TO SERVE MAN
The Anthropic Principle is the most ridiculous thing I have seen produced by real grown-up scientists.
It's fascinating in a train-wreck way to watch geeks reinvent wheels. Clearly there wasn't any need to stay awake during Philosophy 10, much less do any reading on the subject later on when they got big ideas about the place of humanity in the
It's fascinating in a train-wreck way to watch geeks reinvent wheels. Clearly there wasn't any need to stay awake during Philosophy 10, much less do any reading on the subject later on when they got big ideas about the place of humanity in the
Daddy is a lot easier to deal with...
"Daddy" has absoutely nothing to do with real scientific interpretations that don't include random chance occurrence due to any form of intrinsic finality that exists within the physical process. You guys have made a lot of assumptions about the actual nature of the universe that depend on theoretical projections that haven't been fully justified by science yet, so nothing has been decided, and the fact that you guys just "know" what's correct despite the evidence, indicates that you practice religion better than you understand how science is done.
All that you have to do is to define the mysterious stability mechanism that causes the universe to be "anthropically constrained" and there won't be any more speculation about mumbo-jumbo anything. What your looking for is something that enables the universe to follow the least action principle while defying all known physics to get there. Then you'll have the answer that will either remove us from the equation, or it will explain how and why we are significant players in the physical process of the universe.
Simple enough, right?... only please leave your bibles at home, because you're just prayin until you answer the question.
Reply
Y'all come right back 'soon as you find that.
Reply
You guys all seem to think that means that you are justified to keep on worshiping Chaos in spite of the evidence, until we do.
Why do you think that Hawking supports the AP, because he's an idiot creationist?... or because he is willing to face facts, unlike yourselves?
You missed the point, see, cuz, the actual structure of the universe is in "dramatic contrast" to the "expectation", so many fixed balance points that are commonly pointing directly toward carbon-based life indicate that there is some good physical reason for it that is somehow "specially" related to the existence of carbon-based life.
We don't let killers loose because the only evidence we have is his fingerprints all over the gun and the dead person's credit cards in his pocket. Willful ignorance of this evidence only makes you more arrogant than any creationist ever was.
All hail our lord and master, "Chaos"...
*everybody kneels and bows their heads*
Ahman!
Reply
Perhaps I am not smart enough to see how the "anthropic principle" differs from any other breathless truism in a Baptist pamphlet or any other "oh wow" moment from a late night freshman dorm room bull session. But I don't. It's still the old hoary watchmaker argument even if you leave out the deity and call him a principle.
The evidence that we occurred is, in fact, strong. In fact, the past in general has a probability of 1 which is about as good as you can get. I cheerfully join in agreeing with you that the way things happened is the way things happened.
Everything else about the "anthropic principle" seriously makes me wonder if anyone in Physics thought to stroll over to Philosophy and ask if anyone had been thinking about these problems.
Reply
Anyway, our "anthropic" pal above is itself pretty much a counterexample to a planned universe. At least, its use of grammar does not lead one to suspect any "principle" of rational order inherent in the way of things.
Reply
Please explain to me why you think it requires such great intelligence and religous conviction to recognize that a simple physical need will justify physics that forces it's appearance in nature?
It must be hard for you because it occurs so commonly.
Also, I should tell you that your reply is stereotypical in the manner that it is intentionally designed to willfully ignore hard empirical evidence, while attemping to downplay it's significance... just like "antifanatics" do when they knee-jerk react to what they wrongly perceive to be evidence for the existence of god.
Speaking of hypocrits, willful ignorance, "free-thinker arrogance" and silent denial, don't mean squat to science, no matter what the philosophers down the hall might tell you.
Reply
Rhetorical questions and insults aren't likely to change an opinion, as satisfying as they may be to type. If I wasn't convinced by the original argument, why would I be convinced by being told that I am a serious of unpleasant things, or being asked a series of "Have you stopped beating your wife" questions from a high school debate?
One thing that is without question in this universe or any other: That Internet Argument is going nowhere when it hits this stage. As a skeptic I'm unwilling to rule anything out, but the probability of either of us getting much out of this conversation now is zero.
If you feel the need for the last word, I hereby grant it to you with whatever rhetorical flourishes you find most satisfying. Salut.
Reply
There are two kinds of skeptics, but only one is honest with themselves.
Reply
This phrase has no meaning in standard english.
Reply
It reads either as the automatic writing of a kook or it needs to be seriously unpacked. "Crabbed" doesn't begin to describe it.
I encourage you to do this work, because otherwise your claims are not evaluable. Please show the article to people who are not part of the in-group and see where they fail to follow it, and work to make those parts clearer.
Then, go put it past someone with editing experience, who can get rid of the inappropriate dangling modifiers, confusing multi-clause sentences, and puzzling overall structure.
(It occurs to me I'm asking for things Wikipedia may be unequipped to do, but it's worth a shot.)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Also: "You're". "YOU'RE"!
Reply
Leave a comment