The Anthropic Principle Under Fire

[Turtle]

 

you certainly have a confrontational tone.

 

Con...fident. There's a big diff, because I have good yet-to-be-disproven reason to be, and I have studied the PHYSICS for the anthropic principle in-depth, for a number of years, rather than simply reading a bunch of variant interpretations, no offense intended.

 

In either case, the prefix con- is sufficient to carry the general idea. My sincere apology for misinterpreting the qualifying particulars of your prefix. To quote moo quoting Conant, "Behold the turtle. He makes progress only when he sticks his neck out." My primary interest in the anthropic principle is in the cosmological constants and their mathematical representations and I admit to ignorance concerning its social controversey. I learn something new every day. :shade:

[Tormod]

:cup:

 

Turtle, please read our rules regarding acceptable substance usage. :shade:

[island]

I have no idea what you're talking about. I did not come here to attack anyone, so go back to where I came in and see this for yourself.

 

Papers killed.

 

Done and done.

[Tormod]

Lame...

 

Good phrasing, there, and very non-confrontational.

 

we strongly question the hypothesis that a universe without weak interactions could generate life.

 

So you have found a paper which questions the points that the ciriticism in the original post is leveled at. That's good. Why is posting information about scientific papers criticizing something you think bad? You keep stating that you have studied so much physics. But how have you studied it?

 

Equally lame, since the goldilocks enigma predicts that these "dwarf galaxies" with planets will exist, but without life.

 

Can you please point out *how* the GE predicts this - and what bearing this enigma has on the debate? Isn't the GE simply another anthropic explanation, and therefore in itself disqualified from being used as proof for itself?

 

Try as they might, the anthropic principle just won't go away... but denial is always easier than it is to honestly look for the reason why we are relevant to the structure and stability of the universe.

 

The denial I am reading in this thread mostly comes from you, island.

 

Scientists/NOT

 

Again, mature and non-confrontational.

[Tormod]

Papers killed.

 

Done and done.

 

Well, you have not killed anything, but you have managed to display a lack of discussion technique.

 

You are welcome to discuss AP here but it would help to use more than quotes from online articles and lists of atheist scientists (although I question the atheism of Einstein, but that is a different topic).

 

In short, you have not shown a shred of evidence to support the anthropic principle. I would be very happy to see it, but please don't just post links to online articles - post your own views. That's what we're interested in.

[Boerseun]

Coming back to the topic, the AP tells us that everything is the way it is because we're here to record it. Now that's all fine and well, but if you consider that 99.999999999999999% of the universe is hostile to life, it kinda makes you wonder what value that 0.00000000.....0001% has to dictate to the rest of the universe?

 

Black holes, stars, interstellar space, massive planets, airless planets, asteroids, comets, Oort Cloud objects, Kuiper Belt objects, rocky moons, etc. make up much, much more surface area than habitable blue watery planets. It seems the laws of nature favours the formation of the former, and not the latter.

 

That's 180 degrees away from my previous post, but I'll just illustrate both sides of the coin here.

[Tormod]

Now that's all fine and well, but if you consider that 99.999999999999999% of the universe is hostile to life, it kinda makes you wonder what value that 0.00000000.....0001% has to dictate to the rest of the universe?

 

Actually we don't know that. There are bacteria that could likely survive in space!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans

 

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast14dec99_1.htm

[Heresiarch]

I suspect that, if the universe had different physical properties, life could still occur, but it would be different from anything we could know. If this life was able to become intelligent, it would look out at the universe and say, "There are no other conditions under which life could have formed".

 

I postulate that life conforms to the physics of whatever universe it exists in, and thus is particular to that universe's physics. This will make it seem like any universe in which there is life is "anthropic".

 

I think you're begging the question as to the definition of life. You seem to be saying that whatever might occur in any given universe, we could just call it Life, and then the anthropic principle would pose its conundrum. But if we define life in terms of some very special set of matter and energy relationships, which I think is the least specific necessary first approximation to a definition, then we cannot be confident that those relationships would occur in any universe given any set of fundamental physical constants. Those relationships might be absent, and hence life would not exist in that universe. I'm not saying that life has to be carbon-based structures, but I am saying that we cannot arbitrarily declare anything that happens to exist to be a manifestation of life.

[DAN 1]

Boerseun wrote: "Life didn't appear 'randomly', as stated in your post; rather, Life appeared because the conditions were right, and the conditions were right because the Laws of Nature (in this universe's incarnation, at least) allowed it."

 

I would only like to suggest that these "Laws of Nature" were intentionally designed by Mind and Spirit. They are energeral mechanism for the Evolution of More and Better.

 

Respectfully, DAN 1

[Heresiarch]

Are you familiar with Lee Smolin's model of an evolving ensemble of universes? In this model, universes with greater reproductive capacity send their genes (their physical contants) into future generations of universes. Black holes are the reproductive organs of universes, so constants that predispose universes to have more black holes (in effect, more large stars) will tend to proliferate in the generations of "baby universes".

 

Coincidentally, says Smolin, the same set of constants predispose a universe to produce biological life. THAT'S A HELL OF A COINCIDENCE.

 

A sensible explanation is available HERE.

[freeztar]

A sensible explanation is available HERE.

 

Calling something sensible does not make it so. From the first line under the section entitled "Elaboration":

 

Stellar nebulae manufacture bacteria and viruses in their interiors as they cool to form solar systems.

 

:)

How exactly do stars produce bacteria? :hihi:

[DAN 1]

Lee Smolin's model and theories, (as you have indicated them), are fascinating. I have often wondered what purpose the "Black Holes" served other than the destruction of a universe. They seemed so out of step with the formation of the Universes of Creation. Them being a kind of energal transfer mechanism to other regions of non-pervaded space, does give me a better picture of this idea, in addition to my old notion that the great darkness of Creation, in which the stars are born and reside, is the great Potentiality and role of Spirit as the Female Aspect of Creation. I believe the blackness against which the stars do shine is the "Womb of Creation"...therefore Mother. Then along comes Smolin with his notions about the black holes sending (excess?) energies and life force into un-pervaded space. This presents a brand new perspective and role to my Mother Spirit beliefs. Please, I dont mean to be crude here, but it is as though the womb turns inside out and reverses to become the "Universal Phallic Organ" that injects the elements for the new celestial realms. Strange and different indeed. I will be thinking about this for a long time and will seek further validation in this from Science in the future. Its quite Morphic isn't it? But it does make sense as regards all the energies generated by the stars...maybe?

 

The thought that viruses and bacteria, (as we know them), being made in the cooling nebulae of the universes seems to be not true to me. Too much heat and energy chaos involved...I think. But this is just my own opinion. I realize that there is so much I dont know yet. I would welcome further evidence to support this idea. Just hope I am intelligent enough to understand it when it comes.

 

Right now, I embrace the notion that bacteria and viruses are produced at the "Planetary Level". In the sun warmed shallows of seas and near the volcanoes.

 

I am definately open to further information about this idea.

 

Respectfully, DAN 1

[Tormod]

I will be thinking about this for a long time and will seek further validation in this from Science in the future.

 

"Further validation"? Where is the initial validation?

[DAN 1]

Hi Tormod. I suppose I was thinking that the formulation of a plausible theory is the "first validation". I tend to think that if something becomes thought, in even one mind, then it merits more validation through supportive evidence or a philosophical explanantion that is hard to refute.

 

When I saw this theory I thought of the following scientifically observed phenomena:

 

(1) Our astronomers can "see" black holes in far outer space.

(2) These black Holes do seem to be sucking up stars and other celestial bodies.

(3) It is reasonable to assume that either the energies and matter that is being sucked in are going somewhere, or they are ceasing to exist. I prefer the first possibility. The second is repugnant to me.

 

I believe in change but not cessation of existance, at least as regards the energies and materials of Universe Creation. There is an exception to this belief, but it is not really applicable to this discussion.

 

The "validity" I wrote of is a "softer" use of the term, (related to plausibility), and has more to do with speculation rather than hard scientific proof or evidence. Forgive me if I have used a word too incorrectly. I will be more careful about this in the future.

 

Respectfully, DAN 1

[Heresiarch]

Calling something sensible does not make it so. From the first line under the section entitled "Elaboration":

 

 

 

:xx:

How exactly do stars produce bacteria?

 

 

Well, if you had continued reading you would have arrived

 

HERE

 

where the assertion is defended.

[freeztar]

Well, if you had continued reading you would have arrived

 

HERE

 

where the assertion is defended.

 

The link leads nowhere.

[Heresiarch]

The link leads nowhere. :shrug:

 

Sorry about that. :doh:

Try THIS