university bent

anonymous asked:

"in our universe, he determined, the constant is small, because only a small constant could allow galaxies to form and life to develop." is he saying the laws of the universe bent to our will? just so it could sometime in the future create life? this is why i cant accept this. this is putting the chariot before the horse

I’m not familiar with the “he” you’re referring to, but yeah, it’s called the Anthropic Principle. Here’s a rundown from SFU: 

The Anthropic Principle was proposed in Poland in 1973, during a special two-week series of synopsia commemorating Copernicus’s 500th birthday. It was proposed by Brandon Carter, who, on Copernicus’s birthday, had the audacity to proclaim that humanity did indeed hold a special place in the Universe, an assertion that is the exact opposite of Copernicus’s now universally accepted theory.

Carter was not, however, claiming that the Universe was our own personal playground, made specifically with humanity in mind. The version of the Anthropic Principle that he proposed that day, which is now referred to as the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) stated only that by our very existence as carbon-based intelligent creatures, we impose a sort of selection effect on the Universe. For example, in a Universe where just one of the fundamental constants that govern nature was changed - say, the strength of gravity - we wouldn’t be here to wonder why gravity is the strength it is. The following is the official definition of the WAP:

“Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP): the observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on the values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.” (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John Barrow and Frank Tipler, p. 16)

Later, Carter also proposed the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP), which states that the Universe had to bring humanity into being. This version is much more teleological, if not theological, and is of a highly speculative nature. Nonetheless, Carter had scientific reasons to propose it. The definition of the SAP) is as follows:

“Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): the Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in it’s history.” (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, p. 21)

In addition to the WAP and SAP, there are the Participatory and Final Anthropic Principles. The Participatory Anthropic Principle states not only that the Universe had to develop humanity (or some other intelligent, information-gathering life form) but that we are necessary to it’s existence, as it takes an intelligent observer to collapse the Universe’s waves and probabilities from superposition into relatively concrete reality. The Final Anthropic Principle states that once the Universe has brought intelligence into being, it will never die out. These two are also very speculative.

The Strong Anthropic Principle and the Final Anthropic Principle

The Strong and Final Anthropic Principles are probably the most controversial of the many versions of the Anthropic Principle. They have a ring of creationism, a philosophy that has been frowned on by science since Darwin’s day. Despite their borderline scientific status, they have been embraced by the religious among the scientific community, heralded as proof of God’s existence and of science’s final acknowledgment of the fact.

The SAP is based on the same “cosmic coincidences” as the far more mundane WAP. It cites the same inexplicable and unlikely chance occurrences that make it possible for life to exist in the Universe. Unlike the WAP, however, they attempt to explain why such improbable events occurred, rather than just state what improbable events must have occurred in the Universe to let us be here. They take a position not unlike Aristotle in his use of Final Causes to explain the why of things: the Universe’s end result was to produce us, so the various physical constants and other properties which are pivotal to our existence have to be such that they bring about our existence.

I don’t have to point out how egotistical that sounds. Looking only at that last sentence, the notion sounds ridiculous. However, those who subscribe to this theory have defended it valiantly. For one thing, the coincidences in the physical constants have yet to be truly explained, except by the SAP and theories like it. As I have said before, many of the conditions and properties in the Universe have precise values, and if these values were changed even very slightly, intelligent life would be completely impossible. And all of these far-fetched coincidences happened together. The Universe certainly seems to have been “made” with life in mind.

If you were to accept this argument, then the FAP would be the logical conclusion after the SAP, especially if you believe the Participatory Anthropic Principle as well. If the Universe is indeed made for the benefit of intelligence, and the Universe in fact needs intelligent observers to exist, then it would be in the Universe’s “interest” to keep intelligence going. Therefore, according to those who subscribe to this theory, intelligent life will never die out.

Of course if the Universe was made toward some end, something with enough consciousness and foresight to create so precise a Universe has to have existed, though the idea of a pre-existing creator-god that we cannot observe (and therefore we cannot prove exists) does seem somewhat unscientific. The alternatives, though, have a similar problem. The proposed “many worlds” theory and its variations, which are the long-standing arguments against the SAP and FAP are just as impossible to test as the existence of God, as the worlds they hold up as a rebuttal to the SAP are just as impossible to detect (more on this later). This is a good point, as we really do only have one Universe, our Universe, to consider, no matter how many theoretical ones we construct.

As we look out into the Universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the Universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.
– Freeman Dyson

The Anthropic Principle and Quantum Physics

In Newton’s time, humanity has been relegated to the position of “observer” of the Universe, placed apart from it, supposedly able to look at the Universe, live in the Universe, and not participate in it. Since the 1920s, with the advent of quantum physics and the discovery of wave-packets and the superposition of particles, that has begun to change. Not only do people inexorably change the things they observe on the quantum level, but it has been proposed that a persons consciousness of a quantum event forces the particles involved collapse from superposition in all possible locations to a definite location, at the exact time they are observed by a conscious being. But let’s start from the beginning.

You have an electron, spinning around the outer shell of an atom. You want to find out where that electron is, and how fast it’s moving. To do so, you have to whack something into it, like another subatomic particle, because it’s too small to be seen with light. This is something like whacking Earth into Mars to find out the position and speed of Mars. So of course the electron is changed by this rather crude observation of it, which means that one of the two things you wanted to know is changed by your observation, so you really only know one. This the most mundane example of the observer’s involvement with the observed.

But, according to some theories, the observer is still more deeply involved in this quantum event, the determination of the location of a particle. Before the electron gets whacked with the other particle, it is said to be in a state of “superposition,” existing partially in all possible locations. It is at the moment of observation by a conscious mind that the electron “chooses” one of the possible locations to materialize in, collapsing it’s wave-packet and becoming a particle for the split second it takes to be hit by the other particle. David Albert, in the book “Quantum Mechanics and Experience,” says:

“perhaps the collapse occurs precisely at the last possible moment; perhaps it always occurs precisely at the level of consciousness, and perhaps, moreover, consciousness is always the agent that brings it about.”

Albert goes on to say,

“The brain of a sentient being may enter a state wherein states connected with various different conscious experiences are superposed; and at such moments the mind connected with that brain opens it’s inner eye and gazes on the brain, and that causes the entire system (brain, measuring instrument, measured system, everything) to collapse…”

Therefore, if this theory is true, consciousness is essential to the reality of things for it is consciousness that collapses the subatomic particles that make up everything from superposition into a definite position, changing the Universe from an aggregation of probability waves and superposed particles into the somewhat more definite reality that we know. And that, of course, is the meaning of the Participatory Anthropic Principle, that the Universe needs conscious observers to bring it from existing in all probabilities into one reality. We are not detached observers of a movie-reality playing before us that we are powerless to interact with. We are, in a certain sense, the cameramen.

Arguments Against the Anthropic Principle

As has been said, all versions of the Anthropic Principle (except the Weak Anthropic Principle) are highly controversial. They are by no means the only theories that claim to explain the anthropic coincidences. Among the other proposed cosmologies are the Many Worlds and the Baby Universes, both of which are often used as arguments against the validity of the Anthropic Principle and it’s many variations.

The Many Worlds cosmology states that every time a quantum event occurs, such as a superposed particle collapsing to a (somewhat) definite location, the Universe splits into many, one for each possible location of the particle. In each new universe, the particle is in just one of the possibilities, but all the new universes together contain within them all the possible locations of the particle. Considering how many quantum events there have been since the beginning of the Universe, the number of branch-universes would be staggeringly immense. It is by virtue of this huge number, and the fact that these universes embody all possible outcomes for every quantum event that has ever occurred, that the proponents of this theory claim to have a more scientific alternative than the Anthropic Principle. With all possibilities existing, it is only logical that such an improbable, though definitely possible, Universe would exist.

The Baby Universes theory is even more outlandish than the aforementioned idea of multiple, undetectable universes. It’s basic premise is that black holes create baby universes, and that there is a sort of natural selection, evolution if you will, going on in which the universes that can produce more black holes win out over those that don’t, thus propagating their physical laws (or laws very similar, as no offspring is exactly like a parent). According to this theory, all the matter and energy that a black hole swallows somehow “bounces back” under conditions very like our Big Bang, only perpendicular to our space-time, creating a baby universe whose physical laws are very similar to that of it’s parent, our Universe. Those who use this theory as an argument against the Anthropic Principle say that instead of our Universe being tailor-made for humanity, it’s geared toward the production of black holes, and humans are a sort of parasite in the greater organism of the Universe.

