Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
So, the muffin is steaming there in front of me, and you are asking me to estimate the odds that it exists.
Am I missing something?
In that case: 100% -- you've just stipulated its existence! In reality, as Fly, Bat, Worm teaches us, the odds of it existing are something very slightly less than 100%, since we do not perceive reality directly, but as mediated by our senses. Gotta love those Sconics!
Anyway, feel free to proceed to give us all a calca on the Anthropic Principle. I am already familiar, of course (as I stated -- perhaps you, while familiar with the concept, are unfamiliar with the term?), but it is certainly called for. Both Mr. Tansill and I dipped into it, without really explaining what we were talking about.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Sigh.
That "point," that brilliant "point," is called the Anthropic Principle. Look it up, seriously, and try to keep up.
I will just repeat my response one more time (at least for now), which is: Odds are actually indispensably and unavoidably useful in reconstructing the past as well. They are useful in looking at a given situation and trying to decide "Who Done It?" Watch any murder mystery show. Poirot's "little gray cells" are put to work largely looking at facts and creatively comparing them to odds.
You are going to have to help me understand what the Anthropic Principle has to do with my point.
EDIT:
You employ Poirot to deduce the origin of your mystery muffin. What are the odds that the feisty Belgian will crack your case? After he solves it, what are the odds that he'll crack your case?
Last edited by otherone; 04-15-2017 at 02:58 PM.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Don't bother, creationism with religion is just dangerous. Just stick to the evidence. There is no good, so you probably have nothing to worry about, except what you think is right and wrong. Oh, hopefully a little health care for those who need it. Not some walk one way, and believe another.
The theory that seems to fit best for me is the Participatory Anthropic Principle which was advocated by the physicist John Wheeler that coined the word wormhole and used the word 'black hole' to describe a singularity.
Quantum mechanics has held up be useful in our daily lives.. the transistor, lasers and LEDs are examples of quantum mechanics describing how things work reliably.
Quantum mechanics also requires a system to have an observer to actually have a measurable outcome. You could call this original observer god. Or perhaps the universe ended up with consciousness (us, and maybe others) in order for it to actually exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A...er#It_from_bit
"Wheeler speculated that reality is created by observers in the universe. "How does something arise from nothing?", he asked about the existence of space and time.[87] He also coined the term "Participatory Anthropic Principle" (PAP), a version of a Strong Anthropic Principle. From a transcript of a radio interview on "The anthropic universe":
Wheeler: We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?
Martin Redfern: Many don't agree with John Wheeler, but if he's right then we and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe, are the creators — or at least the minds that make the universe manifest.[88]"
This doesn't fit into the creationist idea at all.
“…let us teach them that all who draw breath are of equal worth, and that those who seek to press heel upon the throat of liberty, will fall to the cry of FREEDOM!!!” – Spartacus, War of the Damned
BTC: 1AFbCLYU3G1dkbsSJnk3spWeEwpqYVC2Pq
If the observer is "God" then that observer cannot be a product of these processes, and therefore these processes are not the absolute explanation but rather an intermediate explanation. The absolute explanation is the eternal "observer" in this case.
Again when you invoke any form of physics to explain existence you have to presuppose those natural laws always existed without reason, otherwise you're just explaining a force that itself must be explained.
“I'm real, Ron, I'm real!” — Rick Santorum
“Congratulations.” — Ron Paul¹
Something doesn't arise from nothing.
Nothing and something arise from Emptiness. This is eastern thought 101.
Emptiness is the primordial quality, not nothing. Emptiness implies being completely empty of even the thought of emptiness and of not-emptiness.
A Kyoto school philosopher called this "Absolute Nothingness".
Because absolute nothingness pervades the underlying reality of everything it implies an inherent one-ness at the source.
Did God create the Absolute Nothingness? No. A created thing would be a something. The nameless nothing, is what God fully embodies. And the Tao is the expression of the true nature of Emptiness. Tao means "The Way", Christ says, "I am the way."
