"Keynes" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 22:45:30 -0800, "Mark Folsom"

wrote:

"abracad" wrote in message
. com...
The so-called anthropic principle points out how finely tuned the
universe is to support life.

The anthropic principle doesn't do any such thing. Apparent fine tuning
leads some to resort to the anthropic principle.

However, is there any reason to believe
this is the only universe that exists or ever existed? Or is it likely
or possible that there could be an infinite number of other (less
anthropic) universes that co-exist woth this one or have existed
throughout eternity?

For the anthropic principle to apply to the fine tuning of physics to
allow
our existence, it basically has to be the case that there were lots of
trials, either elsewhere or elsewhen. Sort of like having a multitude of
uninhabited planets for each one with intelligent life.

Mark Folsom


The anthoropic principle points out the obvious fact that
this cosmos can support human life. Seems like a tautology.
If the cosmos didn't support human life, who would know or care?
That's the superficial view.

Looking deeper we see the evolution of this cosmos from energy
to matter, to life and to man. From apparent dead chaos comes
wonderful us, alive, intelligent and conscious. All this by an
unbroken web of cause and effect according to natural law.
But what's so 'natural' about that sequence? Apparently the
cosmos is many times more clever than we are. It made us
in every detail. And now, in our wisdom, we sit in judgement
on it, and find it cold, dead, and unworthy.

Hey Bozo, cite one person who has EVER seriously said that the universe is
unworthy, or else admit that you're just a lying Bozo.

Mark Folsom