Sunday, February 11, 2007

The Goldilocks Enigma, again...

Circumstellar Habitable Zone - Ecobalance - Ecosphere

The evolving physics that define the vast array of coincidetally balanced, "just-right" conditions that make up the Goldilocks Enigma, ranges dramatically in magnitude and time, from the near-"flat", balanced structuring of the universe, itself, all the way down to our own local self-regulating ecobalance, whose chaotic cycles we directly contribute to enhance over time. These "ecospheres" began unfolding at the moment of the big bang, but it took most of 14 billion years to bring them all to "fruition", so claims that this structure defining physics isn't **necessarily** pointed directly at carbon based life, are, at least *apparently* absurd, and must be justified with something more than "somewhat" established cutting-edge physics speculations.

The relevant anthropic physics isn't strictly geocentric, however, because the same conditions also apply to other galaxy systems that are similarly evolved, time and location-wise, as ours is:

The Goldilocks Enigma constrains the parameters to a balance of extremes... so it only applies to the ecosphere of galaxies that formed on the same evolutionary time/location "plane" as we did. Planets orbiting stars in galaxies that are too old or too new, too large or too small, do not fit the "coincidentally balanced" nature as the average of extremes... etc... etc... ect... all the way down to the local ecobalances of the ones that do, and life will only arise on planets in galaxies, (and universes), where ALL of the anthropic coincidences are simultaneously in effect.

The "cosmological principle" derives a "mediocre" a priori statistical distribution of values of observables, but this is not what is observed and is the reason for the anthropic physics that defines the "Goldilocks Enigma", so the combined effect of the cosmological principle with the goldilocks constraint extends to the observed universe to produce a biocentric cosmological principle.

This also addresses the alleged, Fermi "Paradox", as well, since we should not *yet* expect to hear from similarly developed intelligent life, because their radio transmissions have not had time to reach us... *yet*... either.

That's a testable prediction about where and when life will most likely be found elsewhere in the universe.

This paper by A. Feoli, and S. Rampone, further discusses this in context with similarly developed systems, but they fail to take the balance of extremes that defines the "Goldilocks Enigma" into account here, because they apply the mediocrity principle, instead, so their formula and anthropic statement are not quite accurately inserted into their large scale equation, as would be the case if they'd considered the entire set of anthropic balance points that evolve, so their solution and anthropic statement are generalized and overstated, rather than being specific and pointed toward a fine layer of similarly evolved galaxies, stars, and planets:

"Is the Strong Anthropic Principle Too Weak?"

We discuss the Carter's formula about the mankind evolution probability following the derivation proposed by Barrow and Tipler. We stress the relation between the existence of billions of galaxies and the evolution of at least one intelligent life, whose living time is not trivial, all over the Universe. We show that the existence probability and the lifetime of a civilization depend not only on the evolutionary critical steps, but also on the number of places where the life can arise. In the light of these results, we propose a stronger version of Anthropic Principle.

When you apply the Goldilocks Enigma, rather than the mediocrity principle, then a much more accurate and testable formula falls-out along with a more accurate statement about a strong biocentric principle, so this "coincidental" Enigma extends to include every similarly evolved galaxy that exists in the same common "layer" of galaxies as we do. The average of extreme opposing runaway tendencies that are common to the anthropic coincidences make many testable predictions about the observed universe.

Like, life, (past or present), will not be found on Mars nor Venus, but it will be found in other galaxy systems along the layer of spacetime that makes-up the goldilocks enigma. Venus suffers from the runaway greenhouse effect, whereas Mars represents the cold stagnate proof of what will happen if extremist environmentalists get things all their way too, so heed the lesson of this anthropic coincidence.


Jakob Tomasovich said...

I am not knowledgeable enough to judge the correctness of your post, but I do know that there is no "enigma" to be solved. That is unless I am under some illusion as to the point of the goldilocks enigma.

It seems to me that the very same "enigma" exists in any possible world.

We could always ask "how is it that the world is 'just right' for x?" Where x is some situation which obtains in that world.

There is nothing particularly special about life which separates from other possible values of x.

Of course it is possible that I have completely missed the point of the supposed enigma in which case I would appreciate a more informative response than the one you posted my blog.

island said...

It seems to me that the very same "enigma" exists in any possible world.

No, that's not correct, and this is magnified by the fact that you don't understand that "x" is expected to fall from normal, turbulance driven models for the evolution of the univeres, but what we ended up with instead is a whole bunch of balance points that are unexpectedly pointed at carbon based life.

