fred@inuxe.UUCP (Fred Mendenhall) (08/14/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** I've just read an interesting article in the August 3, 1985 Science News titled "The Quantum Universe : A Zero-Point Fluctuation?". In the article a Mr (Dr?) Don N. Page of the Institute of Advanced Study in Prinction N.J. is credited with the following observation: "Page estimates that the chances of 'The Creator sticking in a pin' and pulling out just this combination of qualities that makes such a unique universe are way beyond astronomical, 1 in (10,000,000,000)^124." Such a statement tends to increase the entropy in my head. However, quickly recovering, several thoughts coalesce in my badly battered brain. 1. Page is simply wrong by a factor larger than anyone has ever been wrong by in the history of the world (way beyond astronomical). While this thought is very comforting, it leads to nothing interesting. 2. Page is Right! Crap, the theologians are right, God exists and I'm in big trouble. 3. Page is right, however, the number of universes that exist are also way beyond astronomical and the probability that ours exist is something reasonable. Probability has never been my strong suit. So, the first question before the net is this. Assume that each universe is unique and can repeated, how many universes has to exist before the probability that the one I'm currently typing this message in is greater that 50%. Second question, why is the number so large? I've always heard that there were a handful of constants that if altered the universe as we know it wouldn't exist. But (10,000,000,000)^124 is a little hard to swallow. Fred Mendenhall AT&T IS
wm@tekchips.UUCP (Wm Leler) (08/18/85)
> I've just read an interesting article in the August 3, 1985 > Science News titled "The Quantum Universe : A Zero-Point > Fluctuation?". In the article a Mr (Dr?) Don N. Page of the > Institute of Advanced Study in Prinction N.J. is credited with > the following observation: > > "Page estimates that the chances of 'The Creator sticking > in a pin' and pulling out just this combination of qualities > that makes such a unique universe are way beyond > astronomical, 1 in (10,000,000,000)^124." > Lets say I have a die with (10,000,000,000)^124 faces. I throw this die, and let's say that the face numbered 5,903,256,541,008, 192,234,865,234,505,314,262,195,000,105,524,578,234 comes up. Well, the probability that that particular face came up is *so* astronomical, that it couldn't possibly have. Therefore, God must exist. The probability that this universe exists is 1. As long as there is a universe, it may as well be the one we are currently in, no? The number 1 in (10,000,000,000)^124 seems more likely to be a measure of the probability that there is another universe identical to the one we are in. wm
karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn) (08/20/85)
> "Page estimates that the chances of 'The Creator sticking > in a pin' and pulling out just this combination of qualities > that makes such a unique universe are way beyond > astronomical, 1 in (10,000,000,000)^124." There's an amusing anecdote along these lines. A certain mathematician who had achieved a fair reputation for his understanding of probability and gambling was getting a lot of phone calls from card players who were asking him the odds for various hands they had drawn. He got so fed up with these annoyances that when one night someone called him and asked "I just drew a royal straight flush! What were the odds on my doing this?", he replied "exactly the same as any other hand", and hung up the phone. He was right, of course. Phil
mjs@eagle.UUCP (M.J.Shannon) (08/21/85)
> > I've just read an interesting article in the August 3, 1985 > > Science News titled "The Quantum Universe : A Zero-Point > > Fluctuation?". In the article a Mr (Dr?) Don N. Page of the > > Institute of Advanced Study in Prinction N.J. is credited with > > the following observation: > > > > "Page estimates that the chances of 'The Creator sticking > > in a pin' and pulling out just this combination of qualities > > that makes such a unique universe are way beyond > > astronomical, 1 in (10,000,000,000)^124." A more interesting set of questions (to my mind, anyway) is, ``How many of those universes are stable enough to continue to exist for more than a nanosecond? A second? A year? As long as this one?'' For that matter, ``Are any of them as stable as this one?'' And, of course, ``What is the meaning of life?'' -- Marty Shannon UUCP: ihnp4!eagle!mjs Phone: +1 201 522 6063 Warped people are throwbacks from the days of the United Federation of Planets.
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (08/22/85)
Fred Mendenhall (fred@inuxe.UUCP) writes: > "Page estimates that the chances of 'The Creator sticking > in a pin' and pulling out just this combination of qualities > that makes such a unique universe are way beyond > astronomical, 1 in (10,000,000,000)^124." > > Such a statement tends to increase the entropy in my head. Oh come on, events much rarer than that happen all the time in duplicate bridge. Look, the number of possible deals is 52!/(13!)^4, right? That's 53644737765488792839237440000, if I didn't make a typo in bc. If just two 28-board sessions are played, you're seeing an event with a probability that is that number to the 56th power, or roughly 2.67 x 10^1568. That beats your 10^1240 by 328 orders of magnitude. The point is, rare events are only interesting if they don't fall into families of equally rare events -- if they can be distinguished qualitatively, say. For instance, staying with bridge, a "perfect deal" would be a notable rare event; a typical deal is an equally rare event, but not notable. If conclusions are to be drawn from that number 10^1240, the first requirement is to demonstrate that this universe is in fact qualitatively different from the other 10^1240 or so. If it isn't, the number is a red herring. (I haven't read the thing Fred was quoting, and if the original author did in fact put forth persuasive arguments, I retract my implication that they were being silly.) Mark Brader
dc@datlog.UUCP ( David Crone ) (08/22/85)
In article <115@tekchips.UUCP> wm@tekchips.UUCP (Wm Leler) writes: > >> I've just read an interesting article in the August 3, 1985 >> Science News titled "The Quantum Universe : A Zero-Point >> Fluctuation?". In the article a Mr (Dr?) Don N. Page of the >> Institute of Advanced Study in Prinction N.J. is credited with >> the following observation: >> >> "Page estimates that the chances of 'The Creator sticking >> in a pin' and pulling out just this combination of qualities >> that makes such a unique universe are way beyond >> astronomical, 1 in (10,000,000,000)^124." >> > >Lets say I have a die with (10,000,000,000)^124 faces. I throw >this die, and let's say that the face numbered 5,903,256,541,008, >192,234,865,234,505,314,262,195,000,105,524,578,234 comes up. >Well, the probability that that particular face came up is *so* >astronomical, that it couldn't possibly have. Therefore, God >must exist. > >The probability that this universe exists is 1. As long as there >is a universe, it may as well be the one we are currently in, no? >The number 1 in (10,000,000,000)^124 seems more likely to be a >measure of the probability that there is another universe identical >to the one we are in. > >wm Just because there is a high probability against something occurring does not mean that it COULD'NT have occurred. We could argue that the existence of the Universe in its current form is proof that the 1 in 10,000,000,000^124 chance actually happened, but that's an argument for net.origins perhaps. David C.