Corollaries on The Fine Structure (Sommerfeld's) Constant

Discussions on the philosophical foundations, assumptions, and implications of science, including the natural sciences.

Corollaries on The Fine Structure (Sommerfeld's) Constant

Postby -1- on November 15th, 2018, 8:13 pm 

At least five "settings" needs to be "set" exactly right, to get the exact universe we live in. The strong force, the weak force, electromagnetism, gravity and light. That's like throwing five dices and getting a 1, 2, 3, 4 and a 5 in the first attempt. That is statistically very improbable, don't you agree? It's much more likely that you'd need dozens of attempts to get it. So logic tell us that, without a creator, there must be many universes with different settings "out there".

There could also only be ours, but that would either require crazy luck, or a creator. And may I remind you that a creator doesn't necessarily need to be eternal or divine. It could be done in an advanced computer by mere mortals.

I call the above reasoning a benign misconception. Neither crazy luck nor a creator is a necessary premise for the foundation of the universe for the way Sommerfeld's Constant played out.

First of all, probabilities in a deterministic universe in which we live in, is only meaningful for estimating reality by humans. Reality is not a dice game; it is a set line of events.

Second of all, even if the Sommerfeld's Constant was not played out like in our universe, the reality would still go on. We don't know how that universe would be structured. Sentient beings could evolve there too, in a form of biology of a strange, strange way to us. Maybe electromagnetism would trump gravity, or the other way around, but a structure of matter would develop. Maybe atoms and molecules would not exist, but other structures would form that help in their humble way form complex structures, similarly to atoms being the basis for chemical complexity which ultimately leads to life forms is in our universe.

Thirdly, we don't know at all what the world would be like if the Sommerfeld's Constant was different. But we must admit that it would be SOMEhow. And a world which is fundamentally different from ours, would still be a world.

Ours just happened to be this way. But other configurations are not impossible, and they don't necessarily indicate that matter would be impossible to exist. And if matter exists, in any form, then it is possible that it would complexify itself in that other "form" also.

I see the panic attack (WHAT IF SOMMERFELD'S CONSTANT WAS DIFFERENT? WE GOTTA RENT OUR CLOTHES AND TEAR OUR HAIR OUT AND EAT IT!!) voiced in the opening quote is yet another form of anthropomorphism. We, humans, make our god like us. Then until better information was available, the world's centre was the Earth, (because man lived here). When things were known to be moving out there in the space, we were convinced they moved around us. When we historically thought of animals vs man, we were convinced there was no way we evolved from them. Until recently most people would not believe that there is life outside our planet.

So this is yet another form of anthropomorphic egotism. It spells that if the universe was not in our form, then there would be Armageddon. Well, that is not right. It is a benign human misconception, again on the same pattern as every other historical human misconception was patterned: Humans are the Alpha and the Omega.
User avatar
Banned User
Posts: 270
Joined: 21 Jul 2018

Return to Philosophy of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests