… is the headline of a New Scientist article about the works of Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog, who wrote the article.

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is just right for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

you mean should we accept that the anthropic principle prevents 1 datapoint from representing a trend

SCIENCE said:

you mean should we accept that the anthropic principle prevents 1 datapoint from representing a trend

Well that is not what my question meant, but it is part of the reason for my question.

all right then what if you remove the word “just” wherever it occurs

SCIENCE said:

all right then what if you remove the word “just” wherever it occurs

It wouldn’t change my interpretation of the question.

Would it change your interpretation of the question?

If so, in what way?

There’s nothing wrong with that reasoning, but perhaps they mean that Hawking didn’t think it was an adequate response to the question of why the universe is right for life.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

all right then what if you remove the word “just” wherever it occurs

It wouldn’t change my interpretation of the question.

Would it change your interpretation of the question?

If so, in what way?

Sure.

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is just right for life.

Looks different to us. Suddenly isn’t not about being “just right”, it’s about being within the range of possible conditions.

However, we can’t speak for the other fellow, and he’s dead. Can’t even blame SARACAIDS-CoV¡

Bubblecar said:

There’s nothing wrong with that reasoning, but perhaps they mean that Hawking didn’t think it was an adequate response to the question of why the universe is right for life.

Here’s a quote from the article:

“Stephen’s reticence to embrace the multiverse grew stronger in the early 2000s, when it became clear that it didn’t actually explain anything. In multiverse cosmology, there are “metalaws” governing all the universes. But these metalaws don’t specify in which of the habitable universes we are supposed to be. This is a problem, for without a rule that relates the metalaws of the multiverse to the local laws within our universe, multiverse musings get caught in a spiral of paradoxes that leaves us without verifiable predictions. Multiverse cosmology is like a debit card without a PIN or an IKEA flatpack closet without a manual: useless.”

That doesn’t make any sense to me. What does “these metalaws don’t specify in which of the habitable universes we are supposed to be” mean?

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

all right then what if you remove the word “just” wherever it occurs

It wouldn’t change my interpretation of the question.

Would it change your interpretation of the question?

If so, in what way?

Sure.

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is just right for life.

Looks different to us. Suddenly isn’t not about being “just right”, it’s about being within the range of possible conditions.

However, we can’t speak for the other fellow, and he’s dead. Can’t even blame SARACAIDS-CoV¡

I’m still not sure what your point is. The laws of the universe could vary over a huge range (or so I’m told) and only a tiny proportion of these possible universes would generate conditions in which living things might turn up. These conditions are often described as being “just right” for life, but I don’t think the “just” really adds anything. You could say the conditions were right for life, and it would have the same meaning.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It wouldn’t change my interpretation of the question.

Would it change your interpretation of the question?

If so, in what way?

Sure.

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is just right for life.

Looks different to us. Suddenly isn’t not about being “just right”, it’s about being within the range of possible conditions.

However, we can’t speak for the other fellow, and he’s dead. Can’t even blame SARACAIDS-CoV¡

I’m still not sure what your point is. The laws of the universe could vary over a huge range (or so I’m told) and only a tiny proportion of these possible universes would generate conditions in which living things might turn up. These conditions are often described as being “just right” for life, but I don’t think the “just” really adds anything. You could say the conditions were right for life, and it would have the same meaning.

Maybe he worked for Kelloggs?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

There’s nothing wrong with that reasoning, but perhaps they mean that Hawking didn’t think it was an adequate response to the question of why the universe is right for life.

Here’s a quote from the article:

“Stephen’s reticence to embrace the multiverse grew stronger in the early 2000s, when it became clear that it didn’t actually explain anything. In multiverse cosmology, there are “metalaws” governing all the universes. But these metalaws don’t specify in which of the habitable universes we are supposed to be. This is a problem, for without a rule that relates the metalaws of the multiverse to the local laws within our universe, multiverse musings get caught in a spiral of paradoxes that leaves us without verifiable predictions. Multiverse cosmology is like a debit card without a PIN or an IKEA flatpack closet without a manual: useless.”

That doesn’t make any sense to me. What does “these metalaws don’t specify in which of the habitable universes we are supposed to be” mean?

Don’t know metalaws but do you agree that use of the anthropic principle helps predict conditions for life, or do you agree that use of the anthropic principle is unhelpful for predicting conditions for life?

God works in mysterious ways sometimes.

Peak Warming Man said:

God works in mysterious ways sometimes.

and some are; just right?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

Sure.

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is just right for life.

Looks different to us. Suddenly isn’t not about being “just right”, it’s about being within the range of possible conditions.

However, we can’t speak for the other fellow, and he’s dead. Can’t even blame SARACAIDS-CoV¡

I’m still not sure what your point is. The laws of the universe could vary over a huge range (or so I’m told) and only a tiny proportion of these possible universes would generate conditions in which living things might turn up. These conditions are often described as being “just right” for life, but I don’t think the “just” really adds anything. You could say the conditions were right for life, and it would have the same meaning.

Maybe he worked for Kelloggs?

The “just right” didn’t come from us but we still contend that the meaning is far from the same. Obviously we also disagree with the use of the word “why” because we don’t believe that the arrangement is intentional but due to habits of language use that part is less important.

There is a significant difference between

if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder how the Universe is just right for life

and

if the Universe was not right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder how the Universe is right for life

. One implies that we really are special. We don’t think we are.

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m still not sure what your point is. The laws of the universe could vary over a huge range (or so I’m told) and only a tiny proportion of these possible universes would generate conditions in which living things might turn up. These conditions are often described as being “just right” for life, but I don’t think the “just” really adds anything. You could say the conditions were right for life, and it would have the same meaning.

Maybe he worked for Kelloggs?

The “just right” didn’t come from us but we still contend that the meaning is far from the same. Obviously we also disagree with the use of the word “why” because we don’t believe that the arrangement is intentional but due to habits of language use that part is less important.

There is a significant difference between

if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder how the Universe is just right for life

and

if the Universe was not right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder how the Universe is right for life

. One implies that we really are special. We don’t think we are.

I’d argue that being right for the rise of intelligence, thus we’d ceate words like just.

Sorry, we also forgot to include this

image of Kellogg’s Deep Field.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

There’s nothing wrong with that reasoning, but perhaps they mean that Hawking didn’t think it was an adequate response to the question of why the universe is right for life.

Here’s a quote from the article:

“Stephen’s reticence to embrace the multiverse grew stronger in the early 2000s, when it became clear that it didn’t actually explain anything. In multiverse cosmology, there are “metalaws” governing all the universes. But these metalaws don’t specify in which of the habitable universes we are supposed to be. This is a problem, for without a rule that relates the metalaws of the multiverse to the local laws within our universe, multiverse musings get caught in a spiral of paradoxes that leaves us without verifiable predictions. Multiverse cosmology is like a debit card without a PIN or an IKEA flatpack closet without a manual: useless.”

That doesn’t make any sense to me. What does “these metalaws don’t specify in which of the habitable universes we are supposed to be” mean?

Don’t know metalaws but do you agree that use of the anthropic principle helps predict conditions for life, or do you agree that use of the anthropic principle is unhelpful for predicting conditions for life?

I don’t know why you want to predict conditions for life when we can observe conditions for life.

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

Maybe he worked for Kelloggs?

The “just right” didn’t come from us but we still contend that the meaning is far from the same. Obviously we also disagree with the use of the word “why” because we don’t believe that the arrangement is intentional but due to habits of language use that part is less important.

There is a significant difference between

if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder how the Universe is just right for life

and

if the Universe was not right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder how the Universe is right for life

. One implies that we really are special. We don’t think we are.

I’d argue that being right for the rise of intelligence, thus we’d ceate words like just.

We mean it’s not quite the same thing but there’s a huge difference between saying ∀ and ∃.

An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician are on a train in Scotland. The astronomer looks out of the window, sees a black sheep standing in a field, and remarks, “How odd. All the sheep in Scotland are black!” “No, no, no!” says the physicist. “Only some Scottish sheep are black.” The mathematician rolls his eyes at his companions’ muddled thinking and says, “In Scotland, there is at least one sheep, at least one side of which appears to be black from here some of the time.”

As a loud contributor to SSSF once said, “Beware those universal quantifiers¡”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Here’s a quote from the article:

“Stephen’s reticence to embrace the multiverse grew stronger in the early 2000s, when it became clear that it didn’t actually explain anything. In multiverse cosmology, there are “metalaws” governing all the universes. But these metalaws don’t specify in which of the habitable universes we are supposed to be. This is a problem, for without a rule that relates the metalaws of the multiverse to the local laws within our universe, multiverse musings get caught in a spiral of paradoxes that leaves us without verifiable predictions. Multiverse cosmology is like a debit card without a PIN or an IKEA flatpack closet without a manual: useless.”

That doesn’t make any sense to me. What does “these metalaws don’t specify in which of the habitable universes we are supposed to be” mean?

Don’t know metalaws but do you agree that use of the anthropic principle helps predict conditions for life, or do you agree that use of the anthropic principle is unhelpful for predicting conditions for life?

I don’t know why you want to predict conditions for life when we can observe conditions for life.

Yes but we agree, why speculate about multiverses when we can observe just our universe¿

Without a complete theory of physics we don’t know how many independent physical constants there are, one or a great many.

So….

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m still not sure what your point is. The laws of the universe could vary over a huge range (or so I’m told) and only a tiny proportion of these possible universes would generate conditions in which living things might turn up. These conditions are often described as being “just right” for life, but I don’t think the “just” really adds anything. You could say the conditions were right for life, and it would have the same meaning.

Maybe he worked for Kelloggs?

The “just right” didn’t come from us but we still contend that the meaning is far from the same. Obviously we also disagree with the use of the word “why” because we don’t believe that the arrangement is intentional but due to habits of language use that part is less important.

There is a significant difference between

if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder how the Universe is just right for life

and

if the Universe was not right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder how the Universe is right for life

. One implies that we really are special. We don’t think we are.

The word doesn’t imply specialness to me. I think it’s just, I mean only, saying that there is a very narrow range of conditions out of all possible conditions that would generate the universe as we see it (including entities capable of seeing it).

And of course we are special, to us.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

Maybe he worked for Kelloggs?

The “just right” didn’t come from us but we still contend that the meaning is far from the same. Obviously we also disagree with the use of the word “why” because we don’t believe that the arrangement is intentional but due to habits of language use that part is less important.

There is a significant difference between

if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder how the Universe is just right for life

and

if the Universe was not right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder how the Universe is right for life

. One implies that we really are special. We don’t think we are.

The word doesn’t imply specialness to me. I think it’s just, I mean only, saying that there is a very narrow range of conditions out of all possible conditions that would generate the universe as we see it (including entities capable of seeing it).

And of course we are special, to us.

Perhaps that is exactly the point: some people might not like the reasoning that begins and ends “we are the only universe that we can see or be capable of seeing, therefore there is only a very narrow range of conditions that generates interesting universes”.

Ian said:

Without a complete theory of physics we don’t know how many independent physical constants there are, one or a great many.

So….

We’ll settle for a complete and consistent theory of mathematics first, carry on.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

Don’t know metalaws but do you agree that use of the anthropic principle helps predict conditions for life, or do you agree that use of the anthropic principle is unhelpful for predicting conditions for life?

I don’t know why you want to predict conditions for life when we can observe conditions for life.

Yes but we agree, why speculate about multiverses when we can observe just our universe¿

For the same reason we speculate about lots of things we can’t observe.

Ian said:

Without a complete theory of physics we don’t know how many independent physical constants there are, one or a great many.

So….

I’d extend the range down to one less than you suggested.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know why you want to predict conditions for life when we can observe conditions for life.

Yes but we agree, why speculate about multiverses when we can observe just our universe¿

For the same reason we speculate about lots of things we can’t observe.

So you have the reason why people might speculate about predicted conditions for life, or predict speculative conditions for life, when they can observe just their known and local conditions for life.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

Yes but we agree, why speculate about multiverses when we can observe just our universe¿

For the same reason we speculate about lots of things we can’t observe.

So you have the reason why people might speculate about predicted conditions for life, or predict speculative conditions for life, when they can observe just their known and local conditions for life.

OK, but where are we with the answer to?:

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is just right for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, but where are we with the answer to?:

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is just right for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

We’re going with our answer which was that

• conditions are right, but that doesn’t have to be “just” right
• there could be intelligent life even if conditions weren’t “just” right
• intelligent life would wonder what conditions are right, without being limited to being “just” right

but certainly we’re happy to cede the floor to allow the plurality of other opinions.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, but where are we with the answer to?:

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is just right for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

We’re going with our answer which was that

• conditions are right, but that doesn’t have to be “just” right
• there could be intelligent life even if conditions weren’t “just” right
• intelligent life would wonder what conditions are right, without being limited to being “just” right

but certainly we’re happy to cede the floor to allow the plurality of other opinions.

But I crossed out the justs.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, but where are we with the answer to?:

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is just right for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

We’re going with our answer which was that

• conditions are right, but that doesn’t have to be “just” right
• there could be intelligent life even if conditions weren’t “just” right
• intelligent life would wonder what conditions are right, without being limited to being “just” right

but certainly we’re happy to cede the floor to allow the plurality of other opinions.

But I crossed out the justs.

Was that what SH wasn’t liking though¿ Because we’ren’t him and we were satisfied with that.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

There’s nothing wrong with that reasoning, but perhaps they mean that Hawking didn’t think it was an adequate response to the question of why the universe is right for life.

