- #1
- 24,775
- 792
recent post at spr by Jeffery Winkler contributed to the debate between the anthropic and mis-anthropic camps within Stringery
-----------------------
Jeffery cites an earlier exchange between Thomas Larsson and Lubos Motl.
Larsson wrote, 22 Sept:
[[Now I am starting to worry seriously, since I agree with you for the third time. But your comment puzzles me, provided that it means that you are dismissing the anthropic principle (this is how I read the lines above). Leonard Susskind, of whom you have spoken highly before, seems to be deeply rooted in the anthropic camp, see
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0302219 .
Is Susskind wrong? ]]
Motl replied, 22 Sept:
[[Yes, I think so. ;-) If you read the New York Times from September 2nd (?) or directly e.g.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/science/0903/03string.html
you will see that our mis-anthropic camp is not weaker, and Gross and Witten, among others, are reliable members of our camp! ;-) ]]
Larsson responded:
[[The anthropic principle is gaining popularity. In the abstract of
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0309170
Banks, Dine and Gorbatov write "We conclude that one must invoke a strong version of the anthropic principle. "
This seems to be quite a turnaround. A few months ago, Banks wrote in
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0306074 , p 48:
"We must ask ourselves whether we are really doing science. So must anyone who indulges in anthropic speculation."
It is also quite different from ref 21, where Motl and two of the authors critized the use of the strong selection principle (the insistence on carbon based life) as overly parochial, see p 21.]]
At this point, having cited these portions of the 22 Sept exchange, Jeffery Winkler chimed in as follows:
[[ I think Lenny Susskind's descriprion of the anthropic principle is
basically true. Let's say the entire Universe is infinite but our
observable universe is finite, you could imagine that distant parts of the Universe would correspond to different points within the string vacua, and all points would be realized somewhere, but the section of the Universe that contains our observable universe would correspond to one of the few areas in which life is possible, which explains why we're here. You can use this to explain why our observable universe has the properties it does. You can explain things that can't be otherwise explained. There's other ways of using the anthropic principle, such in the brane world, our universe is a 3-brane, and there would be other 3-branes, or other D-branes with dimension differen than 3, and with different toplogy, they different laws of physics, and ours is one of the few in which life is possible.
So, I don't think there's anything wrong with the anthropic principle. If you take M-theory + inflationary cosmology + anthropic principle, you get the majority view among physicists.
Jeffery Winkler
http://www.geocities.com/jefferywinkler ]]
-----------------------
Jeffery cites an earlier exchange between Thomas Larsson and Lubos Motl.
Larsson wrote, 22 Sept:
[[Now I am starting to worry seriously, since I agree with you for the third time. But your comment puzzles me, provided that it means that you are dismissing the anthropic principle (this is how I read the lines above). Leonard Susskind, of whom you have spoken highly before, seems to be deeply rooted in the anthropic camp, see
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0302219 .
Is Susskind wrong? ]]
Motl replied, 22 Sept:
[[Yes, I think so. ;-) If you read the New York Times from September 2nd (?) or directly e.g.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/science/0903/03string.html
you will see that our mis-anthropic camp is not weaker, and Gross and Witten, among others, are reliable members of our camp! ;-) ]]
Larsson responded:
[[The anthropic principle is gaining popularity. In the abstract of
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0309170
Banks, Dine and Gorbatov write "We conclude that one must invoke a strong version of the anthropic principle. "
This seems to be quite a turnaround. A few months ago, Banks wrote in
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0306074 , p 48:
"We must ask ourselves whether we are really doing science. So must anyone who indulges in anthropic speculation."
It is also quite different from ref 21, where Motl and two of the authors critized the use of the strong selection principle (the insistence on carbon based life) as overly parochial, see p 21.]]
At this point, having cited these portions of the 22 Sept exchange, Jeffery Winkler chimed in as follows:
[[ I think Lenny Susskind's descriprion of the anthropic principle is
basically true. Let's say the entire Universe is infinite but our
observable universe is finite, you could imagine that distant parts of the Universe would correspond to different points within the string vacua, and all points would be realized somewhere, but the section of the Universe that contains our observable universe would correspond to one of the few areas in which life is possible, which explains why we're here. You can use this to explain why our observable universe has the properties it does. You can explain things that can't be otherwise explained. There's other ways of using the anthropic principle, such in the brane world, our universe is a 3-brane, and there would be other 3-branes, or other D-branes with dimension differen than 3, and with different toplogy, they different laws of physics, and ours is one of the few in which life is possible.
So, I don't think there's anything wrong with the anthropic principle. If you take M-theory + inflationary cosmology + anthropic principle, you get the majority view among physicists.
Jeffery Winkler
http://www.geocities.com/jefferywinkler ]]
Last edited by a moderator: