7 edits
Concerning more than one definition of "Anthropic Prinicple".
In the following discussion by Richard Dawkins, he speak of "versions" of the Anthropic Principle. He says some are favored by some physicists over some other version favored by others.
And some other study seemed to bear that out.
"It depends on who you ask" is what I said above.
It was not a matter of me only consulting with my "friends".
And Wikipedia is not the only source for definitions.
(this is sonship at a relative's PC)
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou say we don't know very much, then you will say we know nothing at all, then you will say we know practically nothing.
Where did I 'flip-flop'? Oh, I see, you just couldn't address the content of my post, so you went with attacking the poster.
The slightest bit of life is immensely more than no life at all.
A little bit of knowledge is immensely more than no knowledge at all.
You continue insist to view our knowledge in light of our ignorance, but neglect the concept that the only reason we know there is so much more to know is precisely because of what we already know!
For instance:
We've both been on this site for eight-nine years, both contributing to this forum for most of that time, with you beginning here in 2007 and my first one in 2005.
If my memory serves--- and I think it does--- there has not been a single 'conversion' by any theist or atheist to the opposing view in that entire time.
Between the two of us, nearly 2000 pages (each page averaging 15 posts each) making a total near 30,000 posts in which we have contributed our 1.5 cents.
And that's just us.
Just considering our contributions, the number seems large.
But considering our number in light of the total threads both since we arrived on the scene as well as those which occurred before us, the weight begins to diminish in proportion.
In the time since you and I first started posting here, there have been no less than 8,000 threads contributed to by those who frequent the forum.
Some threads were one-and-done's while others were into the hundreds of exchanges.
Out a little further to include ALL internet chat rooms/forums/blogs wherein exchanges on the topic of theism vs atheism have been made since Al Gore first brought the internet into existence, and our 30K is microscopically small.
Yet despite the smallness of the sample group provided by the two of us or even the 8,850 total threads within the Spirituality forum in comparison to the entire amount available within the internet, based upon what we have seen just during our time of contribution, we can make a very reliable prediction.
The rule: in the debate between theists and atheists, exchanges on the internet do not lead to changes in opinions on the topic.
The exception: someone, somewhere might have actually changed their mind.
The overall effect: the exception(s) are so small as to not even register as a variable.
Now compare that little factoid with what we know about life outside of this planet.
With a little bit of effort and scrutiny, we could find the proverbial needle in the haystack of the theism v atheism debate.
Of course, this simply reinforces the rule/exception and overall effect, but it's a probable nonetheless.
With years of considerable effort and unrelenting scrutiny, we have yet to find the proverbial needle in the haystack of the 'is there life' question.
What we have received over and over again is a resounding 'no.'
Now, it is still within the realm of logical possibility that we find life somewhere else.
But, based upon what we know so far, that possibility is highly improbable.
And, even if we were to find life out there somewhere, the revelation of its existence does nothing to change our basic understanding of its existence:
it is an exceedingly rare occurrence within this universe.
Originally posted by gswilmI think you need to watch that youtube over a few times. Dawkings makes it quite clear that the Anthropic Principle is the principle that we see the universe the way it is, because if it wasn't the way it is, we wouldn't be here to see it.
Concerning more than one definition of "Anthropic Prinicple".
In the following discussion by Richard Dawkins, he speak of "versions" of the [b]Anthropic Principle. He says some are favored by some physicists over some other version favored by others. [/b]
I can't recall any version of the Anthropic Principle that supports your claim. In fact I think the Anthropic principle is by its nature a refutation of your claim.
And Wikipedia is not the only source for definitions.
I never thought nor implied that it was. In fact I suggested you find something more authoritative.
I had thought that you might have been mislead by some source, but so far it appears you simply misunderstood what the principle was.
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut he says "Some physicists stop there ...".
I think you need to watch that youtube over a few times. Dawkings makes it quite clear that the Anthropic Principle is the principle that we see the universe the way it is, because if it wasn't the way it is, we wouldn't be here to see it.
I can't recall any version of the Anthropic Principle that supports your claim. In fact I think the Anthropic princ ...[text shortened]... n mislead by some source, but so far it appears you simply misunderstood what the principle was.
Which I take to mean that they stop there with that definition.
Then he goes on that he agrees with those who don't find that satisfying.
We may understand "that" to be the explanation of the Anthropic Principle which he has just explained.
Then Dawkins continues with an elaboration which he finds more satisfying as well as others. It speaks of another scientiest's "dissatisfaction with it".
At approximately 1:28 Dawkins says " A VERSION of the Anthropic Principle does answer that ..." (my emphasis). That being a certain issue of probability brought out in an example about a firing squad.
Now I have no particular dog in this nuanced discussion. But apparently Dawkins speaks about a more adaquate "version" of the Anthropic Principle.
He is clear that some favor the previous version and some favor this latter version. The further explanation of this latter "version" seems to be related to the existence of billions of universes.