Here’s a quote from the article:

“Stephen’s reticence to embrace the multiverse grew stronger in the early 2000s, when it became clear that it didn’t actually explain anything. In multiverse cosmology, there are “metalaws” governing all the universes. But these metalaws don’t specify in which of the habitable universes we are supposed to be. This is a problem, for without a rule that relates the metalaws of the multiverse to the local laws within our universe, multiverse musings get caught in a spiral of paradoxes that leaves us without verifiable predictions. Multiverse cosmology is like a debit card without a PIN or an IKEA flatpack closet without a manual: useless.”

That doesn’t make any sense to me. What does “these metalaws don’t specify in which of the habitable universes we are supposed to be” mean?

Dunno. It’s presumably of importance to those who want to build formal multiverse models that contain “our universe” in some mathematically specified way.

But I don’t sympathise with the view that there’s something “problematic” about the existence of life.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

There’s nothing wrong with that reasoning, but perhaps they mean that Hawking didn’t think it was an adequate response to the question of why the universe is right for life.

Here’s a quote from the article:

“Stephen’s reticence to embrace the multiverse grew stronger in the early 2000s, when it became clear that it didn’t actually explain anything. In multiverse cosmology, there are “metalaws” governing all the universes. But these metalaws don’t specify in which of the habitable universes we are supposed to be. This is a problem, for without a rule that relates the metalaws of the multiverse to the local laws within our universe, multiverse musings get caught in a spiral of paradoxes that leaves us without verifiable predictions. Multiverse cosmology is like a debit card without a PIN or an IKEA flatpack closet without a manual: useless.”

That doesn’t make any sense to me. What does “these metalaws don’t specify in which of the habitable universes we are supposed to be” mean?

Dunno. It’s presumably of importance to those who want to build formal multiverse models that contain “our universe” in some mathematically specified way.

But I don’t sympathise with the view that there’s something “problematic” about the existence of life.

I dunno either. Flatpack closets are usually easier without reference to the manual.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

Sure.

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is just right for life.

Looks different to us. Suddenly isn’t not about being “just right”, it’s about being within the range of possible conditions.

However, we can’t speak for the other fellow, and he’s dead. Can’t even blame SARACAIDS-CoV¡

I’m still not sure what your point is. The laws of the universe could vary over a huge range (or so I’m told) and only a tiny proportion of these possible universes would generate conditions in which living things might turn up. These conditions are often described as being “just right” for life, but I don’t think the “just” really adds anything. You could say the conditions were right for life, and it would have the same meaning.

Maybe he worked for Kelloggs?

I think the word was used JUST to be Cute: A Play On Words ;-)

The Rev Dodgson said:

… is the headline of a New Scientist article about the works of Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog, who wrote the article.

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is just right for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

seems a naively appealing proposition, probably a meaningless recursion

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

… is the headline of a New Scientist article about the works of Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog, who wrote the article.

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is just right for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

seems a naively appealing proposition, probably a meaningless recursion

If there were other intelligent life in the universe, then many UFO sightings would be real.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

… is the headline of a New Scientist article about the works of Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog, who wrote the article.

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is just right for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

seems a naively appealing proposition, probably a meaningless recursion

i’d quibble over just, as in just right, it’s sort of dumb word shift, some hoodoo that just does, as you wrote it anyway

transition said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

… is the headline of a New Scientist article about the works of Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog, who wrote the article.

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is just right for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

seems a naively appealing proposition, probably a meaningless recursion

i’d quibble over just, as in just right, it’s sort of dumb word shift, some hoodoo that just does, as you wrote it anyway

this universe could be marginally conducive to life , of spacial scales evident, and time

transition said:

transition said:

transition said:

seems a naively appealing proposition, probably a meaningless recursion

i’d quibble over just, as in just right, it’s sort of dumb word shift, some hoodoo that just does, as you wrote it anyway

this universe could be marginally conducive to life , of spacial scales evident, and time

Another thing to consider is that the universe is changing phase, so maybe its possible that lifeforms could exist in other states of the universe, when it is/was in another state different to this one.

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

transition said:

i’d quibble over just, as in just right, it’s sort of dumb word shift, some hoodoo that just does, as you wrote it anyway

this universe could be marginally conducive to life , of spacial scales evident, and time

Another thing to consider is that the universe is changing phase, so maybe its possible that lifeforms could exist in other states of the universe, when it is/was in another state different to this one.

^ we exist in this phase of the the universe.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

this universe could be marginally conducive to life , of spacial scales evident, and time

Another thing to consider is that the universe is changing phase, so maybe its possible that lifeforms could exist in other states of the universe, when it is/was in another state different to this one.

^ we exist in this phase of the the universe.

^ we exist in this phase of the universe.

Fixed.

transition said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

… is the headline of a New Scientist article about the works of Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog, who wrote the article.

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is just right for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

seems a naively appealing proposition, probably a meaningless recursion

i’d quibble over just, as in just right, it’s sort of dumb word shift, some hoodoo that just does, as you wrote it anyway

Ooh look! Someone is sleeping in my bed.

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

transition said:

i’d quibble over just, as in just right, it’s sort of dumb word shift, some hoodoo that just does, as you wrote it anyway

this universe could be marginally conducive to life , of spacial scales evident, and time

Another thing to consider is that the universe is changing phase, so maybe its possible that lifeforms could exist in other states of the universe, when it is/was in another state different to this one.

What? Queensland?

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

… is the headline of a New Scientist article about the works of Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog, who wrote the article.

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is just right for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

seems a naively appealing proposition, probably a meaningless recursion

I don’t think it’s a meaningless recursion at all, quite the opposite.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

… is the headline of a New Scientist article about the works of Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog, who wrote the article.

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is just right for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

seems a naively appealing proposition, probably a meaningless recursion

I don’t think it’s a meaningless recursion at all, quite the opposite.

transition said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

… is the headline of a New Scientist article about the works of Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog, who wrote the article.

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is just right for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

seems a naively appealing proposition, probably a meaningless recursion

i’d quibble over just, as in just right, it’s sort of dumb word shift, some hoodoo that just does, as you wrote it anyway

I was just quoting the words that just appeared in New Scientist.

I don’t think all this quibbling over the j word is justified.

Just leave it out if you don’t like it.

Ogmog said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m still not sure what your point is. The laws of the universe could vary over a huge range (or so I’m told) and only a tiny proportion of these possible universes would generate conditions in which living things might turn up. These conditions are often described as being “just right” for life, but I don’t think the “just” really adds anything. You could say the conditions were right for life, and it would have the same meaning.

Maybe he worked for Kelloggs?

I think the word was used JUST to be Cute: A Play On Words ;-)

We rather think it was unjust.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

transition said:

seems a naively appealing proposition, probably a meaningless recursion

i’d quibble over just, as in just right, it’s sort of dumb word shift, some hoodoo that just does, as you wrote it anyway

I was just quoting the words that just appeared in New Scientist.

I don’t think all this quibbling over the j word is justified.

Just leave it out if you don’t like it.

Maybe that was SH’s point, that it should be left out.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

i’d quibble over just, as in just right, it’s sort of dumb word shift, some hoodoo that just does, as you wrote it anyway

I was just quoting the words that just appeared in New Scientist.

I don’t think all this quibbling over the j word is justified.

Just leave it out if you don’t like it.

Maybe that was SH’s point, that it should be left out.

The article was written by Thomas Hertog, not Stephen Hawking.

But can we discuss:

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is right for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

?

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I was just quoting the words that just appeared in New Scientist.

I don’t think all this quibbling over the j word is justified.

Just leave it out if you don’t like it.

Maybe that was SH’s point, that it should be left out.

The article was written by Thomas Hertog, not Stephen Hawking.

But can we discuss:

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is right for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

?

Is that what Thomas Hertog said that Stephen Hawking didn’t like¿

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

Maybe that was SH’s point, that it should be left out.

The article was written by Thomas Hertog, not Stephen Hawking.

But can we discuss:

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is right for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

?

Is that what Thomas Hertog said that Stephen Hawking didn’t like¿

It is an excellent summary of what T.H. said.

If you would like a quote from SH, I think the only one in the article is:

“The universe appears designed,” he said through his speech synthesiser. He continued: “Why is the universe the way it is?” None of my physics teachers had asked questions like this before. “Isn’t that a philosophical matter?” I tried. “Philosophy is dead,” Stephen replied, his eyes twinkling.

He was a master of packing a lot into a few choice words. When he spoke of the universe being designed, he was referring to the observation that, of all the universes that could exist, ours is spectacularly well configured to bring forth life. What to make of this has bedevilled thinkers one way or another for centuries. Yet it is only fairly recently that we have discovered how deep these waters run.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

transition said:

seems a naively appealing proposition, probably a meaningless recursion

i’d quibble over just, as in just right, it’s sort of dumb word shift, some hoodoo that just does, as you wrote it anyway

Ooh look! Someone is sleeping in my bed.

Figures you’d be the only one to Get It

Goldilocks and the Three Bears
The story makes extensive use of the literary rule of three, featuring three chairs, three bowls of porridge, three beds, and the three title characters who live in the house. There are also three sequences of the bears discovering in turn that someone has been eating from their porridge, sitting in their chairs, and finally, lying in their beds at which point is the climax of Goldilocks being discovered. This follows three earlier sequences of Goldilocks trying the bowls of porridge, chairs, and beds successively, each time finding the third “just right”. Author Christopher Booker characterises this as the “dialectical three”, where “the first is wrong in one way, the second in another or opposite way, and only the third, in the middle, is just right”. Booker continues: “This idea that the way forward lies in finding an exact middle path between opposites is of extraordinary importance in storytelling”. This concept has spread across many other disciplines, particularly developmental psychology, biology, economics, and engineering where it is called the “Goldilocks principle”. In planetary astronomy, a planet orbiting its sun at just the right distance for liquid water to exist on its surface, neither too hot nor too cold, is referred to as being in the ‘Goldilocks Zone’. As Stephen Hawking put it, “like Goldilocks, the development of intelligent life requires that planetary temperatures be ‘just right’”.

Ogmog said:

Goldilocks and the Three Bears
The story makes extensive use of the literary rule of three, featuring three chairs, three bowls of porridge, three beds, and the three title characters who live in the house. There are also three sequences of the bears discovering in turn that someone has been eating from their porridge, sitting in their chairs, and finally, lying in their beds at which point is the climax of Goldilocks being discovered. This follows three earlier sequences of Goldilocks trying the bowls of porridge, chairs, and beds successively, each time finding the third “just right”. Author Christopher Booker characterises this as the “dialectical three”, where “the first is wrong in one way, the second in another or opposite way, and only the third, in the middle, is just right”. Booker continues: “This idea that the way forward lies in finding an exact middle path between opposites is of extraordinary importance in storytelling”. This concept has spread across many other disciplines, particularly developmental psychology, biology, economics, and engineering where it is called the “Goldilocks principle”. In planetary astronomy, a planet orbiting its sun at just the right distance for liquid water to exist on its surface, neither too hot nor too cold, is referred to as being in the ‘Goldilocks Zone’. As Stephen Hawking put it, “like Goldilocks, the development of intelligent life requires that planetary temperatures be ‘just right’”.

cheers for that

transition said:

Ogmog said:

Goldilocks and the Three Bears
The story makes extensive use of the literary rule of three, featuring three chairs, three bowls of porridge, three beds, and the three title characters who live in the house. There are also three sequences of the bears discovering in turn that someone has been eating from their porridge, sitting in their chairs, and finally, lying in their beds at which point is the climax of Goldilocks being discovered. This follows three earlier sequences of Goldilocks trying the bowls of porridge, chairs, and beds successively, each time finding the third “just right”. Author Christopher Booker characterises this as the “dialectical three”, where “the first is wrong in one way, the second in another or opposite way, and only the third, in the middle, is just right”. Booker continues: “This idea that the way forward lies in finding an exact middle path between opposites is of extraordinary importance in storytelling”. This concept has spread across many other disciplines, particularly developmental psychology, biology, economics, and engineering where it is called the “Goldilocks principle”. In planetary astronomy, a planet orbiting its sun at just the right distance for liquid water to exist on its surface, neither too hot nor too cold, is referred to as being in the ‘Goldilocks Zone’. As Stephen Hawking put it, “like Goldilocks, the development of intelligent life requires that planetary temperatures be ‘just right’”.

cheers for that

I wonder of finding something, you know you and I find ourselves here on this planet, might attribute some significance to that, then extrapolate (if you will) to the entire universe some probability of life elsewhere

exploration and force of discovery work well here, steer the orientation of what minds do, but maybe its a misleading bias applied more broadly to the scale of universe

maybe life here is a rare accident, had a marginal probability before it happened, isn’t so much the outcome of, or only things like ideal distance from the sun, lot of water, ideal gravity and a protective atmosphere, that sort of thing

for all I know the rare ingredients of life might have been brought about by some anomalous interaction of two or three black holes, the three bears were three black holes

The Rev Dodgson said:

… is the headline of a New Scientist article about the works of Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog, who wrote the article.

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is just right for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

It’s anthropocentric.

Only one step short of claiming that God and Man are the same.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

… is the headline of a New Scientist article about the works of Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog, who wrote the article.

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is just right for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

It’s anthropocentric.

Only one step short of claiming that God and Man are the same.

Well from my point of view it is the very opposite of anthropocentric.

