Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Valid Design Hypothesis
island
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 7 (101643)
04-21-2004 6:24 PM


Hi... I tried to post this in the Intelligent Design forum but I'm not authorized:
The following must be correct because it isn't real popular among fanatics on either side of the evolution/design debate...
Please allow me to make four posts including this one, before showing your ignorance of the second law... heheh
I thought that you might be interested to know that there is a new design theory which notes that a physical need in nature that manifests itself into intelligent life (in order to satisfy this need), is a valid scientific design hypothesis that can be empirically and theoretically supported. If you can stomach the "big-bang" and evoltutionary theory, that is, because, and contrary to "popular" opinion, they are not mutually exclusive.
Change the word, "intelligent" to "purposeful" and you have a valid design hypothesis.
I'll give just a few short and FACTUAL examples that make the point:
You often hear creationsists use, (and sometimes abuse), the second law of thermodynamics in the creation/evolution debate, but the bottom line is this;
The expansive tendency of the universe defines a clear physical need for intelligent human life.
That means that human life is necessarily required by the principle of least "ultimate" action, or the principle of least action, on a grand scale, in an expanding, (entropic), universe.
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 tendency was the primary instruction that got instilled into every object at the moment of the big-bang. Think about it.
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".

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by island, posted 04-21-2004 6:26 PM island has replied
 Message 6 by AdminNosy, posted 04-21-2004 6:49 PM island has not replied

island
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 7 (101647)
04-21-2004 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by island
04-21-2004 6:24 PM


A New Anthropic Principle
A New Anthropic Principle
Our existence in this universe must necessarily be required by the Principle of Least ultimate Action, due to the fact that the expansive tendency is the most predominant and necessarily inherent inclination of every object in an expanding universe. This means that the second law of thermodynamics requires carbon-based human beings as the favored method for maximizing entropic efficiency within the constraints of inherent asymmetries, by way of the same decouplings that manifest every other force in our expanding universe.
Weak Anthropic Principle:
The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable, but must take on values where carbon-based life can evolve as a part of the universal thermodynamic process.
It's a self-evident no-brainer that the human-system exhibits the tendency to mix and process ALL forms of matter in nature in the universal effort toward mass-equilibrium. This inherent tendency indicates that the humans may be more generally connected to the universal than any other system, as this is empirically supported by our actions.
Strong Anthropic Principle:
Our expanding universe must have properties which require life to develop within it at a stage in history when it is most advantageous to the evolution process of the universe, as this is supported by the exceedingly high degree of fine tuning of the universal constants.
Humans have the highly specialized ability to process critical forms of matter, like, antimatter, which is specifically necessary to the universal effort toward perfect symmetry.
The Strong Anthropic argument notes that the more specific is the need, the more specialized must be the tool, the more isolated, and finely tuned must be the forces.
But the human system as a whole also exhibits this tendency more generally or universally, as well:
The Weak Anthropic logic notes that the more general is the need, the less specialized can be the tool, the more "friendly" must be the environment.
The landscape is equally important to our survival, and so the energy that we can expend in the direction of survival must be readily expendable. This means that the cooperative environment enables entropy to increase within the limits of practical human effort. This necessarily entails that carbon-based life must be favored as a means to raise the energy level enough to breach the relevant environmental constraints in order that entropy may continue to increase by way of the next most difficult path.
Humans are historically proven to have the ability to do this, and that ability defines a thermodynamic effect that enables the preferred system to leap to higher orders of entropic efficiency. This is quite plainly proven if humans did this when they evolved from apes to the 'fire breathing monsters' that they are today, which indicates that asymmetries, (imperfections), are carried perpetually forth to higher orders of efficiency by the second law in the impossible effort toward idealistically pure symmetry.
The famous theoretical physicist, John Wheeler added what is now known as the "Participatory Anthropic Principle", which he determined must mean that our observations actually have an effect at the quantum level which produce the constraining effects that ultimately brings humans into existence. While this might sound quite ludicrous on the surface, it makes sense in context with quantum theory, whose effects don't depend on the macroscopic human perceptions, which include a fixed history, and an arrow of time.
It would appear, however, that the universe is actually constrained in such a manner as to require intelligent life in order to create the next world that we won't live in, rather than the one that we do live in.
As this applies to extra-terrestrial life, it is possible that the constraining effects of the finely tuned constants have a more broad implication than only to require the presence of human beings. As it applies to the entropy of a black hole, for example, it is quite plausible that every spiral galaxy that has a black hole at its center also requires intelligent life as a related means for creating particles from vacuum energy.
This would mean that the entropy of a black hole, the entropy of the universe, and human life, are systematically related. In this case, the Anthropic Principle becomes a "Biocentric" Principle instead, because it implies that intelligent life doesn't necessarily just have to mean, human beings, from Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by island, posted 04-21-2004 6:24 PM island has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by island, posted 04-21-2004 6:28 PM island has replied

island
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 7 (101649)
04-21-2004 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by island
04-21-2004 6:26 PM


