The Anthropic Principle Under Fire

How timely Tormod. Have you been reading Hypography again‽ :hihi: I ran across this little tidbit after following the links to links: A major outstanding problem is that most quantum field theories predict a huge cosmological constant from the energy of the quantum vacuum. This would need to be cancelled almost, but not exactly, by an equally large term of the opposite sign. Some supersymmetric theories require a cosmological constant that is exactly zero, which further complicates things. This is the cosmological constant problem, the worst problem of fine-tuning in physics: there is no known natural way to derive the infinitesimal cosmological constant observed in cosmology from particle physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant I added the bolding as I have to notice Durgatosh is fond of the zip zero approach. For myself, and for the time being, I fairly well like the normalized ΩΛ ~= .7. My biggest problem is that I constantly change my mind. ;)

The anthropic principle is based on faulty assumptions. It assumes life to have appeared as a random event requiring specific constants to occur. This assumption is based on ignorance of how life formed. One needs to take into consideration the affects of the third layer of chemistry or the affect of the hydrogen bonding proton to realize that conditions are more flexible then are currently believed.

The anthropic principle is based on faulty assumptions. It assumes life to have appeared as a random event requiring specific constants to occur. This assumption is based on ignorance of how life formed. One needs to take into consideration the affects of the third layer of chemistry or the affect of the hydrogen bonding proton to realize that conditions are more flexible then are currently believed. The anthropic principle isn't limited to chemistry. It's all-encompassing as far as science is concerned. For instance, gravity (according to the anthropic principle), has to work inverse squared, else the planets might slowly spiral away or into their stars, and life would have been completely impossible. What we see around us in the universe, where gravity follows a specific set of laws, life is possible - but this is not to say that the universe had a previous incarnation (or an infinity of previous incarnations) where the laws of nature 'condensed' differently our of the starting Bang. The anthropic principle would be appliccable to anything imaginary, simply because we're here to record it. This does say a lot about life in the rest of the universe, though. Laws of Nature as observed on Earth is clearly conducive not only to Life, but Intelligent Life as well. Life didn't appear 'randomly', as stated in your post; rather, Life appeared because the conditions were right, and the conditions were right because the Laws of Nature (in this universe's incarnation, at least) allowed it.

The paper by Starkman and Trotta is just one in a recent series of assaults on anthropic principles in physics. In a paper published in the August 2006 issue of Physical Review D, Roni Harnik et al. described a universe with no weak force at all, which they believe could support life nevertheless (http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v74/e035006). Lame... Problems in a weakless universe http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0609050 The fact that life has evolved in our universe constrains the laws of physics. The anthropic principle proposes that these constraints are sometimes very tight and can be used to explain in a sense the corresponding laws. Recently a "disproof" of the anthropic principle has been proposed in the form of a universe without weak interactions, but with other parameters suitably tuned to nevertheless allow life to develop. If a universe with such different physics from ours can generate life, the anthropic principle is undermined. We point out, however, that on closer examination the proposed "weakless" universe strongly inhibits the development of life in several different ways. One of the most critical barriers is that a weakless universe is unlikely to produce enough oxygen to support life. Since oxygen is an essential element in both water, the universal solvent needed for life, and in each of the four bases forming the DNA code for known living beings, we strongly question the hypothesis that a universe without weak interactions could generate life. If true, it undermines anthropic arguments for the values of several fundamental constants. Earlier this year, Harvard's Abraham Loeb published a paper in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics (available on the preprint archives at http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro...04/0604242.pdf) showing that finding planets in dwarf galaxies would prove that habitable conditions could arise even if the cosmological constant were a thousand times larger than the one we measure, potentially eliminating anthropic arguments for the constant's value entirely. Equally lame, since the goldilocks enigma predicts that these "dwarf galaxies" with planets will exist, but without life. Try as they might, the anthropic principle just won't go away... but denial is always easier than it is to honestly look for the reason why we are relevant to the structure and stability of the universe. Scientists/NOT

I suspect that, if the universe had different physical properties, life could still occur, but it would be different from anything we could know. If this life was able to become intelligent, it would look out at the universe and say, "There are no other conditions under which life could have formed". I postulate that life conforms to the physics of whatever universe it exists in, and thus is particular to that universe's physics. This will make it seem like any universe in which there is life is "anthropic".

