A New Anthropic Principle

[island]

Hi,

I read most of the other Anthropic Principle thread and decided to start a new one since the old familiar arguments for and against don't have the same meaning in context with what I am about to say.

I want to mention up front that I am not here to challenge the good science of evolutionary theory, nor do I have any desire to use this to promote the existence of god. My discovery was made while doing honest physics research, and prior to any knowledge about the great and controversial debate that rages around the world between... politicians and fanatics, mostly, who have more interest in their agendas, than science.

The new principle does, however, produce a valid scientific design hypothesis, but that does not mean to imply that design is necessarily intelligent in origin, (which is really very hard to define, anyway), but it does destroy the idea of random chance occurrence in our "purposeful" or "goal oriented" universe.

(It should be noted that my physics literacy is generally quite a bit more advanced than you will find in any of the amateur physics forums on the net, so please... don't make the fatal mistake of assuming otherwise, or you will just end up looking very foolish.)

Many are familiar with the way that creationists use, and quite often, "abuse" the second law of thermodynamics, but the bottom line is this:

The predominant expansive tendency of the universe defines a clear physical need for intelligent human life.

That means that humans are necessarily required by the principle of least "ultimate" action, or the principle of least action on a grand scale in an expanding, (entropic), universe, where order increases locally with an increase in the potential for entropy.

In other words, human life is necessary to the process, and it is very important to note that it would require an unfounded faith-like philosophical leap to assume anything else, because the expansive entropic tendency was the primary instruction that got instilled into every object at the moment of the big-bang.

That is no minor small point, and it is proven by everything that we do, as it is observationally proven that humans have accelerated in their ability to help the "entropic" process along since they "leaped".

There's a lot more, including new physics and a formally defined Anthropic Principle that proves all of this on a universal scale, which will eventually cause an uproar across the board.




FYI: I already know that what I've said here is valid science among any formal group of physicists, so show your ignorance at your own risk.

[Shild]

Many are familiar with the way that creationists use, and quite often, "abuse" the second law of thermodynamics, but the bottom line is this:

The predominant expansive tendency of the universe defines a clear physical need for intelligent human life.

The argument (as I have heard it used) is a bit more precise than this. It goes thus:

-Since (according to the second law of thermodynamics) the total entropy of a system always increases
-and entropy had to decrease drastically on the early earth for life to form
-then there must have been an intelligent agent to design life/humanity on earth to counteract the second law.

That means that humans are necessarily required by the principle of least "ultimate" action, or the principle of least action on a grand scale in an expanding, (entropic), universe, where order increases locally with an increase in the potential for entropy.

I have heard of a study which seemed to indicate that, in a closed system, sometimes the entropy of a portion of the system can decrease while the total entropy of the system increases, thus upholding the second law.

If the universe were this way, however, I do not see how entropy decrease would be required to happen, or why this decrease would require intelligent life.

Your description, as it is in your first post, is quite vague and incomplete. Would you please provide a link to a more exhaustive source, or perhaps give some book authors and titles with relevant material?

[otseng]

Island, welcome to the forum and I'm glad you took the time to post here.

To give some direction to this thread (and also in accordance with the rules), would you state some questions here that you would like for us to debate on in this thread? Thanks.

[island]

Island, welcome to the forum and I'm glad you took the time to post here.

To give some direction to this thread (and also in accordance with the rules), would you state some questions here that you would like for us to debate on in this thread? Thanks.

I'm sorry about that. These kinds of forums are so numerous these days that I took the rules for granted without reading them.

I'll briefly respond to "shild"... and then I'll try to conform to the format, although, I really didn't come here to debate the validity of the science, which I already know is valid.

"Debate" at this level of physics usually consists of a bunch of misunderstandings that get strung out so far that nobody even remembers the original point, so I don't generally waste a lot of time arguing stuff that real physicists don't.

Sorry, again.


"i" wrote:
"Many are familiar with the way that creationists use, and quite often, "abuse" the second law of thermodynamics, but the bottom line is this:

The predominant expansive tendency of the universe defines a clear physical need for intelligent human life."

The argument (as I have heard it used) is a bit more precise than this. It goes thus:

-Since (according to the second law of thermodynamics) the total entropy of a system always increases
-and entropy had to decrease drastically on the early earth for life to form
-then there must have been an intelligent agent to design life/humanity on earth to counteract the second law.

The last point of your statement is the creationists interpretation, not mine, but the first two points represent an accurate account of the conventional wisdom, which I don't dispute.
I'm talking about a physical need for intelligent life, period.


