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.

[island]

This is essentially it, although this is still just a draft. I'm sorry if there is any repetition, I just copied this from a paper. The new stuff will make you think though...

The Entropic Relationship:
This new principle notes that our existence in this universe must necessarily be required by the Principle of Least Action on a grand scale, since the entropic tendency is the most predominant and necessarily inherent inclination of every object in an expanding universe per the second law of thermodynamics on a universal scale, where carbon-based human beings simply serve as the favored method for maximizing entropic efficiency within the constraints of inherent asymmetries, by way of the same decouplings that manifest every other force in our expanding universe.

Weak Anthropic Principle:
The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable, but must take on values where carbon-based life can evolve at a time that is optimum to contining the increase of the entropy of the universe.</i>

This is almost a self-evident no-brainer, the human-system exibits the tendency to process ALL forms of matter in nature in the universal effort toward "mass-equilibrium", and this universal tendency indicates that the humans may be more generally connected to the "universal" than any other system, as this is empirically supported by our observed universal entropic tendency.



Strong Anthropic Principle:
Our expanding universe must have specific properties which require life to develop within it at a stage in history when it is most advantageous to the evolution of the universe as this is supported by the exceedingly high degree of fine tuning of the universal constants</i>

The human-system exibits the tendency to process critical forms of matter, (antimatter), which are specifically necessary to the universal effort toward "pure" symmetry, and this indicates that the humans may be more specially connected to the "universal" than any other system.


Strong Anthropic Principle:
The more specialized the need, the more specific the tool, the more isolated are the forces.

Weak Anthropic Principle:
The more general the need, the more general the tool, the more "friendly" is the landscape.

The landscape is equally important to our survival, and so the energy that we can expend in the direction of survival must be readily expendable, which means that the cooperative environment enables entropy to increase within the limits of practical human effort, and this means that carbon-based life must be favored as a means to raise the energy level enough to breach the relevant environmental constraints in order that entropy may continue to increase, per the second law of thermodynamics in our expanding universe.


The Evolutionary Connection:
The ability to breach environmental constraints in order that entropy might contiue to increase defines an evolutionary process which requires that the preferred system "leap" to higher orders of entropic efficiency, (as this is observably proven if humans "leaped" to evolve from apes to the 'fire breathing monsters' that they are today), and this indicates that asymmetries are carried perpetually forth by the second law in the impossible effort toward idealistically pure symmetry.

Pay attention now, because that means that there is a special link between the evolution of humans and the evolution of the universe and that defines puposeful design in nature which comes about as a result of a universal need for our presence here. Having a universally required purpose in nature makes it possible to prove that there is some kind of higher power involved other than purely random chance, as this is supported by the fact that there are a very large number of "cosmic coincidences" that are all intricately linked to enable life to exist in our universe.

[perspective]

This new principle notes that our existence in this universe must necessarily be required by the Principle of Least Action on a grand scale, since the entropic tendency is the most predominant and necessarily inherent inclination of every object in an expanding universe per the second law of thermodynamics on a universal scale, where carbon-based human beings simply serve as the favored method for maximizing entropic efficiency within the constraints of inherent asymmetries, by way of the same decouplings that manifest every other force in our expanding universe.

This statement....
the entropic tendency is the most predominant and necessarily inherent inclination of every object in an expanding universe per the second law of thermodynamics on a universal scale.
Using some definitions
definition entropic: The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.

....can be broken down like this:
the entropic tendency is a required characteristic, and the most influential characteristic of every object that exists in an expanding universe. The reason we say this is because the second law of thermodynamics states that
Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place
to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out.


The crux of this theory assumes many things.

• It assumes that the second law of thermodynamics is correct, when we know several counterexamples to that effect. The 2nd law of thermodynamics, even on a universal scale, is not verified, tested, or observable. Using this law as the basis of any theory subjects the entire theory to an observational selection effect.
• It assumes human beings simply serve as the favored method for maximizing entropic efficiency within the constraints of inherent asymmetries, which states that human beings are some sort of natural balance between ideal energy dispersion and the upsetting natural forces that prevent ideal energy dispersion.
• It assumes that the entropic tendency is a required characteristic, but even if the universe was an expanding universe, I don't see how that requires all entities within it to posses an entropic tendency. To require such violates the fourth dimension of time, and shows disregard for our limited knowledge of time's universal scale.

