Cosmologists expose flaws in anthropic reasoning

PhysOrg ^ | November 28, 2006 | Lisa Zyga

[SunkenCiv]

Many scientists never liked it anyway, and now Glenn Starkman from Oxford/Case Western and Roberto Trotta from Oxford show that too many details—and too many unknowns—mean that anthropic reasoning gives inconsistent values of the cosmological constant, some that are far from current estimates. In their recent paper, "Why Anthropic Reasoning Cannot Predict Lambda" (Physical Review Letters), Starkman and Trotta find that different ways of defining the probability of observers in different universes leads to vastly different predictions of the cosmological constant...

According to the Anthropic Principle, the fact that we are here to observe the universe explains why the laws of nature are what they are. Some scientists point to a great deal of coincidences to support this idea: the perfect strength and relation of the four forces; the many components producing carbon-based life; and the energy density of the universe driving its expansion (aka "lambda"). Add all this up, proponents argue, and it's pretty unlikely that you should be here today. Not to mention that the Anthropic Principle seems to fit nicely with many popular theories, such as string theory and the multiverse...

In their study, Starkman and Trotta attempt to use anthropic reasoning to explain the value of the cosmological constant, which controls the universe's expansion rate. What is the probability that an observer makes a measurement of this value in a given universe? they ask. First, one must find the number of observers in that universe (automatically eliminating those universes incompatible with intelligent life). Then one must figure out how many measurements each one could make.

[SunkenCiv]

---

This graph shows that the probability of observing a value of lambda equal to or greater than the measured value (dashed vertical line) is very small. The three lines represent the anthropically predicted probability density distribution as a function of R, the ratio of the cosmological constant in another part of the multiverse to that in our Universe in Starkman and Trotta's MANO scheme. T controls the cosmic time when intelligent life emerges, with T=1 representing our Universe. Credit: American Physical Society.

---

[SunkenCiv]

[TBP]

Nothing is unaffected by being observed.

[lesser_satan]

bump

[TBP]

http://www.iam-spirit.com/articles/article/2925041/43156.htm

"Consciousness is the singular for which there is no plural," wrote the scientist Erwin Schroedinger. Schroedinger, famous for his theoretical disappearing cat, was one of the pioneers of quantum science.

Lately, I've been contemplating the idea, if I understand it correctly (I am emphatically NOT a scientist), that things in a quantum Universe are essentially wavicles -- potentially, at least, in several places at once, achieving locality only when observed. Only when we focus on them do they show up in a specific place called here.

The essential principle is that there is an observer consciousness that is the overriding force in the world, that we all live in that consciousness and that it reveals itself through each of us. It is only when it acts as us that the quantum wave of all things collapses and it settles into an "objective" reality, all other possibilities being discarded in this experience.

Well, isn't God like that? God is everywhere. God is Omnipresent. "There is no spot where God is not," as we often say in New Thought. Yet when we go into treatment and focus on a specific aspect or quality of God, it shows up right here. The nonlocal becomes local, as the scientists say, the only difference being that it is also simultaneously local to everyone else and in different ways.

Ultimately, of course, the observer and the observed are the same thing, but the Universe is set up in such a way as to be able to observe itself. Were it not set up in this way, it could never collapse the wave of potential and nothing would then occur, according to Dr. Amit Goswami, one of the scientists featured in the movie “What the Bleep Do We Know?”. There would be no choices made, thus there would be no resulting actions. The continued unfolding of the blessings of God requires an observation and an observed to interact and get the show on the road.

In his book The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World, Dr. Goswami produces a scientific case for the idea that consciousness drives what manifests in the world. He makes his case by means of quantum physics, but the ideas he discusses comport closely with New Thought.

Goswami defines consciousness as "the ground of being (original, self-contained, and constitutive of all things) that manifests as the subject that chooses, and experiences what it chooses, as it self-reflectively collapses the quantum wave function in the presence of brain-mind awareness."

The idea that consciousness is "original, self-contained, and constitutive of all things" and that it "manifests as the subject that chooses and experiences what it chooses" will be quite familiar to New Thoughters. This is quintessential New Thought philosophy.

Goswami discusses the quantum wave -- the existence of objects in a field of potentiality -- and the experiments that have shown that particles such as photons, even when separated by massive distances, can "communicate" and act in the same way instantly, defying the theorem that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. These particles have been shown to be able to be in more than one place simultaneously, until observed, at which time, a choice having been made, they collapse their quantum wave and concretize into a given state which is perceived.

Does the same thing happen for people? An experiment in which people who had established a mental bond were locked in metal boxes and one was stimulated to test his response showed that the other partner responded in essentially the same way, showing that these quantum properties apply also to macro objects such as people.

This is why that which is known anywhere in consciousness is known everywhere in consciousness. That is why treatment (scientific prayer) said anywhere works right where the person is who is being prayed for.

According to Goswami, Rene Descartes got it slightly wrong when he wrote "Cogito, ergo sum." ("I think, therefore I am.") It should be "opto, ergo sum" ("I choose, therefore I am.")

In New Thought, we say that it is all about choices. We are always at choice, and the choices we make determine what happens in our lives. It's not what we want, but what we choose. Our choices are revealed by our expectations. When our choices don't work for us anymore, in the words of A Course in Miracles, we simply "Choose Once Again." As we make new choices, new circumstances follow. The formless shows up in new forms, the nonlocal takes on new locality.

The process of creation is a quantum event continually unfolding as and through you. Will you choose to direct it and make your life what you desire it to be?

[TBP]

http://www.wie.org/j11/goswami.asp

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks.

[GSlob]

One could question the very applicability of the probabilistic conceptual framework to the anthropic principle. As an exaple of anthropic principle-like reasoning, if I have already won the lottery, then my probability of having won it is 1, and to hell with all the bozo losers. OTOH, probabilistic approach could lead to "equality of the outcomes" and 'disproportional impact". Thus it is not a good approach for the conservatives, and ought to be repudiated as such.

[GSlob]

exaple= example

[snarks_when_bored]

The history of philosophy contains quite a few defenders of the view that consciousness (in some form) is the root of reality. It's a view that never struck me as very likely, nor is there any convincing evidence for it of which I'm, er, aware.

[Talking_Mouse]

bookmark to read later

[gobucks]

I love graphs, just love em!! Esp this early in the morning!!

[SunkenCiv]

:') Just for you, here's the other possible graphic I might have used:

[Paradox]

If you thought String THeory was mental masturbation, this mental masturbation with KY jelly. I call BS.

[TBP]

Quantum theory supports this view quite well.

[snarks_when_bored]

There is some interest by a few physicists and biologists in determining whether consciousness is a quantum phenomenon, but there is, to my knowledge, no interest among actual physicists in arguing in favor of your view that

[t]he essential principle is that there is an observer consciousness that is the overriding force in the world, that we all live in that consciousness and that it reveals itself through each of us.

This view may in fact be true, but there's no evidence for it of which I'm aware. Nor is this view a new one; a version of it can be found in Plato's Timaeus, for example.