From: Matt Mahoney (matmahoney@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Jan 23 2008 - 18:51:28 MST
--- Nick Tarleton <nickptar@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2008 4:04 PM, Matt Mahoney <matmahoney@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The simplest simulator would try different values of these and other
> physical
> > constants. Some would result in universes that support life, and others
> not.
> > The laws of physics are as they are because otherwise we would not be
> here.
>
> Other laws of physics could still support observers in our reference
> class (whatever that class is). Thus, it still makes sense to ask "why
> these laws and not some others?" For instance, if simpler laws are
> more likely to be observed, why are there mu/tau leptons and
> strange/charm/bottom/top quarks?
Why not?
> Should I predict that someone will
> eventually discover that at least 3 particle families are necessary to
> produce an appropriate elemental distribution for life?
It is possible. It could relate to the properties of neutrinos, which affects
the relative masses of protons and neutrons, which affect the distribution of
elements produced by supernovas, which affect the abundance of the ingredients
of DNA and protein.
Most likely there are many sets of laws of physics that would result in life.
Why does space have 3 dimensions?
-- Matt Mahoney, matmahoney@yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:01 MDT