That seems wildly improbable. What are you going to push off of to get you to speeds faster than light? There could be gimmicky ways like expanding / contracting space, but thats not moving faster than light, thats space changing faster than light. Changing cosmic topology to allow stable wormholes could possibly do something similar, but that could just as easily mean that you and all other matter exist in the exact same location. That would be… not fun
There’s a principle, I can’t remember the name of it, but basically it goes that the universe exists in such a way as to support life, because if it didn’t, there would be no one around to discuss the ways in which the universe might have formed. Which is to say, while it’s all good to contemplate a different set of physical laws in which we could not exist, we cannot use the condition of our existing as proof that the universe must allow us to exist. Any universe in which an observer exists is necessarily a universe in which an observercould exist. We will only ever get to observe that which allows our existence.
It’s mainly used, to my knowledge, to attempt to dissuade the religious of ideas of a creator deity.
But I think here it has another application. If false vacuum decay happens, and all of everything just goes poof, that’s not interesting. There will be no observer, no one to mark it, no one to study it. On top of that, no one to even know there was once someone. Who knows, maybe it’s happened hundreds of trillions of times, maybe infinite times, maybe once, maybe never. Either way, we, and anyone else out there, will have no way of knowing, or remembering, or anything else. So it’s not interesting. There’s nothing of value to be learned, because there’s no way to use the knowledge to do anything.
But contemplating the ways in which it could happen and we could survive? Suddenly a new set of physical laws govern us? Different, but just similar enough that we don’t explode, implode, or just dissipate into component atoms (if atoms still exist!)? That’s interesting! That’s worth contemplation and thought! At the very least it’s worth a damn fine dime store paperback sci Fi novel!
Let’s do something interesting here! What’s your wish list for a change in our physical laws that still allows our existence? I went utopian, ftl space flight, nothing else changes. But maybe it’s some mad max universe now? Maybe it changes our physical structure enough that we’re all cronenberg monsters limping our way through the universe in tiny, slapped together vessels that we put together as we saw what was approaching on the horizon of the observable universe, and in the new laws planets can’t form? Searching, seeking, viciously lonely abominations, wandering a void unlike anything we’ve ever experienced?
Maybe the only change is that idiots stop voting and wealth disparity disappears somewhere. Be adventurous! Be the change you hope the decay will bring!
There’s a principle, I can’t remember the name of it, but basically it goes that the universe exists in such a way as to support life, because if it didn’t, there would be no one around to discuss the ways in which the universe might have formed.
The Anthropic Principle. It’s a mind-bender, especially because it’s fundamentally unfalsifiable.
You are correct.Notably, I don’t believe it’s unfalsifiable, its just fundamentally true. You cant observe yourself in any reality where you are incapable of onserving yourself.
By applying both that and the many worlds hypothesis, the idea of quantum immortality comes up, and thats a real mind bender. Its also a way to verifiably prove many worlds accurate(afaik the only way)
Basically (very basically), anything that can happen, does. Its simply that each possible action happens in a seperate time stream, and each new possible action results in said time streams splitting into two realities; one where the action happened, and one where it did not.
But by the anthropic principle, you will only ever find yourself in a reality where you can observe yourself.
Hence, if you set up an expirement such that if a single atom decays in a chunk of uranium you die, the odds are stacked almost infinitely in favor of you dying, and one of two things will happen.
In the case many worlds is true, despite all the odds, there will be a universe in which you survive, and due to the self observation principle, that will always be the one you find yourself in. You obviously cant observe yourself in any reality where you died.
In the case that many worlds is false, you simply die. You still cant observe yourself in that reality, so for you reality simply stops.
This means that if it is physically possible for you to survive something, from your perspective(assuming many eorkds is true) you will always survive. That is the idea behind quantum immortality.
