On Apr 20, 9:53*pm, George Hammond wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:03:06 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist



wrote:

[Hammond]
* *Fact is, the "Anthropic Principle" simply says:
"observables exist because observers exist". *After all, it
doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if there was
no such thing as an observer, then there would be no such
thing as observables; since the testimony of observers is
the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist.

[Immortalist]
If a system observable is a property of the system state that can be
determined by some sequence of physical operations and if there was no
such thing as an observer, then it is not determined that there would
or would not be such things as observables even if the testimony of
observers is the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist since
whether there is or is not someone existing doesn't determine
determinability and the possibility of abstract thought processes
whether they exist or not.

[Hammond]
* *Immortalist, thanks for your refreshing post. *Out of 11
posts to this target article so far, you are the ONLY ONE
who has attempted to say something on topic. *However, you
have COIMPLETELY missed the point!
* *You have FAILED to distinguish between two fundamentally
DIFFERENT cases:

CASE 1: *
* *If I turn my back and look the other way,
* *does the Moon still exist?
* * * * * (correct answer, YES)

CASE 2:
* *If the human race never existed or became
* *totally EXTINCT, would the Moon "exist".
* * * *(correct answer, NO)


Case two depends upon how you are defining "exist" since if humans
never existed there may or may not have been sattelites orbiting stars
in various ways and electromagnetic radiation propogating through
space, but human abstraction about such objects probably wouldn't take
place but would still be possible if bodies and brains can emulate
human consciousness and reasoning abilities even if they didn't exist
or hadn't existed yet.

In logic though any hypothetical/conditional (if/then) statement is
open to questioning. Usually the actual evidence is not in the
conditional statement. If humans didn't exist then X would either be
or not be the case, why? Some evidence is usually presented that helps
determine it one way or the other. I mean what reason is there for
determining it one way or the other? Again this hinges upon how you
are using the phrase "existence of the moon".

Does the existence of humans who can determine, determine or create
the possibility of determinability in the first place? Of course
humans couldn't determine in the first place if determinability were
not possible prior to their existence, right?

* *I am talking about CASE 2, not CASE 1 for christ's sake.
The Biblical Creation, and "God", are explained by
CASE 2 and not by CASE 1. *And the Anthropic Principle
applies to CASE 2, not CASE 1, for Heaven's sake!
* *Please get up to speed... do a little thinking before you
try and argue with me.... the best minds in Science are
convinced of the truth of the *Anthropic Principle, ya know,
including Stephen Hawking and the late great John Wheeler as
well as the entire scientific community.
=====================================
* * *SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
*http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
* *mirror site:
*http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
* * * GOD=G_uv * (a folk song on mp3)
*http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -