"Robert J. Kolker" skrev i melding
...


Uncle Al wrote:


Life is finely tuned to exist in the universe. There is no anthropic
principle. Sentience exists because the universe cannot be bothered
with doing the fine stuff..

The Weak Anthropic principle has validity. It the universe were not a
certain way physically then we would not have evolved. The nature of the
universe must be such that life like ours can evolve in conditions that
existed and exist on Earth. If the universe did not have stars that
exploded and produced the elements of which we are composed we would not
be here.

Doesn't that presume that "life" is bound exclusively to our configuration
of the physical substrate (carbon- and DNA-based)?

"It the universe were not a certain way physically then we would not have
evolved ..." - the way we have evolved, but perhaps another way? This
wouldn't actually disprove the weak anthropic principle, but make it
considerably weaker, I think; Granted, we are here, so it is trivially true
that the conditions for our existence must obtain, but nowhere does it say
that it had to be these conditions, or this kind of life: and so, not us.

T

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 22:45:30 -0800, "Mark Folsom"
wrote:

"abracad" wrote in message
. com...
The so-called anthropic principle points out how finely tuned the
universe is to support life.

The anthropic principle doesn't do any such thing. Apparent fine tuning
leads some to resort to the anthropic principle.

However, is there any reason to believe
this is the only universe that exists or ever existed? Or is it likely
or possible that there could be an infinite number of other (less
anthropic) universes that co-exist woth this one or have existed
throughout eternity?

For the anthropic principle to apply to the fine tuning of physics to allow
our existence, it basically has to be the case that there were lots of
trials, either elsewhere or elsewhen. Sort of like having a multitude of
uninhabited planets for each one with intelligent life.

Mark Folsom


The anthoropic principle points out the obvious fact that
this cosmos can support human life. Seems like a tautology.
If the cosmos didn't support human life, who would know or care?
That's the superficial view.

Looking deeper we see the evolution of this cosmos from energy
to matter, to life and to man. From apparent dead chaos comes
wonderful us, alive, intelligent and conscious. All this by an
unbroken web of cause and effect according to natural law.
But what's so 'natural' about that sequence? Apparently the
cosmos is many times more clever than we are. It made us
in every detail. And now, in our wisdom, we sit in judgement
on it, and find it cold, dead, and unworthy.

(Ad Absurdum) wrote in message om...
Uncle Al wrote in message ...
abracad wrote:

The so-called anthropic principle points out how finely tuned the
universe is to support life.


Life is finely tuned to exist in the universe. There is no anthropic
principle.

Uncle Al's got it. What universe is this anthropic principle looking
at? The one which is 80-something percent composed of "dark matter"
and "dark energy" which is finely tuned to be completely
ununderstandable and imperceptible to us (except as necessary to
balance our ambitious equations -- more of a 'precise throwing up the
hands in defeat' than an intellect-friendly universe), plus being
99.astronomicalnumbersofnines percent unsupportable of our living
bodies? We're hiding in a 'corner', a sweet tit of a gravity well
which is by nature temporary and by the relative scales under
discussion UNBELEIVABLY BRIEF! I think this anthropic principle is
more of a vague 'final cause' thing to suppose that because we exist,
there must be some special place for us in the heart of the universe,
it must have planned to 'have' us all along. Just so happens I agree
with that........ doesn't mean, however, that part of our 'special
place' isn't to be wiped out suddenly with no chance to compose our
swan song and beam it into space to be inevitably received by some
intelligence who can appreciate it. We can't imagine an end or
beginning to our collective existence so it has to stretch to the
beginning and end of the universe to keep us from screaming. Fine,
build that, but keep in mind that it's a will-to-power...... that's an
IDEAL we'd like to CREATE...... and we CAN create it, but not by
pretending that's the way it....... IS, without us........ MAKING it.
The Stark Fist of Removal is ready at any time to cancel our show, and
if we don't have an exit strategy we can kiss our
eventually-'always-already'-anthropic-universe dreams goodbye.

Nobody has ever known what universe "scientists" are looking at.
But this universe is only tuned to support life in the same way that
polar bears are tuned to repel the gravitional
attraction of New York chemists with one two many Iranian
Camels and New York University Friends of The Manhattan Zoo.

This is for the few people that have actually followed my point:

Ad Absurdum as well as some Filosofers, and other random supporters of
idealistically chaotic bull**** wrote chancie-like stuff like:

I think this anthropic principle is
more of a vague 'final cause' thing to suppose that because we exist,
there must be some special place for us in the heart of the universe,
it must have planned to 'have' us all along. Just so happens I agree
with that........ doesn't mean, however, that part of our 'special
place' isn't to be wiped out suddenly with no chance to compose our
swan song and beam it into space to be inevitably received by some
intelligence who can appreciate it.



