 |
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Logical Realist
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. |
You forgot beetles. The Universe was clearly created for the express use of beetles.
Maybe I ought to read the link before posing anymore.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oldenbarnevelt
Even if Weinberg is the smartaleckiest person in the world (which I doubt) -- what does your having met him have to do with it?
|
Don't you think having met the guy allows a better understanding of his character and level/area of expertise?
My point was, that he is entirely unqualified to comment on matters of religion or the metaphysical, so his opinions should not be given the sort of respect which they are shown.
He is perfectly entitled to express his opions of course, but he should not use his Nobel Prize to imply that they are anything more than the opinions of a layman...
As for the Anthropic Principle, I agree that it should not be used to explain certain 'coincidences' in the universe. The nice thing is that no self-respecting scientist would use it. Indeed, we are currently building a huge collider in Switzerland to try and explain one of these 'coincidences' (the predicted lightness of the Higgs boson).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
As for the Anthropic Principle, I agree that it should not be used to explain certain 'coincidences' in the universe. The nice thing is that no self-respecting scientist would use it. |
It certainly has no business in being used scientificly. It would be like assuming the Universe is incomprehensible. There simply is no point in making such an assumption when developing theory.
However that doesn't make it invalid for a philosophical discussion. Clearly if the Universe didn't support inteligent life there would be no discussing it so its not a compleat coincidence that the Universe has laws that support our existence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oldenbarnevelt
|
 |
in the Dutch swamps
Sep 2001
time: 06:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Don't you think having met the guy allows a better understanding of his character and level/area of expertise? |
In a discussion of Design (or any other topic), the man's character is totally irrelevant.
As regards his expertise, the right approach would be to judge it by his writings and lectures, not by interviewing the thousands of people who have met him over the years.
quote:
My point was, that he is entirely unqualified to comment on matters of religion or the metaphysical, so his opinions should not be given the sort of respect which they are shown. |
An argument should be judged by its inner merits. "Unqualified": the knowledge-of-the-physical-world that Weinberg has may well make his opinions about the universe more interesting than those of many professional philosophers.
By the way, I think that no one is qualified to "comment on matters of the metaphysical" (i.e. that-which-cannot-be-known).  In this field, we are all laymen, by definition.
Weinberg's essay is less metaphysical than you seem to think. His outlook is empirical where he writes: "The question that seems to me to be worth answering, and perhaps not impossible to answer, is whether the universe shows signs of having been designed by a deity (...)" Where he writes about religion and history, he is of course an "informed layman", but who would doubt that?
"Respect" is a category that should play no role at all in any serious discussion. An opinion can never be valuable because it is Weinberg's, nor can it be worthless because it is Weinberg's.
quote:
He is perfectly entitled to express his opions of course, but he should not use his Nobel Prize to imply that they are anything more than the opinions of a layman... |
You should consider the possibility that this "implication" is in your head, rather than his. Many theoretical physicists have dabbled at philosophical speculation. I can't see what's wrong with that, as long as they don't present their speculations as physics. W's article is presented as an essay. If part of the public value an essay for the wrong reasons, it's not the writer's fault.
quote:
As for the Anthropic Principle, I agree that it should not be used to explain certain 'coincidences' in the universe. The nice thing is that no self-respecting scientist would use it. Indeed, we are currently building a huge collider in Switzerland to try and explain one of these 'coincidences' (the predicted lightness of the Higgs boson). |
Agreed. The several anthropic principles are not science, they are in a different league. They cannot be used to explain physical phenomena.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr.Oogkloot
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Logical Realist
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. |
Except that it isn't. "The universe is this way because it has been designed by a creator" is just one of several versions of the anthropic principle.
quote:
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). |
It doesn't make any of these assumptions. Oldenbarnevelt posted the definition - read it.
The anthropic principle is not a religious principle. Although it's more philosophical than scientific.
No one can ignore the Weak Anthropic Principle, which is simply true.
The Strong Anthropic Principle can be used if the universe was designed, or if there are (enough) multiple universes where natural constants/laws vary.
I don't think the first is true, but I think the second is true.
If you're choosing to ignore the Strong Anthropic Principle, then you're assuming only one (or maybe a few) universes exist. That's a pretty big assumption.
