33 thoughts on “Anthropic Selection Illustrated”

  1. mollishka

    There’s a joke in here somewhere about H2 being a hydrogen atom with one too many protons, but I’m not exactly sure where it is …

  3. Pingback: Watch what you wish for! « Entertaining Research

  4. Quasar9

    lol Sean, so did the Genie turn into Dark Matter
    and ‘disappear’ into Thin Air?

    PS – If thoughts (and imagination) are physical and chemical processes – does that mean what we think or dream off ‘physically’ exists even if it is not ‘real’

    Do Thoughts & Dreams evaporate – or – simply move between two phases: from the observable universe or ‘physical’ 3D+T dimension, into another ‘dimesion’

  5. Quasar9

    Does that prove that the arrow of Time is not reversible
    Not even Genie’s can take you back in Time?
    Not even to the last written test or exam?

    Mind you a ‘bent’ teacher or a good ‘hacker’ could alter his school grades or test results – for a small bribe.

  6. V.

    Am I the only one he thinks that all of recent skepticism and cynicism over string theory, dark matter, and supersymmetry is to somehow related to the failure to find WMD in Iraq and belief that we were misled into the war? Am I just crazy?

  7. Paul Valletta

    If the Anthropic reasoning/selection is correct, then there’s is a definate choice for why things are the way they are?

    Hydrogen, in a specific form, may have multiple choice’s for placing Electrons into a certain Valence.

    Sometimes, it’s better to re-STATE the question?..and other times it’s better to let Nature remain correct!

  9. V.

    Weichi,
    I may very well be crazy, but my theory is that a lot of people are deeply upset about being led into a war on the basis of claims which turned out to not be accurate. I think this has produced a mood of mistrust of ‘authorities’ and deep cynicism on the part of some people, which reflects their attitudes towards things we are told should exist, such as dark matter, susy, and extra dimensions. Perhaps my theory is just crazy enough to be right.

  11. Haludza

    You know V, I think you may be onto something there.

    It would be interesting to see how, say, trust in the media over the decades might relate to attitudes to the more abstract ends of science. Mind you, surely just the mere existence of a Peter Woit or two has been a comparable factor?

  12. Neil B.

    Hey, if those flaky smart-aleck theories are right somehow, where observers retroactively create the conditions for the self-contained universe in the past, then we do go to “war” with the laws of physics we wish we had (i.e., anthropically friendly ones.) Yet, I think such “explanations” are rubbish (mainly because what ultimately needs explaining is always the existential given, not due to origination in time anyway.)

    PS – I think the point of the cartoon is that if a genie made the valence statement true (not, the student having answered right given our world), then lots of things explode for some chemical reason. Is that so?

  13. Stephen Uitti

    We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.

    Niels Bohr

  15. aquariid

    I think I get it. If things were different then they wouldn’t be the same, uh, I think.
    Could someone please explain to a non-physicist (though 50 yr sci-fi fan) why the so-called anthropic principle has any significance beyond being a classic tautology?

    I’ve lurked here for the past few months. I really appreciate the opportunity to have something of a behind the scenes view of the professional cosmologist. Thanks
    Aquariid (a frequently unnoticed meteor shower)

  16. confused

    Alright, someone help me because I don’t get it. It’s not as though there isn’t an element with two valence electrons; we just arbitrarily named it helium instead of hydrogen.

    So how does changing an arbitrary label blow up the universe?

    Or is the genie just being really obtuse and changing the laws of physics so that an atom with 1-proton and 2-electrons is stable (which presumably makes it impossible for anything to exist)?

  17. Jordan

    The problem is that if every hydrogen atom in the universe suddenly has two valence electrons in is 1s orbital, you get lots of hydride anions. So. Many. Hydrides. And they will all react. Quickly. And probably explosively.

  18. Lab Lemming

    In addition to Jordan’s issue, the universe would presumably suddenly find itself with a strong net negative charge.

    But speaking of boom, can any of you professional astronomers give us the lowdown on this super-duper nova reported in the New York Times? What was it, where was it, can we see it, what is the actual data, and where does it fit in the grand scheme of things?

  22. island

    aquariid asked:
    why the so-called anthropic principle has any significance beyond being a classic tautology?

    Strong interpretations aren’t tautological, because they include a “fundamental dynamical principle” that defines the structure of the universe from first principles.

    Weak interpretaions are both, circular, and tautological, but there is no valid weak interpretation without the multiverse, because the weak features are not what is observed.

    “People”, (like David Gross), say that the (weak) fact of our existence can’t be falsified, so the selection principle can’t be falsified, but ANY valid cosmological principle necessarily falsifies any possibilty for selection effects.

    The fact that the ‘main failure in 20 years’ to produce a fundamental dynamical principle in lieu of “anthropic selection”, *most apparently* and only indicates that the anthropic constraint must be strongly linked to any realistically plausible cosmological structure principle, so he has disassociated the dynamical structure principle that is being indicated by the only two relevant facts, while complaining about the solution that is *most apparently* being offered.

    A Very Strong Anthropic Principle

  23. James Nightshade

    Suppose I was born in a particular small town in Illinois, population

  24. James Nightshade

    Suppose I was born in a particular small town in Illinois, population < 100.

    Isn’t it unlikely for me to be born there, rather than a large city like Los Angeles, Nanking, or Mexico City? Should I suppose that some cosmic selection principle has determined my unlikely birthplace?

    [This dumb comment revised to comply with the dumb comment parsing.]

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top