Quote from jem:
I take this as a concession-- I have been correct all along. Your article con -firms my statements almost exaclty (editing problem with firefox)
The weakness of gravity, the existence of just the right motley set of particles to form the building blocks of lifeâare these facts enough to cause physicists to abandon their quest for mathematical elegance and shift to embrace the anthropic principle? No, said Susskind, there is still the possibility that they arose by chance. "But there is one fine-tuning of nature, one accident, one conspiracy we might call it, which is so extraordinary that nobody thinks it's an accident."
What else, besides an intelligent designer, could have tailored the universe to fit the needs of planets and people, including unlikely features that defy current mathematical prediction? Susskind's answer lies in string theoryâa mathematical model of nature to which many, if not most, physicists now subscribe.
Your choice AP or billions of parallel universes.
Rebuttal Argument.
If you are relying on the NYAS.org website's editorial summary describing Dr. Susskind's presentation, as a means of arguing that you have proved your point and that I have conceded your position as correct, then I think you are being mislead by the editor's own misunderstanding of the issues involved.
That editorial summary, in my opinion, is a layperson's attempt to actually create the illusion that there is a raging battle between theoretical physicists over whether or not an intelligent designer is responsible for human existence. This is simply not true.
If you really want to understand the issues, then you need to watch the presentation and concentrate on it, because despite the fact that it is intended for an educated layperson audience, the presentation is still quite difficult to passively follow.
To meaningfully undestand Dr. Susskind directly from his presentation, I have painstakingly taken the time to type the following quoted transcription (n.b., the transcript begins right after Dr. Susskind has explained that the cosmological constant has only been measured in the locale of space in which we inhabit, and not throughout the entire universe, because we can't measure it anywhere else):
"Is the universe diverse, with many different environments and we simply live in the kind of place we can live in -- or is the universe all the same, controlled by some very basic set of equations which will determine everything, and therefore not permit diversity?"
âThe answer, 'of course' is 'not known definitively,' but the first issue that this kind of question raises, is: What is the range of possibilities -- what theory controls what is possible?â
âMost theoretical theorists believe that the most likely, or the best mathematical theory of nature that we have, is called string theory."
The point of the above quote, is that it is NOT YET KNOWN whether the cosmological constant (i.e., the vacuum energy of space) that we measure local to the Earth is the same in other parts of the universe, or whether, like a temperature measurement, the cosmological constant varies by locale.
If the cosmological constant is exactly the same everywhere in the universe, then this suggests that a designer may be responsible. If the cosmological constant varies like temperature, then life exists in the locale, merely because the cosmological constant in this locale happens to be a nice temperature.
Now, what Susskind describes as being measured "local" to Earth, is not the distance from the Earth to the moon, or even the distance from the Earth to the farthest visible object in known space. Susskind's locale is the entire observable universal space which we currently inhabit. Theoretical physicists are already reasonably consistent in their understanding that the "universe" contains pockets of space, each of which is only observable from within that particular pocket, so that we cannot measure the cosmological constant in any of the other pockets of space.
However, we observe that these other pockets of space exist when we observe their effect on our own pocket. This effect is called a "black hole." We cannot measure what is beyond the âevent horizonâ of a black hole to discover what is contained within that pocket of space, because our measuring instruments are constrained by the speed of light, and light cannot escape the gravity well of the black hole to permit us the opportunity to measure the all-important cosmological constant which presumably is to be found therein.
But, the fact that we observe the black hole and we understand the principles by which a black hole is formed confirms that these pockets of space are there, and that means that the single cosmological constant which we observe here is only one of perhaps billions of cosmological constants, each of which may indeed be the same (suggesting an intelligent designer) or different (suggesting chance).
Which brings me back to where I was previously accused of sophistry. In order to know for certain, whether or not our universe, and by this I mean the observed space pocket which we can scientifically measure, is the same as all of the other universes/space pockets, we would have to conduct an impossible probability test. We would have to recreate the big bang, and then measure the cosmological constant/vacuum energy of space which was present inside to determine whether or not it is the same as the one which we currently measure.
This we cannot do. So, we are left with only one universal pocket of space and only one cosmological constant -- which renders its value as predictive of a fine-tuned universe scientifically meaningless, because no probability experiment can be conducted in an environment where there is no possibility of conducting more than a single trial.
And, so we run head on into the analogy of the roulette wheel with only one slot, and only one opportunity to spin. When you let the ball go, you already know in advance where it will land, because thereâs no alternative.
The anthropic principle stands for nothing more nor less than the principle that we are here because we are here. You can either surmise that life exists because the cosmological constant is as it is measured (intelligent design), or you can postulate that the cosmological constant is as it is measured because we are here (randomness). But, you cannot use the anthropic principle to actually prove either side of the argument, because you cannot test the probability with any further âspinsâ of the universal âroulette wheelâ (unless you figure out a way to exceed the speed of light and come back to tell about it -- warp factor 5, Scotty).
The above facts render all evidence of the various purported fine-tuning observations of our universe/pocket of space, irrelevant, because they are all, every one of them, entirely dependent upon the cosmological constant. And while the cosmological constant itself is relevant to the "fact" that life exists in our universe/pocket of space -- as just explained, the cosmological constant cannot be used to predict/prove the existence or non-existence of an intelligent designer, because we can neither investigate the cosmological constant beyond the event horizon of a black hole, nor can we restart our own universe over multiple trials, to observe whether things might turn out the same or differently.
What the cosmological constant âcanâ do, is provide those who do not understand it with fertile ground to advance the idea that the scientific measurement of the cosmological constant weighs in favor of a creator. And to be fair, the scientific measurement of the cosmological constant can also be used to provide those who do not understand it with the same ground to advance an argument against the existence of a creator.
However, once you "do" understand the meaning of the cosmological constant, you understand that the fact of its existence and specific measurement does not actually weigh in favor of either conclusion.
The cosmological constant simply has "no predictive value, whatsoever," in the case of Design v. Chance.
In court, when the judge is faced with evidence which does not weigh in favor other either side of a decision, the judge just ignores that evidence, and moves on to something else as a means of rendering judgment.
Which is what I suggest that should be done with the cosmological constant, because, fascinating as it may be -- it doesn't prove anything -- except maybe that we humans are great at developing arguments to sustain our preconceptions, so as to permit us to fight with each other.
And, I doubt that I will get much argument over the fact that when it comes to fighting with each other -- that is what we humans do best.
Happy New Year
