Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science


Deadrat wrote:
> "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1134971372.835545.235030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Deadrat wrote:
> > > "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:1134938067.712079.44310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Deadrat wrote:
> > > > > "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > news:1134896689.947024.108530@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Deadrat wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Let's give him another chance. Hey, topmind, consider this:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The anthropic principle is a counter to the argument that there must be
> > > > > > > > > > > something special to our existence because the parameters of physical
> > > > > > > > > > > law are so finely "set" that even small changes to them would produce
> > > > > > > > > > > a universe hostile to life (at least as we know it). If the strong force
> were
> > > > > > > > > > > a little stronger or a little weaker, then nucleosynthesis couldn't take
> place,
> > > > > > > > > > > and stars and planets couldn't form, and, ... well, you get the idea.
> Notice
> > > > > > > > > > > that this is an idea that deals with ultimate questions of existence, so it
> is
> > > > > > > > > > > philosophy, not science. Science deals with what we find when we actually
> > > > > > > > > > > measure things in the universe we're in.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > MU of AP predicts that there are or were other universes.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No. It specifically does *not* predict that there are or were other universes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It predicts that there MAY be other detectable universes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is not a prediction. A prediction says that there are detectable universes
> > > > > > > or that there aren't.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Predicting that there are other universes does not necessarily mean we
> > > > > > can detect them. Yes, it is a "fuzzy" prediction, but science is not
> > > > > > always clean. Otherwise, we would already have all the answers.
> > > > >
> > > > > We're not talking about how hard it is to interpret data. We're talking about
> > > > > predictions. A fuzzy prediction is no prediction at all.
> > > >
> > > > Hogwash. Science does not always provide clear-cut or guarenteed clues.
> > > > I don't know where you get the assumption that only ideas that have a
> > > > wide nozzles gushing forth easy-to-digest evidence are science.
> > >
> > > The clues are ambiguous. The scientific tests that attempt to make sense out
> > > of the clues cannot be. That's where your problem lies. You have to come
> > > up with a mathematically sound,
> >
> >
> > That is pure horsewash! Where the hell are you getting that criteria
> > for "science"?
> >
> > > specific test for your DNA patterns. It's
> > > not enough to speculate that there might be a possible test.
> >
> >
> > "Speculative science" and exploration does not require specific plans.
> > You are making stuff up.
>
> "Speculative science" makes testable predictions.

Multiple universes is potentially testable.

> Otherwise it's science
> fiction. Exploration is fine for discovery, but only you would confuse it
> with science.

What is it then? What do you call it? Science is a process, not
necessarily an answer.

> In either case -- science fiction and exploration -- we don't
> dedicate space in high school text books.

I have seen illustrations of astronauts on Mars in school texts IIRC.

>
> > > > > No, it can't. The anthropic principle has nothing to say about probability
> distributions.
> > > >
> > > > As a rough guide, it can. If you are forced to choose between
> > > > one-in-a-zillion chance or quantity, quantity is the more likely
> > > > choice; the "better bet". Most will agree with me on this.
> > >
> > > You've got two problems with this argument. The first (akin to the
> > > anthropic principle) is that you're looking at this from the point of
> > > view of the lottery winner. All lottery winners are surprised at winning,
> > > but the lottery commission isn't surprised that they did. The second is
> > > that you have no idea about the probability distributions involved.
> > > Suppose you were playing poker and got a flush on every hand.
> > > You'd be surprised and then suspicious because you know the odds.
> > > But suppose at the end of the night you found out that the deck was
> > > all spades. How surprised would you be then?
> >
> > One can estimate the number of other trials by calculating the
> > likelyhood of ending up in a particular state. If you calculate your
> > position has a 1-in-1000 chance of happening (and you haven't tried
> > 1000 times), then you can estimate that there are 1000 other trials
> > even if you can't see them. Think about it. Sure, it is not a perfect
> > system, but can still provide an estimate.
>
> Only if you know the probability distribution. I don't need to flip a
> fair coin 1000 times, since I know the distribution. You have no idea
> about the distribution of the values of physical constants.

One can estimate based on certain assumptions. Agreed, the assumptions
are often speculative themselves, but that is how we explore concepts.

>
> > > > > The
> > > > > anthropic principle uses a thought experiment that asks you to consider how
> > > > > one would reason assuming there were other universes. No predictions are
> > > > > made (nor are necessary) to follow this reasoning. Multiple universes are also
> > > > > posited in some interpretations quantum mechanics, and at least one of those
> > > > > (Everett's) is potentially testable and can thus be called science.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you want to make your version of ID acceptable as science, then comparing
> > > > > it to the anthropic principle is no help to you. The anthropic principle does not
> > > > > rely on the testability of multiple universes. They may be testable; they may not.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed. If followup info is available, it is a bonus. Being a bonus
> > > > does not make it non-science.
> > >
> > > What makes it non-science is that to make its point, it doesn't rely on testing at all.
> >
> > Huh?
>
> What's so confusing? It's a thought experiment that doesn't rely on predictions and
> tests. It's not science.

They are interlinked. Thought experiments produce models to be tested.

>
> > > > > The anthropic principle marches on as philosophical speculation. If you want
> > > > > to make your version of ID acceptable as science by comparing it to Everett's
> > > > > many worlds hypothesis, then you're going to have to come up with a test. Like
> > > > > the example of a test for Everett's hypothesis, yours doesn't have to be doable
> > > > > with current technology. But it must be feasible eventually and make an actual
> > > > > measurable prediction.
> > > >
> > > > It predicts there may be other universes,
> > >
> > > It predicts no such thing. Tell me what you think the anthropic principle says.
> >
> > There are many ways to say essentially the same thing. Estimating other
> > trials is just one approach. Focusing on the observer is another one.
>
> You'll have to explain these statements. Start out by telling me what you think
> the anthropic principle says.
>

I estimate there is an 85% probability this would turn into an endless
definition battle if persued this.