Even though God precedes all things, any knowable aspect of God is still known through form, be it spiritual or physical form.
Even God does not claim this "existed for all eternity" backwards silliness. There was a beginning to time. It is also a "thing" that was created. And in a sense God was created:
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6
There is, however, more than one interpretation of the practical (real) data.
The big question is: when an uncertainty resolves (a quantum state collapses), what decides which way it resolves? What decides whether the electron goes left or right? Who decides whether the cat lives or dies?
One answer is thenow-standard, vanilla Copenhagen answercurrently ascendant story: both happen. "We haven't found any causal factor that would make that choice one way or the other, so both must happen! The universe splits (actually, duplicates)." A quite extreme measure to take to solve the problem! So you get an extremely large number of parallel time tracks (aka "the Multiverse").
A second answer, just as reasonable and coherent actually, and advocated by at least one great quantum physicist, is that God decides. This answer was.... not generally popular. So, instead of accepting the possibility of a cause we have not (yet) observed, we end up with a universe that's having infinite babies. Interesting.
The first answer just fits more satisfyingly to the modern Zeitgeist. After all, it makes humans completely impotent and freedom and free choice utterly meaningless, and that is always a plus, believe me. Anything that makes you a victim with no control over your environment is very appealing to the r-selected mind. The Multiverse just happens! You may think you can choose excellence and beauty and self-improvement, but actually even if you do there's another copy of you that will choose the opposite. Ha, ha, loser!
Forget tomorrow, live for today!
Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 04-25-2017 at 07:17 AM.
Your statistical analysis given above would be correct in a completely randomized universe. The trouble is, the universe evolves according to certain natural laws - such as the strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity, electromagnetics, etc. Leaving that aside, even if the universe was completely randomized, that still leaves a small, non-zero probability of it proceeding in exactly the way it currently is...stated in another way: given enough time, any non-zero probability WILL occur. It may be that we are witnessing such an event. There's no way to "prove" it.
In any case, that analysis is merely to show you that your logic doesn't rule out what is going on - not to say that I subscribe to it. Rather, patterns emerge from the interaction of the laws I stated above and this leads to complexity developing over the span of time. Looking out across the span of the universe, we can tell that the same processes are occurring everywhere. There is no space in space that appears to be special for any reason. If you're curious as to how many times the big bang can occur, check this out:
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv...g-ed7ed0f304a3
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...-from-nothing/
Hint, it's more than once, and is, again, not surprisingly, the result of a natural process.
As far as the Anthropic principle is concerned, at first reading it seems very interesting to me. My immediate critique, however, is that what was the universe doing before there was anyone to observe it? It seems to me just a re-dressing of the age old question that asks whether or not a sound is made in a forest as a tree falls if no one is around to hear it.
Reflect the Light!
That is not the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
What you are talking about is the so-called "Many Worlds" interpretation (which is not the dominant or "standard" interpretive framework).
The Copenhagen interpretation does not involve or suggest any kind of "multiverse" - and it certainly does not assert that "both [do or must] happen."
Despite the fact that it is indeed the prevailing or "standard" interpretive framework for quantum mechanics, there is actually no formal and precise definition of exactly what the Copenhagen interpretation is. Such as it is (and in a crude nutshell), it asserts that it is not cognitively meaningul to speak of quantum objects or phenomena as having any definite or particular states prior to their being measured. IOW: Copenhagenists regard discussions about whether the cat is alive or dead to be pointless nonsense until the cat's state is actually measured by an observer.
The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)
- "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
-- The Law (p. 54)- "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
-- Government (p. 99)- "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
-- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)- "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
-- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)· tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·
OK, thank you for the accuracy correction. That's what one gets when writing without bothering to look things up.
I'm just happy there's still someone here (out of the three people or whatever who read the post) smart enough to notice and willing to correct the error!