You're also running the risk of expending all of your resources looking for explanations of constants or laws that have no explanation other than that's the one we happen to be able to survive by (i.e. we were never born where that isn't true).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Logical Realist
|
|
California
Jan 2002
time: 21:13
|
|
Rogan: I agree with you that having a nobel prize in physics makes one an expert on philosophical matters. But such a prize in physics is relevant when considering whether something like the anthropic principle represents pseudoscience or the real thing(something properly derived from science). Also, Weinberg's character does not automatically rule out his philosophical arguments.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
OK then. Let me make some comments.
quote:
I see nothing about the human mind any more than about the weather that stands out as beyond the hope of understanding as a consequence of impersonal laws acting over billions of years.
|
Does he really believe that the brain is no more complicated than the weather? Do we have a segment on breakfast television telling us the thoughts of our prominent leaders for the next couple of days? And what about free-will? Does he believe that we have no free-will or that the weather has it too? 
quote:
There is no life force.
|
Nice of him to tell us. Does he have any scientific evidence for this?
quote:
I have to admit that, even when physicists will have gone as far as they can go, when we have a final theory, we will not have a completely satisfying picture of the world, because we will still be left with the question "why?".... So there seems to be an irreducible mystery that science will not eliminate. |
This is the point that I was trying to make in the other thread about religion. Science simply cannot by definition answer these questions. One should therefroe be wary that a scientists opinions on such matters are purely those of a layman, and not give them special regard.
quote:
Being a physicist is no help with questions like this, so I have to speak from my own experience. My life has been remarkably happy, perhaps in the upper 99.99 percentile of human happiness, but even so, I have seen a mother die painfully of cancer, a father's personality destroyed by Alzheimer's disease, and scores of second and third cousins murdered in the Holocaust. Signs of a benevolent designer are pretty well hidden. ... It seems a bit unfair to my relatives to be murdered in order to provide an opportunity for free will for Germans, but even putting that aside, how does free will account for cancer? Is it an opportunity of free will for tumors?
|
This is a bit rich. Does he not understand the idea that free will can only exist in the world if you have choices? If God prevents Nazis persecuting the Jews or Jews persecuting the Arabs, where does it end? Should we also be forced to be polite to each other? Why not be forced to invite everyone you see back for a cup of tea?
quote:
but it is hard to imagine Nazism taking the form it did without the foundation provided by centuries of Christian anti-Semitism.
|
Typical Jewish propaganda, and absolute rubbish. The anti-semitism of the middle ages arose because Jews became wealthy in Christian societies (because they were the principal moneylenders). This led to resentment of their ethnic group. And remember that the Jews were expelled from Israel by the Romans - not by Christians. Even if the blame could be laid at the feet of the Catholic Church, the presence of corrupt individuals who claim to be Christians would hardly invalidate Christianity. (Just as the actions of present day Israel does not invalidate Judaism.)
quote:
One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious.
|
This is only very indirectly science's acomplishment. The increase of scientific knowledge has enabled the population as a whole to become more empowered. The few at the top are much less able to use religion as a means to control society. Now they use science to do it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I never said that you were - after all, you did not post this topic. I merely pointed out that one should be as distrustful of Weinberg's views as one is of anyone else's views, and not give him special credence because of his scientific background. Do you disagree with this? |
Surely you have noticed that I don't always agree with you. On this however I thought I allready agreed.
quote:
Which parts of my views on free-will do you disagree with. Indeed, which bits do you think I need to be more skeptical about? |
That you think there is some kind of magical non-physical thing that can give you a choice that is unavailable otherwise.
The religious bits of course. Free will is a religious idea and the main reason for it is to keep people from claiming that they can sin and then blame it on their god. As in 'I am not responsible for my actions god made me this way'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
That you think there is some kind of magical non-physical thing that can give you a choice that is unavailable otherwise.
The religious bits of course. Free will is a religious idea and the main reason for it is to keep people from claiming that they can sin and then blame it on their god. As in 'I am not responsible for my actions god made me this way'. |
I agree that free-will is a 'religious' idea in as much as modern scientific theories of the universe do not allow free-will. I wouldn't say it was very contentious though - I think most people believe that they have it...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr.Oogkloot
The strong anthropic principle doesn't mean the universe has to be designed. The way I take it is that it means the universe *has* to make intelligent life possible. If there are so many different universes that life has to be possible in one of them, then the SAP works without design. |
Ok now I get you. Thing is, to me, SAP is a leader. that is things must exist in order to create us, but you are saying we must exist because there is no other option.
