|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Anthropic Principal - Cosmology | |||||||||||||||||||||||
bebotx1 Member (Idle past 6252 days) Posts: 32 Joined: |
His original statement is also a tautology. But it doesn't explain anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bebotx1 Member (Idle past 6252 days) Posts: 32 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bebotx1 Member (Idle past 6252 days) Posts: 32 Joined: |
"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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bebotx1 Member (Idle past 6252 days) Posts: 32 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bebotx1 Member (Idle past 6252 days) Posts: 32 Joined: |
spot on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bebotx1 Member (Idle past 6252 days) Posts: 32 Joined: |
Why the why?
Nothing NEEDS an explanation. Close the universities, burn the books.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bebotx1 Member (Idle past 6252 days) Posts: 32 Joined: |
"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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 131 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bebotx1 Member (Idle past 6252 days) Posts: 32 Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bebotx1 Member (Idle past 6252 days) Posts: 32 Joined: |
Indeed. All 4 are would be valid.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024