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

[otseng]

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

I've moved this to the discussion area then.

[island]

EDIT

Okay, sorry.

Wait I take that back now that I see that the moron moved the thread.

Must be time to ban me because you can't put forth a valid argument and can't debate like a respectable scientist, so here my middle finger in your child-like face, asshole, because I can't think of a faster way to get banned right now.

Bye children.

[Cathar1950]

That went well.
I am pretty sure the universe evolves.
But some people don't.

[QED]

And I came on the forums today hoping to see Island explaining his idea to a wider cross-section of thinkers, some of whom I know would be more receptive to it than the mainstream -- where he has had most of his "experience". What I don't understand is that in knowing he will be subjected to a high degree of cross-examination for his particular interpretation of the Strong Anthropic Principle, why does he deliver it with such ferocity -- and blow-up so readily in the face of any resistance?

His answer is "experience" yet that suggests he knows how the debate will end beforehand and therefore bypasses the lengthy discussion (that might, for all he knows, persuade or inspire some) and gets straight on to the slanging match. That doesn't seem very logical to me.

[Furrowed Brow]

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.

Ok lets run with this. Lets say the second law, the arrow of time and indefinite universal energy conservation are fixed principles never to be violated. Lets also allow that by some route carbon, oxygen, water etc also fall out of these principles. Lets also say the universe looks the way it does because it is the product of cosmic principles, and that these principles ensure alternative universes are not possible.

First I'll make a couple of observations. Then I'll point out some problems to be overcome.

[a] Carbon based life requires goldilock conditions. Now it seems there would then be a statistical probability that some suitable planet would find itself around some suitable star, in the goldilock zone. But that would be a trend, or a probability rather than a fixed principle. If this is the case I see the universe in terms of the WAP

If we then go the next step and find that life had to emerge and was a predictable outcome. Thus SAP.


The problems to be overcome seem to be:

1/ You need to win over science with your theory.
2/ You need to show that is the case.
3/ Ok if is the case then we can say the universe is configured in such a way that life had to emerge. But this is exactly the wrong result for the universe to be anthropic. Life is then no more important or central to the cosmic scheme that anything else that results from the cosmic principles. Ratherthan being at the centre of the room life becomes part of the wallpaper. Thus the "anthropic" bit of the anthropic principle is nullified.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Comment

Okay, sorry.

Wait I take that back now that I see that the moron moved the thread.

Must be time to ban me because you can't put forth a valid argument and can't debate like a respectable scientist, so here my middle finger in your child-like face, asshole, because I can't think of a faster way to get banned right now.

This post is against the rules, but I needn't point that out. If you do not wish to post here, you don't need to provoke a banning, just stop coming here. If you wish open debate, then argue the evidence, avoid the ad homs and wait for others to declare the victory.

[Confused]

EDIT

Okay, sorry.

Wait I take that back now that I see that the moron moved the thread.

Must be time to ban me because you can't put forth a valid argument and can't debate like a respectable scientist, so here my middle finger in your child-like face, asshole, because I can't think of a faster way to get banned right now.

Bye children.

Why ban? Can you not educate and validate at the same time. I am trying to understand your position but it isn't clear enough for me. I don't pretend to have the education you have in physics. But I do have a desire to learn. I am having a problem finding your position and why. I have read your blog. And still, am unsure. Perhaps I am not the brightest star, but I am willing to learn if you are willing to give me the patience to learn from you.

[QED]

What do you make of what Island's published so far then Confused?

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

We also have "Goldilocks zones" defining habitable rings in planets, solar systems and galaxies -- where humans are working in "unknown partnership" with other sentient life forms. The overall picture sounds like a potentially valid description of the universe (I was sat in my garden this afternoon and noticed a Goldilocks zone on the North-facing side of my old Walnut tree, where lichen was presumably happy to take-up residence beyond the reach of too much UV). But what I can't find anywhere (and I'm a notoriously bad "finder") is the information that allows us to understand the anthropic contribution that does away with all the band-aids holding together the standard model. Did you spot any of that on your journey through the blogosphere?

I guess if we could get together a coherent acount of the suggestion it could form the basis of a proper debate.

[Confused]

What do you make of what Island's published so far then Confused?

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

We also have "Goldilocks zones" defining habitable rings in planets, solar systems and galaxies -- where humans are working in "unknown partnership" with other sentient life forms. The overall picture sounds like a potentially valid description of the universe (I was sat in my garden this afternoon and noticed a Goldilocks zone on the North-facing side of my old Walnut tree, where lichen was presumably happy to take-up residence beyond the reach of too much UV). But what I can't find anywhere (and I'm a notoriously bad "finder") is the information that allows us to understand the anthropic contribution that does away with all the band-aids holding together the standard model. Did you spot any of that on your journey through the blogosphere?

I guess if we could get together a coherent acount of the suggestion it could form the basis of a proper debate.

Honestly, every part of my body screams that despite what is known, the anthropic principle is wrong. But every part of my brain screams, the facts are right there, without these specific parameters, the universe would be inhospitable and life wouldn't exist. But there are the "band aids" as you put it that say the anthropic principle is to easy a scapegoat. It answers nothing and doesn't promote searching for any answers. It simply says this is this and that is all. For a proper debate, I would look more into why the anthropic principle fails to explain our universe. Or why it does for those who believe in it. What are the "band aids" that it cannot heal?

[Goat]

Honestly, every part of my body screams that despite what is known, the anthropic principle is wrong. But every part of my brain screams, the facts are right there, without these specific parameters, the universe would be inhospitable and life wouldn't exist. But there are the "band aids" as you put it that say the anthropic principle is to easy a scapegoat. It answers nothing and doesn't promote searching for any answers. It simply says this is this and that is all. For a proper debate, I would look more into why the anthropic principle fails to explain our universe. Or why it does for those who believe in it. What are the "band aids" that it cannot heal?

I think what I don't like about that anthropic principle is that it assumes that life is the goal of the universe. That seems so egocentric to me.