A bit like saying if you sell all possible lottery tickets, someone must win it.
quote:
How do you know? Why wouldn't one want to create conditions in which life couldn't thrive, would be dumb, would suffer eternal pain or not apear at all, etc? Whycouldn't there be a creator that wanted total chaos?
|
Because that is how we define this particular SAP. Surely? 
quote:
No, because there are still other options like causal necessity. False dilema. The choice isn't necessarily just between supernaturalism and randonmism.....cause there are other forms of determinism besides the theistic one. |
When comparing probabilities other options are irrelevant. When comparing the probability of rolling two sixes when using weighted die or fair die, the probability of two fives are not considered.
quote:
As for your calculatins they look impressive but seem unworkable to me. To actually work those out, you need to know the chances of life evolving on certain planets and becoming intelligent |
Its a qualitive statement, not designed to calculate any tangible probabilities. For example if it is covercast outside, it is more likely to rain than if it is clear sunshine. Its a qualitative decision whether to take an umbrella.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I agree that free-will is a 'religious' idea in as much as modern scientific theories of the universe do not allow free-will. I wouldn't say it was very contentious though - I think most people believe that they have it... |
I don't see modern scientific theory as precluding something that resembles free will. Our brains aren't Turing machines.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Logical Realist
|
|
California
Jan 2002
time: 21:13
|
|
RJ here's what Columbian Encyclopedia had to say about the cause of anti-semitism.
quote:
anti-Semitism
(n´´t-sm´tz´´m, n´´t–) (KEY) , form of prejudice against Jews, ranging from antipathy to violent hatred. Before the 19th cent., anti-Semitism was largely religious and was expressed in the later Middle Ages by sporadic persecutions and expulsions—notably the expulsion from Spain under Ferdinand and Isabella—and in severe economic and personal restrictions (see ghetto). However, since Jews were generally restricted to the pursuit of occupations that were taboo, such as moneylending, the sentiment was also economic in nature. |
Encyclopedia.com further confirmed this by saying:
Encyclopedia.com: quote:
After the emancipation of the Jews, brought about by the Enlightenment of the 18th cent. and by the French Revolution, religious and economic resentments were gradually replaced by feelings of prejudice stemming from the notion of the Jews as a distinct race. This development was due not only to the rising nationalism of the 19th cent., but also to the conscious preservation, especially among Orthodox Jews, of cultural and religious barriers that isolated the Jewish minorities from other citizens. It has also been charged that in the years between the fall of Napoleon and the rise of Hitler the Roman Catholic Church, which sometimes subscribed to the idea of Jewish racial identity and sometimes denied it, not only failed to condemn European anti-Semitism, but actually contributed to it. |
Notice both Encyclopedia's agree on the fact that the Jews were at first disliked for religious reasons.
I do not have my information on the Crusades or the Gallup polls right now. I will get back to you on those issue later.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Logical Realist
|
|
California
Jan 2002
time: 21:13
|
|
SD:
quote:
Because that is how we define this particular SAP. Surely? |
My point wasn'tabout SAP but why you HAD to define the creator as you did. If you think that the creator must conform to the SAP model then you must say why that SAP creator is more probable then any other.
quote:
When comparing probabilities other options are irrelevant. When comparing the probability of rolling two sixes when using weighted die or fair die, the probability of two fives are not considered. |
Other options are most relevant. If the choice is one out of two then the chance is fifty-fifty. If one out of three then its about thrity-three percent. Etc. Even given that simple model, increased options effect probabilities, more so with complex models.
To extend you analogy, we are arguing about what number the dice is more likely to land on. Design theorists say that the "design" part of the die is far more likely to be chosen then the 'random' part. And given those odds design looks true. But if other "numers" are put in "Multiple worlds, necessity and such" are put in, then the chances of design becomes less and less. The number of options means everything.
It means the difefrence between expecting to get a number less then 5 on a six sided dice vs getting less then five on a twenty sided dice.
To chose to ignore other options for sake of comparison is to make a false dilema. This makes your comparisons worthless.
quote:
Its a qualitive statement, not designed to calculate any tangible probabilities. For example if it is covercast outside, it is more likely to rain than if it is clear sunshine. Its a qualitative decision whether to take an umbrella. |
I would say that's a false analogy as we are dealing with something unknown and conceptual here, not something already known and empirical. Needless to say if your statement is purely a qualitative one....why present it in a mathematical manner?
It seems to me that the qualitative i.e. subjective nature of your calculations makes it so that they cannot be used as proof.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
To chose to ignore other options for sake of comparison is to make a false dilema. This makes your comparisons worthless. |
It was clearly a rough aproximation for the sake of discusion rather than a rigorous statement.
quote:
It seems to me that the qualitative i.e. subjective nature of your calculations makes it so that they cannot be used as proof. |
Obviously. Think of it as starting point. Kind of like the numbers for the odds of us finding another inteligent life in the Universe.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-05-2002 13:11
).
My wife found it hilarious of course...
|