Sebagai masukan tentang diskusi ihwal jagad raya, peluang hidup, dsb. Salam, A Rusli 11 Jul 99 >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 >Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 20:30:43 -0400 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: Billy Grassie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Meta 122: Toy Universes > >Meta 122. 7/9/99. Approximately 1781 words. > >Below are three messages continuing the thread on "Toy Universes." In the >first posting, Dan Berger from Bluffton College in Ohio poses some technical >questions for Vic Stenger from the University of Hawaii about his "Toy Universe >Calculator." In the second message, Stenger replies to Berger. In the third >message, George Ellis from the University of Cape Town strongly challenges >Stenger's scientific and philosophical "just-so" story in Meta 119. [A note of >congratulations also to Ellis who was recently recognized for his peace and >justice work during and after Aparteid by out-going President Mandela of South >Africa with the "Star of South Africa Medal" (non-military) (class 5).] > >Stenger, you will recall, doesn't think much of the so-called Anthropic >Principle, as discussed in much of contemporary cosmology. Eugenie Scott and >Michael Ruse have also expressed discomfort about the Anthropic Principle in >recent Meta postings on related topics, but acknowledge a lack of expertise in >the astrophysics and mathematics of this debate. I am curious about what >underlies different commitments to this question of "fine tuning" in the >fundamental physical forces. > >As I understand it, the Anthropic Principle is also a misnomer. [Perhaps >something akin to calling the test site for the first nuclear bomb "Trinity" or >designating the primal singularity as the "Big Bang." This is why universities >also need "poetry for scientists" courses]. The principal is not really about >"anthropods" in this corner of the universe, but of the totality of phenomena >present in the universe "today" in all their varying degrees of realized and >potential complexity. Of course, the totality includes you and me and other >intelligences near and perhaps also very, very far away. The existence of >human-modes of cognition and being may also be extremely significant in >interpreting this question of "possibility space" in cosmology, but I am >persuade that it would greatly clarify the discussion to lose the "anthro" >prefix and perhaps refer instead to the "phenomenological principle" or the >"actuality principle". > >-- Billy Grassie > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >From: "Dan Berger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: Meta 119: Toy Universe > >I have a few comments on Prof. Stenger's "Toy Universe" calculator at >http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/vjs/www/monkey.html (and thank you for providing it, >Prof. Stenger!). > >Prof. Stenger, in his forthcoming "Skeptical Intelligencer" article >(http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/vjs/www/avoid/intel.html), claims that "most" >of 100 >randomly-generated universes contained large values of N1 (the ratio of the >electrostatic force to the gravitational force between two electrons) and N2 >(the ratio of a minimum stellar lifetime to the time for light to traverse the >radius of a proton). He claims that for most of the 100 universes he generated, >the gross properties (focusing on N1, N2 and stellar lifetimes) were sufficient >to allow the development of life. > >I think the calculator is invaluable, but its output needs to be examined by a >chemist. My qualitative results follow. > >I performed 10 or so tests, using Prof. Stenger's own randomizer. In this very >small universe space I generated at least two universes in which the hydrogen >bond (representing the electrostatic force, which, while it holds molecules >together, tends to push protons apart) is orders of magnitude greater than the >nuclear binding force. I also found at least one universe in which the Bohr >radius was quite large relative to the "radius of planet." > >I intend in the next few weeks to do a more careful check of the results >obtained from the Toy Universe Calculator, to find the percentage of random >universes which contain such obvious absurdities, whether or not the values of >N1 and N2 are "sufficiently large." Alternatively, Prof. Stenger might >re-examine his previously-generated 100 random universes in the light of this >critique and publish the results. > >And incidentally, where do "radius of planet" and "mass of planet" come from? >The page would be more helpful were Prof. Stenger to provide some text >explaining the sources of some of the numbers. > >Daniel J. Berger >Assoc Prof of Chemistry >Bluffton College | >Bluffton OH 45817-1196 >|[EMAIL PROTECTED] >|PH 419-358-3379 >|FX 419-358-3323 > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >From: Stenger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Organization: Editors' Ink > Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: Meta 119: Toy Universe > >Please announce to your list that the equations used in my program MonkeyGod, >the references, and the sections from my book _The Unconscious Quantum: >Metaphysics in Modern Physics and Cosmology_ where this is discussed and >results presented, is now available in a PDF file. The link to this file, and >to the program, which can be executed online, can be found on my cosmythology >page at <http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/vjs/www/cosmo.html> > >I am leaving shortly for a trip to England and will be gone a month. So I >cannot do much more about this now. The equations used are either textbook >physics or those from a paper by Press and Lightman. There is some discussion >in my book _The Unconscious Quantum_ and the anthropic articles on my web page, >with references. I agree that I should add a specific page with the equations >and references and will do that after I return in August. > >I do not dispute that many of the universes generated are weird by our >standards. The purpose of these toy universes is just to show that long stellar >life is not a "fine-tuned" quality. I do not anticipate that life, or >chemistry, as we know it would be possible in any of them. I welcome Dr. >Berger's critique, and others, and will try to respond later. > >Victor J. Stenger >Professor of Physics and Astronomy >University of Hawaii ><http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/vjs/www/vjs.html> > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >From: "Ellis, GFR, George, Prof." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Meta 119: Toy Universe > >Re the posting by Vic Stenger [Meta 119. 