Daily Archives: March 2, 2012

Anthropic principle, 2.3

Posted on by

In fact, lots of astrophysicists think the anthropic issue, rather than signaling a problem with modern science, points toward a deeper understanding of the universe. Rees likes to use our solar system as an analogy. Says Rees: “If Earth were the only planet in the universe, you’d be astonished that we just happened to be exactly the right distance from the sun to be habitable.” That would be absurdly improbable, but it becomes much less so when you realize that the Milky Way almost certainly has millions of planets. With so many possibilities, it’s not surprising that at least one planet is friendly to life.

And so, he contends, it might be with the cosmos. What we think of as the “universe,” argues Rees, could well be just one of trillions of universes on an indescribably vaster stage called the multiverse. Each of those universes would have different laws and characteristics. Most of them are totally unlivable; like Earth, ours just happens to be one of the lucky ones.

— Cosmic Conundrum

— By Michael D. Lemonick; J. Madeleine Nash

— Time (magazine)

The correct version of anthropic principle should be called the anti-anthropic principle.

— Me@2011.11.10

2012.03.02 Friday ACHK

Teller 2

Posted on by

7. If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. This is one of the darkest of all psychological secrets.

When I cut the cards, I let you glimpse a few different faces. You conclude the deck contains 52 different cards (No. 1—Pattern recognition). You think you’ve made a choice, just as when you choose between two candidates preselected by entrenched political parties (No. 7 — Choice is not freedom).

— Teller Reveals His Secrets

— By Teller

— Smithsonian magazine, March 2012

2012.03.02 Friday ACHK

Anthropic principle, 2.2

Posted on by

You may say – and some people actually say – that the anthropic reasoning is not similar to religion, but instead, it is analogous to Darwin’s theory because the Universe “compete” much like the animals, and there is no explicit God there. Well, it is as analogous as much as the evolutionary theory itself is analogous to creationism, but not more. Darwin’s theory has pretty well-defined rules and mechanisms. The animals are doing all these familiar things and they live together – and compete – according to some schemes that are deeply rooted in biology, chemistry, and physics – and that we can predict.

On the other hand, the arena of very many Universes that “compete” has no testable rules like that, and therefore it mimicks religion. (Of course, if someone could derive really exact rules that govern the Universes in the multiverse, the situation would change.)

— The anthropic lack of principles

— Lubos Motl

2012.03.02 Friday ACHK