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.

[Quarkhead]

Island, this may not have occurred to you, but your ideas and positions, no matter where they are posted, would be more warmly received if you were to drop the snide condescension and personal insults, and instead offer up a bit of respect for those with whom you are jousting.

Having looked over your links, I found what I consider a major logical error on your part. Here is a paragraph from the newsgroup, authored by you:

Humans represent a very efficient path of entropic action, and so the need for human efficiency has pre-existed since the big bang occurred, and there is nothing philosophical about that. In fact, it would require an unfounded philosophical assumption to conclude anything else.

Granting this: "Humans represent a very efficient path of entropic action," it does NOT then logically follow that "the need for human efficiency has pre-existed since the big bang occurred." The conclusion you draw from the first statement is pure speculation, and no amount of scientific jargon will make it otherwise. When it comes to ideas about the "why" and the motivation for things in this universe, good scientists will admit that they are in the same darkness as every human who ponders.

[island]

Unbelievable... you pulled a statement out of context to make it appear that there is a logical weakness.

This forum isn't about honest debate, it's about context manipulation.

Go back to the beginning and see where my attitude turned sour and you will find out that actually reading what you are responding to helps a lot.

Half the problem here is that not one of the moderators has read the entire thread, as made obvious by perspectives claim that my links aren't relevant, and by the fact yet another quite obviously biased moderator has now jumped to the conclusion that I have a bad attitude, because of an issue with one out of many that there were no problems with. THAT is what doesn't logically follow... duh


ByeBye, have a nice fantasy...

[island]

Debate that I am open to, falls in the realm of real, plausible, theoretically, and empirically supported science.

If your rebuttal is out of context or just plain false, then it does not fall into that category, and is, therefore not open to debate, but unfortuanetly... it would appear I am the only one that seems to be able to make that call, which really isn't too suprising considering that huge gap thing that I mentioned earlier.

Nothing that 15 or so years of relativity and quantum physics won't cure... I'm sure...

[Quarkhead]

Unbelievable... you pulled a statement out of context to make it appear that there is a logical weakness.

This forum isn't about honest debate, it's about context manipulation.

Go back to the beginning and see where my attitude turned sour and you will find out that actually reading what you are responding to helps a lot.

Half the problem here is that not one of the moderators has read the entire thread, as made obvious by perspectives claim that my links aren't relevant, and by the fact yet another quite obviously biased moderator has now jumped to the conclusion that I have a bad attitude, because of an issue with one out of many that there were no problems with. THAT is what doesn't logically follow... duh


ByeBye, have a nice fantasy...

Actually, your statement requires no context. You made what appeared to be a very clear connection. "Humans represent a very efficient path of entropic action," granted. Then, "the need for human efficiency has pre-existed since the big bang occurred." You connected these two statements with "and so." This is not logical construction, however much you may wish it to be. While you scorn others who venture from hard (at least according to you...) science and into philosophical (and unprovable) areas, you are equally guilty of doing the same thing. You can attempt to cloak your agenda by using scientific-sounding words, and bullying other posters with your insistence that only your truth is the correct one, but you'll find that most of us here have more intelligence than a bundle of sticks, and will be more amused by your attempts, than awed.

"Pride goeth before a fall."

[island]

The entire post that's in question:

http://olympus.het.brown.edu/pipermail/ ... 16266.html
Kevin A. Scaldeferri wrote:
>
> In article <abergman-841B1F.01014824112003@localhost>,
> Aaron Bergman <abergman@physics.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Nobody likes the anthropic principle. Not even Lenny.
> >
> >But that doesn't mean it's wrong.
> >
> >It would suck if it were correct
>
> I would have replaced "correct" with "necessary" and "wrong" with
> "unnecessary".
>
> At least in it's weak form, as I usually think of it, the anthropic
> principle is tautologous. All it says it that there exists a data
> point, which is that we exist, and that nature must be consistent with
> this.
>
> There are various stronger formulations, but they are all philosophy
> or religion.

"i" wrote:
"I disagree only if given that the underlying direction of all action in
a big bang induced expanding universe is ultimately entropic. Any
occurrence within the system is, therfore, a result of the tuning of the
constants that were set at t=10^-43 . This includes humans in all their
glory, and the weak argument would support this via the fact that it is
observationally proven that the human is one of nature's more preferred
methods for satisfying the second law of thermodynamics.

