# Thread: Immortality and Conditional Probability

1. ## Re: Immortality and Conditional Probability

Originally Posted by victorxstc
Anthropic principle holds in any case: a multiverse, a finite universe, a galaxy, a small planet, or any other imaginable condition. As long as you exist, there was a reasonable probability for your existence. The term 'reasonable' can mean values differing from case to case depending on the size of the sample and the duration of the existence of the sample. But in any case, it is just as enough for creating you, inevitably. There is no logical escape from this principle.

If you exist, your probability of existence was such high that it dictated that you must exist. If you do not exist, well there is no 'you' to question the non-existence of the non-you, in the first place...
Victor,
- As I understand the Anthropic Principle, it concludes (or, at least, suggests) that our universe was designed for life -- that life would not exist if any of numerous physical constants were not precisely what they are...

2. ## Re: Immortality and Conditional Probability

Jabba, anthropic principle neither concludes nor suggests that our universe is DESIGNED, in the first place. That is a fundamental misreading of the principle.

3. ## Re: Immortality and Conditional Probability

At this point, I'm waiting for Jabba 's Deus ex machina with which it will all make sense. I'm sure.

4. ## The Following User Says Thank You to TheEcologist For This Useful Post:

bryangoodrich (04-21-2015)

5. ## Re: Immortality and Conditional Probability

Originally Posted by victorxstc
Jabba, anthropic principle neither concludes nor suggests that our universe is DESIGNED, in the first place. That is a fundamental misreading of the principle.
Victor,
- As I understand it, the Strong Anthropic Principle does not allow for multiverses, whereas the Weak Anthropic Principle does. If there is only one Universe, it's quite a coincident that reality has just the right constants to allow for life. And then, it just so happens to have produced me (and you, I assume).
- If there are multiverses, all bets are off -- but still, odds are that I don't have but one, finite life to live...

6. ## Re: Immortality and Conditional Probability

Originally Posted by Jabba
it's quite a coincident that reality has just the right constants to allow for life
This demonstrates your inability to understand the concepts appropriately. There are an infinity of possible universes given the fact the constants that frame this one can take on any real (or rational) numbered value. Your also have packed life with a lot of meaning if you think observing it determines the physics. Life as we define it is based on chemistry. For one, it is theoretically possible for life as we understand it to originate from a different chemistry than we see on Earth, and we do see that in some extreme lifeforms on Earth. Furthermore, that chemistry is determined by the physics of our universe. So what's preventing there from being an infinity of possible lifeforms based on an infinity of possible chemistries determined by the infinity of possible universes? Nothing. So the anthropic principle is a stupid idea, period.

7. ## The Following User Says Thank You to bryangoodrich For This Useful Post:

victorxstc (04-21-2015)

8. ## Re: Immortality and Conditional Probability

Originally Posted by bryangoodrich
This demonstrates your inability to understand the concepts appropriately. There are an infinity of possible universes given the fact the constants that frame this one can take on any real (or rational) numbered value. Your also have packed life with a lot of meaning if you think observing it determines the physics. Life as we define it is based on chemistry. For one, it is theoretically possible for life as we understand it to originate from a different chemistry than we see on Earth, and we do see that in some extreme lifeforms on Earth. Furthermore, that chemistry is determined by the physics of our universe. So what's preventing there from being an infinity of possible lifeforms based on an infinity of possible chemistries determined by the infinity of possible universes? Nothing. So the anthropic principle is a stupid idea, period.
Bryan, what Jabba said (and you successfully opposed) was not the principle, itself.

9. ## Re: Immortality and Conditional Probability

Originally Posted by Jabba
Victor,
- As I understand it, the Strong Anthropic Principle does not allow for multiverses, whereas the Weak Anthropic Principle does. If there is only one Universe, it's quite a coincident that reality has just the right constants to allow for life. And then, it just so happens to have produced me (and you, I assume).
- If there are multiverses, all bets are off -- but still, odds are that I don't have but one, finite life to live...
Jabba, it is not fine tuning, when it is logically erroneous.

2. The principle still holds. Let's assume there is one finite and small universe, with no special or designed constants and laws. Say, a galaxy and nothing more.

This single galaxy has 2 routes to take. Either its constants are suitable to create "you" or any other intelligent being. Or, its physical laws are not suitable for development of you. Remember that we are assuming that its laws are quite random.

