 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
The only problem with the article is that it does not mention that the God asserted by much of the world claims to have cursed the earth and brought corruption into his own creation. If the product of original creation was still perfect then it would tend to disprove at least that particular God.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr.Oogkloot
|
|
A good article, but it doesn't refute the anthropic principle, it refutes design - that's something completely different.
Also I disagree with this:
quote:
You find that unless you arrange the theory in just the right way you get nonsense, like effects preceding causes, or infinite probabilities. |
There's no law of logic that says effects can't precede causes. (unless you define the words that way...)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oldenbarnevelt
|
 |
in the Dutch swamps
Sep 2001
time: 06:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr.Oogkloot
A good article, but it doesn't refute the anthropic principle, it refutes design - that's something completely different. |
You are absolutely right, Dry Scrotum/Dr Eye-Scrotum (how about that translation?), so all of the thread so far has been off-topic. 
So let me quote some definitions:
quote:
A N T H R O P I C P R I N C I P L E
Here are some definitions, first from Barrow and Tipler:
Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP): The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.
Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history. Because:
1 There exists one possible Universe 'designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining 'observers'. Or...
2 Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being (Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP)). Or...
3 An ensemble of other different universes is necessary for the existence of our Universe (which may be related to the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics).
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.
R. Michael Perry has another interesting variant of the anthropic principle:
Individual Anthropic Metaprinciple (IAM): The universe that I as an observer perceive is so structured that I am immortal.
Running somewhat counter to all these is this:
The Principle of Mediocrity(PoM): Observers must assume (as far as is possible) that they occupy an unexceptional location in the Universe and may infer statistical properties of like observers from this assumption. |
To me, the WAP seems trivial, SAP 3 and PoM may well be right, and the rest seems absurd.
-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Buck Birdseed
|
 |
Khoon Ki Pyasi Dayan (1988)
Nov 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
Whenever I look at this thread I always think back to one of my favourite Pratchett quotes, from Hogfather:
"Many people are aware of the Weak and Strong Anthropic Principles. The Weak One says, basically, that it was jolly amazing of the universe to be constructed in such a way that humans could evolve to a point where they make a living in, for example, universities, while the Strong One says that, on the contrary, the whole point of the universe was that humans should not only work in universities but also write for huge sums books with words like `Cosmic' and `Chaos' in the titles.
The UU Professor of Anthropics had developed the Special and Inevitable Anthropic Principle, which was that the entire reason for the existence of the universe was the eventual evolution of the UU Professor of Anthropics. But this was only a formal statement of the theory which absolutely everyone, with only some minor details of a `Fill in name here' nature, secretly believes to be true. "
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:13
|
|
Yes, you're very funny. Now stop spamming threads of sophisticated posters.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr.Oogkloot
|
|
BTW, Re: many worlds/religion, I do hope that if many worlds turns out to be true it will shut up most of the quantum mystics and postmodernists.
quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
quote:
"why is there something instead of nothing" |
That is easily explained by the WAP. If there were nothing, no-one could ask the question. The fact that we exist procludes the non-existing "existance". |
The WAP tells us *that* something exists (which is trivial), but not why.
It's true that if nothing existed then you wouldn't be here to ask the question, but then you're just shifting the question to: how come am I here to ask the question?
quote:
It could have just as equally turned out that nothing ever existed. |
Do you think of whether something exists or not as some sort of arbitrary or random process?
If you think of it as a random process done once, then the WAP doesn't explain it - if you threw ten dice and shot yourself unless all ten turned up on six, and all ten turned up on six, you would have a reason to suspect there's something funny with the dice, instead of just saying "if that didn't happen I wouldn't be here".
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Logical Realist
|
|
California
Jan 2002
time: 21:13
|
|
I think some of you miss one point about how this article refutes the anthropic principll claiming that the article attacks the "design" argument not the anthropic principle, this of course ignores the fact that the anthropic principle is merely a new fomr of the design argument.
One that makes many presumptiouns. Like the universe was created and could have been a diifferent way. (It could have been everlasting and been the way it is out of necessity).
Like the goal of an intelligent designer was to create life. In fact the whole idea that the creators so called goal was to create life is a totally unwarranted assumption. Not that their theory is testable anyways, and this is what makes the arguments of those who adhere to the anthropic principle; untestable and unscientific. This is because no matter how the universe turned out those adhering to the principle can find any imporbable object and go, "Look proof of fine tunning". A universe full of rocks can be said to be created by a rock god for example.
And that there is no possible universe out there which is more conductive to life. (think of one where life can survive on hydrogen or better yet on nothing at all). Which makes you wonder, why if the God's goal was to create life He didn't do a better job.
In light of better explanations though, like that of eternity,necessity and many world's theories that require fewer assumptions then that of the infinitely complex god theory, which creates more questions then it solves. All these make the God theory superfluous to say the least.
If anything can be said of any supposed God that created our universe at all, one would say It had a radical fondness for hydrogen and the lighter elements.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ecthelion
Yes, you're very funny. Now stop spamming threads of sophisticated posters. |
What an obvious mispelling. Its spelled POSER.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-05-2002 03:38
It's all bullshit, I don't really concern myself with disproving the points of creationism, it is such an exasperating, and frankly pointless process.
From things I read earlier (Scientific American), the Anthropic Principle, or one version of it, simply states that the universe we live in has to have a minimum degree of complexity, such as that makes our existence possible. Pretty obvious, of course, but it explains why we don't live in a one-dimensional universe, no matter how many of them might exist.
|