NMT (No-Me Teaching) new series 56

NMT (No-Me Teaching) new series 56:

Prior to excerpting the Ramana Maharshi disciple, Master Nome in the text below we continue the series: Fine-Tuned Universe , the premise that a small change in several of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the Universe incapable of Life.

Fine-Tuned Universe 36:

[In the unreal reflection called the “Universe”, a product of an unreal Mind, even there, Infinite Intelligence is evident and inspiring.]

Cosmological Constant    Lambda,  Λ   =  in Einstein’s General Relativity equation

(+)       Positive  > 0   Repulsive force,  Space Expands

( )                  Negative  < 0   Attractive force,  Space Contracts

Einstein saw the need for a “fudge factor” for his Field Equations, which he  theorized as an Energy Density of Vacuum Space, Lambda, Λ , a Cosmological Constant that would determine Expansion or Contraction for the Universe. Negative attractive force acting on simple parallel Space-Time would be the effect of Gravity on the Mass of the Universe.  Positive repulsive force, similar to whatever drove the Big Bang’s initial Expansion Inflation, would “mysteriously” by no known mechanism, continue after initial Expansion of Space-Time. Thus would it proceed whether Mass contracted toward & into Black Holes or not. Unlike a chemical “explosion”, there was & is no kind of “pressure” that drove the Big-Bang & later InflationExpansion of Space-Time. An explosion propels material into Space; Inflation os a growth of Space as well.

Other energy fields: E-M, Fine-Tuning, Higgs fields associated with the Weak Force, the Inflaton field hypothesized by Inflationary Cosmology, the Dilaton field hypothesized by Superstring theory, & the fields associated with Elementary Particles each contribute to the Vacuum Energy, either Negative or Positive.

If the total effective Cosmological Constant is Positive (+) & larger than some positive value Λ+max, or Negative ( ) & smaller than some Negative value Λmax, then the Universe would have expanded (if Positive), or collapsed (if Negative), too quickly for Stars or Galaxies to form. This again parallels the Fine-Tuning of Gravity to 1 part in 1060 for Mass, but now with Lambda, for Space-Time.

Enumerating conceptual contributions to Lambda:

Λvac  =  contribution to the Cosmological constant from the Vacuum energy of all the Fields combined – potential energy V, for Universe through phases, along with Zero-Point energies of Vacuum

Fluctuations of the Quantum Fields of the Fundamental Forces & Elementary Particles

Λbare  =  Einstein’s original Cosmological Constant, not associated with contributions to the Vacuum    Energy from other Fields

ΛQ    =  Quintessence Energy changing with Time

Total Effective Cosmological Constant

=   Λeff   =    Λvac  +   Λbare   +   ΛQ     @   (1053     10120 )    x    Λmax  (+/–) whichever larger

The originally theoretical calculation, [before some of these other contributions were piled on] was up to  a (10120  x ) a discrepancy which was called the very worst in Physics !  Unknown Dark Energy of some kind seems to leave the Cosmological Constant Fine-Tuned to near–Zero (after the cancellation of very large numbers), all to a Precision reminiscent of that for the Gravitational Force Coupling Constant G.

Imagine “fine-tuning” the [net annual income of every person on Earth] minus [all their expenses] & demanding that the difference balances out to exactly 1 cent, to 120 significant figures, & remain exactly that unchangingly for Eons. That is the kind of Fine-Tuning the Universe exhibits in order for Intelligent Life like ourselves to exist.

As large as is (10120  x ), the Reciprocal is a (10 120 ) which equals that Cosmological Constant, or does so within an order of magnitude since (10 121) is more often noted [for measurement in inverse Planck Lengths], as the value that matches currently observed “slow-flat” Expansion of the Universe.

Λ  =

_1______________________________________________________________________

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

=

0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

To be that close to Zero & yet precisely Positive & Non-Zero is extreme Fine-Tuning indeed.

The above themes & 1600 pages more are freely available as perused or downloaded PDF’s, the sole occupants of a Public Microsoft Skydrive “Public Folder” accessible through:  

www.jpstiga.com/

http://jstiga.wixsite.com/nonduality/

or with Caps-sensitive:

http://sdrv.ms.YPOgkX/

Duplicates (but with graphics) have been available on:

http://www.blogger.com     as  “Being-as-Consciousness, Non-Duality – new & final version” with link:

http://being-as-consciousness.blogspot.com/

[But from now on, they will be different & still usually daily.]

There is no Creation, no Destruction, no Bondage, no longing to be freed from Bondage, no striving for Liberation, nor anyone who has attained Liberation. Know that this to be Ultimate Truth.”   the “no creation” school of Gaudapada, Shankara, Ramana, Nome Ajata Vada

for very succinct summary of the teaching & practice, see:  www.ajatavada.com/

NMT (No-Me Teaching) new series 55

NMT (No-Me Teaching) new series 55:

Prior to excerpting the Ramana Maharshi disciple, Master Nome in the text below we continue the series: Fine-Tuned Universe , the premise that a small change in several of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the Universe incapable of Life.

Fine-Tuned Universe 35:

[In the unreal reflection called the “Universe”, a product of an unreal Mind, even there, Infinite Intelligence is evident and inspiring.]

A similar sort of response can be given to the claim that fine-tuning is not improbable because it might be logically necessary for the constants of physics to have life-permitting values.  That is, according to this claim, the constants of physics must have life-permitting values in the same way 2 + 2 must equal 4, or the interior angles of a triangle must add up to 180 degrees in Euclidian geometry.   Like the “more fundamental law” proposal above, however, this postulate simply transfers the epistemic improbability up one level: of all the laws and constants of physics that conceivably could have been logically necessary, it seems highly epistemically improbable that it would be those that are life-permitting, at least apart from some sort of axiarchic principle.

Other Life-Permitting Laws Objection

According to what I call the “Other Life-Permitting Laws Objection,” there could be other life-permitting sets of laws that we know nothing about. This objection is directly answered by the way in which I have formulated the fine-tuning argument. As I formulated it, the fine-tuning argument does not assume that ours is the only possible set of life-permitting laws. Rather, it only assumes that the region of life-permitting laws (or constants or initial conditions) is very small compared to the region for which we can determine whether the laws, constants, or initial conditions are life-permitting – that is, what I called the epistemically illuminated (EI) region.  In the case of the constants of nature, it assumed only that given our current laws of nature, the life-permitting range for the values of the constants of physics (such as gravity) is small compared to the surrounding EI range for which we can determine whether or not a value is life-permitting.

Other Forms of Life Objection

As raised against the Fine-Tuning argument based on the constants of Physics, this objection claims that as far as we know, other forms of non-carbon based life could exist even if the constants of physics were different.  So, it is claimed, the Fine-Tuning argument ends up presupposing that all forms of embodied, conscious life must be carbon-based. Besides the extreme difficulty of conceiving of how non-carbon based material systems could achieve the sort of self-reproducing material complexity to support embodied moral agents, another problem with this objection is that many cases of fine-tuning do not presuppose that all life must be carbon based. Consider, for instance, the cosmological constant. If the cosmological constant were much larger than it is, matter would disperse so rapidly that no planets and indeed no stars could exist.  Without stars, however, there would be no stable energy sources for complex material systems of any sort to evolve. So, all the fine-tuning argument presupposes in this case is that the evolution of embodied moral agents in our universe require some stable energy source.  This is certainly a very reasonable assumption.

Weak Anthropic Principle Objection

According to the weak version of so-called anthropic principle, if the laws of nature were not fine-tuned, we should not be here to comment on the fact.  Some have argued, therefore, that LPU is not really improbable or surprising at all under NSU, but simply follows from the fact that we exist. The response to this objection is simply to restate the argument in terms of our existence: our existence as embodied moral agents is extremely unlikely under NSU, but not improbable under theism. As explained in section 4.3, this requires that we treat LPU and our existence as “old evidence,” which we subtract from our background information.  This allows us to obtain an appropriate background information k¢ that does not entail LPU.  The other approach was to use the method of probabilistic tension, which avoided the issue entirely.

There are arguments for the existence of conditional epistemic probabilities for P(A|B &k’) even when A implies our own existence. These provide the formal underpinnings in support of the intuitions underlying the “firing-squad” analogy offered by John Leslie and others in response to this objection. As Leslie points out, if 50 sharp shooters all miss me, the response “if they had not missed me I wouldn’t be here to consider the fact” is inadequate.  Instead, I would naturally conclude that there was some reason why they all missed, such as that they never really intended to kill me. Why would I con­clude this ? Because, conditioned on background information k′ that does not include my continued existence – such as the background information of a third-party observer watch­ing the execution – my continued existence would be very improbable under the hypothesis that they intended to kill me, but not improbable under the hypothesis that they did not intend to kill me.

Some more selected verses from the Ramana Maharshi disciple Master Nome:

In the Waking State, one experiences the Interior & the Exterior, what is sensed & what is thought.  In the Dream State, the situation is the same.  Both what is sensed & what is thought in both States are not the Self & are unreal. The contents of both what is sensed & what is thought in both Waking & Dream states should not be regarded as defining the Self.  When what is sensed & what is thought are falsely associated with the Self, this is superimposition.  No activity of the Exterior & the Interior yields Liberation. The activity of an unreal superimposition cannot yield eternal, real Liberation from that unreality.

Liberation is by Knowledge alone & Knowledge is neither sensory nor conceptual in nature. The Self that is realized by such Knowledge has neither Inner nor Outer, but is ever-existent, omnipresent, indivisible, & ineffable.

The true nature of the individual self is actually Brahman.  There is only one Self, whether imagined to be individualized, or else realized as it truly is.  If one inquires into this apparently individualized self, all that one finds is the Self, which is Brahman.  All that is thought to make oneself different from the Self can be relinquished by the Self-Inquiry that negates mis-identification, which is the questioning “Who am I ?”  For this reason the Upanshads instruct neti, neti “not this, not this”.

The above themes & 1600 pages more are freely available as perused or downloaded PDF’s, the sole occupants of a Public Microsoft Skydrive “Public Folder” accessible through:  

www.jpstiga.com/

http://jstiga.wixsite.com/nonduality/

or with Caps-sensitive:

http://sdrv.ms.YPOgkX/

Duplicates (but with graphics) have been available on:

http://www.blogger.com     as  “Being-as-Consciousness, Non-Duality – new & final version” with link:

http://being-as-consciousness.blogspot.com/

[But from now on, they will be different & still usually daily.]

There is no Creation, no Destruction, no Bondage, no longing to be freed from Bondage, no striving for Liberation, nor anyone who has attained Liberation. Know that this to be Ultimate Truth.”   the “no creation” school of Gaudapada, Shankara, Ramana, Nome Ajata Vada

for very succinct summary of the teaching & practice, see:  www.ajatavada.com/

NMT (No-Me Teaching) new series 54

NMT (No-Me Teaching) new series 54:

Prior to excerpting the Ramana Maharshi disciple, Master Nome in the text below we continue the series: Fine-Tuned Universe , the premise that a small change in several of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the Universe incapable of Life.

Fine-Tuned Universe 34:

[In the unreal reflection called the “Universe”, a product of an unreal Mind, even there, Infinite Intelligence is evident and inspiring.]

