Anthropic Principle

[Philosophy Explorer]

Does it make sense to you? Is it consistent with our universe? Is it testable? Is it circular reasoning? Have you ever heard of it?

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5989467/how-does ... e-universe

PhilX

[Hobbes' Choice]

Does it make sense to you? Is it consistent with our universe? Is it testable? Is it circular reasoning? Have you ever heard of it?

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5989467/how-does ... e-universe

PhilX

Yes, obviously, not relevant, duh, yes.

Why are you interested?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Does it make sense to you? Is it consistent with our universe? Is it testable? Is it circular reasoning? Have you ever heard of it?

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5989467/how-does ... e-universe

PhilX

Yes, obviously, not relevant, duh, yes.

Why are you interested?

Everybody tries to understand their place in this universe.

PhilX

[Hobbes' Choice]

Does it make sense to you? Is it consistent with our universe? Is it testable? Is it circular reasoning? Have you ever heard of it?

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5989467/how-does ... e-universe

PhilX

Yes, obviously, not relevant, duh, yes.

Why are you interested?

Everybody tries to understand their place in this universe.

PhilX

Is that the best answer you can give?
How do you think the AP affects your view point?

[Obvious Leo]

Phil. I'm ashamed to confess that the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle (CRAP) was the brainchild of an intellectually defective Australian named Brandon Carter who should have been strangled at birth. Try this on for an absolutely analagous argument. Do you regard it as miraculous that it was you that was conceived rather than some other bloke in the long-ago act of love which brought you into existence? Was this an event of such astonishing improbability that the only way it could be accounted for is to assume that all the people who you are NOT must also exist somewhere in the physical universe? This is the logic of the CRAP and a clear example of why physicists should stay in their own playpen and play with their own toys. Consulting a physicist on matters of logic is rather like consulting a proctologist for a toothache. The stupid plonker will be looking in the wrong hole.

[Obvious Leo]

This relates to an earlier thread which you tried to start when you posed this question of equal absurdity.

Q. Why is it that the universe is seen to conform to the particular suite of laws and mathematical constants which physics has "discovered" instead of to some other laws and constants?

A. Because these laws and constants are not "discovered" at all but merely invented to codify observations and if they don't do so satisfactorily they are discarded and replaced by better ones.

The CRAP is an example of similar Platonist lunacy.

[Philosophy Explorer]

This relates to an earlier thread which you tried to start when you posed this question of equal absurdity.

Q. Why is it that the universe is seen to conform to the particular suite of laws and mathematical constants which physics has "discovered" instead of to some other laws and constants?

A. Because these laws and constants are not "discovered" at all but merely invented to codify observations and if they don't do so satisfactorily they are discarded and replaced by better ones.

The CRAP is an example of similar Platonist lunacy.

Leo,

Coming from someone who questions the reality of this universe and (by implication) his own leads me to question your latest assertion.

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

Is that the best answer you can give?
How do you think the AP affects your view point?

Hobbes,

I had anticipated the AP independently so it doesn't affect my viewpoint (see what Leo said just above about physical constants). To go from randomness to life (more ordered) or intelligence (even more ordered) to me is nothing short of a miracle on earth. Why the constants are the way they are instead of being less or more is another mystery in our universe (on this last note, this can be taken as evidence for a multiverse as the odds are astronomical against the constants having this arrangement). As far as Leo saying that the constants can be replaced by better ones is nonsense unless he means more accurate constants.

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

When did I ever question the reality of the universe, Phil?

[Obvious Leo]

To go from randomness to life (more ordered) or intelligence (even more ordered) to me is nothing short of a miracle on earth.

If you start with randomness I would agree with you. However evolution can explain the rest.

Why the constants are the way they are instead of being less or more is another mystery in our universe

Why are the constants what they are instead of some other value?

Because if they weren't we'd change the fucking things. Mystery solved.

[Philosophy Explorer]

When did I ever question the reality of the universe, Phil?

You don't remember? Have you changed your mind and now say the universe is real?

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

To go from randomness to life (more ordered) or intelligence (even more ordered) to me is nothing short of a miracle on earth.

If you start with randomness I would agree with you. However evolution can explain the rest.

Why the constants are the way they are instead of being less or more is another mystery in our universe

Why are the constants what they are instead of some other value?

Because if they weren't we'd change the fucking things. Mystery solved.

Evolution only goes so far in explaining how life arose and with the human brain, I haven't seen any explanation on how it came about that a brain can do all the things it does, e.g. abstract thinking or linguistic ability. Evolution is a selective process to make a choice among different alternatives to match up with the environment, but doesn't explain how those alternatives came to be.

With constants, you can change their expression, but that doesn't change the constants itself. (the sole exception I'm aware of is very shortly after the Big Bang was there a change, but you don't believe in the Big Bang so it's nonsense for you to even bring up that constants can change).

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

When did I ever question the reality of the universe, Phil?

You don't remember? Have you changed your mind and now say the universe is real?

PhilX

I never made any such comment. You should stop smoking that shit. I've many times claimed that 3 dimensional space is not physically real but rather an abstract construct of the consciousness of the observer, which is hardly a controversial statement since I know of no philosopher who would dare to suggest otherwise, but I've never once claimed that the universe is not physically real.

[Philosophy Explorer]

When did I ever question the reality of the universe, Phil?

You don't remember? Have you changed your mind and now say the universe is real?

PhilX

I never made any such comment. You should stop smoking that shit. I've many times claimed that 3 dimensional space is not physically real but rather an abstract construct of the consciousness of the observer, which is hardly a controversial statement since I know of no philosopher who would dare to suggest otherwise, but I've never once claimed that the universe is not physically real.

How many dimensions is real space?

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

How many dimensions is real space?

As a maths enthusiast you should be embarrassed to ask such a foolish question.