> >
> > >
> > > > and these other universes are potentially measurable.
> > >
> > > Everett says that. Not the anthropic principle.
> >
> > True, AP does not say that, but it implies there are/were other
> > universes,
>
> No, it doesn't. Tell me what you think the anthropic principle says.

Sigh. Right now the universal constants *appear* arbitrary. We can
"plug" this assumption of arbitrariness into the AP to explore
some possibilities.

> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > > The anthropic principle is not a scientific explanation for fined tuned constants any
> > > > > more than it explains why your neighbor won the lottery. It is a philosophic exercise
> > > > > in whether fine tuning should surprise us.
> > > >
> > > > The lottery commission looks for odd patterns in winnership to prevent
> > > > fraud. If a single neighborhood wins a disproportionate amount of
> > > > prizes, then they set out to investigate further.
> > >
> > > You've just stepped on your own argument. Assuming the lucky neighbors weren't
> > > defrauding the lottery, but inadvertently buying from a faulty ticket machine, the
> > > winners would still be surprised at winning but they shouldn't be.
> >
> > I don't see how this relates.
>
> The anthropic principle tells us one reason that we shouldn't be surprised by winning the
> universe lottery. The reason we are surprised is equivalent to the surprise of a powerball
> lottery winner. Especially one who doesn't know the odds.

Maybe I am approaching this all wrong. You are not seeming to be
getting my point.

>
> > > > As another example, suppose you sat down at a park bench and peered
> > > > down to see 50 coins all facing heads-down (you see only tails). In
> > > > your head you have to pick between the hypoth of them all just
> > > > happening to face down, or that some other selection process, such as a
> > > > bored child, being involved in that placement. These kind of "which is
> > > > more likely" scenarios are similar to what MU-AP does.
> > >
> > > You've missed the entire point. In looking at flipped coins, I know the
> > > odds. "Likely scenarios" for universes makes no sense, since I have no
> > > evidence for what's likely.
> >
> > Most simulations using variations of the universal constants result in
> > bland universes not likely to produce intelligent life.
>
> But you still have no idea of the distribution. The simulations might be
> impossible to realize, i.e., their probability is zero.

Huh? Are you questioning the accuracy of the simulations? What do you
mean by "realize"?

>
> > For example, If
> > only one in a million combos of constants results in intelligent
> > life-able universe (let's use non-bland for simplicity), then we can
> > roughly estimate that there are/were a million other universes with
> > varying constants.
>
> No, we can't. We don't know what the likelihood of any of these
> comobs is. You can run simulations of bridge hands assuming that
> the chance of getting an ace runs from 1% to 50%. What will that
> tell you about the chances of making a slam?

I am not sure cards is comparable since they are based on descrete
quantities instead of continuous ones.

And, I agree it is not a perfect science by any stretch. One can indeed
"over play" with limited information, but as long as we know the limits
of the approach there is no harm done other than wasted time. It may
lead to a new way of thinking even if it does not lead to the right
answer.

Back in the 1600's IIRC they got a reasonable estimate of the distance
of the stars by assuming all stars were as bright as the sun. It turns
out that most stars we see are brighter, and thus the extrapolation
proved a bit faulty. However, they were at least within an order or two
of magnitude.


>
> >
> > I agree it is not a precise calculation, but precision is not a
> > prequisite for all of science.
> >
> > We can still make guesses with limited information.
>
> The worthlessness of your guess is inversely proportional to your
> "information." You have *no* information. How worthless is your
> guess?

Agreed, but the worth is still not zero.

>
> > > > By the way, a "though experiment" is a "model", and science depends on
> > > > models.
> > >
> > > It depends on the "model." Not every thought experiment is amenable to
> > > scientific testing.
> >
> > And some are. Nobody has proven that other universes are inharantly
> > undetectable. Perhaps when they do prove such, we can yank the
> > "science" tag off the MU matress. Deal?
>
> Right now, I'd say Everett's many worlds hypothesis is science. Some
> physicists disagree with me. Since it's not testable now, it's not taught
> as confirmed quantum mechanics. The anthropic principle doesn't use
> a testable hypothesis at all.

I disagree. It can suggest what to keep a look out for. It tells the
isolated lottery winner that there might be other participants.

> It will never be science and isn't taught in
> high school texts. Neither of these items is usable as an argument to
> teach ID in high school science texts.
>
> Deadrat
> > >
> >

-T-

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... > "Speculative science" and exploration does not require specific plans. ... Tell me what you think the anthropic principle says. ... >>> and these other universes are potentially measurable. ... The reason we are surprised is equivalent to the surprise of a powerball ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... is to make a virtue out of believing. ... basic confusion between philosophy and science. ... have lent credence to that physics, ... of universes. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... > Multiple universes is potentially testable. ... >> with science. ... since I know the distribution. ... Not the anthropic principle. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Miracles
    ... the existence of other universes ... ghost hunters had also noticed the presence of cold spots, ... Some scientists have examined the ... Therefore, science is provisional truth. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: effects of intercessory prayer
    ... study showing intercessory prayer was effective. ... found that follow up results did not support the conclusion. ... Is that a surprise? ... so he's got a mix and match view of science. ...
    (talk.origins)