Apart from rejecting the claim that the justification for the existence of God is based on some sort of inference to the best explanation, however, one can also object to the atheist’s key assumption that the “designer of an artifact must be at least as complex as the artifact itself.”  This assumption is not even clearly true in the human case, since it is at least conceivable that one could produce a computer that is more complicated than oneself, which is a common theme of science fiction.  In the case of God, however, we have even less reason to believe it. If the theist were hypothesizing an anthropomorphic god, with a brain and a body, then this objection would be much stronger: one would then be tempted to ask, isn’t that god’s brain and body as much in need of explanation as the universe itself?  Thus, this objection might seem to have significant bite against such a conception of God. Within traditional theism, however, God has always been claimed to lack any sort of significant internal complexity.  In fact, most of the Western medieval tradition claimed that God was absolutely simple in every way – God did not even have complexity with regard to God’s properties.

Aquinas, for instance, claimed that all of God’s properties (such as God’s omnipotence and perfect goodness) were absolutely identical; these were in turn identical with God’s essence and existence.  Although I do not think that this view of God as being absolutely simple is coherent, the point here is that the “who designed God” objection begs the question against traditional theism, by assuming a type of God which traditional theists would all disavow.  Even the heirs to traditional theism who deny absolute divine simplicity, claim that God’s overall being is extraordinarily simple.  Thus, what these atheists really need to show is that the God of all varieties of traditional theism is logically incoherent insofar as those versions of theism hold on to some form of divine simplicity.  This, however, is a very different objection – and a much harder task – than simply raising the “who designed God?” objection and then claiming that one has eliminated the theistic explanation in a single stroke.

More Fundamental Law Objection

One criticism of the Fine-Tuning argument is that, as far as we know, there could be a more fundamental law that entails both the current laws of Physics and the values of the constants of physics. Thus, given such a law, it is not improbable that the laws and constants of physics fall within the life-permitting range. Besides being entirely speculative, three problems confront such a hypothesis. First, although many physicists had hoped that superstring theory would entail all the current laws and constants of physics, that hope has almost completely faded as string theorists have come to recognize that superstring theory (and its proposed successor, M-theory) has many, many solutions, estimated at 10500 or more.  Consequently, the prospects of discovering such a fundamental law are much dimmer than they once were. Second, such a fundamental law would not explain the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe.  Finally, hypothesizing such a law merely moves the epistemic improbability of the fine-tuning of the laws and constants up one level, to that of the postulated fundamental law itself. Even if such a law existed, it would still be a huge coincidence that the fundamental law implied just those laws and values of the constants of physics that are life‑permitting, instead of some other values.

As astrophysicists Bernard Carr and Martin Rees note “even if all apparently anthropic coincidences could be explained [in terms of some fundamental law], it would still be remarkable that the relationships dictated by physical theory happened also to be those propitious for life” . It is very unlikely, therefore, that the fine‑tuning of the universe would lose its significance even if such a law were verified.

To illustrate the last response, consider the following analogy. Suppose that super-determinism is true: that is, everything about the universe, including its initial conditions, is determined by some set of laws, though we do not know the details of those laws.  Now consider a flip of a coin and let Lh and Lt denote the claims that the laws are such as to determine the coin to come up heads and tails, respectively.  We would have equal reason to believe that Lh as that Lt. Hence, since Lh entails that the coin will come up heads, and Lt that the coin will come up tails,  the epistemic probability of heads remains 50%, and likewise for tails.  This would be true even though each of their physical probabilities would be one or zero.

The fact that the laws of nature determine the initial conditions, instead of the initial conditions’ not being determined by any law, has no influence on the epistemic probability.  This can be seen also by the fact that when Laplacian determinism was thought to be true, everyone nonetheless gave a fair coin a 50% chance of coming up heads.

Some more selected verses from the Ramana Maharshi disciple Master Nome:

All beings are, by nature, pure Consciousness. Apparent difference from this Consciousness is only illusory appearance due to Ignorance.  The illusory difference is removed by comprehending the Knowledge that one is solely Being.  Such Knowledge alone is the means to realize immortality, for Being never ceases to be.  Nothing else can yield this Realization, for Consciousness is identical with Being.  Knowledge is of the nature of Consciousness itself, & there really exists nothing but Being, which is Knowledge or Consciousness.

In relation to all, the Self is the Witness, & being such is attributeless.  The Witness is That which never changes, but which knows all the changes   thoughts, modes, & states of all Minds.  The Witness knows all the functions of the Mind in Waking & Dream.  In the absence of the Mind’s functions, that is without those 2 states of Waking & Dream, what remains of the Witness is pure Consciousness, which is omnipresent & immutable.  This the Self, the true “I” which is free from Ignorance & has no attributeness, no functions, & no qualities, & which is transcendent of all 3 States (waking, dream, deep dreamless sleep).  Space-like & never tainted by any of the defects or limitations of the beings that Consciousness indwells, Consciousness alone is the Self.

The Self is free from all notions, forms, & actions.  The Self is always 1 without a   2nd.  Adi Shankara proclaims that, as long as there is no Self-Knowledge, the identification with the Body & such, & the belief in the authenticity of Sense-Perceptions continue, just as Dreams appear to be true as long as one does not wake up.  To spiritually wake up, one must know the Self truly.  The Reality of the Self is pure Consciousness with no Duality & with nothing else existing whatsoever.  One cannot have simultaneously the Knowledge of the Self along with the idea of oneself as the performer of activity, or an experiencer.  For steady unalloyed Knowledge, one should cease such mis-identification.

[The above themes & 1600 pages more are freely available as perused or downloaded PDF’s, the sole occupants of a Public Microsoft Skydrive “Public Folder” accessible through:  

www.jpstiga.com/

http://jstiga.wixsite.com/nonduality/

or with Caps-sensitive:

http://sdrv.ms.YPOgkX/

Duplicates (but with graphics) have been available on:

http://www.blogger.com     as  “Being-as-Consciousness, Non-Duality – new & final version” with link:

http://being-as-consciousness.blogspot.com/

There is no Creation, no Destruction, no Bondage, no longing to be freed from Bondage, no striving for Liberation, nor anyone who has attained Liberation. Know that this to be Ultimate Truth.”   the “no creation” school of Gaudapada, Shankara, Ramana, Nome Ajata Vada

for very succinct summary of the teaching & practice, see:  www.ajatavada.com/

NMT (No-Me Teaching) new series 53

NMT (No-Me Teaching) new series 53:

Prior to excerpting the Ramana Maharshi disciple, Master Nome in the text below we continue the series: Fine-Tuned Universe , the premise that a small change in several of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the Universe incapable of Life.

Fine-Tuned Universe 33:

[In the unreal reflection called the “Universe”, a product of an unreal Mind, even there, Infinite Intelligence is evident and inspiring.]

“Who Designed God?” Objection

Perhaps the most common objection that atheists raise to the argument from design is that postulating the existence of God does not solve the problem of design, but merely transfers it up one level to the question, “Who or what designed God?”  The eighteenth-century philosopher David Hume hinted at this objection:

For aught we can know a priori, matter may contain the source or spring of order originally within itself, as well as mind does; and there is no more difficulty conceiving that the several elements, from an internal unknown cause, may fall into the most exquisite arrangement, than to conceive that their ideas, in the great universal mind, from a like unknown cause, fall into that arrangement.

A host of atheist philosophers and thinkers, such as J. L. Mackie, Graham Oppy, J. J. C. Smart, Richard Dawkins, & Colin McGinn have also repeated this objection.  For example, J. J. C. Smart claims that:

If we postulate God in addition to the created universe we increase the complexity of our hypothesis.  We have all the complexity of the universe itself, and we have in addition the at least equal complexity of God.  (The designer of an artifact must be at least as complex as the designed artifact.)

As an objection to the Fine-Tuning argument, it is flawed on several grounds.  To begin, this objection would arise only if either the Theistic hypothesis were constructed solely to explain the Fine-Tuning, without any independent motivation for believing it, or one considered these other motivations as data & then justified the Theistic hypothesis by claiming that it is the best explanation of all the data.  However, it is not that Theism is the best explanation of all the data, but only that given the Fine-Tuning evidence, an amazing LPU Life Permitting Universe strongly confirms Theism.

We are not to treating the other motivations for Theism like data, which we then combine with the Fine-Tuning evidence to infer to the best explanation. Many theists have claimed that for most people at least, belief in God is grounded in a fundamental intuition regarding the existence of God, an intuition relevantly similar to moral intuitions.  If this is right, then we are not treating the existence of God like a scientific hypothesis that needs to be justified by some form of inference to the best explanation.  That is like trying to justify moral belief by reference to the findings of the Natural Sciences.  Theism is a basic & distinctive mode of human thought & activity.  Thus, in analogy to ethical intuitions, faith should be considered a mode of knowing, not just a mere leap of belief under insufficient evidence.

The religious mode of knowing or justification involved in faith, therefore, should not be treated as providing data for an inference to the best explanation, but rather analogous to ethical intuitions, or even intuitions regarding virtues.  Everything else being equal, simpler theories are more likely to be true or empirically adequate than complex theories. Clearly, one cannot ground our belief in these virtues in an inference to the best explanation, since all such inferences presuppose the virtues. Our knowledge of God is based on religious experience.  It is relevantly analogous to our knowledge of the material world, which they claim is not justified by appeal to an inference to the best explanation.

If we do not treat these other motivations for Theism as part of a body of data for which we employ the strategy of inference to the best explanation, then the “who designed God” objection largely evaporates.  The existence of God is not a hypothesis that is being offered as the best explanation of the structure of the Universe, & hence it is not relevant whether or not God is an explanatorily better (e.g., simpler), ultimate explanation than the Universe itself. Nonetheless, via the restricted version of the likelihood principle, the various features of the Universe can be seen as providing confirming evidence for the existence of God.  One advantage of this way of viewing the situation is that it largely reconciles the views of those who stress a need for faith in coming to believe in God & those who stress reason.  They each play a complementary role.

Consider the following analogy. Suppose that in the year 2050, extraterrestrials visit earth, & we find that they share the same fundamental ethical beliefs as we do – e.g., that it is wrong to torture others for no compelling ethical reason.  Further, suppose that we were able to show that it is very unlikely that such an agreement would occur under ethical anti-realism – for example, because we have good reason to believe both that unguided naturalistic evolution would not produce these beliefs & that ethical anti-realism is not compatible with viable, alternative explanations of human beings based on Design (such as Theism). Finally, suppose we could show that it is not unlikely for this agreement to occur under ethical realism.  The discovery that these aliens shared the same ethical beliefs as we do would therefore confirm ethical Realism, even though we would not believe ethical Realism because it provided the best explanation of some set of phenomena.  In fact it would decisively tip the balance in favor of ethical Realism.  The evidence of Fine-Tuning does the same for Theism.

Some more selected verses from the Ramana Maharshi disciple Master Nome:

All the efforts involving mis-identification within the Mind & all the superimposition of experience upon the Self produce only Illusion & not anything real.  The Illusion is that of limitation by Form; the Illusion of being a Body, or at a location; the Illusion of perishability; the Illusion of the belief that something destructive of Bliss can exist; the Illusion of differentiation or division into parts, & of connection with actions & their results. The Self is actually allpervading & space-like, imperishable. The Self is the eternal Bliss itself, Siva, un-differentiated & un-divided, partless, actionless, & free of all  karma.