"i" wrote:
That means that humans are necessarily required by the principle of least "ultimate" action, or the principle of least action on a grand scale in an expanding, (entropic), universe, where order increases locally with an increase in the potential for entropy."

I have heard of a study which seemed to indicate that, in a closed system, sometimes the entropy of a portion of the system can decrease while the total entropy of the system increases, thus upholding the second law.

If the universe were this way, however, I do not see how entropy decrease would be required to happen, or why this decrease would require intelligent life.

A local decrease in entropy always equates to an increase in the potential for disorder, and this potential is necessarly compounded by expansion of the rest of the system.

If the energy of the universe was perfectly pure and symmetrical at the moment of the Big Bang, then there would be no localized decreases in entropy as this pure energy would have evenly dispersed without any time delay.

This was the "apparent" intended outcome of the Big Bang, but that isn't reality, due to inherent asymmetries, (impurities), that derive the decoupling of forces, which reflect this disequilibrium by way of everything that isn't pure energy. Ergo the "Arrow of Time", which points out that the over-riding inclication of our universe is still the same, except it takes time to play-out, due to the mentioned imperfections/asymmetries. The Principle of Least actions requires that this must still occur in the least amount of time possible under the given imperfect circumstances, so every occurrence in an expanding universe must be a part of the process.

The greater the need, the more isolated become the forces, the more specialized becomes the form of matter, (tool), that must necessarily arise to meet the requirement of the thermodynamic process in the allowed time, per the principle of least "ULTIMATE" action, in a less than perfect entropic universe.

You can't assume anything else without making an unfounded leap of faith outside of nature's most fundamenatal and overwhelming entropic nature. The universe's stronly expressed need for equilbrium is all the need that you need to produce a highly efficient system for accomplishing that "goal", and to assume otherwise would be ludicrous given the magnitude of the force that's been the impetus for every action in the universe since time began.

Your description, as it is in your first post, is quite vague and incomplete. Would you please provide a link to a more exhaustive source, or perhaps give some book authors and titles with relevant material?

This is all brand new stuff, which I have informally established before the necessary bunch of stuffed shirts, and I have three research papers in the works right now that don't even begin to touch it, which is kind of why I'm here. There is a huge gap between laymans terms, and what the general public REALLY understands about the subject, and I'm trying to breach that gap with definitive statements that can be understood with little explanation.

I'll be perfectly happy to fully explain myself right here in this forum, but maybe I can use this to satisfy the rules of the forum, while working up to the full explanation. That way there won't be any question before proceeding on to the next point.

1) What is the predominant tendency of our universe, since T=10^-43 after the Big Bang?

2) The entropic nature of our expanding universe is, therefore, the most fundamental inclination expressed by nature, so doesn't the entropic effect of the Big Bang also define the very first and most primal principle of nature?

3) Doesn't it require an unfounded leap of faith to presume that all action in the universe isn't ULTIMATELY contributive to this thermodynamic process?

[cattious]

Okay, I don't really know that much about science, so the things I'm saying are probably utterly wrong and I know that they're unfounded, but... Maybe the second law of thermodynamics is a bit off. I mean, we've only observed a small part of the universe; maybe in much of the rest of the universe entropy is decreasing somehow. I mean, if you look at black holes, they're (presumably) compressing matter into a very condensed, orderly, non-entropic state. So, maybe there's a law for Chaos like the Conservation of Mass and Conservation of Energy; Chaos cannot be created or destroyed. Of course, this is almost completely unfounded...

But I was just thinking the other day that maybe Humans were developed by nature to help increase Entropy...

[island]

Okay, I don't really know that much about science, so the things I'm saying are probably utterly wrong and I know that they're unfounded, but... Maybe the second law of thermodynamics is a bit off. I mean, we've only observed a small part of the universe; maybe in much of the rest of the universe entropy is decreasing somehow. I mean, if you look at black holes, they're (presumably) compressing matter into a very condensed, orderly, non-entropic state. So, maybe there's a law for Chaos like the Conservation of Mass and Conservation of Energy; Chaos cannot be created or destroyed. Of course, this is almost completely unfounded...

But I was just thinking the other day that maybe Humans were developed by nature to help increase Entropy...

You don't know how close you are.

Give me a few minutes to get this together in the most understandable terms that I can muster, because this is about the new physics that I mentioned earlier, and it proves the most facinating thing that I ever dreamed would come of all of this.

