Goldilocks Enigma

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Goldilocks Enigma (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/6035233.stm)

Well the premis of the goldilocks enigma is "why is the universe just right for life? when the odds are really so low"

What i think and i hope im right is that the goldilocks enigma isnt really a question that needs to be asked.

To me the goldilocks enigma seems to be saying that " Human life exists, the universe is just right for human life, whats the answer for this? maybe its god?!?!!"

When isnt this the same thing as theists used to do prior to the discoveries of modern science?

Like, the idea that the sun rotated around the earth. The Earth being at the center of the universe. The people who were asking the questions were placing some reverance st the feet of humankind.

The Goldilocks enigma seems to be doing the same thing.

Shouldnt the argument be that because the universe IS the way it is, that human life has developed purely by CHANCE which has allowed us to contemplate existential questions.

My point is, if the universe were not able to support life, we wouldnt be aware of that fact to realise it. Buts thats not the case, so we do realise it.

I hope someone can lend me their insight.

ps. ive been up all night so some stuff might not make total sense.

[apathy maybe]

What is science? (An upcoming thread of mine will be devoted to this topic, as soon as I finish all my uni studies and sit down and right my arguments.)

Personally I think that the Anthropic Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic+Principle) (which it seems is what this Goldilocks thing is about, without having read the article), is a load of shit. The universe does not exist for humans, it just exists. It also happens that humans have evolved with in the universe.

Materialists should reject such rubbish, humans aren't special.

[mikelepore]

I'd say it's untrue that the universe is "just right for life." If it's so rare to find a planet with liquid water, rare to find a planet with a magnetic field to shield stellar radiation, and it's even rare to find a planet with metal atoms so there will be a solid surface to stand on, how is such a universe "just right" for life to form and continue?

Sure, there are some interesting questions the stability of atoms. The electrical and nuclear forces are able to reach an equilibrium in the nucleus.

If people want to investigate why the universe is just right for the formation of matter, I find that interesting. But the universe isn't at all just right for life. Most of the places, and most of the time, the environment is miserably unsuitable for life.

Mike Lepore

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It's unscientific to say that the universe is just right for human life. Rather, human life is just right for the universe.

[Don't Change Your Name]

This is very stupid.

This assumes that somehow there's something very "special" about us, but I'd like to see people who see the fact that they exist as such a "magical" thing to go to live to the Sun or to Saturn or to a black hole.


It's unscientific to say that the universe is just right for human life. Rather, human life is just right for the universe.

Yeah, in fact we exist so that the universe can live...

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

No.
The original postulation held that the universe was suited for human life. The reality of the matter is that humans have evolved to become suited for the universe.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 13 2006, 12:26 PM
No.
The original postulation held that the universe was suited for human life. The reality of the matter is that humans have evolved to become suited for the universe.
DR.RP is right, humans just didn't magic out of thin air one day. They came over a prolonged period of time each step of the way they changed a bit to help them live in the universe. Not the other way around.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Bah, I can't even make a "non-serious statement which is obviously ridiculous" without screwing it up somehow (ie misunderstanding what someone else said in some way). Maybe I should just accept I suck at this crap and that I'm not even funny...

[Kia]

I dont get what the hell the author of this book is trying to point at. He states that the universe does look like it was designed for life, then in the beginning of Extract 3 hes goes onto say:

At the end of the day, all the approaches I have discussed are likely to prove unsatisfactory. In fact, in reviewing them they all seem to me to be either ridiculous or hopelessly inadequate: a unique universe which just happens to permit life by a fluke; a stupendous number of alternative parallel universes which exist for no reason; a pre-existing God who is somehow self-explanatory; or a self-creating, self-explaining, self-understanding universe-with observers, entailing backward causation and teleology.
Its completely hypocritical. For the universe to be "designed" it would have to have a designer. Its called "prime mover" in philosohpy. If everything was caused by something, then something must have started it all. Basically its an arguement for the existance of God (the God of western religions at least). So in the quote he is saying that the idea of God is ridiculous! Which means the universe has no designer, then it cant be "designed". Who the fuck knows what this guy is trying to say.
At the end of the quote he writes that man may not have the ability to even know or think about something as amazing as this.

