///////////////Eljay writes: "I agree with Tony that the fine tuning problem is a red
herring, but I agree by a different principle. The answer* to the
fine tuning problem being information theory (q.v. I Is The Law, by
Robert Matthews, New Scientist, 1999-Jan-30) ."
Unfortunately, Eljay, I can't access the article in question. But
having spent more than twenty years studying, contemplating and
discussing the fine-tuning problem and also quite a bit of time with
information theory, I think I can make a general statement why
information theory is not likely to provide an answer.
First, the fundamental notion of information requires the notion of a
highly organized context (see note below). Now the fine tuning
problem is at its base the problem of why we live in a highly
organized world. To have a full account of what information is, we
have to understand how it is that the world is organized, and to have
a full account of how it is that the world is organized, we must have
an answer to the fine-tuning problem.
The hope has long been that there was some necessary reason why the
parameters are they way they are, and thus we could discover a
theoretical reason for the fine-tuning problem. But it is now largely
agreed upon in the scientific community that this is not likely.
String theory has definitely come to the conclusion that there is no
necessary reason, and that's why the notion of infinite universes and
the anthropic principle are increasingly being taken seriously within
that theory.
I find the anthropic principle an ugly idea, particularly the version
that depends on an infinite number of universes. It explains nothing
because it explains everything. A recent version of this is based on
the idea of endless inflation. The problem with this is that it takes
an idea that explains a particular empirical problem associated with
big bang theory -- the uniformity of the back ground radiation -- and
makes this a fundamental cosmological notion -- one that ultimately
violates the conservation of matter/energy. As in the case of
information theory above, a more particular theory trumps a more
general theory.
Anyway, I'm sure that people will keep trying to make the fine-tuning
problem go away -- scientists hate mysteries, and the fine-tuning
problem is a huge mystery. Further, the fact that the world is highly
organized has always been an embarrassment for science, because
science has no real explanation for it. But the problem will not go easy.
*Note: Information, can be loosely defined as "a difference that makes
a difference." E.g., in an ecosystem, if a mutation (a difference)
simply causes an animal to die, it does not make a difference to the
ecosystem, but if it causes an animal to be a better predator, than it
does make a difference, the mutation becomes a gene, and it is part of
the total genetic information of an ecosystem. But it is only that an
ecosystem is a dynamic system, that something can make a difference,
i.e. that information can exist within it.
T
/////////////////////////////I disagree that the question is unanswerable. The answer may well be
that there is no reason or cause. The cosmos just IS! Isn't that
astounding?
You may be right, Brer Dave, but if that is the case, the question of Why
has not been answered. A Why question requires a Because (by cause of)
response.
It seems to me that the only response to the question can be "Because
nothing causes something," but that's a little too Buddhist to make a lot of
sense to me.
F
///////////////////////////////Well is it known that ambition can creep as well as soar.
— Edmund Burke
////////////////////////////
No comments:
Post a Comment