Thursday, March 16, 2006
Does anybody look at your creation?
Read http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4811266.stm
Now, that's a fairly well-balanced view of the work and the award. I fully agree that science doesn't have all the answers as to the whos and the whys for everything, but that's because science is science; it's about perpetual discovery not absolute fact. Just because science is currently unable to answer a specific question does not mean that 'God' is the automatic answer. It means that science is currently unable to answer the question as the reason why has not been discovered yet.
The same story in the 'Globe and Mail' paints a different picture with quotes such as: "Dr. Barrow...is one of the leading proponents of the anthropic principle of the universe, the dials-set-right idea -- the notion that the universe is, in Goldilocks's words, "just right" for life on Earth."
Now, to steal a quote from The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy; the Earth is an invisible dot on an invisible dot. To think that the whole infinate vastness of the universe was created for the sole purpose of a few hairless chimps named humans is ridiculous. And if this is the case, then God is woefully inefficient; creating vast stars and galaxies stretching out into space just to give us something to look at. Why go to all that trouble and then let us come up with TV on our own?
Now, that's a fairly well-balanced view of the work and the award. I fully agree that science doesn't have all the answers as to the whos and the whys for everything, but that's because science is science; it's about perpetual discovery not absolute fact. Just because science is currently unable to answer a specific question does not mean that 'God' is the automatic answer. It means that science is currently unable to answer the question as the reason why has not been discovered yet.
The same story in the 'Globe and Mail' paints a different picture with quotes such as: "Dr. Barrow...is one of the leading proponents of the anthropic principle of the universe, the dials-set-right idea -- the notion that the universe is, in Goldilocks's words, "just right" for life on Earth."
Now, to steal a quote from The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy; the Earth is an invisible dot on an invisible dot. To think that the whole infinate vastness of the universe was created for the sole purpose of a few hairless chimps named humans is ridiculous. And if this is the case, then God is woefully inefficient; creating vast stars and galaxies stretching out into space just to give us something to look at. Why go to all that trouble and then let us come up with TV on our own?
# posted by Unknown @ 3:47 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Common falacy:
To think that the whole infinate vastness of the universe was created for the sole purpose of a few hairless chimps named humans is ridiculous.
The anthropic principle is actually biocentric in nature, because it cannot be restricted from applying to every last banded spiral galaxy that exists on the same evolutionary "plane" as we do.
Not so special, really, but the AP is possibly the most important feature that our universe has.
To think that the whole infinate vastness of the universe was created for the sole purpose of a few hairless chimps named humans is ridiculous.
The anthropic principle is actually biocentric in nature, because it cannot be restricted from applying to every last banded spiral galaxy that exists on the same evolutionary "plane" as we do.
Not so special, really, but the AP is possibly the most important feature that our universe has.
I wasn't actually critising AP as AP stands. The universe is 'just right' for the Earth to have existed in its current form otherwise the Earth wouldn't exist in its current form. That's just plain common sense.
What I do disagree with is that the universe was 'intellgently programmed' to be in this particular state.
However, I do not feel that AP is not the most important feature the universe has; the universe has time on its hands and a lot of space to play with.
What I do disagree with is that the universe was 'intellgently programmed' to be in this particular state.
However, I do not feel that AP is not the most important feature the universe has; the universe has time on its hands and a lot of space to play with.
Heretic rambled on about some stuff:
That sentence doesnt even make syntactic sense and you clearly don't understand what you are talking about.
LOL, um, yes I do, but I'm sorry that you can't read.
The AP does not apply to galaxies, it applies to the laws of physics.
Yes, and the fact that the weak anthropic principle notes that the values of the forces must be restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve... can't possibly have anything to do with galaxy formation... No, wait, yes it can, so your full of crap, but I already knew that from your first expression of stupidity.
There is no such thing as a 'banded spiral galaxy'
No that's false. You live on a band of one, regardless of the fact that you are obviously generally unaware of your surroudings. haha...
and galaxies of any shape can potentially contain planets that support life.
No, you don't know that, and that's not what continuity indicates, so unless you have some proof, then you still don't know what you're talking about.
Nor is there a such thing as an 'evolutionary plane'.
More argument from stupidity... there are many galaxies that exist on the same spaciotemporal location as we do, which puts them on the same spaciotemporal "plane" as us in the evoloution of the univerese.
You are just talking mumbo jumbo. I bet you believe in space aliens too.
No but you obviously believe that you have a clue, when, in fact, you have none, so your leaps of faith are no different than alien-believers... lol.
"i" had said:
"Not so special, really, but the AP is possibly the most important feature that our universe has."
It's only important because otherwise we wouldn't exist in this universe.
No, it's because the anthropic principle defines the ToE if the most accuate cosmological principle is anthropic in nature, because it either unifies the forces, or more-probably, it explains why the forces cannot be unified.
If there an infinite number of universes, each with different laws of physics then the AP is pretty much worthless.
WOW... An infinite number of universes... No wonder you believe in space aliens... lol
That sentence doesnt even make syntactic sense and you clearly don't understand what you are talking about.
LOL, um, yes I do, but I'm sorry that you can't read.
The AP does not apply to galaxies, it applies to the laws of physics.
Yes, and the fact that the weak anthropic principle notes that the values of the forces must be restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve... can't possibly have anything to do with galaxy formation... No, wait, yes it can, so your full of crap, but I already knew that from your first expression of stupidity.