There was a science fiction short story published in the 40's or 50's. I believe the author was A.E. vanVogt. It involves the first ever creation of a time machine, but it was unmanned. It was to shoot further and further back in time, "bouncing" as it were on an "anvil" in the present time. At the peak of each bounce, it would gather a specimen. Each peak would be twice as far back as the one before, until the timecraft "bounced" off the big bang and each successive bounce would be only half as far. Needless to say, the scientists of the world were worried that any attempt to "observe" the past would alter the past, and therefore alter the present, maybe killing off all life on Earth. So they were all invited to the launch with great assurances of the safety measures that had been taken. Launch! And the anvil rang as the craft went 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 seconds into the past. The MC said, "See, everybody, nothing has changed!" The craft reached ten thousand years in the past; everybody's skin color changed to black. The MC said, "See, everybody, nothing has changed!" A million years; everybody had scaly green skin and webbed toes. The MC said, "See, everybody, nothing has changed!" A billion years; everybody had four eyes and breathed methane gas. The MC said, "See, everybody, nothing has changed!" The craft bounced off the Big Bang and eventually returned to the present and was still. Under a purple sky filled with glowing skradarks, the people emfeetled joyously. The luminosity of the framdarks grittled the balsomic gorgentures of the preems. The MC said, "See, everybody, nothing has changed!"

Right on dave. TFS

More issue avoidance. Dave might be right, except he misses is the fact that the anthopic principle is expected to be woven into the structure mechanism via the least action principle, which only offers one possible solution if you don't invoke unproven theoretical speculation. You need to study the history that led up to the AP to understand why Dirac, Dicke, Carter, Wheeler, Davies and even Dr. Einstein, himself would not buy the hype of modern rationale that hides from the fact that the actual observed structure of the universe occurs in dramatic contrast to the modeled expectation... where *many* fixed balance points are commonly or "coincidentally" pointing directly toward carbon-based life, *does* indicate that there is some good physical reason for this otherwise completely unexpected structuring, that is somehow "specially" related to the existence of carbon-based life. It is an unavoidable fact that the anthropic coincidences are uniquely related to the structure of the universe, so an evidentially supported implication does necessarily exist that carbon-based life is somehow relevant to the structure mechanism of the universe, and weak, multiverse interpretations do not supercede this fact, unless a multiverse is proven to be more than cutting-edge theoretical speculation. That's the undeniable fact that makes Richard Dawkins and Leonard Susskind say that the universe "appears designed" for life, and they both "beleive-in" unproven multiverse theories, but their interpretation is only valid against equally non-evidenced "causes", like supernatural forces and intelligent design. These arguments do not erase the fact that the prevailing evidence still most apparentely does indicate that we are intricately connected to the structure mechanism, until they prove it isn't so, so we must remain open to evidence in support of this, or we are not honest scientists, and we are no better than those who would intentionally abuse the science. Why might we be necessary to the physics of the universe? Do you know that the AP does not apply to only one galaxy, and one planet? Carter called scientists' inisistence on unobserved mediocrity, "anticentrist dogma"... because it is **equally** anti-fanatical to geocentrism, since the cosmological principle does not extend to the time domain. Boy, was he ever right about that!!!

where *many* fixed balance points are commonly or "coincidentally" pointing directly toward carbon-based life, *does* indicate that there is some good physical reason for this otherwise completely unexpected structuring Correlation does not imply causation. I would argue that the principles don't point to carbon-based life, but rather it is the carbon-based life that points to the principles. We don't say that gravity is proportional to the inverse square of the distance because otherwise things would fall wrong, we say that things fall the way they do because gravity is proportional to the inverse square of the distance.

Correlation does not imply causation. I would argue that the principles don't point to carbon-based life, but rather it is the carbon-based life that points to the principles. Okay, I'll buy that, but that's a huge step in the right direction if you ask me. What other correlations might be made? It seems to me that the human evolutionary process would also correlate, so scientists should be looking for a mechanism that enables the universe to "leap" to higher orders of the same basic structure... which makes absolute symmetry an unrealizable *goal*. http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2006-02/msg0073320.html It can be shown that this is a perpetually "downhill" process in terms of the energy that gets expended.

What other correlations might be made? If your sample size is large enough, you can show a correlation between just about anything.

100% of heroin addicts drank milk when they were young children.

Yeah, I should have only agreed that a correlation doesn't *necessarily* mean that a dead body with a bullet in it means that the smoking gun on the ground next to it, had something to do with it. What specifically is it that you fellas think makes all these dumb scientists like Dawkins and Susskind say that the universe "appears designed"? The fact that heroin addicts drank milk? ...or something more akin to a smoking gun and and dead body with a bullet in it? I'm only uh, guessing, but I'd say that it's the latter, so pretending like a smoking gun and a dead body don't carry an implication is, well, very "neodarwinian"... haha! Too bad that you can't judge the validity of the very simple physics that I linked, or maybe we wouldn't be here now.

Try as they might, the anthropic principle just won't go away... but denial is always easier than it is to honestly look for the reason why we are relevant to the structure and stability of the universe. Scientists/NOT How perfectly disengenuous to invoke honesty in search of stability while at the same time dismissing science directly with implied theism. Theists/NOT From my previous quote from Wickpedia: This is the cosmological constant problem, the worst problem of fine-tuning in physics: there is no known natural way to derive the infinitesimal cosmological constant observed in cosmology from particle physics. I have boldened a pertinent phrase as it allows that the scientist explicitly acknowledges a lack of knowledge with the implication such knowledge may come to light in the future through the application of the scientific method, wheras the theist explicity accepts supernatural explanation with the implication that no new knowledge is forthcoming.

No, I'm an atheist, thanks. So is Davies. So is Wheeler. So is Carter. So was Dicke. So was Dirac. So was Einstein. But hey... how perfectly disrespectful of you, anyway... heh

No, I'm an atheist, thanks. But hey... how perfectly disrespectful of you, anyway... heh My pleasure to return the favor. I note with interest the your earlier comment Too bad that you can't judge the validity of the very simple physics that I linked, or maybe we wouldn't be here now. as it acknowledges your favor as well as begins from a rather lame position for science. I'd like to talk about what I think is already proven to happen to the gravity of the universe when we make particles from negative-energy states, and the effect that this has on the thermodynamic structuring of our universe. http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2006-02/msg0073320.html A blog is a blog, even if it's a Cornell blog.:shrug:

Like I said... Too bad that YOU can't judge the validity of very simple physics for yourself. I won't bother to tell you that I know for a fact that it is valid, since I've obviously found the devil's advocate, himself. You have no imagination, son. How do you think that it is possible to have purpose in nature without god? You don't know because you think that it can't be so. You have no imagination, son.

You have no imagination, son. I imagine this News Article is just that, an article, Pop. To clarify your earlier quote attribution to Tormod, he did not write the article, he merely posted the article. We have drifted off topic here, but if you search the other areas of the Forum I don't doubt you will find suitable threads for posting your imaginings. :cup:

I am once again awed at hypography. Only here have I found people to be passionate about such things as the anthropic principle :hihi: Both of you, keep the debate civil, and please refrain from personal attacks, mild though they have been.

Re: The Anthropic Principle Under Fire Thanks anyway, but I'm defending the "attack on the anthropic principle", which, I already shot down the two papers in Tormod's referenced article, and which I quoted him for. But I'm sure that if you look around real hard, you can be equally sure that you still don't know enough physics to voice your opinion on most of the topics here. BuhBye... have a nice fantasy...

I am once again awed at hypography. Only here have I found people to be passionate about such things as the anthropic principle :hihi: Both of you, keep the debate civil, and please refrain from personal attacks, mild though they have been. No, I'm done with him and anyone like him. I'm only looking for plausibility. I've got it spades, and anybody that denies it is out of their mind with willful ignorance.

