The Grey Labyrinth is a collection of puzzles, riddles, mind games, paradoxes and other intellectually challenging diversions. Related topics: puzzle games, logic puzzles, lateral thinking puzzles, philosophy, mind benders, brain teasers, word problems, conundrums, 3d puzzles, spatial reasoning, intelligence tests, mathematical diversions, paradoxes, physics problems, reasoning, math, science.

Legal | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Nerdware

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Self-Evident Truth
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

The Grey Labyrinth Forum Index -> Off-Topic

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:30 pm Post subject: 41

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

I don't see how you can be sure that what you're apprehending is the truth.

I don't see how you can not see how one can be sure of it.

You're trusting your own thought processes without knowing how reliable they might be.

Thok*
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:34 pm Post subject: 42

BraveHat wrote:

That leaves the question of how we are defining the term "Universe". I almost defined it as "everything that exists," but there have been theories on multiple universes and dimensions outside of space and time. So how are we defining the term "Universe"?

For our purposes, everything that exists is fine.

Dimensions outside of space and time should be included in the definition of universe (think of people living in a piece of paper in our universe: they should clearly include the mythical third space dimension as part of the universe, even if they don't have much experience with it.)

Multiple universes are a subtlety I'm willing to ignore right now.

BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:09 pm Post subject: 43

Chuck wrote:

You're trusting your own thought processes without knowing how reliable they might be.

It's not a thought process, it's instant knowledge.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:25 pm Post subject: 44

Thok wrote:

Dimensions outside of space and time should be included in the definition of universe (think of people living in a piece of paper in our universe: they should clearly include the mythical third space dimension as part of the universe, even if they don't have much experience with it.)

All right, so we'll define the Universe as "everything that exists"

So now, if we return to the statement "The Universe has properties that allow me to exist", we see that we can say this is a truth derived from "I exist". But we didn't just take it from "I exist" alone, we first had to create the definition of "Universe". We know that "I exist", but we don't know if anything else exists, so we created a word to mean "everything that exists" and drew a conclusion about that word from the statement "I exist". So it seems like we first have to go through a term-creation process and then a derivation (or reasoning) process before we can see that "The Universe has properties that allow me to exist" is true. And because we have to go through these processes, it seems like the statement is not self-evident. However, technically, it still satisfies the definition I've given. It seems like the definition, then, is still insufficient.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:04 pm Post subject: 45

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

You're trusting your own thought processes without knowing how reliable they might be.

It's not a thought process, it's instant knowledge.

How do you know that to be true? Brains don't seem to work instantly. Even if it is instant, how do you know your instant belief to be knowledge?

Thok*
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:07 pm Post subject: 46

BraveHat wrote:

We know that "I exist".

If you spent as much time pondering the definition of "I" and "exists" as you did "universe", I suspect that wouldn't be self-evident either.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:59 pm Post subject: 47

Thok wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

I don't believe I've set up anything. Is that not the way things are, as far as all evidence suggests?

Your participation is in providing your personal definition of the concept of sentience.

In what way am I "providing a personal definition of a concept of sentience"?

And how do you see the anthropic principle as relevant here? You've not been at all clear about that. There are several versions of the anthropic principle, and merely dropping the words on the discusion table doesn't shed any light. Usually, it has to do with explaining, beyond just wild chance coincidence, the apparent fine tuning of the constants of the laws of physics to be compatible with a universe supporting biological life. There are many versions - a multiverse, where it's no coincidence we're in the universe supporting life, being one.

But it isn't at all evident that biological life is a requirement for sentience. In fact, I'm aware of no evidence for it. So how does the anthropic principle relate? If you want to reinvent one for a new proposed definition of "universe", OK, but I don't see the point. It was invented to explain multiple observed coincidences about the observed universe.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 7:03 pm Post subject: 48

Thok* wrote:

BraveHat wrote:

After all, how do we know that the Universe exists to have any properties at all?

If it didn't exist, you wouldn't exist either.

You might be completely wrong about the nature of the universe (it might be a brain in a jar, or a computer simulation, or a dream), but there's still a brain in a jar, computer, or dreamer's brain that actually is the universe.

OK, but then it's just one of those trivial tautologies: That which exists (what you're calling the universe), exists. Today, "universe" usually evokes a picture of a vast expanse of space-time populated with matter and energy organized into galaxies, etc., governed by laws of physics. That that exists, is not at all self-evident.

