[~ot] why is programming so fun?

[Russell Lewis]

Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
> John Reimer Wrote:
>> Don't you think you would be lucky that "2+2=4" occurs
>> consistantly in a random chance universe.  
> 
> I find it unlikely (though not impossible) that life would exist in a universe where 2 + 2 != 4. However, if we assume that every possible universe exists, we would exist in that (those?) most fitting for our survival.
> 
> Logically, we exist on earth because the sun is too hot, and pluto is too cold. "How lucky we are that the earth is just the right distance from the sun, has just the right amount of this and that..." Yes, it is a rare coincidence. But if it weren't so, we wouldn't be here to consider it.
> 
> You've probably heard of the Many-worlds interpretation. It holds that 'everything happens, but in seperate universes'. Meaning that all possible result of all actions, will in fact happen, and each will spawn a new universe in which that exact thing took place. Again, we would not exist in the universes where the earth never formed, nor the ones where the third world war in the 1960's removed the human race from the face of the earth.
> 
> As for 'every possible universe', imagine all constants (speed of light, strength of gravity, Planck's constant, electron volt, etc) being variables, and one universe existing for every combination of these. Then add any possible beginning of such a universe (always existed, formed in a big bang caused by quantum fluctuation, space-time bubble that detached from a neighbouring universe, suddenly springing fully-formed into being, etc), any possible point in their existence... And when you're done with that, check out Max Tegmark's Ultimate Ensemble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_ensemble). Now you've got a universe with 7 dimensions of space, 4 dimensions of time, and all coordinates are of type split-complex dual octonions.

This, combined with the Anthropic Principle, is a fascinating argument. 
  On the surface, it seems to undercut any possible probability-based 
argument that we theists might use.  However, it also undercuts all of 
science.  If we assume an infinite number of universes (and there is no 
way to exclude the possibility), then for any arbitrary thing you can 
imagine, there exists a universe where it happened.  If God came down 
personally and shook your hand, you could state, "Isn't this a 
remarkably unlikely universe?  It seems like God shook my hand.  I know, 
of course, that this is false."  More to the point, you could observe 
that things fall to the ground when you drop them, and say "What a 
remarkable coincidence!  I wonder what the odds are of that?"

Since science can never directly reveal the absolute laws of the 
universe, we are left with making statements, based on probability, 
derived from our observations.  We see things fall to the ground, and 
thus we hypothesize that there is something called "gravity" which 
causes it to do so.  We cannot exclude the possibility that it was all 
random, but when certain things become remarkably improbable, we come to 
believe that there is a reason behind them other than random chance.

In the same way, if some people want to argue for the existence of God 
based on the remarkable unlikeliness of the random existence of life, 
that is a valid and logical argument.  Of course, others will disagree 
about the probabilities, and thus come to a different conclusion.

To be slightly more direct, the infinite universes hypothesis, combined 
with the anthropic principle, is a handy tool to explain away any 
evidence that doesn't fit your preconceptions.  Any remarkable 
observation can be claimed to be random chance.