Text 508, 223 rader
Skriven 2004-10-25 06:39:00 av Michael Ragland (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...
Island:
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.
Ragland:
I'm largely unfamiliar with physics but it appears to me you are
utilizing the anthropic principle to "intelligent" life in the universe.
In other words, it "appears" you think human life is the only life in
the universe or that other possible life in the universe is rare. Just
out of curiousity are you a believer in "intelligent design"? You write,
"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." So to
you the weak anthropic principle is self evident and humans are
efficient sources for methods satisfying the second law of
thermodynamics and these preexisted since the Big Bang. I disagree and I
think your statements are unfounded philosophical assumptions. One of
the tenets of Darwinian evolution is that it exhibits inherent
randomness and is directionless and has no purpose. In other words, it
is non-teleological.
Although the Big Bang most likely occured there was nothing pre-existing
since the Big Bang which necessitated "human efficiency".
In other words, human life on earth may as well just not have happened.
Maria Spiropulu in the Landscape discussion stated, "I don't understand
anthropic remarks like the sun-earth distance is just right to allow the
appropriate chemistry for humans to be. Of course it does. But before
the chemistry was there, the distance was the same. It is more
interesting to research the thermonuclear reactions in the sun, discover
something about the neutrinos, understand the radioactive warming of the
earth's core, study the earth's atmosphere, and in general find why the
temperature and chemistry is what it isnot for us to be here but for
the phenomena to be what they are. And I find it rather absurd to
believe that if we were not here the sun-earth distance would be
different and the universe would be upsidedown. The whole anthropic
thinking seems to me intellectually decadent. It takes obviously true
positive statements, then negates them to makes a conditional negative
argument, which is then regarded as profound or scientific." So
obviously there were innumerable factors which made life on earth
possible. I see the creation of life on earth as a "grand event" as the
result on innumerable random variables. To use a very crude and
inadequate analogy a person winning a billion dollar lottery ticket.
Someone could use this as an argument for why life is so rare in the
universe or even why only human life exists in the universe but the
universe is tremendously immense and I'm sure there are some others who
have won billion dollar lottery tickets:)
You write, "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." Well that's just it we don't know
everything, do we? Landscape theories such as string theory are
incomplete but in the future they may ultimately help shed light on the
nature of the universe. If that happens landscape may provide for
information for what is necessary for "extraterrestrial life". I don't
even like using the phrase "intelligent life" because the word
"intelligent" is anthropic in itself and what the "intelligence" of an
extraterrestrial may be may could be so vastly different from what
humans define as intelligence that to use the phrase "intelligent life"
denotes we are using our species as a standard for what is intelligent.
I think that is wrong and arrogant.
The Principle of Least Action is based on minimal principles/processes
for understanding the universe. Originally, it was associated with
teleological principles and a "Cosmic Creator". My understanding is
currently it is very useful in understanding the universe on several
levels. However, to regard it as solely the master key to understanding
the universe would result in "minimal understanding".
You state, "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." What is your problem with Hawking's statement stringy
theories can only be the way they are, because traits or characteristics
in the form of asymmetries or imperfections are never lost if
information is never lost? (read further below) I tried to download the
link you refer to but my browser is acting up. Will have to check it out
on my laptop. However, I'm not a physicist or good at equations at all
so accessing the link may not be helpful. That doesn't mean your theory
of a symmetrical universe is valid just that I can't read equations:) I
think it is Hawking's position the universe does indeed contain
asymmetries.
You are aware the universe contains asymmetrical cause and effects?
Island:
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.
Ragland:
Actually just recently Hawking unveiled at a conference in Scotland his
calculations that Black Holes DO release information but it is garbled
and impossible to decipher the information. Some such as Richard Feyman
were skeptical. So I think it is premature to state there isn't the
possibility of possible multiple universes. There has been some
confusion over whether the Big Bang was the same as a Black Hole. They
aren't the same.
----------------------------------------------
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
Island:
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.
Ragland:
This is true but as I stated previously I believe random variables were
responsible for nature creating a "data point". And that isn't saying
much IMHO when one considers how immense the universe is and how much we
don't know about it.
Island:
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.
Ragland:
I don't believe in the "finely tuned" theory of the universe which
posits all life forms in the universe must be based on carbon. Yes,
humans are one of nature's methods for satisfying the second law of
thermodynamics. That does not mean, however, there aren't possibly
extraterrestrial life forms in the universe. Other extraterrestrial
forms of life may have a totally different energy form and thus the
second law of thermodynamics may be greatly modified. I do believe the
Big Bang induced an entropic expansion of the universe but apparently
that entropy is low. When the universe contracts entropy will increase.
Both Dyson and Hawking seem to believe life will be be eternally
possible even once the universe contracts.
Island:
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.
Ragland:
Have addressed that above.
"It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term survival value.
Bacteria do quite well with it."
Stephen Hawking
Island:
Dear Stephen, can Bacteria make antiparticles too?
Ragland:
I'd advise you to ask Hawking by emailing him via his graduate student
but I've tried that and considering Hawking's condition and commitments
I don't think he ever reads anything sent to him unless it is of
profound signifigance. Here's what I found on antiparticles: "The only
known examples of antiparticles, or antimatter, are the particles
created when subatomic particles are slammed together in an
accelerator/collider and then they don't last long. Why so little
antimatter is found in nature is one of the mysteries that particle
physicists hope to solve with the giant supercolliders." Don't know if
it is true but thought I'd throw it out. In any event, I think you
missed the meaning of Hawking's quote. I'm sure most do.
"It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term survival value.
Bacteria do quite well with it."
Stephen Hawking
---
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 10/25/04 6:39:57 AM
* Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)
|