I suggest the following explanation to the fine tuning argument:
BIG BANG
No conscious observation from within the universe yet, therefore it exists in a superposition state (quantum mechanically speaking). With that goes a Wavefunction that contains all the possible universes. In only ONE of them will evolve the FIRST conscious creature able of making the first observation. At that exact instance the wavefunction collapses and this universe of the first observer materializes into reality. The others never existed. Obviously, the universe in which a conscious observer evolves first is going to be the one in which the fine tuning is best.
DONE
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
And how do you know there ain't a consciousness in all the others concurrently evolving simultaneously?
rmfr
The wavefunction collapse would condense one of the universes upon the first observation which explains the fine tuning "here". We can all observe wavefunction collapse but we can only speculate on many other universes that exist. On collapse, it could be that all of the options split and exist or not, I can't tell. But I can tell that this one remains in existence.
I doubt that consciousness has anything to do with quantum mechanics! It's the interaction with the photon (or whatever) that forces the particle (or whatever) to assume a particular position (or whatever). What we see (and recognize with our consciousness) has already happened. It's easy enough to test. You run individual photons through the two-slit experiment and record (by automated means) their impact on the screen behind the slits. A week later you consciously take in the results. Looking at the plotter, you see that these results were plotted at the time of the experiment.
I don't disagree, the fact is that we don't know exactly what is happening. The solution I am speculating on isn't any worse than the others. On your remark of looking at the results from last week, it's not impossible that the wavefunction collapses at the time of observation working itself backwards.
Whatever you are using as a definition of consciousness is so frigging bizarre as to be eliminated with no reason or effort at all. Consciousness is an emergent property of being. Things that are have consciousness to varying degrees. Things that are not have yet to prove that they have anything at all resembling being or consciousness. You are putting the cart before the horse. You are doing so with supposition and wild assertion NOT with facts and evidence.
I am not defining consciousness at all. It exists, that is a fact. At this point we don't have a clue on how it works. And therefore making any statement on whether it is emergent or not is just as much speculation as my proposal, mine is just speculation to get ideas flowing.
You are of course wrong. We know for a fact that consciousness is an emergent property of living things. That is a measurable, identifiable, empirical, FACT. We have no evidence what so ever of consciousness occurring independent of being. (You are just WRONG). Your proposal is out in "Woo-woo Land." There is nothing at all supporting it.
Of course I could be wrong. And I am not saying that consciousness isn't emergent, just that in the first ever observation done in any of the universes coming out of "our' big bang, this would collapse that wavefunction, which is ours. And that would provide a possible answer to the fine tuning question.
@Coming out of our Big Bang??? What in the hell are you talking about. We never came out of our Big Bang. Do you know what the Big Bang is? The Big Bang is a theory of the expansion of the universe. It is not a theory of cosmology "Creation of the Universe." All that is noted by the "Big Bang" theory is that the universe was once a hot dense mass or a singularity. We have followed it back in time to "Plank Time." At Plank Time, the physics of the universe breaks down and we can not follow it back in time any further (CURRENTLY). The only thing the Big Band asserts (and this assertion is now backed by tons of evidence) is that the universe is expanding and it is expanding faster and faster the further away it is.
As far as any wave function goes, you would have to know if the universe is open or closed to support your hypothesis. A wave function occurs in a closed universe from what I have read. "Universal wavefunction. The universal wavefunction (or wave function) is a term introduced by Hugh Everett in his PhD thesis The Theory of the Universal Wave Function, and forms a core concept in the relative state interpretation or many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics." Obviously it also assumes the "Many Worlds" hypothesis. In short - you are not saying anything. The answer to the fine tuning question is simple - mankind came from the universe and was not put into the universe by a magic creator. There is no evidence for a magic creator. All evidence points to mankind emerging from the stuff of the universe. I give you "Douglas Adams' Puddle Analogy." All life forms on our planet are ideally suited for the environment in which they find themselves. They have adapted to the environment around them.