These are some very intriguing ideas. They may have more truth to them than the various Anthropic Principles, and they may not. The fact is, all of these arguments are theories based on theories based on theories, and completely untestable, at least at our current technology level. Quite a lot like the more controversial Strong and Final Anthropic Principles. In the end, I suppose, it’s just a matter of personal preference which theory, the God hypothesis or one of the Many Worlds cosmologies, you choose to believe in, for now.

More on this below: 

Richard Dawkins weighs the possibilities of the anthropic principle as it applies to physics. He also presents the theory that universes are bound to Darwinian selection, passing on traits to daughter universes birthed from black holes. (x)

Why is our universe fine-tuned for life? | Brian Greene (TED)

At the heart of modern cosmology is a mystery: Why does our universe appear so exquisitely tuned to create the conditions necessary for life? In this tour de force tour of some of science’s biggest new discoveries, Brian Greene shows how the mind-boggling idea of a multiverse may hold the answer to the riddle.

It was all for Clara Oswald

In case it wasn’t clear enough before, we know now for a fact. 

Four and a half billion years of living in his own hell, punching a wall, burning himself up so he could live to do it again. And he didn’t do it to protect the secret of the hybrid. He didn’t do it to get to Gallifrey. He didn’t even do it for revenge. He fought against his own nightmare and a diamond wall just to get to the only place he knew could help him save her. And he did it willingly over and over. For Clara. 

That was his motivation for 4.5 billion years. Saving Clara Oswald. 

Laws of time and space crumble in comparison to how much he loves her. 


Gender Bent Adrien magazine cover - Adriana


I seriously had to do this. xD Actually I would share it after I finish my AU (female Adrien with Ladybug powers and male Marinette with Chat Noir powers) but I needed to share earlier.
I’m so uncomfortable with her hairs. I drew them wrong and then I couldn’t correct it. Just like I couldn’t finish her trousers…
I’m planning to share the speed painting of it on my YT channel soon: alexiross
There will be more drawings from my AU xD

Just let me appreciate Moffat’s book ends for a little longer

Still can’t get over how well Clara Oswald’s book ends were set up in Hell Bent. It could be tied back to all these:

  • 11th/Clara era’s:Run you clever boy and remember me.” (Asylum of the Daleks, The Snowman, The Bells of Saint John, The Name of the Doctor, Hell Bent)
  • 11th/Clara/12th era’s: “Be a Doctor.” (The Name of the Doctor, The Day of the Doctor, The Whole Series 8, Face the Raven, Heaven Sent, Hell Bent)
  • 12th/Clara era’s: “Just see me” / ”If I met her again, I would absolutely know.” (Deep Breath, Hell Bent)
  • 12th/Clara era’s: “Do you happen to know how to fly this thing? / Clara gets her own TARDIS and flies it like she is born to it. (The Time of the Doctor, Hell Bent)
  • 12th/Clara era’s: “I’m not your boyfriend.” / “I have a duty of care.” (Deep Breath, Hell Bent)
  • Clara Oswald: Short cut! / “Gallifrey, the long way round.” (The Snowman, Hell Bent)
  • Clara Oswald: “I don’t believe in ghosts.” / “Time isn’t healing. I am still frozen.” (The Bells of Saint John, Hell Bent)
  • Clara’s portraits (The Bells of Saint John, Face the Raven, Heaven Sent, Hell Bent)
  • Songs: Carmen, Clara’s theme. (Asylum of the Daleks, Hell Bent)
  • The Doctor is finding Clara: (The Snowman, The Bells of Saint John, Hell Bent)
  • The Doctor/Clara, the ultimate mirror-self: Stealing a TARDIS and running away.

Daft Punk – Discovery

Daft Punk, in some ways are one of the most influential musical groups in recent memory, leading the French house movement of the late 90’s. The group consists of Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo and Thomas Bangalter who frequently appear in robot masks meant to hide their appearance and personify their alter-egos. Discovery is their highly successful follow-up to their debut album, Homework, released in 2001. The album featured a departure from the traditional house sounds, present on their debut, to incorporate elements of disco, synth-pop, and R&B. The record even spawned an animated film about a musical group of extraterrestrials that are kidnapped by an evil record executive bent on universal domination.

