I don ` t understand Hawking` s answer to Why this particular set of laws? .

[httpvalid]

I don ` t understand Hawking` s answer to "Why this particular set of laws?".

I read the book the grand design by Stephen Hawking. The book at the beginning say it attempts to answer three questions. The questions are:

1."Why is there something rather than nothing?"
2."Why do we exist?"
3."Why this particular set of laws and not some other?"

In the last chapter of the book, the answer to 1, and 2 is suggested from the quote:"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist". So, it seems the answer to 1, and 2 is "spontaneous creation". OK, i understand the answer to 1, and 2.

I don ` t understand Hawking` s answer to 3 which can be found in the last 2 page of the book.
In the last two page, Hawking suggest the ultimate theory must be:

4. consistent.
5. Finite results for any measurable quantities.

Hawking then suggest "M-theory" satisfy 4, but it is an open question that it satisfy 5. He say if some people can prove "M-theory" satisfy 5, then "M-theory" is the only logically possible theory. Two paragraph down, he said it would be nice to "confirm the theory by observation". The last remark( ie: Confirm the theory by observation) don` t make sense to me, because if Hawking is saying all anyone need is to prove 5 is true, then it "sufficient" to show "M-theory" is the only logically possible theory, then why is it necessary to seek confirmation from observation? To drive home my point with an analogy. If " 3+2=5" is logically necessary, then any causal observation that "3+2 is not 13" is automatically false. I don ` t "need" observation to confirm something that is logically necessary.

So, I hope people can explain to me Hawking subtle answer to 3, or "why these set of laws, and not others?". Thanks.

 

[Jack21222]

Why do G, h, and c have their particular values? Why does gravity fall off over distance squared, and not, say, cubed? Why 3 macroscopic spatial directions? Why is charge quantized? Why is ANYTHING quantized? Why does entropy only go in one direction?

That's what he's asking. Why are there these particular set of laws, and not others, in our universe?

Is the anthropic principle enough to explain it? "Well, if the laws were different, we wouldn't be here to see it."

 

[httpvalid]

I think you fail to see the distinction between the "constants of nature", and the "form of the laws". Anthropic reasoning comes into play when there are many different universes with different combination of constants, and we happen to live in one with all the right combination of constants that permit our existence. Remember that in this vest assemble of universes, each universe differ from another only in the "combination of constants". Nowhere does it say each universe differ in the form of the equations. This means, the "multiverse" used to explain "why our universe has the right combination of constants" is governed by the same basic law.

 

[Jack21222]

I think you fail to see the distinction between the "constants of nature", and the "form of the laws"

I don't fail to see anything. YOU'RE the one who make the post stating "I don't understand..."

Remember that in this vest assemble of universes, each universe differ from another only in the "combination of constants".

That's speculative nonsense.

Nowhere does it say each universe differ in the form of the equations.

What do you mean by "it"?

 

[jackmell]

In the last chapter of the book, the answer to 1, and 2 is suggested from the quote:"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist". So, it seems the answer to 1, and 2 is "spontaneous creation". OK, i understand the answer to 1, and 2.

Oh Jesus. What does "spontaneous creation" even mean? Great, creation is spontaneous? Well, that don't do nothing. I personally suspect we will one day reduce down existence to an equation and show at some values of the parameters, some sort of "shock phenomenon" occurs which drastically and qualitatively changes the underlying dynamics, sort of like a concrete walkway (without rebar) suddenly snapping and collapsing, and then relate that equation to some type of pre-existence cosmology. That to me would be "understanding".

 

[httpvalid]

I don't fail to see anything. YOU'RE the one who make the post stating "I don't understand..."
That's speculative nonsense.
What do you mean by "it"?

Please don `t pull things out of context. I said i don ` t understand Hawking explanation to "why these set of laws?". Hawking specifically means the "form of the laws", and not the damn constants. Typically, the whole reason some invoked the multiverse postulate is to explain in some non-divine way as to why the constants of nature is the way it is. This leave the "form of the laws" completely mulled. You fail to see the subtle point, and you blame me for your too big to be wrong ego.

 

[Jack21222]

Hawking specifically means the "form of the laws", and not the damn constants.

Did you even read my post? That's why I added the following:

Why does gravity fall off over distance squared, and not, say, cubed? Why 3 macroscopic spatial directions? Why is charge quantized? Why is ANYTHING quantized? Why does entropy only go in one direction?

Those things are changes in the FORM OF THE LAWS. They have nothing to do with constants.

 

[httpvalid]

Did you even read my post? That's why I added the following:
Those things are changes in the FORM OF THE LAWS. They have nothing to do with constants.

If you do understand Hawking`s third question "why this set of laws?" as dealing with the "form of the basic laws", and not the "constants of nature", then why would you use anthropic reasoning in your first post on this thread? If you are more informed, you would know that all anthropic reasonings posit some particular multiverse do not attempt to explain why "the forms of the laws is the way it is?". This is to say that all anthropic reasoning deals with explaining why the constants is the way it is in a particular universe in a multiverse, where the multiverse itself is governed by a particular set of laws. It makes no sense at all in invoking anthropic reasoning to answer "why this set of laws?".

 

[Jack21222]

If you are more informed, you would know that all anthropic reasonings posit some particular multiverse do not attempt to explain why "the forms of the laws is the way it is?". This is to say that all anthropic reasoning deals with explaining why the constants is the way it is in a particular universe in a multiverse, where the multiverse itself is governed by a particular set of laws. It makes no sense at all in invoking anthropic reasoning to answer "why this set of laws?".

That is inaccurate, unless you consider the number of dimensions a "fundamental constant." The number of dimensions will change the form of the laws.

I'm not the first one to state this, but I cannot remember who I got it from...

Imagine a world in which there are 2 spatial dimensions. Could intelligent life exist in such an environment? For one, anything with a digestive system would be split in half unless waste came out of the same hole as the intake. The anthropic principle could be used to explain why we don't live in a 2-d world.

 

[httpvalid]

That is inaccurate, unless you consider the number of dimensions a "fundamental constant." The number of dimensions will change the form of the laws.

I'm not the first one to state this, but I cannot remember who I got it from...

Imagine a world in which there are 2 spatial dimensions. Could intelligent life exist in such an environment? For one, anything with a digestive system would be split in half unless waste came out of the same hole as the intake. The anthropic principle could be used to explain why we don't live in a 2-d world.

I don ` t see what you say here addresses my point. I claimed that you were mistaken to suggest anthropic reasoning is the right framework to explaining "why this set of laws?", because the latter question addresses the multiverse as a whole, while the anthropic reasoning is useful in explaining why any particular universe is the way it is in the multiverse. Anthropic reasoning posits a multiverse with it` s particular set of laws that govern the multiverse, and each universes in the multiverse. So, anthropic reasoning is useful for explaining universes in a multiverse, but not the multiverse, and it ` s laws.

 

[Jack21222]

You seem to have a lot of preconceived notions about what a multiverse must be like and what it can't be. You realize it's pure speculation, right?

 

[httpvalid]

You seem to have a lot of preconceived notions about what a multiverse must be like and what it can't be. You realize it's pure speculation, right?

I actually read a lot about "anthropic reasoning" in college. I know what is needed for the argument to work. One of the things you need is an actual multiverse. The type of "multiverse" varies with different authors. In almost all cases, the multiverse itself has a defined structure dictated by some set of laws.