Continuing down the list of six possible explanations for the “anthropic” coincidences in nature which allow intelligent life to evolve…largely inspired and derived from George F.R. Ellis' brilliant brief book, BEFORE THE BEGINNING. He is NOT responsible, though, for the liberties I've taken with his logic or how I've chosen to illustrate it. I spent some time on the ensemble theories, so I thought some final thoughts were needed. The 2009 Ellis/Smolin paper mentioned above can be found here at “the Weak Anthropic Principle and the Landscape of String Theory”. The essense is that a positive (increasing over time) cosmological constant is much less likely, in such a large ensemble using the anthropic principle as a selection effect, all other things being equal, than a similarly negligible negative (decreasing over time) cosmological constant. So one of the few times String Theory's Landscape can be used to make a prediction, it doesn't agree with observation, which does show a positive cosmological constant. Lee Smolin's book criticizing String Theory is THE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS and Peter Woit's is NOT EVEN WRONG. Leonard Susskind's THE COSMIC LANDSCAPE vigorously defends the Landscape and anthropic selection for much of the fine-tuning. Each side claims their solution is better by Occam's Razor. Critics of String Theory says it multiplies entities a quintillionfold, but defenders of String Theory (and many other enemble theories) often say it is simpler in the number of categories needed, thereby satisfying Occam's Razor….for instance, that many-worlds, by eliminating a complicated collapse of possibilities by an observer, is simpler than the Copenhagen Interpretation. String Theory makes similar claims. Proof remains…elusive, though.
I'd also like to draw an analogy here. Humanity used to think the simplest explanation was that the sun was unique and the stars in the sky were mere lights. Speculating that every star is a different sun with its own properties and even its own planets seems like a much more complex experiential reality than is necessary to justify our own planet's existence. But once you see Earth as an expression of that overall pattern it's not actually a complication at all - it's a standardised rule that fits everything. Proposing that our universe is just one of many different ones is no less elegant than saying that our sun is just one of many different stars.
Ockham's razor is a good rule of thumb rather than a law. Some answers *do* turn out to be more complex than anticipated once more information becomes available (Newton's laws for example). It's also debatable that a creator is a simpler explanation than a many worlds one given that you still have to explain where the creator came from. If that requires a separate additional explanation, then the one explanation that covers all of reality is the simpler of the two.
I've recently read Smolin's 'The Trouble with Physics' and while much of it was over my head, I do agree that String Theory has hit a sort of dead end, and seems to be grasping at (infinite) straws to keep it in vogue. I tend to agree with Occam's Razor as well, and people shouldn't be afraid to use it just because the 'simplest' explanation (the one you seem to be heading towards in this comic) is one they find abhorrent.
irrevenant at 7:29PM, Sept. 20, 2014
I'd also like to draw an analogy here. Humanity used to think the simplest explanation was that the sun was unique and the stars in the sky were mere lights. Speculating that every star is a different sun with its own properties and even its own planets seems like a much more complex experiential reality than is necessary to justify our own planet's existence. But once you see Earth as an expression of that overall pattern it's not actually a complication at all - it's a standardised rule that fits everything. Proposing that our universe is just one of many different ones is no less elegant than saying that our sun is just one of many different stars.
irrevenant at 7:13AM, Sept. 16, 2014
Ockham's razor is a good rule of thumb rather than a law. Some answers *do* turn out to be more complex than anticipated once more information becomes available (Newton's laws for example). It's also debatable that a creator is a simpler explanation than a many worlds one given that you still have to explain where the creator came from. If that requires a separate additional explanation, then the one explanation that covers all of reality is the simpler of the two.
KimLuster at 5:39PM, Aug. 17, 2014
I've recently read Smolin's 'The Trouble with Physics' and while much of it was over my head, I do agree that String Theory has hit a sort of dead end, and seems to be grasping at (infinite) straws to keep it in vogue. I tend to agree with Occam's Razor as well, and people shouldn't be afraid to use it just because the 'simplest' explanation (the one you seem to be heading towards in this comic) is one they find abhorrent.
Peipei at 5:22PM, Aug. 17, 2014
That was pretty educational o.o Very nice page, that's probably the most educational thing i've learned this weekend, very cool! xD
Genejoke at 11:28AM, Aug. 17, 2014
Interesting stuff. I don't fully understand everything but your notes point me in the direction to get more "book learnin'" I will be reading on.