No, that's false, assuming that the universe evolves in the manner in
which I described, which, MY PHYSICS, BEING CORRECT, makes it the most
likely scenario. There is plenty of evidence to strongly support the
weak anthropic argument as a very special/fine connection to humans
alright, as long as you don't leap outside the most fundamental entropic
nature of nature in a big bang induced expanding universe.

The weak argument in an entropic light goes as follows:

1) How many systems do you know of that can produce anti-particles?...
puts us right up there with black holes and Super-Novae in terms of high
energy physics.

2) Beyond that, how many systems do you know of that "attempt" to mix
ALL levels of energy in nature?... puts us above those mentioned systems
in terms of entropic preference, so WE are nature's best hope and
preferred method for achieving mass equilibrium on a universal scale.

We are preferred by nature, baby, so you'd better crank up the
accelerators, the Port-o-Potties, and them BigRigs, while you fools keep
blowing each other up if you wish for this to remain the case!

Since speculation is the flavor, here's mine, butcept and unlike the
Filosofers, mine has a very strongly supported theoretical and empirical
basis.

Number two above being true, it is quite logical to think that the human
catalyst may just be the one that is DESTINED to set off the next BB...
per the second law of thermodynamics, sports fans, as it applies to
asymmetric transitions on a universal scale. Even in the worst case
scenario, we are at the very least one of nature's more preferred
methods for satisfying the second law of thermodynamics on a universal
scale, and this is observationally proven, which just happens to be the
Weak Anthropic Argument in an entropic light, for all you dim-bulbs
spinning roulette wheels out there.





Einstein said that god don't throw dice, and he was right, so don't
****ing tell Einstein not to tell nature what to do, cause he's the one
that proven to have the first clue about what nature will and will not
do!

Cyrus Jones proved that infinity equals a hundred and three...
-Dave Matthews
http://display.lyrics.astraweb.com:2...l..gravedigger

"Keynes" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 22:45:30 -0800, "Mark Folsom"

wrote:

"abracad" wrote in message
. com...
The so-called anthropic principle points out how finely tuned the
universe is to support life.

The anthropic principle doesn't do any such thing. Apparent fine tuning
leads some to resort to the anthropic principle.

However, is there any reason to believe
this is the only universe that exists or ever existed? Or is it likely
or possible that there could be an infinite number of other (less
anthropic) universes that co-exist woth this one or have existed
throughout eternity?

For the anthropic principle to apply to the fine tuning of physics to
allow
our existence, it basically has to be the case that there were lots of
trials, either elsewhere or elsewhen. Sort of like having a multitude of
uninhabited planets for each one with intelligent life.

Mark Folsom


The anthoropic principle points out the obvious fact that
this cosmos can support human life. Seems like a tautology.
If the cosmos didn't support human life, who would know or care?
That's the superficial view.

Looking deeper we see the evolution of this cosmos from energy
to matter, to life and to man. From apparent dead chaos comes
wonderful us, alive, intelligent and conscious. All this by an
unbroken web of cause and effect according to natural law.
But what's so 'natural' about that sequence? Apparently the
cosmos is many times more clever than we are. It made us
in every detail. And now, in our wisdom, we sit in judgement
on it, and find it cold, dead, and unworthy.

Hey Bozo, cite one person who has EVER seriously said that the universe is
unworthy, or else admit that you're just a lying Bozo.

Mark Folsom

"island" wrote in message
...
abracad wrote:

The so-called anthropic principle points out how finely
tuned the
universe is to support life. However, is there any
reason to believe
this is the only universe that exists or ever existed?
Or is it likely
or possible that there could be an infinite number of
other (less
anthropic) universes that co-exist woth this one or have
existed
throughout eternity?

Remove the parts about other universes co-existing
simultaneously and
the answers become yes, and yes, "there could be other
anthropic
universes that have existed"... (and will exsist).

But why remove the part about other universes co-existing
simultaneously? It is very possible that is the case, in
fact--assuming the principle of mediocrIty, the physical
parameters of these universes would be randomly distributed,
and the development of life (as we know it) in those
universes would be incredibly rare. If M [superstring] thy
is at all correct, multidimensional branes are ubiquitous in
a higher dimension, and AIUI each may also be considered an
independent universe with its own physical parameters. M thy
is not yet completely developed and certainly not tested in
any way, but regardless of this, there's no reason to
disqualify the possibility of co-existing multiple
universes. The Weak Anthropic Principle still holds though
(as I define it) because it's only a tautology in a sense,
saying that, in a universe where life exists, the universe
is life-friendly as far as it's physical properties
(parameters, rules) are concerned. There's no a priori
reason at all we should not live in one of those universes,
i.e., there is no need for the common assumption that the
average multiuniverse needs to be life-friendly (i.e.,
predominately) for us to have fallen in one.

It is probable that the constants which require
intelligent human life
were and will-be carried forth to a higher order in an
evolutionary
universe.

But what is a "higher" order--do you mean sequentially?
Dimensionally? Ethically, of greater complexity...etc. None
of these things (except maybe dimensionality) are
well-defined and just a human value judgement in _our_
universe. Just as the directionality of Darwinian Evolution,
as a matter of fact--there is no need to assume an
"intelligent-mover" or "-principle" directing evolution,
simply the unthinking universe itself.

Like Al says though, there ain't no tellin what that
reality
might be at the next level, so there's no guarantee that
intelligent
life will be the order of the day to fulfill the same need
in the next
universe.

It may however be significant that the evolution of the
universe defines
the same process which allows humans to evolve in an
entropic universe.

Call it, the "Ratchet Theory" entropy results in greater
order on a
universal scale, where high-energy photons convert
negative mass, (ghost
particles/virtual particles) into real massive particles
at the expense
of increased tension between the vacuum and ordinary
matter. This leads
to an evolutionary leap as the universe evolves into a
higher order of
entropic efficiency, where a leap results in another big
bang which
carries constants that derive the so called, "Anthropic
Principle"
perpetually forward through time.

The process of which is speak is proven he

The -1th law

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=is...al.net&rnum=33

Highly speculative, to say the least. :-)) ...tonyC

Anthony Cerrato wrote:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=is...al.net&rnum=33

Highly speculative, to say the least. :-)) ...tonyC


At the risk of appealing to authority, they don't allow unsubstantiated
speculation in the moderated reasearch group, so learn some physics and
then come back when you can tell the difference. Although I did make
one mistake:

The -1th Law (not)
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...%40sundial.net



Dirac's Sea, OOPS!!
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...%40sundial.net

Our Antropic Universe
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=is...ial.net&rnum=6

Anthropic Principle
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...%40sundial.net

Anthropic Principle and Intelligent Design
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...%40sundial.net

Theory of Everything
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...%40sundial.net

abracad wrote:

The so-called anthropic principle points out how finely tuned the
universe is to support life. However, is there any reason to believe
this is the only universe that exists or ever existed? Or is it likely
or possible that there could be an infinite number of other (less
anthropic) universes that co-exist woth this one or have existed
throughout eternity?


Its likely this Universe is one of an infinite number of island Universes.


As for the anthropic principle, life was impossible in the early history of
the Universe, and as the Universe ages, lfe will some day be impossible
again. If the Universe is open and will expand and not contract, life wil
lhave been possible for a very short period of time compared to the time
life was not and will not be possible. I see no attempt of the anthropic
principle fans to say what this means.





--
Bush! Chimp or chump?

Cheerful Charlie

abracad gets an answer from me...

The so-called anthropic principle points out how finely tuned the
universe is to support life. However, is there any reason to believe
this is the only universe that exists or ever existed? Or is it likely
or possible that there could be an infinite number of other (less
anthropic) universes that co-exist woth this one or have existed
throughout eternity?

The anthropic principle goes a little further than pointing out that
the universe is habitable, it also points out that were it not
habitable we would not be here to inhabit it. However, Barrow and
Tipler explicitly state that it is a principle that has been noted in
widely different cultures and contexts, so its boundaries are, to say
the least, a little fuzzy.

Science contributes information as to exactly how finely-tuned the
universe is. Under present-day *known* physics it's pretty
finely-tuned.

Under the wish-fulfillment science of n hundred years hence, it will
all be proved to be inevitable: by a miracle of logic alone it will
turn out that the universe could be no other way. Needless to say this
is a pure pipe-dream - the universe appears to have a whole bunch of
"constants" hand-picked to let us exist.

Cosmology is still in the melting pot so it's premature to say how
much flexibility the universe has/had in choosing its constants. At
present the basic physical laws are still being chucked around. If a
firm favourite Theory of Everything ever emerges, it will still
(probably) have a number of arbitrary constants - so there will still
be some fine-tuning.

However, many speculative cosmologies allow the universe as we know it
to be just a small region in a vastly bigger hyper-universe.

Terminology gets confusing here. In the mid-20th century it was common
to refer to our galaxy as "the universe"; as knowledge increased the
term was used for the *visible* universe, as if anything over the
horizon was of no interest to us - a sort of magical metaphysical
make-believe land that we could know nothing about. These days we tend
to mean the local region, a lot of which may be out of reach but which
is a continuous region with much the same physics throughout. We
therefore need a new word for *all* of physical reality, allowing for
the possibility of huge numbers of regions like our universe.

One picture is of countless "universes" bubbling out of a primordial
space-time foam. Another is of a tree structure with "universes"
budding off. No doubt the entire thing will eventually get to be
called "the universe" and we will call our local region "the local
region", d'oh!

(The process may continue for ever, with more and more layers of
hyper-universe to consider, but, maybe not. Maybe a final structure
will emerge.)

Thus the answer to your question is, as far as we know, physics allows
our universe to be but one of many, each with different physical
constants. There may not even be any limit to the number of universes.
This would make our universe inevitable *somewhere*, indeed there
would be an infinite number of indentical regions, plus all
variations. making for the intriguing possibility that there are an
infinite number of "Abracads" typing identical posts to Usenet.
Perhaps in some of the similar universes, Windows won't crash and
Jenifer Aniston will be crazy about me. Unfortunately, in an infinite
number of other universes, my eyeballs have just exploded in a mass of
maggots which are now dribbling down my monitor...

However, it may also be that the number of universes is not infinite
but just very big - so the most unlikely scenarios don't happen. That
still leaves the maggots...

"Derek Potter" wrote in message
...
abracad gets an answer from

Anthropic Principle: Many people are aware of the weak and strong anthropic
principle. The weak one says, basically, that is was jolly amazing of the
universe to be constructed in such a way that humans could evolve to a point
where they make a linving in, for example, universities, while the strong one
says that, on the contrary, the whole point of the universe was that humans
should not only work in universities but also write for huge sums books with
words like 'Cosmic' and 'Chaos' in the titles.

The universe is also balanced in such a way to allow rocks to exist, so perhaps
we should call it a Lithic Principle.

If Scrabble is necessary, then so are players, and a universe to play in. Woozy
calls this the "Really Strong" or "Scrabble" Anthropic Principle. Humans (or at
least intelligent beings) are necessary, providing an order to biological
evolution which has been lacking since the failure of the Chain of Being. This
also suggests that if aliens exist, they may well play Scrabble.

Philosopher, physicist and mathematician see a black sheep.

'All sheeps are black' - immediately says philosopher.

'There are sheeps and some of them are black' - says physicist.

'There is at least one sheep, and at least half of it is black' - says
mathematician.

me...

The so-called anthropic principle points out how finely tuned the
universe is to support life. However, is there any reason to believe
this is the only universe that exists or ever existed? Or is it likely
or possible that there could be an infinite number of other (less
anthropic) universes that co-exist woth this one or have existed
throughout eternity?

The anthropic principle goes a little further than pointing out that
the universe is habitable, it also points out that were it not
habitable we would not be here to inhabit it. However, Barrow and
Tipler explicitly state that it is a principle that has been noted in
widely different cultures and contexts, so its boundaries are, to say
the least, a little fuzzy.

Science contributes information as to exactly how finely-tuned the
universe is. Under present-day *known* physics it's pretty
finely-tuned.

Under the wish-fulfillment science of n hundred years hence, it will
all be proved to be inevitable: by a miracle of logic alone it will
turn out that the universe could be no other way. Needless to say this
is a pure pipe-dream - the universe appears to have a whole bunch of
"constants" hand-picked to let us exist.

Cosmology is still in the melting pot so it's premature to say how
much flexibility the universe has/had in choosing its constants. At
present the basic physical laws are still being chucked around. If a
firm favourite Theory of Everything ever emerges, it will still
(probably) have a number of arbitrary constants - so there will still
be some fine-tuning.

However, many speculative cosmologies allow the universe as we know it
to be just a small region in a vastly bigger hyper-universe.

Terminology gets confusing here. In the mid-20th century it was common
to refer to our galaxy as "the universe"; as knowledge increased the
term was used for the *visible* universe, as if anything over the
horizon was of no interest to us - a sort of magical metaphysical
make-believe land that we could know nothing about. These days we tend
to mean the local region, a lot of which may be out of reach but which
is a continuous region with much the same physics throughout. We
therefore need a new word for *all* of physical reality, allowing for
the possibility of huge numbers of regions like our universe.

One picture is of countless "universes" bubbling out of a primordial
space-time foam. Another is of a tree structure with "universes"
budding off. No doubt the entire thing will eventually get to be
called "the universe" and we will call our local region "the local
region", d'oh!

(The process may continue for ever, with more and more layers of
hyper-universe to consider, but, maybe not. Maybe a final structure
will emerge.)

Thus the answer to your question is, as far as we know, physics allows
our universe to be but one of many, each with different physical
constants. There may not even be any limit to the number of universes.
This would make our universe inevitable *somewhere*, indeed there
would be an infinite number of indentical regions, plus all
variations. making for the intriguing possibility that there are an
infinite number of "Abracads" typing identical posts to Usenet.
Perhaps in some of the similar universes, Windows won't crash and
Jenifer Aniston will be crazy about me. Unfortunately, in an infinite
number of other universes, my eyeballs have just exploded in a mass of
maggots which are now dribbling down my monitor...

However, it may also be that the number of universes is not infinite
but just very big - so the most unlikely scenarios don't happen. That
still leaves the maggots...