Smashter's Great Adventure

[Smashter]

Yeah, well, if all one has in the department of philosophy are words, I can see how this would be limiting /snark/

haha

It is rather amazing to me that one can mathematically derive all these conclusions from very very simple assumptions.

Agreed! Incredible stuff. I think I get what you're saying, and I appreciate the detailed response. I knew a little bit about spin, but I'd never seen it explained like this. I didn’t realize it was the ur-concept to understand in order to make sense of all reality.

Most of the rebuttals to the fine tuning argument I've read have focused on how you can't do bayseian reasoning on questions like "what are the odds that the universe is exactly how it is?" because that's not how math and probabilities work, or something.

I'm rather meh about what this means for the "human condition" or place in the universe. If a giant meteorite hadn't wiped out the dinosaurs, humans would never have come into existence in the first place.

This is where we differ. It still seems to me that something caused those spins to be how they are, and somehow that ended up with a bunch of hairless apes running around building rockets and dancing and cooking and reading and taking the garbage out. I dunno, maybe I have a hopeless case of Humanity Degree Brain, but simply saying it has to be like that, there is no other way, is not quite satisfying. I'm fascinated by the mystery!

[jacob]

This is where we differ. It still seems to me that something caused those spins to be how they are, ...

No. That's the whole beauty of this argument. There's no need for an original cause for the sequence 0, 1, 2, 3, ... like, nothing causes the next number after 1 to be 2, nothing causes the number after that to be 3. It's pretty much just filling in the blanks.

Recall, that spins being 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, ... is simply counting (the inverse of) rotations, specifically how many times do you need to "walk around" the particle to see the same configuration again. If you take a coin, for example, you have to rotate it 360 degrees to see the same side. Such a coin would have spin 1. If the coin had the same face on both sides, it would have spin 2. Nothing causes this---it's just a consequence of how it is, it's symmetry. What modern physics derives from these very simple assumptions about space, time, and spin is that the [4] forces of nature can be no other way than they are. They are basically the physical manifestations of the allowed solutions under the constraints of causality, locality, and "symmetry".

Add: What you're basically saying is the equivalent of insisting that the sequence 0, 1, 2, ... and the numbers after that should have a cause. Philosophically, one can argue (as philosophers have done for at least a couple of thousand years) whether the number, e.g. 4, has existence outside the mind. IOW, if I (my mind) perceives 4 apples, is there a '4' that exists independent of my mind or is '4' something that is specifically constructed by my mind. Realists claim that 4 has independent existence. Idealists claim that '4' is a mental construct. (Nondualists claim that '4' only comes about through connecting the mind to those apples of which there happen to be 4 or '4'.

You might also ponder whether mathematics is "invented" or "discovered"? IOW, is 1+1=2 something that exists in the human mind (invented) or is it something that humans discovered out there, e.g. by bunching together a couple of apples and inventing a short hand for counting them.

So if you have 3 apples in a group ... and you add another one ... is there "a cause" for why you will now count 4? Note, I said count 4, not have 4. To me, 4 is just a word that describes some abstract itemization of the new group of apples. There's no particular cause for why I would call it '4'. OTOH, if I bunch together 4 oranges, I am extremely confident that each apple can be paired with an orange. IOW, 4 is something both respective groups of apples and oranges have in common.

The spin-statistics theorem (all of the above) essentially says that the whole of reality is a mathematical construct. You can now decide whether that construct exists in your mind (idealist) or out there (realist). Personally, I think the realist position should be easier to accept given that the universe works even if most humans don't understand the math.

In terms of understanding the math .. consider when numbers where invented. In all likelihood (archeology suggests as much), people would mark the contents on clay containers with a symbol. If the container contained 7 coins, they would put 7 coin symbols on it like this: CCCCCCC. Developing this idea further, people figured out a shorthand so instead of stamping C seven times, they would go 1111111C ... and then later figure out clever ways to not having to make so many 1 signs... using Roman numerals like VII C. Insofar the container was known to hold coins, they could just mark it with VII or 7. Congrats, counting has now been doubly abstracted, first from the actual contents (coins), and then from the C-symbols signifying the content.

What was noted was that one could do "math" without involving the coins. E.g. 3+4=7. Children over 7 can do this, but younger ones typically need something concrete like their fingers for counting them out.

Similarly, spins have been completely abstracted and very very complicated mathematical physics has been ... invented (or discovered, ha!) ... and so whether you "count out the physics" on your "fingers" ... or you just do the math, it comes to the same thing. But it's basically the analogous idea. Just waaaaaay more abstract and complicated than coins in a jar.

I dunno, maybe I have a hopeless case of Humanity Degree Brain, but simply saying it has to be like that, there is no other way, is not quite satisfying. I'm fascinated by the mystery!

