Mathematics and Fine-Tuning

[jimmo42]

I was wondering if the "problem" of fine-tuning could be solved by using a different number-base. Obviously all of the equations, constants and so forth are in base 10. What would things be like if we changed to base 12, base 8 or even base 2? I see no inherent necessity to do the calculations in base 10, other than that it what we normally used. If the universe is not fine tuned for humans, then there is obviously no requirement that the numbers be in base 10.

Just a thought.

 

[nemesiss]

I was wondering if the "problem" of fine-tuning could be solved by using a different number-base. Obviously all of the equations, constants and so forth are in base 10. What would things be like if we changed to base 12, base 8 or even base 2? I see no inherent necessity to do the calculations in base 10, other than that it what we normally used. If the universe is not fine tuned for humans, then there is obviously no requirement that the numbers be in base 10.

Just a thought.

used to had the same idea swirl in my head...
changing the number base, is sortof translating a conversation.... you still get the same result ( leaving out the small luingistic nuiances).

it doesn't which value you take, converting it to ANY number-base gives it still the same value.. just written a bit different. the only real advantage it can have is that it's probably much easier to solve.
i think it's much easier to calculate 10*3 then 1010 *0011, but for some other instances it might the other way around.
To get around the whole number-base, formulas are written with letters, which gives you the freedom to choose your number base.
additionally, you can also create other number-bases.
hexadecimal (16-base) is a nice little one to which both 8 and 2 base can be converterted and read and calculated

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I was wondering if the "problem" of fine-tuning could be solved by using a different number-base. Obviously all of the equations, constants and so forth are in base 10. What would things be like if we changed to base 12, base 8 or even base 2? I see no inherent necessity to do the calculations in base 10, other than that it what we normally used. If the universe is not fine tuned for humans, then there is obviously no requirement that the numbers be in base 10.

Just a thought.

What do you mean with solving the "problem of fine-tunning"?
Yes you can convert the number into another base system other than 10, in fact with a litle training you can do math just as well with other base system without even touching base 10. However this is irrelevant because the intrinsic value remains the same, the base we usualy write it is just a way to represent those intrinsic values. Plus I don't know what could you possibly gain by representing the constants with some other base system, they simply can not be writen into pleasingly looking numbers anyway you cut it.
However this "constants" as it seams the universe is governed by are most certainly ficticous. It is not necessarily true that they are physical properties, in fact they are handled exactly like scale factors used to convert between units of measurment, this maybe due to the unfortunate fact that we have picked sort of a random measurment system in which to write our equations.
If you are doing the calculations in the metric system those "constants" are difrent than what you would need to use if for instance you were working in the imperial system, and there are certain constants that you need to use in the imperial system that don't even exist in the metric system. It is even possible to create a measurment system which doesn't need for any constants at all and the equations just describe fundamental properties of the universe rather than properties which the effect is mediated by some arbitrary intensity factor. For instance the puzzle of why the gravitical force is so weak in the apropriate measurment system becomes rather the problem of why there is so little mass (it is not that simple, but it is basically idea of it).

 

[jimmo42]

To get around the whole number-base, formulas are written with letters, which gives you the freedom to choose your number base.

So the problem is more an issue of relationships, ratios, etc and not specific values?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

So the problem is more an issue of relationships, ratios, etc and not specific values?

From a certain prespective it is sort of that, it is actually more the problem of the measurment system we happen to chose.

 

[jimmo42]

From a certain prespective it is sort of that, it is actually more the problem of the measurment system we happen to chose.

To what extent, "chose". I understand that our measurement system is originally based on the diameter of the earth, the time it takes the earth to go around the sun, and so forth. We then went looking for a more standard, consistant way of defining these values. However, they are still arbitrary. If we chose different values in our measurement system, could there potentially be a more logical relationship between the various constants, equations, etc?

For example, if we change the definition of a meter so that it is only 90% of the current value, change the calculations to base 11, does the gravitional constant disappear and other values become neat multiple of each other? (base 11 for the number of bases in M-Theory) . I am simply pulling these values out of my butt. However, could there be some kind of unification if we change the the measurement and the base?

 

[nemesiss]

. However, could there be some kind of unification if we change the the measurement and the base?

it just a conversion method.
you could create a converter that you can switch from one to the other.
as example: a converter that could tell you the length of an object in plancks, meters, yards, inches, lightyears, feet, pincones, ego's, etc...

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

If we chose different values in our measurement system, could there potentially be a more logical relationship between the various constants, equations, etc?
For example, if we change the definition of a meter so that it is only 90% of the current value, change the calculations to base 11, does the gravitional constant disappear and other values become neat multiple of each other? (base 11 for the number of bases in M-Theory) . I am simply pulling these values out of my butt. However, could there be some kind of unification if we change the the measurement and the base?

The answer is yes, that is what I said in the long post I have made (but none read it). And as I have also said the base system we have chosen to represent our numbers makes no difference.

 

[jimmo42]

The answer is yes, that is what I said in the long post I have made (but none read it). And as I have also said the base system we have chosen to represent our numbers makes no difference.

Oops. Sorry. There it is:

It is even possible to create a measurment system which doesn't need for any constants at all and the equations just describe

I must have read it over it the first time.

 

[Laurens]

I don't know much about the mathematics of fine-tuning, but I don't think that is necessary to see what a load of shit the fine-tuning argument is.

It boils down to saying 'Wow isn't it amazing that I'm alive in a universe that permits life!' No, it would be amazing if you were alive in a universe which could not permit life, it goes without saying that in order to be alive the universe you're in has to permit life. It's fucking stupid, and does not prove God whatsoever.

 

[Dean]

Laurens

[ ... ] I don't know much about the mathematics of fine-tuning, but I don't think that is necessary [ ... ]

I came up with a rather amusing counter. And handily, it is one that requires NO mathematics. :geek:

They may be absolutely right ... perhaps the universe was created by some god precisely to enable our kind of life ... but not us, which is why he (whoever or whatever he is) is over in galaxy M33 taking care of the TRUE chosen ones, and we're just an accident of the initial conditions after all.

Hell, it's by far the most parsimonious explanation that accounts for the (so-called) fine-tuned universe, the absence of god, and the theodicies, even if God(s) exist. I like it. It's a damn shame I can't believe it. *lol*

 

[nemesiss]

I don't know much about the mathematics of fine-tuning, but I don't think that is necessary to see what a load of shit the fine-tuning argument is.

It boils down to saying 'Wow isn't it amazing that I'm alive in a universe that permits life!' No, it would be amazing if you were alive in a universe which could not permit life, it goes without saying that in order to be alive the universe you're in has to permit life. It's fucking stupid, and does not prove God whatsoever.

the whole fine-tuning argument is based on the premises that there is fine-tuning and that there is something to tune...
it might be impressive to reverse engineer an argument for fine-tuning, while there isn't even a slightest hint of tuning, but not to me.
the only thing i can say about this is that this universe is tuned for life, life (as we know it) tuned itself to this universe.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Actually, Andromeda'sWake set me straight on fine-tuning and the attendant apologetics. Fine-tuning does exist, but where it exists is not in the constants, but in the models describing those constants. In short, a model is constructed in which the parameters of the model must fall within a very narrow band of values if the model is correct.

In reality, there is no good reason to suppose that the constants we experience in our cosmic expansion could actually be any different. In fact, Einstein covered this in his famous question 'did God have any choice in creating the universe?', which deals with how much freedom there actually exists in the values of those parameters and/or the laws that govern the operation of the cosmos.

Playing around with the constants and treating them as variables, as is often engaged in by physicists, is a very useful exercise, in the sense of being a ;what if' thought experiment. It does not for a moment, however, suggest that they could be any different.

Edit: Meant to add; excellent post MGK.

 

[jimmo42]

In short, a model is constructed in which the parameters of the model must fall within a very narrow band of values if the model is correct.

If I understand you correctly, it would almost be the same as saying the width of H0 model railroad tracks are "fine-tuned" because they fit perfectly for the H0 engines.

We look at the universe and create a model that includes various equations and constants that fit to what we see. If, for example, we have a different model and thus different equations, the constants would then likely be different. Right?

 

[Deleted member 619]

More like the model would likely be incorrect.

As I said, there's no good reason for positing different values for the constants other than as a thought experiment to see what effects would be produced. It's all pretty academic, because the constants are what they are, and any reasoning beyond the weak anthropic is deeply flawed, and weak anthropic reasoning is trivial. Let me demonstrate:

If the constants of the universe were not such that they allowed the evolution of sentient organisms, then we wouldn't be around to ask the question.

Phrased another way:

If my auntie had a dick she'd be my uncle.