Monday, August 14, 2006

Application of the Anthropic Principle

Island, over at Science in Crisis, asked me to comment on his post Global Warming too?... what next, politics? after reading my thoughts regarding Critics of Global Warming. I am going to duplicate my thoughts here for archival purposes:




Island was kind enough to invite me to comment on this discussion. I am pleased to do so, since we can all learn if we all talk.

It would seem at first reading that Island believes in the strong anthropic principle, whereas I believe in the weak anthropic principle. The two are very different, indeed. The strong version insists that everything will always work out because we are meant to be here. I think that is a great way of burying one's head in the sand.

I am an evolutionist, for the simple reason that the evolutionary algorithm is testable and, further, I have tested it with computer models. It is a simple and elegant theory which explains much. The evolutionary algorithm has ramifications for this discussion because it can explain our likely future if we continue to "piss in our rice bowl". I once created a small agent model to show what happens to a human society when they overreach their environment's capacity to support them. Try it. Read the text under the applet and then try running the model with the default settings. Then try varying the settings. Download the source code and look at the algorithms I used. In many, many cases, humans simply starve to death. All of them. The environment eventually recovers. Unless you can find a reason to dispute the underlying presumptions of the model, the result should cause you to agree with David Suzuki: The Earth is not in trouble. We are.

The weak anthropic principle, on the other hand, states that, of all the possible ways the universe could have evolved, at least one of them had to allow us to evolve. No hand of God is implicated, in spite of Island's suggestion to the contrary. The weak anthropic principle makes no claim about our future at all. It does not guarantee our safety. It does not suggest that the universe is not a dangerous place. It leaves room for us to become just another evolutionary dead end. It is up to us to stop that from happening. We have a better chance of manipulating the situation for our own survival than any species before us, but we have to work for it.

The economic principle the Tragedy of the Commons illustrates our situation best. Humans have become the undisputed top predator in our environment. No other species threatens us now. As we compete with each other, we fall into the Tragedy of the Commons, where the common good is subsumed by short-term greed. That was not critical to the entire species before, although we certainly saw the effect when the Greeks destroyed their farming centers through poor irrigation, Rome devastated Libya's fields and China began its cycle of spasmotic famines. Now the Commons stretches across the globe. We only have two choices: Allow the Tragedy of the Commons to play out once again, collapsing our civilization the way it has collapsed others or agree that the common good really should take precedence this time.

7 comments:

  1. And my replies were...

    Methinks that prototypo doesn't have a clue what island thinks, and he sure doesn't recognize the correct application of burying one's head in the sand when it comes to the AP and evolutionary theory.

    I invite you to read some of my blog and then start over.

    5:26 PM


    island said...
    Nevermind, clown, you're done before you every got out of the gate.


    Prototypo lost his mind and said:
    No hand of God is implicated, in spite of Island's suggestion to the contrary


    A clear example of the kinds of pre-prejudicially biased false assumptions that these losers ALWAYS make, all the way up the ladder, while calling themselves honest and on the side of science.

    If I played with this guy, then his next move would be willful denial of the significance of the physics for the anthropic principle, even though his lame arguments will have already been shot all to hell all over this site and on my webpage.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Glad I stopped by to pop into this discussion.

    What disturbs me about the strong anthropic principle (SAP) is the arrogance that is implied in the idea that the universe was designed to support our existence. In my mind SAP implies a lack of imagination on our part. Are we so sure that if the universe came into being with different physical parameters that do not admit life as we know it, another form of life would not emerge? I argue that we can not dismiss that outcome.

    Why is it that folks get so disturbed by the application of the scientific method? Are they afraid of that which they do not understand? Or do they feel their faith is being challenged? So it is best to lash out with purely emotional invective? I fail to understand.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dude, I am a natural agnostic default atheist.

    Does that clear anything up for your irrationally preconceiving mind?

    I didn' think so.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Island wrote:
    Methinks that prototypo doesn't have a clue what island thinks

    That may be so. I sincerely apologize for any misreading of your blog. It can be difficult to have a true discussion in this forum, which can limit understanding.

    However, I have read your blog and just now re-read it. I cannot agree with your understanding of the anthropic principle. Specifically, you say:

    The Anthropic Principle represents an effort by physicists to explain the structure of the universe from the fact that the forces are coincidentally balanced in a manner that constrains it to evolve to a point that it produces carbon-based-life at a specific time and location in history the universe, in dramatic contrast to what is indicated by any practical model of turbulance driven structuring that should result from our big bang.

    The weak anthropic principle does not constrain the universe to evolve in a particular way. That is a misunderstanding of the principle. The universe is free to evolve in any way it is able, based on its initial state and laws of physics. Instead, it is a recognition that one of the many possible ways it did evolve lead to us and so our branch of the evolutionary tree must be allowable by the laws of physics from the initial state. As my son says, no duh. The weak anthropic principle is backward-looking and rather obvious. I am very comfortable with the weak anthropic principle.

