25 Mar 09
3 edits
Seeing little sense in a principle requiring intelligent life to emerge while remaining indifferent to the possibility of its eventual extinction, Barrow and Tipler propose the:
"Final anthropic principle (FAP): Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out."
—[43]
Barrow and Tipler submit that the FAP is both a valid physical statement and "closely connected with moral values." FAP places strong constraints on the structure of the universe, constraints developed further in Tipler's The Physics of Immortality.[44]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
edit. Smacks of religion to me.
25 Mar 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI see what you are on about now. The weak anthropic principle has had one success when Hoyle predicted a resonance in carbon 12 which allowed fusion past helium to happen in stars - and therefore the elements needed to make us. The weak anthropic principle just states that the rules the universe works by must be more or less conducive to our existence. It´s reasonable enough and fairly obvious. Strong versions of the anthropic principle. where there is something special about humans, or conscious observers - or in this case information processing are invariably piles of horse manure.
Seeing little sense in a principle requiring intelligent life to emerge while remaining indifferent to the possibility of its eventual extinction, Barrow and Tipler propose the:
"Final anthropic principle (FAP): Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out."
...[text shortened]... [44]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
edit. Smacks of religion to me.
25 Mar 09
4 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtExcellent answer.
I see what you are on about now. The weak anthropic principle has had one success when Hoyle predicted a resonance in carbon 12 which allowed fusion past helium to happen in stars - and therefore the elements needed to make us. The weak anthropic principle just states that the rules the universe works by must be more or less conducive to our existence. ...[text shortened]... nscious observers - or in this case information processing are invariably piles of horse manure.
I'm out of my depth here so I'll apologise in advance but I'd really like to know
what the entropic effects of say a galaxy of information processors would have
on the expansion of the universe.
Is it possible at all that dark energy is related to information processing?
More pertinent to my original, ever so slightly psychotic thread.
If multiverses exist, can the dead communicate with the living?
26 Mar 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI agree ....
Towards the end of your life the machine will reveal itself to you.
It will begin with coincidence and deja vu. Slowly you will begin to question
time and meaning. After a while you will understand neither.
This is death.
It is not the instant release we are led to believe it is but a gradual decline
throughout life.
Those that you love will r ...[text shortened]... hift. They will
only see the inconsequence of a game unplayed.
But you are dead, believe me!
Half alive exists ... it is a state we move into and out of ... we move into 5%, 10%, 95% and 43% alive ...
Bit by bit as we grow older we spend less time in the high 90s and more in the low 30s slowly, slowly we are dragged down by the gravity of life and at times asymptotically approach 0% from above.
Unless, of course we can also go out with a BANG!
26 Mar 09
Originally posted by flexmoreSo if I were to cross a road blindfolded say 5 times in a row with a 10% probability
I agree ....
Half alive exists ... it is a state we move into and out of ... we move into 5%, 10%, 95% and 43% alive ...
Bit by bit as we grow older we spend less time in the high 90s and more in the low 30s slowly, slowly we are dragged down by the gravity of life and at times asymptotically approach 0% from above.
Unless, of course we can also go out with a BANG!
of getting mowed down each time. What would my chance of survival be?
If I survived, would I be less alive than I was before?
How would people with much higher alive probability rates perceive people with very
low ones?
26 Mar 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ckAs far as I know the rate of expansion of the universe does not depend on entropy.
Excellent answer.
I'm out of my depth here so I'll apologise in advance but I'd really like to know
what the entropic effects of say a galaxy of information processors would have
on the expansion of the universe.
Is it possible at all that dark energy is related to information processing?
More pertinent to my original, ever so slightly psychotic thread.
If multiverses exist, can the dead communicate with the living?
Dark energy is a catch-all phrase for a physical mechanism that causes an accelerating expansion of the universe. The most likely candidates are a cosmological constant or a scalar field whose vacuum expectation produces an effective cosmological constant. I don´t think information processing has anything to do with this so no.
If they are communicating then they are not dead.
26 Mar 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ckYour chances of survival would be 0.01%.
So if I were to cross a road blindfolded say 5 times in a row with a 10% probability
of getting mowed down each time. What would my chance of survival be?
If I survived, would I be less alive than I was before?
How would people with much higher alive probability rates perceive people with very
low ones?
No, but you´d feel less alive because of all the anti-psychotics the psychiatrists would make you take.
Either you are alive or you are dead. There isn´t a superposition of states at this scale.
26 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtBut it can be said that the entropy of the universe is dependent upon it's expansion right?
As far as I know the rate of expansion of the universe does not depend on entropy.
So there is a relation between the universes expansion and entropy. How do we know
which one is dependent upon the other?
26 Mar 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI don´t automatically agree that the entropy of the universe is dependent on its expansion. By definition there´s no heat transfer and at short distance scales (in this era) you don´t notice the expansion so there´s no reason to believe that it increases entropy. Although the entropy density will drop.
But it can be said that the entropy of the universe is dependent upon it's expansion right?
So there is a relation between the universes expansion and entropy. How do we know
which one is dependent upon the other?
27 Mar 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ckyou can join the philosophy club if you like.
*puts down sci-fi book*
That's what I thought.
No room for philosophy in the science forum.
I'm off to spirituality where they can actually entertain these kind of concepts.
edit. Actually that's not true, I'll just get quoted scripture in there, please don't make me go!
27 Mar 09
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWould you agree that it is in a closed universe?
I don´t automatically agree that the entropy of the universe is dependent on its expansion. By definition there´s no heat transfer and at short distance scales (in this era) you don´t notice the expansion so there´s no reason to believe that it increases entropy. Although the entropy density will drop.