I would have to push back slightly on this point, though:
If that doesn't count as dominant, I don't know what does. It clearly has strong mind share among professional physicists, as well as (and I would say even more-so) among the general laymen who have heard of it. Let us call it the "currently ascendant story."What you are talking about is the so-called "Many Worlds" interpretation (which is not the dominant or "standard" interpretive framework).
What makes it happen "more than once"? Oh: the Multiverse theory. The same magical, non-disprovable metaphysical framework that makes everything happen more than once. No profound Revelation there.
Nay, it is exactly what you were saying earlier: We are here, therefore things are going to be suited for life. The odds of all conditions being perfectly tuned and life having arisen in a Universe being observed is 100%. Because it's being observed. Or, as you pithily put it:As far as the Anthropic principle is concerned, at first reading it seems very interesting to me. My immediate critique, however, is that what was the universe doing before there was anyone to observe it? It seems to me just a re-dressing of the age old question that asks whether or not a sound is made in a forest as a tree falls if no one is around to hear it.
"Given we exist, what is the probability that at some point we would question our origin?"
The Anthropic Principle is a true principle. Using it as a proof for one's Creation Story -- whatever that story may be -- is also a gross misapplication of the principle, in my opinion. Used in that manner, it is basically a way of ignoring the question. It is a way of defining away impossibility by stipulation. It is a way of "refuting" glaring holes and huge problems in the story you've concocted via, well, waving your hand.
Dismissively skeptical: "Your story is wildly improbable to the point of complete unbelievability! There's no way it happened that way."
In a Deep, Numinous voice: "And yet: here we are."
Profound silence for a few moments.
In awed whisper: "Whoa! Yeah -- you're right!"
Do you see the logical error they both made? OK, we're here; great. Amazing observation. The whole question in question is how that happening happened. Who Done It? Not whether it happened. "Look, the muffin's here! Therefore my story about how it got here is right. Whee!"
Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 04-25-2017 at 07:56 AM.
Some incredibly improbable events don't take much time at all to occur. Suppose four people played ten hands of bridge in the course of an evening. The a priori probability that they would receive the very hands that they were dealt is astronomical -- something like one in 10^288. Yet the event occurred and no one claims that someone stacked the deck.
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
Many Worlds does have its proponents among professional physicists, as do several other interpretations. But by far, the dominant understanding of quantum mechanics among professional physicists is and always has been Copenhagenism. Most physicists are not philosophers and have no interest in philosophizing about their work - and the Copenhagen interpretation is the most amenable (or perhaps it would better to say "least unamenable") to this mindset.
Compared to other interpretations (such as the extravagant Many Worlds), though, Copenhagenism is pedestrian. It is "boring" and not "sexy" - which is why Many Worlds and other frameworks get highly disporportionate attention in pop-science outlets, science fiction stories, and other popular (rather than professional) venues. This may give the impression that Many Worlds et al. dominate among working physicists, but it is not so.
While we're on this particular subject: I strongly recommend the book "Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics" by Nick Herbert for anyone who is interested in the various "schools" of interpretation of quantum mechanics. It was published in the mid-80s, so it doesn't cover things like Cramer's "transactional" interpretation or some of the more recent decoherence-based interpretations, but it does an excellent job of unbaisedly discussing (in a way accessible to the intelligent layman) eight of the most significant quantum "realities" - including Copenhagenism, Many Worlds, Einsteinian "realism," etc.
I know professional physicists. Just had one over to dinner last week. Everybody likes philosophizing! Now should one keep it separate from one's scientific work? Probably (at least somewhat). But I think most are aware of the Many Worlds story (I say story, not theory, because it's not a theory until you can disprove it) and many subscribe to it. And, as you say (and as I said) it is even more popular and influential out among the people at large. For the past decade it has been gradually becoming an important part of our culture, and an unfortunate, corrosive one in my opinion. A grand new element in the West's secular religion, joining nature-worship, Freudian-Kinseyanism, egalitarianism, and all the other wonderful tenets we've come to know and love.