If the constants were in favor of your existence, you would exist. And therefore, you would be amused and perplexed by your creation. But remember that we are assuming that this universe had no special or designed constants or laws.

On the other hand, if that small universe's physical laws and constants were not friendly to the existence of a "you", there would be no you to question it in the first place.

So, we see that a small and finite universe without any designed or special laws / constants can create you.

Now let's agree temporarily that the probability of physical laws in favor of intelligence is as small as our famous "virtually zero" value. (I do not agree that it is, but lets assume that it is, for the sake of our discussion).

You as the output of this universe will have virtually zero chance to exist. So if you exist, it means that you were virtually infinitely lucky.

That is all you can logically get from this "virtually zero" chance.
This does not logically necessitate specific physical constants being intelligently set. The only logical deduction is that you were lucky enough to exist. (If the universe is only a single galaxy, and if your chance of existence is virtually zero).

Now, think about an infinite universe of billions of galaxies. This makes you (your existence) reasonably lucky. And now think about a multiverse or at least a single universe of infinite galaxies. This makes the probability of you [given TWEB] infinite!

10. ## Re: Immortality and Conditional Probability

Originally Posted by victorxstc
Bryan, what Jabba said (and you successfully opposed) was not the principle, itself.
Correct. I'm arguing against fine-tuning/design considerations. However, the weak anthropic principle otherwise is a pointless statement.

only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing and reflecting upon any such fine tuning wikipedia

Well, in a universe incapable of supporting life (intelligent beings), how the hell would you have "living beings capable of observing and reflecting upon any such fine tuning"?? It's essentially saying "it takes a universe that has intelligent beings to do intelligent things." Uh, no **** lol

So what's the point of ever talking about the Anthropic Principle? Oh, because some people want to talk about fine-tuning stupid BS.

In any case, the Strong AP is no better to me. It's like saying "look, the world is as I perceive it because I'm an intelligent being!" To which I reply "oh please STFU"

11. ## Re: Immortality and Conditional Probability

Exactly bryan. It is the fundamental misreading Jabba sees as "fine-tuning".

Jabba, if you see such a huge error a "fine tuning", no wonder you see another huge logical irrelevancy (i.e., the creationism) a fine tuning too.

12. ## Re: Immortality and Conditional Probability

Jabba,

If we think that the universe is designed in a delicate way to give rise to us as intelligent observers, at the same time, we must admit that the very same delicate design has FAILED to create other imaginable intelligent life forms. For example, we don't have any 2-dimensional life or any 450-dimensional life forms.

There are infinite number of imaginable life forms that this "delicate" design has FAILED to produce.

Any of them could question their root and creator, if this "designer" had not failed to create them. But, such life form are non-existent to question their non-existent root.

--------------

Bottom line:

According to your OWN assumptions, there is a designer that has set all constants to create us observers, but despite having infinite resources, it has failed to create even one other intelligent life form.

So choice is yours: There is either (1) a random universe, in which everything is logically in place, out of pure randomness (regardless of the existence or absence of any designer). Or (2) an intentionally designed universe, in which a huge amount of resources (galaxies etc) is inconsistently wasted to produce a single 'partially and incompetently intelligent' life form.

ps. To your advantage, I was assuming that there is neither multiverse nor infinite universe.

13. ## The Following User Says Thank You to victorxstc For This Useful Post:

bryangoodrich (04-21-2015)

14. ## Re: Immortality and Conditional Probability

Originally Posted by victorxstc
Jabba, it is not fine tuning, when it is logically erroneous...
Victor,

- Brandon Carter didn't think that it was logically erroneous.

- From Wikipedia:
The strong anthropic principle (SAP) as explained by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler (see variants) states that this is all the case because the universe is compelled, in some sense, to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it. Some critics of the SAP argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle (WAP) similar to the one defined by Brandon Carter, which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning (my emphasis) is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing and reflecting upon any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld. Most often such arguments draw upon some notion of the multiverse for there to be a statistical population of universes to select from and from which selection bias (our observance of only this universe, apparently compatible with life) could occur.

15. ## Re: Immortality and Conditional Probability

I'm seeing TS contributors becoming more and more frustrated.

At this point the discussion has gotten very unfriendly and I cannot condone it remaining open. If anyone has an issue with this you can take this up with me or any of the other mods.

This is a warning to all, remain civilized and friendly.