002019-09-06T19:47:12.748-04:00The multiverse is just a way for materialist/natur...The multiverse is just a way for materialist/naturalist scientists and their unquestioning fans, to explain away evidence (much of it uncovered in genomics and cosmology) that clearly points to an intelligent source for life and the arena it is played out in. Instead of seriously looking at the data, and considering common everyday experience of processes in physics and chemistry, the best bitor2009https://www.blogger.com/profile/03418076411315312493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-5263723341007813322019-06-19T12:32:08.483-04:002019-06-19T12:32:08.483-04:00Then you apply a form of the anthropic principle: ...Then you apply a form of the anthropic principle: we (intelligent life) will only find ourselves in universes in which the constants allow intelligent life to exist. I think the question of whether this is preferable by Occam's criterion is at least debatable - see Phillip Helbig's post near the top.<br /><br />I agree that multiple universes _feel_ extravagant, but we shouldn't let Andrew Dabrowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14194210589133048249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-57387144502986776872019-06-17T14:36:29.635-04:002019-06-17T14:36:29.635-04:00> Or are they fiction?
There is no reason that...> Or are they fiction?<br /><br />There is no reason that I should trust my own feelings on these matters.<br />If physics cannot answer this question, no-one can. <br /><br />Personally I assume they are wrong; I treat them no different from Gods, Unicorns or UFO's. I would change my mind if physics says they are right and real and pointing to some convincing evidence (convincing for peepukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06889974151571196576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-49309471296730267292019-06-16T23:47:44.042-04:002019-06-16T23:47:44.042-04:00Andrew,
It would be simpler theory if you could l...Andrew,<br /><br />It would be simpler theory if you could leave out the constants but of course you cannot, because then you do not have a theory that describes our universe. You *still* need to assume these constants one way or the other. In this case, assuming that any other combination of constants than our own exists is superfluous. It's an assumption that should not be made. It's Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-9254822930890411292019-06-16T12:38:14.500-04:002019-06-16T12:38:14.500-04:00I think I get Sabine's point, but there is ano...I think I get Sabine's point, but there is another way to look at this: the standard model includes a couple dozen constants which are taken as axiomatic. With multiverses you can leave those values out of the theory. Isn't that arguably simpler from Occam's point of view?Andrew Dabrowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14194210589133048249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-76454515361189443362019-06-12T22:30:46.326-04:002019-06-12T22:30:46.326-04:00Phillip Helbig 9:22 AM, June 12, 2019
Continuing ...Phillip Helbig 9:22 AM, June 12, 2019<br /><br />Continuing what discussion? You haven't provided a single argument for your position and now you are running away just like little Luke did. You don't have an argument and nor do little Luke, the Astronomer Royal, Nobel Prize Winner Brian Schmidt and Max Tegmark. <br /><br />If you disagree then post one of your or their arguments.Steven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-17311641520465478942019-06-12T09:22:56.812-04:002019-06-12T09:22:56.812-04:00I see little point in continuing this discussion, ...I see little point in continuing this discussion, but none at all if you haven't even read the book you want to discuss.Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-73718223622353130252019-06-12T07:14:18.153-04:002019-06-12T07:14:18.153-04:00Phillip Helbig 5:33 AM, June 12, 2019
That's ...Phillip Helbig 5:33 AM, June 12, 2019<br /><br />That's it. Run away again at warp speed. <br /><br />How do you know that physical constants could be values other than those measured?<br /><br />How do you know what all the possible forms are that "life" could take and what the physical conditions are for all these possible forms?<br /><br />You wrote a positive review of FortunateSteven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-62109474557918396192019-06-12T06:07:07.233-04:002019-06-12T06:07:07.233-04:00It seems, for some people, one whole universe is j...It seems, for some people, one whole universe is just not enough!kenhugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13176595783522495940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-23000052973294910962019-06-12T05:33:35.219-04:002019-06-12T05:33:35.219-04:00Beam me up, Scotty; there's no intelligent lif...Beam me up, Scotty; there's no intelligent life down here!<br />Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-14898212513182934432019-06-12T04:52:10.216-04:002019-06-12T04:52:10.216-04:00Adding a smiley doesn't excuse derogative stat...Adding a smiley doesn't excuse derogative statements.<br /><br /><i>" I just want to point out (though one could call it an argument from authority) that many people much smarter than I am also share my views on the multiverse and its relevance for fine-tuning."</i><br /><br />That's an argument from authority and a logical fallacy. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-41320562976214858432019-06-12T04:41:25.090-04:002019-06-12T04:41:25.090-04:00Note the smiley. :-) Job troubles? At least you...Note the smiley. :-) Job troubles? At least you are where you want to be and have funding for another three years, which is better than what most people on the planet have. Of course we would all like to be able to do what we want with infinite funding, but if that's not possible, one has to choose.<br /><br />With regard to the debate, I just want to point out (though one could call it Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-28897209870218782802019-06-12T04:22:15.443-04:002019-06-12T04:22:15.443-04:00Phillip Helbig 7:16 AM, June 11, 2019
Now you are...Phillip Helbig 7:16 AM, June 11, 2019<br /><br />Now you are just lying because you can't answer the simple points raised.<br /><br />You claim that the physics of the universe is fine-tuned, but nobody has any idea whether any other physics is possible, so your claim is pure speculation.<br /><br />You also claim the physics is fine-tuned for "life". But nobody has any idea what Steven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-4598114324034494152019-06-12T04:00:35.686-04:002019-06-12T04:00:35.686-04:00"quantities which are fine-tuned for life&quo..."quantities which are fine-tuned for life"<br /><br />And you state this as *a fact*!<br />So not only do you *know* that the physical constants can take other values (otherwise why describe them as "tuned"?), you also *know* all possible forms of "life" and their likelihood in all these possible universes with different values of the constants!<br /><br />Are you Steven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-71694908781588872542019-06-12T03:08:25.910-04:002019-06-12T03:08:25.910-04:00I already explained repeatedly that if you define ...I already explained repeatedly that if you define fine-tuning without the probablilty then that's just a property of nature and no reason to explain anything. You making fun about my job troubles is disgusting. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-34610958861984738222019-06-12T02:52:10.485-04:002019-06-12T02:52:10.485-04:00"The universe is fine-tuned for life" is...<i> "The universe is fine-tuned for life" is not an empirical fact. It is a statement about an unobservable probability distribution.</i><br /><br />Maybe we have to agree to disagree. In any case, we're not making any progress here. See my definition above of fine-tuning. Of course, things are different if you define fine-tuning as improbability.<br /><br />Maybe my rhetorical Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-51575742486165985372019-06-12T02:48:18.761-04:002019-06-12T02:48:18.761-04:00Aaaand here we o again with me repeating once agai...Aaaand here we o again with me repeating once again why your statement is logically wrong. "The universe is fine-tuned for life" is not an empirical fact. It is a statement about an unobservable probability distribution. I have already several times explained why it is unobservable in principle. There is nothing in need of explanation here. We have a set of parameters. We use these Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-36420386616596922842019-06-12T02:46:55.472-04:002019-06-12T02:46:55.472-04:00Phillip Helbig 6:47 AM, June 11, 2019
Did he get ...Phillip Helbig 6:47 AM, June 11, 2019<br /><br />Did he get it for providing evidence of universal fine-tuning? Nope.<br />Mmm..<br />Did he get it for providing evidence of a multiverse? <br />Nope.<br />Mmm..<br />Did he get it for providing evidence that baby Jesus' daddy "created" the universe?<br />Nope.<br /><br />He got it for taking *physical measurements*. <br /><br />He Steven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-67288542555473951592019-06-12T02:40:09.286-04:002019-06-12T02:40:09.286-04:00I'm not saying that it is the only explanation...I'm not saying that it is the only explanation, but it is a possible explanation of why the universe is fine-tuned for life. Of course, if you can show that the various constants of nature must have the values they have, that would also be an explanation, but I haven't seen that demonstrated anywhere.<br /><br />The fine-tuned distance of the Earth from the Sun---just the right distance Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-489521725745599562019-06-12T01:25:12.851-04:002019-06-12T01:25:12.851-04:00You are wrong in claiming that the multiverse &quo...You are wrong in claiming that the multiverse "explains" anything. It does not. If you think it does, please tell us what data this hypothesis provides a simpler description for. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-31278986893028301572019-06-12T01:20:34.916-04:002019-06-12T01:20:34.916-04:00Then I hope it won't get published because tha...Then I hope it won't get published because that way I get to have the last word. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-57737946789715340112019-06-11T08:18:28.821-04:002019-06-11T08:18:28.821-04:00"Finetuning arguments are not always unscient...<i>"Finetuning arguments are not always unscientific. They are scientific if you have a way to determine the probability distribution from observation. Take the well-known example of a pencil balanced on its tip. That's finetuned. You can say that because if you threw a billion pencils in the air none of them would land on its tip. (Of course you don't need to actually do this Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-24210029482469865262019-06-11T07:16:43.868-04:002019-06-11T07:16:43.868-04:00Just in case someone is interested in learning som...Just in case someone is interested in learning something, rather than reading Steven Evans's rants:<br /><br />His main critique is equivalent to the following: religious people say that God created the Earth, religion is wrong, therefore the Earth does not exist.<br />Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-61496489613310055742019-06-11T06:47:47.599-04:002019-06-11T06:47:47.599-04:00Why does Brian Schmidt have a Nobel Prize and you ...Why does Brian Schmidt have a Nobel Prize and you don't?<br />Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.com