Our Darwinian Universe

[island]

I submit that the debate prevents people from recognizing the self-evident inherently-contained prediction that a true strong anthropic constraint on the forces of the universe will necessarily entail a reciprocal connection to the human evolutionary process, which indicates that physicists should be looking for a mechanism that enables the universe to "leap" to higher orders of the same basic structure.

Duh... an evolutionary universe. How obvious. I wonder why nobody ever thought of an anthropic connection as defining an evolutionary universe... ?... hmmmm...

Couldn't be that creationists' cosmological ID claims cause a reactionary backlash of willful denial that won't permit the other side to even consider that their own theory of evolution is actually the freaking ToE?

Nah they've got all the science on their side, right... ?... NOT!

Something about, cutting off your nose to spite your face...

http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/ ... verse.html

[Goat]

Cathar1950 said:
You are saying that this fine tuned universe is made especially for us.

No, I would say that the universe produces carbon based life because it needs us into existence as a real, working physical mechanism for its evolution.

Necessity being the mother of invention, intelligent life is just a practical tool used as a means to an end, specialized though we may be, and we are cumulatively affective, in ignorant partnership with every other similarly developed civilization that exists in the goldilocks zone of the universe.

Insects don't make the high-energy particles that enable this via the physics that I've referred people to...

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2006-02/msg0073320.html

...but that doesn't mean that insects are any less important to the supporting ecobalance for which we contributing members all arose from and *belong* to.

Just like all anthropic coincidences, our local ecosystem is fixed to a self-regulating balance between diametrically-opposing, cumulatively-runaway, tendencies.

Like the runaway Dawkins effect that would occur if this extreme anti-ideological tendency were left unchecked by his equally fanatical counterparts...

Thank "god" for politics... NOT!

Anytime someone talks about 'nessecity' , my bullshit detectors go off in
Speaking of necessary evils...

Anytime someone talks about 'nessecity' , my bullshit detectors go off and
huge red flags go up.

I say you should simplfy your thinking. You are assuming that an effect is a goal, rather than a happenstance.

[QED]

While island is explaining his theory in an accessible way let's continue to show respect all round. These forums have a good reputation for civil conduct among the debaters. I know island is banging a drum for the Strong Anthropic Principle wherever he can -- usually in the company of other theoretical physicists. I'd say that the skills set here is more inclined towards (armchair) philosophy but that needn't diminish the gain that might be had from exploring his ideas.

[island]

goat, a need is something that is necessary, and is not necessarily an anthropomorphism. "Happenstance" makes it sound like there was some other path that could have been taken, but we just happen to be lucky.

If the effort of the dynamics of the universe is toward absolute symmetry, and we are needed into existence by the physics that produces the impetus, then it isn't simply happenstance that we are here.

I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure how to reconcile the issue in terms that are going to satisfy everybody.

It seems to me that the universe has an unattainable goal, and I don't know what else to call it.

[Goat]

goat, a need is something that is necessary, and is not necessarily an anthropomorphism. "Happenstance" makes it sound like there was some other path that could have been taken, but we just happen to be lucky.

If the effort of the dynamics of the universe is toward absolute symmetry, and we are needed into existence by the physics that produces the impetus, then it isn't simply happenstance that we are here.

I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure how to reconcile the issue in terms that are going to satisfy everybody.

It seems to me that the universe has an unattainable goal, and I don't know what else to call it.

I do not see the leap of logical for 'the dynamics of the universe towards symmentry' and 'we are hear' is not happenstance.

To use an old cliche, that is like shooting an arrow into the air, seeing where it lands, and then drawing a target around it, and then being amazed that we hit the target so completely in the center.

[island]

I do not see the leap of logical for 'the dynamics of the universe towards symmentry' and 'we are hear' is not happenstance.

Oh, so you didn't grasp anything that I said before or after, 'nessecity' because the word was, as you said in so many words, a reactionary trigger.

Gotcha...

[Goat]

I do not see the leap of logical for 'the dynamics of the universe towards symmentry' and 'we are hear' is not happenstance.

Oh, so you didn't grasp anything that I said before or after, 'nessecity' because the word was, as you said in so many words, a reactionary trigger.

Gotcha...

No, I am saying you are making a conclusion that is not justified.

Gotcha

[island]

I do not see the leap of logical for 'the dynamics of the universe towards symmentry' and 'we are hear' is not happenstance.

Oh, so you didn't grasp anything that I said before or after, 'nessecity' because the word was, as you said in so many words, a reactionary trigger.

Gotcha...

No, I am saying you are making a conclusion that is not justified.

Gotcha

Yeah, I offer a valid, testtable, falsifiable, empirically supported, theory, while you offer your completely usupported opinion that reaks of pure ideologically motivated anti-fanaticism, by your own admission.

That's a culture war, not a debate, sonny, and you just got the crap blown out of your lame position, so you'd better retreat while you still have an ass...

I like that one!

[Cathar1950]

While island is explaining his theory in an accessible way let's continue to show respect all round. These forums have a good reputation for civil conduct among the debaters. I know island is banging a drum for the Strong Anthropic Principle wherever he can -- usually in the company of other theoretical physicists. I'd say that the skills set here is more inclined towards (armchair) philosophy but that needn't diminish the gain that might be had from exploring his ideas.

I thought I was being nice.
Clearly someone has an "cultural" axe to grind, using island's words.
.
Yeah, I offer a valid, testtable, falsifiable, empirically supported, theory, while you offer your completely usupported opinion that reaks of pure ideologically motivated anti-fanaticism, by your own admission.

That's a culture war, not a debate, sonny, and you just got the crap blown out of your lame position, so you'd better retreat while you still have an ass...

I like that one!

I don't believe the above warrants respect.
I do not see where he has done any of the above. He has offered speculation.
He lacks “valid, testable, falsifiable, or empirically supported theory for conclusions aand his armchair is firmly resting on “unsupported opinion that reeks of pure ideologically motivated and fanaticism. By his “own admission” it is a “culture war, not a debate”.
When he writes “you just got the crap blown out of your lame position, so you'd better retreat while you still have an ass...”, I feel it is premature and not hardly true. At this point should we consider the gloves off? One of the things I like about this forum is that we can hack away at each others ideas and do a lot of clarifying with out beating each other up and claiming some vain victory. But clearly you have moved to the area of metaphysics without bridging the gap between your data and your speculation.
My opinion is you have a bloody nose and no one hit you so you claim you won.

[island]

You don't refute an empirically supported arguement with unsupported "speculation", just because, 'you don't see it that way'

And then you pretend like he didn't open with an ideologically motivated statement.

Me thinks that you don't know much about scientific debates that don't recognize unsupported devil's advocate rationale.

[otseng]

That's a culture war, not a debate, sonny, and you just got the crap blown out of your lame position, so you'd better retreat while you still have an ass...

I like that one!

And I do not. Let me emphasis that the main principles here are respect for others and to debate in a civil manner. Further, claiming that you've won an argument is not necessary and is considered bad form. Readers are able to determine for themselves whose argument is stronger.