The downside is that others are still able to observe you dying. So in the vast majority of realities, they observe you die and label the expiriment inconclusive. In the reality in which you live, it could just be a massive statistical fluke. I suppose you could run the expiriment again, but youd suffer the same issues as the first time, where in almost every case, they witness you die and deem it inconclusive. After having repeated this twice and yet you still find yourself in the reality where you survived, id say thats basically proof that many worlds is accurate, but only that reality out of the uncountably high number of realities stemming from this expiriment would have evidence. In all the others you just die.
To reiterate though, assuming many worlds is accurate, the expiriment carries no risk to you. Due to the anthropic principle, you will always find yourself in the reality in which you survive.
Edit: This wikipedia article doesnt mention the anthropic principle, but it very vaguely gestures towards the idea on an individual scale rather than a cosmological. I think that is where my confusion came from, I have only heard of the “anthropic principle” in terms of cosmology, whereas im pretty sure ive heard of the “self observation bias” or something similar as basically the application of the anthropic principle to an indiviual. I started this rabbit hole here years ago.
I don’t believe it’s unfalsifiable, its just fundamentally true. You cant observe yourself in any reality where you are incapable of onserving yourself.
As you note, it’s the only logically-consistent framework through which to view the world we live in. But are there other ways in which the universe could’ve formed that we might be able to falsify it?
Imagine two universes, A and B. They’re entirely disconnected and independent from one another; no matter or energy can flow in either direction, except that through some exotic process, a small window exists in universe A through which universe B can be observed without affecting it in any way (Heisenbergs HATE this!). Universe A is just as our own is, including our existence, with the single exception of this window. In universe B, however, the laws of physics do not permit carbon atoms to form in stars, so no sentient life has ever formed.
In those universes, then, the Anthropic Principle would be falsified; as the residents of Universe A could observe a universe in which they could not have arisen.
Or consider a Boltzmann Brain (or a simulated universe). Were we to discover that our existence was of either nature, that too would falsify the Anthropic Principle, as we are not actually observing a universe.
Anyway. It’s not falsifiable in our reality, as far as we can tell. But we can imagine ways in which it could be falsifiable.
That seems wildly improbable. What are you going to push off of to get you to speeds faster than light? There could be gimmicky ways like expanding / contracting space, but thats not moving faster than light, thats space changing faster than light. Changing cosmic topology to allow stable wormholes could possibly do something similar, but that could just as easily mean that you and all other matter exist in the exact same location. That would be… not fun
But if the laws of physics were to change, who’s to say what’s possible‽ Star trek future is in the works!
More likely infinite energy just became a thing and you explode 🔥
There’s a principle, I can’t remember the name of it, but basically it goes that the universe exists in such a way as to support life, because if it didn’t, there would be no one around to discuss the ways in which the universe might have formed. Which is to say, while it’s all good to contemplate a different set of physical laws in which we could not exist, we cannot use the condition of our existing as proof that the universe must allow us to exist. Any universe in which an observer exists is necessarily a universe in which an observercould exist. We will only ever get to observe that which allows our existence.
It’s mainly used, to my knowledge, to attempt to dissuade the religious of ideas of a creator deity.
But I think here it has another application. If false vacuum decay happens, and all of everything just goes poof, that’s not interesting. There will be no observer, no one to mark it, no one to study it. On top of that, no one to even know there was once someone. Who knows, maybe it’s happened hundreds of trillions of times, maybe infinite times, maybe once, maybe never. Either way, we, and anyone else out there, will have no way of knowing, or remembering, or anything else. So it’s not interesting. There’s nothing of value to be learned, because there’s no way to use the knowledge to do anything.
But contemplating the ways in which it could happen and we could survive? Suddenly a new set of physical laws govern us? Different, but just similar enough that we don’t explode, implode, or just dissipate into component atoms (if atoms still exist!)? That’s interesting! That’s worth contemplation and thought! At the very least it’s worth a damn fine dime store paperback sci Fi novel!