And it is only one step short of being an infinite distance from claiming that God and Man are the same.

transition said:

transition said:

Ogmog said:

Goldilocks and the Three Bears
The story makes extensive use of the literary rule of three, featuring three chairs, three bowls of porridge, three beds, and the three title characters who live in the house. There are also three sequences of the bears discovering in turn that someone has been eating from their porridge, sitting in their chairs, and finally, lying in their beds at which point is the climax of Goldilocks being discovered. This follows three earlier sequences of Goldilocks trying the bowls of porridge, chairs, and beds successively, each time finding the third “just right”. Author Christopher Booker characterises this as the “dialectical three”, where “the first is wrong in one way, the second in another or opposite way, and only the third, in the middle, is just right”. Booker continues: “This idea that the way forward lies in finding an exact middle path between opposites is of extraordinary importance in storytelling”. This concept has spread across many other disciplines, particularly developmental psychology, biology, economics, and engineering where it is called the “Goldilocks principle”. In planetary astronomy, a planet orbiting its sun at just the right distance for liquid water to exist on its surface, neither too hot nor too cold, is referred to as being in the ‘Goldilocks Zone’. As Stephen Hawking put it, “like Goldilocks, the development of intelligent life requires that planetary temperatures be ‘just right’”.

cheers for that

I wonder of finding something, you know you and I find ourselves here on this planet, might attribute some significance to that, then extrapolate (if you will) to the entire universe some probability of life elsewhere

exploration and force of discovery work well here, steer the orientation of what minds do, but maybe its a misleading bias applied more broadly to the scale of universe

maybe life here is a rare accident, had a marginal probability before it happened, isn’t so much the outcome of, or only things like ideal distance from the sun, lot of water, ideal gravity and a protective atmosphere, that sort of thing

for all I know the rare ingredients of life might have been brought about by some anomalous interaction of two or three black holes, the three bears were three black holes

The whole point of the anthropic principle is that you can’t draw any conclusions from the fact that this planet has intelligent living creatures, because the planet we live on is not a random sample, it has to be a planet where there is a non-zero probability of intelligent living creatures evolving.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

transition said:

cheers for that

I wonder of finding something, you know you and I find ourselves here on this planet, might attribute some significance to that, then extrapolate (if you will) to the entire universe some probability of life elsewhere

exploration and force of discovery work well here, steer the orientation of what minds do, but maybe its a misleading bias applied more broadly to the scale of universe

maybe life here is a rare accident, had a marginal probability before it happened, isn’t so much the outcome of, or only things like ideal distance from the sun, lot of water, ideal gravity and a protective atmosphere, that sort of thing

for all I know the rare ingredients of life might have been brought about by some anomalous interaction of two or three black holes, the three bears were three black holes

The whole point of the anthropic principle is that you can’t draw any conclusions from the fact that this planet has intelligent living creatures, because the planet we live on is not a random sample, it has to be a planet where there is a non-zero probability of intelligent living creatures evolving.

Intelligence is the first level, the getting of wisdom is on another level, should we ever get there.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

transition said:

cheers for that

I wonder of finding something, you know you and I find ourselves here on this planet, might attribute some significance to that, then extrapolate (if you will) to the entire universe some probability of life elsewhere

exploration and force of discovery work well here, steer the orientation of what minds do, but maybe its a misleading bias applied more broadly to the scale of universe

maybe life here is a rare accident, had a marginal probability before it happened, isn’t so much the outcome of, or only things like ideal distance from the sun, lot of water, ideal gravity and a protective atmosphere, that sort of thing

for all I know the rare ingredients of life might have been brought about by some anomalous interaction of two or three black holes, the three bears were three black holes

The whole point of the anthropic principle is that you can’t draw any conclusions from the fact that this planet has intelligent living creatures, because the planet we live on is not a random sample, it has to be a planet where there is a non-zero probability of intelligent living creatures evolving.

Except that you can draw conclusions from the fact that this planet has intelligent living creatures, because the planet we live on is a sample, it has to be a planet where there is a non-zero probability of intelligent living creatures evolving.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

transition said:

cheers for that

I wonder of finding something, you know you and I find ourselves here on this planet, might attribute some significance to that, then extrapolate (if you will) to the entire universe some probability of life elsewhere

exploration and force of discovery work well here, steer the orientation of what minds do, but maybe its a misleading bias applied more broadly to the scale of universe

maybe life here is a rare accident, had a marginal probability before it happened, isn’t so much the outcome of, or only things like ideal distance from the sun, lot of water, ideal gravity and a protective atmosphere, that sort of thing

for all I know the rare ingredients of life might have been brought about by some anomalous interaction of two or three black holes, the three bears were three black holes

The whole point of the anthropic principle is that you can’t draw any conclusions from the fact that this planet has intelligent living creatures, because the planet we live on is not a random sample, it has to be a planet where there is a non-zero probability of intelligent living creatures evolving.

imagine there’s an unknowable otherwhere, or otherwheres plural, and this universe is a fart, a detached fart, and here we are trying to work out where it all came from, how it came to be

the fart you inhabit is quite sterile really, overall, seems vast, it’s expanding, dissipating like a fart does, locally it seems quite fertile, clearly some order forming forces been at work, from banked up energy, negentropy whatever, and you look out at the stars see galaxy accretion, plenty indications out there of likely other solar systems

consider this business of conceptualizing scales really doesn’t get near the entirety of what is, it’s necessarily constrained, peculiar to this world, and universe, evolved of this world for this world

the possibility of otherwheres could be anything, maybe universes one outside the other, maybe there’s a contracting one outside this, we are in both, perhaps they overlap, two, or maybe infinitum numbers of, who knows

anyway, I don’t mean to say what is evident isn’t impressive or interesting, or to invite comparison, comparison may not be required, may not even work or be useful

i’m suggesting, as a thought exercise, that this universe could be quite sterile, call it a God fart if you like

that life here is anomalous, an unlikely occurrence, perhaps even unintended, it could be we are at the back end of a universe machine, inside or expelled from something not an accident

Dr. Carl Sagan claimed that the “chances” of GoldiLocks planets existing among
the Billions & Billions of Suns spread out across the vast Universe was infinite
…however one of the key factors was that Intelligent Life be intelligent
enough to CONTINUE to exist without extinguishing itself.

We’ve now EXISTED Long Enough to be in the position to put that to THE Test.
as if polluting the planet beyond habitability we’re again facing nuclear annihilation.

So far with our propensity to endlessly quibble over every other word it doesn’t bode well.

transition said:

transition said:

Ogmog said:

Goldilocks and the Three Bears
The story makes extensive use of the literary rule of three, featuring three chairs, three bowls of porridge, three beds, and the three title characters who live in the house. There are also three sequences of the bears discovering in turn that someone has been eating from their porridge, sitting in their chairs, and finally, lying in their beds at which point is the climax of Goldilocks being discovered. This follows three earlier sequences of Goldilocks trying the bowls of porridge, chairs, and beds successively, each time finding the third “just right”. Author Christopher Booker characterises this as the “dialectical three”, where “the first is wrong in one way, the second in another or opposite way, and only the third, in the middle, is just right”. Booker continues: “This idea that the way forward lies in finding an exact middle path between opposites is of extraordinary importance in storytelling”. This concept has spread across many other disciplines, particularly developmental psychology, biology, economics, and engineering where it is called the “Goldilocks principle”. In planetary astronomy, a planet orbiting its sun at just the right distance for liquid water to exist on its surface, neither too hot nor too cold, is referred to as being in the ‘Goldilocks Zone’. As Stephen Hawking put it, “like Goldilocks, the development of intelligent life requires that planetary temperatures be ‘just right’”.

cheers for that

I wonder of finding something, you know you and I find ourselves here on this planet, might attribute some significance to that, then extrapolate (if you will) to the entire universe some probability of life elsewhere

exploration and force of discovery work well here, steer the orientation of what minds do, but maybe its a misleading bias applied more broadly to the scale of universe

maybe life here is a rare accident, had a marginal probability before it happened, isn’t so much the outcome of, or only things like ideal distance from the sun, lot of water, ideal gravity and a protective atmosphere, that sort of thing

for all I know the rare ingredients of life might have been brought about by some anomalous interaction of two or three black holes, the three bears were three black holes

Closer to that than you think.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

… is the headline of a New Scientist article about the works of Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog, who wrote the article.

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is just right for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

It’s anthropocentric.

Only one step short of claiming that God and Man are the same.

and….?

Didn’t God make us in his image?
Accordingly, God said here’s your playground. Go ahead and fuck it up. I won’t save you again.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

I wonder of finding something, you know you and I find ourselves here on this planet, might attribute some significance to that, then extrapolate (if you will) to the entire universe some probability of life elsewhere

exploration and force of discovery work well here, steer the orientation of what minds do, but maybe its a misleading bias applied more broadly to the scale of universe

maybe life here is a rare accident, had a marginal probability before it happened, isn’t so much the outcome of, or only things like ideal distance from the sun, lot of water, ideal gravity and a protective atmosphere, that sort of thing

for all I know the rare ingredients of life might have been brought about by some anomalous interaction of two or three black holes, the three bears were three black holes

The whole point of the anthropic principle is that you can’t draw any conclusions from the fact that this planet has intelligent living creatures, because the planet we live on is not a random sample, it has to be a planet where there is a non-zero probability of intelligent living creatures evolving.

Except that you can draw conclusions from the fact that this planet has intelligent living creatures, because the planet we live on is a sample, it has to be a planet where there is a non-zero probability of intelligent living creatures evolving.

OK, let me rephrase then:

You can’t draw any conclusions about the probability of intelligent life evolving from the fact that this planet has intelligent living creatures, other than that the probability is not zero, because the planet we live on is not a random sample. It has to be a planet where there is a non-zero probability of intelligent living creatures evolving.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

I wonder of finding something, you know you and I find ourselves here on this planet, might attribute some significance to that, then extrapolate (if you will) to the entire universe some probability of life elsewhere

exploration and force of discovery work well here, steer the orientation of what minds do, but maybe its a misleading bias applied more broadly to the scale of universe

maybe life here is a rare accident, had a marginal probability before it happened, isn’t so much the outcome of, or only things like ideal distance from the sun, lot of water, ideal gravity and a protective atmosphere, that sort of thing

for all I know the rare ingredients of life might have been brought about by some anomalous interaction of two or three black holes, the three bears were three black holes

The whole point of the anthropic principle is that you can’t draw any conclusions from the fact that this planet has intelligent living creatures, because the planet we live on is not a random sample, it has to be a planet where there is a non-zero probability of intelligent living creatures evolving.

imagine there’s an unknowable otherwhere, or otherwheres plural, and this universe is a fart, a detached fart, and here we are trying to work out where it all came from, how it came to be

the fart you inhabit is quite sterile really, overall, seems vast, it’s expanding, dissipating like a fart does, locally it seems quite fertile, clearly some order forming forces been at work, from banked up energy, negentropy whatever, and you look out at the stars see galaxy accretion, plenty indications out there of likely other solar systems

consider this business of conceptualizing scales really doesn’t get near the entirety of what is, it’s necessarily constrained, peculiar to this world, and universe, evolved of this world for this world

the possibility of otherwheres could be anything, maybe universes one outside the other, maybe there’s a contracting one outside this, we are in both, perhaps they overlap, two, or maybe infinitum numbers of, who knows

anyway, I don’t mean to say what is evident isn’t impressive or interesting, or to invite comparison, comparison may not be required, may not even work or be useful

i’m suggesting, as a thought exercise, that this universe could be quite sterile, call it a God fart if you like

that life here is anomalous, an unlikely occurrence, perhaps even unintended, it could be we are at the back end of a universe machine, inside or expelled from something not an accident

So you don’t think there is anything wrong with the reasoning in the OP then.

That’s good.

Ogmog said:

Dr. Carl Sagan claimed that the “chances” of GoldiLocks planets existing among
the Billions & Billions of Suns spread out across the vast Universe was infinite
…however one of the key factors was that Intelligent Life be intelligent
enough to CONTINUE to exist without extinguishing itself.

We’ve now EXISTED Long Enough to be in the position to put that to THE Test.
as if polluting the planet beyond habitability we’re again facing nuclear annihilation.

So far with our propensity to endlessly quibble over every other word it doesn’t bode well.

I don’t think that he claimed it was infinite (if we are talking about other GoldiLocks planets), but he did say it was close to 1.

The trouble is, he subdivided the probability into different specific events that would be required for intelligent life to evolve, and for several of those we have no idea what the probability is.

It could be one per trillion observable universes, or less.

So everyone agrees, except SH isn’t able to speak for himself any more so he can’t.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The whole point of the anthropic principle is that you can’t draw any conclusions from the fact that this planet has intelligent living creatures, because the planet we live on is not a random sample, it has to be a planet where there is a non-zero probability of intelligent living creatures evolving.

imagine there’s an unknowable otherwhere, or otherwheres plural, and this universe is a fart, a detached fart, and here we are trying to work out where it all came from, how it came to be

the fart you inhabit is quite sterile really, overall, seems vast, it’s expanding, dissipating like a fart does, locally it seems quite fertile, clearly some order forming forces been at work, from banked up energy, negentropy whatever, and you look out at the stars see galaxy accretion, plenty indications out there of likely other solar systems

consider this business of conceptualizing scales really doesn’t get near the entirety of what is, it’s necessarily constrained, peculiar to this world, and universe, evolved of this world for this world

the possibility of otherwheres could be anything, maybe universes one outside the other, maybe there’s a contracting one outside this, we are in both, perhaps they overlap, two, or maybe infinitum numbers of, who knows

anyway, I don’t mean to say what is evident isn’t impressive or interesting, or to invite comparison, comparison may not be required, may not even work or be useful

i’m suggesting, as a thought exercise, that this universe could be quite sterile, call it a God fart if you like

that life here is anomalous, an unlikely occurrence, perhaps even unintended, it could be we are at the back end of a universe machine, inside or expelled from something not an accident

So you don’t think there is anything wrong with the reasoning in the OP then.

That’s good.

well just right makes something sound ideal as if it would flourish to abundance

maybe it did that locally here on earth, doesn’t mean whatever initiated life here – evolved organic complexity – is likely abundant elsewhere in the universe

certainly replicators are in the business of increasing their numbers, through adaptation, but is there that special ingredient that initiated life here, is it elsewhere, has it happened elsewhere much

that special ingredient, step of abiogenesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

have me a read later, been long time since read that page

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

imagine there’s an unknowable otherwhere, or otherwheres plural, and this universe is a fart, a detached fart, and here we are trying to work out where it all came from, how it came to be

the fart you inhabit is quite sterile really, overall, seems vast, it’s expanding, dissipating like a fart does, locally it seems quite fertile, clearly some order forming forces been at work, from banked up energy, negentropy whatever, and you look out at the stars see galaxy accretion, plenty indications out there of likely other solar systems

consider this business of conceptualizing scales really doesn’t get near the entirety of what is, it’s necessarily constrained, peculiar to this world, and universe, evolved of this world for this world

the possibility of otherwheres could be anything, maybe universes one outside the other, maybe there’s a contracting one outside this, we are in both, perhaps they overlap, two, or maybe infinitum numbers of, who knows

anyway, I don’t mean to say what is evident isn’t impressive or interesting, or to invite comparison, comparison may not be required, may not even work or be useful

i’m suggesting, as a thought exercise, that this universe could be quite sterile, call it a God fart if you like

that life here is anomalous, an unlikely occurrence, perhaps even unintended, it could be we are at the back end of a universe machine, inside or expelled from something not an accident

So you don’t think there is anything wrong with the reasoning in the OP then.

That’s good.

well just right makes something sound ideal as if it would flourish to abundance

maybe it did that locally here on earth, doesn’t mean whatever initiated life here – evolved organic complexity – is likely abundant elsewhere in the universe

certainly replicators are in the business of increasing their numbers, through adaptation, but is there that special ingredient that initiated life here, is it elsewhere, has it happened elsewhere much

that special ingredient, step of abiogenesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

have me a read later, been long time since read that page

just right – I don’t think the intended meaning in the context of the OP was to imply any sort of perfection. Rather just good enough for life to get started and survive for a few billion years.

Abundance elsewhere – I agree that life might not be abundant elsewhere in tis universe (or it might be), but I don’t think that is relevant to the original question.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So you don’t think there is anything wrong with the reasoning in the OP then.

That’s good.

well just right makes something sound ideal as if it would flourish to abundance

maybe it did that locally here on earth, doesn’t mean whatever initiated life here – evolved organic complexity – is likely abundant elsewhere in the universe

certainly replicators are in the business of increasing their numbers, through adaptation, but is there that special ingredient that initiated life here, is it elsewhere, has it happened elsewhere much

that special ingredient, step of abiogenesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

have me a read later, been long time since read that page

just right – I don’t think the intended meaning in the context of the OP was to imply any sort of perfection. Rather just good enough for life to get started and survive for a few billion years.

Abundance elsewhere – I agree that life might not be abundant elsewhere in tis universe (or it might be), but I don’t think that is relevant to the original question.

I don’t mind some irrelevancy, think of it as a holiday from the constraints of relevancy

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

imagine there’s an unknowable otherwhere, or otherwheres plural, and this universe is a fart, a detached fart, and here we are trying to work out where it all came from, how it came to be

the fart you inhabit is quite sterile really, overall, seems vast, it’s expanding, dissipating like a fart does, locally it seems quite fertile, clearly some order forming forces been at work, from banked up energy, negentropy whatever, and you look out at the stars see galaxy accretion, plenty indications out there of likely other solar systems

consider this business of conceptualizing scales really doesn’t get near the entirety of what is, it’s necessarily constrained, peculiar to this world, and universe, evolved of this world for this world

the possibility of otherwheres could be anything, maybe universes one outside the other, maybe there’s a contracting one outside this, we are in both, perhaps they overlap, two, or maybe infinitum numbers of, who knows

anyway, I don’t mean to say what is evident isn’t impressive or interesting, or to invite comparison, comparison may not be required, may not even work or be useful

i’m suggesting, as a thought exercise, that this universe could be quite sterile, call it a God fart if you like

that life here is anomalous, an unlikely occurrence, perhaps even unintended, it could be we are at the back end of a universe machine, inside or expelled from something not an accident

So you don’t think there is anything wrong with the reasoning in the OP then.

That’s good.

well just right makes something sound ideal as if it would flourish to abundance

maybe it did that locally here on earth, doesn’t mean whatever initiated life here – evolved organic complexity – is likely abundant elsewhere in the universe

certainly replicators are in the business of increasing their numbers, through adaptation, but is there that special ingredient that initiated life here, is it elsewhere, has it happened elsewhere much

that special ingredient, step of abiogenesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

have me a read later, been long time since read that page

It isn’t just the one ingredient. It is more like a converging of many very rare events that ended up with life being able to manifest itself here. The likelyhood that happened somewhere else in the universe is so small it is virtually impossible. That is what ‘just right’ actually means.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ogmog said:

Dr. Carl Sagan claimed that the “chances” of GoldiLocks planets existing among
the Billions & Billions of Suns spread out across the vast Universe was infinite
…however one of the key factors was that Intelligent Life be intelligent
enough to CONTINUE to exist without extinguishing itself.

We’ve now EXISTED Long Enough to be in the position to put that to THE Test.
as if polluting the planet beyond habitability we’re again facing nuclear annihilation.

So far with our propensity to endlessly quibble over every other word it doesn’t bode well.

I don’t think that he claimed it was infinite (if we are talking about other GoldiLocks planets), but he did say it was close to 1.

The trouble is, he subdivided the probability into different specific events that would be required for intelligent life to evolve, and for several of those we have no idea what the probability is.

It could be one per trillion observable universes, or less.

yup
it wasn’t until Sagan actually started to search for signs of intelligent life (SETI)
at the precise stage of development with the ability to say broadcast radio signals,
did he realize that it was like searching for the Proverbial needle in a haystack.

even if you consider that terrestrial life is intelligent, you have to consider that in
our case out of our 40,000 years on our planet, our ability to send our radio waves
is/was a relative flash in the pan… iow… unless an extra terrestrial being had his
equipment scanning our sector of space at the exact moment that we were listening
to Fibber McGee and Molly, they’d have missed “US” Entirely and moved on.

tee hee hee
and if they tuned in on FOX NEWS they’d Still consider us negative for intelligent life

Ogmog said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ogmog said:

Dr. Carl Sagan claimed that the “chances” of GoldiLocks planets existing among
the Billions & Billions of Suns spread out across the vast Universe was infinite
…however one of the key factors was that Intelligent Life be intelligent
enough to CONTINUE to exist without extinguishing itself.

We’ve now EXISTED Long Enough to be in the position to put that to THE Test.
as if polluting the planet beyond habitability we’re again facing nuclear annihilation.

So far with our propensity to endlessly quibble over every other word it doesn’t bode well.

I don’t think that he claimed it was infinite (if we are talking about other GoldiLocks planets), but he did say it was close to 1.

The trouble is, he subdivided the probability into different specific events that would be required for intelligent life to evolve, and for several of those we have no idea what the probability is.

It could be one per trillion observable universes, or less.

yup
it wasn’t until Sagan actually started to search for signs of intelligent life (SETI)
at the precise stage of development with the ability to say broadcast radio signals,
did he realize that it was like searching for the Proverbial needle in a haystack.

even if you consider that terrestrial life is intelligent, you have to consider that in
our case out of our 40,000 years on our planet, our ability to send our radio waves
is/was a relative flash in the pan… iow… unless an extra terrestrial being had his
equipment scanning our sector of space at the exact moment that we were listening
to Fibber McGee and Molly, they’d have missed “US” Entirely and moved on.

tee hee hee
and if they tuned in on FOX NEWS they’d Still consider us negative for intelligent life

Imagine if they tuned in to Trump’s Truth.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So you don’t think there is anything wrong with the reasoning in the OP then.

That’s good.

well just right makes something sound ideal as if it would flourish to abundance

maybe it did that locally here on earth, doesn’t mean whatever initiated life here – evolved organic complexity – is likely abundant elsewhere in the universe

certainly replicators are in the business of increasing their numbers, through adaptation, but is there that special ingredient that initiated life here, is it elsewhere, has it happened elsewhere much

that special ingredient, step of abiogenesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

have me a read later, been long time since read that page

It isn’t just the one ingredient. It is more like a converging of many very rare events that ended up with life being able to manifest itself here. The likelyhood that happened somewhere else in the universe is so small it is virtually impossible. That is what ‘just right’ actually means.

No, it isn’t what it means in this context at all.

It seems to be the consensus view that other life somewhere in the universe is a near certainty.

The fine-tuning debate is about how the universe came to have properties that allowed life to develop even once.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

well just right makes something sound ideal as if it would flourish to abundance

maybe it did that locally here on earth, doesn’t mean whatever initiated life here – evolved organic complexity – is likely abundant elsewhere in the universe

certainly replicators are in the business of increasing their numbers, through adaptation, but is there that special ingredient that initiated life here, is it elsewhere, has it happened elsewhere much

that special ingredient, step of abiogenesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

have me a read later, been long time since read that page

It isn’t just the one ingredient. It is more like a converging of many very rare events that ended up with life being able to manifest itself here. The likelyhood that happened somewhere else in the universe is so small it is virtually impossible. That is what ‘just right’ actually means.

No, it isn’t what it means in this context at all.

It seems to be the consensus view that other life somewhere in the universe is a near certainty.

The fine-tuning debate is about how the universe came to have properties that allowed life to develop even once.

This has probably already been said, a spark of life happened here and it evolved to suit the conditions it found itself in.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

It isn’t just the one ingredient. It is more like a converging of many very rare events that ended up with life being able to manifest itself here. The likelyhood that happened somewhere else in the universe is so small it is virtually impossible. That is what ‘just right’ actually means.

No, it isn’t what it means in this context at all.

It seems to be the consensus view that other life somewhere in the universe is a near certainty.

The fine-tuning debate is about how the universe came to have properties that allowed life to develop even once.

This has probably already been said, a spark of life happened here and it evolved to suit the conditions it found itself in.

and I think
the range of conditions was tolerable
enough to allow the elements to chain into nucleic acids
to grow long enough to divide as a primitive form of reproduction
then introduce a power source / a spark of life (Lightening) to get things started.

IF a reasonable environment remains stable for long enough it will develop a brain to aid in survival.

where it goes from there is “a crap shoot”. <—-BTW that’s a scientific term ( :

Ogmog said:

Peak Warming Man said:

This has probably already been said, a spark of life happened here and it evolved to suit the conditions it found itself in.

and I think
the range of conditions was tolerable
enough to allow the elements to chain into nucleic acids
to grow long enough to divide as a primitive form of reproduction
then introduce a power source / a spark of life (Lightening) to get things started.

IF a reasonable environment remains stable for long enough it will develop a brain to aid in survival.

where it goes from there is “a crap shoot”. <—-BTW that’s a scientific term ( :

Notwithstanding that this has nothing to do with the original question:

It certainly isn’t certain that living entities will develop a brain given sufficient time. The great majority of living things on this planet get along quite nicely without a brain, and many of them would continue to do so if all the brainy things disappeared.

And we don’t even know the probability of life getting started, given suitable conditions.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ogmog said:

Peak Warming Man said:

This has probably already been said, a spark of life happened here and it evolved to suit the conditions it found itself in.

and I think
the range of conditions was tolerable
enough to allow the elements to chain into nucleic acids
to grow long enough to divide as a primitive form of reproduction
then introduce a power source / a spark of life (Lightening) to get things started.

IF a reasonable environment remains stable for long enough it will develop a brain to aid in survival.

where it goes from there is “a crap shoot”. <—-BTW that’s a scientific term ( :

Notwithstanding that this has nothing to do with the original question:

It certainly isn’t certain that living entities will develop a brain given sufficient time. The great majority of living things on this planet get along quite nicely without a brain, and many of them would continue to do so if all the brainy things disappeared.

And we don’t even know the probability of life getting started, given suitable conditions.

It is the suitable conditions that are quite clearly the rare part.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ogmog said:

and I think
the range of conditions was tolerable
enough to allow the elements to chain into nucleic acids
to grow long enough to divide as a primitive form of reproduction
then introduce a power source / a spark of life (Lightening) to get things started.

IF a reasonable environment remains stable for long enough it will develop a brain to aid in survival.

where it goes from there is “a crap shoot”. <—-BTW that’s a scientific term ( :

Notwithstanding that this has nothing to do with the original question:

It certainly isn’t certain that living entities will develop a brain given sufficient time. The great majority of living things on this planet get along quite nicely without a brain, and many of them would continue to do so if all the brainy things disappeared.

And we don’t even know the probability of life getting started, given suitable conditions.

It is the suitable conditions that are quite clearly the rare part.

That isn’t clear to me at all. Even within the tiny bit of the Universe that we can observe, there might be billions of planets with suitable conditions for brainy things to evolve, but only one where it actually did.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Notwithstanding that this has nothing to do with the original question:

It certainly isn’t certain that living entities will develop a brain given sufficient time. The great majority of living things on this planet get along quite nicely without a brain, and many of them would continue to do so if all the brainy things disappeared.

And we don’t even know the probability of life getting started, given suitable conditions.

It is the suitable conditions that are quite clearly the rare part.

That isn’t clear to me at all. Even within the tiny bit of the Universe that we can observe, there might be billions of planets with suitable conditions for brainy things to evolve, but only one where it actually did.

