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

QED · Post by **QED** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:41 pm

Well, I could be way off here, but I think island's suggesting that it's something that intelligent life-forms (something we migth eventually evolve into) do that causes universes like ours to exist. Quite how this would go anywhere towards an explanation of how the first universe capable of "supporting intelligent life" came to be I can't imagine. Not without invoking the probability state-space furnished by a multiverse of some kind -- in which case the requirement for intelligence to supply the mechanism for universal creation vanishes. But I may have unintentionally built-up a strawman from the wrong end of a stick here.

goat, I agree that egocentricity seems rife and utterly out of place in the many cosmological discussions we have here. Isn't it obvious that we're wrong to make assumptions about our superiority? I've made the point before that we only have to go back a few hundred years (if not decades) to see, by present standards, what we migth term a "primitive" existence for humans? Viewed from an astronomical time span I would imagine we migth not lookmuch more advanced that any other animal species. I don't think this is as crazy as it seems to some. Those people would

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:14 pm

goat wrote:
Confused wrote: 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.

Could that have more to do with the derivation of the word (anthropos) than the theory. Perhaps 'anthropic' is the wrong word.

The 'goal' of the universe is to evolve. 'Life' is a just a by product of evolution - if evolution is seen as a process of inclusion and transedence.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:08 am

bernee51 wrote:
Could that have more to do with the derivation of the word (anthropos) than the theory. Perhaps 'anthropic' is the wrong word.

The 'goal' of the universe is to evolve. 'Life' is a just a by product of evolution - if evolution is seen as a process of inclusion and transedence.

Is that a 'goal', or is that just a process that happens?