_The Anthropic Cosmological Principle_ by Barrow & Tipler
Joseph C Fineman
Tipler (Oxford U.P., 1986, 1988; ISBN 0-19-282147-4). Review written
in 1989.
I found this book almost unreadable altho it contains a lot of
information on a subject of great interest to me, viz. to what extent,
& in what senses, the properties of the physical world are determined
by the fact that it contains observers.
The weakest & most plausible form of such speculations is
exemplified by the explanation of the curious fact that the universe
is about a zillion jiffies old, where a jiffy is the time it takes
light to cross a proton, and a zillion is the ratio of the electrical
to the gravitational attraction between a proton & an electron. This
turns out to be as much time as you need to make stars & run them thru
a couple of generations, so as to make the elements we are composed of
& get them out in space where they can form planets. That the
universe is that old, then, is merely to say that we inhabit a
habitable stage of its development, which is no more surprising than
that we inhabit a habitable _place_ in it -- the surface of a planet
rather than a star or outer space.
The smell of teleology is stronger in some astrophysical
coincidences that have been noticed. It turns out, for example, that
the strength of the electromagnetic interaction (a fundamental
physical quantity for which no explanation is known) is confined
within a few percent of its actual value by the "need" to make stars
like the sun. An even more delicate coincidence in the solutions of
certain grubby little _n_-body problems (once again, not derivable at
present from first principles) is required for stars to be able to
make heavier elements out of helium, and these solutions depend on
both the electromagnetic & the strong interaction, the latter being
poorly understood. Here there is no obvious continuum of previously
existing worlds for our world to have been selected from.
The book discusses a lot of odd facts like these, and considers
various senses in which the universe might have been selected to
account for them, up to the bizarre notion that the universe is
constrained to support life _forever_ & be taken over by it. God is
not in the index. [I have since noticed that Deity is. 1993]
Unfortunately, it is not a good book. The authors do not seem to
have made up their mind who, if anyone, was going to read it; the
level of presentation is uneven, and it is hard to believe that anyone
(including, perhaps, Barrow & Tipler) knows enough to understand all
the arcana they have dredged out of the literature & dumped in without
explanation. Where they have touched on matters I happen to know
about, I can testify that their statements are sloppy & would make a
worse than useless introduction to the subject. Finally (says the
copyeditor), this book was not copyedited. The style is subliterate
thruout; e.g., the phrase "Anthropic Principle" (among others) is
always capitalized, perhaps in order to invite us to worship it, or
perhaps because the authors (like the vulgar music publishers) think
the reader will appreciate being reminded what book he is reading. A
much shorter & better-written book on this subject is _The Accidental
Universe_ by P. C. W. Davies (1982).
--
Joe Fineman j...@world.std.com
239 Clinton Road (617) 731-9190
Brookline, MA 02146
James Kibo Parry
In article <C7G60...@world.std.com> j...@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman) writes:
> The weakest & most plausible form of such speculations is
> exemplified by the explanation of the curious fact that the universe
> is about a zillion jiffies old, where a jiffy is the time it takes
> light to cross a proton, and a zillion is the ratio of the electrical
> to the gravitational attraction between a proton & an electron.
Are these measured in Abians?
-- K.
Jack Sarfatti
Barrow and Tipler should be commended for a heroic effort - they are
pioneers in the post-Copernican revolution in which intelligence is at
the "center" of existence. This "center" is, of course a metaphor since,
like mind, it is beyond spacetime in the sense of fiber bundles.
Matthew MacIntyre at the National University of Senegal
: Tipler (Oxford U.P., 1986, 1988; ISBN 0-19-282147-4). Review written
: in 1989.
:
: I found this book almost unreadable altho it contains a lot of
: information on a subject of great interest to me, viz. to what extent,
: & in what senses, the properties of the physical world are determined
: by the fact that it contains observers.
I propose the ANTHROPIC COMPUTER,to be used for factoring large numbers.
Let x be the large number to be factored. Choose a large number y randomly.
The computer is fitted with 1000kg of high explosive. If the computer
divides y into x with no remainder, then it prints out the quotient and
the process is repeated.Otherwise the explosive is detonated.
In those branches of the Everett wavefunction in which we make the correct
guesses, x will be factored. In the other branches, we won't be around to
worry about it anyway.
john baez
Fineman) writes:
>_The Anthropic Cosmological Principle_, by John D. Barrow & Frank J.
>Tipler (Oxford U.P., 1986, 1988; ISBN 0-19-282147-4). Review written
>in 1989.
> I found this book almost unreadable altho it contains a lot of
>information on a subject of great interest to me, viz. to what extent,
>& in what senses, the properties of the physical world are determined
>by the fact that it contains observers.
>much shorter & better-written book on this subject is _The Accidental
>Universe_ by P. C. W. Davies (1982).
Tipler's book is presently the most systematic treatment of the anthropic
principle, while Davies' book is (I seem to recall) a popularization
thereof, so they are not exactly comparable.
