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.

Of course WAP as applied to science hinges on how many ad-hoc rules
are required to get from apparently universal physical laws to the
specific conditions required for life to arise and thrive. But WAP
itself seems to be a principle that is invoked in non-sceintific
contexts as well.

I can't remember whether B&Tdescribe a teleological AP but the
strongest AP that made any sense to me didn't assert that "the whole
point of the universe was that humans should ..." it asserted that
human beings, being good observers, collapsed the wave function of the
universe. Thus (it says) the only self-consistent universes are 1)
ones in which observers arise 2) ones which remain in a mixed state
indefinitely.

If Scrabble is necessary, then so are players, and a universe to play in. Woozy
calls this the "Really Strong" or "Scrabble" Anthropic Principle. Humans (or at
least intelligent beings) are necessary, providing an order to biological
evolution which has been lacking since the failure of the Chain of Being. This
also suggests that if aliens exist, they may well play Scrabble.

I suspect they play Conceptual Scrabble: you get dealt a handful of
out-of-context concepts and string them together to make specious
arguments. Extra points for obscurity.

Philosopher, physicist and mathematician see a black sheep.

'All sheeps are black' - immediately says philosopher.

'There are sheeps and some of them are black' - says physicist.

'There is at least one sheep, and at least half of it is black' - says
mathematician.

'There is an observation of a black sheep. Let us construct a
hypothesis that all observations of sheep are that they are black. But
let us not impose an ontology of sheep onto our observations: let us
stick to what we observe which is that sheep are or are not black, we
will not impute existence to the sheep, only to the observations.' -
says an alt.philosopher.

That still leaves the maggots...

"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?

Of course WAP as applied to science hinges on how many ad-hoc rules
are required to get from apparently universal physical laws to the
specific conditions required for life to arise and thrive. But WAP
itself seems to be a principle that is invoked in non-sceintific
contexts as well.

I can't remember whether B&Tdescribe a teleological AP but the
strongest AP that made any sense to me didn't assert that "the whole
point of the universe was that humans should ..." it asserted that
human beings, being good observers, collapsed the wave function of the
universe. Thus (it says) the only self-consistent universes are 1)
ones in which observers arise 2) ones which remain in a mixed state
indefinitely.

If Scrabble is necessary, then so are players, and a universe to play in.
Woozy
calls this the "Really Strong" or "Scrabble" Anthropic Principle. Humans (or
at
least intelligent beings) are necessary, providing an order to biological
evolution which has been lacking since the failure of the Chain of Being. This
also suggests that if aliens exist, they may well play Scrabble.

I suspect they play Conceptual Scrabble: you get dealt a handful of
out-of-context concepts and string them together to make specious
arguments. Extra points for obscurity.

Philosopher, physicist and mathematician see a black sheep.

'All sheeps are black' - immediately says philosopher.

'There are sheeps and some of them are black' - says physicist.

'There is at least one sheep, and at least half of it is black' - says
mathematician.

'There is an observation of a black sheep. Let us construct a
hypothesis that all observations of sheep are that they are black. But
let us not impose an ontology of sheep onto our observations: let us
stick to what we observe which is that sheep are or are not black, we
will not impute existence to the sheep, only to the observations.' -
says an alt.philosopher.

That still leaves the maggots...

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.

"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 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?

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!

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".

"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...

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
.. .
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.

If I did, it would be advice, not a request.

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...

No thanks.