The Origin of Life in the Multiverse

A.DIM · #1 (**permalink**) 08-October-2009, 07:40 PM

Here is another paper published on the Journal of Cosmology website.

Abstract:
It is argued that the origin of life is best understood in relationship to the participatory anthropic principle of Wheeler and must be extended into the realm of the multiverse. Also discussed is the hypothesis that life can only be possible in a given universe during a finite period as the universe expands in an accelerated fashion. We advance finally the idea that life, cosmic accelerated expansion, and quantum theory are intrinsically linked and are 3 faces of the same coin which reflect and describe physical reality.

Cool, it just might be "queerer than we can suppose!"

Although, I need to reread the paper as a good bit is speculative, and I sped read to begin with.

Luckmeister · #2 (**permalink**) 08-October-2009, 11:42 PM

Well, I read the paper. The following statement is why I have a problem with stuff like this:

Quote:

According to Wheeler's participatory anthropic principle (Wheeler, 1983) the evolving multiverse resolved itself into an ordered state to allow itself to be observed by a living observer. Life, therefore, is an intrinsic feature of the multiverse.

Anthropic? I'd say more like anthropomorphic.

Mike

DrWho · #3 (**permalink**) 09-October-2009, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Here is another paper published on the Journal of Cosmology website.

Ah, the infamous 'Journal' of Cosmology rides again!

Cougar · #4 (**permalink**) 09-October-2009, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Here is another paper published on the Journal of Cosmology website.

Abstract:
It is argued that the origin of life is best understood in relationship to the participatory anthropic principle of Wheeler and must be extended into the realm of the multiverse....

I was disinclined to read much further than that first sentence, and I would disagree that the origin of life is "best understood" in the fashion described.

Well, OK, I read a little further....

"The evolving universe would have remained a 'multiverse' of all possible states in the absence of an observer. It is the creation of life which evolves into an observer whose mind imposes order on this system of all possibilities, such that all the numerous possibilities collapse into one actuality."

I wonder if the author believes this stuff. He seems to be jamming a select bunch of rather extreme positions speculated at one point by name scientists of the past and others. A formula for publication? The author certainly has a web presence....

DrWho · #5 (**permalink**) 09-October-2009, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cougar

I was disinclined to read much further than that first sentence, and I would disagree that the origin of life is "best understood" in the fashion described.

I don't blame you. This is more piffle from Rhawn Joseph's website to peddle his scientological ideas through the camouflage of supposed scientific inquiry.

A.DIM · #6 (**permalink**) 09-October-2009, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cougar

Abstract:
It is argued that the origin of life is best understood in relationship to the participatory anthropic principle of Wheeler and must be extended into the realm of the multiverse....

I was disinclined to read much further than that first sentence, and I would disagree that the origin of life is "best understood" in the fashion described.

Well, OK, I read a little further....

"The evolving universe would have remained a 'multiverse' of all possible states in the absence of an observer. It is the creation of life which evolves into an observer whose mind imposes order on this system of all possibilities, such that all the numerous possibilities collapse into one actuality."

I wonder if the author believes this stuff. He seems to be jamming a select bunch of rather extreme positions speculated at one point by name scientists of the past and others.

I wonder too, Cougar.
Is Wheeler's anthropic principle dismissed?
Is the universe accelerating?
Is there really Dark Energy?
Will there be a big rip?
What's with quantum cosmology?

Quote:

A formula for publication? The author certainly has a web presence....

Yeah, I've got a "presence" too. My name, number and business are found readily on the web, often listed in the specifications put out for various infrastructure projects.
But what's that have to do with anything?

Cougar · #7 (**permalink**) 09-October-2009, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Yeah, I've got a "presence" too.

A quarter million hits? My point was, this author is not some fly-by-night one-hit wonder. Still, judging from this paper, he appears to revel in pushing the fringes to the limit....

Cougar · #8 (**permalink**) 09-October-2009, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Is Wheeler's anthropic principle dismissed?

It implies that the production of life is part of the intent of the universe, with the laws of nature and their fundamental constants set to ensure the development of life as we know it. I'm not the only one to dismiss this as mystical nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Is the universe accelerating?

There is pretty strong support for a slight acceleration at the moment.

"The cosmological constant's claim to a nonzero value fundamentally rests on the finding that distant Type Ia supernovae reach maximum brightnesses approximately 25 percent fainter than the peak brightnesses they would attain in a universe with a cosmological constant equal to zero." -- Goldsmith

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Is there really Dark Energy?

