1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThe only metarule I am considering at present is that no matter what the particulars of the universe are like, if intelligent life forms arise, some of them will marvel at how fine-tuned that universe is to fit them, whereas it is the particulars of the universe that have fine-tuned any such life forms to fit what it is like. This will hold in any universe, making it a metarule.
As already mentioned, I'm willing to accept the possibility of MetaRules.
Originally posted by JS357That's essentially called the anthropic principle.
The only metarule I am considering at present is that no matter what the particulars of the universe are like, if intelligent life forms arise, some of them will marvel at how fine-tuned that universe is to fit them, whereas it is the particulars of the universe that have fine-tuned any such life forms to fit what it is like. This will hold in any universe, making it a metarule.
Originally posted by JS357No, that's just the silly Lottery Fallacy Fallacy.
The only metarule I am considering at present is that no matter what the particulars of the universe are like, if intelligent life forms arise, some of them will marvel at how fine-tuned that universe is to fit them, whereas it is the particulars of the universe that have fine-tuned any such life forms to fit what it is like. This will hold in any universe, making it a metarule.
MetaRules as I am defining them would be ones that require all the physical constants in the universe to be at or very close to what they are thus making all possible universes life compatible.
Originally posted by no1marauderYour game, your rules. OK by me.
No, that's just the silly Lottery Fallacy Fallacy.
MetaRules as I am defining them would be ones that require all the physical constants in the universe to be at or very close to what they are thus making all possible universes life compatible.
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd you still fail to answer the question. Why do you keep avoiding it?
Then your point is trivial. The probability of any specific event depends on how probable it is. Duh.
I fail to see what is added to your "point" by specifying 5 dice rolls rather than just one.
Whether the point is trivial or not, whether you think nothing is added by the 5 die, please still go ahead and answer the question:
Since you are too lazy to actually find a die and throw it 5 times, merely write 5 random numbers (between 1 and 6 inclusive) in a row in this thread, and tell us what the probability was that those 5 numbers would have been chosen.
3 edits
Originally posted by SoothfastThe Anthropic Principle comes in various 'strengths'. In its weakest form, it is merely an observation and doesn't attempt to be a scientific theory at all. I don't really think its a particularly useful observation. In its strong form, it is much closer to what no1marauder is arguing and is used by people who don't understand basic probability theory. (like no1marauder, who still can't work out the probability of throwing 5 die in a row, yet thinks he can do meaningful calculations on a universe).
I think the Anthropic Principle makes a valid point that is worth considering, even though it does not stand as a scientific theory. I recall that Lee Smolin expresses a low opinion of it in "The Trouble With Physics," but still...
Originally posted by twhiteheadI refer only to the Weak Anthropic Principle (or "weaker versions" if you like). I confess I have never really understood the strong versions -- or at least, why scientists waste their time with the strong versions, like this one:
The Anthropic Principle comes in various 'strengths'. In its weakest form, it is merely an observation and doesn't attempt to be a scientific theory at all. I don't really think its a particularly useful observation. In its strong form, it is much closer to what no1marauder is arguing and is used by people who don't understand basic probability theory. (l ...[text shortened]... ability of throwing 5 die in a row, yet thinks he can do meaningful calculations on a universe).
"The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history."
Huh? At best it sounds tautological (since there is indeed life in the universe), and at worst it sounds like some notion of "divine destiny."
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm perfectly aware what the odds of throwing dice are. Throwing 5 times is a red herring; the same point applies when you throw just once or whether you throw it a hundred billion times. You are aware of this, aren't you?
And you still fail to answer the question. Why do you keep avoiding it?
Whether the point is trivial or not, whether you think nothing is added by the 5 die, please still go ahead and answer the question:
Since you are too lazy to actually find a die and throw it 5 times, merely write 5 random numbers (between 1 and 6 inclusive) in a row in this thread, and tell us what the probability was that those 5 numbers would have been chosen.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYour foolish Ad Hominems are ridiculous. Is this really the best you can do in a discussion l.e. partially copy and paste excerpts from someone's posts and ignore their full, substantive content?
The Anthropic Principle comes in various 'strengths'. In its weakest form, it is merely an observation and doesn't attempt to be a scientific theory at all. I don't really think its a particularly useful observation. In its strong form, it is much closer to what no1marauder is arguing and is used by people who don't understand basic probability theory. (l ...[text shortened]... ability of throwing 5 die in a row, yet thinks he can do meaningful calculations on a universe).
It's a remarkably pathetic display; RJ Hinds could hardly do worse.
Originally posted by no1marauderYet you have not been willing to tell us.
I'm perfectly aware what the odds of throwing dice are.
Throwing 5 times is a red herring; the same point applies when you throw just once or whether you throw it a hundred billion times. You are aware of this, aren't you?
If it is a red herring, why are you so reluctant to answer the question?