Even the conditions for non brainy life have to be a unique event though the bit of visible universe has had billiions of opportunities, we haven’t actually found any of that as of yet. All we really know is that the stuff of life is scattered everywhere though that it requires very precise conditions to work at all.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

It is the suitable conditions that are quite clearly the rare part.

That isn’t clear to me at all. Even within the tiny bit of the Universe that we can observe, there might be billions of planets with suitable conditions for brainy things to evolve, but only one where it actually did.

Even the conditions for non brainy life have to be a unique event though the bit of visible universe has had billiions of opportunities, we haven’t actually found any of that as of yet. All we really know is that the stuff of life is scattered everywhere though that it requires very precise conditions to work at all.

OK, so it seems we mean different things by “suitable conditions”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That isn’t clear to me at all. Even within the tiny bit of the Universe that we can observe, there might be billions of planets with suitable conditions for brainy things to evolve, but only one where it actually did.

Even the conditions for non brainy life have to be a unique event though the bit of visible universe has had billiions of opportunities, we haven’t actually found any of that as of yet. All we really know is that the stuff of life is scattered everywhere though that it requires very precise conditions to work at all.

OK, so it seems we mean different things by “suitable conditions”.

yes.
I’m talking about all life. Not just the stuff that thinks it is brainy.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Even the conditions for non brainy life have to be a unique event though the bit of visible universe has had billiions of opportunities, we haven’t actually found any of that as of yet. All we really know is that the stuff of life is scattered everywhere though that it requires very precise conditions to work at all.

OK, so it seems we mean different things by “suitable conditions”.

yes.
I’m talking about all life. Not just the stuff that thinks it is brainy.

That’s not where we differ.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, so it seems we mean different things by “suitable conditions”.

yes.
I’m talking about all life. Not just the stuff that thinks it is brainy.

That’s not where we differ.

So then, what did you think was wrong with the original reasoning in your opening post? Obviously you thought something was amiss.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

yes.
I’m talking about all life. Not just the stuff that thinks it is brainy.

That’s not where we differ.

So then, what did you think was wrong with the original reasoning in your opening post? Obviously you thought something was amiss.

Sigh.

1) As I have said several times, the question is not about the probability of life developing on any given planet in this Universe as it is, we have pretty good evidence that it is greater than zero. The question is, given the laws of physics as we know them, how come this Universe has any galaxies and stars at all, let alone planets with elements that might evolve into living things?

2) I don’t think there is anything wrong with the reasoning in the OP, but apparently Hawking and his mate do, so I wonder what they (and the many people who agree with them) think about it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The question is, given the laws of physics as we know them, how come this Universe has any galaxies and stars at all, let alone planets with elements that might evolve into living things?

There is no question, this universe has life, and all things associated with life.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That’s not where we differ.

So then, what did you think was wrong with the original reasoning in your opening post? Obviously you thought something was amiss.

Sigh.

1) As I have said several times, the question is not about the probability of life developing on any given planet in this Universe as it is, we have pretty good evidence that it is greater than zero. The question is, given the laws of physics as we know them, how come this Universe has any galaxies and stars at all, let alone planets with elements that might evolve into living things?

2) I don’t think there is anything wrong with the reasoning in the OP, but apparently Hawking and his mate do, so I wonder what they (and the many people who agree with them) think about it.

As we know them.. seems to be missing something or a lot.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t think there is anything wrong with the reasoning in the OP, but apparently Hawking and his mate do, so I wonder what they (and the many people who agree with them) think about it.

We’ve already given a legitimate explanation but since that seems to somehow be unacceptable, we’ll have to disagree.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The question is, given the laws of physics as we know them, how come this Universe has any galaxies and stars at all, let alone planets with elements that might evolve into living things?

There is no question, this universe has life, and all things associated with life.

Certainly that is not a question that has been raised in this thread.

But what of all the other universes that might be that might or might not have life?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

So then, what did you think was wrong with the original reasoning in your opening post? Obviously you thought something was amiss.

Sigh.

1) As I have said several times, the question is not about the probability of life developing on any given planet in this Universe as it is, we have pretty good evidence that it is greater than zero. The question is, given the laws of physics as we know them, how come this Universe has any galaxies and stars at all, let alone planets with elements that might evolve into living things?

2) I don’t think there is anything wrong with the reasoning in the OP, but apparently Hawking and his mate do, so I wonder what they (and the many people who agree with them) think about it.

As we know them.. seems to be missing something or a lot.

Well that’s why Hawking and mate spent so much time examining the Laws of Physics so that they might make a livable universe more likely.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The question is, given the laws of physics as we know them, how come this Universe has any galaxies and stars at all, let alone planets with elements that might evolve into living things?

There is no question, this universe has life, and all things associated with life.

Certainly that is not a question that has been raised in this thread.

But what of all the other universes that might be that might or might not have life?

Which other universes are these?

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t think there is anything wrong with the reasoning in the OP, but apparently Hawking and his mate do, so I wonder what they (and the many people who agree with them) think about it.

We’ve already given a legitimate explanation but since that seems to somehow be unacceptable, we’ll have to disagree.

Could you point it out to me. I’m afraid I missed it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The question is, given the laws of physics as we know them, how come this Universe has any galaxies and stars at all, let alone planets with elements that might evolve into living things?

There is no question, this universe has life, and all things associated with life.

Certainly that is not a question that has been raised in this thread.

But what of all the other universes that might be that might or might not have life?

Well, they’ll have other things associated with life or the lack thereof, and those with life will have things they call the equivalent of galaxies or stars or planets or elements.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

There is no question, this universe has life, and all things associated with life.

Certainly that is not a question that has been raised in this thread.

But what of all the other universes that might be that might or might not have life?

Which other universes are these?

Any universe that might have happened according to the laws of physics as we know them.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t think there is anything wrong with the reasoning in the OP, but apparently Hawking and his mate do, so I wonder what they (and the many people who agree with them) think about it.

We’ve already given a legitimate explanation but since that seems to somehow be unacceptable, we’ll have to disagree.

Could you point it out to me. I’m afraid I missed it.

2014295
2014307
2014431

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Certainly that is not a question that has been raised in this thread.

But what of all the other universes that might be that might or might not have life?

Which other universes are these?

Any universe that might have happened according to the laws of physics as we know them.

Might is a bit like if. You know that one universe exists because you are in it and you don’t seem to be sure that it should exist at all, yet the laws seem to allow for many other possibilities beyond our current capabilities about which much postulation has been had. Yet nobody seems to have mastered the balance for survival here other than a few dark skinned savages that managed the place well enough with no known knowledge of physics.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

We’ve already given a legitimate explanation but since that seems to somehow be unacceptable, we’ll have to disagree.

Could you point it out to me. I’m afraid I missed it.

2014295
2014307
2014431

OK, so the way debate works is that if someone makes a statement, and someone else explains why they do not accept that statement, then it is up to the first person to give further explanation why their statement is valid. They can’t just keep repeating the same thing and expect it to be accepted.

I’m surprised you didn’t know that.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Could you point it out to me. I’m afraid I missed it.

2014295
2014307
2014431

OK, so the way debate works is that if someone makes a statement, and someone else explains why they do not accept that statement, then it is up to the first person to give further explanation why their statement is valid. They can’t just keep repeating the same thing and expect it to be accepted.

I’m surprised you didn’t know that.

Well we’d forgive that SCIENCE thing for thinking that based on the pattern seen here, debate works by someone making a claim, then being told how that claim is invalid, then continuing to ask for justification for their claim despite clear demonstration that the wording of their claim makes it invalid, that when reworded it becomes a different claim that has already been demonstrated to be valid, and that insisting on substituting the claims is what enables someone to continue to demand explanation without satisfaction.

it’s quite alright not to know everything, or even to know not much, arguably it’s healthier than wanting to know everything

transition said:

it’s quite alright not to know everything, or even to know not much, arguably it’s healthier than wanting to know everything

I hear you sir. :)

These conditions would obviously have wider parameters if life existed in ways we considered impossible instead of say planet Earth being the only example

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

2014295
2014307
2014431

OK, so the way debate works is that if someone makes a statement, and someone else explains why they do not accept that statement, then it is up to the first person to give further explanation why their statement is valid. They can’t just keep repeating the same thing and expect it to be accepted.

I’m surprised you didn’t know that.

Well we’d forgive that SCIENCE thing for thinking that based on the pattern seen here, debate works by someone making a claim, then being told how that claim is invalid, then continuing to ask for justification for their claim despite clear demonstration that the wording of their claim makes it invalid, that when reworded it becomes a different claim that has already been demonstrated to be valid, and that insisting on substituting the claims is what enables someone to continue to demand explanation without satisfaction.

1) Apologies for the weakest humour in my previous response.

2) That’s not how I see what took place in this thread.

3) Have to go now

transition said:

it’s quite alright not to know everything, or even to know not much, arguably it’s healthier than wanting to know everything

It’s certainly OK not to know everything, since knowing everything, or even much, is impossible.

I don’t have a problem with wanting to know more though.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

it’s quite alright not to know everything, or even to know not much, arguably it’s healthier than wanting to know everything

It’s certainly OK not to know everything, since knowing everything, or even much, is impossible.

I don’t have a problem with wanting to know more though.

We can all agree on that at least?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

it’s quite alright not to know everything, or even to know not much, arguably it’s healthier than wanting to know everything

It’s certainly OK not to know everything, since knowing everything, or even much, is impossible.

I don’t have a problem with wanting to know more though.

We can all agree on that at least?

Let’s hope so :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, so the way debate works is that if someone makes a statement, and someone else explains why they do not accept that statement, then it is up to the first person to give further explanation why their statement is valid. They can’t just keep repeating the same thing and expect it to be accepted.

I’m surprised you didn’t know that.

Well we’d forgive that SCIENCE thing for thinking that based on the pattern seen here, debate works by someone making a claim, then being told how that claim is invalid, then continuing to ask for justification for their claim despite clear demonstration that the wording of their claim makes it invalid, that when reworded it becomes a different claim that has already been demonstrated to be valid, and that insisting on substituting the claims is what enables someone to continue to demand explanation without satisfaction.

1) Apologies for the weakest humour in my previous response.

2) That’s not how I see what took place in this thread.

3) Have to go now

We too apologise, for the sharp response and overamplification of our discontent.

The way we were seeing it was, using say R and S to refer to the Rectus and Sinister parts.

R 2014257: What is wrong with proposition X+¿
S 2014261: Consider removing +.
R 2014264: That looks the same.
S 2014267: Well, to us it looks different, and…
(admittedly much later)
S 2014305: … would leave X which isn’t wrong.
R 2014433: What’s wrong with X¿
R 2014524: S 2014519: We agree.
R 2014780: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the original.
S 2014784: We’ll have to disagree.
R 2014788: Missed it.

But anyway, we:

• agree that survivorship bias is valid
• disagree that it means the conditions for survival are narrow

.

What Would Hawking Say

about the following aphorism now frequently thought-terminating cliché

¿

“absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”

SCIENCE said:

What Would Hawking Say

about the following aphorism now frequently thought-terminating cliché

¿

“absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”

It’s unjust.

Michael V said:

It’s unjust.

https://twitter.com/lisa_iannattone/status/1642539132801937409

It’s mentally taxing to behave in a way that isn’t consistent with your professed values. It’s also mentally taxing to behave in a way that isn’t consistent with societal expectations, and have unjust labels forced on you.

How can anyone be well in 2023. We’re breaking society.

SCIENCE said:

Michael V said:

It’s unjust.

https://twitter.com/lisa_iannattone/status/1642539132801937409

It’s mentally taxing to behave in a way that isn’t consistent with your professed values. It’s also mentally taxing to behave in a way that isn’t consistent with societal expectations, and have unjust labels forced on you.

How can anyone be well in 2023. We’re breaking society.

Seems that way.

SCIENCE said:

What Would Hawking Say

about the following aphorism now frequently thought-terminating cliché

¿

“absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”

I have no idea what Hawking would say, but I would say that although it is sometimes not evidence of absence, and it is rarely, if ever, proof of absence, it certainly can be evidence of absence.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

Well we’d forgive that SCIENCE thing for thinking that based on the pattern seen here, debate works by someone making a claim, then being told how that claim is invalid, then continuing to ask for justification for their claim despite clear demonstration that the wording of their claim makes it invalid, that when reworded it becomes a different claim that has already been demonstrated to be valid, and that insisting on substituting the claims is what enables someone to continue to demand explanation without satisfaction.

1) Apologies for the weakest humour in my previous response.

2) That’s not how I see what took place in this thread.

3) Have to go now

We too apologise, for the sharp response and overamplification of our discontent.

The way we were seeing it was, using say R and S to refer to the Rectus and Sinister parts.

R 2014257: What is wrong with proposition X+¿
S 2014261: Consider removing +.
R 2014264: That looks the same.
S 2014267: Well, to us it looks different, and…
(admittedly much later)
S 2014305: … would leave X which isn’t wrong.
R 2014433: What’s wrong with X¿
R 2014524: S 2014519: We agree.
R 2014780: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the original.
S 2014784: We’ll have to disagree.
R 2014788: Missed it.

But anyway, we:

• agree that survivorship bias is valid
• disagree that it means the conditions for survival are narrow

.

Thanks for the summary.

But the proposition is, I think, that the conditions for survival are narrow relative to the range of possible conditions.

That seems a reasonable proposition to me, not that I know anything about the range of possible conditions, but I presume they would include ever expanding hydrogen, or maybe not even that, at one end, to neutron stars and black holes everywhere at the other, which would surely include (or at least might include) many options where life of any sort evolving was impossible.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

1) Apologies for the weakest humour in my previous response.

2) That’s not how I see what took place in this thread.

3) Have to go now

We too apologise, for the sharp response and overamplification of our discontent.

The way we were seeing it was, using say R and S to refer to the Rectus and Sinister parts.

R 2014257: What is wrong with proposition X+¿
S 2014261: Consider removing +.
R 2014264: That looks the same.
S 2014267: Well, to us it looks different, and…
(admittedly much later)
S 2014305: … would leave X which isn’t wrong.
R 2014433: What’s wrong with X¿
R 2014524: S 2014519: We agree.
R 2014780: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the original.
S 2014784: We’ll have to disagree.
R 2014788: Missed it.

But anyway, we:

• agree that survivorship bias is valid
• disagree that it means the conditions for survival are narrow

.

Thanks for the summary.

But the proposition is, I think, that the conditions for survival are narrow relative to the range of possible conditions.

That seems a reasonable proposition to me, not that I know anything about the range of possible conditions, but I presume they would include ever expanding hydrogen, or maybe not even that, at one end, to neutron stars and black holes everywhere at the other, which would surely include (or at least might include) many options where life of any sort evolving was impossible.

Maybe but then again [0,2] is narrow compared to the range of all possible real numbers and yet has the same dimensionality.

Call it subjective opinion but when we read “just” in that context it carries with it connotations of borderline or edge cases, an implication that the described item is on some lower dimensional boundary of some higher dimensional space; and nothing in the above has been convincing that this is indeed the case.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

We too apologise, for the sharp response and overamplification of our discontent.

The way we were seeing it was, using say R and S to refer to the Rectus and Sinister parts.

R 2014257: What is wrong with proposition X+¿
S 2014261: Consider removing +.
R 2014264: That looks the same.
S 2014267: Well, to us it looks different, and…
(admittedly much later)
S 2014305: … would leave X which isn’t wrong.
R 2014433: What’s wrong with X¿
R 2014524: S 2014519: We agree.
R 2014780: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the original.
S 2014784: We’ll have to disagree.
R 2014788: Missed it.

But anyway, we:

• agree that survivorship bias is valid
• disagree that it means the conditions for survival are narrow

.

Thanks for the summary.

But the proposition is, I think, that the conditions for survival are narrow relative to the range of possible conditions.

That seems a reasonable proposition to me, not that I know anything about the range of possible conditions, but I presume they would include ever expanding hydrogen, or maybe not even that, at one end, to neutron stars and black holes everywhere at the other, which would surely include (or at least might include) many options where life of any sort evolving was impossible.

Maybe but then again [0,2] is narrow compared to the range of all possible real numbers and yet has the same dimensionality.

Call it subjective opinion but when we read “just” in that context it carries with it connotations of borderline or edge cases, an implication that the described item is on some lower dimensional boundary of some higher dimensional space; and nothing in the above has been convincing that this is indeed the case.

Happy to oblige.

That’s subjective opinion.

My subjective opinion is that you are giving far too much weight to the j word.

Seems to me that there’s a gap between “just right for life” and “compatible with life”. The former implies fine tuning or a narrow success window.

dv said:

Seems to me that there’s a gap between “just right for life” and “compatible with life”. The former implies fine tuning or a narrow success window.

OK, I guess that is SCIENCE’s point as well although I’m not sure what dimensionality has to do with it, but this does not answer the question in the OP, so let’s reword the question again:

Apparently SH and friends accepted that the universe we live in is fine-tuned for life, since they spent a long time discussing the possible reasons for this.
It seems they didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not fine-tuned for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is fine-tuned for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Seems to me that there’s a gap between “just right for life” and “compatible with life”. The former implies fine tuning or a narrow success window.

OK, I guess that is SCIENCE’s point as well although I’m not sure what dimensionality has to do with it, but this does not answer the question in the OP, so let’s reword the question again:

Apparently SH and friends accepted that the universe we live in is fine-tuned for life, since they spent a long time discussing the possible reasons for this.
It seems they didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not fine-tuned for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is fine-tuned for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

Well, if they were intelligent they’d know, rather than wonder?

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Seems to me that there’s a gap between “just right for life” and “compatible with life”. The former implies fine tuning or a narrow success window.

OK, I guess that is SCIENCE’s point as well although I’m not sure what dimensionality has to do with it, but this does not answer the question in the OP, so let’s reword the question again:

Apparently SH and friends accepted that the universe we live in is fine-tuned for life, since they spent a long time discussing the possible reasons for this.
It seems they didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not fine-tuned for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is fine-tuned for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

As I suggested earlier, there’s nothing wrong with that reasoning, it’s just that it’s tautological and in itself doesn’t add any information that could answer the question.

If one assumes that the universe is just one part of a bigger thing that contains lots of times and places that are not suitable for life, the anthropic principle then seems more useful.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Seems to me that there’s a gap between “just right for life” and “compatible with life”. The former implies fine tuning or a narrow success window.

OK, I guess that is SCIENCE’s point as well although I’m not sure what dimensionality has to do with it, but this does not answer the question in the OP, so let’s reword the question again:

Apparently SH and friends accepted that the universe we live in is fine-tuned for life, since they spent a long time discussing the possible reasons for this.
It seems they didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not fine-tuned for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is fine-tuned for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

Well, if they were intelligent they’d know, rather than wonder?

On the contrary, intelligence implies that they would wonder, rather than thinking they knew.

Not that it answers the question asked either way.

BTW Cusp and his friend wrote a book about this topic, which I still haven’t ordered :)

https://www.bookdepository.com/Fortunate-Universe-Geraint-F-Lewis/9781107156616?ref=grid-view&qid=1680558356373&sr=1-5

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, I guess that is SCIENCE’s point as well although I’m not sure what dimensionality has to do with it, but this does not answer the question in the OP, so let’s reword the question again:

Apparently SH and friends accepted that the universe we live in is fine-tuned for life, since they spent a long time discussing the possible reasons for this.
It seems they didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not fine-tuned for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is fine-tuned for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

Well, if they were intelligent they’d know, rather than wonder?

On the contrary, intelligence implies that they would wonder, rather than thinking they knew.

Not that it answers the question asked either way.

:) it wasn’t meant to.

The Rev Dodgson said:

… is the headline of a New Scientist article about the works of Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog, who wrote the article.

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is just right for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

I think they are just referencing Hawking’s views on the Anthropic Principle.

Life in the Universe
https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/life-in-the-universe

“….That carbon atoms should exist at all, with the properties that they have, requires a fine adjustment of physical constants, such as the QCD scale, the electric charge, and even the dimension of space-time. If these constants had significantly different values, either the nucleus of the carbon atom would not be stable, or the electrons would collapse in on the nucleus. At first sight, it seems remarkable that the universe is so finely tuned. Maybe this is evidence, that the universe was specially designed to produce the human race. However, one has to be careful about such arguments, because of what is known as the Anthropic Principle. This is based on the self-evident truth, that if the universe had not been suitable for life, we wouldn’t be asking why it is so finely adjusted. One can apply the Anthropic Principle, in either its Strong, or Weak, versions. For the Strong Anthropic Principle, one supposes that there are many different universes, each with different values of the physical constants. In a small number, the values will allow the existence of objects like carbon atoms, which can act as the building blocks of living systems. Since we must live in one of these universes, we should not be surprised that the physical constants are finely tuned. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t be here. The strong form of the Anthropic Principle is not very satisfactory. What operational meaning can one give to the existence of all those other universes? And if they are separate from our own universe, how can what happens in them, affect our universe. (emphasis added) Instead, I shall adopt what is known as the Weak Anthropic Principle. That is, I shall take the values of the physical constants, as given. But I shall see what conclusions can be drawn, from the fact that life exists on this planet, at this stage in the history of the universe. “

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Seems to me that there’s a gap between “just right for life” and “compatible with life”. The former implies fine tuning or a narrow success window.

OK, I guess that is SCIENCE’s point as well although I’m not sure what dimensionality has to do with it, but this does not answer the question in the OP, so let’s reword the question again:

Apparently SH and friends accepted that the universe we live in is fine-tuned for life, since they spent a long time discussing the possible reasons for this.
It seems they didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not fine-tuned for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is fine-tuned for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

As I suggested earlier, there’s nothing wrong with that reasoning, it’s just that it’s tautological and in itself doesn’t add any information that could answer the question.

If one assumes that the universe is just one part of a bigger thing that contains lots of times and places that are not suitable for life, the anthropic principle then seems more useful.

I almost mentioned that your earlier response was the only one so far that actually addressed the question, but that didn’t make it from brain to keyboard :)

The possibility of a multiverse of some kind (either in space, or over time, or in multiple dimensions, or any combination of those) was sort of implied.

Perhaps I could simplify the question to:

Why didn’t Hawking like the idea of a multiverse?

Bubblecar said:

BTW Cusp and his friend wrote a book about this topic, which I still haven’t ordered :)

https://www.bookdepository.com/Fortunate-Universe-Geraint-F-Lewis/9781107156616?ref=grid-view&qid=1680558356373&sr=1-5

Not sure I’ll bother with it.

Don’t know about Cusp, but Barnes definitely has religious motivations for this line of work.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Seems to me that there’s a gap between “just right for life” and “compatible with life”. The former implies fine tuning or a narrow success window.

OK, I guess that is SCIENCE’s point as well although I’m not sure what dimensionality has to do with it, but this does not answer the question in the OP, so let’s reword the question again:

Apparently SH and friends accepted that the universe we live in is fine-tuned for life, since they spent a long time discussing the possible reasons for this.
It seems they didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not fine-tuned for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is fine-tuned for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

We disagree and suggest that instead of insisting that it is “the question in the OP”, if you are constantly having to “reword the question again” thereby making it a different question, then pointing out that what was meant was something different would be the simplest and legitimatest way to go about it.

Bubblecar said:

BTW Cusp and his friend wrote a book about this topic, which I still haven’t ordered :)

https://www.bookdepository.com/Fortunate-Universe-Geraint-F-Lewis/9781107156616?ref=grid-view&qid=1680558356373&sr=1-5

over time you can make that disordered

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

BTW Cusp and his friend wrote a book about this topic, which I still haven’t ordered :)

https://www.bookdepository.com/Fortunate-Universe-Geraint-F-Lewis/9781107156616?ref=grid-view&qid=1680558356373&sr=1-5

Not sure I’ll bother with it.

Don’t know about Cusp, but Barnes definitely has religious motivations for this line of work.

Oh dear, looks like he was once a Young Earth Creationist. I had no idea :)

Maybe cusp has gone weird too, sad if true.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

BTW Cusp and his friend wrote a book about this topic, which I still haven’t ordered :)

https://www.bookdepository.com/Fortunate-Universe-Geraint-F-Lewis/9781107156616?ref=grid-view&qid=1680558356373&sr=1-5

Not sure I’ll bother with it.

Don’t know about Cusp, but Barnes definitely has religious motivations for this line of work.

Oh dear, looks like he was once a Young Earth Creationist. I had no idea :)

Maybe cusp has gone weird too, sad if true.

But you said “was once” so maybe Cusp deweirded the other fellow¿

This article goes into Hawking’s final ideas on cosmology, and why he didn’t like the multiverse:

https://scitechdaily.com/constraining-the-multiverse-stephen-hawkings-final-theory-about-the-big-bang/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe%20are%20not%20down%20to,theory%20more%20predictive%20and%20testable.

I might read it later but personally I’m happy with the multiverse as a philosophical assumption. Hawking in contrast was interested in detailed mathematical models with proper physics etc :)

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Seems to me that there’s a gap between “just right for life” and “compatible with life”. The former implies fine tuning or a narrow success window.

OK, I guess that is SCIENCE’s point as well although I’m not sure what dimensionality has to do with it, but this does not answer the question in the OP, so let’s reword the question again:

Apparently SH and friends accepted that the universe we live in is fine-tuned for life, since they spent a long time discussing the possible reasons for this.
It seems they didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not fine-tuned for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is fine-tuned for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

We disagree and suggest that instead of insisting that it is “the question in the OP”, if you are constantly having to “reword the question again” thereby making it a different question, then pointing out that what was meant was something different would be the simplest and legitimatest way to go about it.

Eh?

Anyway, what is your response to the question now asked?

SCIENCE said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Not sure I’ll bother with it.

Don’t know about Cusp, but Barnes definitely has religious motivations for this line of work.

Oh dear, looks like he was once a Young Earth Creationist. I had no idea :)

Maybe cusp has gone weird too, sad if true.

But you said “was once” so maybe Cusp deweirded the other fellow¿

From a brief look online, Barnes still believes in religious creation, just not the YEC stuff.

esselte said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

… is the headline of a New Scientist article about the works of Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog, who wrote the article.

Apparently SH didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not just right for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is just right for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

I think they are just referencing Hawking’s views on the Anthropic Principle.

Life in the Universe
https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/life-in-the-universe

“….That carbon atoms should exist at all, with the properties that they have, requires a fine adjustment of physical constants, such as the QCD scale, the electric charge, and even the dimension of space-time. If these constants had significantly different values, either the nucleus of the carbon atom would not be stable, or the electrons would collapse in on the nucleus. At first sight, it seems remarkable that the universe is so finely tuned. Maybe this is evidence, that the universe was specially designed to produce the human race. However, one has to be careful about such arguments, because of what is known as the Anthropic Principle. This is based on the self-evident truth, that if the universe had not been suitable for life, we wouldn’t be asking why it is so finely adjusted. One can apply the Anthropic Principle, in either its Strong, or Weak, versions. For the Strong Anthropic Principle, one supposes that there are many different universes, each with different values of the physical constants. In a small number, the values will allow the existence of objects like carbon atoms, which can act as the building blocks of living systems. Since we must live in one of these universes, we should not be surprised that the physical constants are finely tuned. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t be here. The strong form of the Anthropic Principle is not very satisfactory. What operational meaning can one give to the existence of all those other universes? And if they are separate from our own universe, how can what happens in them, affect our universe. (emphasis added) Instead, I shall adopt what is known as the Weak Anthropic Principle. That is, I shall take the values of the physical constants, as given. But I shall see what conclusions can be drawn, from the fact that life exists on this planet, at this stage in the history of the universe. “

Thanks Esselte, I guess that answers the question :)

Incidentally, I have never seen the Weak and Strong APs defined that way before. My understanding was that the “weak” one included both of the options listed as possibilities, and the “strong” one was just some weird hypothesis that once it gets started intelligent life will somehow take over the universe in some way.

