Anthropic Nonsense

[Logical Realist]

SD: My main problem is with your assumptions.

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)

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?

2) If there is no intelligent design, we are here by pure chance (Antithesis of SAP - valid assumption).

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.

3) The chance of life developing increases with number of universes in the multiverse (well it might decrease but who knows).

I grant that, though it might also increase or decrease with the number of creators.

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. The chance of a universe being conductive to life, of a creator wanting life etc. All of which apear unknown to me, especially since the chances could be 100 percent even without a designer via a purely materialistic/deterministic model.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Logical Realist


Actually they left because of the Crusades.

The Romans not only did it, they did it twice. The Crusaders didn't kick them out. They murdered them. Slit their bellies open to in case they had swallowed any valuables. Jews have been kicked out of Israel and particularly Jerusalems quite a few times.

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 ).

25% of the US is creationist according to the latest polls I checked recently. Besides Rogan lives in England.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Besides Rogan lives in England.

France.

What I meant by science controlling society is that I think it is unhealthy for the 'masses' to rather mindlessly believe everything that scientists tell them. And believe me, they certainly do in Europe (don't know about the US).

This is of course the media's fault - not the scientists. On the whole the scientists are not out for power or influence (except for egomaniacs like Weinberg or Gel-Man). The media likes to have stories about exciting scientific advance, but in the interests of viewing figures tend to exagerate the importance of certain things and make them seem weirder than they really are.

This leads to descriptions of fantastical ideas which the general public simply do not understand. Consequently they think that scientists have some sort of magical insight into the physical world which they do not have and believe whatever they are told.

I have seen this time and time again, and it is very unhealthy. In fact, I have seen it in my own life. When I lived in the UK, I knew lots of peoples who were not scientists who I had met through my wife's work. Sometimes we would go down the pub and discuss stuff (as you do) and I found they would believe practically everything I would tell them. I found it completely sickening. My wife found it hilarious of course...

This is one of the reasons why Feynman was such a great scientist - he could put things in a way that people could understand, so that they didn't have to take everything he said as true without understanding it.

The point I made earlier was with regard to this behaviour. You should not give Weinberg special consideration on religious matters because he is a scientist. He is entitled to personal, subjective opinions like everyone else, but one should not give those opinions extra weight becasue of his scientific training.

I don't see why you would object to this. I am trying to encourage you to be skeptical of everything you are told - whether it comes from a scientist or not. Why do you object to this?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


France.

Ooops. OK I will try to remember it right this time.

What I meant by science controlling society is that I think it is unhealthy for the 'masses' to rather mindlessly believe everything that scientists tell them. And believe me, they certainly do in Europe (don't know about the US).

A lot of Americans take what is in the Bible mindlessly. 25% are fundamentalist and believe the world is only 6000 years old. Many others most likely think the way you think Europeans do. It does take a lot of time to keep up with things. However most Americans don't care one way or the other. They care about more practical things like making a buck.

This is of course the media's fault - not the scientists. On the whole the scientists are not out for power or influence (except for egomaniacs like Weinberg or Gel-Man).

You need to find some non-Jews to complain about. Its getting suspicious. Well you do seem to like Feynmann anyway.


I saw Gell-Mann on a computer show called Screen Savers a few weeks ago. He didn't seem that bad. Maybe he was out on good behavior as other things I read implie that he can be a pain.

The media likes to have stories about exciting scientific advance, but in the interests of viewing figures tend to exagerate the importance of certain things and make them seem weirder than they really are.

Its because they are journalists with little or no science training in many cases. Then there is the horror that is New Age psuedo-science. Untill recently the US had a large book chain called Crown-Books that put the Occult-New Age garbage right next to the Science books. For that they deserved to go bankrupt.

This leads to descriptions of fantastical ideas which the general public simply do not understand. Consequently they think that scientists have some sort of magical insight into the physical world which they do not have and believe whatever they are told.

I have seen this time and time again, and it is very unhealthy. In fact, I have seen it in my own life. When I lived in the UK, I knew lots of peoples who were not scientists who I had met through my wife's work. Sometimes we would go down the pub and discuss stuff (as you do) and I found they would believe practically everything I would tell them. I found it completely sickening. My wife found it hilarious of course...

Don't try it on me. I might buy it for a day or two though. Cheap thrills. Some of your victims might find your statements hilarious too. I have noticed that people are often reluctant to speak out when they think they are being gulled.

This is one of the reasons why Feynman was such a great scientist - he could put things in a way that people could understand, so that they didn't have to take everything he said as true without understanding it.

I like his books. The ones I have read anyway. I recommend John Gribbons books but I think he cons himself sometimes. He was hung up on the universe having the exact mass for it to be on the cusp of infinite expansion vs. falling back. The specific term escapes me at the moment. Omega point I think.

The point I made earlier was with regard to this behaviour. You should not give Weinberg special consideration on religious matters because he is a scientist. He is entitled to personal, subjective opinions like everyone else, but one should not give those opinions extra weight becasue of his scientific training.

I think you see something that mostly doesn't exist. No one has a special insight on religious matters because there is no testing such things. Except the falsifiable stuff like a 6 day creation.

I don't see why you would object to this. I am trying to encourage you to be skeptical of everything you are told - whether it comes from a scientist or not. Why do you object to this?

I am confused. What did I object to that could possibly have implied that I am gullible? You seem to have a less than objective attitude to what Weinberg said. He didn't claim any special religious knowledge. He was asked to speak out on the subject. He had the right to do so in fact even if he had not been asked.

However I do think you need to be a bit more skeptical about free will and few other religious ideas you have.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ethelred
You need to find some non-Jews to complain about. Its getting suspicious. Well you do seem to like Feynmann anyway.

I hadn't realized that Gell-Mann was Jewish. I nearly added Hawking to the list but thought you minght condemn me for picking on someone in a wheelchair. (I refain from adding Witten, because I actually found him rather agreeable the (admitedly few) times we have met.)

Don't try it on me. I might buy it for a day or two though. Cheap thrills. Some of your victims might find your statements hilarious too. I have noticed that people are often reluctant to speak out when they think they are being gulled.

You misunderstand me. I wasn't trying to gull anyone. It was simply that they would regard my opinions on anything as somehow correct by default since I was a scientist. Spooky...

I am confused. What did I object to that could possibly have implied that I am gullible?

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?

However I do think you need to be a bit more skeptical about free will and few other religious ideas you have.

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?

[Ethelred]

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.

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]

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point

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.

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?

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.

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]

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]

RJ here's what Columbian Encyclopedia had to say about the cause of anti-semitism.

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:

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]

SD:

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

[Dr.Oogkloot]

Originally posted by Ethelred


I don't see modern scientific theory as precluding something that resembles free will. Our brains aren't Turing machines.

Turing machines can't have free will?

[SpencerH]

Interesting philosophical stuff!

Heres what I want to know, whats the basis for more than one universe? It seems to me that this is something that is tossed around with some glibness (no offense intended). Are we talking about something like quarks vibrating at different frequencies or is it metaphysics on top of more metaphysics?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Logical Realist
It seems to me that the qualitative i.e. subjective nature of your calculations makes it so that they cannot be used as proof.

I'm not trying to proove anything. Why do you think I am?

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

We were discussing the changing of a single variable in information, and whether that change in variable would increase or decrease the chances of intelligent design. No matter how unlikely it is in absolute terms.

Basically, I am trying to consider how the probability distribution would change if we ascertained the answer to the single vs multiple universe conundrum?