Sounds really good! You might know, then: who was the theologian-physicist I was thinking of who proposed the "God decides" explanation? I don't recall his name.While we're on this particular subject: I strongly recommend the book "Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics" by Nick Herbert for anyone who is interested in the various "schools" of interpretation of quantum mechanics. It was published in the mid-80s, so it doesn't cover things like Cramer's "transactional" interpretation or some of the more recent decoherence-based interpretations, but it does an excellent job of unbiasedly discussing (in a way accessible to the intelligent layman) eight of the most significant quantum "realities" - including Copenhagenism, Many Worlds, Einsteinian "realism," etc.
Anyway, the pilot-wave theory is getting some new attention lately, thanks to NASA's EM drive. One explanation the researchers proposed involves the pilot-wave theory.
Interesting stuff!
All of this does not take into account the fact that we are TEMPORAL BEINGS. Time... We cannot wrap our feeble organic minds around such concepts. Everything for a temporal being must have a beginning and an end. It must be viewed from the perspective of someone passing through time in the present. The universe, I would posit, does not operate on such limited ideas... and we haven't even started talking about different dimensions yet.
-Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
Author of, War is a Racket!
- Diogenes of SinopeIt is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
Yeah, I think you did the same Google search I already did. The description of his work didn't seem familiar, though. I don't think it was him.
Upon a little further searching, maybe it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Pollard I'm thinking of.
Anyway, does Quantum Reality cover pilot wave theory and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie? Is it one of the eight?
The article doesn't go into the big crunch, and the current cosmological viewpoint has basically ruled it out as a possible future of the universe - on that point, you are correct, but it's a strawman to say that because there is no yo-yo-ing universe the discussion is closed. The theory presented in those articles suggests that small quantum fluctuations can basically cause a big-bang. I've read articles that liken it to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle that says you can only know the position AND momentum of a certain mass down to a finite level.
Analogously, the theory, as now formulated, posits that a similar balance exists between Energy and Time. Over very, very, very short periods of time, energy can be "borrowed" from that equation - this temporary imbalance gives way to a new universe. This "process" is always occurring, and while very unlikely, one could follow immediately after another. i.e., the theory states that there is a small probability that we might just see another universe spring into existence right within our own.
Is any of this "provable"? No way. But it is plausible and reasonable, in that it conforms to our current understanding of science and mathematics. That is an advantage it has over the religious "who done it".
I guess I think I see what you're getting at? It's a form of "begging the question"? Yes, we exist - Descartes proved that and I think he would be very fond of the Anthropic principle. Immediately leaping to conclusion that it was a "who" that did it is the logical error the religious make.
That's exactly right. Our issue as humans is that we see something "improbable" happen, and then impose meaning where there isn't any. It's a form of haruspicy. Every single hand of Bridge is as equally probable as any other. We are only surprised by those that follow a pre-determined set of rules or have 'value' according to the rules of the game which we developed. If we were truly being honest from a probabilistic standpoint, however, we would express astonishment with every Bridge hand that was dealt. Ultimately, we look for a reason, and attempt to divine meaning where there isn't any.
Reflect the Light!
De Broglie and pilot waves are discussed at several points over the course of the book.
Pilot waves are an element of the interpretations Herbert labels under the rubric of "neorealism" (e.g., De Broglie-Bohm theory).
The eight interpretations covered by the book are briefly noted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantu...nterpretations
Last edited by Occam's Banana; 04-26-2017 at 01:47 AM.
Cool, thanks! I don't really know anything about this stuff, and have long wanted to do some reading to get a good understanding of Einstein's relativity, and now I want to read the book you recommend too and get some understanding of of the Quanta. My wife majored in physics. Can't have the womens knowing more than the mans!
