Conquer Club

In the spirit of over analyzing philosophical tenants, I'd like to voice my concern over the weak anthropic principle.

Perhaps I'm just not understanding it properly, but it seems to me to be the same kind of copout that some theists resort to when asked why things are. "Just because," seems to be the gist of the principle. Does anyone disagree? Care to explain it in a manner that I might be able to wrap my mind around? I think, for once, I might be on the opposite side of the table from my usual cohort...

im not really sure what you want out of it...and the necessity to explain why the universe exists isnt a question i drive to much at so i leave it to medefe, who is the resident expert on smart things.

got tonkaed wrote:im not really sure what you want out of it...and the necessity to explain why the universe exists isnt a question i drive to much at so i leave it to medefe, who is the resident expert on smart things.

There just doesn't really seem like much of a point for it. It seems rather superfluous, and remarkably unscientific.

Also, to preempt any questions, learn about the anthropic principle here.

Neoteny wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:im not really sure what you want out of it...and the necessity to explain why the universe exists isnt a question i drive to much at so i leave it to medefe, who is the resident expert on smart things.

There just doesn't really seem like much of a point for it. It seems rather superfluous, and remarkably unscientific.

Also, to preempt any questions, learn about the anthropic principle here.

I think we both know thats a rickroll.

got tonkaed wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:im not really sure what you want out of it...and the necessity to explain why the universe exists isnt a question i drive to much at so i leave it to medefe, who is the resident expert on smart things.

There just doesn't really seem like much of a point for it. It seems rather superfluous, and remarkably unscientific.

Also, to preempt any questions, learn about the anthropic principle here.

I think we both know thats a rickroll.

Reminisco mentioned some sort of aversion to fucking up his own threads. I clearly do not take my threads quite as seriously. Lazy people deserve it anyway, which is why I included it. I'm totally going to be "that guy who runs that shit into the ground." So always check where the links go. Best to get it out of the CC system early.

probably true....

given the little that ive actually studied the wap...it seems like one of the easier criticisms to make is that its just a theoretical out to avoid having do deal with the physical understandings of the issue.

In a lot of ways that reflects my sentiments on trying to understand that type of creation in general. While it certainly is something that people will find worth studying and i respect that, it will be hard to come up with something that has broad appeal and is on solid enough ground to really explain things.

got tonkaed wrote:probably true....

given the little that ive actually studied the wap...it seems like one of the easier criticisms to make is that its just a theoretical out to avoid having do deal with the physical understandings of the issue.

In a lot of ways that reflects my sentiments on trying to understand that type of creation in general. While it certainly is something that people will find worth studying and i respect that, it will be hard to come up with something that has broad appeal and is on solid enough ground to really explain things.

That's partly my point. The goal is to try to understand these things, even if we're certain we never will. It seems counterproductive, though I imagine those who espouse it do not find it as such. A temporary fix perhaps?

yeah i would assume the theorists behind it probably dont casually toss it aside. I think theres always a bit of room for the notion that its the best we can do until we refine the method better.

I dont know though, i dont really have a way of thinking that can solve or adequatly understand this type of issue though, so im pretty useless.

So, does this mean I win?

Neoteny wrote:So, does this mean I win?

The WAP is brilliant. It is just a way of reversing the old 'the universe's physical conditions are too finely tuned for us NOT to be important' on its head:
If they were any other way, we wouldn't be here to aggrandise our own importance in this manner.
It's not really a 'just because' argument. It just asks whether the question is important in the first place.

I read - maybe it was Fabric of the Cosmos (a lovely book once you get oast the simpsons allegories) that there is a theory of universal evolution: daughter universes are birthed in black holes, and the only ones that survive and expand are the ones with conditions necessary for that to happen - i.e. ones very much like our own.

Neoteny wrote:In the spirit of over analyzing philosophical tenants, I'd like to voice my concern over the weak anthropic principle.

Perhaps I'm just not understanding it properly, but it seems to me to be the same kind of copout that some theists resort to when asked why things are. "Just because," seems to be the gist of the principle. Does anyone disagree? Care to explain it in a manner that I might be able to wrap my mind around? I think, for once, I might be on the opposite side of the table from my usual cohort...

I think it's more of a tool for debating people who assert that things like design are obvious. That the universe seems fine-tuned to us. I think the main point can be summed up like this:

Even if there is a very high improbability of the universe existing with observers, the properties of the universe that allow us to exist are also what allow us to observe the universe with properties compatible with the existence of observers. If the universe did not have these properties, then we would not exist to observe the incompatible properties.

heavycola wrote:

Neoteny wrote:So, does this mean I win?

The WAP is brilliant. It is just a way of reversing the old 'the universe's physical conditions are too finely tuned for us NOT to be important' on its head:
If they were any other way, we wouldn't be here to aggrandise our own importance in this manner.
It's not really a 'just because' argument. It just asks whether the question is important in the first place.

I read - maybe it was Fabric of the Cosmos (a lovely book once you get oast the simpsons allegories) that there is a theory of universal evolution: daughter universes are birthed in black holes, and the only ones that survive and expand are the ones with conditions necessary for that to happen - i.e. ones very much like our own.

I've heard that before, and it's a very Darwin-esque so I think that would be awesome, and I can agree that the question is unnecessary. But, as in snorri's explanation, it just seems as circular as a creationist argument to me...

Neoteny wrote:

heavycola wrote:

Neoteny wrote:So, does this mean I win?

The WAP is brilliant. It is just a way of reversing the old 'the universe's physical conditions are too finely tuned for us NOT to be important' on its head:
If they were any other way, we wouldn't be here to aggrandise our own importance in this manner.
It's not really a 'just because' argument. It just asks whether the question is important in the first place.

I read - maybe it was Fabric of the Cosmos (a lovely book once you get oast the simpsons allegories) that there is a theory of universal evolution: daughter universes are birthed in black holes, and the only ones that survive and expand are the ones with conditions necessary for that to happen - i.e. ones very much like our own.

I've heard that before, and it's a very Darwin-esque so I think that would be awesome, and I can agree that the question is unnecessary. But, as in snorri's explanation, it just seems as circular as a creationist argument to me...

It's not circular, it just doesn't tell you whether there is a creator or not. It says the design-argument isn't valid.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

heavycola wrote:

Neoteny wrote:So, does this mean I win?

The WAP is brilliant. It is just a way of reversing the old 'the universe's physical conditions are too finely tuned for us NOT to be important' on its head:
If they were any other way, we wouldn't be here to aggrandise our own importance in this manner.
It's not really a 'just because' argument. It just asks whether the question is important in the first place.

I read - maybe it was Fabric of the Cosmos (a lovely book once you get oast the simpsons allegories) that there is a theory of universal evolution: daughter universes are birthed in black holes, and the only ones that survive and expand are the ones with conditions necessary for that to happen - i.e. ones very much like our own.

I've heard that before, and it's a very Darwin-esque so I think that would be awesome, and I can agree that the question is unnecessary. But, as in snorri's explanation, it just seems as circular as a creationist argument to me...

It's not circular, it just doesn't tell you whether there is a creator or not. It says the design-argument isn't valid.

Hm. Perhaps since I hold that bit of information to be self-evident, it seems so useless to me...

Neoteny wrote:Hm. Perhaps since I hold that bit of information to be self-evident, it seems so useless to me...

Well yeah the WAP is sort of a self-evident thing. It's just that often one side doesn't know it.