"Derek Potter" wrote in message
...
Immortalist gets an answer from me...


"Derek Potter" wrote in message
.. .
Immortalist gets an answer from me...


"Derek Potter" wrote in message
.. .
Immortalist gets an answer from me...


"Derek Potter" wrote in message
.. .
abracad gets an answer from

Anthropic Principle: Many people are aware of the weak and strong
anthropic
principle. The weak one says, basically, that is was jolly amazing of
the
universe to be constructed in such a way that humans could evolve to a
point
where they make a linving in, for example, universities, while the
strong
one
says that, on the contrary, the whole point of the universe was that
humans
should not only work in universities but also write for huge sums books
with
words like 'Cosmic' and 'Chaos' in the titles.

The universe is also balanced in such a way to allow rocks to exist, so
perhaps
we should call it a Lithic Principle.

Not obviously. It may be that the ratio of strong to weak force
strengths is finely-balanced to allow nucleosynthesis in stars and
thus rocks to form but the simple formation of rocks from magma and
sediments doesn't seem to need much fine tuning. The supply of air,
food and so on to human beings was once interpreted as Divine
Providence, but now, thanks to Barrow and Tipler, we can dismiss that
argument in three letters: WAP. It tends to reappear as the Argument
from Design.


Good, then we can also dismiss a fool sucka that takes the old debate
seriously
too?

It's probably best to dismiss any fool sucka whether she takes the old
debate seriously or not. Whatever the old debate may be.

When does a sucka take a debate too seriously?

I think I meant

Confusion alert!


Are you suggesting that participants in conversations with you should always be
certain of everything they think or say and never feel their way through a debate
by trial and error? If so, I will consider your request and give permission
later.

that if someone is treating a debate that could go either way
without sounding like it could go either way, while arguing for reasonable
ways
or directions it could in fact possibly go. i.e. the Anthropic principle may
be
true so one could venture out onto that limb if feeling froggy?

I *know* that I meant nothing very complicated. Just that WAP does
have some explanatory power. But you can't just wheel it on as if it's
a law which may be true or false, it's a principle you apply while
creating theories, it's not part of the theory itself. Fermi's paradox
is explained by the universe being absolutely enormous, with inhabited
planets few and far between. Hence we find ourselves on one of the
rare useable planets with no neighbours in the visible universe. That
theory may be true or not, the way it works is anthropic, but nowhere
does it say "and the anthropic principle says xxx so yyy".


I was checking whether you were doing so or not, you have my permission to
proceed as you were...