We are all metaphysical creatures...discuss

In My Humble Opinion
21

Thanks for the welcome, I was mainly responding to this:

“Dirk” wrote:

“To clarify:
I believe we all want to be a part of something that is greater than ourselves, be that religion, or science, or some other cause. Because of this basic, perhaps genetically-encoded desire, we all become emotionally attached to our personal pet projects, even to the point of irrationality. That on which I find myself cogitating is the possibility that our desire to be a part of this “greater cause,” whatever it may be, could be so strong as to involve our emotions on such a level that true objectivity could never be achieved, regardless of the enterprise being undertaken, be it rational, scientific, pragmatic and humanistic, or emotional, religious or humanitarian.”

~
Which, I did, including the correct physics, whose logic BTW, does not include one single unfounded faith-like philosophical leap outside of the most basic and fundamental directive of nature in a big bang induced expanding universe, which makes the metaphysics, pure physics.

Systems evolve to a higher level of entropic efficiency via what is known in evolutionary science as a “meta-systems transition”, which occurs by way of the previously mentioned “asymmetric transions”. All the necessary and correct info was included in my original post to justify everything that I said.

If you haven’t got the whole “correct” picture, then you must necessarily base whatever conclusions solely on local observations, which are incomplete therefore, more flawed, e.g., less objective.

My response is made to whomever is interessted.

22

Wow, great posts from all of you! Yes, this is most likely to be a “stream of consciousness” thread, and I’d actually like to get away from the nuts and bolts evolutionary discussion, if that’s ok with folks. I honestly don’t want this to degenerate into a discussion about urine in the primordial soup…

Rather, I was looking for discussion on what drives and motivates us on a larger scale - maybe even the drive to explore, better ourselves, etc. What makes us do it? Why?

Of course, general discussion of evolutionary principles as motivating drivers is acceptable - I just don’t think we need to get sidetracked into the fine details (that’s my effort to avoid making it a debate).

As for myself, I’m going out of town for a few days, and likely won’t be able to post directly to this forum until after New Years. I hope this continues to generate discussion, and I’ll join in again as soon as I possibly can.

Thanks, folks!!

23

That’s an excellent point and I’m going to address it in spite of the OP’s request, because I feel that it is important to show the obvious value to my concept as it applies elsewhere.
The “infinitely dense dot”, (zero-volume cosmic singularity), presents a problem to science, as the universe is measurably too big for that to have been the case given the amount of time that it has been around, so they invented an “inflationary scenario”, where the universe expanded faster… for reasons that aren’t real clear nor clean, since this period of extraordinarily rapid expansion does not logically follow without a lot of help.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand why the universe is bigger than expected if it already had volume the last time that it evolved via a big-bang, and that’s the real right answer in a simple nut-shell.

The need for a singularity comes about as a result of the “idea” that all the forces decoupled from a single unified force, but there is no need for this impossible mathematical idealization to be accepted as a reality of nature if the asymmetries, (imperfections), which produce the different forces are convolved ever forward in time as the universe evolves perpetually forward with ever increasing efficiency in the effort to derive the impossible idealization, instead.
The OP says that I don’t need to prove my case with these “nuts-n-bolts” so everyone is expected take for face value that:

Humans feel a connection to the universe, (‘a need to be a part of something larger’) because humans are intricately connected to the universe by the finely tuned constants of the universe. This applies to humans more-so than to any other object that we’ve observed and it may possibly be true only for humans, because humans are “apparently” the ONLY system that attempts to mix ALL levels, (this is the universal), in the effort toward mass equilibrium.

Nature likes that, a LOT.

… so humans are at least one of nature’s most preferred methods for satisfying the second law on a grand scale.

Humans are therefore “entropically preferred” by nature and that is the reason that humans evolve by the exact same mechanism that the universe does.

Humans are intricately connected to the primary “desire” of the universe… and we “know” it.

24

Just to clarify a bit. You put ‘desire’ and ‘know’ in quotes. Are you speaking in a metaphorical sense or are you actually trying to say that the universe and nature have a discernable personality?

25

“desire” = inclination

“know” = sense

I was just using the quotes to point out that I was using equivalent descriptives’, or words that more accurately fit the OP’s context.

26

Another interesting facet to all of this, which most certainly does carry our sense for “belonging”:

The Weak Anthropic Argument, (which is the one that is most begrudgingly accepted by science as a real/tangible data point), as interpreted by way of an entropic light, says that the landscape is equally important to evolution and long term survival, because the energy that is available for us to expend must be something that we can actually use or it isn’t worth didely-squat to us. The entropically preferred species is purposefully enabled by the environment, in other words, so that the preferred system may continue to increase entropy until it breaches the relevant environmental constraints, leaping to a new level of order and efficiency in order that entropy may continue to increase… and aint that just too right to be wrong?.. :wink:

The universe works the same way, so that entropy may perpetually increase, and yes I can and have proven all of this, (to a non-speculative level), to the formal community.

What a trip, the big “U” looks out for number 1… ;)))

27

I just found this, (sorry), and I thought that you might like this new physics:

“Breaking energy down into its simplest form”… entails the release of high-energy photons which interact with virtual, (ghost), particles, in the vacuum to produce anti-particles, like the positron, for example.

Paul Dirac thought that this meant that the vacuum was comprised out of a “sea” of hidden electrons, (because the antiparticle has positive mass and density, so there is no priori distinction between particles and anti-particles), but this would give the vacuum a definite charge density, which it does not have, so this idea got tossed and onto more complex theories we went.

The thing is, they also tossed the hole that the “hole”, (the positron) leaves behind when it becomes a real particle as the asymmetries, (in terms of charge/sign or quantum-number), indicates that the “virtual” antiparticle has negative mass and density until it gets hit by a high energy photon, so the tension of the vacuum increases with negative pressure when you take a piece of it to make a real massive particle. This increases vacuum tension in equal proportion to the increase in mass-energy, (gravity), so the universe remains at a near perfect, near static, near flat, and maybe most importantly… FINITE balance with itself until tension increases to the point that the universe, (like humans) leaps to a new level of entropic efficiency, per the second law of thermodynamics… on a grand scale.

28

Are you ready for this?

You may have noticed that the theory qualifies the second law as the GUT, (grand unified theory), since it points out that Super-Gravity and Super-Symmetry are idealizations which cannot be achieved since asymmetries are convolved forth inherently, rather than springing from some equally idealistic cosmic singularity that includes many problems that this theory doesn’t have.

The “horizon” problem.
The “flatness” problem.
The “matter/antimatter” asymmetry problem
and the “cosmological constant”…

…which are all, (coincidentally???), listed on this guys site, and I almost fell out of my chair when I found it.

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

Now to the clincher, but it looks like this means that the Anthropic Principle becomes the ToE, (theory of everything), once it is redefined via the entropic interpretation, since all of the above falls right out of it if you stick strictly to the evolutionary process, even without the high-energy particle physics proof that I just, (coincidentally???) happened to fall upon in my research. Course, EVERYBODY wants to say something meaningful about gravity, but I figured that a universal pattern would say something meaningful about just about everything… and it turns out that is very apparently correct once understood.

Huge claims, I know, but… very OBVIOUSLY correct, nevertheless, so… if you don’t see it, then you are either, not able to follow, or you are being willfully ignorant.

… and I’m sorry that I ripped off this thread to let out my pent up frustration to… what seem to be inordinately intelligent people, for the net, these days. I didn’t originally intend for it to go this far, so I apologize again.