Tuesday, November 07, 2006

A Very Strong Anthropic Principle

Steven Weinberg quoted by Susskind in and interview by Greg Ross of American Scientist

Finally, I have heard the objection that, in trying to explain why the laws of nature are so well suited for the appearance and evolution of life, anthropic arguments take on some of the flavor of religion. I think that just the opposite is the case. Just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the wonderful adaptations of living forms could arise without supernatural intervention, so the string landscape may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator. I found this parallel well understood in a surprising place, a New York Times op-ed article by Christoph Schönborn, Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna. His article concludes as follows:

Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human nature by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.

There is evident irony in the fact that the cardinal seems to understand the issue much better than some physicists

-Greg Ross

That's not "irony", Greg, it is what Brandon Carter correctly identified as, "anticentrist dogma"... and it still does rule the minds of the vast majority of physicists.

Good reasons why science should not ignore the most apparent implications of the physics.

Evidence - Implication - Theory

1) It is an unavoidable fact that the anthropic coincidences are observed to be uniquely related to the structuring of the universe in a way that defies the most natural expectation for the evolution of the universe in a manner that is also highly-pointed toward the production of carbon based life at a specific time in its history, (and over an equally specific, fine-layer or region of the goldilocks zone of the observed universe). If you disallow unproven and speculative physics theory, then an evidentially supported implication does necessarily exist that carbon-based life is somehow "specially" 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 compells Richard Dawkins and Leonard Susskind to admit that the universe "appears designed" for life! There is no valid "weak" interpretation without a multiverse, because what is otherwise unexpectedly observed without the admission of speculation, is most-apparently geared toward the production of carbon-base life, and even intelligent life. Their confidence comes from the fact that their admissions are qualified by their shared "beleif" in unproven multiverse theories, but their interpretation is strictly limited to 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 somehow relevantly linked 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. We certainly do not automatically dismiss the "appearance" by first looking for rationale around the most apparent implication of evidence.

That's like pretending that your number one suspect doesn't even exist! There can be nothing other than self-dishonesty and pre-conceived prejudicial anticipation of the meaning that motivates this approach, and often *automatically* elicites false, ill-considered, and, therefore, necessarily flawed assumptions, that most often elicite equally false accusations about "geocentrism" and "creationism". That's not science, it's irrational reactionary skepticism that is driven without justification by sheer disbelief and denial.

2) At the very least, we can't honestly deny that an evidentially supported implication for a direct anthropic connection to the forces *most-apparently* does exist, unless we are willing to say that Leonard Susskind and Richard Dawkins, (as well as other historically noted and respected physicists), are lying to us about their true perception of the evidence. We must, therefore, be open to science that might be indicitive of this, or we cannot call ourselves honest unbiased scientists.

As such, it is unavoidable that we embrace the logically implicated possibilty that a true anthropic constraint on the forces of the universe might *necessarily* include a reciprocal connection to the human evolutionary process. Scientists should think long and hard about that, because this relates the human evolutionary process to the ever elusive structure mechanism, so the answer to the riddle of the near-flat expanding universe, as well as the rest of the anthropic coincidences, is expected to be revealed via this asymmetrical thermodynamic function, per the least action principle.

Given the potential impact that this has on the most accurate cosmological principle and model, any remote possibility that the above is true should be more than enough to make it so that it's not unreasonable to expect scientists giving equal time to this *distinct* possibility, since, (per the open admission of our mentioned scientists), the anthropic connection is the first *most-apparent* implication of the evidence without an infinite sea of potential to lose the *most obvious* implication in. There can't be any argument about the fact that the strong biocentric implication exists, unless someone can prove that the multiverse exists, or if you can otherwise prove that the stability mechansim is not inherently geared toward the production of carbon based life for some very practical physical reason, over a "golden region" of the observed universe.

That's what makes Leonard Susskind say that "we will be hard-pressed to answer the IDists"... if the landscape fails, although Lenny doesn't seem to be aware that *natural bias* is the default, if we're not here by accident, so ID doesn't even enter the picture and can't be inferred without direct proof. If we are not here by accident, then the default scientific approach is that there is simply some relevant physical reason why we are "needed" into existence by the natural physical process of our evolving universe, and this is what our intricate link to the commonly-balanced nature of the forces most logically indicates is going to be the case.

There is no valid basis for invoking weak multiverse interpretations to wipe-away the otherwise indicated significance, unless you're just debating with an extremist creationist. A scientist is obligated to accept the fact that she or he is being directed toward a bunch of balance points in nature that are intricately related to both the structure of the universe and the existence of carbon based life, and this is expected to somehow account for the otherwise completely unexpected structuring of the universe.

You can know that you're dealing with a self-dishonest scientist if they do not recognize that the above statements are factual and correct.



Anybody that wants to try, is welcome to prove me wrong about any of the above statements, if only you could...