The infinite Self is only one, & nothing other than the Self can belong to the Self.  Therefore the Mind cannot belong to the Self. The Self is ever unattached & cannot belong to anything else.  Therefore the Self is unaffected by anything done by the Mind.  When attachment is present, even as the notion of possession, the possessor, as it were is possessed by the possession.  Since the Self is unattached to all, including the Mind, the Self is possessed by none & is not affected by any.  If one becomes detached from all things & to one’s own thoughts in the Mind, he finds that what he has reached was the real Self all along.  Since there cannot exist a Mind that is something other than the Self which is Infinite & Non-Dual, the Mind cannot have, in Reality, any activity or its results.

Freedom from the Mind is freedom from the fear of loss of Happiness & from the fear of ceasing to exist. This Freedom from desires & the grief of concomitant with desires.  Thus, one who knows the Self, free from the Mind, is truly happy. & is solely That which is the same in all beings.

The above themes & 1600 pages more are freely available as perused or downloaded PDF’s, the sole occupants of a Public Microsoft Skydrive “Public Folder” accessible through:  

www.jpstiga.com/

http://jstiga.wixsite.com/nonduality/

or with Caps-sensitive:

http://sdrv.ms.YPOgkX/

Duplicates (but with graphics) have been available on:

http://www.blogger.com     as  “Being-as-Consciousness, Non-Duality – new & final version” with link:

http://being-as-consciousness.blogspot.com/

[But from now on, they will be different & still usually daily.]

There is no Creation, no Destruction, no Bondage, no longing to be freed from Bondage, no striving for Liberation, nor anyone who has attained Liberation. Know that this to be Ultimate Truth.”   the “no creation” school of Gaudapada, Shankara, Ramana, Nome Ajata Vada

for very succinct summary of the teaching & practice, see:  www.ajatavada.com/

NMT (No-Me Teaching) new series 52

NMT (No-Me Teaching) new series 52:

Prior to excerpting the other Ramana Maharshi disciple in the text below we continue the series: Fine-Tuned Universe , the premise that a small change in several of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the Universe incapable of Life.

Fine-Tuned Universe 32:

[In the unreal reflection called the “Universe”, a product of an unreal Mind, even there, Infinite Intelligence is evident and inspiring.]

Dt(φ)/V(φ) << 1 & Dx(φ)/ V(φ) << 1, where V(φ) represents the potential energy of the Inflaton field, & Dt(φ), Dx(φ) represent its Time & Space partial derivatives.

To intuitively see why Paul Davies’s is correct about Fine-Tuning odds, consider an analogy of a very large scrabble-board.  If we were to shake the scrabble board at random, we would be much more likely to get an ordered, meaningful arrangement of letters in one small region, with the arrangement on the rest of the board essentially chaotic, than for all the letters on the entire board to form meaningful patterns.  Or, as another analogy, consider a hundred coins lined up in a row, which are then shaken at random.  Define a local island of order to be any consecutive sequence of five coins which all are on the same side – that is, either all heads or all tails.  It is much more likely for the sequence of a hundred coin tosses to contain one or more subsequences of five consecutive heads or tails than for it to be all heads or all tails.  Indeed, it is likely that such a sequence of coins will have at least one such island of five consecutive heads or tails; the probability of the coins coming up all heads or all tails, however, is around one in 1030, or one in a thousand, billion, billion, billion.

The same argument applies to the mass-energy configurations of our visible universe, with the argument being grounded in probability calculations based on the standard probability measure of statistical mechanics over phase space.  These calculations show that among all possible configurations, it is enormously more likely (by a factor of around 1 in 10x, where x = 10123) for local islands of low entropy to form than the whole visible universe to be in a low-entropy state. Indeed, if we consider the set of all configurations of mass-energy that would result in an observer – e.g., an organized structure with the same relevant order as our brain – the subset of such configurations that are dominated by BB [(Ludwig) Boltzmann Brain] observers would be far, far larger than those configurations that are dominated by non-BB observers.

Boltzmann proposed that the state of our observed low-entropy Universe (which includes our existence) is a random fluctuation in a higher-entropy Universe. Even in a near-equilibrium state, there will be stochastic fluctuations in state of the system. The most common fluctuations will be relatively small, resulting in only small amounts of organization, while larger fluctuations and their resulting greater levels of organization will be comparatively more rare. Large fluctuations would be almost inconceivably rare, but inevitably occur if a universe lasts infinitely long. Even if the universe does not have an infinitely long past, modern cosmological theories of the Big Bang do suppose that the latter occurred via stochastic fluctuations in a larger meta-universe; the paradox is retained by incorporating our brief-but-finite past into the random fluctuation.

Furthermore, there is a “selection bias”: we observe our very unlikely universe because those unlikely conditions are necessary for us to be here. This is an expression of the Anthropic Principle.

If our current level of organization, having many self-aware entities, is a result of a random fluctuation, it is much less likely than a level of organization which only creates stand-alone self-aware entities. The number of self-aware brains that spontaneously and randomly form out of the chaos, complete with memories of a life like ours, should vastly outnumber the brains evolved from an inconceivably rare local fluctuation the size of the observable Universe.

“The idea that the thermodynamic arrow of time arose from a gigantic fluctuation leads to an amusing form of solipsism. From the standpoint of entropy, I, sitting at my keyboard typing these lines, am a pretty big fluctuation. A tree that I remember seeing is also a big fluctuation. It would be a smaller fluctuation, entropy-wise (recalling that entropy is extensive), not to have the tree, but to change my brain slightly and create the memory of that tree. Therefore, in terms of likely or unlikely fluctuations (and that’s what entropy measures) it would be far more likely that the tree doesn’t exist. You, reading this, should similarly doubt the existence of the writer.”  – Lawrence S. Schulman

The Boltzmann brain paradox is that any observers (self-aware brains with memories like we have, which includes our brains) are therefore far more likely to be Boltzmann brains than evolved brains. This suggest a problem either with current cosmological theories or the anthropic principle.