Of course. That is why, to assess things, one must understand the entire situation and the entire argument being made. If I were simply hollering the word "Improbability!," as if the word were an argument in and of itself, then your post would be an excellent rejoinder to me.
As it is, it still is an excellent reminder and illustration for anyone who was making the mistake of thinking so shallowly.
Yeah, no duh, I know, because I read it. Whichever one you're referring to, because I read both of them.
It is only a theory once you come up with a good way to potentially disprove it. Until then, it is not part of the rubric we call empirical science. It's just a story.the theory states that there is a small probability that we might just see another universe spring into existence right within our own.
This goes back to Occam's point that it really is a good idea to keep physics and metaphysics separate (if you're serious about either), or at least to distinguish between the two. But, that would be less persuasive. The most persuasive thing to do is to stir and mix your metaphysical theories together with science. One sentence one, one sentence the other. This gives the impression to the listener/reader that it's all part of the same grand system and thus imparts the Mantle of Science to your metaphysics. Physics has a good track record as being level-headed, rigorous, and producing real, useful results in the real world. If you can draft off some of that sweet, sweet credibility, well, you're gonna be persuasive.
More precisely, Disprovable. And if it's not, then it is not empirical science! Actually empirical science can't technically prove or disprove anything, only logic can do that. But it can at least induct! You've got to at least be able to do that much! If you can't induct, you must rejuct!Is any of this "provable"? No way.
Not really. It actually does not conform at all. For it to conform, there would have to be a major advance in our current understanding of abiogenesis. Until then, it just doesn't work. Have as many Big Bangs as you want. It just doesn't work. According to our current understanding, there may not even be any mechanism that *could* work, at all, ever, even giving infinite time to infinite primordial ooze. Going back to Sunny Tuft's bridge game, it would be like getting a hand of 200 King Kandy cards that were alive and self-aware and talked incessantly to you.But it is plausible and reasonable, in that it conforms to our current understanding of science and mathematics.
1) You can't get a hand of 200 cards in bridge
2) There are no King Kandy cards in a bridge deck, they belong to a different game called Candy Land
3) The artificial intelligence technology that would make the cards self-aware does not exist
4) Talking incessantly is against the rules of bridge
Yes, we exist - Descartes proved that
Thank goodness. Where would we be without Descartes to tell us we exist? Lost in an infinite void. Though, I think you have not kept up to date: later research showed that actually it is I feel therefore I am. Please make a note and apply the recommended patch (Hume.dll) to your philosobrowser as soon as possible to prevent malware.
Here's the truth. Here's the actual bottom line. Can you take it? Can you handle it? No one has an advantage. No metaphysics that *I* can comprehend is going to solve the origin question. No one's making any (important) logical errors, not the religious, not the non-religious (religious refers actually to lifestyle, character, and actions, -- to the ligaments that tie your life together -- not to belief, BTW), not even wizardwatson. Not even the muffin, as impaired as it may be.That is an advantage it has over the religious "who done it". Immediately leaping to conclusion that it was a "who" that did it is the logical error the religious make.
It is an unanswerable riddle, by nature. God does not solve it. If God created everything, even if He created it out of nothing, or emptiness or whatever (I do not believe He did), do you think He ever wonders as He sits on His throne: "Where did I come from?" You bet He does! And what's the answer? No matter what the answer is, there's always one more "Why" to be asked. Oh, small quantum fluctuations: why are there small quantum fluctuations? Oh, the Heisenberg Principle: why is there a Heisenberg Principle? Oh, God was created by His own God, created in turn by His own God, in an infinite regression? Why is there an infinite regression? What started it? What started any of it? Even if you come to some kind of an answer, whatever it is you figure out that "started it," well, what created that?
Goethe had it right, the great question of all: Why is there something, rather than nothing?
And we will never come to a final answer, due to the unplumbable nature of the concept "Origin."
Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 04-26-2017 at 09:51 AM.
Connect With Us