![]() If we're many standard deviations away, out in the tail, it counts against the likelihood of these laws of physics. ![]() If we are within a couple standard deviations of the center, good. Then we can see where we fit in this distribution. ![]() Then by doing a weighted average you can get a probability distribution of what the value of each parameter would be for a randomly-selected intelligent life-form. Step 3A, IF it is possible to find a sensible measure of the frequency in which any given type of universe appears: In principle, it is possible to estimate the expected number of intelligent life-forms in each universe. (Our universe had better be one of the possibilities of course!) In what we understand of string theory so far, it seems that, yes there have to be many universes, each with different fundamental constants. Step 2, you extrapolate these laws to learn about unobservable things, including whether there are other universes besides our own. Of course, people expect that this theory is string theory: They expect that any plausible self-consistent theory that includes general relativity and QFT is either string theory or something mathematically equivalent to string theory. We hope and expect that we will eventually end up with some mathematical equations or structures that are very constraining: Basically, that there will be only one simple self-consistent theory that can possibly be the laws of physics of the universe (or multiverse). Step 1 is to understand the exact laws of our universe, back to the big bang. In any case, taking this road is going to involve a lot more than only physics because first you have to find a way to define "life" in mathematical terms. However, there's some arguments that our standard model might not be the only one supporting the evolution of life (Google for: Weakless Universe). Second one is that you might try to come up with a theory in which the "evolution of life" is well-defined in scientific terms, such that you can argue there's some optimization principle going on which results in some specific theory, that being the one we observe. That constraint might be more or less interesting, but nothing unscientific about this. carbon exists in such and such an abundance, and this is only possible if parameter x is in some specific range, so you've constrained your parameter. It's more that you'd be saying we have observed that the universe is such that e.g. In most cases the existence of intelligent life itself is too much of a detail that enters the argument. One is that it can give you non-trivial constraints on parameters in current theories. There are however two ways you can extract science from the anthropic principle. The statement you quote is a truism, so not much science in it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |