The Anthropic Principle Under Fire

[island]

Like I said... Too bad that YOU can't judge the validity of very simple physics for yourself.

 

I won't bother to tell you that I know for a fact that it is valid, since I've obviously found the devil's advocate, himself.

 

You have no imagination, son.

 

How do you think that it is possible to have purpose in nature without god?

 

You don't know because you think that it can't be so.

 

You have no imagination, son.

[Turtle]

You have no imagination, son.

 

I imagine this News Article is just that, an article, Pop. To clarify your earlier quote attribution to Tormod, he did not write the article, he merely posted the article. We have drifted off topic here, but if you search the other areas of the Forum I don't doubt you will find suitable threads for posting your imaginings.

:shrug:

[pgrmdave]

I am once again awed at hypography. Only here have I found people to be passionate about such things as the anthropic principle :shrug: Both of you, keep the debate civil, and please refrain from personal attacks, mild though they have been.

[island]

Re: The Anthropic Principle Under Fire

 

Thanks anyway, but I'm defending the "attack on the anthropic principle", which, I already shot down the two papers in Tormod's referenced article, and which I quoted him for.

 

But I'm sure that if you look around real hard, you can be equally sure that you still don't know enough physics to voice your opinion on most of the topics here.

 

BuhBye... have a nice fantasy...

[island]

I am once again awed at hypography. Only here have I found people to be passionate about such things as the anthropic principle :shrug: Both of you, keep the debate civil, and please refrain from personal attacks, mild though they have been.

 

No, I'm done with him and anyone like him.

 

I'm only looking for plausibility.

 

I've got it spades, and anybody that denies it is out of their mind with willful ignorance.

[Tormod]

But I'm sure that if you look around real hard, you can be equally sure that you still don't know enough physics to voice your opinion on most of the topics here.

 

Island, please read our rules, and in particular the bits about how to behave at our forums. Your personal attacks are really not welcome.

[island]

But ad hom insults that I take as personal insults are?

 

Fine... give me the boot now, Tormod.

[InfiniteNow]

While your permission is not required for such an action, island, you certainly have a confrontational tone. We prefer to have a collection of different opinions, as it makes each of our own more robust.

 

Perhaps your argument, position, view, whatever would have further benefit if you were to adjust your approach and work WITH people instead of screaming like an infant having a tantrum. Just a thought. Everyone is entitled to their own view. Just because it opposes yours doesn't make it wrong.

[Tormod]

But ad hom insults that I take as personal insults are?

 

Fine... give me the boot now, Tormod.

 

Your posting style practically begs for insults, but no, they are not accepted. I see Turtle's responses to you as basically exactly what you asked for, so I did not take issue with him. I don't need to point out to Turtle to read the rules, however, as he perfectly well knows them.

 

To keep on topic in this thread, I was once a supporter of the anthropic principle. I have read just about every book by John Barrow, who happens to be my favorite cosmologist and popularizer (and whom I've had the pleasure to interview, both about his book "The Constants of Nature" and his play, "Infinity"), but I must admit I no longer consider the anthropic principle to be anything but a fancy idea. It fails to be verifiable since it basically defines itself as the outcome, thus it is based on flawed logic IMHO.

 

That doesn't mean it is not worthing reading about and understanding the many varieties of anthropic thinking, including criticism against it. (For the interested, I found Martin Rees' "Just Six Numbers" to be a quite accessible book on the subject).

[island]

Tormod,

 

Please show me anywhere that I earned the right to be branded a creationist.

[Tormod]

Tormod,

 

Please show me anywhere that I earned the right to be branded a creationist.

 

If you're insulted by being labeled, it's better to explain why the label is wrong, than to start yelling.

 

And I assume you are here to discuss, so why not take my hint and get back on topic rather than just trolling?

[pgrmdave]

First of all, Turtle never said you were a creationist. He said that he was not a theist (implying that you were a theist). It may have been a wrong conclusion, island, but it did seem that you were pointing at the creation of the universe being for the specific purpose of life. I don't think that Turtle was unjustified in assuming you were a theist, even if he was wrong.

[island]

While your permission is not required for such an action, island...

 

haha, I meant that I'll probably earn it soon enough if we're going to allow people to harbor a bunch of preconceived prejudices about the implications of strong interpretations of the anthropic principle.

 

 

you certainly have a confrontational tone.

 

Con...fident. There's a big diff, because I have good yet-to-be-disproven reason to be, and I have studied the PHYSICS for the anthropic principle in-depth, for a number of years, rather than simply reading a bunch of variant interpretations, no offense intended.

[island]

I don't think that Turtle was unjustified in assuming you were a theist, even if he was wrong.

 

Absolutely stereotypically false.

 

Ask him to use the term, "arrogance" in context with the anthropic principle, and I guarantee you will reveal a clear non-scientific predispositioning that runs RAMPANT.

[InfiniteNow]

You're funny. Are you bookable for shows? :shrug:

[pgrmdave]

See, island, I'm trying so hard to be nice, and trying to be impartial, but when you do what you accuse others of, when you assume things about others, when you are arrogent, and unyielding in what you say and how you say it, you don't earn yourself any friends. I tried to ease this thread, and calm you both down. I tried to explain that other people can be wrong understandably. And you seem to refuse to accept that other opinions can possibly be valid. Why would you join a community if you only came to attack its members?

[Tormod]

Ask him to use the term, "arrogance" in context with the anthropic principle, and I guarantee you will reveal a clear non-scientific predispositioning that runs RAMPANT.

 

Why? You are already showing that you are an expert on arrogance:

 

Con...fident. There's a big diff, because I have good yet-to-be-disproven reason to be, and I have studied the PHYSICS for the anthropic principle in-depth, for a number of years, rather than simply reading a bunch of variant interpretations, no offense intended.

 

Get off your high horse and participate in our discussion rather than telling us how brilliant you are. So far I have seen little physics knowledge and a lot of big ego. If you switch it around, I am sure everyone would be happy.

 

If you have studied physics, you probably also know that to prove non-existence is futile.