One class of solutions to the question makes use of differing approaches to the measure problem in cosmology: in infinite multiverse theories, the ratio of normal observers to Boltzmann-brain observers depends on how infinite limits are taken. Measures might be chosen to avoid appreciable fractions of Boltzmann brains.

A major question for a chaotic inflationary Multi-Verse model is whether it can circumvent the BB problem that plagues the random fluctuation model. If not, such a model will encounter the same disconfirmation as RF, thus giving us strong reasons to reject it. The inflationary model can avoid the BB problem, and this is its key advantage.

“Inflation is best thought of as the “dominant channel” from random chaos into a big bang-like state. The exponentially large volume of the Big Bang-like regions produced via inflation appear to completely swamp any other regions that might have fluctuated into a Big Bang-like state via some other route.  So, if you went looking around in the universe looking for a region like the one we see, it would be exponentially more likely to have arrived at that state via inflation, than some other way, and is thus strongly predicted to have the whole package of inflationary predictions.”    Andreas Albrecht

The idea here is that inflation takes small, low entropy regions and expands them into enormously large regions with enough order so that they will be dominated by non-BB observers (if they have observers).  The assumption is that the regions that undergo inflation are so small that they are much more likely to occur than regions that generate observers by random fluctuations; further, because of inflation, these initial small regions become so large that they dominate over those regions that produce observers by means of random fluctuations. Albrecht admits, however, that his argument that inflation would be the dominant channel “rests on very heuristic arguments” and that “the program of putting this sort of argument on firmer foundations is in its infancy”.

Several articles have been written in recent years arguing that inflation will generate universes in which BBs enormously dominate among observers in the far future. These arguments, however, present a problem only if one adopts a block universe view, according to which future events have the same ontological status as present and past events.  Although advocates of inflation typically assume such a view, they need not. If one adopts a metaphysical view in which the future is not yet real, these arguments will not themselves show that inflation leads to a present dominance of BB universes. Further,  the same dominance of BBs occurs for long-lived single universes; further, the evidence at present strongly suggests that our universe will continue existing for an enormously long time, if not forever, if there is no supernatural intervention.   In any case, I shall next present a powerful reason for thinking that Albrecht’s argument is flawed and that without assuming highly special initial conditions, inflationary cosmology leads to a dominance of BBs for any period of time in which observers exist.

Some more selected verses from the Ramana Maharshi disciple Master Nome:

The Mind & its modifications, in the form of thoughts, modes, & states, are limited.  The Self, unlike any of the Minds, is not of limited knowledge, for Supreme Knowledge is the Self’s true nature.  That  Supreme Knowledge is unmodified Consciousness itself, which is the Self itself.  The Self has no Ignorance, just as light has no darkness.  The Self is also without change, without impurity, ever beyond conception, forever beyond the Senses, & never of a material nature.

The Self is, by analogy, said by the Wise, to be like sunlight, while the Mind is like a crystal. And the various Experiences are like the colors seen in the crystal. The significance of this analogy is that all objects are seen in the Mind only by the light of the Self.  Objects of knowledge, sensed or mental, appear only in the Waking & Dream states. When these Waking & Dream states are not present, no such sensed or mental objects are experienced. Yet the Knower (the Self) is always the Knower, never ceasing, unlike all that is unreal. For the Knower is formless Consciousness. Duality appears only in those Waking & Dream states & is thus likewise unreal. For what is Real must be Real always. By relinquishing the superimposition of the known on the Knower, one then abides as the Non-Dual Knower, unceasing Consciousness, always.

Prior to the discrimination of the Self & the non-Self, one may think that the Absolute does not exist. One may doubt that the Self alone exists. After such discriminating Self-Inquiry, what was thought of as an Individual self is known to be only Brahman. There is no Individual self, or Mind, which would have done such thinking. Upon such Self-Inquiry, the experiential Knowledge is that only the Self. Brahman is, & the Individual & Mind are only Brahman & nothing else.

For the Self, which is of the nature of pure Consciousness, the connection to any objective experience, mental or sensed, is a product of delusion.  The “I” is truly free of all attributes, & is not associated with any quality or entity, & is ever nonobjective.  The Ignorance that imagines otherwise is purposeless.  That Ignorance merely creates Bondage among the ever-free, Suffering in the midst of Bliss. This is like drowning in a mirage whose “waters” serve no purpose. If the delusive attempts, to connect the Self with what is not the Self, are given up, the Mind rests in Brahman, the Absolute Self, “as if free from Bondage”, say the Sages.  In Reality, that Self was never bound.  The Self is ever Unborn & ever free of Duality.

The above themes & 1600 pages more are freely available as perused or downloaded PDF’s, the sole occupants of a Public Microsoft Skydrive “Public Folder” accessible through:  

www.jpstiga.com/

http://jstiga.wixsite.com/nonduality/

or with Caps-sensitive:

http://sdrv.ms.YPOgkX/

Duplicates (but with graphics) have been available on:

http://www.blogger.com     as  “Being-as-Consciousness, Non-Duality – new & final version” with link:

http://being-as-consciousness.blogspot.com/

[But from now on, they will be different & still usually daily.]

There is no Creation, no Destruction, no Bondage, no longing to be freed from Bondage, no striving for Liberation, nor anyone who has attained Liberation. Know that this to be Ultimate Truth.”   the “no creation” school of Gaudapada, Shankara, Ramana, Nome Ajata Vada

for very succinct summary of the teaching & practice, see:  www.ajatavada.com/

NMT (No-Me Teaching) new series 51

NMT (No-Me Teaching) new series 51:

Prior to excerpting the Ramana Maharshi disciple, Master Nome in the text below we continue the series: Fine-Tuned Universe , the premise that a small change in several of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the Universe incapable of Life.