LIST OF EXTREMOPHILES"
Alkaliphile: They thrive at extremely alkaline conditions of pH 8.5 to 11. The perfect environment for them.
* Halorhodospira halochloris
★ Natronomonas pharaonis
★ Thiohalospira alkaliphila
Barophile/Piezophile: These organisms proliferate in places with high pressure such as ocean floors where the pressure can be as high as 380 atm. Such high pressures if applied to a normal cellular organism would cause its cell membrane to become rigid and almost impermeable to nutrients. Barophiles do not face the same problem as they have evolved and adapted their cellular membrane in such a way that the pressure has almost no effect on the permeability of the nutrients across the membrane, allowing the cell to thrive. Due to their location, they usually grow without any exposure to light, and hence, are found to be extremely sensitive to UV light. They also lack any form of DNA repair mechanisms.
★ Halomonas salaria
★ Pseudomonas bathycetes
★ Moritella japonica
★ Shewanella benthica
Could Natural Nuclear Reactors Have Boosted Life on This and Other Planets? Life forms have been found in the waste of Nuclear Reactors and these reactors do occur naturally on the planet. Scientists are asking if this could be the spark of life?
Every life form we know of is adapted to the environment in which it finds itself. Human beings are no different. The world was not "made for us." We evolved into this world and adapted to it. Just like every other life form we have ever witnesses,.
Thanks, but I don't see how this is in any way related to the issue I raised. The real point of discussion is in fact "what constitutes an observation or measurement? or "at what point does the wave function collapse?".
In my view, where universes are concerned, possible and actual are the same thing.
I don't know for sure, but you could certainly be correct. Possible and Actual may very well be the same thing.
How does anyone know that this is the only universe? We are not able (at this time) to peer outside of our universe, but that does not discount that this may not be the only one.
We cannot prove this, so the "theory" is untestable, thus it is not a valid hypothesis.
We don't know, that's the only thing we can be sure of, in that I fully agree. Many theories in the past weren't testable at that time. I don't think that should stop us from forwarding ideas. It may give one of us the opportunity to come up with a better one. Or someone may convince us that the proposed idea is wrong, but that's also progress.
I disagree. If it is a valid hypothesis, then it can be tested.
You are offering up exactly the same cart and pony trick theistic apologists make their living off. It exists outside of space and time, may or may not be here, or there, or over there. Apologists call it "god", you are just giving a different label to some mystical process.
I suggest you go back to your thought experiment and devise a method to test your hypothesis.
Here is a starting point. If anything exists anywhere or at any time, energy is involved. If something pops out of existence, there has to be a trail where the energy went. Not unless you are able to prove wrong one of the strongest pillars of scientific research, the "Conservation of energy". And by the way, if you can find a way to get around conservation of energy, I guarantee 100% that you will win the Nobel Prize for Science, will be rich and more famous than Einstein.
When anyone offers up a hypothesis that cannot be tested, I call it "woo woo".
My argument has nothing to do with what consciousness is or how it comes about (I actually do think it is emergent). The only point I am trying to make is that, following quantum mechanics, the wavefunction does collapse upon observation or measurement, whatever that means; does a bacteria has enough measurement capability to generate a collapse? I don't know, but that's not important for this discussion. That the theory sucks, I agree. But the hypothesis is OK, in the sense that Hugh Everett's multi-world interpretation idea was very interesting but nevertheless completely unverifiable, for now at least. Still, many people have come to embrace the idea.
" many people have come to embrace the idea."
I'm not a physicist, but that clearly is an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Sorry...I should have said many physicists embrace the idea. Personally I don't like it (which doesn't make it wrong) but among the hardcore physicists it is a popular concept.
And that is still an argumentum ad populum fallacy. I may not be theoretical physicist, but I have been studying Astrophysics my entire life (some 45+ years). Even tested out and received an Honorary BSc in Astrophysics.
