Anthropic Nonsense

[Ethelred]

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.

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]

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]

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.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Dr.Oogkloot

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

Which is why I think multiverses are suggestors of random "design" and a single universe a suggestor of "intelligent" design.

"So what" if it was a single attempt and we were created by fluke, we are viewing our creation based on the knowledge that we exist. Hence the unlikely probability of us being here is negated. Just like in the Doomsday argument, we are measuring our position based on the knowledge of when we are.

Having said all that... a single universe is more likely to have been created by intelligent design than a multiverse.

[Oldenbarnevelt]

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.

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.

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.

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]

Re: Missing the point

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.

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]

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.

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?

There is no life force.

Nice of him to tell us. Does he have any scientific evidence for this?

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.

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?

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.)

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.

[Aeson]

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?

Whether we have free will or not, our choices are limited. I think this is the point he was making. Does it really matter how our choices are limited? It can be God's laws, the laws of nature, or human enforced ones. You can say 'free will within reason', but then it's dependant on someone's reason. Who's the magic one who can apply laws without compromising free will?

[Oldenbarnevelt]

I am sorry that I responded in a serious and matter-of-fact way to Rogan Josh's post about his dislike for Steven Weinberg. In his latest post, he has unequivocally exposed his true motives.
If Steven Weinberg's name had been Steven Jones, Rogan would probably have liked the guy, if you get my meaning...

-

[Dauphin]

Re: Re: Missing the point

Originally posted by Dr.Oogkloot

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.

I am of the exact opposite consderation. To me the Strong Anthropic is more feasable if there is only one cosmos.

Based on the suppositions that:

1) An intelligent designer would want to create life he would create the conditions condusive to it. (Basis of SAP - valid assumption)
2) If there is no intelligent design, we are here by pure chance (Antithesis of SAP - valid assumption).
3) The chance of life developing increases with number of universes in the multiverse (well it might decrease but who knows).

Assign the probability of intelligent design a value - X.
Assign the probability of life (assuming intelligent design) - 1
Assign the probability of life from a single universe (assuming chance) - Y
Assign the probability of life in a multiverse (chance) - nY

Do the probability tree of the options, and eliminate the ones we know to be false leaves:

1) ID - Life - SU or MU = X
2) RD - Life - SU = (100-X) * Y
3) RD - Life - MU = (100-X) * nY

The one that leaves more scope for ID is therefore option 2), a single universe.

Please don't poke holes in my idea, it took ages to think up.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
OK then. Let me make some comments.

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?

Do we have thousands of probes in his brain checking multiple variables and running simulations on supercomputers?

Do you have any evidence for your particular version of free-will besides a "feeling"?

Nice of him to tell us. Does he have any scientific evidence for this?

The total lack of evidence for the existence of such a 'force' is a pretty good sign at the moment. Right now it looks like a purely religious idea.

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.

There are NO experts in that area. His oppinion is just as valid as anyone elses. Yours included. There is no validity at all. There is no answer not even religious ones as there is no way to support them with evidence.

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?

There is still no evidence of a benevolent designer. There is no reason to think the Universe had to designed with humans having too many children for the resources which is the main cause of these problems. Someone has something someone else wants. Surely an all-powerfull all-knowing omni-benevolent god could have come up with something better. Is this truely the best the creator could do?

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.

There weren't very many Atheists or Agnostics prior to Darwin and Wallaces theory of natural selection. Even Darwin was a divinity student at one time despite his grandfather being on of the rare Atheists.

[Dr.Oogkloot]

Re: Re: Re: Missing the point

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin




I am of the exact opposite consderation. To me the Strong Anthropic is more feasable if there is only one cosmos.

Based on the suppositions that:

1) An intelligent designer would want to create life he would create the conditions condusive to it. (Basis of SAP - valid assumption)
2) If there is no intelligent design, we are here by pure chance (Antithesis of SAP - valid assumption).
3) The chance of life developing increases with number of universes in the multiverse (well it might decrease but who knows).

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.

...I suppose this also overlaps a bit with the "why is there something instead of nothing" issue which I still intend to reply to some time

[Dr.Oogkloot]

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?

There's a difference between forcing people to do things and creating them a certain way, or not at all.
Why couldn't God have created a world without Nazis?

Why didn't he create a world where people chose the right thing? They would still have choices in such a world.

[Logical Realist]

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?

The complexity in his examples is irrelevant. Free will is a superstition. The TV segment is based on a false analogy, we likewise cannot predict dog behavior like we can the weather, that mean dog's have free will?

Nice of him to tell us. Does he have any scientific evidence for this?

I believe vitalism was disproven by

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?

Well if an omnipotent God can't get around this problem he's not really omnipotent is he?

Typical Jewish propaganda, and absolute rubbish.

I didn't even suspect that at ALL reading the article. I'm wondering where you got it from in fact.

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.

OHH of course, that's why they deserved it.

One problem though: Jews were bankers BECAUSE they could not get any other jobs and had to keep their assets liquid (In order to be able to move towns real fast when the latest bigots got fiesty). This means the persecution started before the Jews got rich banking. So much for that bit of speculation....

And remember that the Jews were expelled from Israel by the Romans - not by Christians.

Actually they left because of the Crusades.

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.)

You're right one example does not prove a causal link between any given belief system and any sort of conduct....however it helps build a case. And this paticular example bears rather hefty weight.

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.

That sounds less like you have a purely scientific problem with Weinberg and more like you have a political problem to me. The whole "society is controlled by science" statement sounds like pure hogwash to me. Given the Gallup polls are accurate. (In which case about 45 percent of the US still adheres to creationism and belief in pseudoscience is going up ).