There is no such thing as a 'banded spiral galaxy'
No that's false. You live on a band of one, regardless of the fact that you are obviously generally unaware of your surroudings. haha...
and galaxies of any shape can potentially contain planets that support life.
No, you don't know that, and that's not what continuity indicates, so unless you have some proof, then you still don't know what you're talking about.
Nor is there a such thing as an 'evolutionary plane'.
More argument from stupidity... there are many galaxies that exist on the same spaciotemporal location as we do, which puts them on the same spaciotemporal "plane" as us in the evoloution of the univerese.
You are just talking mumbo jumbo. I bet you believe in space aliens too.
No but you obviously believe that you have a clue, when, in fact, you have none, so your leaps of faith are no different than alien-believers... lol.
"i" had said:
"Not so special, really, but the AP is possibly the most important feature that our universe has."
It's only important because otherwise we wouldn't exist in this universe.
No, it's because the anthropic principle defines the ToE if the most accuate cosmological principle is anthropic in nature, because it either unifies the forces, or more-probably, it explains why the forces cannot be unified.
If there an infinite number of universes, each with different laws of physics then the AP is pretty much worthless.
WOW... An infinite number of universes... No wonder you believe in space aliens... lol
Island, please clarify for me: does your belief in AP lead you to believe that the Universe is in the state at which life exists on our planet by chance or by design?
Following on from this, do you believe that conditions exist elsewhere within THIS universe (assuming a single-universe model for the moment :) that allows life to have evolved, or does your view of AP and its relationship with / effect on the universe mean that we are the only planet that has life at any evolutionary level?
Following on from this, do you believe that conditions exist elsewhere within THIS universe (assuming a single-universe model for the moment :) that allows life to have evolved, or does your view of AP and its relationship with / effect on the universe mean that we are the only planet that has life at any evolutionary level?
Hi jimbob, and sure I will:
First, there is no "believing" to it, as the anthropic principle is a circular fact of the observed universe.
does your belief in AP lead you to believe that the Universe is in the state at which life exists on our planet by chance or by design?
I think it's a sourly abused physics principle that attempts to explain the structure of our universe from first principles. Sourly abused by fanatics and reactionary antifanatics alike, that is.
Using the term "design" without using the word, "intelligent" is misleading, because we don't have to be here by accident if we arise from physical necessity.
Not that you'd ever hear a "neodarwinian" or a creationist say any of that, the AP came from honest efforts by very respected physicists, like Paul Dirac.
Following on from this, do you believe that conditions exist elsewhere within THIS universe (assuming a single-universe model for the moment :) that allows life to have evolved, or does your view of AP and its relationship with / effect on the universe mean that we are the only planet that has life at any evolutionary level?
If there is a real physical need for it, then intelligent life will be as common as the need for it demands, and yes, the physics that I previously gave indicates that it is indeed a biocentric principle, so the testable prediction is that life will only be found on the bands of galaxies that exist on the same evolutionary plane as we do...
... which is not the same thing as saying that ET is flying around the neighborhood.
First, there is no "believing" to it, as the anthropic principle is a circular fact of the observed universe.
does your belief in AP lead you to believe that the Universe is in the state at which life exists on our planet by chance or by design?
I think it's a sourly abused physics principle that attempts to explain the structure of our universe from first principles. Sourly abused by fanatics and reactionary antifanatics alike, that is.
Using the term "design" without using the word, "intelligent" is misleading, because we don't have to be here by accident if we arise from physical necessity.
Not that you'd ever hear a "neodarwinian" or a creationist say any of that, the AP came from honest efforts by very respected physicists, like Paul Dirac.
Following on from this, do you believe that conditions exist elsewhere within THIS universe (assuming a single-universe model for the moment :) that allows life to have evolved, or does your view of AP and its relationship with / effect on the universe mean that we are the only planet that has life at any evolutionary level?
If there is a real physical need for it, then intelligent life will be as common as the need for it demands, and yes, the physics that I previously gave indicates that it is indeed a biocentric principle, so the testable prediction is that life will only be found on the bands of galaxies that exist on the same evolutionary plane as we do...
... which is not the same thing as saying that ET is flying around the neighborhood.
Cutting this off at the first of many false statements.
The weak AP doesn't say anyting about galaxy formation...
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."
Quite obviously, the fool is in willful denial. The requirement for **SITES** where carbon based life can evolve most certainly does not indicate that life can evolve without them.
...and it does not preclude a universe devoid of galaxies but full of life.
No, the anthropic flatness problem notes that a universe devoid of galaxies won't have any life at all because any other configuration than the one that we have would result in conditions that are so far away from your wildest dreams for what constitutes conditions that are conducive to life that it would make your dead head swim.
[snip cluelessness]
Post a Comment
The weak AP doesn't say anyting about galaxy formation...
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."
Quite obviously, the fool is in willful denial. The requirement for **SITES** where carbon based life can evolve most certainly does not indicate that life can evolve without them.
...and it does not preclude a universe devoid of galaxies but full of life.
No, the anthropic flatness problem notes that a universe devoid of galaxies won't have any life at all because any other configuration than the one that we have would result in conditions that are so far away from your wildest dreams for what constitutes conditions that are conducive to life that it would make your dead head swim.
[snip cluelessness]
<< Home