The lyrical content of this album is nothing spectacular, with songs like “One More Time” simply repeating the phrase repeatedly throughout the track. There’s no grand insight or real wit to the lyrics, but the focus of the record isn’t on that. Rather it’s on the instrumentation and use of sampling meant to evoke an emotion in the listener. That doesn’t mean the vocals don’t add a meaning to the album, on the contrary. Most of the vocals, supplied by artists like Romanthony and Todd Edwards, are processed through auto-tune and vocoders to signify the robotic characterization of Daft Punk and the personas they present for this record.

Sampling is a significant portion of this album, but it’s not founded in sampling other artists. Instead both Guy and Thomas composed and performed instrumental parts to create their own samples, while complimenting those they borrowed. This brings a fresh breath of originality to the album that keeps it from becoming bogged down by the implementation of previous sounds. Portions of the record sound like samples from past disco or pop albums, but as Thomas puts it they are “fake samples” meant to mislead the listener. Most of the record, in fact, are unique samples the duo performed live and then mixed to create the sounds of Discovery. It speaks to the creativity of this group, and the incredibly catchy and groovable tracks of this album.

Discovery is a conceptual piece that incorporates both luscious visuals and a vast amount of musical influences to create a record all its own. Daft punk has seamlessly shown an evolution in sound that showcases their ability to take sounds of the past and forge a new path for them. Much like technology, a common theme in their music, they build upon the old to create an original work that has cemented them at the top of electronic music.

So let me get this straight.

Garnet is voiced by Estelle, a black woman, has a dance style based off of Waacking (which was created by black folk lololol), has full lips, a wide nose, and a LITERAL FUCKING AFRO, yet you shit stains are still confused as to why the fuck people drag you when you draw, and endorse white Garnet. There ain’t a damn thing about Garnet that could even remotely connect her to whiteness. NOTHING. The only white thing about Garnet is her creator, Rebecca fucking Sugar. That’s. It.

And you wanna know how you’re all full of shit? Yall were quick as fuck to drag those people who kept saying - “but technically they aren’t women because technically, gems are polymorphic, ~asexual space rocks~!!!” Yall were FUMING at the idea of someone seeking to undermine your white feminism. Yall stayed screaming “Stop trying to undermine female representation!!!” “That’s misogynistic as fuck!!!” “What’s wrong with strong female leads!?!?”. Mmmmhm. Remember that shit?

Now look at where we are. The argument has resurfaced in another form, and the hypocrisy is mind-blowing. And yall are using that SAME stupid ass argument to validate the shitty notion of Garnet not being coded as a black woman. Liiiiiiiike why does it bother yall so much? Is it because you’d have to admit that the strongest protagonist in the series, and the de facto leader of the crystal gems is black? I mean it can’t be because there’s a lack of representation for white characters in animation, or anything else for that matter.

Just admit that yall are racist. Stop typing up lame arguments, stop whining, and stop playing the victim. Garnet is fucking black. 

Morality with Q: Session #1

Oh no, here we go – the taboo topic! I will begin simply: Morality within (practitioners of) the Craft is as varying as its many manifestations, but I think it is safe to say that the Craft – in itself – is amoral. It is spirituality (and society) that drives morality, hence its diverse application to the Craft. With that being said, all that follows is what I believe. If you have questions, I’m always happy to clarify or expand; disagreements? I respect your beliefs and your opinions as being different from mine, and I expect the same dignity from you.

Finally, now that all that garbage is out of the way, let’s get down to the nitty-gritty!

Where to begin, though? Perhaps with the age old question of:

Good vs. Evil 

I do not believe in evil – or rather, I do not believe in any Cosmic, Universal Evil – hell-bent on corrupting man. I believe there are struggles – and in conflict there is the opportunity for growth. Some face much greater hardship, and from it – a greater opportunity for growth. I believe that any true evils with which we are familiar are the creations of man, and we have a responsibility to rewrite these evils – even at the expense of clearing obstructions (or possible means of growth), for there will always be conflict – with or without the evils created by man – and there need not be such harsh means of growth.

