Re: a prediction of the anthropic principle/MWT
John: "The fact that we're alive shows ..." How do you know? do you have a distinction between solipsism and realism? "Perhaps we should carefully compare how often the other planets have been hit with how often we have: They certainly look more craterful" Do other planets have similar corrosive gas and erosive water surface conditions, to erase the craters? Did Jupiter have none of those, because in its gaseous surface nothing remains? WE are looking at a snapshot and draw conclusions on millions of years, without recognizing the differences contributoing to what we see. Maybe this is a reason for the mising detailed studies (or should be). And PLEASE! do not advise governments to spend on scientific grounds! it will only increase our tax burden and more stupidity will be paid by uneducated politicians. Best John Mikes - Original Message - From: John Collins To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 7:07 AM Subject: a prediction of the anthropic principle/MWT The fact that we're alive shows that as a species we've been historically very 'lucky', the biggest 'break' being in the finely tuned initial conditions for our universe. At least a level I many-worlds theory is needed to explain this. But in a higher level MWT this good luckmight have extended further. For instance, our planet might have experienced an unusually high number of 'near misses' with other astronomical bodies. Now that we're here to watch, the universe will be forced to obey the law of averages,so there could be a significantly higher probability of a deadly asteroid collision than would be indicated by the historical frequeny of said events. Perhaps we should carefully compare how often the other planets have been hit with how often we have: They certainly look more craterful Have there been any serious studies into this? It's not justidle philosophial musings, it affects the way our governments should be spending our money (or rather your money; I'm a non-earning student).
Re: a prediction of the anthropic principle/MWT
John Collins wrote: For instance, our planet might have experienced an unusually high number of 'near misses' with other astronomical bodies. I'm always amused by the sense of deja-vu which occured on mailing lists. There I was looking at the moon, thinking how lucky we are it caught a number of astronomical bodies instead of us, only to come to the computer and find the same/similar topic being broght up. Sit on enough mailing lists and it soon becomes apparent the same/similar thing gets thought of (and at times communicated) by a significant number of people for it to be more than mere co-incidence. (Brings to mind the research being done as to whether a mass concentration of thought can actually affect the outcome of a random computational process - with some successes already being demonstrated) See the Global Consciousness Project http://noosphere.princeton.edu for more information on this. Now that we're here to watch, the universe will be forced to obey the law of averages, so there could be a significantly higher probability of a deadly asteroid collision than would be indicated by the historical frequeny of said events. Perhaps we should carefully compare how often the other planets have been hit with how often we have: They certainly look more craterful See above :-) What if on an purely unconscious level we can manipulate reality itself? If in a group of prepared trials, a number of people concentrating on a single number (all the same number) can cause a computational random number generator to be statistically less than random for the duration of that 'group' thought then maybe the same process can apply outside of merely influencing an electrical process. Maybe it can be extended to matter itself? Perhaps there are two ways of looking at it: a) in any universe which gives rise to complex organisms (perhaps sentient) there is a statistically lower averare of astronomical collissions compared to other bodies in the same region, leading to the argument that the lower than average collisions allowed for complex organisms to form b) in any universe which gives rise to complex organisms, the number of astronomical collisions will decline in proportion to the complexity of the biological organisms present (even if that means sending organisms into space to reroute potential collisions :-P) Bretton -- Cellular: +27.82.494.6902 Yahoo: bretton_cubed ICQ: 175753755 GPG key : http://bretton.hivemind.net/bretton_public.key trends::nu-media::techno-philosophy::ai I suppose the secret to happiness is learning to appreciate the moment. -Calvin
a prediction of the anthropic principle/MWT
The fact that we're alive shows that as a species we've been historically very 'lucky', the biggest 'break' being in the finely tuned initial conditions for our universe. At least a level I many-worlds theory is needed to explain this. But in a higher level MWT this good luckmight have extended further. For instance, our planet might have experienced an unusually high number of 'near misses' with other astronomical bodies. Now that we're here to watch, the universe will be forced to obey the law of averages,so there could be a significantly higher probability of a deadly asteroid collision than would be indicated by the historical frequeny of said events. Perhaps we should carefully compare how often the other planets have been hit with how often we have: They certainly look more craterful Have there been any serious studies into this? It's not justidle philosophial musings, it affects the way our governments should be spending our money (or rather your money; I'm a non-earning student).
Re: a prediction of the anthropic principle/MWT
John Collins writes: The fact that we're alive shows that as a species we've been historically very 'lucky', the biggest 'break' being in the finely tuned initial conditions for our universe. At least a level I many-worlds theory is needed to explain this. Yes, more like level 2, I'd say. That's where you get variations on the dimensionality of the universe and the values of physical constants. I think those are the parameters which are said to be finely tuned in order to allow the kinds of stability that would allow structure to form. But in a higher level MWT this good luck might have extended further. For instance, our planet might have experienced an unusually high number of 'near misses' with other astronomical bodies. Now that we're here to watch, the universe will be forced to obey the law of averages, so there could be a significantly higher probability of a deadly asteroid collision than would be indicated by the historical frequeny of said events. Perhaps we should carefully compare how often the other planets have been hit with how often we have: They certainly look more craterful Certainly an interesting direction to pursue. However I think the anthropic prediction in such cases is that our history would have been just barely good enough to allow life like us to form. If meteor bombardment should have wiped us out, we would predict that we would have experienced a history of heavy meteor strikes, not quite enough to wipe us out, but enough to be very troublesome. Have there been any serious studies into this? It's not just idle philosophial musings, it affects the way our governments should be spending our money (or rather your money; I'm a non-earning student). I've seen a few papers that look at the possibility that the evolution of intelligent life is overwhelmingly unlikely. Robin Hanson has a couple of papers on this, http://hanson.gmu.edu/greatfilter.html and a more technical one at http://hanson.gmu.edu/hardstep.pdf. Hal Finney
