|
Author
|
Topic: Does the Anthropic Principle go on ad infinitum?
|
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4865 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: 07-21-2003
|
|
Message 1 of 13 (299138)
03-28-2006 9:38 PM
|
|
|
A new member suggested a topic about the Anthropic Principle. The actual post was:
How can Big Bang or other materialist cosmological theories account for the unbelievably precise fine-tuning of the universe. "Even Nobel-winning physicist Steven Weinberg, an avowed atheist, has expressed amazement at the way the cosmological constant is "remarkably well adjusted in our favor." (L. Strobel)
So say I concede that it is remarkable that all the physical constants are fine-tuned for our existence and I also concede that it supports the view that life was created by an intelligent being. If it does, isn't it just as remarkable that this intelligent being had the idea, motivation, and power to create us? What are the chances out every idea this being could have that it would think to create us? What are the chances that it would be motivated enough to actually go through with it? And what are the chances that it was powerful enough to create us? Seems to imply another intelligent agent, ad infinitum. This idea has always been in my head and I just want to see if it holds any water. As for the forum, I leave it in the hands of the mods. This message has been edited by JustinC, 03-29-2006 11:24 AM
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 10 by AdminPD, posted 03-29-2006 7:18 PM | | JustinC has not replied | | | Message 11 by AdminPD, posted 04-07-2006 6:00 PM | | JustinC has not replied |
|
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4865 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: 07-21-2003
|
|
|
Message 2 of 13 (299314)
03-29-2006 11:24 AM
|
|
|
bumpity bump bump
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 3 by AdminJar, posted 03-29-2006 11:42 AM | | JustinC has replied |
|
AdminJar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 3 of 13 (299319)
03-29-2006 11:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 2 by JustinC
03-29-2006 11:24 AM
|
|
before I would promote this I'd like to see you address the question
of whether the Universe is fine tuned for us, or if we seem to be fine tuned for the universe?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2 by JustinC, posted 03-29-2006 11:24 AM | | JustinC has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 4 by JustinC, posted 03-29-2006 12:02 PM | | AdminJar has not replied |
|
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4865 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: 07-21-2003
|
|
|
Message 4 of 13 (299329)
03-29-2006 12:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by AdminJar
03-29-2006 11:42 AM
|
|
Re: before I would promote this I'd like to see you address the question
I'm not really sure how to address this question. From my understanding, the Anthropic Principle (Weak), basically states that its remarkable that all the physical constants are such that they allow for the formation of complex structures like atoms, molecules, galaxies, etc. This in turn, allows for the development and evolution of life as we know it. Based on that understanding, I'd say the universe is fine tuned for us, i.e, our evolution. Now of course, throughout evolution we've become fine-tuned to our environment, but that's not the argument I want to address. (Is that what you meant by the latter question?)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 3 by AdminJar, posted 03-29-2006 11:42 AM | | AdminJar has not replied |
|
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4865 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: 07-21-2003
|
|
|
Message 5 of 13 (299331)
03-29-2006 12:13 PM
|
|
|
To clarify a little. Barrow and Tipler's Weak Anthropic Principle states:
Weak anthropic principle (WAP): "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so."
Some people take this fact as evidence that an intelligent being was involved in our creation, more specifically God. But couldn't the WAP be formulated in terms of the characteristics of God instead of the physical constants? Example
Weak anthropic principle (WAP): "The observed characteristics of God are not equally probable but they are such that they lead to the existence of sites where carbon-based life can evolve and the existence of a Universe old enough for it to have already done so."
I italicized most of what I changed. Does this suggest a God of God? And so on ad infinitum? [EDIT]changed wording This message has been edited by JustinC, 03-29-2006 12:45 PM
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 6 by AdminJar, posted 03-29-2006 12:19 PM | | JustinC has not replied |
|
AdminJar
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 6 of 13 (299334)
03-29-2006 12:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by JustinC
03-29-2006 12:13 PM
|
|
no real decision on this
JustinC This may well be more a problem of my reading comprehension than of what you're proposing, but I still don't understand where you want to go with this thread. I'm going to pass on it right now. That is not a rejection, I'll ask other Admins to take a look at it and see what can be done. Hang tight and let me request some help from the other Admins.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by JustinC, posted 03-29-2006 12:13 PM | | JustinC has not replied |
|
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4865 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: 07-21-2003
|
|
|
Message 7 of 13 (299348)
03-29-2006 12:40 PM
|
|
|
It's alright, this is the first time I tried to articulate this thought so I may not have done it well enough.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 8 by AdminTL, posted 03-29-2006 1:00 PM | | JustinC has not replied | | | Message 9 by AdminNWR, posted 03-29-2006 1:07 PM | | JustinC has replied |
|
AdminTL
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 8 of 13 (299352)
03-29-2006 1:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by JustinC
03-29-2006 12:40 PM
|
|
Justin & Jar, I think I understand what's being said. Here's my rewording in layman's terminology, because I'd never heard of the WAP before these posts: 1. There are people who argue: The properties of the universe are so unlikely that it seems God (some intelligent being) must have made them so. 2. Therefore you are arguing: It is so unlikely that a god would have thought of, and followed through on, creating a universe with this property that some other intelligent being must have suggested it to him. I left out the part about why the properties of the universe are unlikely, because Justin already stated that, and I didn't want to complicate this post. Since 1.)I have to make sure I'm interpreting Justin right, and 2.) I don't know how much interest this topic will arouse, I'm not promoting it myself. But I'm all for trying it if Justin agrees I got the meaning right.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by JustinC, posted 03-29-2006 12:40 PM | | JustinC has not replied |
|
AdminNWR
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 9 of 13 (299353)
03-29-2006 1:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by JustinC
03-29-2006 12:40 PM
|
|
Too broad
At present, your OP looks a little too broad, and is therefore confusing. Let's see if we can tighten it up. One possible direction would be to make this just a discussion of the anthropic principle (both weak and strong versions). The wikipedia entry mentions both. web page says of the weak principle, "Note that the Anthropic Principle is probably true and says that there is nothing mysterious about why our Universe is special." I tend to agree with that, but some people have differing view. Just a topic on the anthropic principle would seem of interest. It probably belongs in the cosmology forum. Most of your OP seems to really be about the ontological argument for the existence of God. Roughly speaking, the argument is: The universe exists. That's remarkable. Obviously there must be a creator. There is a counter argument, which goes: The existence of a creator would be even more remarkable, and would require explanation. It seems to me that you are advancing that counter argument. I would think the Intelligent Design forum is the best places for discussion of the ontological argument. Maybe you can help us out by clarify which of the two topics I have identified is the one you wish to discuss. If you write a new replacement OP as a reply to this, we can initiate a thread using that message as the opening post.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by JustinC, posted 03-29-2006 12:40 PM | | JustinC has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 12 by JustinC, posted 04-07-2006 6:09 PM | | AdminNWR has not replied |
|
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator
|
|
Message 10 of 13 (299453)
03-29-2006 7:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by JustinC
03-28-2006 9:38 PM
|
|
Topic Not Promoted
Hey JustinC, Since CCXC's PNT was not rejected or promoted, I don't feel it proper for his post to be used to start another PNT. He was given time to participate and become acquainted with this board and to flesh out his PNT. That decision was made before you posted this PNT. Therefore I am closing this thread and giving CCXC the time I promised to participate and flesh out his PNT. Have a great evening.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by JustinC, posted 03-28-2006 9:38 PM | | JustinC has not replied |
|
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator
|
|
|
Message 11 of 13 (302179)
04-07-2006 6:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by JustinC
03-28-2006 9:38 PM
|
|
Yours to Try Again
JustinC, CCXC has not responded concerning his OP. I have reopened this PNT if you still wish to try and prepare an OP concerning this topic. From the comments by other Admins, it seems your topic still needs some work. If you still wish to try and have this topic promoted let me know, if not I will close it for you. Thanks for understanding.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by JustinC, posted 03-28-2006 9:38 PM | | JustinC has not replied |
|
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4865 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: 07-21-2003
|
|
|
Message 12 of 13 (302181)
04-07-2006 6:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 9 by AdminNWR
03-29-2006 1:07 PM
|
|
Re: Too broad
At present, your OP looks a little too broad, and is therefore confusing. Let's see if we can tighten it up. One possible direction would be to make this just a discussion of the anthropic principle (both weak and strong versions). The wikipedia entry mentions both. web page says of the weak principle, "Note that the Anthropic Principle is probably true and says that there is nothing mysterious about why our Universe is special." I tend to agree with that, but some people have differing view. Just a topic on the anthropic principle would seem of interest. It probably belongs in the cosmology forum. Most of your OP seems to really be about the ontological argument for the existence of God. Roughly speaking, the argument is: The universe exists. That's remarkable. Obviously there must be a creator. There is a counter argument, which goes: The existence of a creator would be even more remarkable, and would require explanation. It seems to me that you are advancing that counter argument. I would think the Intelligent Design forum is the best places for discussion of the ontological argument. Maybe you can help us out by clarify which of the two topics I have identified is the one you wish to discuss. If you write a new replacement OP as a reply to this, we can initiate a thread using that message as the opening post.
Thanks, but this basically covers my point in a much more articulate way than I was trying to express it. I guess I was advancing the counter to the ontological argument. I've never heard the counter argument before, but apparently it does exist and its not some brilliant original rebuttal that I concieved. This message has been edited by JustinC, 04-07-2006 06:10 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 9 by AdminNWR, posted 03-29-2006 1:07 PM | | AdminNWR has not replied |
|
Adminnemooseus
Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: 09-26-2002
|
|
|
Message 13 of 13 (306237)
04-24-2006 12:44 AM
|
Reply to: Message 12 by JustinC
04-07-2006 6:09 PM
|
|
What to do with this Proposed New Topic?
It does not yet seem promotable, but the general theme seems too good to let die at the Proposed New Topic (PNT) stage. Besides, I don't recall this general theme to previously have had much discussion here at . Input from JustinC (here), other admins (here), or other members (via the "Considerations..." topic, link below)? Adminnemooseus
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 12 by JustinC, posted 04-07-2006 6:09 PM | | JustinC has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2