Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 6:07 AM
17 online now:
(17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345Next
Author Topic:   The Anthropic Principal - Cosmology
bebotx1
Member (Idle past 4395 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 16 of 69 (389737)
03-15-2007 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by PaulK
03-15-2007 3:09 AM


His original statement is also a tautology. But it doesn't explain anything.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 03-15-2007 3:09 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 03-15-2007 4:27 PM bebotx1 has responded

    
bebotx1
Member (Idle past 4395 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 17 of 69 (389739)
03-15-2007 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Larni
03-15-2007 7:09 AM


Yes. Because it isn't a reason, the way RD states it anyway it is a merely an observation.

It just plain amazes me that he can write that in a published book.

It's basically "We know it's possible for a life sustaining planet to exist with life because we are here on a life sustaining planet and we are alive"

I wouldn't expect anyone in the universe to argue with that.

The point is - it doesn't *explain* why we are here on this life sustaining planet.

And I think that's really my whole point.

RD says it explains something - and I say it's just an observation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Larni, posted 03-15-2007 7:09 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Larni, posted 03-16-2007 9:03 AM bebotx1 has not yet responded

    
bebotx1
Member (Idle past 4395 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 18 of 69 (389740)
03-15-2007 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Doddy
03-15-2007 8:55 AM


Re: God-did-it doesn't help
"Positing the existence of a God doesn't actually help the matter one bit. Now you have to explain why the creator happened to choose to make a universe for this kind of life over any other feasible life (or other feasible state of the universe, life or not, that would please God)."

Yes - to be concise it would raise more questions that it would answer.

But at LEAST it would be an *explanation*. Where as this AP thing just plain isn't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Doddy, posted 03-15-2007 8:55 AM Doddy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-15-2007 11:16 AM bebotx1 has responded
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 03-15-2007 6:05 PM bebotx1 has responded

    
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 69 (389742)
03-15-2007 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by bebotx1
03-15-2007 11:00 AM


Re: God-did-it doesn't help
But at LEAST it would be an *explanation*.

God-did-it is only an explanation if you have a working definition of the word "God." Otherwise, it's essentially shrugging and saying, "This... thing did it. This big cosmic thing. Yeah."

Or, rephrased slightly, "I have absolutely no idea."


"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by bebotx1, posted 03-15-2007 11:00 AM bebotx1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by bebotx1, posted 03-15-2007 1:28 PM Dan Carroll has responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1121
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 20 of 69 (389750)
03-15-2007 11:52 AM


Copernican -> Anthropic.
I just thought I'd mention that the Anthropic principle is conceived not as an explanation of life on Earth, but rather a modification of the Copernican principle. Normally in science you assume that your whereabouts are not special with respect to the majority of the universe.
The Anthropic principle modifies this to "Our position is not special up to the fact of our existence". Whether you agree with this or not is another story, but it is genuinely something you have to think about on cosmological scales.

Edited by Son Goku, : Added title.


Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by bebotx1, posted 03-15-2007 1:35 PM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3694 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 21 of 69 (389766)
03-15-2007 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by bebotx1
03-14-2007 9:41 PM


Re: The Third Explanation
I think it’s clear to anyone with an ounce of brains that the AP is not an explanation of anything – it’s an observation.

And I think it's clear to anyone with an ounce of brains that the AP (as stated at the OP) is not trying to explain anything. It's just pointing out that there is nothing to be explained.

Why did you completely ignore my first post where I ask what is there to be explained???

why did you completely ignore another post where someone pointed it out to you that to call something a truism is to acknowlege that it is true, but too obviously true in order to warrant being stated as such?
(And if it is so obviously true that there is nothing strange about the fact that we live in life-friend planet, why did you even take the time to start this thread???)

Finally: are you going to answer this post or pretend you didn't see it???

Edited by fallacycop, : fixing quote box


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by bebotx1, posted 03-14-2007 9:41 PM bebotx1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by bebotx1, posted 03-15-2007 1:40 PM fallacycop has responded

  
bebotx1
Member (Idle past 4395 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 22 of 69 (389775)
03-15-2007 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dan Carroll
03-15-2007 11:16 AM


Re: God-did-it doesn't help
I think you've got a good point there. God-did-it is often used just a place holder for "don't know now but might know later"

But it isn't always a kind of gap-filler, you might postulate that the whole she-bang was intentionally created with a purpose and it is exactly as it was designed to be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-15-2007 11:16 AM Dan Carroll has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-15-2007 1:32 PM bebotx1 has responded
 Message 27 by Tusko, posted 03-15-2007 1:40 PM bebotx1 has responded

    
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 69 (389776)
03-15-2007 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by bebotx1
03-15-2007 1:28 PM


Re: God-did-it doesn't help
But it isn't always a kind of gap-filler, you might postulate that the whole she-bang was intentionally created with a purpose and it is exactly as it was designed to be.