Fine-Tuned Universe 31:

[In the unreal reflection called the “Universe”, a product of an unreal Mind, even there, Infinite Intelligence is evident and inspiring.]

So, how does Inflation explain the special initial conditions of the Big Bang, which is the primary aim of the theory?  According to Albrecht, it explains the initial conditions by a two-stage process, via the “chaotic inflation” models. First, as Andreas Albrecht explains, “One typically imagines some sort of chaotic primordial state, where the Inflaton field is more or less randomly tossed about, until by sheer chance it winds up in a very rare fluctuation that produces a potential-dominated state. ..”   Potential-dominated states are those in which the potential energy of the Inflaton field is enormous compared to the rate of change of the Inflaton field with respect to time and space.  That is, in order for inflation to occur, the Inflaton field must be both spatially and temporally almost uniform relative to the total energy density of the field .[1] Although macroscopic uniformity of matter is typically a state of very high entropy (such as perfume spread throughout a room), it is generally accepted that in the case of the gravitational field and the Inflaton field, greater uniformity entails lower entropy. This is said to explain why the universe becomes more and more inhomogeneous as it expands (with matter clustering into galaxies and stars forming), and yet at the same time its entropy increases.  Entropy increases because the gravitational field becomes less uniform.  Since the gravitational field would play a significant role in the space-time of the early universe, a near uniform Inflaton field would correspond to extremely low entropy.

Now a general requirement for inflation is that the Inflaton field be nearly uniform, in the potential-dominated sense defined above, over some very small patch. Although these states will be extremely rare, given a large enough initial Inflaton field, or enough time, they are likely eventually to occur in some small patch of space simply as a result of thermal fluctuations.  Once they occur, inflation sets in, enormously expanding the patch.  Eventually, because of the postulated nature of the Inflaton field, in one or more regions of this expanded space, the field decays, resulting in re-heating that produces a bubble universe with ordinary matter.  So, in effect, because Inflation can only occur in highly uniform states of the Inflaton field, any Universe produced from an inflated region will have initially low entropy.

Accordingly, Albrecht proposes that inflation explains the low entropy of our universe by a two-stage process:

(i) a low entropy patch occurs as a result of a statistical fluctuation, and then

(ii) that patch inflates into our Universe.  As John Barrow and Frank Tipler pointed out decades ago, however, if the right special initial conditions must be stumbled upon by a statistical fluctuation, why not simply hypothesize a very large, or infinite, material field that undergoes a random fluctuation that produces a universe relevantly like ours? Why invoke the additional mechanism of inflation?

The answer requires looking at the standard objection to “random fluctuation models.” The objection is that universes being produced by such a fluctuation (without inflation) would almost certainly lead to small islands of observers surrounded by chaos, not one with a low degree of entropy throughout.  Even more ominously, a random observer most likely would be a so-called “Boltzmann Brain.” A Boltzmann Brain (BB) is a small region of mass-energy with the same structure as our brains (including the same sort of apparent memory and sensory experiences), but with the surrounding regions of space and time in a chaotic, high-entropy state. Although the experiences of such brains would be highly ordered for a brief time, they would not in any way correspond to reality, and any sort of inductive reasoning would fail.

The BB concept was originally articulated as part of an objection raised against the proposed anthropic-selection-effect explanation of the low initial entropy offered by Ludwig Boltzmann, one of the principal founders of statistical mechanics. Boltzmann attempted to explain the relatively low entropy of the universe by claiming that it was the result a fluctuation from the normal “chaotic,” equilibrium state, and that a fluctuation with a high degree of order was necessary for the existence of observers.   As theoretical physicist Paul Davies and many others have pointed out in responding to Boltzmann’s anthropic explanation, a fluctuation “the size of the solar system would be sufficient to ensure the existence of life on Earth, and such a fluctuation is far more probable than one of cosmic proportions”.  Indeed, fluctuations of even smaller dimensions – ones in which matter has the same organization as the brain with all its apparent memories and sense experiences but in which the surrounding space-time was chaos – would be even more likely. Consequently, insofar as a random fluctuation world contained observers, any randomly selected observer would almost certainly be a BB.

Some more selected verses from the Ramana Maharshi disciple Master Nome:

All the objects of knowledge change. All that are described as “mine” & Ego, also cannot illumine themselves, nor can they illumine each other.  The Self is different from all that are described as “mine” & Ego. The Self is the unchanging, illuminating Consciousness.  This Consciousness is truly one’s only Identity.  Therefore, there can never truly be Bondage.

One Non-Dual Self alone is.  The one Non-Dual Self is the undivided Consciousness. This is the only Knower in all.  There are not different kinds of Knowers, such as higher & lower knowers. The Minds of all are pervaded by the one Consciousness within, which is the Self.  This is the “I” of all.  So there is no one else who knows, or who does not know.  The “I” is truly the Absolute, Brahman, all-knowing & all-pervading.

This “I” pervades & illumines the Mind. An the Mind pervades & illumines all things ever experienced.  Thus this “I” is the illuminator & pervader of all. This Self is the Witness of all objects of the Mind. These mental objects are subtle thoughts & also all the objects conceived as external as well. This includes being the Witness of all other Minds conceived as existing within the Mind.  Thus the Self is the Witness of all.

The Mind cannot conceive the Self, yet the Mind has no existence apart from the Self. The Self can neither be accepted, nor rejected by any of the Minds. That which cannot be accepted or rejected by the Mind is Brahman. That is truly the “I”.  Brahman & the Self are One.

The above themes & 1600 pages more are freely available as perused or downloaded PDF’s, the sole occupants of a Public Microsoft Skydrive “Public Folder” accessible through:  

www.jpstiga.com/

http://jstiga.wixsite.com/nonduality/

or with Caps-sensitive:

http://sdrv.ms.YPOgkX/

Duplicates (but with graphics) have been available on:

http://www.blogger.com     as  “Being-as-Consciousness, Non-Duality – new & final version” with link:

http://being-as-consciousness.blogspot.com/

[But from now on, they will be different & still usually daily.]

