Our Darwinian Universe

island · Post by **island** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:04 pm

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

Post by **otseng** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 4:53 pm

I am not entirely clear what the question for debate here is.

island · Post by **island** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:31 pm

otseng wrote:I am not entirely clear what the question for debate here is.

Probably nothing if you can understand the validity of the physics that's linked within the linked article, but my claim is that rampant willful ignorance persists across the board that is proven by the fact that my point is so obvious if you simply look without being motivated by preconceived prejudicial predispositioning for and against strong interpretations of the anthropic principle, for ideological reasons.

My personal rant:

My point is inherent to any true anthropic cosmological principle, "for "god's" sake"!

What the hell happened here, sports-fans? What gives you the right? Why did you culture war fighting extremists kill this science before it ever got out of the gate? (weather or not that applies to anyone in this forum, is open).

What I've made apparent here should have been realized long ago, and would have were it not for the "debate", and there is no scientific excuse for not earnestly looking into the contained prediction, especially when considering the impact that something like this would have on the most accurate cosmological model and the ToE.

Unless somebody else has a better idea for COMPLETE theory of quantum gravity or the theory of everything in their back pocket?

So, in my opinion, you're right, there's nothing here to debate...

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:40 pm

Do you think you could state you case in words you can understand with a clear meaning?
I am guessing energy.
Yes everything changes.

island · Post by **island** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:32 pm

Cathar1950 wrote:Do you think you could state you case in words you can understand with a clear meaning?
I am guessing energy.
Yes everything changes.

1) There is a natural prediction that falls out of any true strong anthropic constraint on the forces.

2) This is the reciprocal connection between the forces and us that must exist in this case.

3) This reciprocal connection will **necessarily** include the human evolutionary process, (assuming that you accept that the basic tennants of evolutionary theory are correct).

4) So the anthropic principle is actually a thermodynamic structure principle, in terms of an energy consevation law that enables the universe to conserve energy indefinitely by enabling it to "leap" to higher orders of the same basic configuration in order that the arrow of time remain fixed while the second law of thermodynamics is never violated.

...just like we humans did when we lept from apes to harness fire and beyond...
(this thermodynamic connection is also evidence in support of the prediction)

... the universe is going to "leap/bang" *again* to an ever so slightly more energy-efficient configuration.

5) It's a "downhill" process energy-wise, because it requires less energy to leap each time, but the effort is eternally futile due to the inherent imbalance in the energy that *necessarily* drives the process.

The low entropy configuration that we observe enables the energy of the universe to be as evenly disseminated as is possible, (work is maximized), under the existing "anthropic constraint", so that the next universe will be a little more "flat" than this one is as a result.

Say hi to your purpose in nature.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:52 pm

the next universe will be a little more "flat" than this one

That would make it easy to fold and put away until it is needed.
Like my card table that is always out.

island · Post by **island** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:22 pm

The flatness problem is an anthropic coincidence that inflationary theory attempts to resolve, but inflationary theory isn't necessary if we can identify a mechanism that enables a big bang at the point where we find "rethermilization" when we project backwards to this point, prior to the alleged, cosmic singularity.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/ma ... ropic.html

This also resolves all those other listed anthropic problems, as well as the monopoles problem and the rest...

Are you getting any of this?

NGR · Post by **NGR** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:43 pm

island wrote: Are you getting any of this?

No, not really.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:51 pm

I am not sure what you’re getting at. I don’t have a problem with understanding the anthropic principle. I also think the thinking is backwards. I even read the science in crisses just to be fair.
You are saying that this fine tuned universe is made especially for us.
I would think we are this way because we are made for the universe or in better tems we are the way we are because of the universe and not the other way around.
I see a problem with the relationship you are trying to make between the anthropic principle, quantum physics and evolutionary science.
I can’t help but get this picture of Humans ascending like in SG1.
It is kind of like looking at experiments with photons or whatever and understanding that the experimenter's choices result in different outcomes there for when I look at a flower I change the universe. Now granted I do think we change the universe by looking at that flower but so much is determined at even the lowest levels and biological constrains that I am just one of many observers. We are conscious of our participation, yet strangely both an observer and a participant. It is much too easy to jump into the realm of metaphysics. The universe may very well make quantum leaps and evolution is just a natural outcome. You might look at your life and say it is by chance and accident I am here. What more could “grace” mean? See I can be spiritual too.
But even metaphysics seems a need for a connection to reality or the universe.
I have seem ideas in quantum physics change ways of looking at humans and cultures relating it to evolution I see no reason why the ideas will not make an impact on religion.
As people theological circles are thinking about anthropic principle that are changing their views of God and Christ. We might be a dead end. Where are your anthropic principle then? It might turn out that dolphins are the reason for the universe as they could ery well out live our species and they have had their brain size of about 40 million years ( might be off on the years).
How do you not know that the universe was meant for incects and you are here to serve them?

NGR wrote:No, not really.

I will explain it to you later.

This looks like a job for QED and others.
We need biologists, physicists and maybe some psychologists, just to be safe.

island · Post by **island** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:46 am

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!

Speaking of necessary evils...