Humans represent a very efficient path of entropic action, and so, <b>

[edit, to add]

(based on what I said, above)</b>,

the need for human efficiency has pre-existed since the big bang occurred, and there is nothing philosophical about that. In fact, it would require an unfounded philosophical assumption to conclude anything else."



I could have been more clear.

You're right, we should dump all the good information that I've provided here and call me wrong since you manange to nitpick something that the PHYSICIST/MODERATOR, WHOM I CORRECTED IN THAT POST... managed to figure out for himself FROM THE CONTEXT... and without nitpicking my verbiage.

Look, I'm not that hard to get along with. If you want to have a civil conversation with me, then delete everything from perspective's first post, on, and then go back to the beginning.

If you wish to challenge the priori assumption, as repeated in the post, above, then I'll try to be very patient, but if you willfully ignore this to attack one lousy line that you dug out of it, then you will get nowhere with me.



"I disagree only if given that the underlying direction of all action in
a big bang induced expanding universe is ultimately entropic. Any
occurrence within the system is, therfore, a result of the tuning of the
constants that were set at t=10^-43 . This includes humans in all their
glory, and the weak argument would support this via the fact that it is
observationally proven that the human is one of nature's more preferred
methods for satisfying the second law of thermodynamics."


Delete everything from perspective's first post, on, (including my half of this war), and then start with that.


BUT... It should be noted that the physicist/moderator did NOT, and they shoot you down for sport at every possible opportunity in this business.

Nor did anyone else. Nor, have they ever when it comes to this aspect of it. As well as the high-energy physics that proves how the universe evolves, because, right is right, and that ain't "pride"... it's just a fact.

[perspective]

I will quote my entire first post, and then explain to you what it says, since you really weren't interested in reading it the first time.

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

The above text, you claim, is distracting and irrelevant.

The entire first 2/3 of my post just restate what you wrote. So I know that isn't irrelevant.

It lists assumptions that you make. So obviously that isn't irrelevant.

It rephrases the words that you used. No irrelevancy there.

The listed assumptions, and my skepticism of them, are very easy for you rebut if you feel they are not valid critiques. The last paragraph states that I am skeptical of your conclusion, and I ask you for more details so that I can review your theory. I also provide a link to an article that is the crux of the Anthropic Principle debate, which you obviously did not read, because if you had, you could point out to me why your theory does not suffer from a selection effect, or you could acknowledge the selection effect and agree that we, as humans, do not know everything there is to know. Nothing about my first post is irrelevant. It's only distracting if you skim it and don't actually read it. Pleading to the forum management to remove my post is not going to get this thread back on topic. Let's get back on topic, or moderation will have to decide to close this thread.

[island]

Not holding much hope for this, because you are still making unfounded threats, (I've kept this thread on topic throughout, with a LOT of additional good information), but we'll give it a try. I really do fear that you harbor preconceived prejudices from battling with creationists, and what I just said is provably typical of what I call "chaosionists", or people that refuse to accept the possibility for a valid teleological design hypothesis, regardless of the strength of the argument in its favor, because the purist aspects of moral relativisim, (fanatical prejudice), make athiests think that it necessarily equates to god.

You guys are call it a "debate"... but you're also wearing your prejudicial colors proudly on your sig files and titles, so my fear is not unfounded.

Without directly pointing my suspicions, this historically means that they will express willful ignorance in a fanatical defense of their god, "Chaos". There is no debating these people. It's all, snip this, reword that, selectively question this, run it into the ground, until 20 pages of wishful thinking later, they all jump up and down patting each other on the back for shouting or bullying their will on the creationists.

These people posess every bit as much willful ignorance as the people that they constantly accuse of that very crime, but they "THINK" that they have science on their side, and that makes them right and the otherside, "believers".

We're gonna take it, point, by point because I already answered your repeatedly parroted post, but that post seems to have disappeared into thin air, even tho yours wont. Sorry, can't help you again. I won't repeat myself, since it was you all that decided that it was necessary to delete, instead of censor.