Now, when I say Barrow and Tipler is "systematic," this is not to imply
that it is uncontroversial. Lots of physicists think it's full of
baloney. All I mean is that the whole baloney is here, not just a
slice. :-) It should be supplemented with a tour of the literature
hostile to the anthropic principle.
Thomas Clarke
No, no. Not 1000kg of high explosive. It has to be an atom bomb:-)
Then the explosion or lack of depends on the fission of certain
nuclei at a critical time. I guess, more simply, you could wire
a Schrodinger apparatus to your 1000 kg of explosive.
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, cla...@acme.ucf.edu
Matt McIrvin
>In article <1993May24.0...@nuscc.nus.sg> matm...@nuscc.nus.sg (Matthew
>MacIntyre at the National University of Senegal) writes:
>>
>> I propose the ANTHROPIC COMPUTER,to be used for factoring large numbers.
>> Let x be the large number to be factored. Choose a large number y randomly.
>> The computer is fitted with 1000kg of high explosive. If the computer
>> divides y into x with no remainder, then it prints out the quotient and
>> the process is repeated.Otherwise the explosive is detonated.
>> In those branches of the Everett wavefunction in which we make the correct
>> guesses, x will be factored. In the other branches, we won't be around to
>> worry about it anyway.
>No, no. Not 1000kg of high explosive. It has to be an atom bomb:-)
>Then the explosion or lack of depends on the fission of certain
>nuclei at a critical time. I guess, more simply, you could wire
>a Schrodinger apparatus to your 1000 kg of explosive.
No, the decaying nucleus would determine what number y gets chosen.
You can use any counter-anthropic detonatory device you like, provided
it is highly reliable. Of course in some branches of the wavefunction
the detonator will fail in some manner, so I am afraid the device
will only factor the number with a high degree of probability.
Maximizing this probability is the central engineering problem, one
familiar to weapons designers.
Why, however, stop there? The same principle may be used to construct
a universal prognosticator. This is a computer that would emit
random pronouncements, assembled grammatically from roots in the
language of your choice according to the dictates of radioactive
decay. These sentences would be dated. Daily newspapers would
be fed into the machine on the appropriate date, whereupon the
absence of correlations would trigger the usual detonation.
One would thus be supplied with nearly 100% accurate predictions, in
of course the branches of the cosmical wavefunction in which one
survives past the date of realization, which are the only ones worth
mentioning.
I suggest that the initial prototype-- an O(1) factorizer-- be built
immediately with public funds. Why should we waste money on titanic
scientific projects when the age of instant computation and prediction
is at hand? The construction of such calculators would also provide a
handy repository for our now-superfluous nuclear arsenal, which
is otherwise such an impediment to international goodwill and drain
on the superpower budgets.
;-) :-) ;-) :-) ;-) :-) ;-) :-) ;-)
--
Matt 01234567 <-- Indent-o-Meter
McIrvin ^ (modulo 8)
Andrew C. Plotkin
(Matthew
>MacIntyre at the National University of Senegal) writes:
>>
>> I propose the ANTHROPIC COMPUTER,to be used for factoring large numbers.
>> Let x be the large number to be factored. Choose a large number y randomly.
>> The computer is fitted with 1000kg of high explosive. If the computer
>> divides y into x with no remainder, then it prints out the quotient and
>> the process is repeated.Otherwise the explosive is detonated.
>> In those branches of the Everett wavefunction in which we make the correct
>> guesses, x will be factored. In the other branches, we won't be around to
>> worry about it anyway.
Excerpts from netnews.sci.physics: 25-May-93 Re: THE ANTHROPIC COMPUTER
.. Matt McI...@husc8.harva (2660)
> Why, however, stop there? The same principle may be used to construct
> a universal prognosticator. This is a computer that would emit
> random pronouncements, assembled grammatically from roots in the
> language of your choice according to the dictates of radioactive
> decay. These sentences would be dated. Daily newspapers would
> be fed into the machine on the appropriate date, whereupon the
> absence of correlations would trigger the usual detonation.
> One would thus be supplied with nearly 100% accurate predictions, in
> of course the branches of the cosmical wavefunction in which one
> survives past the date of realization, which are the only ones worth
> mentioning.
Why stop *there*? For several years I've been campaigning [ok, not very
hard] for my proposal that all infants, at birth, have a small explosive
charge implanted in their brains. This should be hooked up to neural and
hormonal sensors, which should trigger the explosive whenever the host
is *unhappy*. To any extent. Even mildly disappointed.
This eliminates all human life in rather a large fraction of the
branches of the cosmic wavefunction. But, of course, they're not
interesting, since they're uninhabited. In any branch which *does*
survive, all human needs are fulfilled! Looking back on your life,
you'll recall an unbroken string of miracles which provide you with
everything you ever wanted -- milkshakes and sports cars condensing out
of thin air by astonishing coincidence and the laws of uncertainty. None
of your friends will ever have their heads explode either (or if they
do, you won't live to be discomfitted by it. Unless solitude is your
desire, of course.)