There appears to be pretty good support for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Will there be a big rip?

Predictions are difficult, especially about the future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

What's with quantum cosmology?

This field is highly speculative since it requires an understanding of quantum gravitational effects, and there is as yet no satisfactory theory of quantum gravity. -- encyclopedia.com

Jetlack · #9 (**permalink**) 10-October-2009, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Here is another paper published on the Journal of Cosmology website.

Abstract:
It is argued that the origin of life is best understood in relationship to the participatory anthropic principle of Wheeler and must be extended into the realm of the multiverse. Also discussed is the hypothesis that life can only be possible in a given universe during a finite period as the universe expands in an accelerated fashion. We advance finally the idea that life, cosmic accelerated expansion, and quantum theory are intrinsically linked and are 3 faces of the same coin which reflect and describe physical reality.

Cool, it just might be "queerer than we can suppose!"

Although, I need to reread the paper as a good bit is speculative, and I sped read to begin with.

I see no difference to what Wheeler originally proposed. The multiverse the author talks about is contained in Wheeler's PAP, represented by a multitude of possible universes in superposition until the one which produces life self-selects, thereby aborting the other non viable universes.

But there is recently a renewed interest in Wheeler's theory. Paul Davies endorsed a derivative of PAP in his final concluding remarks in his 2007 "Goldilocks". And then there is that even more recent book Biocentrism, by Robert Lanza. His theory is more or less the same as PAP, though Mr Lanza does not argue the case well.

Problem is the majority of the scientific community wont easily consider that sort of foundational interpretation to qm because it gives biological systems a central - if not primary - causal role in the creation of reality and the physical universe.

grant hutchison · #10 (**permalink**) 10-October-2009, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Abstract:
It is argued that the origin of life is best understood in relationship to the participatory anthropic principle of Wheeler and must be extended into the realm of the multiverse.

The references to Wheeler are extremely misleading, to the extent that I wonder if the author has read the referenced text.
In the 1983 chapter referenced (Law Without Law), Wheeler never uses the phrase "Participatory Anthropic Principle", and certainly doesn't claim that "the evolving multiverse resolved itself into an ordered state to allow itself to be observed by a living observer". He is particularly careful to dissociate "observation" (in QM terms) from any implied relationship to "consciousness", and he doesn't seem to mention "living observers" at all.
While Wheeler originated the phrase "Participatory Anthropic Priniciple", soon after Carter invented the terms "Strong Anthropic Priniciple" and "Weak Anthropic Principle", he seems to have dropped "Anthropic", along with its implications, in his later writings, favouring instead the phrase "Participatory Universe" (the term used in Law Without Law). He describes a Universe which interacts with its own past through the mechanism of the delayed choice experiment: in modern terms, decoherence now decides what has already happened in the Universe's past, but without any particular implication that consciousness is required in the mix.
The current meaning of "Participatory Anthropic Principle" (conscious observers being required to somehow bootstrap the Universe into existence) therefore owes more to the writings of Barrow and Tipler (in the Anthropic Cosmological Principle) than it does to Wheeler. From his writings in Law without Law, it seems that Wheeler would have viewed consciousness as being one way the Universe might be "participatory", but not the only way and perhaps not even an important way.

Law Without Law is rather heavy going, I confess, and more than a quarter century old. So here's a more recent interview with Wheeler (2002) in which Wheeler's thoughts are set out quite clearly, despite the implication in the title of the piece ("Does the Universe Exist If We're Not Looking?") that human observers are somehow necessary.

Quote:

Does this mean humans are necessary to the existence of the universe? While conscious observers certainly partake in the creation of the participatory universe envisioned by Wheeler, they are not the only, or even primary, way by which quantum potentials become real. Ordinary matter and radiation play the dominant roles. Wheeler likes to use the example of a high-energy particle released by a radioactive element like radium in Earth's crust. The particle, as with the photons in the two-slit experiment, exists in many possible states at once, traveling in every possible direction, not quite real and solid until it interacts with something, say a piece of mica in Earth's crust. When that happens, one of those many different probable outcomes becomes real. In this case the mica, not a conscious being, is the object that transforms what might happen into what does happen. The trail of disrupted atoms left in the mica by the high-energy particle becomes part of the real world.

At every moment, in Wheeler's view, the entire universe is filled with such events, where the possible outcomes of countless interactions become real, where the infinite variety inherent in quantum mechanics manifests as a physical cosmos. And we see only a tiny portion of that cosmos. Wheeler suspects that most of the universe consists of huge clouds of uncertainty that have not yet interacted either with a conscious observer or even with some lump of inanimate matter. He sees the universe as a vast arena containing realms where the past is not yet fixed.

Grant Hutchison

A.DIM · #11 (**permalink**) 12-October-2009, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cougar

It implies that the production of life is part of the intent of the universe, with the laws of nature and their fundamental constants set to ensure the development of life as we know it. I'm not the only one to dismiss this as mystical nonsense.

I've a hard time dismissing it as "mystical nonsense" Cougar. Do I believe there's "intent" necessarily? No, but I think the universe is naturally geared for life as we know it; similar ingredients in similar environments give similar results.
How this relates to multiverse hypotheses nobody can know as yet.
We've yet to confirm other life in this universe.

Quote:

There is pretty strong support for a slight acceleration at the moment.

"The cosmological constant's claim to a nonzero value fundamentally rests on the finding that distant Type Ia supernovae reach maximum brightnesses approximately 25 percent fainter than the peak brightnesses they would attain in a universe with a cosmological constant equal to zero." -- Goldsmith

There appears to be pretty good support for it.

Predictions are difficult, especially about the future.

To be sure, but my questions were in response to your statement ...

"He seems to be jamming a select bunch of rather extreme positions speculated at one point by name scientists of the past and others."

Perhaps I confused it but did you mean to suggest acceleration, dark energy, big rip were extreme positions?
Other than say Wheeler's ideas, to what else were you referring?

Quote:

This field is highly speculative since it requires an understanding of quantum gravitational effects, and there is as yet no satisfactory theory of quantum gravity. -- encyclopedia.com

No doubt we've much to learn; there's lots of theory ...

Thanks!

A.DIM · #12 (**permalink**) 12-October-2009, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

The references to Wheeler are extremely misleading, to the extent that I wonder if the author has read the referenced text.
In the 1983 chapter referenced (Law Without Law), Wheeler never uses the phrase "Participatory Anthropic Principle", and certainly doesn't claim that "the evolving multiverse resolved itself into an ordered state to allow itself to be observed by a living observer". He is particularly careful to dissociate "observation" (in QM terms) from any implied relationship to "consciousness", and he doesn't seem to mention "living observers" at all.
While Wheeler originated the phrase "Participatory Anthropic Priniciple", soon after Carter invented the terms "Strong Anthropic Priniciple" and "Weak Anthropic Principle", he seems to have dropped "Anthropic", along with its implications, in his later writings, favouring instead the phrase "Participatory Universe" (the term used in Law Without Law). He describes a Universe which interacts with its own past through the mechanism of the delayed choice experiment: in modern terms, decoherence now decides what has already happened in the Universe's past, but without any particular implication that consciousness is required in the mix.
The current meaning of "Participatory Anthropic Principle" (conscious observers being required to somehow bootstrap the Universe into existence) therefore owes more to the writings of Barrow and Tipler (in the Anthropic Cosmological Principle) than it does to Wheeler. From his writings in Law without Law, it seems that Wheeler would have viewed consciousness as being one way the Universe might be "participatory", but not the only way and perhaps not even an important way.

Law Without Law is rather heavy going, I confess, and more than a quarter century old. So here's a more recent interview with Wheeler (2002) in which Wheeler's thoughts are set out quite clearly, despite the implication in the title of the piece ("Does the Universe Exist If We're Not Looking?") that human observers are somehow necessary.

Grant Hutchison

Grant, thank you.
I'm not clear on the bolded statement above, please expound?
I'll do some reading as well.

Also, I'm not of mind a conscious observer is necessary in this universe, and I'm still working on the participatory aspect.

Chris

Jetlack · #13 (**permalink**) 12-October-2009, 02:42 PM

Cougar,

"It implies that the production of life is part of the intent of the universe, with the laws of nature and their fundamental constants set to ensure the development of life as we know it. I'm not the only one to dismiss this as mystical nonsense."

I only just noticed this comment as I was reading A.DIM's reply to it, so apologies for not taking it up earlier.

