info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Designer of Our Universe by the Back Door?
72 views
Skip to first unread message
peter2...@gmail.com
Apr 12, 2023, 10:35:19 PM4/12/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On the thread, "steady state theory of biological origin," I've been talking about
the exquisite sensitivity of the fundamental constants of our universe
to tiny perturbations of their values that would make intelligent life impossible.
This is commonly referred to as the "fine tuning" of the constants.
The great astronomer and physicist Martin Rees has written a very readable
book about six of these constants (_Just_Six_Numbers_) and how they
determine so much of the structure of our universe. I was first attracted
to this book by its contribution to the fine tuning problem, but I am coming
more and more each day to appreciate the fascinating information it provides
about the nature of our physical world.
One of the constants relates the force of gravity to the force of repulsion
of one proton for another. The latter is about 10^36 [1 with 36 zeroes after it]
times as strong as the former. Rees comments on page 30:
"What would happen if [gravity] were not quite so weak? Imagine, for instance, a universe where gravity was `only' 10^30 instead of 10^36 feebler than electric forces. ... even insects would need thick legs to support them, and no animals could get much larger. Gravity would crush anything as large as ourselves.
...
"Instead of living for ten billion years, a typical star would live for about 10,000 years. ... exhaust[ing] its energy before even the first steps in organic evolution had got under way."
Unlike some others of the six constants, the sensitivity to perturbations
only works in one direction. Rees adds the following comments in the same page:
"The converse, however, is that an even weaker gravity could allow even
more elaborate and longer-lived structures to develop.
...
"Paradoxically, the weaker gravity is (provided that it isn't actually equal to zero) the grander and more complex can be its consequences."
I have sometimes written about the possibility of the multiverse including universes
far "grander" than ours, one of which might have produced a superhuman race
which had the power to alter material in black holes to produce a
much smaller-scale and shorter-lived universe -- ours! -- based on just a few constants.
In my next post to this thread tomorrow, I will begin to approach this exalted standard of grandness
by imagining a universe where gravity is something like 10^42 times as feeble
as electric forces. What might we expect of the abilities of intelligent inhabitants
on an appropriately huge planet?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
the exquisite sensitivity of the fundamental constants of our universe
to tiny perturbations of their values that would make intelligent life impossible.
This is commonly referred to as the "fine tuning" of the constants.
The great astronomer and physicist Martin Rees has written a very readable
book about six of these constants (_Just_Six_Numbers_) and how they
determine so much of the structure of our universe. I was first attracted
to this book by its contribution to the fine tuning problem, but I am coming
more and more each day to appreciate the fascinating information it provides
about the nature of our physical world.
One of the constants relates the force of gravity to the force of repulsion
of one proton for another. The latter is about 10^36 [1 with 36 zeroes after it]
times as strong as the former. Rees comments on page 30:
"What would happen if [gravity] were not quite so weak? Imagine, for instance, a universe where gravity was `only' 10^30 instead of 10^36 feebler than electric forces. ... even insects would need thick legs to support them, and no animals could get much larger. Gravity would crush anything as large as ourselves.
...
"Instead of living for ten billion years, a typical star would live for about 10,000 years. ... exhaust[ing] its energy before even the first steps in organic evolution had got under way."
Unlike some others of the six constants, the sensitivity to perturbations
only works in one direction. Rees adds the following comments in the same page:
"The converse, however, is that an even weaker gravity could allow even
more elaborate and longer-lived structures to develop.
...
"Paradoxically, the weaker gravity is (provided that it isn't actually equal to zero) the grander and more complex can be its consequences."
I have sometimes written about the possibility of the multiverse including universes
far "grander" than ours, one of which might have produced a superhuman race
which had the power to alter material in black holes to produce a
much smaller-scale and shorter-lived universe -- ours! -- based on just a few constants.