Still seems like a gap-filler to me; an explanation that fails to explain who, what, when, where, why, and how doesn't actually manage to explain much.


"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by bebotx1, posted 03-15-2007 1:28 PM bebotx1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by bebotx1, posted 03-15-2007 1:50 PM Dan Carroll has responded

  
bebotx1
Member (Idle past 4395 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 24 of 69 (389777)
03-15-2007 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Son Goku
03-15-2007 11:52 AM


Re: Copernican -> Anthropic.
spot on.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Son Goku, posted 03-15-2007 11:52 AM Son Goku has not yet responded

    
bebotx1
Member (Idle past 4395 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 25 of 69 (389779)
03-15-2007 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by fallacycop
03-14-2007 1:26 PM


Why the why?

Nothing NEEDS an explanation.

Close the universities, burn the books.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by fallacycop, posted 03-14-2007 1:26 PM fallacycop has not yet responded

    
bebotx1
Member (Idle past 4395 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 26 of 69 (389781)
03-15-2007 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by fallacycop
03-15-2007 12:58 PM


Re: The Third Explanation
"Finally: are you going to answer this post or pretend you didn't see it???"

you asked for it.

I'm gonna pretend I didn't see it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by fallacycop, posted 03-15-2007 12:58 PM fallacycop has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by fallacycop, posted 03-15-2007 2:05 PM bebotx1 has not yet responded

    
Tusko
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 605
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 27 of 69 (389782)
03-15-2007 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by bebotx1
03-15-2007 1:28 PM


Re: God-did-it doesn't help
You might postulate the whole she-bang was intentionally created with a purpose and it is exactly as it was designed to be. On similar grounds you could also:

1)postulate the whole shebang was created with a purpose but it isn't exactly what it was designed to be (magician's apprentice/demiurge style explanation)

2)postulate the whole shebang was created without a purpose. (Hume's infinite spider)

3)postulate the whole shebang has existed forever and as a consequence wasn't created.

Can you discard any of these posibilities out of hand - or rather, is there any pressing reason to favour the explanation you offer?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by bebotx1, posted 03-15-2007 1:28 PM bebotx1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by bebotx1, posted 03-15-2007 1:59 PM Tusko has not yet responded
 Message 33 by cavediver, posted 03-15-2007 2:16 PM Tusko has responded

  
bebotx1
Member (Idle past 4395 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 28 of 69 (389784)
03-15-2007 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Dan Carroll
03-15-2007 1:32 PM


Re: God-did-it doesn't help
well we'd have the "what" ;)

You are right but it does sit as a possible explanation, a very empty one perhaps but still. We could proceed to investiage on that basis, attempt to falsify etc.. (whereas the AP thing isn't in the class, it's not an explanation of anything -- but i think most people get that by now so i won't twitter on)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-15-2007 1:32 PM Dan Carroll has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-15-2007 1:55 PM bebotx1 has responded

    
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 69 (389785)
03-15-2007 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by bebotx1
03-15-2007 1:50 PM


Re: God-did-it doesn't help
well we'd have the "what"

Again, not without a working definition of the word "God." The only thing you have a "what" for is the universe, which we already know is here.

'Cuz... y'know. *waves hand outward* Check it out.

You are right but it does sit as a possible explanation, a very empty one perhaps but still.

No, it really doesn't. Because it's not a "very empty one," it's a completely empty one. The word is totally undefined. You might as well say, "Fhqwhgads did it."

We could proceed to investiage on that basis, attempt to falsify etc..

Investigate and falsify what, exactly?


"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by bebotx1, posted 03-15-2007 1:50 PM bebotx1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by bebotx1, posted 03-15-2007 2:08 PM Dan Carroll has responded

  
bebotx1
Member (Idle past 4395 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 30 of 69 (389787)
03-15-2007 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Tusko
03-15-2007 1:40 PM


Re: God-did-it doesn't help
Indeed. All 4 are would be valid.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Tusko, posted 03-15-2007 1:40 PM Tusko has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019