Plotkonian HAPPINESS GRENADES are the FUTURE of HUMANITY.
UNALTERED dissemination blah blah woof woof.
:-)
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
John Snodgrass
>_The Anthropic Cosmological Principle_, by John D. Barrow & Frank J.
>Tipler (Oxford U.P., 1986, 1988; ISBN 0-19-282147-4). Review written
>in 1989.
> I found this book almost unreadable altho it contains a lot of
>information on a subject of great interest to me, viz. to what extent,
>& in what senses, the properties of the physical world are determined
>by the fact that it contains observers.
This "fact" is more interesting than conclusions you might draw
from it. Everyone agrees we humans are observers, but it is interesting
that humans are composed of cells, each of which is itself an observer.
Each cell contains subunits, many of which are "prokaryote" type subcells,
and being basically independent might as well be considered to be
observers also. Beyond this we have molecules which "behave" very much
as though they "observe" and react, and beyond this we have atoms, which
also respond to the environment -- though we have little ability to
tell if they "observe". They might very well "observe", however, and
our own observer status might be a manifestation of the observer status
of the atoms that comprise us. Can you say for sure this is not true?
Consequently, to say that the "fact" of observers may determine the
properties of the physical world in some way should include the possibility
that everything in the physical world may comprise observeres down the
levels of size.
To exclude this possiblity, and pretend the we "know" the universe
is entirely "non-animate" or whatever, and that we enjoy special status
within it as observers, and then to reason about this...it seems naive.
> The weakest & most plausible form of such speculations is
>exemplified by the explanation of the curious fact that the universe
>is about a zillion jiffies old, where a jiffy is the time it takes
>light to cross a proton, and a zillion is the ratio of the electrical
>to the gravitational attraction between a proton & an electron. This
>turns out to be as much time as you need to make stars & run them thru
>a couple of generations, so as to make the elements we are composed of
>& get them out in space where they can form planets. That the
>universe is that old, then, is merely to say that we inhabit a
>habitable stage of its development, which is no more surprising than
>that we inhabit a habitable _place_ in it -- the surface of a planet
>rather than a star or outer space.
> The smell of teleology is stronger in some astrophysical
>coincidences that have been noticed. It turns out, for example, that
>the strength of the electromagnetic interaction (a fundamental
>physical quantity for which no explanation is known) is confined
>within a few percent of its actual value by the "need" to make stars
>like the sun. An even more delicate coincidence in the solutions of
[...]
All these "coincidences" etc. arise from the aforesaid assumption
of the special status of "living" observers. Simply because it doesn't
take a balanced view of this question, the book can be dismissed as alot
of fuddy-duddy bunk.
> Joe Fineman j...@world.std.com
JES
John C. Baez
(Concerning Tipler and Barrow's book on the anthropic principle):
> All these "coincidences" etc. arise from the aforesaid assumption
>of the special status of "living" observers. Simply because it doesn't
>take a balanced view of this question, the book can be dismissed as alot
>of fuddy-duddy bunk.
Have you by any chance read the book, or are you relying on the book review
for a not too precise account of Tipler and Barrow's ideas? I have a
strong hunch you haven't read the book, since your first sentence makes
very little sense in relation to their thesis.
The anthropic principle does not require granting "living observers" any
special status, other than the fact that we happen to be such. It
follows tautologously that the world is undoubtedly such that living
observers are possible, and if you can validly draw any conclusions from
that fact, they must be true.
Matthew MacIntyre at the National University of Senegal
pre-cambrian bunch like us?
Thomas Clarke
<ap...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> ... Looking back on your life,
> you'll recall an unbroken string of miracles which provide you with
> everything you ever wanted -- milkshakes and sports cars condensing out
> of thin air by astonishing coincidence and the laws of uncertainty.
A corollary is that you will never die! On one branch of the cosmical
wavefunction, the secret of immortality will be discovered. After a
time this is the only branch of which you will be aware, so you are
immortal :-)
Daryl McCullough
> I propose the ANTHROPIC COMPUTER,to be used for factoring large numbers.
> Let x be the large number to be factored. Choose a large number y randomly.
> The computer is fitted with 1000kg of high explosive. If the computer
> divides y into x with no remainder, then it prints out the quotient and
> In those branches of the Everett wavefunction in which we make the correct
> guesses, x will be factored. In the other branches, we won't be around to
> worry about it anyway.
I think something along those lines could be used to explain EPR-like
correlations. Each of two experimenter measures the spin or
polarization of one particle, and the results are *completely
uncorrelated*. However, when the two experimenters get back together
to compare notes, occasionally the act of comparing notes causes a
huge explosion that wipes out all life on Earth. I think if the
probability of an explosion is chosen appropriately, we can reproduce
the predictions of quantum mechanics within a local hidden variables
theory.
If I am right, then actually carrying out Paul Budnik's proposed
experiment should with high probability kill us all. 8^)
Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY