Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
64 online now:
dwise1, nwr (2 members, 62 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,057 Year: 5,169/6,534 Month: 12/577 Week: 80/135 Day: 11/1 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the “Fine-Tuned Universe” an Illusion?
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6739
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 5 of 61 (891705)
02-09-2022 6:18 PM


Fine Tuned
What's with the templeton's and this fine tuning crowd?

Anything fine tuned for x cannot help but make lots and lots of x. And fine tuning implies plan and agency.

When we look into the universe we do not see billions upon billions of intelligent civilizations. In fact we see precisely 0 intelligent civilizations. That's an awfully fucked-up job of even gross tuning if intelligent life was the goal.

What we are seeing are trillions upon trillions of stars. Stars in every conceivable configuration. This universe is fine tuned to create stars, not life, but stars. It does so because Amun-Ra is our god and he chose the parameters. He made us so we could make telescopes to peer into his wonderous creation.

You might even say this universe is fine tuned to create telescopes.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by nwr, posted 02-09-2022 6:35 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message
 Message 9 by dwise1, posted 02-10-2022 12:08 PM AZPaul3 has taken no action

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6739
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 19 of 61 (891798)
02-11-2022 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Taq
02-11-2022 5:21 PM


Bullshit Objection
Tanypteryx writes:

Yep, nothing actually runs on BULLSHIT.


Taq writes:

That's not entirely true.

Objection, Your Honor!

Cattle manure, though it may contain bullshit, cannot replace the feces analogies used in discussion. Actual bullshit, without fecal contributions from cow, steer, ox or bullock, is, or should be in intellectual discussions, the only acceptable form of excrement to be slung at shitheads and their shithead ideas.

This is not to denigrate female and youth contributions of bovine excrement to other aspects of culture. But there is an emotional element to the power of a full-grown massive overpowering true bred bull with fierce overpowering droppings that connotes a more significant rejection of the items, persons, ideas in question than a mere combined cattle crap can.

I object to your characterization of a cattle manure-fired power plant as being run on bullshit. At this point I must hold Tany's statement to still be true.

Edited by AZPaul3, : title


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Taq, posted 02-11-2022 5:21 PM Taq has taken no action

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6739
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 21 of 61 (891822)
02-12-2022 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Son Goku
02-12-2022 1:25 PM


Re: Fine-Tuned
Only a vanishing amount of the parameter space for the Standard Model and also for theories of Quantum Gravity allow any complex structures to arise.

So in an infinite universe there would only be a infinite number of such worlds.

I guess it's ok to say this universe is finely tuned for our standard model or something close.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Son Goku, posted 02-12-2022 1:25 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Son Goku, posted 02-12-2022 3:47 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6739
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 24 of 61 (891829)
02-12-2022 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Son Goku
02-12-2022 3:47 PM


Re: Fine-Tuned
You're not a many worlds fan?

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Son Goku, posted 02-12-2022 3:47 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Son Goku, posted 02-12-2022 6:01 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6739
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 28 of 61 (891836)
02-12-2022 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Son Goku
02-12-2022 6:01 PM


Re: Fine-Tuned
Then, if I may ask, of the various interpretations from Copenhagen and her cousins thru the various many worlds interpretations, where do you prefer to resolve the measurement problem?

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Son Goku, posted 02-12-2022 6:01 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Son Goku, posted 02-13-2022 9:03 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6739
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 31 of 61 (891841)
02-13-2022 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Son Goku
02-13-2022 9:03 AM


Re: Fine-Tuned
My understanding of the measurement problem is the problem that our measurement outcomes depend on what we measure. As in, the measured result of the double slit depends on what you measure. The result of combining the outcome of reading both slits separately is not the same as the picture we see when we measure both slits together. Reality seems to depend upon what we measure and different measures reveal different realities.

So, indeed does the wave function collapse from a probability distribution to a definite outcome dependent on the measurement being made? How?

Son Goku, you know you should come around and play more often.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Son Goku, posted 02-13-2022 9:03 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Son Goku, posted 02-13-2022 3:58 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6739
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 33 of 61 (891843)
02-13-2022 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Son Goku
02-13-2022 3:58 PM


Objective Reality
We can use wave function and quantum state interchangeably. At this level it is permissible, yes? Understanding that each quantum state consists of other values like, spin, charge, etc, each with its own wave function of probabilities to be measured.

I hope no one thinks the wave function has a physical manifestation. But it is the reality we experience.

The quantum state is the entanglement of all possible probability values that could be revealed by measurement. It is constantly changing, shifting, updating with each interaction the field (particle(s)) experiences. And the result of a measurement reveals the most probable value we will see at any specific moment in time. The bother comes in when different measurements reveal different values.

I know wave functions are dynamic systems ever changing. But if you freeze time at one slice the probabilities under the wave function should also be set. Yet when we measure the system the “most” probable result will differ depending on how the system is measured. Different measurements seem to consistently alter what is most probable in a set objective system.

If I read your post properly your solution to this is to use Heisenberg’s work to do away with objective reality. How does that work?

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Son Goku, posted 02-13-2022 3:58 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Son Goku, posted 02-13-2022 6:41 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6739
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


(2)
Message 35 of 61 (891845)
02-13-2022 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Son Goku
02-13-2022 6:41 PM


Re: Objective Reality
The die roll is the actual reality you experience, not the probability list. It's the same with the wavefunction, it has no physical reality at all.

Yeah, bad language on my part. Not clear for the peanut gallery. It’s ok, though, I knew what I meant.

This is paradoxical if you think these things have truth values independent of observation.

Ok. So the way to make QM consistent and meaningful is to ditch objective reality. Nothing exists other than through observation. And that observation may not be consistent with the result of other observations. Got it.

Actually, no I don’t. I certainly cannot argue your point. But, from a long time trying, the more I study QM the more EPR-like I become. We’re missing something.

Even with QM’s stellar performance in describing this universe it is good to see you QM folks haven’t lost any of your philosophical nuttiness. Yes, I know, I’m the nutty one. Objective reality? What am I smokin’?

[abe] This half-time show sucks.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : cite EPR


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Son Goku, posted 02-13-2022 6:41 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by nwr, posted 02-13-2022 9:32 PM AZPaul3 has taken no action
 Message 37 by Son Goku, posted 02-14-2022 5:36 AM AZPaul3 has taken no action

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6739
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 47 of 61 (891858)
02-14-2022 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Son Goku
02-14-2022 2:02 PM


Many Worlds
Many worlds (MW), I am informed, does away with any wave function collapse. Determinism and objective reality are preserved. My layman’s problems with MW include … the many worlds. That is too far outside my comfort zone. Please excuse the personification but after decades I am still trying to resolve this stuff in my own head.

You said in one early message that you thought MW was completely silly.

But, just as with QM, there are rigorous mathematical, logical, recognized genius stuff reasons to give MW considerable credence. From what I can see, not just cosmologists like MW. Lots of recognized world-class egg heads work on extra dimensions, symmetries, etc. It gives them a new playground. Their goals, as I understand their science outreach work, is to crack the nut of quantum gravity, as is everybody’s goal.

So what I see is a lot a really smart people, recognized big names in physics, all with different ideas of what reality may and may not be. That right there tells us something is fundamentally wrong. The fragmentation says, to me, that we haven’t found the reality. We are still missing something. [feign surprise]

The tools are super fantastic. Indeed, for this universe, QM/QFT are … well … productive … on steroids.

Intellectually, I can understand, but not accept, the deeper weirdness(es) the different camps are offering. I also harbor a long held aversion to anything that tilts at the windmill of objective reality. Of the various craziness(es) offered I would have a preference for MW knowing, despite the insistence of the MW advocates, those many worlds are our philosophical contrivances and may not exist in reality at all. I can accept that. MW restores my beloved objective reality.

Still, I am left with the angst that our views on reality are not the reality.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Son Goku, posted 02-14-2022 2:02 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Son Goku, posted 02-15-2022 3:35 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6739
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 50 of 61 (891861)
02-14-2022 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
02-14-2022 7:42 PM


Re: Full justification for EvC's existence.
When it's moving backward through time. Then it's a positron.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 02-14-2022 7:42 PM jar has taken no action

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6739
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 52 of 61 (892149)
02-28-2022 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Son Goku
02-15-2022 3:35 AM


Re: Many Worlds
Objective reality has turned out to be empirically incorrect.

Not quite. Objective reality has been "interpreted" to be incorrect by one school of QM.

But none of this really involves a questioning of QM back in the direction of "objective" physics. They have disagreements over the exact form of where Quantum Gravity should go, but nobody highly cited in the field is actually proposing a return to the objective picture of the world. In fact most like Nima Arkani-Hamed, Raphael Bousso or Thomas Banks or hundreds of others I could name are advocating that it should be more subjective.

Yes, indeed, the copenhagen interpretation is the leading hypothesis. But it is not a solid consensus of the discipline. There are major schools of disagreement. At this point the popularity contest is not definitive.

In Quantum Mechanics you can show that large scale features of objects, like those in the day to day world, are capable of being objectively described. However at a fundamental level the world is not.

QM is internally inconsistent in it's definition of a measurement. What is a measurement? What happens when a measurement occurs?

Copenhagen operates under such a regime that objective reality, not just an unknown, is called into question. Others do not.

Fundamental levels? I submit we aren't there yet. We can make QM/QFT work so very well, exceptional accuracy, modern magic, but we don't know how measurement works or why it works. One view is to say hang the lot of it, reality doesn't matter, just shut up and calculate. Very productive but very inane.

I expect more. The smart guys have a lot more study to do.

In the meantime Copenhagen's measurement problem persists as its interpretation of that problem is inconsistent and questionable.

The internal inconsistency shows the theory in not complete and needs to be adjusted. My hope is that QM will adjust itself into a nice warm comfortable objective reality. With a cup of tea.

One has to get used to it just like several other scientific ideas that changed our view of the world.

And will change again we can be sure.

Here is a video with a much better explanation of the issue involved. It is not a settled matter in the discipline.

Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder is a respected physicist that has taken up science outreach. She still works at CERN and at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies where she leads the Superfluid Dark Matter group.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Son Goku, posted 02-15-2022 3:35 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Son Goku, posted 02-28-2022 7:36 AM AZPaul3 has taken no action

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6739
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 57 of 61 (892358)
03-06-2022 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Tanypteryx
03-05-2022 9:30 PM


Re: Speed of Light = Speed of Gravity
What do they say? It’s only a stupid question if you don’t ask?

Is gravity a quantum field? Or is it a fold in the geometry of spacetime? Both? Manifestations of the same thing? What is the fabric of spacetime? Might it be the graviton field?

Don’t quote me but I recall the tale of a king, knocked from his steed in battle, stood and cried, “Quantum gravity! Quantum gravity! My kingdom for quantum gravity!” I may be a bit off on that but in essence I think this was the sentiment.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-05-2022 9:30 PM Tanypteryx has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022