Personally, Im more then content to believe that the universe formed by luck, chance, or some fluke. No god, No design, No purpose. Maybe science can figure out in the future what "started" the universe, but i will not jump on the religion wagon.

The statement was not " That the original universe was suited for human life" in the article, but rather the universe was suited for LIFE. Life being something living. Doesnt have to be human.

I agree and disagree with Mike Lepore's statement about this article. Yes the universe is currently from our knowledge extremely unsuitable for life as we know it. I do disagree though about water, magentic fields, and metal atoms. As we all know ( i hope so) the universe is HUGE, Incredibly big. Man has also only just begun to really explore the universe and human civilization will proper never completely understand it. From what we know there is little planets with magnetic fields around it. Planets with ground are rare too, but we have found them. Water can be found in our very own solar system, take a look at mars. Ice caps. Mar's has ice caps which contain water in them. There are other planets in the universe with water on them too. If we are to find life that is similair to earth life then we will have to find a planet that meets earth's life criteria, this may never happen, but considering how much is out there..id lay a good bet it exists out there somewhere.

[island]

The universe does not exist for humans, it just exists.

Why would you automatically think that humans don't exist for the benefit of the universe, rather than the other way round?

Personally I think that the Anthropic Principle (which it seems is what this Goldilocks thing is about, without having read the article), is a load of shit.

And I'll bet that I can prove that you know next to nothing about the anthropic principle, other than what you've read on atheists-R-us.

I'd say it's untrue that the universe is "just right for life." If it's so rare to find a planet with liquid water, rare to find a planet with a magnetic field to shield stellar radiation, and it's even rare to find a planet with metal atoms so there will be a solid surface to stand on, how is such a universe "just right" for life to form and continue?

That isn't what the physics derives. Rather, it makes the testable prediction that life only exists on planets that fit the goldilocks criterion. "Testable prediction"... being the operative phrase.

DR.RP is right, humans just didn't magic out of thin air one day. They came over a prolonged period of time each step of the way they changed a bit to help them live in the universe. Not the other way around.

Yes, the evolutionary physics for the anthropic principle notes that we are environmentally enabled to evolve over time.

Its completely hypocritical. For the universe to be "designed" it would have to have a designer. Its called "prime mover" in philosohpy. If everything was caused by something...

No, what's hypocritical is that you "FiloSofErs" think that nothing can even exist, when every last shred of evidence that we have at our disposal indicates exactly the opposite.

There are other planets in the universe with water on them too. If we are to find life that is similair to earth life then we will have to find a planet that meets earth's life criteria, this may never happen, but considering how much is out there..id lay a good bet it exists out there somewhere.

The "Goldilocks Enigma" makes the testable prediction that this is correct, and it also tells us exactly where to point the radio telescopes, so put your money where your mouth is.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Island are you a Theist?

[island]

Nope, but your question demonstrates to me from a lot of experience with this that my answer is more important to you than the science is.

No offense, it's just the "typical".

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Nope, but your question demonstrates to me from a lot of experience with this that my answer is more important to you than the science is.

No offense, it's just the "typical".



Well i thought you might be the one taking offense because your post seemed pretty hostile.

[island]

Yeah, I pretty much hate both extremes of the ideological spectrum for what they've done to this important science.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 04:57 PM
The universe does not exist for humans, it just exists.

Why would you automatically think that humans don't exist for the benefit of the universe, rather than the other way round?
Lack of any real evidence? A universe truly suited to humanity certianly would not be as mind bogglingly huge, and that's just for starters. The vast majority of the absloutley mahooosive universe is completeley uninhabitable for us,


Personally I think that the Anthropic Principle (which it seems is what this Goldilocks thing is about, without having read the article), is a load of shit.