I don't think that there is any realistic basis to think that humans were-NOT "developed by nature to help increase Entropy"... of the universe. Especially when given that this is and was the ultimate goal of our universe and everthing ELSE in it. Your concept of the universe seems to be very close to being right on the money that that is so important to all of this that it isn't even funny.

Don't be fooled by the modern interpretation of the second law as it applies to the projected outcome, because you're right on the verge of discovery... Without projecting, the second law simply says that entropy will always increase... ... ... and wait til you see what happens at the high energy end of particle physics. But more importantly... how it all applies to us.

[island]

I guess that everyone has probably at least heard of virtual and real particles that get created from vacuum energy. Black holes make and release real particles into our world via what is known as "Hawking Radiation". These particles are also created by high-energy photons that get released during a Super-nova and there is only one other system that makes these particles in nature... humans.

Anyway, other than the obvious implcations to what this means concerning the entropy of the universe, this process also increases tension between the vacuum and ordinary matter and the system will eventually leap to a higher order of entropic efficiency via the described... ** Asymetric Transitions **

It turns out that this process is the same same one that preceeds a human evolutionary leap and I think that there is some information on the net about how thes asymmetric trasitions relate to evolutionary theory, but to make a long story too short, you end up with a common mechanism for the evolution of humans as well as the universe. This links us to the universe in a very intricate manner and that gives causal meaning to the old incomplete version of the anthropic principle.

It's also observationally proven that the leap enabled our contribution to the entropy of the universe to increase exponentially via the development of technology that was also enable by the leap.

I know that I need to better explain all of that, but I have to go now.

[otseng]

I guess that everyone has probably at least heard of virtual and real particles that get created from vacuum energy. Black holes make and release real particles into our world via what is known as "Hawking Radiation". These particles are also created by high-energy photons that get released during a Super-nova and there is only one other system that makes these particles in nature... humans.

I'm not familiar with any of this. Please explain this some more.

[cattious]

Hawking Radiation:

In astrophysics, Hawking radiation is thermal radiation emitted by black holes. . . . Black holes are sites of immense gravitational attraction into which surrounding matter is drawn by gravitational forces. It was originally thought that the gravitation was so powerful that nothing, not even radiation, could escape from the black hole, but Hawking theorized that (particle-antiparticle) radiation would be emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles. This would sap some of the black hole's energy, and so when these particles escape the black hole would lose a small amount of mass. . . .

Source

[island]

Hawking Radiation:

In astrophysics, Hawking radiation is thermal radiation emitted by black holes. . . . Black holes are sites of immense gravitational attraction into which surrounding matter is drawn by gravitational forces. It was originally thought that the gravitation was so powerful that nothing, not even radiation, could escape from the black hole, but Hawking theorized that (particle-antiparticle) radiation would be emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles. This would sap some of the black hole's energy, and so when these particles escape the black hole would lose a small amount of mass. . . .

Right, cattious, the described process is what is known as the entropy of a black hole. If a real particle/antiparticle pair get created and then ejected from the hole together, then they will likey meet up and anhiliate, and the same thing happens if just the antiparitcle is ejected, because there is so much ordinary matter in our world for it to meet up with. But this is not the case if the particle gets ejected while the antiparticle gets sucked into the black hole, as the particle, (typically, an electron) will survive indefinitely because there is very little in the way of free antiparticles in our observed universe.

Here's a good example:
http://superstringtheory.com/forum/hawk ... es2/3.html

The point of this is that the creation of these surviving particles creates holes in the vacuum, because you can't take energy from the vacuum to make real particles without it having an effect on the vacuum. In other words, this increases the vacuum's "suck", (antigravity) which is offset by the increase in mass-energy, (gravity), that results from real particle pair production. Tension between the vacuum and ordinary matter increases as the vacuum expands naturally, by way of the described increase in negative pressure that necessarily results, so the universe will eventually have another big bag as the evolution of the universe progresses perpetually forward through time in the never ending effort toward the impossible goal of pure symmetry.

Note: This is not to be confused with Dirac's Hole Theory, because, in this case, ** BOTH ** particles leave holes in the vacuum, not just one, as is made quite obvious by the above described physics for how it works.


The universe and humans evolve by way of what is otherwise known as a "Metasystems Transition", (which I believe can be found at the same site that I eluded to earlier).

The Entropic Anthropological argument notes that:



A Big Bang is to an Evolutionary Leap...

...what "Puncutated Equilibrium" is to a Near Static universe.



By no means is this a coincidence.

I'll post the new revised Anthropic Principle, next.

Source