What [the physics] is saying as that the laws of nature have to have the structure they have. This in turn says something about how more complex groups of particles will form (e.g. nuclei, atoms, molecules, proteins, ...) It says nothing about what kind of lifeforms would ultimately come into existence. There are many millions of such lifeforms possible based on a fairly limited number of possible amino acids. Humans have even created a few new lifeforms in the lab from [almost] scratch (they didn't live long).

So ... to me there's no mystery. However, I'm also somewhat disappointed that knowing what makes the universe "work" at such a fundamental level doesn't really say much of anything about what makes life meaningful, for example. There's vastly more to understanding the universe than just becoming an expert on the fundamental forces of nature.

[7Wannabe5]

I think "A Brief History of Intelligence: Evolution, AI, and the Five Breakthroughs That Made Our Brains" offers a fairly solid lay level towards "mathematical" continuation of this discussion of "options" along the spectrum of living beings. Also, if you prefer a math heavy approach the link below is PDF of David MacKay's "Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms." Chapter 20, "Why Have Sex? Information Acquisition and Evolution" is particularly interesting. My general takeaway from these and other similar books would be "because Laws of Universe as outlined by Jacob" it makes sense in terms of probability that some things like "limbs", "eyes", and "brains" will eventually emerge/evolve under similar circumstances. Much more squishy, but you can begin to apply math to questions such as "What is the likelihood that intelligent biological lifeform on another planet like Earth would reproduce asexually and/or not possess limbs?" (And isn't it a bit freaky that I now, so very recently, feel compelled to specify "intelligence" as "biology-based"?!!)

https://www.geophysik.uni-muenchen.de/~ ... theory.pdf

I will go even further than Jacob and suggest that math underpins the evolution of intelligence, and biological-based intelligence generally requires nurturance at multiple levels, and our need for nurturance contributes to our sense of meaning. IOW, expanding upon the energetic nurturance provided to us by Mother Sun makes us feel good, because if it didn't make us feel good, it would be less likely that we would thrive/survive.

[Laura Ingalls]

Stasher your journey to parenthood is pretty wild.

Usually you don’t end up with two biological siblings 3.5 months apart. Enjoy your experience and unusual circumstances. I hope both little fellas are born knowing night is for sleeping.

[suomalainen]

I guess I don’t know much specifically about the fine tuning “argument”, but I gather it’s very similar to “arguments” for religion, i.e., that something that exists in experience “means” [something unrelated such as god exists or whatever]. Any time an argument’s construct is “X means Y”, I think it can be dismissed offhand. All it “means” is that the speaker has a boner for Y, but has some insecurity about it and has to construct some straw “arguments” as justifications instead of just owning that “I really love the idea Y even though I have no rational basis for it”. Meaning is constructed by a subject. It is not an object to be found.

[jacob]

For all possible kinds of universes, only some universes will allow for observers to come into existence. Such observers will only be able to observe the parameters that allow their particular kind of existence.

It's a form of survivor bias.
https://mcdreeamiemusings.com/blog/2019 ... arch-today

To illustrate, I'll create a universe model by rolling two dice six-sided dice. I can create 36 universes this way. The condition is that only if I roll two 6s will observers come into existence to ponder the existence of the dice. All the other universes end up with a configuration where no "life" or "observers" can come into existence. These universe may, for example, all be made out of hydrogen.

1&1 - Universe with no observers.
1&2 - Universe with no observers.
1&3 - Universe with no observers.
1&4 - Universe with no observers.
1&5 - Universe with no observers.
1&6 - Universe with no observers.
2&1 - Universe with no observers.
2&2 - Universe with no observers.
2&3 - Universe with no observers.
2&4 - Universe with no observers.
2&5 - Universe with no observers.
2&6 - Universe with no observers.
3&1 - Universe with no observers.
3&2 - Universe with no observers.
3&3 - Universe with no observers.
3&4 - Universe with no observers.
3&5 - Universe with no observers.
3&6 - Universe with no observers.
4&1 - Universe with no observers.
4&2 - Universe with no observers.
4&3 - Universe with no observers.
4&4 - Universe with no observers.
4&5 - Universe with no observers.
4&6 - Universe with no observers.
5&1 - Universe with no observers.
5&2 - Universe with no observers.
5&3 - Universe with no observers.
5&4 - Universe with no observers.
5&5 - Universe with no observers.
5&6 - Universe with no observers.
6&1 - Universe with no observers.
6&2 - Universe with no observers.
6&3 - Universe with no observers.
6&4 - Universe with no observers.
6&5 - Universe with no observers.
6&6 - Universe with observers who believe that somehow the universe was made just for them.

Survivorship fallacy means that they would ascribe a probability of 1/36=2.7% which seems to small to be mere coincidence leading to the corollary that somehow their 6&6 universe is tuned to those two parameters.

Whereas, if we consider the whole population of possible universes, the very question is a conditional probability (the probably of parameters GIVEN that observers exist) that is already 100% and thus require no tuning at all.