And get over the "observational selection" kick, we're talking about an overwhelming force that gave every object in the universe its first and most predominant physical characteristic... since time began... until this very moment. Are you getting it yet?... the observation is PRIMAL to every object in the universe, and there is NO free will or choice in this matter, as every object, from rock to supernova, is inclined to move in this direction... "ULTIMATELY". Your irrelevant rebuttal is made NA by natural definition... dude. *click click... is this thing working???*:

1) The underlying direction of all action in a big bang induced expanding universe is ultimately entropic.
(per the latest observational evidence as it relates to the most conservative theoretical projection on the entropy of the universe.)

2) Any occurrence within the system is, therfore, a result of the tuning of the constants that were set at t=10^-43 .
(per standard Big-Bang theory, as supported by the Standard Model of Particle Physics, not stringy theories)

3) This includes humans in all their glory, and the weak argument would support this via the fact that it is observationally proven that the human is one of nature's more preferred methods for satisfying the second law of thermodynamics.
(per uncountable observational examples)

4) Humans represent a very efficient path of entropic action, and so, <b>based on what I said, above</b>, the need for human efficiency has pre-existed since the big bang occurred, and there is nothing philosophical about that. In fact, it would require an unfounded philosophical assumption to conclude anything else.

Regardless of whatever debate, the question must be...

Are the above based on sound physical plausibility within the conventional framework?

(which is all that is necessary for it to be a valid scientific design hypothesis)

... and the answer is still gonna be yes, no matter how many times you say otherwise.

[otseng]

You guys are call it a "debate"... but you're also wearing your prejudicial colors proudly on your sig files and titles, so my fear is not unfounded.

Without directly pointing my suspicions, this historically means that they will express willful ignorance in a fanatical defense of their god, "Chaos". There is no debating these people. It's all, snip this, reword that, selectively question this, run it into the ground, until 20 pages of wishful thinking later, they all jump up and down patting each other on the back for shouting or bullying their will on the creationists.

These people posess every bit as much willful ignorance as the people that they constantly accuse of that very crime, but they "THINK" that they have science on their side, and that makes them right and the otherside, "believers".

dude. *click click... is this thing working???*:

Island, I have given you a warning and yet you still attack people.

I have now placed you in the probation room.

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. The valid points that you do make are severely jeopordized by your personal attacks of other posters.

[island]

You guys are call it a "debate"... but you're also wearing your prejudicial colors proudly on your sig files and titles, so my fear is not unfounded.

Without directly pointing my suspicions, this historically means that they will express willful ignorance in a fanatical defense of their god, "Chaos". There is no debating these people. It's all, snip this, reword that, selectively question this, run it into the ground, until 20 pages of wishful thinking later, they all jump up and down patting each other on the back for shouting or bullying their will on the creationists.

These people posess every bit as much willful ignorance as the people that they constantly accuse of that very crime, but they "THINK" that they have science on their side, and that makes them right and the otherside, "believers".

dude. *click click... is this thing working???*:

Island, I have given you a warning and yet you still attack people.

I have now placed you in the probation room.

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. The valid points that you do make are severely jeopordized by your personal attacks of other posters.

Show me specifically whom I've attacked or... <h1>take it back!!!</h1>

I was merely giving an example of observations that I have made that have absolutely nothing to do with this forum, except that I have REAL concerns that this may also be the case here, so...

...take it back or I show you how to get thrown out of this den of ignorance in style...

[Corvus]

Closed for staff review.

This debate keeps drifting further and further from the topic. island, you have made a general attack on the moderation staff and on anyone who does not agree with your views. Far from patiently explaining and rectifying where you believe you have been misquoted, you have resorted to ad hominem attacks and appeals to your own superiority.

I was merely giving an example of observations that I have made that have absolutely nothing to do with this forum, except that I have REAL concerns that this may also be the case here, so...

Scornful evasions such as these will not be tolerated. If you were merely ruminating on the "willful ignorance" of "biased chaosinists" that have nothing to do with this thread or the people in it, then this rumination did not have to be in this thread and did not have to take almost half of your post. If you feel the need to vent on chaosinists, there are a variety of free blogs available on the internet. If you would like a respectful debate then I advise you to keep on topic and to show some respect for other members.