I gather from this that if you ask one group to explain "Anthropic Principle" you get one version. And if you ask the second group you get the version that they prefer.
It is true that at 2:23 he says "Now the Anthropic Principle comes in. We have to be in one of those universes."
I think in his mind there seems to be versions.
There may be a more formal standard defnition.
But it is not too much unlike defining "Evolution." Discussion has progressed to the point that one may have to pin down what one means by usage of the phrase.
I notice that there is also a "Strong Anthropic Principle" and a "Weak Anthropic Principle."
(sonship here)
Originally posted by RJHindsWow, such an incredibly subtle refutation of my argument. Why don't you try going over the statements point by point like the big boys do instead of your childish senile responses you usually do?
I would prefer that you stick it up your rear end.
Nah, forget it, you are incapable of real argument, you just revert to your Goddidit MO.
Originally posted by gswilmExactly. The Anthropic principle is that we are necessarily in a universe that we are in.
It is true that at 2:23 he says "Now the Anthropic Principle comes in. We have to be in one of those universes."
I think in his mind there seems to be versions.
Yes, there are variations, but all the variations he mentions are as I state above.
I notice that there is also a "Strong Anthropic Principle" and a "Weak Anthropic Principle."
Yes, the Wikipedia page lists a number of versions. However, none of them are what you seem to have thought it meant when you have used it earlier in this thread.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe have to be in the universe that we are in because there are no other universes. Even a moron should know that.
Exactly. The Anthropic principle is that we are necessarily in a universe that we are in.
[b]I think in his mind there seems to be versions.
Yes, there are variations, but all the variations he mentions are as I state above.
I notice that there is also a "Strong Anthropic Principle" and a "Weak Anthropic Principle."
Yes, the Wikiped ...[text shortened]... of them are what you seem to have thought it meant when you have used it earlier in this thread.[/b]
Originally posted by RJHindsIt's amazing how much you think you know about the universe considering your ultimate source is the bible which says nothing about multiple universes one way or the other, so all you have is your opinion which we all know is worthless.
We have to be in the universe that we are in because there are no other universes. Even a moron should know that.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead
Exactly. The Anthropic principle is that we are necessarily in a universe that we are in.
[b]I think in his mind there seems to be versions.
Yes, there are variations, but all the variations he mentions are as I state above.
I notice that there is also a "Strong Anthropic Principle" and a "Weak Anthropic Principle."
Yes, the Wikiped ...[text shortened]... of them are what you seem to have thought it meant when you have used it earlier in this thread.[/b]
Yes, the Wikipedia page lists a number of versions. However, none of them are what you seem to have thought it meant when you have used it earlier in this thread.
Maybe that's why I thought to point out myself in a latter post that the phrase is used with somewhat different significances by different people.
Anyway, Fine Tuning of the values and constants governing the universe we do know of, I take as evidence of God's existence.
And I think for many people the implications are disturbing. And for some people to counteract the suggestion of a Intelligent Creator, a Multiverse serves to dampen the sense of the deliberateness of this Fine Tuning.
They long perhaps, for the Copernican Principle making man having no special central place in the cosmos.
But if not any physical center, the metaphysical center seems to have higher life as its focus if Fine Tuning is real.
Fine Tuning is excellent evidence for a Fine Tuner Who intended for man to occupy a unique place in the creation, and to eventually realize through his own science, that he might be in the unique place.
6 edits
As formulated by Barrow and Tipler, the Anthropic Principle states that any observed properties of the universe which may at first appear may at first appear highly improbable. Ie. Some modern scientists are astonished at the accommodation of this universe to man's existence. But for Barrow and Tipler they only seem improbable because certain properties could not be observed by us since we can only observe properties which are compatible with human existence.
Ingenius. I like it.
The implication is that there should be no surprise in observing the universe people live in as it is. We should not be surprised and therefore should not really seek to wonder how fine tuning for our existence occurred.
In this reasoning it has been said are two claims - one true and one false.
The true claim - If observers who have evolved within a universe observe its constants and quantities, it is highly probable that they will observe them as fine tuned for their existence.
The false claim - It is highly probable that a universe exist which is finely tuned for the evolution of the observers within it.
The first claim is that an evolved observer may find it highly probable that the quantities and constants have been fine tuned for his existence.
The second claim some say erroneously infers from the first claim, that therefore it is highly probable that such a fine-tuned universe exists.
You have to separate the two claims from each other. Yes we notice that our universe is fine tuned for our existence. You should expect that we would notice this. But why does such a fine tuned universe exist when it is so improbable ?
Originally posted by sonshipFine tuned or not, you can't prove it to come from a god.
As formulated by Barrow and Tipler, the Anthropic Principle states that any observed properties of the universe which may at first appear may at [b]first appear highly improbable. Ie. Some modern scientists are astonished at the accommodation of this universe to man's existence. But for Barrow and Tipler they only seem improbable because certain propert ...[text shortened]... t we would notice this. But why does such a fine tuned universe exist when it is so improbable ?[/b]