Bubblecar said:

BTW Cusp and his friend wrote a book about this topic, which I still haven’t ordered :)

https://www.bookdepository.com/Fortunate-Universe-Geraint-F-Lewis/9781107156616?ref=grid-view&qid=1680558356373&sr=1-5

The Trouble with Puddle Thinking:A User’s Guide to the Anthropic Principle
Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes

Link
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2104/2104.03381.pdf

Bubblecar said:

This article goes into Hawking’s final ideas on cosmology, and why he didn’t like the multiverse:

https://scitechdaily.com/constraining-the-multiverse-stephen-hawkings-final-theory-about-the-big-bang/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe%20are%20not%20down%20to,theory%20more%20predictive%20and%20testable.

I might read it later but personally I’m happy with the multiverse as a philosophical assumption. Hawking in contrast was interested in detailed mathematical models with proper physics etc :)

Only jumped to the end, but this puts a bit of a different emphasis on their findings, compared with the NS article.

“Their results, if confirmed by further work, would have far-reaching implications for the multiverse paradigm. “We are not down to a single, unique universe, but our findings imply a significant reduction of the multiverse, to a much smaller range of possible universes,” said Hawking.”

esselte said:

Bubblecar said:

BTW Cusp and his friend wrote a book about this topic, which I still haven’t ordered :)

https://www.bookdepository.com/Fortunate-Universe-Geraint-F-Lewis/9781107156616?ref=grid-view&qid=1680558356373&sr=1-5

The Trouble with Puddle Thinking:A User’s Guide to the Anthropic Principle
Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes

Link
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2104/2104.03381.pdf

Free download and only 6 pages.

OK, I’ll have a read of that :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

Bubblecar said:

BTW Cusp and his friend wrote a book about this topic, which I still haven’t ordered :)

https://www.bookdepository.com/Fortunate-Universe-Geraint-F-Lewis/9781107156616?ref=grid-view&qid=1680558356373&sr=1-5

The Trouble with Puddle Thinking:A User’s Guide to the Anthropic Principle
Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes

Link
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2104/2104.03381.pdf

Free download and only 6 pages.

OK, I’ll have a read of that :)

Abstract from the paper:

“Are some cosmologists trying to return human beings to the centre of the cosmos? In the view
of some critics, the so-called “anthropic principle” is a desperate attempt to salvage a scrap of
dignity for our species after a few centuries of demotion at the hands of science. It is all things
archaic and backwards – teleology, theology, religion, anthropocentrism – trying to sneak back
in scientific camouflage. We argue that this is a mistake. The anthropic principle is not mere
human arrogance, nor is it religion in disguise. It is a necessary part of the science of the universe. “

So that’s all right then :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, I guess that is SCIENCE’s point as well although I’m not sure what dimensionality has to do with it, but this does not answer the question in the OP, so let’s reword the question again:

Apparently SH and friends accepted that the universe we live in is fine-tuned for life, since they spent a long time discussing the possible reasons for this.
It seems they didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not fine-tuned for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is fine-tuned for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

As I suggested earlier, there’s nothing wrong with that reasoning, it’s just that it’s tautological and in itself doesn’t add any information that could answer the question.

If one assumes that the universe is just one part of a bigger thing that contains lots of times and places that are not suitable for life, the anthropic principle then seems more useful.

I almost mentioned that your earlier response was the only one so far that actually addressed the question, but that didn’t make it from brain to keyboard :)

The possibility of a multiverse of some kind (either in space, or over time, or in multiple dimensions, or any combination of those) was sort of implied.

Perhaps I could simplify the question to:

Why didn’t Hawking like the idea of a multiverse?

You’d have to ask him that question.

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

As I suggested earlier, there’s nothing wrong with that reasoning, it’s just that it’s tautological and in itself doesn’t add any information that could answer the question.

If one assumes that the universe is just one part of a bigger thing that contains lots of times and places that are not suitable for life, the anthropic principle then seems more useful.

I almost mentioned that your earlier response was the only one so far that actually addressed the question, but that didn’t make it from brain to keyboard :)

The possibility of a multiverse of some kind (either in space, or over time, or in multiple dimensions, or any combination of those) was sort of implied.

Perhaps I could simplify the question to:

Why didn’t Hawking like the idea of a multiverse?

You’d have to ask him that question.

It’s all rhetoric¡

SCIENCE said:

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I almost mentioned that your earlier response was the only one so far that actually addressed the question, but that didn’t make it from brain to keyboard :)

The possibility of a multiverse of some kind (either in space, or over time, or in multiple dimensions, or any combination of those) was sort of implied.

Perhaps I could simplify the question to:

Why didn’t Hawking like the idea of a multiverse?

You’d have to ask him that question.

It’s all rhetoric¡

Ha!

Yes. I guess it is.

Michael V said:

SCIENCE said:

Michael V said:

You’d have to ask him that question.

It’s all rhetoric¡

Ha!

Yes. I guess it is.

Looks up rhetoric.

I don’t think it is all rhetoric.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

SCIENCE said:

It’s all rhetoric¡

Ha!

Yes. I guess it is.

Looks up rhetoric.

I don’t think it is all rhetoric.

Maybe some grift mixed in¡

esselte said:

Bubblecar said:

BTW Cusp and his friend wrote a book about this topic, which I still haven’t ordered :)

https://www.bookdepository.com/Fortunate-Universe-Geraint-F-Lewis/9781107156616?ref=grid-view&qid=1680558356373&sr=1-5

The Trouble with Puddle Thinking:A User’s Guide to the Anthropic Principle
Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes

Link
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2104/2104.03381.pdf

I have now read the paper and I greatly recommend it. It covers the both the history of the Anthropic Principle, and a discussion of how it should be applied.

What’s more it features a puddle named after me! (OK, it’s possible they named it after Douglas Adams, but I’m pretty sure I have met Cusp more often than Douglas Adams has).

It seems the weak/strong divide in the Anthropic Principle started off as quite a subtle difference (in fact so subtle I don’t actually see the difference at all), and the “Strong” version was later hijacked by some weirdos.

Finally, I think the conclusion to the paper answers my original question quite well, so thank you esselte and Cusp, and even Luke Barnes.

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

Bubblecar said:

BTW Cusp and his friend wrote a book about this topic, which I still haven’t ordered :)

https://www.bookdepository.com/Fortunate-Universe-Geraint-F-Lewis/9781107156616?ref=grid-view&qid=1680558356373&sr=1-5

The Trouble with Puddle Thinking:A User’s Guide to the Anthropic Principle
Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes

Link
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2104/2104.03381.pdf

I have now read the paper and I greatly recommend it. It covers the both the history of the Anthropic Principle, and a discussion of how it should be applied.

What’s more it features a puddle named after me! (OK, it’s possible they named it after Douglas Adams, but I’m pretty sure I have met Cusp more often than Douglas Adams has).

It seems the weak/strong divide in the Anthropic Principle started off as quite a subtle difference (in fact so subtle I don’t actually see the difference at all), and the “Strong” version was later hijacked by some weirdos.

Finally, I think the conclusion to the paper answers my original question quite well, so thank you esselte and Cusp, and even Luke Barnes.

Good. Thanks go to esselte and the authors above but I’m also thanking the good Lord. ;)

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

The Trouble with Puddle Thinking:A User’s Guide to the Anthropic Principle
Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes

Link
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2104/2104.03381.pdf

I have now read the paper and I greatly recommend it. It covers the both the history of the Anthropic Principle, and a discussion of how it should be applied.

What’s more it features a puddle named after me! (OK, it’s possible they named it after Douglas Adams, but I’m pretty sure I have met Cusp more often than Douglas Adams has).

It seems the weak/strong divide in the Anthropic Principle started off as quite a subtle difference (in fact so subtle I don’t actually see the difference at all), and the “Strong” version was later hijacked by some weirdos.

Finally, I think the conclusion to the paper answers my original question quite well, so thank you esselte and Cusp, and even Luke Barnes.

Good. Thanks go to esselte and the authors above but I’m also thanking the good Lord. ;)

Don’t go all Barnesey on us!

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I have now read the paper and I greatly recommend it. It covers the both the history of the Anthropic Principle, and a discussion of how it should be applied.

What’s more it features a puddle named after me! (OK, it’s possible they named it after Douglas Adams, but I’m pretty sure I have met Cusp more often than Douglas Adams has).

It seems the weak/strong divide in the Anthropic Principle started off as quite a subtle difference (in fact so subtle I don’t actually see the difference at all), and the “Strong” version was later hijacked by some weirdos.

Finally, I think the conclusion to the paper answers my original question quite well, so thank you esselte and Cusp, and even Luke Barnes.

Good. Thanks go to esselte and the authors above but I’m also thanking the good Lord. ;)

Don’t go all Barnesey on us!

No chance of that.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, I guess that is SCIENCE’s point as well although I’m not sure what dimensionality has to do with it, but this does not answer the question in the OP, so let’s reword the question again:

Apparently SH and friends accepted that the universe we live in is fine-tuned for life, since they spent a long time discussing the possible reasons for this.
It seems they didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not fine-tuned for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is fine-tuned for life.

What is wrong with that reasoning?

We disagree and suggest that instead of insisting that it is “the question in the OP”, if you are constantly having to “reword the question again” thereby making it a different question, then pointing out that what was meant was something different would be the simplest and legitimatest way to go about it.

Eh?

Anyway, what is your response to the question now asked?

I think it is fair to say that any universe in which living creatures exist to wonder about the universe is one that is compatible with the existence of life.

Then expressions “just right” and “fine tuning” imply more than that.

“In this talk, I would like to speculate a little, on the development of life in the universe, and in particular, the development of intelligent life. I shall take this to include the human race, even though much of its behaviour through out history, has been pretty stupid, and not calculated to aid the survival of the species. “
Stephen Hawking

>It seems they didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not fine-tuned for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is fine-tuned for life.

for the layman, average Joe, Joe’s not an astrophysicist or whatever, it could be a bit like as follows, i’ll reword for you, an analogy

if the human birth canal, including that associated of the pelvis, was not fine-tuned for the delivery of human life, there would be no intelligent human life to wonder why the birth canal is fine-tuned for the delivery of life

transition said:

>It seems they didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not fine-tuned for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is fine-tuned for life.

for the layman, average Joe, Joe’s not an astrophysicist or whatever, it could be a bit like as follows, i’ll reword for you, an analogy

if the human birth canal, including that associated of the pelvis, was not fine-tuned for the delivery of human life, there would be no intelligent human life to wonder why the birth canal is fine-tuned for the delivery of life

But that’s different, because human birth canals evolved from primordial lumps of protoplasm over billions of years.

As far as we know, universes do not have a mechanism that allows evolution by natural selection.

That is a possibility, of course, but AFAIK there is no evidence for it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>It seems they didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not fine-tuned for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is fine-tuned for life.

for the layman, average Joe, Joe’s not an astrophysicist or whatever, it could be a bit like as follows, i’ll reword for you, an analogy

if the human birth canal, including that associated of the pelvis, was not fine-tuned for the delivery of human life, there would be no intelligent human life to wonder why the birth canal is fine-tuned for the delivery of life

But that’s different, because human birth canals evolved from primordial lumps of protoplasm over billions of years.

As far as we know, universes do not have a mechanism that allows evolution by natural selection.

That is a possibility, of course, but AFAIK there is no evidence for it.

Large mass stars burn out quicker so less conducive for life ?

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>It seems they didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not fine-tuned for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is fine-tuned for life.

for the layman, average Joe, Joe’s not an astrophysicist or whatever, it could be a bit like as follows, i’ll reword for you, an analogy

if the human birth canal, including that associated of the pelvis, was not fine-tuned for the delivery of human life, there would be no intelligent human life to wonder why the birth canal is fine-tuned for the delivery of life

But that’s different, because human birth canals evolved from primordial lumps of protoplasm over billions of years.

As far as we know, universes do not have a mechanism that allows evolution by natural selection.

That is a possibility, of course, but AFAIK there is no evidence for it.

yeah but regardless if birth canals evolved, or universes evolved, what i’m saying doesn’t require that, still applies

you’ll need indulge some twisted humor for a moment to get the idea

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>It seems they didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not fine-tuned for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is fine-tuned for life.

for the layman, average Joe, Joe’s not an astrophysicist or whatever, it could be a bit like as follows, i’ll reword for you, an analogy

if the human birth canal, including that associated of the pelvis, was not fine-tuned for the delivery of human life, there would be no intelligent human life to wonder why the birth canal is fine-tuned for the delivery of life

But that’s different, because human birth canals evolved from primordial lumps of protoplasm over billions of years.

As far as we know, universes do not have a mechanism that allows evolution by natural selection.

That is a possibility, of course, but AFAIK there is no evidence for it.

Large mass stars burn out quicker so less conducive for life ?

Without supernovae, we’d be lost in space.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But that’s different, because human birth canals evolved from primordial lumps of protoplasm over billions of years.

As far as we know, universes do not have a mechanism that allows evolution by natural selection.

That is a possibility, of course, but AFAIK there is no evidence for it.

Large mass stars burn out quicker so less conducive for life ?

Without supernovae, we’d be lost in space.

Like that type of event, the older the universe get (up to a point) the more likely live will appear

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>It seems they didn’t like the reasoning that if the Universe was not fine-tuned for life, there would not be any intelligent life to wonder why the Universe is fine-tuned for life.

for the layman, average Joe, Joe’s not an astrophysicist or whatever, it could be a bit like as follows, i’ll reword for you, an analogy

if the human birth canal, including that associated of the pelvis, was not fine-tuned for the delivery of human life, there would be no intelligent human life to wonder why the birth canal is fine-tuned for the delivery of life

But that’s different, because human birth canals evolved from primordial lumps of protoplasm over billions of years.

As far as we know, universes do not have a mechanism that allows evolution by natural selection.

That is a possibility, of course, but AFAIK there is no evidence for it.

yeah but regardless if birth canals evolved, or universes evolved, what i’m saying doesn’t require that, still applies

you’ll need indulge some twisted humor for a moment to get the idea

Have to do that with many posts here.

Is is is
just as
just is just just

*the ideal conditions : “Just Right”
the temperature range supporting Liquid Water*

The “Just Right” thing is a cutesy way of saying FAVORABLE
what I mentioned earlier, THEY actually CALL It “The Goldilocks Effect”
referencing the Olde FairyTale/BedTime Story/ Parable/ Aesop Fable (WHATEVER)
Goldilocks tries all 3 until she finds the one that best suited her declaring it to be “JUST RIGHT”

grandad roughie recognized the bedtime story right off by replying that she was laying in his bed
since the story culminates with Goldilocks choosing the most comfortable bed and falling asleep
[stage direction)
The 3 Bears Return and says: “Somebody’s been sleeping in MY Bed…..AND THERE SHE IS!”

Interesting.

It is a mistake to think that Dicke is saying that our time in the universe is “special,” that “our Universe stands at a ‘golden interval’, neither too young nor too old, but just right.”

SCIENCE said:

Interesting.

It is a mistake to think that Dicke is saying that our time in the universe is “special,” that “our Universe stands at a ‘golden interval’, neither too young nor too old, but just right.”

Finally.

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

Interesting.

It is a mistake to think that Dicke is saying that our time in the universe is “special,” that “our Universe stands at a ‘golden interval’, neither too young nor too old, but just right.”

Finally.

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

Interesting.

It is a mistake to think that Dicke is saying that our time in the universe is “special,” that “our Universe stands at a ‘golden interval’, neither too young nor too old, but just right.”

Finally.

Pardon, we meant to say something. Anyway.

So you agree that semantic considerations are important¿

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

Interesting.

It is a mistake to think that Dicke is saying that our time in the universe is “special,” that “our Universe stands at a ‘golden interval’, neither too young nor too old, but just right.”

Finally.

What else did you expect?

SCIENCE said:

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

Finally.

Pardon, we meant to say something. Anyway.

So you agree that semantic considerations are important¿

Despite all other considerations, we all are only human.

SCIENCE said:

Interesting.

It is a mistake to think that Dicke is saying that our time in the universe is “special,” that “our Universe stands at a ‘golden interval’, neither too young nor too old, but just right.”

Interesting.

This principle is liable to be misunderstood due to the word “must.” Its sense here is consequential, as in “there is frost on the ground, so it must be cold outside.”

Well, that’s easy, can “must” be used to mean “necessarily entails (in retrospect)”, and can “must” be used to mean “necessarily causes (in prospect)“¿

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

Interesting.

It is a mistake to think that Dicke is saying that our time in the universe is “special,” that “our Universe stands at a ‘golden interval’, neither too young nor too old, but just right.”

Finally.

Finally what?

The universe would be pointless if there was no one to observe it.

Peak Warming Man said:

The universe would be pointless if there was no one to observe it.

Maybe it is pointless even with people to observe it.

Peak Warming Man said:

The universe would be pointless if there was no one to observe it.

The observer of the universe would be pointless if there was no one to observe it.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The universe would be pointless if there was no one to observe it.

Maybe it is pointless even with people to observe it.

It’s observers all the way up.

Well according to the dictionary, must is “the property of being stale or musty.”

dv said:

Well according to the dictionary, must is “the property of being stale or musty.”

I thought that was Musk.

dv said:

Well according to the dictionary, must is “the property of being stale or musty.”

Next challenge is to play word drawing guessing games for example Pictionary® and successfully draw “must”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The universe would be pointless if there was no one to observe it.

Maybe it is pointless even with people to observe it.

It’s observers all the way up.

It’s pointless, so we agree all above, including that {The universe would be pointless if there was no one to observe it.}.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

Interesting.

It is a mistake to think that Dicke is saying that our time in the universe is “special,” that “our Universe stands at a ‘golden interval’, neither too young nor too old, but just right.”

Finally.

Finally what?

This my friend is what you clicked on. It is simply a srarement.

Peak Warming Man said:

The universe would be pointless if there was no one to observe it.

Well there you go.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The universe would be pointless if there was no one to observe it.

Maybe it is pointless even with people to observe it.

This my friend is less thtn I’d excpect of you

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The universe would be pointless if there was no one to observe it.

The observer of the universe would be pointless if there was no one to observe it.

please stop grinding the monkey organ.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The universe would be pointless if there was no one to observe it.

Maybe it is pointless even with people to observe it.

This my friend is less thtn I’d excpect of you

Damn, I’ve set expectations too high.

dv said:

Well according to the dictionary, must is “the property of being stale or musty.”

Rotten filth $ 40 per square.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Finally.

Finally what?

This my friend is what you clicked on. It is simply a srarement.

But it would be nice to have some idea of the intended meaning of the srarement.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The universe would be pointless if there was no one to observe it.

Maybe it is pointless even with people to observe it.

This my friend is less thtn I’d excpect of you

It’s pointless even if there is someone to observe it.

It’s their own fault they didn’t specify iff and therefore got it correct.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Finally what?

This my friend is what you clicked on. It is simply a srarement.

But it would be nice to have some idea of the intended meaning of the srarement.

indeed it seems so,

dv said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Maybe it is pointless even with people to observe it.

This my friend is less thtn I’d excpect of you

Damn, I’ve set expectations too high.

best not to have any.

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Maybe it is pointless even with people to observe it.

This my friend is less thtn I’d excpect of you

It’s pointless even if there is someone to observe it.

It’s their own fault they didn’t specify iff and therefore got it correct.

Don’t blame me, I’m just a messanger

Anyway so at the end of all this it seems we all agree, that in the absence of conditions enabling life, life could not possibly exist to have intelligence and wonder how there came to be conditions enabling life.

Also we agree that “just” and “why” are not appropriate to use in this as they change the meaning to something that we do not all agree on.

Also we agree that the above does not mean that {wondering how there came to be conditions enabling life} necessarily leads in any way to meaningful conclusions, though we would agree that it may well form part of {wondering what conditions enable life} and therefore could be meaningful and even useful.

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

This my friend is less thtn I’d excpect of you

It’s pointless even if there is someone to observe it.

It’s their own fault they didn’t specify iff and therefore got it correct.

Don’t blame me, I’m just a messanger

Blame The Holiday Forum

SCIENCE said:

Anyway so at the end of all this it seems we all agree, that in the absence of conditions enabling life, life could not possibly exist to have intelligence and wonder how there came to be conditions enabling life.

Also we agree that “just” and “why” are not appropriate to use in this as they change the meaning to something that we do not all agree on.

Also we agree that the above does not mean that {wondering how there came to be conditions enabling life} necessarily leads in any way to meaningful conclusions, though we would agree that it may well form part of {wondering what conditions enable life} and therefore could be meaningful and even useful.

Ya, we have done all of this. I was wondering about where tiy were going next?

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

Anyway so at the end of all this it seems we all agree, that in the absence of conditions enabling life, life could not possibly exist to have intelligence and wonder how there came to be conditions enabling life.

Also we agree that “just” and “why” are not appropriate to use in this as they change the meaning to something that we do not all agree on.

Also we agree that the above does not mean that {wondering how there came to be conditions enabling life} necessarily leads in any way to meaningful conclusions, though we would agree that it may well form part of {wondering what conditions enable life} and therefore could be meaningful and even useful.

Ya, we have done all of this. I was wondering about where tiy were going next?

Glad you asked. :)

Conditions were/are contingent upon the ability to sustain water in its Liquid State.

That it ALL came together as a Luck of the Draw (“A Crap Shoot”)

Does it matter that it is / can be observed?
YES, if nothing else as Lesson To Learn…
Once you observe How Delicate that Balancing Act it actually is
can we actually agree upon how narrow that range actually is
and that as “Only Human” we can FUK IT ALL UP <— ‘nuther technical term ; )
by Believing that some Supreme Being can take away the HARM We’re Doing
by Heating the Atmosphere a MERE (stop quibbling over WORDS fer Fuk Sake)
2-3 degrees C. and stop killing the oxygen generators and stop UNsequestering
the GreenHouse Gases that MOTHER Nature had wisely Swept Under the Rug?

So… back to Sagan and the Search For Intelligent Life (SETI) :
“Can ‘intelligent life’ Exist long enough to learn how-to not extinguish itself before being observed?”

APOLOGIES for inability to proof read whilst squinting thru last failing eye

Hawking’s Final Thoughts On The Origin Of The Cosmos

Bruce Dorminey
Contributor

Apr 16, 2023,06:44am EDT

Stephen Hawking’s wildly popular 1988 book, “A Brief History of Time: The Big Bang to Black Holes,” introduced the world to the late Cambridge University theoretical physicist’s views on cosmology. But what’s less appreciated is that Hawking continued honing his theories on cosmic evolution right up until his 2018 death.

In a compelling new book, “On the Origin of Time: Stephen Hawking’s Final Theory,” written by Hawking’s longtime Cambridge University colleague Thomas Hertog, Hawking’s final thoughts on the origin of our cosmos are re-examined in detail.

By the early 1980s, many cosmologists were enthralled by the idea of a multiverse —- a hypothetical collection of a seemingly infinite number of universes. But Hawking apparently was unsatisfied with such multiverse notions. And towards the end of his life, he sought a theory of cosmogenesis that incorporates some of the deepest philosophical questions about the evolution of a cosmos capable of supporting stars, galaxies, and intelligent life.

The crux of the book deals with Hawking’s interest in reflecting a new cosmic reality in which the laws of physics are mutable enough to change and evolve along with the universe itself.

But Hertog, now a theoretical physicist at Belgium’s University of Leuven, writes that when we trace the universe back to its earliest moments, we encounter a deeper level of evolution, at which the physical laws themselves change. “The rules of physics transmute in the primeval universe, in a process of random variation and selection akin to Darwinian evolution, with particle species, forces, and even time fading away into the big bang,” he notes.

Yet even though the early universe might have been more mutable than previously thought, there are a few immutable truths about the cosmos that Hertog repeats in “On the Origin of Time.”

—- Gravity is an extremely weak fundamental force. If it were stronger, Hertog notes that “stars would shine more brightly and hence die far younger, leaving no time for complex life to evolve on any of the orbiting planets warmed by their heat.”

—- If temperature differences in relic big bang radiation were even one part in ten thousand bigger, “the seeds of cosmic structures would have mostly grown into giant black holes instead of hospitable galaxies with abundant stars,” Hertog writes.

—- Our cosmos happens to have three large dimensions of space, notes Hertog. “Adding just a single space dimension renders atoms and planetary orbits unstable,” Hertog writes. “Earth would spiral into the Sun instead of tracing out a stable orbit around it.”

—- Carbon is essential for life as we know it. And the efficient synthesis of carbon (from atoms of helium) inside stars, rests on a delicate balance between the cosmos’ strong nuclear force (the force that binds all atomic nuclei) and the electromagnetic force. If the strong force were just a fraction stronger or weaker, then the nuclear binding energies would shift, compromising the fusion of carbon and hence the formation of carbon-based life, Hertog writes.

One of the upshots of Hawking and Hertog’s work is that as Hertog notes, our theorizing should “account for our existence within the universe.” In addition, he asserts that “by tracing the universe back in time,” it’s possible to discover “a stage where the rules and principles of physical evolution co-evolve with the universe they govern.”

Even so, in 1981, Hawking proposed a universe that had no boundaries and potentially no beginning. And although he backed off that a bit, he also never fully embraced the idea of a multiverse. Yet he did accept that the universe experienced a rapid expansion which cosmologists term inflation —- the post big bang exponential expansion of spacetime. And to this day, the $64,000 question remains what fueled this massive expansion within the first trillionths of a second after the big bang?

Five years after Hawking’s death, we still have no answers. But there’s hope that within the next decade, ground-based gravity wave astronomers will have detected gravitational radiation from inflation. This might give astrophysicists a new window onto big bang cosmology.

As for the book itself?

By no means is “On the Origin of Time” light reading. But it does offer a comprehensive view of the latest ideas in cosmogenesis.

Ultimately, the book renews debate about whether we are a byproduct of immutable laws of physics or whether the physical axioms that bind us co-evolved with the universe. These aren’t the kind of questions that people normally pose between courses of canapes at standup cocktail parties.

But such conundrums are why theoretical physics continues to be relevant. What could be more philosophically important than the origins of this cosmos we call home and just how we got here?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2023/04/16/hawkings-final-thoughts-on-the-origin-of-the-cosmos/amp/