These assumptions are entwined into a theory that uses confusing vocabulary to insinuate factual basis, rather then stating the assumptions and acknowledging the uncertainties in the underlying basis of the theory. Theories that try to hide their weaknesses instead of trying to address them, I always approach warily. Perhaps you could provide the links to the paper you are quoting, island, so I could read more of the details.

More on selection effects:
Anthropic Bias: Observational Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy

[island]

I won't bother to repeat my reply, (that someone deleted), to perspective's numerous false statements.

Does anybody have any <b>valid</b> questions or criticism?

[perspective]

If you believe my statements to be false, please explain how so.

Here is some more researched material, borrowed from Quark,
that helps explain why a theory based on "The Second Law of Thermodynamics" cannot quite be applied to biology.

Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness.

the link from Quark's post:
misconceptions about evolution

I know your specific topic about the Anthropic Principle only loosely relates to evolution, but the post and the link provide counterpoints to the underlying basis of your theory, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

[island]

I already said that I will not rapeat my refutation of your ignorance... but keep trying, because you are making yourself look more foolish as you get more desparate to find somethng... anything... that actually supports you claims.

Anyway, since nobody has any valid criticism... I'll continue

[otseng]

I already said that I will not rapeat my refutation of your ignorance... but keep trying, because you are making yourself look more foolish as you get more desparate to find somethng... anything... that actually supports you claims.

There is no need to say someone is ignorant or foolish. As a matter of fact, personal attacks such as this is in violation of the rules.

1. No personal attacks are allowed.

Any further violations will result in enforcement of the rules.

Someone's arguments may be unsupportable, but we can let the evidence (or lack of evidence) stand for themselves. We are here only to debate topics, not to judge one another.

[island]

Like I said... I will not REPEAT myself, and as I also said right from the start... I don't argue stuff that real physicists don't. The fact that you don't know what that means is not my problem.

Anybody else?

[island]

I found these links that show what I'm talking about in terms of the second law of thermodynamics... <b>for anyone that seriously wants to learn more about it:</b>

Asymmetric Transistions
An Illustration
Metasystems Transition

Wait til you guys find out where all this is really heading...

Oh yeah... here's some links to articles on the subject that I have posted to the physicist moderated group sci.physics.research.

This is a great group because the physicists at CalTech and MIT... etc... do not allow unsubstantiated speculation in this forum, and every post is scrutinized for this criterion prior to posting a single word. Everything that gets posted in this group must be plausible science that's backed by sufficient proof to make it of interest to science... or they will not post it.

"perspective's" distractive and irrelevant posts would not have been permitted, in other words.

That doesn't mean that they claim to be perfect, but they do a darned good job, and it makes for a good example of the REAL pros and cons of the AP... in its old form when discussed by real physicists.

Dirac's Sea, OOPS!!
Our Anthropic Universe
Anthropic Principle
Anthropic Principle and Intelligent Design
Anthropic Principle

[perspective]

Note that if some of the finely-balanced quantities were not finely-tuned then our Universe would have grossly different properties. The properties would in fact be so different that it is highly likely that life (as we know it) would not develop and be around to ask the question of why the Universe is special. That is, selection effects would say that it is only in universes where the conditions are right for life (thus pre-selecting certain universe) is it possible for the questions of specialness to be posed.

Above is a summary of the well-known Anthropic Principle, with a discrediting point about selection effect exposing it's major logical flaw.
Specify how your theory differs from the well-known Anthropic Principle that we've been debating in this thread, or else continue the discussion over there in that thread. Duplicate threads are unconstructive.

Up until this point, all the links that you've posted are not coming together into any sort of relevance to the questions posed in this thread. Linking to articles without your own personal input is unconstructive. All responses should be on topic, where "on-topic" is defined as addressing the specifically asked question at the start of the debate. Per the rules, all topics must be started with a clearly stated question to debate. I'll remind you what your stated questions were:

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?

Please stick to these issues, and start a new, clearly defined topic for any issues that you'd wish to debate outside these questions. If you would like to ramble, we have a special spot for Random Ramblings, where no one is allowed to debate, only discussions are allowed. If you'd like to stun the world with your intelligence without being rebutted, maybe that forum will be more to your liking.

"perspective's" distractive and irrelevant posts would not have been permitted, in other words.

One last time, we will remind you that personal attacks are not appropriate in this forum, per the rules

[island]

That's not a personal attack, it's just a fact.

Can someone do something about this moderator?... they seem to be out of control