The Anthropic Principal

S

Silvertusk

Registered Senior Member
Moving into Intelligent design area here, what are people's opinion on this matter. Regardless of whether you believe in the Christian God or any other God for that matter do you think that creation itself has intelligent design and everything has been suited in this universe just for life to exist here on earth. Or do you believe we have all just appeared here by an incredible stroke of luck?
 
Last edited:
The concept of intellegent design is for many the first step to seeking God.


This is one of the better doc's i have seen on it. Its a bit long but it is a good read.

2001 movie with a message

All Praise the Ancient of Days
 
Silvertusk said:
Moving into Intelligent design area here, what are people's opinion on this matter. Regardless of whether you believe in the Christian God or any other God for that matter do you think that creation itself has intelligent design and everything has been suited in this universe just for life to exist here on earth. Or do you believe we have all just appeared here by an incredible stroke of luck?
Click to expand...

The idea we are a 'fluke' is a mechanistic-materialistic scientific belief...a dogma like the church dogma of a transcendental 'crafstman'....both concepts are limited. yet they both argue with each other. a farce

what i believe is that matter is active intelligence. that there isn't A 'God' APARt FROM matter. That consciousness is ALWAYS with matter-energy. checkout Christian de Quincey who goes into this in more dpth www.deepspirit.com .what he is doing is re-introducing the very ancinet insight of primal animism into a scientific context

i must add that what i say doesn't dismiss evolution. but it doesn't agree with the mechansitc interpretation of evolution either.
Think of Nature/universe as a living organism, and throw some CHAOS into the exploration of it. This means that what 'this' IS is a living process, which is spontaneous, and ALIVE and is full of surprises, surprising itself with its own creativity which is fullfilled through, you men, them, animal, insect, stone, wind....all the way down. and death HAs to be included and with it comes regeneration, and bifurcation........
 
If one notices the complexities of life, which are far more intricate than any machine, then one can only logically assume that Intellegent Design cause the life.
 
Wow, the title of this thread is The Anthropic Principle, but there has been no mention of it. My understanding of it is that ANY living being capable of self reflection will necessarily find itself in an unlikely situation, because only particular, unlikely (from our limited POV) conditions will have lead to life arising in the first place. Therefore, Intelligent Design is a faulty conception.
 
Spidergoat, basically what your saying is that life must come from another lifeform, right, and that in order for life to have comin into being at first, an accident must have occured in the normal sequence of events.
 
No, there is no "normal sequence of events" in the universe. The Anthropic Principle does not address life coming from other life forms, it says that- it is only in universes where the conditions are right for life is it possible for the questions of specialness to be posed.
 
It was a good answer that was made by one who when they showed him hanging in a temple a picture of those who had paid their vows as having escaped shipwreck, and would have him say whether he did not now acknowledge the power of the gods,—‘Aye,’ asked he again, ‘but where are they painted that were drowned after their vows?’ And such is the way of all superstition, whether in astrology, dreams, omens, divine judgments, or the like; wherein men, having a delight in such vanities, mark the events where they are fulfilled, but where they fail, though this happens much oftener, neglect and pass them by. (Bacon 1620)
Click to expand...


Let’s look at an example where an observation selection effect is involved: We find that intelligent life evolved on Earth. Naively, one might think that this piece of evidence suggests that life is likely to evolve on most Earth-like planets. But that would be to overlook an observation selection effect. For no matter how small the proportion of all Earth-like planets that evolve intelligent life, we will find ourselves on a planet that did (or we will trace our origin to a planet where intelligent life evolved, in case we are born in a space colony). Our data point—that intelligent life arose on our planet—is predicted equally well by the hypothesis that intelligent life is very improbable even on Earth-like planets as by the hypothesis that intelligent life is highly probable on Earth-like planets. This datum therefore does not distinguish between the two hypotheses, provided that on both hypotheses intelligent life would have evolved somewhere. (On the other hand, if the “intelligent-life-is-improbable” hypothesis asserted that intelligent life was so improbable that is was unlikely to have evolved anywhere in the whole cosmos, then the evidence that intelligent life evolved on Earth would count against it. For this hypothesis would not have predicted our observation. In fact, it would have predicted that there would have been no observations at all.)
Click to expand...
http://www.anthropic-principle.com/primer.html
 
It's like the idea that humans are advanced. Well, humans are also deciding what constitutes advancement, so the idea has a flaw based on our center of observation. Dolphins are also quite intelligent, but do not show the kind of advancement that we would consider equal to our own, even though they have culture and society, fun and games, even language.
 
It's rather like a puddle waking up one morning— I know they don't normally do this, but allow me, I'm a science fiction writer— A puddle wakes up one morning and thinks: "This is a very interesting world I find myself in. It fits me very neatly. In fact it fits me so neatly... I mean really precise isn't it?... It must have been made to have me in it." And the sun rises, and it's continuing to narrate this story about how this hole must have been made to have him in it. And as the sun rises, and gradually the puddle is shrinking and shrinking and shrinking— and by the time the puddle ceases to exist, it's still thinking— it's still trapped in this idea that— that the hole was there for it. And if we think that the world is here for us we will continue to destroy it in the way that we have been destroying it, because we think that we can do no harm.

— Douglas Adams, a talk at UC Santa Barbara
 
Parallel Universes: The Mystery of Probability: What Are the Odds?

The uniqueness suggested by the Anthropic Principal is quickly dismissed if we exist in Parallel Universes/ A Multiverse.

0004078D-C989-1E95-8EA5809EC5880000_graphic1_lg.jpg


COSMOLOGISTS INFER the presence of Level II parallel universes by scrutinizing the properties of our universe. These properties, including the strength of the forces of nature (bottom) and the number of observable space and time dimensions (far bottom), were established by random processes during the birth of our universe. Yet they have exactly the values that sustain life. That suggests the existence of other universes with other values.
Click to expand...
0004078D-C989-1E95-8EA5809EC5880000_chart2.gif


0004078D-C989-1E95-8EA5809EC5880000_chart1.gif


Ergodicity:
ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLE of ergodicity, quantum parallel universes are equivalent to more prosaic types of parallel universes. A quantum universe splits over time into multiple universes (left). Yet those new universes are no different from parallel universes that already exist somewhere else in space---in, for example, other Level I universes (right). The key idea is that parallel universes, of whatever type, embody different ways that events could have unfolded.
Click to expand...
000A942B-FC34-1E95-8EA5809EC5880000_2.jpg


AND to get really WEIRD. . . . .

The Nature of Time
MOST PEOPLE THINK of time as a way to describe change. At one moment, matter has a certain arrangement; a moment later, it has another (left). The concept of multiverses suggests an alternative view. If parallel universes contain all possible arrangements of matter (right), then time is simply a way to put those universes into a sequence. The universes themselves are static; change is an illusion, albeit an interesting one.
Click to expand...
000A942B-FC34-1E95-8EA5809EC5880000_3.jpg
 
Michael said:
Parallel Universes: The Mystery of Probability: What Are the Odds?

The uniqueness suggested by the Anthropic Principal is quickly dismissed if we exist in Parallel Universes/ A Multiverse.








AND to get really WEIRD. . . . .
Click to expand...

That may well give a theory in answer to the Anthropic Principal - i.e. a universe exists in the right form for conditions of life to exist. But what you are essentially talking about here is a universe making universes. Look at a bread machine making bread. Something still has to put the ingredients in and the right ingredients in order to make these universes in the first place. And even that must have a beginning.
 
Silvertusk said:
That may well give a theory in answer to the Anthropic Principal - i.e. a universe exists in the right form for conditions of life to exist. But what you are essentially talking about here is a universe making universes. Look at a bread machine making bread. Something still has to put the ingredients in and the right ingredients in order to make these universes in the first place. And even that must have a beginning.
Click to expand...
and your point here is, (chicken and the egg comes to mind)
 
and pay attention to how you think about this. i have heard someone say 'it's not "perfect"'....and 'it really is 'static' time is 'illusion'

see that such thinking is dualistic. you see 'two sides' and choose one side over the other

i understand that we have a conscious awareness and unconscious awareness. the former is much emphasized by our sulture, and the latter is not much considered. especially in its relation to the environment---how it grows, evolves, and including our bodies
in fact this division between conscious and 'the unconscious' has been pushed by countless generations of dualsitc beliefs

but consciousness includes BOTH. so when you ask the question 'is there an intelligent designer?'..how are you asking it? are you assuming a 'CONSCIOUS' designer as you understandyourSELF to be conscious? or do you understand the deeper depths of consciousness? for example, you didn't consciously grow your body did you? Yt if it wasn't for body we cant even think about this shit

also, there is no such thing as perfection. only in the mind of a white light religionist. 'perfect' is an abstract concept. if something was 'perfect' that means stasis. it means no dynamism. no movement

which means that stasis is also a limited abstract idea. reality is indeterminate. ambiguous. Intelligent, and cant be grasped and boxed by a cut-off conscious mind
 
duendy said:
unconscious awareness.
Click to expand...
:confused: could you qualify this statement please .. .. ... .. also, just how did you come to have information concerning this "unconscious" awareness?
 
scorpius said:
yes
Click to expand...

"Luck" doesn't have such a great part in the creation of the universe. Luck means something which we yet don't understand. But the creation of the universe is ruled by laws, so are these laws also a product of "luck"? How can that be? How "luck" bring magnetism?
 
Luck:The chance happening of fortunate or adverse events; fortune
(dictionary.com)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top