[~ot] why is programming so fun?

[Russell Lewis]

Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
> Russell Lewis Wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Ah, but here I believe you misunderstand things. "Every /possible/ universe" does not mean "every /imaginable/ universe". Take uranium U-235, for example. Given one atom of U-235, there's a 50% chance it will decay within the first 703,800,000 years. It might decay tomorrow, it might not decay before the sun burns out. That does not mean that atom may suddenly turn into a four-armed clown. (sorry if this seems insulting your intelligence, it is not intended as such)
> 
> What many-worlds and it's derivatives preach is that all possible results of a wavefunction collapse will take place, each in a separate universe. The fact that the underlying laws that govern it may change, does not allow matter and energy in a universe to break those laws.

I have been trying diligently to stay out of this argument, and so have 
only posted a couple of times.  However, I wanted to offer a quick 
clarification of my original statement.  I agree that there is one type 
of "infinite universes" hypothesis which is based on the concept of 
waveform collapse.  That assumes that we had one starting point and 
there are an infinite number of descendant universes from it.  However, 
the more general theory is that there could have been an infinite number 
of different instances, and the various laws & constants of nature vary 
from instance to instance.  That was more what I was describing.

Yet I would say that even if we restrict ourselves to the 
collapsing-waveform type of theory, we are still in much the same boat. 
  Quantum physics tells us that there are any number of remarkably 
improbable things which still have nonzero probability.  If we assume 
infinite universes, then we can reasonably say that in at least one of 
the universes, that remarkably improbable thing happened.

My argument is that while this is a fascinating cosmological theory (I 
like it, personally, even if I have no idea whether it's true), we 
cannot reasonably use it to explain away scientific phenomena.  We must, 
as much as possible, look at the evidence, find the most probable 
explanation, and then assume (until we have better observations) that 
the explanation is likely to be true.  Otherwise, science as a 
discipline has no ground to stand on.  More bluntly, we must 
intentionally ignore the many-worlds interpretation when we are making 
scientific conclusions.  This might, of course, cause us to draw 
incorrect conclusions, but quantum physics tells us that it is quite 
improbable that we are wrong. :)