But I'm sure that if you look around real hard, you can be equally sure that you still don't know enough physics to voice your opinion on most of the topics here. Island, please read our rules, and in particular the bits about how to behave at our forums. Your personal attacks are really not welcome.

But ad hom insults that I take as personal insults are? Fine... give me the boot now, Tormod.

While your permission is not required for such an action, island, you certainly have a confrontational tone. We prefer to have a collection of different opinions, as it makes each of our own more robust. Perhaps your argument, position, view, whatever would have further benefit if you were to adjust your approach and work WITH people instead of screaming like an infant having a tantrum. Just a thought. Everyone is entitled to their own view. Just because it opposes yours doesn't make it wrong.

But ad hom insults that I take as personal insults are? Fine... give me the boot now, Tormod. Your posting style practically begs for insults, but no, they are not accepted. I see Turtle's responses to you as basically exactly what you asked for, so I did not take issue with him. I don't need to point out to Turtle to read the rules, however, as he perfectly well knows them. To keep on topic in this thread, I was once a supporter of the anthropic principle. I have read just about every book by John Barrow, who happens to be my favorite cosmologist and popularizer (and whom I've had the pleasure to interview, both about his book "The Constants of Nature" and his play, "Infinity"), but I must admit I no longer consider the anthropic principle to be anything but a fancy idea. It fails to be verifiable since it basically defines itself as the outcome, thus it is based on flawed logic IMHO. That doesn't mean it is not worthing reading about and understanding the many varieties of anthropic thinking, including criticism against it. (For the interested, I found Martin Rees' "Just Six Numbers" to be a quite accessible book on the subject).

Tormod, Please show me anywhere that I earned the right to be branded a creationist.

Tormod, Please show me anywhere that I earned the right to be branded a creationist. If you're insulted by being labeled, it's better to explain why the label is wrong, than to start yelling. And I assume you are here to discuss, so why not take my hint and get back on topic rather than just trolling?

First of all, Turtle never said you were a creationist. He said that he was not a theist (implying that you were a theist). It may have been a wrong conclusion, island, but it did seem that you were pointing at the creation of the universe being for the specific purpose of life. I don't think that Turtle was unjustified in assuming you were a theist, even if he was wrong.

While your permission is not required for such an action, island... haha, I meant that I'll probably earn it soon enough if we're going to allow people to harbor a bunch of preconceived prejudices about the implications of strong interpretations of the anthropic principle. you certainly have a confrontational tone. Con...fident. There's a big diff, because I have good yet-to-be-disproven reason to be, and I have studied the PHYSICS for the anthropic principle in-depth, for a number of years, rather than simply reading a bunch of variant interpretations, no offense intended.

I don't think that Turtle was unjustified in assuming you were a theist, even if he was wrong. Absolutely stereotypically false. Ask him to use the term, "arrogance" in context with the anthropic principle, and I guarantee you will reveal a clear non-scientific predispositioning that runs RAMPANT.

You're funny. Are you bookable for shows? :D

See, island, I'm trying so hard to be nice, and trying to be impartial, but when you do what you accuse others of, when you assume things about others, when you are arrogent, and unyielding in what you say and how you say it, you don't earn yourself any friends. I tried to ease this thread, and calm you both down. I tried to explain that other people can be wrong understandably. And you seem to refuse to accept that other opinions can possibly be valid. Why would you join a community if you only came to attack its members?

