Randomness can seem like order when you don't know what you are looking at

The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design – Leonard Susskind (2008)

Having read “The Black Hole Wars” I grabbed this other book by Leonard Susskind.  This one deals with what seems on the surface to be evidence of planned design, or an intelligent creator, but is really just a result of ignorance on the part of those that see these things.  He discussed how the very chaotic nature of existence is hidden by the many examples of order and how this leads humans to imagine that there is some sort of reason for everything existing, some sort of guiding hand in the workings of nature.  Humans seek pattern in everything because that is how our brains are wired.

            Susskind uses the cutting edge of theoretical physics to show the lie of the Anthropic Principle.  In looking for the reasons why life exists, or why the Universe is the way it is to allow life, some philosophers have postulated the Anthropic Principle.  This states that the Universe is the way it is, and the laws of physics are what they are, because they have to be that way to produce life.  The reason we exist is because the Universe was set up to have us exist.  It goes deeper than this simplified paraphrasing but it is a circular argument.  It assumes that the reason the Universe is as  it is because it “had to” be that way in order for us to exist and see the Universe for what it is.

            Susskind shows how, using the mathematical string theory of which he was one of the founders, the existence of infinite universes seems likely.  This means our Universe is not special, or especially made to suit life, but that instead we happen to live in the Universe where conditions for life are favorable.

            Countless other universes must exist that do not have the proper conditions for cellular life, much less intelligent multi-cellular life forms.  It is a very interesting idea and mathematically valid.  This brings to mind the contemplation of life on Earth.  In our current knowledge of the Milky Way Galaxy, we estimate several billion stars, most of them having planets of some sort.  Let’s say that makes 200 billion planets in our galaxy alone.  The idea that because Earth has life there must be life around many other stars is a statistical fallacy.  If you calculate even the most generous odds against life forming on Earth, counting only the six or seven most crucial aspects for life (such as the location of our solar system, the type of star we circle around, the Earth’s Moon and it’s location in space, our Earth’s axial tilt, etc.) the odds are quite staggering against life!  Based on those odds it is likely that there may be only one in a billion planets capable of making life.  It is a whole other level of intricacy to determine the odds that stability, time, not to mention the risks of catastrophe, such as asteroid impacts, nearby supernovae, and all other factors allowing cellular life to the billions of years it took to evolve into intelligent, “conscious” life.  It is quite likely that Earth is the single planet in the Milky Way capable of harboring life.

            The immense unlikelihood of our existence is what feeds the Anthropic Principle.  However, it is a very different thing to state that, for example, a tongue can taste sugar because it evolved after plants had created sweet fruit in order to better enjoy the fruit, than to say fruit (which evolved hundreds of millions of years before our tongues) is sweet because otherwise our tongues’ sugar-detecting capabilities would have nothing to experience.

Dogs do not ask where ice cream and fruit come from!

            Religions use old variants on the Anthropic Principle to push their lies.  They teach that the Universe is how it is because some gods/beings created it for us.  That is as selfish an idea as humanity has ever come up with.

What happens when two eminent Physicists argue?

            

"The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics" by Leonard Susskind (2008)

After putting a comment about a recent book I had read on the Book of Face, my pal Clayton Counts offered a suggestion that I should pick up this book by Leonard Susskind.  In it he discusses the development of his black hole theories as they relate to Stephen Hawking’s, and specifically about a wager placed between the two physicists regarding whether information is lost irrevocably once it enters a black hole.

This is what it looks like when cartoon physicists argue

             Hawkins was certain that info was lost permanently (meaning that once a particle went into a black hole, there was no way for anyone outside the black hole to know what had gone in).  Susskind was of the opinion that there must be a quantum property of matter that allows info to “escape” the black hole.  This wager was made in the early 80’s and it took over a decade of research and theoretical work to come up with a definitive answer.

            I love physics and I knew already how the wager turned out (Susskind was right and Hawking was forced to pay up), but the book is not about a simple answer on a bet.  It details the process by which theoretical physicists determine whether an idea is right or wrong, and how, no matter how smart, learned, or prestigious you may be, the correct answer is the correct answer, even if it flies in the face of everything you ever worked to prove.

            That is the beauty of the scientific method.  It is self-correcting.  So many ignorant people denigrate science because it has been wrong before about something.  These morons do not understand that being wrong is integral to learning!  You must be wrong before you can be right.  Ideas must be tested, and if the testing capabilities are not yet available, then the ideas must wait for the technology/engineering to catch up, so it can be tested.  The whole of our human civilization is built upon the acceptance of what works and the accumulation of that knowledge. 

            Most researchers spend much of their time devising ways and tools to test out their theories.  In theoretical physics that tool is usually mathematics.  Susskind shows how, when faced with the math that showed his hypothesis to be incorrect, Stephen Hawking did what good scientists do.  He accepted he was incorrect and that was that.  The pigheaded among us who assume they are “correct” and everyone else is wrong should take Mr. Hawking’s example and open their minds to the possibility that they may be wrong.