And "a brain in a jar, computer, or dreamer's brain that actually is the universe" still, to me, sounds physical. Those may not exist either.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 7:09 pm Post subject: 49

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

I don't see how you can be sure that what you're apprehending is the truth.

I don't see how you can not see how one can be sure of it.

If it's true that I'm apprehending something other than truth, then it's true that I'm apprehending something. It's a self-evident truth that the apprehension is happening (i.e. sentience).

Thok*
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 7:33 pm Post subject: 50

extropalopakettle wrote:

And how do you see the anthropic principle as relevant here?

Is there any way for a nonsentient being to observe the universe in a meaningful sense (as opposed to just following some preprogrammed directive)?

The anthropic principle is the observation that any observations about the universe are necessarily conditional on the requirement that the universe allows for observers (if the universe didn't have observers, it wouldn't be observed). Specific applications depend on what conditions you require observers to have.

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 7:49 pm Post subject: 51

extropalopakettle wrote:

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

I don't see how you can be sure that what you're apprehending is the truth.

I don't see how you can not see how one can be sure of it.

If it's true that I'm apprehending something other than truth, then it's true that I'm apprehending something. It's a self-evident truth that the apprehension is happening (i.e. sentience).

If there's no undetected flaw in your reasoning then I agree that you're correct.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:10 pm Post subject: 52

Thok* wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

And how do you see the anthropic principle as relevant here?

Is there any way for a nonsentient being to observe the universe in a meaningful sense (as opposed to just following some preprogrammed directive)?

Depends on what you men by "meaningful". I see no reason why biological organisms couldn't exist just like us, without sentience. Not "preprogrammed", but purely physical. As far as we can detect, and as far as any scientific understanding of the physical universe (which we are a part of) would explain, all our actions are explainable via laws of physics acting on matter and energy. Those actions include observing the universe, studying it, etc. Sentience is not required for a being to observe as we do, as far as anyone can tell that we do.

Thok* wrote:

The anthropic principle is the observation that any observations about the universe are necessarily conditional on the requirement that the universe allows for observers (if the universe didn't have observers, it wouldn't be observed). Specific applications depend on what conditions you require observers to have.

I think there's more to it than that. Yes, if the universe didn't have observers, it wouldn't be observed, but if we consider many ways it "could have been", most are without observers. It could have been that way The multiverse version answers why we observe conditions that allow observers to exist - countless universes, with ours necessarily allowing us. But I'm having trouble finding relevance.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:15 pm Post subject: 53

Chuck wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

I don't see how you can be sure that what you're apprehending is the truth.

I don't see how you can not see how one can be sure of it.

If it's true that I'm apprehending something other than truth, then it's true that I'm apprehending something. It's a self-evident truth that the apprehension is happening (i.e. sentience).

If there's no undetected flaw in your reasoning then I agree that you're correct.

The self-evident truth of sentience isn't arrived at through reasoning. If you're cognizant of some reasoning, flaw or not, that cognizance is known to you. Without knowing if it's flawed or not, you know you're aware of it.

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:22 pm Post subject: 54

extropalopakettle wrote:

Chuck wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

I don't see how you can be sure that what you're apprehending is the truth.

I don't see how you can not see how one can be sure of it.

If it's true that I'm apprehending something other than truth, then it's true that I'm apprehending something. It's a self-evident truth that the apprehension is happening (i.e. sentience).

If there's no undetected flaw in your reasoning then I agree that you're correct.

But you're using more reasoning that might be flawed.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:39 pm Post subject: 55

Chuck wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

Chuck wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

I don't see how you can be sure that what you're apprehending is the truth.

I don't see how you can not see how one can be sure of it.

If it's true that I'm apprehending something other than truth, then it's true that I'm apprehending something. It's a self-evident truth that the apprehension is happening (i.e. sentience).

If there's no undetected flaw in your reasoning then I agree that you're correct.

But you're using more reasoning that might be flawed.

I agree, but the reasoning is irrelevant to the knowing of the truth in this instance.

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:45 pm Post subject: 56

extropalopakettle wrote:

Chuck wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

Chuck wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

I don't see how you can be sure that what you're apprehending is the truth.

I don't see how you can not see how one can be sure of it.

If it's true that I'm apprehending something other than truth, then it's true that I'm apprehending something. It's a self-evident truth that the apprehension is happening (i.e. sentience).

If there's no undetected flaw in your reasoning then I agree that you're correct.

But you're using more reasoning that might be flawed.

I agree, but the reasoning is irrelevant to the knowing of the truth in this instance.

Maybe, but how do we know this? Is knowing something nothing more than the declaration that it's true?

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:58 pm Post subject: 57

Chuck wrote:

Is knowing something nothing more than the declaration that it's true?

The declaration is something other than the knowing. One can know without declaring anything

Thok*
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:18 pm Post subject: 58

Quote:

Depends on what you men by "meaningful". I see no reason why biological organisms couldn't exist just like us, without sentience. Not "preprogrammed", but purely physical.

A sentient being by definition can't formulate a question to make an observation.

(Incidentally, I'm not sure I believe your "only physicalism" argument. These physical beings have something that's controlling, interpreting, and mimicking brainwaves, and arguably that thing is essentially mimicking the interior dialogue that would be evidence of sentience.).

extropalopakettle wrote:

Going to the multiverse doesn't really escape the issue. One could imagine a multiverse in which no version of the multiverse allows for an observer. Obviously, such a multiverse isn't reality either.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:55 pm Post subject: 59

Thok* wrote:

Quote:

Depends on what you men by "meaningful". I see no reason why biological organisms couldn't exist just like us, without sentience. Not "preprogrammed", but purely physical.

A sentient being by definition can't formulate a question to make an observation.

I think you meant non-sentient, but it doesn't matter. It's certainly neither by definition nor by evidence that sentience is required to formulate a question to make an observation.

And sentience and pre-programmed are independent concepts. Something can in principle be one, the other, both or neither.

Thok* wrote:

(Incidentally, I'm not sure I believe your "only physicalism" argument. These physical beings have something that's controlling, interpreting, and mimicking brainwaves, and arguably that thing is essentially mimicking the interior dialogue that would be evidence of sentience.).

There is no evidence of sentience. We are physical beings, by every all evidence. We have physical brains. By all evidence, matter and energy, objectively measurable things, behaving according to objectively observable law of physics, are controlling, interpreting and producing brainwaves and all internal dialogue. There is no reason to suspect a computer couldn't be made to have such internal dialog. It doesn't require sentience. It only requires some particular form of information processing, such as brains and computers are capable of.

Thok* wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

The multiverse solves the problem of the unlikely fortuitousness of finding ourselves in a universe that supports life, in that there may be countless universes, and if only a very tiny fraction can support life, one of those woud be one of the ones any living observer would find itself in. With a single universe, a single one-time roll of the many dice that might determine cosmological constants, for them all to come up winning in support of life seems unlikely. That only living things could note the unlikeliness doesn't make it any more likely.

Thok*
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:31 pm Post subject: 60

extropalopakettle wrote:

What is your definition of sentience? Because I'm at the point where by a reasonable definition of sentience, that computer doing that internal dialogue is sentient.

Quote:

With a single universe, a single one-time roll of the many dice that might determine cosmological constants, for them all to come up winning in support of life seems unlikely. That only living things could note the unlikeliness doesn't make it any more likely.

The anthropic principle is then the observation that for choice of constants, the universe associated to that set of constants has observers, and we belong to one of those universes where the constants allow for observers.

Note, I'm not arguing for the strong anthropic principle. I'm claiming that there's a correlation between the fact that we can observe the universe and certain properties of the universe, not that the fact that we can observe the universe causes certain properties of the universe to hold.

BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:37 pm Post subject: 61

Chuck wrote:

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

You're trusting your own thought processes without knowing how reliable they might be.

It's not a thought process, it's instant knowledge.

How do you know that to be true? Brains don't seem to work instantly. Even if it is instant, how do you know your instant belief to be knowledge?

I don't know how instantly brains work, but even if they don't work instantly at all, the instant awareness of "I exist" may not necessarily be a brain process. But that's irrelevant.

What your question is asking for is a proof, but in order to prove something, one must reason, and the reasoning process, as you said, could be flawed. "I exist" on the other hand does not require proof or reasoning of any kind to see that it's true. It is a self-validating truth. It christens itself as knowledge.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:43 pm Post subject: 62

Thok wrote:

If you spent as much time pondering the definition of "I" and "exists" as you did "universe", I suspect that wouldn't be self-evident either

Correction: if I spend as much time pondering the definition of "I" and "exists" as I did "universe", I might conclude that my existence is not self-evident. But in that case, my conclusion would be wrong, since it contradicts the plain fact that I do exist. So either my reasoning was unsound or some other thing went wrong which lead me to arrive at that falsehood.

Fortunately, "I exist" does not require that I spend any time or effort to see that it's true. It's instantly recognizable as true, as opposed to "The Universe has properties which allow me to exist". Please understand I do allow that that statement is a perfectly sound conclusion to arrive at from the premise of "I exist", but it is not instantly recognizable as true. A little bit of reasoning must proceed that recognition.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

extro...*
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:14 pm Post subject: 63

Thok* wrote:

What is your definition of sentience? Because I'm at the point where by a reasonable definition of sentience, that computer doing that internal dialogue is sentient.

First, I have high hopes that you're sentient, and that we can then work together on the definition, if not a precise formal one, at least good enough that we both know what the other is talking about.

Second, how familiar are you with computers? "internal dialogue" can be done via information processing. "Thoughts" can be represented via data structures like sentences or other symbols arranged in structures, and they can be manipulated via rules and algorithms, which may be subject to change (manipulated themselves). That doesn't require sentience. No matter what I could ever program a computer to do, I would have no reason to propose it has sentience.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Quote:

In the philosophy of consciousness, "sentience" can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or "qualia". This is distinct from other aspects of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts that mean something or are "about" something).

A computer can have "thoughts", i.e. representations of thoughts (as surely all thoughts we have, have some physical representations within our brains), can manipulate those thoughts, create new ones, but I have no reason to suspect it has any awareness, in a sentient sense, of those thoughts.

Thok* wrote:

Quote:

I meant "single universe" in the sense of there being just one, not one from the multiverse. "we belong to one of those universes" suggests the multiverse.

Thok* wrote:

Note, I'm not arguing for the strong anthropic principle. I'm claiming that there's a correlation between the fact that we can observe the universe and certain properties of the universe, not that the fact that we can observe the universe causes certain properties of the universe to hold.

I don't know what correlation means in this sense, other than the single and only universe has these properties, and it has observers within it. And I'm totally missing the point. The anthropic principle might make for a good discussion in another thread (not that I'm averse to it here if it can be made intelligible). To me, where it comes to mind, is when I hear someone say something like "Of all the planets in the universe, think of the odds that Earth should be the one with conditions suitable to intelligent life". There, the answer is: No matter which planet had conditions suitable to intelligent life, it's inhabitants would give it some name ... we named it "Earth".

Thok*
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:29 pm Post subject: 64

@ BraveHat

Imagine a sentient being that only considers itself in terms of belonging to larger groups. (For example, assume a drone in a sentient society of ants.) The self-evident statement would be something like "My caste exists" or "My family exists", not "I exist"

extro wrote:

Isn't this begging* the question? You're arguing that a computer couldn't be sentient because a computer couldn't being sentient.

*Yes! I actually get to use begging the question as it is supposed to be used.

Quote:

To me, where it comes to mind, is when I hear someone say something like "Of all the planets in the universe, think of the odds that Earth should be the one with conditions suitable to intelligent life". There, the answer is: No matter which planet had conditions suitable to intelligent life, it's inhabitants would give it some name ... we named it "Earth"

Think of the odds that this universe has observers. The answer is: No matter what universe had conditions suitable for observers, it's observers would give it a name, we named it "universe".

extro...*
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:46 pm Post subject: 65

Thok* wrote:

How would such an ant be certain that its caste or family actually exists?

Thok* wrote:

extro wrote:

Not at all. I'm not saying a computer couldn't be sentient. I didn't say that. A computer could be, an ashtray could be, mousetraps and thermostats could be ... I don't know, and couldn't know. I'm saying that computers and ashtrays and other things can do what they do without being sentient, at least in so far as that we can explain how they do what they do without proposing some sort of sentience as part of the explanation, and also insofar as we know of nothing they do (or anything does) that we've observed to produce sentience (as sentience can't be observed).

Thok* wrote:

Quote:

Think of the odds that this universe has observers. The answer is: No matter what universe had conditions suitable for observers, it's observers would give it a name, we named it "universe".