In my next post to this thread tomorrow, I will begin to approach this exalted standard of grandness
by imagining a universe where gravity is something like 10^42 times as feeble
as electric forces. What might we expect of the abilities of intelligent inhabitants
on an appropriately huge planet?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Lawyer Daggett
Apr 13, 2023, 5:20:19 AM4/13/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Timothy McGrew, Lydia McGrew, Eric Vestrup
Mind, Volume 110, Issue 440, October 2001, Pages 1027–1038, https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/110.440.1027
Abstract
Proponents of the Fine‐Tuning Argument frequently assume that
the narrowness of the life‐friendly range of fundamental physical
constants implies a low probability for the origin of the universe
‘by chance’. We cast this argument in a more rigorous form than
is customary and conclude that the narrow intervals do not yield
a probability at all because the resulting measure function is
non‐normalizable. We then consider various attempts to circumvent
this problem and argue that they fail.
peter2...@gmail.com
Apr 13, 2023, 12:15:19 PM4/13/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
weaker than it is in our universe. For a planet to have the same gravitational
pull on its surface as earth, it would have to be a million times as massive.
That corresponds to having a hundred times the radius, and 10,000 times the
surface area.
> Probabilities and the Fine‐Tuning Argument: a Sceptical View
> Timothy McGrew, Lydia McGrew, Eric Vestrup
because it appeals to my mathematical background, which has
made me aware of the pitfalls of probability theory.
> Mind, Volume 110, Issue 440, October 2001, Pages 1027–1038, https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/110.440.1027
expectations of how a "typical" universe should look.
However, this thread is not about fine tuning. It is about exploring universes
that seem much more favorable to the development of intelligent life
than our own; specifically, life of a much higher level of intelligence
and abilities than our own.
> Abstract
> Proponents of the Fine‐Tuning Argument frequently assume that
> the narrowness of the life‐friendly range of fundamental physical
> constants implies a low probability for the origin of the universe
> ‘by chance’. We cast this argument in a more rigorous form than
> is customary and conclude that the narrow intervals do not yield
> a probability at all because the resulting measure function is
> non‐normalizable. We then consider various attempts to circumvent
> this problem and argue that they fail.
seems quite ready to acknowledge the possibility of a universe
where gravity is much more feeble compared to electric forces than our own.
And this thread is about possibilities, not probabilities.
By the way, it's a 2001 paper. Any idea of how it has been received by the scientific
and the philosophical and mathematical communities since then?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Meanwhile, some readers might like to ponder the question of
what biology could be like on a planet with 10,000 times the surface are of earth,
but the same gravitational pull on its surface.
peter2...@gmail.com
Apr 13, 2023, 10:50:20 PM4/13/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 12:15:19 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
There are a number of scenarios to consider. To begin with, a continent the size of Eurasia
would only be a modest-sized island in comparison with the whole globe.
The most straightforward scenario has supercontinents as big in comparison as our own.
But two extreme opposites make the most dramatic scenarios. One is earth-continent sized
"islands" being as big as "islands" get, being so far apart, that whole kingdoms of land motiles
and sessiles spring up on each Asia-sized one, different from those on any of the others.
The motiles will still have plenty of room to evolve as far as we have evolved,
(or farther, given enough time, of which there will be plenty)
and yet be utterly unlike the ones on the other continents.
Even more interesting perhaps is the "negative" of this scenario, with one huge land mass
with ocean-sized "lakes" scattered far and wide, because then the very beginnings of life
lead to an even greater variety of creatures. Their truth would in many cases be
stranger than (science) fiction.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
[...]
> > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 10:35:19 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I have sometimes written about the possibility of the multiverse including universes
> > > far "grander" than ours, one of which might have produced a superhuman race
> > > which had the power to alter material in black holes to produce a
> > > much smaller-scale and shorter-lived universe -- ours! -- based on just a few constants.
> > >
> > > In my next post to this thread tomorrow, I will begin to approach this exalted standard of grandness
> > > by imagining a universe where gravity is something like 10^42 times as feeble
> > > as electric forces. What might we expect of the abilities of intelligent inhabitants
> > > on an appropriately huge planet?
> In other words, we are imagining a universe where gravity is a million times
> weaker than it is in our universe.
[...]
> > > I have sometimes written about the possibility of the multiverse including universes
> > > far "grander" than ours, one of which might have produced a superhuman race
> > > which had the power to alter material in black holes to produce a
> > > much smaller-scale and shorter-lived universe -- ours! -- based on just a few constants.
> > >
> > > In my next post to this thread tomorrow, I will begin to approach this exalted standard of grandness
> > > by imagining a universe where gravity is something like 10^42 times as feeble
> > > as electric forces. What might we expect of the abilities of intelligent inhabitants
> > > on an appropriately huge planet?
