Text 499, 109 rader
Skriven 2004-10-24 22:39:00 av Island (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Alien Life
======================


ragland66@webtv.net (Michael Ragland) wrote:

> "island" wrote:
>> The tautologous nature of the current anthropic principle is due to
the
>> fact that it is as incomplete as Dirac's Large Numbers Hypothesis
was
>> flawed, is all: 
>> www.anthropic-principle.ORG

> Re: THE LANDSCAPE: A Talk with Leonard Susskind...


The landscape is only half of what's necessary for intelligent life if
intelligent life is required by the Principle of Least "ultimate"
Action.  The physics on the previously given linked page preserves
symmetry without the need for stringy theories, and Hawking's latest
revelation at the General Relativity Conference indicates that they
can only be the way that they are, because traits or characteristics
in the form of asymmetries or imperfections are never lost if
information is never lost.

Hawking's talk about the *lack* of black hole information loss
indicates that this is entirely true because a perfect cosmic
singularity cannot exist, so you can't have an infinite number of
possible universal scenarios if information is never lost.



------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2003-11/msg0056917.html

Re: Anthropic principle and Intelligent Design

Subject: Re: Anthropic principle and Intelligent Design 
From: island <island@sundial.net> 
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:28:36 +0000 (UTC)
 
APPROVED: helbig@astro.multiNOSPAMvax.de (sci.physics.research)
X-Mod-No.: 16
 
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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 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 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.




~

>"It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term survival
value.
> Bacteria do quite well with it."
> 
> Stephen Hawking


Dear Stephen, can Bacteria make antiparticles too?
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/24/04 10:39:16 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)