Let’s do something interesting here! What’s your wish list for a change in our physical laws that still allows our existence? I went utopian, ftl space flight, nothing else changes. But maybe it’s some mad max universe now? Maybe it changes our physical structure enough that we’re all cronenberg monsters limping our way through the universe in tiny, slapped together vessels that we put together as we saw what was approaching on the horizon of the observable universe, and in the new laws planets can’t form? Searching, seeking, viciously lonely abominations, wandering a void unlike anything we’ve ever experienced?
Maybe the only change is that idiots stop voting and wealth disparity disappears somewhere. Be adventurous! Be the change you hope the decay will bring!
The Anthropic Principle. It’s a mind-bender, especially because it’s fundamentally unfalsifiable.
That’s it! And yep, total mindfuck. But also sort of… Profound, I guess
I thought it was the self observation principle?
I’ve never heard of that name for it, though the “observation selection” principle might be what you’re thinking of. They’re synonyms.
Important edit at the bottom
You are correct.Notably, I don’t believe it’s unfalsifiable, its just fundamentally true. You cant observe yourself in any reality where you are incapable of onserving yourself.
By applying both that and the many worlds hypothesis, the idea of quantum immortality comes up, and thats a real mind bender. Its also a way to verifiably prove many worlds accurate(afaik the only way)
Basically (very basically), anything that can happen, does. Its simply that each possible action happens in a seperate time stream, and each new possible action results in said time streams splitting into two realities; one where the action happened, and one where it did not.
But by the anthropic principle, you will only ever find yourself in a reality where you can observe yourself.
Hence, if you set up an expirement such that if a single atom decays in a chunk of uranium you die, the odds are stacked almost infinitely in favor of you dying, and one of two things will happen.
In the case many worlds is true, despite all the odds, there will be a universe in which you survive, and due to the self observation principle, that will always be the one you find yourself in. You obviously cant observe yourself in any reality where you died.
In the case that many worlds is false, you simply die. You still cant observe yourself in that reality, so for you reality simply stops.
This means that if it is physically possible for you to survive something, from your perspective(assuming many eorkds is true) you will always survive. That is the idea behind quantum immortality.
The downside is that others are still able to observe you dying. So in the vast majority of realities, they observe you die and label the expiriment inconclusive. In the reality in which you live, it could just be a massive statistical fluke. I suppose you could run the expiriment again, but youd suffer the same issues as the first time, where in almost every case, they witness you die and deem it inconclusive. After having repeated this twice and yet you still find yourself in the reality where you survived, id say thats basically proof that many worlds is accurate, but only that reality out of the uncountably high number of realities stemming from this expiriment would have evidence. In all the others you just die.
To reiterate though, assuming many worlds is accurate, the expiriment carries no risk to you. Due to the anthropic principle, you will always find yourself in the reality in which you survive.
Edit: This wikipedia article doesnt mention the anthropic principle, but it very vaguely gestures towards the idea on an individual scale rather than a cosmological. I think that is where my confusion came from, I have only heard of the “anthropic principle” in terms of cosmology, whereas im pretty sure ive heard of the “self observation bias” or something similar as basically the application of the anthropic principle to an indiviual. I started this rabbit hole here years ago.
As you note, it’s the only logically-consistent framework through which to view the world we live in. But are there other ways in which the universe could’ve formed that we might be able to falsify it?
Imagine two universes, A and B. They’re entirely disconnected and independent from one another; no matter or energy can flow in either direction, except that through some exotic process, a small window exists in universe A through which universe B can be observed without affecting it in any way (Heisenbergs HATE this!). Universe A is just as our own is, including our existence, with the single exception of this window. In universe B, however, the laws of physics do not permit carbon atoms to form in stars, so no sentient life has ever formed.
In those universes, then, the Anthropic Principle would be falsified; as the residents of Universe A could observe a universe in which they could not have arisen.
Or consider a Boltzmann Brain (or a simulated universe). Were we to discover that our existence was of either nature, that too would falsify the Anthropic Principle, as we are not actually observing a universe.
Anyway. It’s not falsifiable in our reality, as far as we can tell. But we can imagine ways in which it could be falsifiable.