Ask him to use the term, "arrogance" in context with the anthropic principle, and I guarantee you will reveal a clear non-scientific predispositioning that runs RAMPANT. Why? You are already showing that you are an expert on arrogance: Con...fident. There's a big diff, because I have good yet-to-be-disproven reason to be, and I have studied the PHYSICS for the anthropic principle in-depth, for a number of years, rather than simply reading a bunch of variant interpretations, no offense intended. Get off your high horse and participate in our discussion rather than telling us how brilliant you are. So far I have seen little physics knowledge and a lot of big ego. If you switch it around, I am sure everyone would be happy. If you have studied physics, you probably also know that to prove non-existence is futile.

you certainly have a confrontational tone. Con...fident. There's a big diff, because I have good yet-to-be-disproven reason to be, and I have studied the PHYSICS for the anthropic principle in-depth, for a number of years, rather than simply reading a bunch of variant interpretations, no offense intended. In either case, the prefix con- is sufficient to carry the general idea. My sincere apology for misinterpreting the qualifying particulars of your prefix. To quote moo quoting Conant, "Behold the turtle. He makes progress only when he sticks his neck out." My primary interest in the anthropic principle is in the cosmological constants and their mathematical representations and I admit to ignorance concerning its social controversey. I learn something new every day. :cup:

:cup: Turtle, please read our rules regarding acceptable substance usage. :eek2:

I have no idea what you're talking about. I did not come here to attack anyone, so go back to where I came in and see this for yourself. Papers killed. Done and done.

Lame... Good phrasing, there, and very non-confrontational. we strongly question the hypothesis that a universe without weak interactions could generate life. So you have found a paper which questions the points that the ciriticism in the original post is leveled at. That's good. Why is posting information about scientific papers criticizing something you think bad? You keep stating that you have studied so much physics. But how have you studied it? Equally lame, since the goldilocks enigma predicts that these "dwarf galaxies" with planets will exist, but without life. Can you please point out *how* the GE predicts this - and what bearing this enigma has on the debate? Isn't the GE simply another anthropic explanation, and therefore in itself disqualified from being used as proof for itself? Try as they might, the anthropic principle just won't go away... but denial is always easier than it is to honestly look for the reason why we are relevant to the structure and stability of the universe. The denial I am reading in this thread mostly comes from you, island. Scientists/NOT Again, mature and non-confrontational.

Papers killed. Done and done. Well, you have not killed anything, but you have managed to display a lack of discussion technique. You are welcome to discuss AP here but it would help to use more than quotes from online articles and lists of atheist scientists (although I question the atheism of Einstein, but that is a different topic). In short, you have not shown a shred of evidence to support the anthropic principle. I would be very happy to see it, but please don't just post links to online articles - post your own views. That's what we're interested in.

Coming back to the topic, the AP tells us that everything is the way it is because we're here to record it. Now that's all fine and well, but if you consider that 99.999999999999999% of the universe is hostile to life, it kinda makes you wonder what value that 0.00000000.....0001% has to dictate to the rest of the universe? Black holes, stars, interstellar space, massive planets, airless planets, asteroids, comets, Oort Cloud objects, Kuiper Belt objects, rocky moons, etc. make up much, much more surface area than habitable blue watery planets. It seems the laws of nature favours the formation of the former, and not the latter. That's 180 degrees away from my previous post, but I'll just illustrate both sides of the coin here.

Now that's all fine and well, but if you consider that 99.999999999999999% of the universe is hostile to life, it kinda makes you wonder what value that 0.00000000.....0001% has to dictate to the rest of the universe? Actually we don't know that. There are bacteria that could likely survive in space! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast14dec99_1.htm

I suspect that, if the universe had different physical properties, life could still occur, but it would be different from anything we could know. If this life was able to become intelligent, it would look out at the universe and say, "There are no other conditions under which life could have formed". I postulate that life conforms to the physics of whatever universe it exists in, and thus is particular to that universe's physics. This will make it seem like any universe in which there is life is "anthropic". I think you're begging the question as to the definition of life. You seem to be saying that whatever might occur in any given universe, we could just call it Life, and then the anthropic principle would pose its conundrum. But if we define life in terms of some very special set of matter and energy relationships, which I think is the least specific necessary first approximation to a definition, then we cannot be confident that those relationships would occur in any universe given any set of fundamental physical constants. Those relationships might be absent, and hence life would not exist in that universe. I'm not saying that life has to be carbon-based structures, but I am saying that we cannot arbitrarily declare anything that happens to exist to be a manifestation of life.