I for one do not accept this idea (it does not warrant "hypothesis" since it CANNOT be tested). It is not even a hypothesis.
Hypothesis: A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it (The Great Wiki).
Thus, until it can be tested, it is only a fantastical idea.
rmfr
There are current yhrories that insects are concious (at work on cell phone no time now to link to source...later). Would a bee be enough to collapse your wave? They are known to navigate by the sun.
I really don't know. Where do you draw the line? At apes? At viruses? I guess that's up to the universe to decide.
After all, we don't even know at all how consciousness works. I am pretty sure one transistor isn't conscious; what about 10 to the 10th power? I have no idea.
As Greensnake was saying earlier; you don't need a life form to change (*collapse) a wave-function, almost any interaction can do it. An electron colliding with a gas molecule is more than enough; and is a common problem with experiments.
*collapsing wave function is kind of misleading to lay people as these functions only change into other functions (or functionals), they do not disappear./e And as Greensnake also eluded to; you don't even have to make an observation (or even have the equipment to potentially make an observation) for this to happen.
When I say "disappear", I am only talking from my point of view. I can't observe the others. By the way, Professor Ruth E. Kastner defends the "Transactional Interpretation", it does away with observation requirements all together. I think it is elegant and it seems to be inline with what you think.
Reference Post: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/fine-tuning-universe#comment-111611
Do you even know what the wavefunction collapse is? Please provide your definition of wavefunction collapse.
Yes, we can observe wavefunction collapse. Speculation about other universes is just that. Speculation. Do you know what speculation means? Please provide your definition for speculation.
Please redefine what you were trying to say here.
This one WHAT? remains? Define existence.
Furthermore, there is NO fine tuning of the universe. It just happened to settle into this state by chance.
================================================================================
As asked earlier, and you still ain't answered, "And how do you know there ain't a consciousness in all the others concurrently evolving simultaneously?"
rmfr
P.S. — Everyone else has done said what I would have said, saving me the trouble of verbosing everyone to death. Thanks y'all. (Cognostic, David, Nyarlathotep, Greensnake)
Well...I don't know if the other universes/wavefunctions continue and if some of them will contain conscious beings. But I do know that if they do contain them that there universe is fine tuned enough to allow it. The argument comes down to what is an observation and whether it is required. The original idea popped up in my mind and I posted it to bounce it off others; meanwhile I found out it isn't original at all, which takes the fun kind of out of it.
And what is this about "universe is fine tuned enough to allow it" thing you are harping on. I am assuming you mean the "Fine-Tuned Universe Argument" which states that the fundamental parameters (see below) were fine tuned for the creation of life.
Fundamental Physical Parameters (doubt I remember them all):
And I am sure I ain't remembering them all.
You do realize that this "fine tuning argument" is nothing more than a huge pile of horse hoowhee don't you? No. Well, here is the truth. And I know LogicForTW said thusly below: Life fine tuned itself to this infitesimally small speck of dust in this humongously vast universe. Not the other way around.
You nonsensical dribble about collapsing wave functions is nothing more than a silly fantasy.
Wake up. And go to school.
And No. Observation is not needed for the universe to exist. It will exist whether we are here or not.
rmfr
@"That the theory sucks, I agree. But the hypothesis is OK, in the sense that Hugh Everett's multi-world interpretation idea was very interesting but nevertheless completely unverifiable, for now at least. Still, many people have come to embrace the idea."
You have answered your own question. Interesting or not..... the question is answered.
Why does the universe need to be finely tuned?
To me, this makes much more sense and is much easier:
Life is finely tuned to this universe. It had 14 billion years and uncountable opportunities to get finely tuned. But really it is not finely tuned at all, it just is, a natural consequence to chaos and order.
And that is something I have also said several times on these threads...
I had forgotten that one (damned Alzheimers). Thanks LogicForTW.
rmfr
Of course, life adapts to its environment. But some environments would not allow for life. So some accidental finetuning will be required to provide a universe capable of evolving it.
Pages