> In other words, we are imagining a universe where gravity is a million times
> weaker than it is in our universe.
> PS My next post to this thread will be some time this evening.
> Meanwhile, some readers might like to ponder the question of
> what biology could be like on a planet with 10,000 times the surface area of earth...
> Meanwhile, some readers might like to ponder the question of
There are a number of scenarios to consider. To begin with, a continent the size of Eurasia
would only be a modest-sized island in comparison with the whole globe.
The most straightforward scenario has supercontinents as big in comparison as our own.
But two extreme opposites make the most dramatic scenarios. One is earth-continent sized
"islands" being as big as "islands" get, being so far apart, that whole kingdoms of land motiles
and sessiles spring up on each Asia-sized one, different from those on any of the others.
The motiles will still have plenty of room to evolve as far as we have evolved,
(or farther, given enough time, of which there will be plenty)
and yet be utterly unlike the ones on the other continents.
Even more interesting perhaps is the "negative" of this scenario, with one huge land mass
with ocean-sized "lakes" scattered far and wide, because then the very beginnings of life
lead to an even greater variety of creatures. Their truth would in many cases be
stranger than (science) fiction.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
peter2...@gmail.com
Apr 24, 2023, 9:40:31 PM4/24/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
> In other words, we are imagining a universe where gravity is a million times
> weaker than it is in our universe. For a planet to have the same gravitational
> pull on its surface as earth, it would have to be a million times as massive.
> That corresponds to having a hundred times the radius, and 10,000 times the
> surface area.
from the center as we are the surface of our earth, would have only 1/10,000 times
the weight that we do. It is only when we multiply the radius by another factor of 100,
to make the planet have a radius 10,000 times that of earth (ca. 40 million miles!)
that the weight of a creature our size would equal our earth weight.
Then the surface area would be a whopping 160 trillion square miles!
The differences don't stop there. Not having learned much about atmospheric science,
I don't know what influence this would have on the density of the air at the surface.
It's clear that the density of our atmosphere falls off with altitude at a tremendously
faster rate than the pull of gravity, but what could one expect with a 40 million mile radius?
Does anyone reading this have any clue about this?
> > Probabilities and the Fine‐Tuning Argument: a Sceptical View
> > Timothy McGrew, Lydia McGrew, Eric Vestrup
> Thank you for this reference, Daggett. I will look at it before too long,
> because it appeals to my mathematical background, which has
> made me aware of the pitfalls of probability theory.
> > Mind, Volume 110, Issue 440, October 2001, Pages 1027–1038, https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/110.440.1027
> It may also be relevant to this whole theme of how fine tuning affects our
> expectations of how a "typical" universe should look.
>
> However, this thread is not about fine tuning. It is about exploring universes
> that seem much more favorable to the development of intelligent life
> than our own; specifically, life of a much higher level of intelligence
> and abilities than our own.
> > Abstract
> > Proponents of the Fine‐Tuning Argument frequently assume that
> > the narrowness of the life‐friendly range of fundamental physical
> > constants implies a low probability for the origin of the universe
> > ‘by chance’. We cast this argument in a more rigorous form than
> > is customary and conclude that the narrow intervals do not yield
> > a probability at all because the resulting measure function is
> > non‐normalizable. We then consider various attempts to circumvent
> > this problem and argue that they fail.
but I I will continue to try to get hold of this paper, and see
whether there are ways of circumventing the problem that the
authors hadn't thought of. But that is a separate issue from the following,
which IS relevant to this thread:
> By making the space of possibilities so enormous, the author[s]
> [seem] quite ready to acknowledge the possibility of a universe
> where gravity is much more feeble compared to electric forces than our own.
> And this thread is about possibilities, not probabilities.
>
>
> By the way, it's a 2001 paper. Any idea of how it has been received by the scientific
> and the philosophical and mathematical communities since then?
No answer to this so far. But I can probably get an idea of this myself,
> And this thread is about possibilities, not probabilities.
>
>
> By the way, it's a 2001 paper. Any idea of how it has been received by the scientific
> and the philosophical and mathematical communities since then?
given enough time.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
0 new messages