Boerseun wrote: "Life didn't appear 'randomly', as stated in your post; rather, Life appeared because the conditions were right, and the conditions were right because the Laws of Nature (in this universe's incarnation, at least) allowed it." I would only like to suggest that these "Laws of Nature" were intentionally designed by Mind and Spirit. They are energeral mechanism for the Evolution of More and Better. Respectfully, DAN 1

Are you familiar with Lee Smolin's model of an evolving ensemble of universes? In this model, universes with greater reproductive capacity send their genes (their physical contants) into future generations of universes. Black holes are the reproductive organs of universes, so constants that predispose universes to have more black holes (in effect, more large stars) will tend to proliferate in the generations of "baby universes". Coincidentally, says Smolin, the same set of constants predispose a universe to produce biological life. THAT'S A HELL OF A COINCIDENCE. A sensible explanation is available HERE.

A sensible explanation is available HERE. Calling something sensible does not make it so. From the first line under the section entitled "Elaboration": Stellar nebulae manufacture bacteria and viruses in their interiors as they cool to form solar systems. :lol: How exactly do stars produce bacteria? :hyper:

Lee Smolin's model and theories, (as you have indicated them), are fascinating. I have often wondered what purpose the "Black Holes" served other than the destruction of a universe. They seemed so out of step with the formation of the Universes of Creation. Them being a kind of energal transfer mechanism to other regions of non-pervaded space, does give me a better picture of this idea, in addition to my old notion that the great darkness of Creation, in which the stars are born and reside, is the great Potentiality and role of Spirit as the Female Aspect of Creation. I believe the blackness against which the stars do shine is the "Womb of Creation"...therefore Mother. Then along comes Smolin with his notions about the black holes sending (excess?) energies and life force into un-pervaded space. This presents a brand new perspective and role to my Mother Spirit beliefs. Please, I dont mean to be crude here, but it is as though the womb turns inside out and reverses to become the "Universal Phallic Organ" that injects the elements for the new celestial realms. Strange and different indeed. I will be thinking about this for a long time and will seek further validation in this from Science in the future. Its quite Morphic isn't it? But it does make sense as regards all the energies generated by the stars...maybe? The thought that viruses and bacteria, (as we know them), being made in the cooling nebulae of the universes seems to be not true to me. Too much heat and energy chaos involved...I think. But this is just my own opinion. I realize that there is so much I dont know yet. I would welcome further evidence to support this idea. Just hope I am intelligent enough to understand it when it comes. Right now, I embrace the notion that bacteria and viruses are produced at the "Planetary Level". In the sun warmed shallows of seas and near the volcanoes. I am definately open to further information about this idea. Respectfully, DAN 1

I will be thinking about this for a long time and will seek further validation in this from Science in the future. "Further validation"? Where is the initial validation?

Hi Tormod. I suppose I was thinking that the formulation of a plausible theory is the "first validation". I tend to think that if something becomes thought, in even one mind, then it merits more validation through supportive evidence or a philosophical explanantion that is hard to refute. When I saw this theory I thought of the following scientifically observed phenomena: (1) Our astronomers can "see" black holes in far outer space. (2) These black Holes do seem to be sucking up stars and other celestial bodies. (3) It is reasonable to assume that either the energies and matter that is being sucked in are going somewhere, or they are ceasing to exist. I prefer the first possibility. The second is repugnant to me. I believe in change but not cessation of existance, at least as regards the energies and materials of Universe Creation. There is an exception to this belief, but it is not really applicable to this discussion. The "validity" I wrote of is a "softer" use of the term, (related to plausibility), and has more to do with speculation rather than hard scientific proof or evidence. Forgive me if I have used a word too incorrectly. I will be more careful about this in the future. Respectfully, DAN 1

Calling something sensible does not make it so. From the first line under the section entitled "Elaboration": :lol: How exactly do stars produce bacteria? :hyper: Well, if you had continued reading you would have arrived HERE where the assertion is defended.

Well, if you had continued reading you would have arrived HERE where the assertion is defended. The link leads nowhere. :shrug:

The link leads nowhere. :shrug: Sorry about that. :doh: Try THIS