And I'll bet that I can prove that you know next to nothing about the anthropic principle, other than what you've read on atheists-R-us. Go on then.


I'd say it's untrue that the universe is "just right for life." If it's so rare to find a planet with liquid water, rare to find a planet with a magnetic field to shield stellar radiation, and it's even rare to find a planet with metal atoms so there will be a solid surface to stand on, how is such a universe "just right" for life to form and continue?

That isn't what the physics derives. Rather, it makes the testable prediction that life only exists on planets that fit the goldilocks criterion. "Testable prediction"... being the operative phrase. So it says that life exists on planets that can support life? That's a tautology, not a new or interesting idea.


DR.RP is right, humans just didn't magic out of thin air one day. They came over a prolonged period of time each step of the way they changed a bit to help them live in the universe. Not the other way around.

Yes, the evolutionary physics for the anthropic principle notes that we are environmentally enabled to evolve over time. Bollocks, that assumes that the environment has been designed for us to evolve into, almost that it's conscious or the product of a conscious being. (Quick reality check here - it isn't). We adapat to an environment, it - being the inflexible bugger that it is - does not change for us.


Its completely hypocritical. For the universe to be "designed" it would have to have a designer. Its called "prime mover" in philosohpy. If everything was caused by something...

No, what's hypocritical is that you "FiloSofErs" think that nothing can even exist, when every last shred of evidence that we have at our disposal indicates exactly the opposite. Why the dodgy spelling? Show me this "evidence"


There are other planets in the universe with water on them too. If we are to find life that is similair to earth life then we will have to find a planet that meets earth's life criteria, this may never happen, but considering how much is out there..id lay a good bet it exists out there somewhere.

The "Goldilocks Enigma" makes the testable prediction that this is correct, and it also tells us exactly where to point the radio telescopes, so put your money where your mouth is. Has anyone tested these predictions to prove them true or false, if you're so fucking sure you can pin-point all the 'Goldilocks' planets, which is what you seem to be saying.

[island]

Why would you automatically think that humans don't exist for the benefit of the universe, rather than the other way round?
Lack of any real evidence?

nono... you missed the point of the question, which was meant to show that the assumption had been made that somebody was claiming that the universe was made for our benefit.

The argument for evidence was not at issue, as a conclusion had been made IF the evidence is accepted.

See, this is the problem from the get-go. NO fool would buy that interpretation, unless they believed-in the creationists hype, that an admission that evidence exists that we're not here by accident, constitutes evidence FOR god.

The whole method of "critical" thinking here is both, wrong, and non-scientific.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 11:34 PM

Why would you automatically think that humans don't exist for the benefit of the universe, rather than the other way round?
Lack of any real evidence?

nono... you missed the point of the question, which was meant to show that the assumption had been made that somebody was claiming that the universe was made for our benefit.
You could have worded it more clearly.

[island]

Go on then.

The anthropic coincidences are balanced (http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/instability.gif) between diametrically opposing <-|-> runaway tendencies that have been unfolding since the big bang. The near-perfect "flat" structuring of the universe is one of these, but they occur all the way down to our local ecobalance.

The evolutionary physics that defines the "just-right" conditions for the goldilocks constraint applies to other systems that are similarly developed, time and location-wise, as ours is:

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/mar31/anthropic.html

The goldilocks enigma constrains the parameters to a balance of extremes... so it only applies to 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:

http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/spr/2006-02/msg0073181.html

This also resolves 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.

Um... just an FYI, but that&#39;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 accurate... overstated:

"Is the Strong Anthropic Principle Too Weak?"
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9812093

We discuss the Carter&#39;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.


... and uh... when you apply the Goldilocks Enigma, rather than the mediocrity principle, then a more accurate and testable formula falls-out along with a more accurate statement about a strong biocentric principle.

So as a consequence, the Goldilocks Enigma predicts that life will not be found on either, Mars nor Venus because Earth represents the balance of these extreme opposite runaway tendencies, and this is indeed being tested at this very moment.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by island+--> (island)The universe does not exist for humans, it just exists.

Why would you automatically think that humans don&#39;t exist for the benefit of the universe, rather than the other way round?[/b]
I don&#39;t think that any non made thing exists for any purpose at all. The reason that I say the universe does not exist for humans, rather then humans do not exist for the universe (which is also the case) is that most people are anthropocentric to say the second would just be pointless.


Originally posted by island+--> (island)Personally I think that the Anthropic Principle (which it seems is what this Goldilocks thing is about, without having read the article), is a load of shit.

And I&#39;ll bet that I can prove that you know next to nothing about the anthropic principle, other than what you&#39;ve read on atheists-R-us.[/b]Haha. The anthropic principle says that the universe is this way for so that humans can exist (or something similar, depending on whom you talk to). This is a non-materialist claim. As a materialist I think it is a load of shit. Now as to "atheists-R-is", I learnt what I know from philosophy courses at university.


Originally posted by bloody_capitalist_sham
Island are you a Theist?

Originally posted by island
Nope, but your question demonstrates to me from a lot of experience with this that my answer is more important to you than the science is.

No offense, it&#39;s just the "typical".There is nothing scientific about believing that the universe was created for humans (or vis-versa). Knowing whether or not you believe in a God is important because it enables people to know where you are coming from.


[email protected]
Yeah, I pretty much hate both extremes of the ideological spectrum for what they&#39;ve done to this important science.It is not a science. It is bullshit. Sciences tends to use empirical evidence, and be based on a materialist outlook. This isn&#39;t, therefore it is not science.
In fact, I&#39;ll say it again, it is bullshit (or simply shit if you wish).


island
nono... you missed the point of the question, which was meant to show that the assumption had been made that somebody was claiming that the universe was made for our benefit.

The argument for evidence was not at issue, as a conclusion had been made IF the evidence is accepted.

See, this is the problem from the get-go. NO fool would buy that interpretation, unless they believed-in the creationists hype, that an admission that evidence exists that we&#39;re not here by accident, constitutes evidence FOR god.

The whole method of "critical" thinking here is both, wrong, and non-scientific.
OK, so the claim that the universe was made for "our benefit" was not made as such. So I was rejecting the conclusion before &#39;seeing the evidence&#39;. But you know what? I don&#39;t actually care.

The evidence seems to me to be impossible to substantiate. It is just a bunch of &#39;coincidences&#39;. I stand by my claim of this crap being not materialist, and thus not scientific. It is like claiming that astrology is scientific.

[RebelDog]

I have always understood that the anthroplic principle is saying that because of the physical laws of this universe this enables humans to exist where an enormous number of computational universes which are all different to ours and each other would not allow humans to exist. Things like the quantum mechanical effect of &#39;zero point energy&#39; which is responsible for ice floating on water and not sinking, a tiny thing but an essential quality for complex life on earth. If our universe was tweeked even slightly we would not be around to ask "why do we exist" so why ask? There are an infinate amount of universes each with different physical rules but only one where a human can ask "why do I exist" so its not a suprise that in that universe that a human asks himself/herself such a question because it is the only place it can be asked by the person asking it.

The anthropic principle doesn&#39;t mean things like a god it actually states the bleeding obvious. Evolution is guided by the physical laws of the universe not the other way around.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

You only need to open your eyes to realize the universe isn&#39;t "Just right". In fact, relatively speaking, the universe is incredibly shit at sustaining life. As far as I know, earth is the only place where we&#39;ve got past the stage of bacteria. When you think about the size of the universe, and only one tiny spinning rock sustains life... And even then, it doesn&#39;t do it wonderfully. Diseases, meteors, the sun will burn out at some point, etc etc. There are a multitude of ways the universe is geared to our destruction.

-Alex