[7Wannabe5]

A variation of Pascal's Wager is now being applied to the "dangerous" development of an omniscient, all-powerful AI that will likely choose to punish those who inhibit its development and reward those who support its development. The strength of both of these is based on the bias towards assigning 50% likelihood (indifference) to priors when presented with two clear (Y/N) options and also the tendency towards risk aversion. This is made more clear if we sub in something we "moderns" are less likely to accept such as believing that another given human is a witch. We don't jump to "A witch might curse my limbs to wither, ergo on 50/50 (Y/N)priors best choice is to drown her in the pond." We demand an extremely high level of evidence that somebody is indeed a witch, because we assign the prior likelihood as very small.

Unfortunately, it is currently the case that much modern scientific research is producing irreproducible results due to lack of understanding that ad hoc statistical methods are ill-suited for situations in which outcomes are increasingly unlikely. So, something like informed subjectivity must be applied to the application of appropriate bias and also the completion of the probability space. IOW, it's not always rational to render your position indifferent. This is also towards why all the fretting about the 4% rule is towards ridiculous. There is a level where applying the rules that apply to dice games to the economy breaks down. IOW, the world of finance is inherent of more than a bit of "wish-craft."

[Smashter]

@laura Thank you! I hope they are good sleepers, too. Not going to hold my breath though, haha.

Also the continued mixing up of the usernames of myself and @Stasher on the forums amuses me. I wish I could produce the awesome pictures, mighty biking exploits, and spending levels of @Stasher. I admit to picking an awful name.

I guess I don’t know much specifically about the fine tuning “argument”, but I gather it’s very similar to “arguments” for religion[...]

Yeah, it is used by many theists to justify their belief in a higher power. That's how it came on my radar recently. The fact that one infinitesimally small change to one constant in the early stages of the formation of the universe would have meant no galaxies ever formed boggles their minds. (e.g. what Jacob was saying upthread about nuclear resonances and carbon percentages.) They point to a god as the answer. It still boggles my mind too, to be clear, as much as Jacob’s arguments are helping me see this in a new light.

Also, if you prefer a math heavy approach the link below is PDF of David MacKay's "Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms." Chapter 20, "Why Have Sex? Information Acquisition and Evolution" is particularly interesting.

Thank you for sharing! Sadly, I almost never prefer a math heavy approach. I wish I did. I should step my game up here.

You linking to a 624 page math book reminds me of when Jacob gave me some books after an ERE marching meeting up. I had expressed an interest in quantum physics, and was peppering him with questions on the walk. The book he gave me was like 98% equations that I would have needed hours of tutoring to even begin to grok . (To be fair he also balanced this out with a pop science Neil Degrasse Tyson book that was more my speed)

Still, I poked around chapter twenty. I found this part very interesting, though it’s not super relevant to the discussion about fine tuning.

“In a sufficiently unstable environment, where the fitness function is continually changing, the parthenogens will always lag behind the sexual community. These results are consistent with the argument of Haldane and Hamilton that sex is helpful in an arms race with parasites. The parasites define an effective fitness function which changes with time, and a sexual population will always ascend the current fitness function more rapidly.”


Yay for sex!

Whereas, if we consider the whole population of possible universes, the very question is a conditional probability (the probably of parameters GIVEN that observers exist) that is already 100% and thus require no tuning at all.

Does this require a belief in the Everettian, many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics? 



Basically, the only thing left to "fine tune" in terms of imagining or parametrizing different kinds of universes are the constant of nature. We do not have a theory that allows us to compute those.

Do you know how close we are to this theory? And I know you don't keep up with the latest research anymore, but is there a list of open questions in physics that most interests you?

[jacob]

Does this require a belief in the Everettian, many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics? 



No, this is standard probability101 stuff (specifically, considerations between the sample-size and the population-space). It's just asking about P(this particular universe | this particular universe can be observed) which is 100% vs P(this particular universe) which is ~0%. Also see the "anthropic principle".

All this goes back to the philosophical question of idealism vs realism and as such is better settled by philosophers than physicists. Does a universe exist if there is no one in it to observe it? If a tree falls in the forest ... What is the sound of one hand clapping?

I'd rather ask why does this question even matter, because we are clearly here observing it.

Do you know how close we are to this theory? And I know you don't keep up with the latest research anymore, but is there a list of open questions in physics that most interests you?

No closer than we were in 1975. Many of these questions will likely see no progress as long as the funding priorities remain focused on nano-scale physics (making better computer chips) rather than high-energy physics (discovering new particles). The primary problem is that the size of current accelerators reveal no unpredicted particles and so all we get from theory is the ability to speculate on unverifiable predictions.

[suomalainen]

They point to a god as the answer.

It always amuses me when theists use the word “god” to mean “I don’t know”, without knowing it.