Friday, July 28, 2006

A State of Silent Denial

The results are in at Scott Aaronson's blog:
"The anthropicism that had to win"

Aside from the fact that NONE of the entries correctly analogizes the physics for the AP, I made the following comment, which nobody bothered to acknowledge:

Greg Kuperberg had said:
Now that you've had your fun, you should realize that the anthropic principle is true, even though it is the source of so much bad science. It has something in common with the Copernican principle, that the Earth is not in a special position in the universe. After all, why would anyone ever have thought that it does? That question has an obvious anthropic explanation.

My reply went as follows:
Not quite. Neither the copernican principle, nor the principle of mediocrity apply to a universe that is observationally proven to be, "less-than-copernican", and this is what Brandon Carter was saying.

Although the following *SHOULD* have an affect on dogmatic anticentrists... alas... it has none:

Lawrence Krauss, (after his vacation Pow-Wow with the rest of the leading physicists of today's world), said:

When you look at [the cosmic microwave background] map, you see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.

I'd like to know when the game quits being one of "explaining-away" the hardest empirical evidence that exists in support of anthropic specialness?... rather than to look for some good physical reason why the implication for specialness might be true.

Where and when to scientists start acting like real scientists again?... in other words.

I'm guessing that never is too soon for most, and don't pretend that I don't have a damned good empirically supported point.

I said the same thing to this this clown, but he didn't have any problem at all admitting that he is a non-scientific loser:

I rest my case.

~ ~ ~

It was no surprise that neither Greg nor anyone else replied to my point, as they sit in silent denial. They can't shoot me down, so they simply ignore the point.

These people are not scientists, they are ideologically motivated losers.

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Anthropic Dogma... (repost)

UPDATE: This post, (including previous comments), needed to be moved to the top and added to, since this problem is constantly relevant to stuff that's going on in the fantasy world of creationists and string theorists, as well as their antifanatical counterparts. Speaking of which, the latest comes to us from Scott Aaronson, who is currently holding a very lame contest for the, uh... "Best" anthropicism. This has spread among other "science" blogs:

And I imagine that it will only be a matter of time before the playful little monkeys at Pharyngula will make their pilgrimage to Scott's place to add their Douglas Adams brand of cluelessness to the mix. I say, "imagine", because I haven't been back to Scott's after taking a few early shots at their non-applicable childishness, and I kinda doubt that he even left my comments on the board, but who knows?

Anyway... go visit the SideShow to see how not to do science, and that's as nice as I can be about it, because they don't even understand how thier mindset adversely affects the way that they do science.


I COMMONLY run into people who get their information from popularized websites that are ideologically motivated to take a stand against the anthropic principle because they believe that any implication that we are not here by accident necessarily constitutes evidence for the existence of god, and/or, an "intelligent designer".

They buy straight into the creationist hype, in other words, and they typically don't even care to know the real reason why the AP was introduced. It is not commonly understood what is meant by first principles in context with the Large Numbers Hypothesis that eventually lead to Brandon Carter's derivation of the anthropic principle as an alternative to the extended Copernican mentality that still dominates the mind of science to this day, in spite of the fact that our best observational evidence flat-out contradicts this anticentrist dogma to better than a 99% level of confidence.

The anthropic principle came about from an honest effort by physicists, like Herman Bondi, Fred Hoyle, Robert Dicke, and Paul Dirac, who kept running up against the same problems that we have today when trying to find a causal explanation for the physical structuring of the universe. Many think that the popularizers of the principle, Barrow and Tipler, invented it themselves, when in reality, Brandon Carter wasn't even the first person to state the principle in it's current incomplete form.

At the conference in Cracow, in 1973, Brandon Carter said that the AP respresents a line of thought against exaggerated subservience to the Copernican-like Cosmological model that falls from the General Principle of Relativity, which requires all observers to experience the same laws of physics, so at any given time, the universe will be both homogeneous and isotropic, (in 3-D space). As previously noted this is not what is observed, and it has prompted Lawrence Krauss to note the following in his recent interview with "edge":
...we live in one universe, so we're a sample of one. With a sample of one, you have what is called a large sample variance. And maybe this just means we're lucky, that we just happen to live in a universe where the number's smaller than you'd predict. But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.

The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is imply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales. And of course as a theorist I'm certainly hoping it's the latter, because I want theory to be wrong, not right, because if it's wrong there's still work left for the rest of us.

More on this can be found here:
Does the motion of the solar system affect the microwave sky?

Carter said that he believed that the AP was potentially fertile but that it needs further development.

It is equally arrogant to assume a purely copernican universe as it is to conclude that we are at the center of the universe, because it does not logically follow from the ecobalanced nature of the anthropic coincidences and the large scale observational evidence, that life is as completely insignificant as a copernican principle would demand by extension. Carter called this anti-centrist approach, "dogma"... which in its most extreme form led to the "Perfect Cosmological Principle".

Modern anti-centrists and religious "anti-fanatics" are no less arrogant due to their pre-existing pre-dispositioning toward appealing to causality-lacking answers. Carter's observation clearly indicates that they still dogmatically deny the evidence in order to chase the same "random" extreme to the exact same meaningless dead-end. They have an **unbelievably** good imagination when it comes to avoiding any implication for anthropic prference, but absolutely none when it comes to embracing the idea:

What if... there's an uncertain infinite multiverse of quantum weird randomness... ? ... or something just as good...

uh-huh, What if... the freaking implications are true?... didya ever think of that?

Is John Wheeler the ONLY other person on earth besides me that is willing to even look in this context... ? How lame is that if it is true and the ToE is contingent, since an anthropic cosmological constraint *can* potentially either unify or explain *why* the forces can't be unified.

ANOTHER common misconception is that the anthropic cosmological principle is giving up on first principles, and so it runs contrary to the spirit of science, but it is not even possible to arrive at that conclusion without willfully ignoring that Brandon Carter never said that the AP was complete... e.g., potentially fertile, but that it needs further development.

The anthropic principle isn't giving up on first principles, rather, a failure to look for good physical reason why the implication for specialness is true, runs contrary to the spirit of HONEST science. I can't help but to shake my head whenever I hear someone say that, since the most popular alternative methods for picking the configuration of our universe are about as causality-dodging as scientific methods get!

Carter also pointed out that our situation is not necessarily central, it is inevitably privileged to some extent.

This point is critically important to this, (although, widely ignored), because the anthropic principle readily extends to, and cannot be restricted from incuding planets that inhabit every spiral galaxy that evolved within the same "plane/layer/habitable-zone" of conditions, (time and location-wise), as our own galaxy, (in terms of the commonality and continuity in the evolution of the same basic raw materials that were produced by our observed carbon chauvinistic universe). In this case, the principle is "biocentric", meaning that life is *more-generally* important to the physics of the universe at this particular time in its history, and so it will *necessarily* be every bit as common to this region of universe as the physical need for it demands.

In this same scientific context, real HONEST scientists will ask questions like; 'I wonder if intelligent life does something that *cumulatively* affects the physics of the universe and makes it necessary to the process?'

There is a valid physics question about the most-apparent evidence for the intrinsic finality within goal-oriented thermodynamic structuring in nature that has nothing to do with god, nor any form of intelligent "designer", but this is rarely, (if ever) recognized by either side of the "debate". There is an openly hostile and ideologically motivated effort to downplay scientific interpretations that include the appearance of "anthropic specialness" which occurs as a result of the debate, and the effect is to blind science to the potential that the anthropic principles has for making predictions about life elsewhere in the cosmos, as well as more locally.

If the most accurate cosmological principle is biocentric in nature, then the principle is telling us the good physical reason why the forces are constrained in the manner that they are. This science should not be ignored because politics and misplaced perceptions about geocentric arrogance get in the way.

SOMBODY has to be unafraid to look...



3:51 AM
Anonymous said...
I really enjoyed looking at your site, I found it very helpful indeed, keep up the good work.

3:56 AM
Simone Severini said...
I find this post very interesting. Finally, some proper information about the anthropic principle.

6:34 PM
island said...
Thank you, Simone, I recommend that you take a look at my web page at:


There is a whole library's worth of information about it at that location.

Thanks again!

More comments can be added below.