so did you hear about the philosophy major who read too many layman's articles on quantum mechanics?

[dragonladyflame]

There's this principle called the Weak Anthropic Principle. It's basically a response to the question people sometimes phrase as, "Wow, isn't it odd that the universe consists of the amazingly unlikely concatenation of circumstances that allowed humanity to come into being?" The Weak Anthropic Principle replies, "I guess so, but it obviously

Comments

[foxfour]

i'd point you towards what wikipedia has to say, but i expect you've read it.

the thing about the anthropic principle (weak or strong) is that there's not total agreement on what it is. like, some people take the weak form to be the truism that, despite how unlikely it seems that the universe would be such that we exist, we exist, therefore it is that way. some people take it to mean (dramatic chord) that this indicates that it's not really that unlikely, and sometimes even hop skip and jump from there to saying that Someone designed it that way.

and the blasphemy challenge, with its bit about denying the Holy Spirit, reminds me of a Borges story you should read: Three Versions of Judas.

[dragonladyflame]

Yeah, I'm not too impressed with the strong form. I don't understand how you can conclude stuff like that from the weak form, but religion is always reaching when it comes to logic (ontological argument, anyone?).

What collection is that story in?

[foxfour]

ficciones, i think. regardless, it's in the collected fictions.

[foxfour]

also: the SL art opening looks cool, particularly in as much as they want to play around, and "knock some holes in the often elitist, noxious air of contemporary art."

[dragonladyflame]

Yes! God knows contemporary art could use some freakin' knocking. I feel like games are the one form of art that isn't creativity-blockingly pretentious these days (though Lord knows lome people are trying to change that ...).

[cogshiftingman]

As a physicist, I can honestly say that I never heard of The Weak Anthropic Principle during my studies, and came across it for the first time in Fortean Times. Perhaps students studying quantum mechanics today cover it, but I'd be very surprised. I think some of the ID people would probably like us to believe such things are "controversial", just as they'd like us to believe the fossil record is.

[dragonladyflame]

The article I was reading that inspired all this never mentioned Intelligent Design ... it's by Jim Holt, was published in the October 2 "New Yorker", and here are the relevant bits

[cogshiftingman]

That makes sense to me ... String Theory does have this multiple universe thing, which is objectionable to a lot of folks. And since String Theory is a fairly new fad, I suppose the spotlight on the anthropic principle is understandable.

Frankly, I have a problem with String Theory ... any theory that doesn't include any experimentally provable predictions is a bit hard to swallow. The mathematics of it are very elegant, though (or so I am led to believe), and that is why it appeals to many of the theorists.

[dragonladyflame]

Yes, the article I was reading claims that not only does it appeal to so many theorists, but is becoming so popular that non-string-theorists are starting to feel overwhelmed and excluded.

Incidentally, thank you for commenting! I hoped you would.

Also: does your address remain the same? At long last, I have some CDs for you.

[foxfour]

well put. i suspect, though, that there are a number of people who adopt the second view but extend it beyond the formal representation you give.

[dragonladyflame]

I thought it was taken for granted that there are multiple universes by now. Serves me right for getting all my information from science fiction.

[agnoster]

It's a tautology. Why would a tautology be controversial?

"We exist in the universe. Therefore, the universe must be such that it allows our existence."

Take carbon-based life. Gosh, what a coincidence! Um, no. Not really. Maybe if things were different, we'd have silicon-based life. Or something else. Maybe energy-based. Or if matter and energy didn't exist, some other kind of intelligence.

It's like being surprised when someone wins the lottery. Sure, any individual's chance of winning the lottery is astronomically low (like, say, any specific form of life/intelligance), but the fact that someone should win (i.e. that some form of complex life or intelligence would arise) might not be so surprising.

[dragonladyflame]

My feelings exactly.

[island01]

Maybe if things were different, we'd have silicon-based life.

This one is a pet peave of mine because information that addresses this is readily available to anyone that looks before they start throwing out false speculations that are many times pre-prejudicaially motivated by stuff other than science.

This is a "WhatIF things are different" woulda' coulda' shoulda'... killer:

Reason number 1.

Did you know... that the observed universe is carbon rich by a ratio of about 10:1 in favor of carbon atoms? This is what is called "carbon chauvinism"

BUT...

2) Did you know... that carbon molecules and chains also form more readily even when the ratio is reversed, (like on Earth!), 10:1 in favor of the next most plausible form of life that we've ever been able to imagine... silicon based life!... ?

[agnoster]

Note: I said "if things were different", not "if things were exactly as they are, but with more silicon in the world". You're totally misconstruing my point, and you should stop before you hurt yourself with it.

(Also, what's "pre-prejudicaially"?)