| vmancha |
| Posted 06/18/12 at 01:17 AM | Reply with quote #1 |
|
The anthropic principle makes it difficult to ignore the cosmological constant in our universe. It is set at 1 times 10 to the 120th power and is the most precise value in nature. According to Dr Susskind no one thinks that is reasonable to think the benevolence of nature can come up with such a number. He and others therefore believe in a multiverse scenario. Many scientists do not like this as according to science anything that is not testable is by definition not science. However belief in this is preferable to belief in god as it may still fall into a naturalistic scenario. Therefore the following proposition is laid down. p1=set of universes =infinity p2=there is no anthropic principle c= all things are possible. The following u tube is a reductum ad absurdum to this point watch Is p2 therefore correct? |
| Loading... | |
| CrashTestAuto |
| Posted 06/18/12 at 04:57 AM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
| vmancha, I'm curious as to what you hope to accomplish here. You post new threads on a regular basis, and they all contain a link to other sites. Do you honestly think that atheists (and some theists) are going to be convinced by this approach? That at some point you'll post a God of the gaps arguments from someone else on the internet and we'll suddenly realise that abiogenesis is impossible? Do you realise how hard it is to prove something is impossible if it does not involve a logical contradiction?
I only ask because you do not seem to be here to listen to what atheists are saying, or to learn about the reasons for believing in evolution, or about science. Why not just have a discussion with us rather than spamming links at us? |
| Loading... | |
| Lion_IRC |
| Posted 06/19/12 at 02:10 AM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
Surely, there would be an anthropic principle in at least 1 universe and who cares about the others?
Or to put it another way...
No, the trees dont have to be green and pleasing to the eye - lovely to look at.
But they are still there even if you close your eyes. They still exist even when you arent looking at them thinking how nice they are.
|
| Loading... | |
| vmancha |
| Posted 06/19/12 at 03:15 PM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAuto
vmancha, I'm curious as to what you hope to accomplish here.
Really you don't have to patronize.
The proposals are real. WLC points out how if you accept them we should be seeing unicorns popping into existence. Do you disagree? If so why.
How to overcome the anthropic principle is of utmost importance for your camp unless you want to accept what Susskind says and that is a belief in the overwhelming benevolence of nature.
So are all things possible in an infinite multiverse scenario?
|
| Loading... | |
| rsmartin |
| Posted 06/19/12 at 06:34 PM | Reply with quote #5 |
|
Funny how come I'm alive today if the anthropic principle is so critical to my existence. Knowledge of it is irrelevant to whether or not a person is atheist. I don't see it prowling around in my camp--that's for sure. Don't even know what it is.
Let William Lane Craig preach till he's blue in the face and loses his voice re what atheists "have" to believe. He's just plain wrong. If he doesn't want to look stupid he can stop making false statements like that. It's his choice. We believe what we believe regardless of what he preaches.
As for multiverse--it may or may not exist. Who cares?...Mostly the Christians care. And a few scientists. I find it an interesting hypothesis and if Christians push their argument unreasonably re science having no answer for the origin of life on earth I'm going to suggest they look at the multiverse hypothesis.
I don't take my orders from the Christians or their apologists.
I look at the universe and figure out what's real.
|
| Loading... | |
| rsmartin |
| Posted 06/19/12 at 06:39 PM | Reply with quote #6 |
|
Okay, here's Wikipedia on anthropic principle:
I guess the universe exists in the exact condition it exists, whether or not there is conscious life to observe it, whether or not conscious life correctly observes it.
Nope--no "anthropic principles" prowling around my camp. Funny animals, they are.
|
| Loading... | |
| JudeNebula |
| Posted 06/19/12 at 08:36 PM | Reply with quote #7 |
|
| 1.The laws of the universe could be different, and there would not be life..as we know it.
This of course doesn't rule out the possibility that there could be a completely different set of laws that could produce an entirely different kind of life, one not based on carbon, or perhaps something even far better than life.
2. However improbable the universes set up for life is, it is far far more probable than a magic man who exists by pure chance with the powers of creating a universe
AKA Who designed the Designer?
3. Neil Degrasse Tyson destroys the argument from Design..
|
| Loading... | |
| rsmartin |
| Posted 06/19/12 at 11:29 PM | Reply with quote #8 |
|
Jude, I'm not sure who you're responding to in your post but it's good to see another person taking Niel DeGrasse Tyson seriously. I really like him because of his ideas and his ability to communicate them but I've felt people ignore him because of his skin colour. To me, ideas and knowledge--what a person is--are more important than the colour of the package they come in.
|
| Loading... | |
| tlarsen |
| Posted 06/19/12 at 11:45 PM | Reply with quote #9 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAutovmancha, I'm curious as to what you hope to accomplish here. You post new threads on a regular basis, and they all contain a link to other sites. Do you honestly think that atheists (and some theists) are going to be convinced by this approach? That at some point you'll post a God of the gaps arguments from someone else on the internet and we'll suddenly realise that abiogenesis is impossible? Do you realise how hard it is to prove something is impossible if it does not involve a logical contradiction?
I only ask because you do not seem to be here to listen to what atheists are saying, or to learn about the reasons for believing in evolution, or about science. Why not just have a discussion with us rather than spamming links at us?
Just to clarify, would you say that abiogenesis occurred? |
| Loading... | |
| vmancha |
| Posted 06/20/12 at 03:03 PM | Reply with quote #10 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
Funny how come I'm alive today if the anthropic principle is so critical to my existence. Knowledge of it is irrelevant ...
I look at the universe and figure out what's real. ...
Thats the whole point. Knowledge is relevant. If a principle of this magnitude is real then you are really ignoring the facts of nature-thats real. Again contemplate Dr Susskinds ( an atheist) words watch
|
| Loading... | |
| vmancha |
| Posted 06/20/12 at 04:28 PM | Reply with quote #11 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
I guess the universe exists in the exact condition it exists, whether or not there is conscious life to observe it,
Nope--no "anthropic principles" prowling around
You correctly state life is not required for anthropic principle to exist. You further agree the universe is exact which is in essence the a restatement of the anthropic principle. But then you try to say its not "prowling around" as though it is a metaphor to you. Its not a real thing. Its most precise example is in Einsteins general relativity equations as the cosmological constant. How do you ignore the truth of this? Of course you are welcome to do this - I just wouldn't. |
| Loading... | |
