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 felt as long as we're discussing possible Creators, I might look at theories about our universe being created in a more—ah–conventional manner. And why they're really irrelevant. Oh, doubtless it is of TREMENDOUS import if we find we live in a simulation or are in a “created” universe tailor-made by extra-universal intelligent beings. But since they haven't manifested themselves for thousands of years in any form we can recognize, they're not making any direct demands on us. And their origins are just as “iffy” in some respects as ours. Oh, SOME of the constants might be even more favorable than our own for intelligent life to arise, but things like the number of spatial and temporal dimensions would be true no matter what other constants are involved, and would have to be fine-tuned. As far as our quest for “why things are so fine-tuned” they're, at best, an added, complicating step that's really just takes the same question back a step or two. Here's a article about how we might be a computer simulation of another reality. However, the latest tests give at best conflicting results, and my money is on us not being any sort of simulation or sub-creation. But the question's still open… But doesn't answer the fine-tuning of the constants question—somewhere.computer simulation of another reality. However, the latest tests give at best conflicting results, and my money is on us not being any sort of simulation or sub-creation. But the question's still open… But doesn't answer the fine-tuning of the constants question—somewhere.
This is brilliantly done, BTW. The DD Award was well deserved Okay, I cannot tell a lie: You have a much better grasp of physics than I do - some of it goes over my head. I've been back over the archives and think I've found that reference to 3+1 dimensions being necessary for life and it seems like that only applies if physics behave in the way we know. None of those assumptions can be taken for granted for another universe - atoms, spatial dimensions, any of it being necessary for anything. Those could all just be arbitrary conditions of the simulation. Incidentally, do we know that the big bang only created our universe? A simple explanation would seem to be that the big bang was part of a larger 'explosion' that created a vast (infinite?) number of possible universes.
Yeah, but at that point, can you even talk about physical laws at ALL? If all physical laws are just arbitrarily-chosen rules of the simulation---like a video game's rules--then we know zilch about the laws of the world above.
Except...
We DO know, JUST from the laws of logic, that three-dimensional spatial dimensions, and one-dimensional temoral dimensions, are more suited for intelligent life. (See my page a while back on the subject.) So even in that sense, the ORIGINAL universe has to be somewhat fine-tuned.
BTW---thanks for all who voted, A REASONABLE CASE won best philosophical/political comic at the DrunkDuck awards!
That article seems to make the assumption that if we're a computer simulation, we're being simulated by a computer that's operating under the same physical laws that we're operating under. A computer simulation can specify arbitrary physical laws, so there's no reason to assume that the computer we're running on is subject to the same limitations that a computer from within the simulation would be. Odds are good that it would not even be a "computer" as we understand the term at all.
irrevenant at 7:55PM, Sept. 20, 2014
This is brilliantly done, BTW. The DD Award was well deserved Okay, I cannot tell a lie: You have a much better grasp of physics than I do - some of it goes over my head. I've been back over the archives and think I've found that reference to 3+1 dimensions being necessary for life and it seems like that only applies if physics behave in the way we know. None of those assumptions can be taken for granted for another universe - atoms, spatial dimensions, any of it being necessary for anything. Those could all just be arbitrary conditions of the simulation. Incidentally, do we know that the big bang only created our universe? A simple explanation would seem to be that the big bang was part of a larger 'explosion' that created a vast (infinite?) number of possible universes.
alschroeder at 3:34AM, Sept. 18, 2014
Yeah, but at that point, can you even talk about physical laws at ALL? If all physical laws are just arbitrarily-chosen rules of the simulation---like a video game's rules--then we know zilch about the laws of the world above. Except... We DO know, JUST from the laws of logic, that three-dimensional spatial dimensions, and one-dimensional temoral dimensions, are more suited for intelligent life. (See my page a while back on the subject.) So even in that sense, the ORIGINAL universe has to be somewhat fine-tuned. BTW---thanks for all who voted, A REASONABLE CASE won best philosophical/political comic at the DrunkDuck awards!
irrevenant at 7:17AM, Sept. 17, 2014
That article seems to make the assumption that if we're a computer simulation, we're being simulated by a computer that's operating under the same physical laws that we're operating under. A computer simulation can specify arbitrary physical laws, so there's no reason to assume that the computer we're running on is subject to the same limitations that a computer from within the simulation would be. Odds are good that it would not even be a "computer" as we understand the term at all.
KimLuster at 5:11PM, Sept. 15, 2014
Getting into the meat of it - and looking forward!!