The anthropic coincidences are also coincidentally balanced between diametrically opposing ***runaway*** tendencies, a situation which *cannot* be obtained in just any world, because the runaway effect sends conditions racing so far away from your wildest dreams for what constitutes conditions that are conducive to any form of life that you could imagine, that it would make your head swim.

So, yes, there is something "special", in terms of otherwise completely unexpected anthropic orientation.

That's why string theorists are still stuck with the AP, because "alternative explanations" for the structure of the universe never seem to fully pan-out.

What they miss is the strong implication that we are somehow relevant and necessary to that mechanism, and that's the shame in all of this, because few will even look for something like this, much less try to explain it in that manner, like John Wheeler did.

Jakob Tomasovich said...

There is nothing remarkable about the occurrence of some unlikely events. Nor is it remarkable that some such occurrences eventually help to bring about an arbitrary state of affairs.

Perhaps I misunderstood your argument, but it seems to be based on an anthropocentric viewpoint.

So, yes, there is something "special", in terms of otherwise completely unexpected anthropic orientation.

If a similarly unlikely set of circumstances had brought about a situation in which life didn't occur, I doubt you would find that remarkable (and not just because you wouldn't exist). Yet life is just as arbitrary as any other state of affairs which might result from such a set of coincidences. It is not special is this sense.

island said...

I don't think that you understand. This is not a matter of random chance, "luck of the draw", lottery-winning, probabilities, as you seem to think that it is, unless you allow semi-established or speculative and unproven physics theories.

When we project our best *established* theories for modeling the evolution of the universe, they do not come anywhere close to what is "normally" or naturally predicted by the theory.

Do you see what I'm saying now?... there is a contradiction to the expectation of normal physics which has nothing to do with your attempted point, AND the UNEXPECTED structuring is also EXTREMELY specific and pointed toward the existence of carbon based life.

In this context, the structure of the universe can be derived from first principles, and THAT implication supercedes all other explanations, in lieu of a more accurate PROVEN theory, per the scientific method.

Got it, yet?

james said...

I'm having trouble seeing what you're getting at - as far as I can tell, you seem to be saying that the anthropic principle is insufficient to explain the delicate balance of extremes which appears tailored to the emergence of carbon based life.

If this is the case, what do you suggest as an alternative? It would seem to me that it's merely a question of degree, since any combination of random conditions could be arrived at, no matter how unlikely it seems.

Also, Lovelock's Gaia theory suggests that rather than these balances (as they occur in the context of our planet) being some chance occurrence, they're homeostatic in nature, much as is found in the human body.

Sorry if I've missed the point!

island said...

Actually, the point of this thread is that the 'the delicate balance of extremes which appears tailored to the emergence of carbon based life'... can be used to make many testable predictions.

I would agree with Lovelock that the anthropic coincidences are self-regulating, but it's just thermodynamics, the Earth and the universe are not a living entity.

If the anthropic coincidences are self regulating... then so is the cosmological constant, and that minor little detail throws a big monkey-wrench into the projections and assumptions of the cutting-edge.

Eddington also thought that the cosmological constant version of the general-relativistic field equation expressed the property that the universe was "self-gauging".

Coincidence?... I don't think so... more-like... an energy conservation law... but you should read more than one thread.

Adamwho said...

I don't see the mystery either just the anthropic principal.

Just because something is in general rare that doesn't mean that it never occurs. I don't even think that habitable planets in the Goldilocks zone are rare, there are probably billions in our galaxy.

So what is the probability of life forming on our planet: 100% because we are sitting here talking about it!

island said...

The point is that life in the specified region of the observed universe isn't rare at all, but you apparently don't know what a physics *principle* is... since probabilites have absolutely nothing to do with it... ;)

talorg said...

There is a satisfying symmetry to the entropic anthropic principle, which increases the more I find out about it.

I accept an extrapolation may be unsound, but if there are 'leaps' in complexity to higher levels, a higher level of complexity could be a supernatural entity. Thus the universe could evolve into a god.

Therefore, rather than God creating the universe and everything in it, the universe and everything in it may have create god!!

island said...

To each his own, but supernatural means "outside of nature", while the physics indicates that the goal of the system is to attain absolute symmetry via periodic evolutionary leaps to higher orders of entropic efficiency, which is just a thermodynamic function that occurs within nature.

So I don't see how you can "extrapolote" god from that, no matter how unsound the logic.

Anonymous said...

Boltzman's brains seems to be similar and in addition gives an explanation for the arrow of time. Does this not tie in with your idea.

island said...

Hi Anonymous,

No, not really. Do you know any physics, because this should give you the idea. If not, then maybe just read the first and last lines: