Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Anthropic Principal - Cosmology
bebotx1
Member (Idle past 6221 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 1 of 69 (389553)
03-14-2007 8:44 AM


Two main explanations have been offered for our planet’s peculiar friendliness to life ... the anthropic approach ... and God as designer.
http://thinker.blog.co.uk/...cal_thinking_the_truism~1902061
I don't think the "anthropic approach" explains anything, it's just a factual statement of observation.
What do people think?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by fallacycop, posted 03-14-2007 1:26 PM bebotx1 has replied
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 03-14-2007 2:15 PM bebotx1 has not replied
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2007 2:26 PM bebotx1 has replied
 Message 6 by Tusko, posted 03-14-2007 2:27 PM bebotx1 has not replied
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 03-14-2007 4:21 PM bebotx1 has not replied
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 03-14-2007 9:18 PM bebotx1 has replied
 Message 14 by Larni, posted 03-15-2007 7:09 AM bebotx1 has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 69 (389559)
03-14-2007 10:06 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 3 of 69 (389590)
03-14-2007 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bebotx1
03-14-2007 8:44 AM


Two main explanations have been offered for our planet’s peculiar friendliness to life
Why is it exactly that our planets friendliness to life is in need of explanation???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bebotx1, posted 03-14-2007 8:44 AM bebotx1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by bebotx1, posted 03-15-2007 1:39 PM fallacycop has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 4 of 69 (389598)
03-14-2007 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bebotx1
03-14-2007 8:44 AM


A while back, in another thread (which I can't find), somebody posted a link to this article.
quote:
Astronomer Darren Williams and his colleagues at Pennsylvania State University at Erie have been studying elliptical orbits recently, and they think life on Earth can withstand a lot more tumult than scientists previously guessed. They have been running sophisticated computer models of planets in orbits of varying eccentricity circling suns of various sizes. "High eccentricity does not critically compromise planetary habitability," Williams says. Then he drops the astrobiology lingo and translates with a boyish smile: "These planets will still support life."
It seems that earth isn't so "special" after all. There really isn't anything to "explain".

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bebotx1, posted 03-14-2007 8:44 AM bebotx1 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 5 of 69 (389602)
03-14-2007 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bebotx1
03-14-2007 8:44 AM


If you read Dawkins statement it's really quite clear. It's an explanation in that it gives a reason why it should be the case that we happen to live on a habitable planet (which is the issue he's talking about). In calling it a truism all you are saying is that it is so obviously right that nobody should even consider another possibility.
Personally I don't think that it is so obvious that it doesn't need saying, at least sometimes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bebotx1, posted 03-14-2007 8:44 AM bebotx1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by bebotx1, posted 03-14-2007 9:07 PM PaulK has replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 6 of 69 (389603)
03-14-2007 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bebotx1
03-14-2007 8:44 AM


The anthropic principle isn't, at least to my limited understanding, an attempt to explain why life has occurred on this planet. Rather, it is a way of addressing a related issue; namely, that our very existence itself can muddy the waters when considering matters pertaining to the existence of life on this planet. To me, it seems a pretty sensible way of considering human origins while denying any particular necessity that the very unlikelyness of our existence have a bearing on spiritual questions.
Humans can see patterns in porridge. While it is true that a million-to-one shot can seem spiritually significant to those for whom it comes through, the fact remains that million-to-one shots happen all the time.
I'd argue that a supernatural entity isn't particularly helpful when it comes to explaining our presence on this planet. I don't think it’s any more satisfying or profound than a simple matter of probability. In a universe as vast as this, it is almost inevitable that life, complex life, even sentient life is going to happen occasionally. (It is probably best that we leave aside the problem that we don't have any idea of the probability that intelligent life will arise on a given planet. Who knows? It could be much more or less likely than we predict. Let’s just call it pretty damn unlikely.)
Regardless of this, it can't be denied that when sentient life does occur, it’s going to feel pretty bloody pleased with itself (and/or with whatever deities it happens to revere at the time). However, those societies which are sufficiently advanced to recognise the stellar unlikelyness of their own genesis should also be in a position to recognise that in and of itself, this low probability can't have any bearing on the existence of supernatural, omnipotent entities like Allah or Crom, just as no supernatural entity is needed to explain why my dad's friend won the national lottery. It's just down to chance. The principal difference is that we are in a better position to scrutinise a lottery win than the birth of life on this planet.
Edited by Tusko, : No reason given.
Edited by Tusko, : whoops fixed italics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bebotx1, posted 03-14-2007 8:44 AM bebotx1 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 7 of 69 (389621)
03-14-2007 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bebotx1
03-14-2007 8:44 AM


conversely
Two main explanations have been offered for our planet’s peculiar friendliness to life ... the anthropic approach ... and God as designer.
Two main explanations have been offered for life's peculiar friendliness for our planet ... the scientific \ abiogenesis \ evolution approach ... and God as designer.
I don't think "god-did-it" explains anything. It's just an argument from incredulity and ignorance and has no predictive ability or benefit. Science on the other hand produces results that are usable.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : finished

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bebotx1, posted 03-14-2007 8:44 AM bebotx1 has not replied

  
bebotx1
Member (Idle past 6221 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 8 of 69 (389684)
03-14-2007 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by PaulK
03-14-2007 2:26 PM


YOU:"If you read Dawkins statement it's really quite clear. It's an explanation in that it gives a reason why it should be the case that we happen to live on a habitable planet"
No it isn't. And frankly I can't believe you have just said that.
It's clear to any reasonbly intelligent person that what he said is no explanation at all. It's just an observation.
RD:"The great majority of planets in the universe are not in the Goldilocks zone of their prospective stars, and not suitable for life. None of that majority has life. However small the minority of planets with just the right conditions for life may be, we necessarily have to be on one of that minority, because here we are thinking about it."
I could paraphrase to this: "We must be on a life sustaining planet, because we are here, on a life sustaining planet thinking about it"
well, duhhhh.
And this guy is supposed to be some kind of genius.
You people are credulous, this is the emperors new cloths, except this time he's charging you 9.99 for them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2007 2:26 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 03-14-2007 9:22 PM bebotx1 has not replied
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 03-15-2007 3:09 AM bebotx1 has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 9 of 69 (389686)
03-14-2007 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bebotx1
03-14-2007 8:44 AM


The Third Explanation
There is a third explanation for the apparent friendliness to life:
Life has been slowly fitted to what conditions prevail on the planet.
This has it the other way around. Our planet is NOT particularly friendly to ANY life. The life on it has put up with the conditions that the planet does offer and has been slowly modified until it does very well with those conditions.
Whatever the conditions (within a reasonable wide range) the life on it would find it "friendly". Tube worms in the deep sea hot vents find nearly boiling water "friendly". Some bacteria find the conditions under a few kilometers of rock "friendly". Other life forms find the antarctic "friendly". This is a pretty wide range of "friendly" and it may well be that there is life that can find even wilder enviroments "friendly".
It isn't because these environments are so darned nice; it is because life has been tuned to get along in them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bebotx1, posted 03-14-2007 8:44 AM bebotx1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by bebotx1, posted 03-14-2007 9:41 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 10 of 69 (389688)
03-14-2007 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by bebotx1
03-14-2007 9:07 PM


The Duhh explanation
I could paraphrase to this: "We must be on a life sustaining planet, because we are here, on a life sustaining planet thinking about it"
well, duhhhh.
Well it is just that "duhh". It hints that the question is a bit stupid. We wouldn't be asking it if life couldn't find a "friendly" niche on this planet. It is just that simple.
In fact, the current biosphere is permiated with a nasty poison. The original life on the planet has had to retreat from most of it. It is almost totally unfriendly to that original life.
However, after the biosphere was poisoned other life gradually tuned to find oxygen "friendly".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by bebotx1, posted 03-14-2007 9:07 PM bebotx1 has not replied

  
bebotx1
Member (Idle past 6221 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 11 of 69 (389692)
03-14-2007 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by NosyNed
03-14-2007 9:18 PM


Re: The Third Explanation
”Whatever the conditions (within a reasonable wide range) the life on it would find it “friendly”’ - I’m going to read that as; ”it would have developed”
k, at least this vaguely makes sense re: what’s under discussion.
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.
Slight tangent - I believe that the whole “goldilocks” thing, is what experts think the reasonable range is that you mentioned. So are you saying life would pretty much develop anywhere?
If so where is it all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 03-14-2007 9:18 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 03-14-2007 10:44 PM bebotx1 has not replied
 Message 21 by fallacycop, posted 03-15-2007 12:58 PM bebotx1 has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 69 (389700)
03-14-2007 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by bebotx1
03-14-2007 9:41 PM


Re: The Third Explanation
The problem is the if life did indeed evolve from some system of self replicating molecules that got together 3.5 billion years ago that they would necessarily be fully adapted to the conditions found on this planet.
No amount of incredulity can contradict that simple fact.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by bebotx1, posted 03-14-2007 9:41 PM bebotx1 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 13 of 69 (389711)
03-15-2007 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by bebotx1
03-14-2007 9:07 PM


quote:
I could paraphrase to this: "We must be on a life sustaining planet, because we are here, on a life sustaining planet thinking about it"
That's hardly an accurate paraphrase. You've reduced it to a simple tautology - leaving out the point. So I have to question whether you actually understand Dawkins' statemnt correctly.
Try answering this.
Is it reasonably possible that things could be otherwise, that instead of being on one of the few life-friendly planets we could be elsewhere, without some reason why ?
If the answer is no, then you concede that Dawkins' statement is all the explanation needed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by bebotx1, posted 03-14-2007 9:07 PM bebotx1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by bebotx1, posted 03-15-2007 10:27 AM PaulK has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 14 of 69 (389726)
03-15-2007 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bebotx1
03-14-2007 8:44 AM


It sounds to me that you are asking why earth is so well specified for earth bound floar and fauna.
Or you could be thinking that it is a massive coincidence that Earth is actually in the life band.
Do you want to throw out the AP as a reason for Earth having life?
If so, what you replace it with?
As far as I can see one is left with chance or an act of special creation:
Which one do you subscribe too?
ABE: Welcome to EvC!
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bebotx1, posted 03-14-2007 8:44 AM bebotx1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by bebotx1, posted 03-15-2007 10:43 AM Larni has replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 15 of 69 (389733)
03-15-2007 8:55 AM


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).
So, you still need either an athropic principle - if God didn't want this kind of life, we wouldn't be having this conversation, so why be surprised that He did - or we need another God on top of this one - to explain the extraordinary coincidence that God happens to like universes like ours.
Edited by Doddy, : can't spell!

"And, lo, a great beast did stand before me, having seven heads, and on each head were there seven mouths, and in each mouth were there seventy times seven teeth. For truly there were seven times seven times seven times seventy teeth, meaning there were. . . okay, carry the three, adding twenty. . . plus that extra tooth on the third mouth of the sixth head. . . Well, there were indeed a great many teeth" - The Revelation of St. Bryce the Long-Winded
Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by bebotx1, posted 03-15-2007 11:00 AM Doddy has not replied
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 03-15-2007 5:46 PM Doddy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024