 

NMT (No-Me Teaching) new series 50

NMT (No-Me Teaching) new series 50:

Prior to excerpting the other Ramana Maharshi disciple in the text below we continue the series: Fine-Tuned Universe , the premise that a small change in several of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the Universe incapable of Life.

Fine-Tuned Universe 30:

[In the unreal reflection called the “Universe”, a product of an unreal Mind, even there, Infinite Intelligence is evident and inspiring.]

In addition to the four factors listed above, the fundamental physical laws underlying a multiverse generator — whether of the inflationary type or some other — must be just right in order for it to produce life-permitting universes, instead of merely dead universes. Specifically, these fundamental laws must be such as to allow the conversion of the mass-energy into material forms that allow for the sort of stable complexity needed for complex intelligent life.  For example, as elaborated in section 2.2, without the principle of quantization, all electrons would be sucked into the atomic nuclei, and, hence, atoms would be impossible; without the Pauli-exclusion principle, electrons would occupy the lowest atomic orbit, and, hence, complex and varied atoms would be impossible; without a universally attractive force  between all masses, such as gravity, matter would not be able to form sufficiently large material bodies (such as planets) for life to develop or for long-lived stable energy sources such as stars to exist.

Although some of the laws of physics can vary from Universe to Universe in superstring-M theory, these fundamental laws and principles underlie superstring-M theory and therefore cannot be explained as a Multi-Verse Selection Effect. Further, since the variation among universes would consist of variation of the masses and types of particles, and the form of the forces between them, complex structures would almost certainly be atom‑like and stable energy sources would almost certainly require aggregates of matter.  Thus, the above fundamental laws seem necessary for there to be life in any of the many universes generated in this scenario, not merely in a universe with our specific types of particles and forces.

In sum, even if an inflationary/superstring multiverse generator exists, it must have just the right combination of laws and fields for the production of life-permitting universes: if one of the components were missing or different, such as Einstein’s equation or the Pauli-exclusion principle, it is unlikely that any life-permitting universes could be produced.  Consequently, at most this highly speculative scenario would explain the fine-tuning of the constants of physics, but at the cost of postulating additional fine-tuning of the laws of nature.

Inflationary cosmology runs into a major problem in explaining the low entropy of the universe. This is a critical problem, since unless it can do this, arguably much, if not all, of the motivation for inflationary cosmology vanishes. Further, this problem will cast severe doubt on the ability of an inflationary multiverse to explain the fine-tuning.   The problem is that, applied to the universe as a whole, the second law of thermodynamics demands that the entropy of the universe always increase. Indeed, even if one has doubts about the applicability of the second law to the universe as a whole, inflation invokes a thermalization process, and thermalization is known to be a paradigmatic entropy-increasing process.  As Cambridge University physicist Roger Penrose states,

Indeed, it is fundamentally misconceived to explain why the universe is special in any particular respect by appealing to a thermalization process.  For, if the thermalization is actually doing anything (such as making temperatures in different regions more equal than they were before), then it represents a definite increasing of entropy.  Thus, the universe would have had to be more special before the thermalization than after.  This only serves to increase whatever difficulty we might have had previously in trying to come to terms with the initial extraordinarily special nature of the universe. . . . invoking arguments from thermalization, to address this particular problem [of the specialness of the universe], is worse than useless !

Based on this sort of argument, it is now widely accepted that the pre-inflationary patch of space-time that inflated to form our universe must have had lower entropy than the universe right after inflation. For example, Andreas Albrecht, a defender of inflationary cosmology, admits that inflationary cosmology must hypothesize a special initial low entropy state:  “For inflation, the inflaton field is the out-of-equilibrium degree of freedom that drives other subsystems.  The inflaton starts in a fairly homogeneous potential-dominated state which is certainly not a high-entropy state for that field . . . ” . Elsewhere, he says the pre-inflation patch must have been in a “very special state”.

Some more selected verses from the Ramana Maharshi disciple Master Nome:

When the conceptions of “me” & “mine” are attributed to the Self, such are manifestations of Ignorance.  They are superimpositions upon the Self, which is only One, with neither Individuality nor any experience or thing possessed by and Individual. The “individual self” is thought to be the Seer, Hearer, Thinker, Knower, & such. In Reality, it is Brahman, the imperishable, indivisible, Non-Dual Self.  The “individual self” or “I” is not different from the Real Self, which is Brahman.

Meditation on the Self is declared to be without Time, Space, direction, or Causation, since the Self is without these things. The Self itself is to be realized as timeless, & the Realization itself, being of the same nature, is bodiless & without regard to place. The Self itself is, without Causation, being Uncreated & Unborn. And the Realization, being of the same nature, need not wait for circumstance & is not an attempt to produce the Self anew. The Realization is a realizing of what the Self truly is.  Le the Mind thus turn within, immersing itself in Self-Inquiry, absorbing itself in Knowledge, thereby losing its own form as it searches inwardly for its source. In this lies great Bliss & Immortality.

The above themes & 1600 pages more are freely available as perused or downloaded PDF’s, the sole occupants of a Public Microsoft Skydrive “Public Folder” accessible through:  

www.jpstiga.com/

http://jstiga.wixsite.com/nonduality/

or with Caps-sensitive:

http://sdrv.ms.YPOgkX/

Duplicates (but with graphics) have been available on:

http://www.blogger.com     as  “Being-as-Consciousness, Non-Duality – new & final version” with link:

http://being-as-consciousness.blogspot.com/

[But from now on, they will be different & still usually daily.]