Thursday, May 18, 2006

Fine-Tuning from first principles... again

You don't like the Lindblad Equation?

Okay, then let's try ecosystems:

All of the anthropic coincidences are ecobalanced "just-so", in a "goldilocks" manner, between diametrically opposing runaway tendencies.

And "coincidentally"... ecosystems are also the most effecient means for uniformly disseminating energy, because they spread the process out over numerous "topological hotspots", over an extended period of time.

So, an expanding universe assumes the form that conserves energy and the second law of thermodynamics via an ecobalanced configuration that maximizes entropy.

What's the problem?

2 comments:

Neil' said...

Briefly: I can see that having just the right laws and constants would allow life to form (well, let's put aside the controversy - ? - over whether even then, the right molecules would form and properly interact...) That at least is a logical consequence of the lawfulness expressed in those particular rules.

However, if things do need to be balanced just right between unstable states, well - what is keeping them balanced? Isn't that your question and the perplexity?

island said...

No, my point is that this is the most natural, (the only), configuration that our expanding universe could have. The balance is fixed, in other words.

Given the discussed physical necessity for dissipative structuring, how can it be any different?

How can the expansion process maximize the entropic effort per the least action principle if the universe is not economically restricted to dissipate energy in the most "fuel-efficient" manner possible?

The principle of least action was first formulated by Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis, who said that "Nature is thrifty in all its actions".

How is energy conserved if work isn't maximized?

There is no problem.