Anthropic Nonsense

[Ecthy]

I've just been buggered by some Brit... well, my "Hi " was, of course, directed at Dr. Oogkloot who I haven't seen posting for a long time. Though it was sort of logical he'd post in an ethics thread. Keep 'em coming, LR

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
I've just been buggered by some Brit...

Lucky you

[Ecthy]

Yes, you're very funny. Now stop spamming threads of sophisticated posters.

[Dr.Oogkloot]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Hi

Hi

[Dr.Oogkloot]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
The strong principle has no basis IMO. I am of the view that the universe is as it is because it just is.

If there is more than one world then the strong principle does have a basis. And I think it's very likely that there's more than one world, for physical reasons (many-worlds theory of QM is simpler) and philosophical reasons (a solution to "why is there something instead of nothing" is to say: mathematical existence is equivalent to physical existence).

I think the resolution of the Many Worlds Theory will have deep implications on an intelligent designer.

I hope so

[Aeson]

I think the resolution of the Many Worlds Theory will have deep implications on an intelligent designer. If this is the only reality, then intelligent desing is far more likely than if every possibility was manifest sometime, somewhere.

I think it can actually work in the opposite way. If the 'Universe' in our 3D (and time) sense is considered to be part of a much larger structure, then it is easier to comprehend how it the Universe could have been created by an intelligent designer. The designer would just have to reside on a larger scale than it's creation.

Now an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent designer isn't any more likely regardless of the scope attributed to existance...

[Dauphin]

"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". It could have just as equally turned out that nothing ever existed.

[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.

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

"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?

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".

[Dauphin]

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".

That argument is flawed, in the same manner as the theory that the world will end soon because I am alive now and not in the future. (Which IIRC we have discussed before).

[Dauphin]

you're just shifting the question to: how come am I here to ask the question?

We are here because nature is the way it is. But it could equally have turned out differently. Why did person X win the lottery kind of arguments. Person X won because they chose the right numbers! (or to avoid design, his random choice of numbers was the same as the draws random choice of numbers. )

[Dr.Oogkloot]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
That argument is flawed, in the same manner as the theory that the world will end soon because I am alive now and not in the future. (Which IIRC we have discussed before).

The Doomsday argument
IIRC I used to believe in that, but I think I know for certain why it's wrong now ("self-indication assumption" holds, ie posterior probability is higher than prior probability for theories that predict more observers).

...I was going to put a refutation here but am beginning to doubt whether your argument isn't correct after all
I should think about it and reply later.
I can say though that the lottery example is different because there are millions of lottery tickets being sold and we're assuming only one probabilistic "attempt" at a universe (right?). What I'm going to think about is whether this is important or not

[Logical Realist]

Missing the point

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.

[Adalbertus]

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.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Re: Missing the point

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.

Or a fondness for the subtle touch. I've never believed in over-egging the pudding.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Yes, you're very funny. Now stop spamming threads of sophisticated posters.

What an obvious mispelling. Its spelled POSER.