Thok*
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:59 pm Post subject: 66

extro...* wrote:

Think of the odds that this universe has observers. The answer is: No matter what universe had conditions suitable for observers, it's observers would give it a name, we named it "universe".

Yes, but that suggests a multiverse, as I originally suggested. Not that I see any relevance to any of this, as it's all about conditions of some external world the existence of which is far from self-evident.[/quote]

Think of the odds that this multiverse has observers. The answer is: No matter what multiverse had conditions suitable for observers, it's observers would give it a name, we named it "multiverse"

You can start running to a multi-multiverse, but I can repeat my argument on that as well.

(I'm not ignoring the rest of the post, but I want to take a little bit to backtrack and see where it's coming from.)

extro...*
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:20 am Post subject: 67

Thok* wrote:

extro...* wrote:

Thok* wrote:

Think of the odds that this universe has observers. The answer is: No matter what universe had conditions suitable for observers, it's observers would give it a name, we named it "universe".

Think of the odds that this multiverse has observers. The answer is: No matter what multiverse had conditions suitable for observers, it's observers would give it a name, we named it "multiverse"

You can start running to a multi-multiverse, but I can repeat my argument on that as well.

A universe is a single thing, with a single set of physical constants. Once you go to multiples, you gain nothing by going to multiple multiples.

That a multiverse has observers in some universe ... that it has at least one universe, among the potentially infinite number of universes, with suitable conditions for life ... isn't all that astonishing. If there's only a single universe, and it happens to have those special conditions, that seems a remarkable coincidence.

Thok*
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:26 am Post subject: 68

extro...* wrote:

That a multiverse has observers in some universe ... that it has at least one universe, among the potentially infinite number of universes, with suitable conditions for life ... isn't all that astonishing.

You are not an easy potentially sentient being to astonish then. The fact that anything exists is astonishing. That we're around to notice it is more so.

(I feel like this is a Bayesian versus Misesian thing, about how to interpret probabilities.)

BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:57 am Post subject: 69

Thok wrote:

Imagine a sentient being that only considers itself in terms of belonging to larger groups. (For example, assume a drone in a sentient society of ants.) The self-evident statement would be something like "My caste exists" or "My family exists", not "I exist"

The "my" in "my caste" can only have meaning if there is already an "I exist" apparent, so the self-evident statement is still "I exist".
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

Thok*
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:28 am Post subject: 70

BraveHat wrote:

The "my" in "my caste" can only have meaning if there is already an "I exist" apparent, so the self-evident statement is still "I exist".

Specific caste exists. Specific family exists. Getting rid of the my is only a technical point.

extro...*
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:52 pm Post subject: 71

Thok* wrote:

extro...* wrote:

You are not an easy potentially sentient being to astonish then. The fact that anything exists is astonishing.

That doesn't contradict what I said. If (i.e. given) there are a potentially infinite number of universes, with different cosmological constants at play in each, then, given that, one of them being like ours (i.e. suitable for evolution of life) is far less astonishing than if there is just a single universe, that happens to be rather precisely fine-tuned for life. With a single universe, so finely-tuned for life, I don't see the anthropic principle doing much to explain the mystery.

I think one of us must be missing the whole point of the anthropic principle. Perhaps you should explain your understanding of it then.

extro...*
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:14 pm Post subject: 72

Thok* wrote:

Clarification: What is the "self" that the statement is self-evident to, the ant, or the colony?

Honestly, I'm not sure it matters. The self-evidence of "I" may be illusory, or a created conceptualization of a thing that is doing the experiencing (so yes, I'm questioning "I exist"). Our brains may be hard-wired (or demons may influence us, etc.) in such a way to think of verbs requiring nouns - acts requiring actors - and specifically in the Cartesian example, thoughts requiring thinkers. I can't say that's necessarily the case. "I think" may be an artificial separation into noun and verb. That thinking exists, I know, because I experience it. "I experience" seems the most succinct way to express "sentience" as a grammatically correct statement (i.e. a noun and verb are required), but the self-evident truth may simply be "sentience", or "sentience exists".

Thok*
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:18 pm Post subject: 73

extro...* wrote:

With a single universe, so finely-tuned for life, I don't see the anthropic principle doing much to explain the mystery.

