Re: [asa] Many Worlds Interpretation and ID

From: David Heddle <heddle@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Aug 14 2007 - 16:33:29 EDT

David C,

But low probability is, in my opinion, the wrong way to look at cosmological
ID anyway. Fine-tuning arguments should not be based on assumed low
probabilities of the constants--something that cannot be calculated. It
should be based on the sensitivity of habitability (for any kind of life) to
those values, which is quite different. In fact, the best possible case for
cosmological ID is the high probability scenario. If we uncover a
fundamental theory that derives the values of the constants (so that they
have probability unity) and the sensitivity of habitability stands the test
of time, then we must conclude that habitability is built into the fabric of
spacetime. Short of God appearing on earth, this would be the strongest
possible argument in favor of cosmological ID.

On 8/14/07, David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The implications of many world hypotheses for ID depend both on the
> variant of many worlds and on the variant of ID. In quantum many
> world models, where every possible quantum outcome occurs in a
> particular universe, the laws of physics are the same in each. This
> doesn't affect appeals to the anthropic principle, but it may address
> the probabilistic arguments of Dembski et al. String theory many
> worlds posits that any consistent set of strings exists as a universe,
> producing different fundamental constants and forces.
>
> Arguments for or against anthropic principle claims (including
> multiverse models) cannot provide any firm basis because we have no
> data on the distribution of important parameters in different
> universes. We have a sample size of one. That's more than enough to
> publish a molecular clock paper, but it doesn't provide any
> statistical validity. Even in an infinitely large sample, there's no
> guarantee that a particular value is within the distribution. E.g.,
> no amount of sampling numbers from 1 to 10 will yield 100. Thus, even
> in an infinite number of universes it's possible that the parameters
> observed in our universe are exceptional. On the other hand, the
> distribution could be tightly clustered around parameter values that
> allow intelligent life. (An invalid argument for this is the fact
> that a randomly sampled universe is likely to be within, e.g., 95% of
> the mean of of 95% of the parameters. However, our universe is not a
> random sample. This invalid argument was published in Discover ca.
> late 1980's; the same reasoning was used in a letter to the editor in
> Science or Nature in the mid-1990's to prove that the Pope is an
> alien-the letter authors failed to find their fallacy.) The fact that
> God determines the parameters is another uncalcuable component.
>
> --
> Dr. David Campbell
> 425 Scientific Collections
> University of Alabama
> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Aug 14 16:33:40 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 14 2007 - 16:33:40 EDT