6/29/99], on the issue of possible >other physical bases for life: while I appreciate his response, it is >disappointing that he avoids the scientific issue I raise, claiming that when I >ask for a serious response, this is a `rhetorical ploy'. Presumably this is >because he has no satisfactory answer to the straightforward scientific >question I pose. > >To recapitulate the position: Stenger is making a double `existence' claim - >life could exist with another physical base than organic chemistry, and life >could also exist if the laws of physics were substantially different than they >are. Normally a scientist making such a claim is expected to give some >scientific reason why it should be believed. Stenger denies that he has any >such obligation, justifying this by citing a new philosophical principle: he is >making a more economical claim than those who do not accept his view, and >therefore he has no need to provide supporting scientific evidence.I don't >accept this philosophical principle. I also don't agree that he is making the >more economical claim. And I don't think his overall argument takes the >physical nature of life seriously. > >Firstly, as to the philosophical principle suggested: If a particle physicist >or astrophysicist tried such a ploy in their professional fields, they would be >laughed out of court by their colleagues. If you want to make an existence >claim (a new class of stars, a new particle of some kind, gravitational waves) >you are expected to give positive reasons as to why this is probable. To say >`It must be so because I don't know any reason why it should not be true' will >not suffice, if we are working in usual scientific discourse. The proposal >seems to be that less rigorous standards will suffice when talking about the >existence of life. I do not accept that position. > >Of course Occam's razor has always been an important tool in choosing between >competing theories to explain the same evidence. The problem comes in the >attempt to extend this principle not only to situations where there are no >observations to compare with theory, but where there is not even a proper >theory that could be compared with observations, and the attempt is made to use >the principle to justify not developing any such theory. > >Secondly, Stenger claims his position is more economical than mine. Here we >enter the world of rhetoric and personal opinion. Why should it be `more >economical' if there is more than one family of solutions (one carbon based, >the others not) to the underlying physical equations, each with the >extraordinary properties of living systems? I don't buy it: one set of >solutions is clearly more economical. Again, contrary to his stated view, it is >obvious that existence of one universe is very much more economic than >existence of a multiplicity of universes. He seems to believe in a strange form >of economics. > >Thirdly, underlying my own position is an assessment of the extraordinary >engineering feat involved in the successful functioning of a single living >cell, with its hundreds of thousands of feedback control loops and deployment >of massive information systems, all working in harmony with each other, and >then in organising 10^13 such cells to work harmoniously together in a >symbiotic hierarchically structured system. It is this complexity that makes >the existence of even a single family of such solutions to the underlying >equations so astonishing. The computer `toy models' employed by many, including >Stenger, don't remotely begin to capture the complexity of what is going on in >the real world of biology (see e.g. "Biology" by N A Campbell). These models >might have something to say about the processes leading to the start of life; >they do not in any way begin to capture the complexity of a functioning living >being, and hence have no persuasive power in that regard. . > >Taking this into account, to make a serious scientific (and philosophical) case >for the view put by Stenger one would need to show some alternative solution >exists, at least in principle, to at least some of the central issues facing >the physical existence of life. In particular, existence of alternative kinds >of life depends critically on existence of alternative physical systems that >have the capability of storing and meaningfully processing the huge amounts of >information required for a living being to function (see e.g. Paul Davies' >book: "The Fifth Miracle"). Indeed one can identify this as a fundamental law >for living systems: Without reliable information storage and replication, life >is impossible.Under the rhetoric of Stenger's reply lies his silence as regards >any proposal for such a mechanism. He apparently does not have a way of >satisfying this fundamental law for existence of living beings. This means that >instead of solid scientific argumentation, his strongly made claim is just >another `Just-So' story. Good science fiction, but not good science. > >George Ellis >Cape Town > >George F R Ellis >Mathematics Department, University of Cape Town >Rondebosch 7700, Cape Town, South Africa >Tel: (27) (21) 650-2339 >Fax: (27) (21) 650-2334 >Cosmology group web page: http://vishnu.mth.uct.ac.za/cosmos/ >Mathematics department web page: http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/ >UCT web page: http://www.uct.ac.za/ > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >Footer information below last updated: 2/25/1999. > >Meta is an edited and moderated listserver and news service dedicated to >promoting the constructive engagement of science and religion. >Subscriptions are free. For more information, including subscriptions, >archives and submission guidelines, go to <http://www.meta-list.org>. > >If you would like to unsubscribe to Meta at any time, simply "Reply" to >this message with the word "Unsubscribe" in the subject line. We will >promptly disable your subscription. Thanks. > >Please feel free to forward all Meta postings in their entirety including >this notice. It is the intention of the editor that each posting be >protected by copyright as a compilation. Permission is granted only for >duplication and transmission of each message complete and intact including >this paragraph. Otherwise, duplication and/or transmission of any portion >should be guided by "fair use" principles, and explicit permission should >be obtained when needed. Except when permitted by "fair use," permission >to duplicate or transmit any portion written by a contributor must be >obtained from that author. > -Copyright 1997, 1998, 1999. >William Grassie <http://www.voicenet.com/~grassie>. >