This is where we are disagreeing. I've never claimed the anthropic principle explains why there is life, just that we need to account for it when making observations. That's the point of my correlation versus causation comment.

Quote:

If (i.e. given) there are a potentially infinite number of universes

Without something like the anthropic principle, I don't see why it should be a given that there would be any universes. Or that a given multiverse involves the same set of particles with given interaction rules that ours does.

extro...*
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:19 pm Post subject: 74

Thok* wrote:

extro...* wrote:

With a single universe, so finely-tuned for life, I don't see the anthropic principle doing much to explain the mystery.

Quote:

If (i.e. given) there are a potentially infinite number of universes

I don't know if anyone else gets your point, but I certainly don't. For instance, I can't respond to "Without something like the anthropic principle, I don't see why it should be a given that there would be any universes", because I have no idea what you think the anthropic principle is.

I didn't say it "should be" a given that there would be any universes. Go back to my earlier statement:

Quote:

To me, where it [anthropic principle] comes to mind, is when I hear someone say something like "Of all the planets in the universe, think of the odds that Earth should be the one with conditions suitable to intelligent life". There, the answer is: No matter which planet had conditions suitable to intelligent life, it's inhabitants would give it some name ... we named it "Earth".

This should be clear, I think. This application of the anthropic principle clears up some faulty reasoning, but it's applied to a single planet among trillions. I don't see how it can apply to a single universe when there are no others. I do see how it can apply to a single universe among trillions or more in a multiverse of universes. But I have no clue what you think "anthropic principle" means.

extro...*
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:29 pm Post subject: 75

Thok* wrote:

I'm claiming that there's a correlation between the fact that we can observe the universe and certain properties of the universe, ...

You mean the trivially obvious correlation that "we can observe it" requires "it allows for the existence of observers"? OK. Not sure what the relevance is.

extro...*
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:37 pm Post subject: 76

Thok* wrote:

extro...* wrote:

With a single universe, so finely-tuned for life, I don't see the anthropic principle doing much to explain the mystery.

This is where we are disagreeing. I've never claimed the anthropic principle explains why there is life, ...

Nor have I. It just debunks the bad reasoning that there's an extraordinary fine-tuning of the environment (whether our planet in the universe, or our universe in a multiverse) to make it suitable for life, so extraordinary as to suggest perhaps a creator or design.

Thok* wrote:

... just that we need to account for it when making observations.

Account for what, and how?

Thok* wrote:

Without something like the anthropic principle, I don't see why it should be a given that there would be any universes.

With something like the anthropic principle, why would it be a given that there would be any universes?

Thok*
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:37 pm Post subject: 77

extro...* wrote:

Thok* wrote:

I'm claiming that there's a correlation between the fact that we can observe the universe and certain properties of the universe, ...

You mean the trivially obvious correlation that "we can observe it" requires "it allows for the existence of observers"? OK. Not sure what the relevance is.

Backing up to the beginning, you've been asking for self-evident truths. I've been using the weakened anthropic principle as an example of a self-evident truth.

I've never claimed it's a particularly useful truth, and I suspect that any self-evident truth will be roughly as useful as the anthropic principle. (Even "I exist" isn't that useful of a truth.)

Thok*
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:41 pm Post subject: 78

extro...* wrote:

That's an APPLICATION of the anthropic principle, not the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle is that because we observe the universe, the universe must be capable of supporting observers. Applications of that principle say that we shouldn't assume that the universe is particularly fine-tuned.

extro...*
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:08 pm Post subject: 79

Thok* wrote:

OK, but then I see the anthropic principle as a logical tautology. To make it self-evident, it would be something like: "If I'm a living thing observing a universe, then that universe allows for living things". But it isn't self-evident that I am a living thing, or that the universe I think I observe has some independent existence. "I exist" (or "sentience exists") is not a logical tautology.

Thok*
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:14 pm Post subject: 80

extro...* wrote:

To make it self-evident, it would be something like: "If I'm a living thing observing a universe, then that universe allows for living things".

If I'm observing the universe, then the universe allows for observers.

The anthropic principle isn't really a statement about life, but about observers. It's most commonly applied to life, since most known observers are living things.

(And really, the nontrivial statement is "The universe allows for observers.")

Display posts from previous: by

	The Grey Labyrinth Forum Index -> Off-Topic	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Site Design by Wx3