Ask me, however, if I believe in the diabolical – most certainly, but I do not consider them evil, in fact, quite the opposite. While they can breed hardship, they are instrumental in the growth of man – they are vice and punishment, and only those of great heart and champion-will might traverse their labyrinthine existence and emerge, changed for the better. They are those who exist in the seedy underbelly, the low vibration – and challenge every perception you might have about morality: No longer are the hues so stark. It is a world wherein the hooker might be a saint, the murderer can find redemption, and radical in the right. But all the while, these beings strive to overturn the evils of man – oppression, corruption, destruction, hypocrisy – by imposing on them, their own malignancy.

That’s one of the reasons I love the proverbial “Dark Ones” so much – they are their own – they serve no one, and they fight on the side of justice, even if it means inflicting vengeance. It is from within their fold that you can see that the dark and the light serve the same end, simply through different means. They are fueled not by evil, but carnality – the most primal parts of humankind: sex, violence, anger, greed – all the things that are (in truth) intrinsically human, it is only when humanity is consumed by their desire do the diabolic spirits wreak havoc, if it only to lead you back to your path.

Which brings me to topic number two: 


It’s no secret – I’m one of those baddy witches, who (shield your sensitive eyes) curses: Fuck. Oh, and I also cast curses. Now, I know what you light-side-of-the-force people are saying: “Cursing!? Under JUSTICE!? Sacrilege! Think of Karma!” Well, I have – in its true and original sense, not the version borrowed by the Western World. Karma is everything you do – it is action. You tie your shoes? Karma. You smack someone in the face? Karma. You jump from a 20 story building? Karma… And there it went. These actions are weighed – not by whether you did the nice thing, it’s about whether you did the right/just/beneficial-to-society-at-large thing.

When you scold a child for improper behavior, do you accrue “bad karma” for preventing them from being a little entitled hellion? I do not think so.

Cursing and hexing is not so black and white.

As I previously mentioned, Karma is action and consequence. If someone has acted unjustly – this is their karma – and if I have the ability to correct this action and choose to curse them or hex them, with a fitting punishment, have I not been the instrument of consequence? You can argue that I have become: judge, jury and executioner – and you would be right, but if I were to allow them to proceed hurting and mistreating people, or acting unjustly, would that not influence my own karma as much as theirs? I’ve experienced enough silence by bystanders in my life to know that sometimes all it takes is for someone to come to the side of the oppressed. Even if it meant punishment, I would still stand in solidarity with them.

For a long while, I have believed that a witch has a responsibility to his/her community, pariah or not. He/she is the hand of justice, when the justice of man has failed. As such, we are – in part – instruments of consequence, there to shoulder part of the Universe’s weight. There to ensure that those who oppress and breed the evils of man are thusly punished. We are more than the pawns of Fate, we are her left hand. Just be cautious not to overstep your bounds, as Fate is right handed and has a mean right-hook.

But I will definitely say that it’s imperative that the punishment match the crime. If someone absent mindedly cut you off in traffic, you obviously wouldn’t smite their entire family line with a plague (even though you might want to – I’m still bitter). That is – in itself – unjust. And it is also important to not cast impulsively, in that one should not simply curse someone based on the testimonial of one person alone. Try to remain as unbiased as possible, and don’t hesitate to sleuth around like Nancy Drew before you pick up a sacrificial chicken bowl of chile peppers.

In essence, be just (i.e. don’t be an asshole) – trust your instincts, they won’t lead you wrong.

::end Session #1::


the crystal gems go to check up on the cluster, because power of friendship or no, that’s a hella unstable situation and they need to make sure everything is okay, especially with a homeworld agent unaccounted for

luckily, when they get there, it’s still bubbled

(those who haven’t seen it before may remark on how beautiful it is, congratulate steven, marvel at its impossibility, etc.)

but there’s one gem loose, resting on top of the bubble, unconnected to the rest of the cluster, supported by surface tension alone

and it’s not just tiny shards, it’s a full gem- badly fractured but still, miraculously, intact.

and it doesn’t take long before they realize.

that lone, broken gem?

is jasper.

The first second of eternity and the last second of Clara’s life

How long did the Doctor fought for Clara in his confession dial? Long enough for the first second of eternity to pass.

Clara’s death is a fixed point in time, but due to the Doctor’s love for her, and even more importantly, due to her own strength, capability, and belief that she deserved better, she now lives in the final second of her life, from one heartbeat to her last one. The infinity.

How long is eternity? That’s how the story of Clara Oswald ends, she now has the universe, time, and all the stars.