I would agree that PAP could be considered "mystical" if it suggested some sort of intent, but Wheeler's theory does not suggest there is any "intent" or arbitrary "purpose" to the universe. It's simply "consciousness collapse" writ large from a cosmological perspective while also offering a solution to the rather coincidentally tuned properties of the universe, which makes biology not only possible, but arguably - inevitable.

Where is the "intent" of a self-referential universe made possible by a quantum mechanical framework?

grant hutchison · #14 (**permalink**) 12-October-2009, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Grant, thank you.
I'm not clear on the bolded statement above, please expound?

While a particle remains in a superposition of quantum states it is said to be in a coherent state. It's in this coherent state that it can perform various acts of quantum weirdness, such as interfering with itself by passing through both slits of a double-slit experiment.
However, once it has interacted with a large number of other particles, different components of its superposition become entangled with the environment in different ways, and the superposition is lost: this is decoherence. A single classical outcome appears.
So if we look to see which slit an electron has passed through, we produce decoherence at the level of the slits (by making the electron interact with the many, many particles of our detector), and find the electron passing through one slit or the other. If we wait to measure the electron's position until after it has passed through the slits, then we produce decoherence downstream from the quantum interference at the slits, and we detect an interference pattern (if we measure the position of successive single electrons in this way).
So the point at which the quantum superposition interacts with macroscopic matter determines at which point classical physics emerges from quantum mechanics.
Wheeler's "Participatory Universe" points out that many, many quantum superpositions may remain coherent for billions of years, because the particles have not encountered enough other particles for decoherence to take place. So big chunks of the Universe are in an extended state of quantum indeterminacy. Wheeler was interested in using this idea to work out a way in which the fundamental laws of nature could arise by some sort of cosmic iteration process, with matter able to "feed back" on its own past via decoherence, thereby controlling the way in which physics emerged from quantum indeterminacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Also, I'm not of mind a conscious observer is necessary in this universe, and I'm still working on the participatory aspect.

Yes, the "conscious observer" as a necessary part of the Universe is an extension (or perhaps a reduction) of Wheeler's idea: Wheeler himself was quite clear (in "Law without Law", and in the interview I cited above) that any old gross matter would do the trick, as far as he was concerned. However, he also delighted in saying that "we" might be bringing chunks of the Universe into classical existence as our various observations trapped and decohered photons from distant parts.

Grant Hutchison

A.DIM · #15 (**permalink**) 12-October-2009, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

While a particle remains in a superposition of quantum states it is said to be in a coherent state. It's in this coherent state that it can perform various acts of quantum weirdness, such as interfering with itself by passing through both slits of a double-slit experiment.
However, once it has interacted with a large number of other particles, different components of its superposition become entangled with the environment in different ways, and the superposition is lost: this is decoherence. A single classical outcome appears.
So if we look to see which slit an electron has passed through, we produce decoherence at the level of the slits (by making the electron interact with the many, many particles of our detector), and find the electron passing through one slit or the other. If we wait to measure the electron's position until after it has passed through the slits, then we produce decoherence downstream from the quantum interference at the slits, and we detect an interference pattern (if we measure the position of successive single electrons in this way).
So the point at which the quantum superposition interacts with macroscopic matter determines at which point classical physics emerges from quantum mechanics.
Wheeler's "Participatory Universe" points out that many, many quantum superpositions may remain coherent for billions of years, because the particles have not encountered enough other particles for decoherence to take place. So big chunks of the Universe are in an extended state of quantum indeterminacy. Wheeler was interested in using this idea to work out a way in which the fundamental laws of nature could arise by some sort of cosmic iteration process, with matter able to "feed back" on its own past via decoherence, thereby controlling the way in which physics emerged from quantum indeterminacy.

Yes, the "conscious observer" as a necessary part of the Universe is an extension (or perhaps a reduction) of Wheeler's idea: Wheeler himself was quite clear (in "Law without Law", and in the interview I cited above) that any old gross matter would do the trick, as far as he was concerned. However, he also delighted in saying that "we" might be bringing chunks of the Universe into classical existence as our various observations trapped and decohered photons from distance parts.

Grant Hutchison

Thanks again, Grant.
I'll need to chew on that a few times before I feel I've digested well enough, and even then I'll probably still come away feeling things are quite queer on quantum levels.

grant hutchison · #16 (**permalink**) 12-October-2009, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

... and even then I'll probably still come away feeling things are quite queer on quantum levels.

I think that's the standard view.

Grant Hutchison

A.DIM · #17 (**permalink**) 13-October-2009, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

I think that's the standard view.

Grant Hutchison

All is particle or wave, everything else is opinion!

diogenes0 · #18 (**permalink**) 14-October-2009, 06:50 AM

I stumbled upon this discussion while looking for information on Wheeler's Participatory Universe idea. Great information Grant (I wasn't aware of the Law Without Law chapter). I was just wondering about a couple of things...

Quote:

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

While a particle remains in a superposition of quantum states it is said to be in a coherent state. It's in this coherent state that it can perform various acts of quantum weirdness, such as interfering with itself by passing through both slits of a double-slit experiment.
However, once it has interacted with a large number of other particles, different components of its superposition become entangled with the environment in different ways, and the superposition is lost: this is decoherence. A single classical outcome appears.

Just how large a number of other particles must its superposition become entangled with? Is there some sort of energy density of superpositions that must be reached for this to happen?

I understand that decoherence is meant to explain the classical appearance of objects, but is it also intended to explain away the "measurement problem"?

thanks!

grant hutchison · #19 (**permalink**) 14-October-2009, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diogenes0

Just how large a number of other particles must its superposition become entangled with? Is there some sort of energy density of superpositions that must be reached for this to happen?

It's a continuum. The more particles it entangles with, the harder it is to detect the superposition, and the more like a classical object our quantum entity looks. Here on Earth, unless exquisite efforts are made to avoid decoherence, the evolution to a classical appearance is blindingly fast, just because of thermal photons, if nothing else. Hence the difficulty of getting quantum computers to perform.

Quote:

Originally Posted by diogenes0

I understand that decoherence is meant to explain the classical appearance of objects, but is it also intended to explain away the "measurement problem"?

The "measurement problem" is still there, in that we have the appearance of a classical outcome with some probability, rather than being able to fully determine which outcome will occur.

Grant Hutchison

eburacum45 · #20 (**permalink**) 15-October-2009, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

Here on Earth, unless exquisite efforts are made to avoid decoherence, the evolution to a classical appearance is blindingly fast, just because of thermal photons, if nothing else. Hence the difficulty of getting quantum computers to perform.

That must be why they are trying to make quantum computers very cold indeed. My missus works as a cataloguer at the British Library, and yesterday she was trying to classify a book on 'ultracold molecules'. Googling that phrase leads one to discussions of the behaviour of molecules at fractions of a kelvin, and the possibility of their use in quantum computing.
Tricky stuff; I wonder if the results will be as spectacular as some people think...

diogenes0 · #21 (**permalink**) 15-October-2009, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

It's a continuum. The more particles it entangles with, the harder it is to detect the superposition,

I think I'm understanding this now. So as you get more and more superpositions entangled with each other, you begin to greatly limit the plausible values for their various variables. Is that what decoherence is about?

In other words, a single particle's superpositions might contain a varied range of possible values for its variables (all with significant probabilities) -- so no decoherence. But, since even small classical objects are made up of so many billions upon billions of entangled particles, the range of possible values for those particles' respective variables become restricted to that which will result in the classical object. The restriction to certain values would still be probabilistic, but with the probabilities for the classical outcome increasingly approaching 100% with every additional particle. And, since as you mentioned, there is lots of radiation everywhere, decoherence is the norm. Did I make any sense here?

bebe7 · #22 (**permalink**) 06-November-2009, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luckmeister

Well, I read the paper. The following statement is why I have a problem with stuff like this:

Anthropic? I'd say more like anthropomorphic.

Mike

Quite, life exists because the Universe(s) exist(s).

bebe7 · #23 (**permalink**) 09-November-2009, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bebe7

Quite, life exists because the Universe(s) exist(s).

Just came over a paper re how many universes are in the Universe, quite interesting as there can be an infinite number of universes within the Universe.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Evidence Of Liquid Water In Comets Reveals Possible Origin of Life	A.DIM	Life in Space	35	15-August-2009 06:16 PM
Phoenix provides further evidence that Viking may have missed organics on Mars.	RGClark	Space Exploration	3	11-June-2008 07:45 PM
universe, life and consciousness	kusumamrit	Life in Space	5	05-November-2003 09:37 AM
Venus and Creationism	harlequin	Against the Mainstream	143	07-May-2003 03:00 AM