    Island quotes from and contributes to anthropic-principle.org, which takes a particular stand in relation to the anthropic principle. Again, I have read it but don't agree. It suggests a middle ground between the strong and weak versions of the principle, where humans were bound ("constrained") to evolve. Perhaps that is so, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I think it is way too early to make blithe statements like that.

    Island: If I have misrepresented your opinions, please tell me. If you disagree with me, please say so. You have obviously thought about the issues. I would be interested if you could present evidence or a reason to believe that humans are necessary in any universe which could evolve. You might note however that my opinions are more often swayed by rational argument than by insults.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That may be so. I sincerely apologize for any misreading of your blog. It can be difficult to have a true discussion in this forum, which can limit understanding.

    Okay.

    However, I have read your blog and just now re-read it. I cannot agree with your understanding of the anthropic principle. Specifically, you say:

    The Anthropic Principle represents an effort by physicists to explain the structure of the universe from the fact that the forces are coincidentally balanced in a manner that constrains it to evolve to a point that it produces carbon-based-life at a specific time and location in history the universe, in dramatic contrast to what is indicated by any practical model of turbulance driven structuring that should result from our big bang.

    The weak anthropic principle does not constrain the universe to evolve in a particular way. That is a misunderstanding of the principle. The universe is free to evolve in any way it is able, based on its initial state and laws of physics. Instead, it is a recognition that one of the many possible ways it did evolve lead to us and so our branch of the evolutionary tree must be allowable by the laws of physics from the initial state. As my son says, no duh. The weak anthropic principle is backward-looking and rather obvious. I am very comfortable with the weak anthropic principle.

    No, that depends entirely on which cosmological model is in effect, and the anthropic principle most definitely did come about, (and still remains the only answer for why) the initial condition were what the were. This AP is not and never was about clueless neo-Darwinian extensions, regardless of what its rabid supporters would like to have us believe.

    Does your son know that the AP is incomplete? Did your son attempt "further development" of the "line of thought" that Brandon Carter said needs to be done? Does your son think that Barrow and Tipler added anything that wasn't known since the 19th century?

    Have you ever once bothered to use your **unbelievably** good imagination for finding ways around the implication for significance to figure-out how and why we might be entirely necessary to the physics of the universe?

    I think not.

    Are you "comfortable" with your belief, because it supports your world-view?

    I think so.

    Island quotes from and contributes to anthropic-principle.org, which takes a particular stand in relation to the anthropic principle. Again, I have read it but don't agree. It suggests a middle ground between the strong and weak versions of the principle, where humans were bound ("constrained") to evolve. Perhaps that is so, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I think it is way too early to make blithe statements like that.

    Again, for the reasons that I've given, and without even touching on the coincidentally balanced nature of your alleged "random evolution", you're wrong, unless you have a mechanism in your back pocket that explains the structure of the universe that doesn't require extra entities.

    Island: If I have misrepresented your opinions, please tell me. If you disagree with me, please say so. You have obviously thought about the issues. I would be interested if you could present evidence or a reason to believe that humans are necessary in any universe which could evolve. You might note however that my opinions are more often swayed by rational argument than by insults.

    prototypo, making the assumption that I am a creationist from the fact that I support "anthropic specialness" is the greatest form of insult that you can levy on me.

    Got it?

    Not because you called me a creationist, which, I don't really care about, rather, because you went straight down the path that the maniacs involved in the CrEvo debate ALWAYS do, and in spite of the fact that the AP was originated by atheist scientists that were simply trying to solve an otherwise impossible problem.

    pLEASE!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I wrote:
    Have you ever once bothered to use your **unbelievably** good imagination for finding ways around the implication for significance to figure-out how and why we might be entirely necessary to the physics of the universe?

    I think not.


    Did you know that a true anthropic constraint on the forces NECESSARILY entails a connection to evolutionary theory that makes the SELF-EVIDENT prediction in this context that there exists a mechanism which enbales the universe to "leap".

    Where in science is this OBVIOUS connection made?

    Why hasn't this OBVIOUS connection been made and explored with vigor, given that this would very simply resolve causality and the chaotic state of string theory and all attempts to formulate a valid theory of quantum gravity?

    There's only one reason, and it has absolutely nothing to do with science!

    ReplyDelete
  7. *Sigh* I just love trying to have a discussion with those who can't clearly make their argument and who therefore resort to abuse. Nevertheless:

    Sure, I see that the anthropic principle necessarily entails a connection to evolutionary theory. At least in so far as the laws of physics must allow for evolution to occur, but not so far as the laws of physics demanding that it occur. I have no idea what you mean by "leap". Do you care to explain it?

    ReplyDelete