The cosmological constant seesaw mechanism is now described in a preprint.

CSL-1 cosmic string gravitational lens and 2 more, with many views of the Capodimonte Deep Field OACDF2 with subtle background features, similar to recent Millennium Simulation of evolution of structure in our Universe. Identical stereo pairs are introduced.

Roughly…

The EWAP, (entropic weak AP), is about environmental enabling:

1) The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not variable, but are fixed by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life will arise and evolve when the universe is old enough for the cumulative gravitational effect to require us to do our thing.

The ESAP is about… why:

There exists one universe that has perpetually inherent stucturing, with the goal of generating and sustaining disspative structures that are capable of enabling a universal scale evolutionary leap ever closer to absolute symmetry.

The EFAP is…

1) Who cares, ours is a blue colar universe, not an academically derived idealization where intelligent information processing is merely an efficiency enabling mechanism.

2) There is a weird implication for some kind of universal self-awareness when the skies light up simultaneously… *que erie music*… I’d hate to read too much into that!

and…

Right-on, Dissident!

… or can we ignore direct observational evidence that the Copernican Cosmological extension is superceded by something that’s more biocentric in nature?…

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmforall/18135101/in/set-435988/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmforall/18135102/in/set-435988/

… and that Einstein was right all along about higher structuring in nature, because the most natural extension of his theory with a cosmological constant is not unstable after all, because matter generation in this model causes the previously described effects which hold the universe flat and stable as it expands?

After all, the creationists might twist it into some kind of supernatural god theory, donchano?

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508047/

Lets assume your prediction about the ubiquity of life was correct. It still DOES NOT affect in any manner whatsoever the basic parameters underlying our universe as the parameters were here first. There’s the rub.

I don’t understand how you don’t see the obvious causal paradox inherent in particularly the SAP. The WAP is simply a statement of the obvious (with the causal paradox inherent) and the FAP is religion or something like it.

Our existence constrains nothing that happened 15 billion years ago. Our existence is an emergent feature of the universe. In my opinion the goal of science is to understand how and why we are here not use the fact we are here and work backwards. I don’t have a problem in using the fact that we are here as a data point but this whole line of reasoning is fundamentally flawed. If string theorist are beginning to embrace it they do so at their own peril in my opinion.

So what would the implications of this be?

Latest gossip I hear is that WMAP is set to say that the spectral index is less than one at 3 sigma.

Just throwing that out there. This was apparently announced at a conference in Europe, so I assume it’s ok to publicize it. Any thoughts from our hosts?

How lame is that?… no more lame than this:

the appearance of intelligent design is undeniable

What a dumb statement, Lenny, you’ve quite obviously bought right straight into the creationists hype that “the appearance”, (as you call it), of purpose in the forces of nature, can ever possibly constitute evidence for intelligent design in a universe where every known cause is natural. What has happened to science that they let creationists dictate stupid ideas like that? There can be no such “inference” without direct proof!

What is it that makes people ignore the fact that the multitude of anthropic coincidences are balanced, either precariously, or they are attracted to a location that lies **near** exactly between diametrically opposing runaway tendencies, where any sustained difference *would* result in conditions that are so far away from your wildest dreams for what constitutes life, that “life as we know it” is the only possible form of life that is even possible.

What makes people make lame statements that are prejudicially designed to downplay the significance of the anthropic principle by willfully ignoring the actual implications of the evidence?

“I can’t believe that the Sun comes up at about the same time that I go to work every day”… please, the fact that conditions have to be the way that they are does not even come close to getting it when you think about the above for about no seconds compounded exponentially by orders of magnitude with each additional coincidence.

I dunno about everybody elses mega-multi-fantasy-universes, but I do know how a vacuum works, and I do know that an ENTROPIC anthropic principle is most-natural in a predominantly expansive universe, so flatness, structure, and even gravity must necessarly still be related to the energy dissemination process.

I know, for example, that an expanding vacuum has negative pressure, because its density is necessarily less than that of matter, and so the force of the energy is directed in the opposite direction. This results in an antigravity effect which cancels with positive gravitational curvature, thus mimicing the mysterious negative mass effect that showed up in our equations about the same time that physics lost touch with reality. A Positron that is made from this energy must have positive mass because it has positive matter density once the negative pressure energy is condensed down over a finite enough area of space.

I also know that particle creation from negative pressure energy holds any normal universe flat while causing expansion by way of further vacuum rarefaction because this necessarily results in a counterbalancing increase in both, negative pressure and grvity. So tension between ordinary matter and the vacuum increases instead, and continued expansion will inevitably compromise the integrity of the forces that bind the universe, eventually… and boom goes the causality problem… the horizon problem, the flatness problem, Matter/Anti-matter asymmetry problem, the cosmological constant problem… etc… but without need of an inflationary band-aid scenario.

I know that Supernovae, Black Holes, and us wee-little humans are the only known or expected sources for vacuum expansion in a universe that expands via the described form of matter generation, except that we are the MOST energy-efficient at it out of all of them.

And finally, I know that such a defined need for these highly specialized dissipative structures necessarily extends the principle to its biocentric form, where life will necessarily be as common as the universal scale need for it demands.

So if you want a prediction, then let it be this:

SETI will prove that the anthropic principle is a biocentric thermodynamic principle that’s predicting that the skies are going to light-up across the universe near-simultaneously with radio transmissions from very similar life-forms on every banded spiral galaxy that exists on the same evolutionary plane as us… at near exactly the same time… in the history of the universe.

I just hope that we don’t mistake them for god and pretend like we didn’t hear them, because we’re too afraid of what creationists might make of it.

…must’ve been random patterns in the matrix, but the appearance of intelligent design was uncanny…

Amen

But for sensibilities and reason, if we had held to such a thought, such a “superfluid” which could exist?

Then what role would this play in cosmolgical design?

What guiding principal Anthropic design if not held to a finer constitution such as here?

At last, Dantas response to Peter Woits “Canonical voice” from “the group,” speaks for those of us less adept.

Elliot

Now you’ve got my laymans curiosity aroused. Can you give a reasonably accessible definiton of the “seesaw scale”?

Thanks,

Elliot