Our Evolutionary Universe
Our Evolutionary Universe
Theoretical Physics:
Both, Positrons and Electrons, are produced at the event horizon of a Black Hole from virtual particle pairs. As with electric charge, this means that the *normal* distribution of negative energy electrons does not contribute to pair creation. Only *departures* from the normal distribution in a vacuum will isolate enough vacuum energy to produce virtual particle pairs. These pairs can be converted into real particles if enough energy is introduced, but they do not have -rho if they represent localized departures from the norm.
General relativity tells us that gravitation is essentially curvature due to the energy contained in a region and pair production changes this energy to the positve mass of particle pairs, so the 'departure' is maintained in this manner. These departures cannot produce negative curvature, so they cannot have negative mass, because the energy density of these particles does *not* represent the background density.
The anti-electron has the same gravitational properties as an electron, and the electron has a greater chance for survival, (thus maintaining the departure, *indefinitely*), since it might be a long time before it meets an antiparticle if its counterpart antiparticle gets sucked into the black hole.
There will be a contribution -e for each occupied state of positive energy and a contribution -e for each unoccupied state of negative energy, because negative pressure increases in proportion to the hole that the departures represent.
In other words, *both* particles leave "holes", not just one.
The basic flaw in this Einstein static model was its instability, "like a pencil balanced on its point". If the Universe grew by just a little bit, then vacuum energy density remains constant, (meaning that matter energy density goes down as well), and this will cause a net negative gravitational acceleration, which makes the Universe grow even more.
But that's not correct if the increase in mass-energy is offset by the increase in negative pressure that results from the "departure", because the vacuum expands naturally, as a function of rarefaction that results from pair production, so the number of particles in the universe always equals the square of the ratio of the electric and the gravitational force between two electrons, as the number of particles in the universe increases, while G remains constant.
Einstein refered to the cosmological constant as his "Greatest Blunder", and he droppe it from his equations, but there is no instability if vacuum expansion is offset by an increase in mass energy, as previuously described.
Tension between ordinary matter and the vacuum increases when you increase mass energy, while at the same time increasing negative pressure by way of particle pair production.
The clear implication is that the above described near-static state of "punctuated equilibrium" will end when the universee "leaps" to a higher level of entropic efficiency, where the logic follows...
A Big Bang is to an Evolutionary Leap...
... what "Punctuated Equilbria" is to a "Near-Static" universe...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by island, posted 04-21-2004 6:26 PM island has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by island, posted 04-21-2004 6:30 PM island has not replied

island
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 7 (101651)
04-21-2004 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by island
04-21-2004 6:28 PM


Ten Points:
Ten Points:
1) Inversely supported theory: The fact that punctuated evolutionary theory predicts the same thing that the high energy particle physics predicts means that an evolutionary leap occurs after long periods of steadily increasing tension between equally opposing evolutionary tendencies. See: "Asymmetric Transitions"
2) The fact that punctuated evolutionary theory predicts the same thing that the high energy particle physics predicts means that the "entropic" Anthropic Principle is the Theory of Everything by virtue of the fact that the GUT falls dirctly out of it. i.e., It proves that there is no such thing as "pure symmetry" or "singularities" nor "supergravity", etc idealizations...
... rather, asymmetries are projected perpetually into the future in a never ending effort toward those impossible goals.
3) Dirac's Large Numbers hypotheisis is clarified and completed if an increase in mass-energy is offset by the increase in negative pressure that results from the "departure", because the vacuum expands naturally, as a function of rarefaction that results from pair production, so the number of particles in the universe always equals the square of the ratio of the electric and the gravitational force between two electrons, as the number of particles in the universe increases, while G remains constant. There are other aspects of this that are also resolved.
4) All of the "spookey" mumbo-jumbo "cosmological problems" are resolved, including the Flatness Problem, for example, the flat universe is not a precarious balance, (as described previously). The "Asymmetry Problem" (which becomes self-evident), and the "Horizon Problem", for a couple more. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why the distance across our universe is greater than our universe is old, if the universe already has volume when a big bang occurs... eliminates the need for the equally awkward "Inflationary Scenario".
5) Unifies General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics: The quantum expectation for the density of the vacumm is based on the Compton wavelength of the particle cubed, which gives a vacuum
density of,
rho(vacuum) = M4c3/h3 = 1013 [M/proton mass]4 gm/cc
With the Planck mass at 20 micrograms this density is more than 1091 gm/cc, which puts the expectation out of whack with observation by at least 120 orders of magnitude.
But one particle in every volume equal to the Compton wavelength of the particle cubed'... describes the "depature", *not* the normal distribution, which, a rough guess would put at about 120 orders of magnitude greater.
6) Rationale: "Destiny" is now in our own hands since we now know what the universe "wants" from us. In other words, no astroids will ever strike us down, as long as we continue to do our job.
7) Gives humans "Purpose" in nature.
8) Gives people a "Higher Power", (if they feel the need)
9) Destroys the idea of "random chance" in our univese.
10) Humans are entropically favored.
etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by island, posted 04-21-2004 6:28 PM island has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 5 of 7 (101657)
04-21-2004 6:48 PM


Seems to be too many topics in this topic
Closed for review, may be reopened later.
In the future, please submit any topics to the "Proposed New Topics" forum.
See link below.
Adminnemooseus
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-21-2004]

WHERE TO GO TO START A NEW TOPIC (For other than "Welcome, Visitors!", "Suggestions and Questions", "Practice Makes Perfect", and "Short Subjects")
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 6 of 7 (101658)
04-21-2004 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by island
04-21-2004 6:24 PM


Proposed New Topics
Hi... I tried to post this in the Intelligent Design forum but I'm not authorized:
You are supposed to post to the "Proposed New Topics" area. When the topic is ready for "prime time" it will be moved to somewhere appropriate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by island, posted 04-21-2004 6:24 PM island has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 7 of 7 (101673)
04-21-2004 7:54 PM


Please try again
I've reviewed, as best I can, your opening 4 messages. Frankly, I'm boggled by it all.
I suggest you try to condense down your essential points to 1 message that is no longer than any of the individual messages 1 through 4. Focus in on something - We can't successfully have a topic that covers "the universe, and everything of the universe".
Please submit your topic to the "Proposed New Topics" forum. The link to get to the appropriate "Post New Topic" button is in my "signature", below.
Adminnemooseus

WHERE TO GO TO START A NEW TOPIC (For other than "Welcome, Visitors!", "Suggestions and Questions", "Practice Makes Perfect", and "Short Subjects")
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024