The Anthropic Principle

The fallacy inherent in that point of view is that life needs such conditions to arise, rather than acknowledging that life arose in the form with which we are familiar based upon the conditions in which it arose. All in all, it looks like an attempt to dress up that old whore Ontology in fake scientific garb.

truth
Ender, I appreciate your wonder (about life), but why not phrase the question in terms of something more prevalent like gravity?

Im curious. What values and constants are you referring to?Just Because the relationships among various constants can be computed, doesnt mean they are related. I can give you a series of other constants (like axial dimension of expanded clays that have values approximate to Spacing in base pairs of DNa and RNA. Why? perhaps ists because amino compounds first learned to react within clay matrices. This suggests that life (or at least self replicating organic molecules) came out of the inherent energy states of collapsing layers of MUD.

The fact that chemicals react in ways that are mathematically predictable took us about 350 years to recognize, from discoveries made in a stepwise , progressive (often unrelated)fashion. That this is coincident with life is kind of an example of autocorrelation, which , as you know, is a bit of mathtubatory reasoning..

truth
FM, mathubatory reasoning? I like that. But at least it's rigorous, as in rigour mortis.

We demand HARD evidence

Your initial question is in error.
The universe was not made. It merely is.
A made universe implies purpose and a maker with motives for making. There is no evidence for this whatsoever and as such must be disregarded.

could it be Ender, that since we, living creatures, exist in this universe, that it might be 'expected' that the conditions extant here allow for our existence - it's not rocket science, but a little logic might suggest it be possible.

I agree, the universe just WAS. anything infinite cannot be created. think about it, it's kinda impossible... er... yeah. I think. um.

anyway, there are no conditions that HAVE to be there for life. I'm sure if gravity didn't exist or some fundamental rule of physics wasn't there, perhaps in some parallel universe, life would still find a way to form.

Re: The Anthropic Principle


Ender; welcome here, there's nothing like 'trial by fire' as an entry point.

Re: your survey; you may notice there are no responses. could you clarify which question you would like answered?

truth
FM, and not long, drawn out arguments.

truth
It is very provincial of us to project our little world (in which there is the notion of causation, intention and motivation to make sense of our lives) onto the Cosmos. I agree that the universe "just is". I leave that as a mystery, one which I depict for myself in terms of metaphors like Brahman or Cosmos.

Ender, Welcome!

We could turn the question around and wonder at the magical circumstance of how the life we see here on earth dove tails so nicely with the physical laws of the universe. How very convenient! Your question implies some sort of intent which then leads us towards an agent so intended. However, we must confine our musings to this small insignificant geographical location we know as Earth or, at most, our Galaxy. Physical laws may differ elsewhere--we just don't know.

But at the risk of throwing a wet blanket over a potentially rich philosophical/theological discussion, I might suggest a simpler explanation that results from Occam inspired surgery and recovers quite nicely from that time honored scientific procedure.

The long held belief in Darwinism, Neo-Darwinian or whatever is the latest name for Evolution (Farmerman, among others, may enlighten us as to its trendiest new moniker here) offers us an easier and simpler explanation towards life's origins here on Earth.

All scientific knowledge strongly suggests that all matter, even that formed relatively shortly after the "Big Bang" (another assumption) has a tendency for self organization: sub-atomic particles condescending into atoms forming molecules which then join together in chains later able to self replicate... and so on). Throw into the mix random mutations subjected to ever changing selection pressure and we find that designs arise and sometimes thrive. To all this add massive amounts of time ( 3-4 Billion years seems to work well in the "cooking process") and it is quite conceivable that not only does the "Designer" need no intent but, needs not be present at all.

Then there is the possibility of another "Universe" with a different set of "coincidental laws" that would result in an equally fortunate situation resulting in life "as we don't know it"!

JM

OMG. This website is awesome. You guys are smart. Anyways, I personally take the view that the universe was designed. Am I naive? Maybe. Ignorant? Maybe. But there are several reasons I believe what I believe. I'll be back in two days to respond to all the points made in your replies. I wanted to comment on self-organizational properties of matter, alternate universes, and the "inherant fallacies" supposedly present in the logic of the Anthropic Principle. But I have to leave now. Back in two days.
~Ender

truth
Ender, I just voted "No" on your poll question, "Was the Universe made with a purpose?" But that should not be interpreted to mean that I think that the universe WAS MADE but without a purpose. I don't think there is a maker so the universe could not be made. As far as I can intuit, it has neither beginning nor end. By no beginning I include the liklihood of a Big Bang. My notion of a universe includes the state of things BEFORE a big bang (or bangs).

Which is, in fact, the anthropic principle, ain't it? If the universe were such that stuff didn't stick together or waveforms didn't collapse or worms didn't wriggle the right way in the inky black soil, we wouldn't be here to ask the question, "Isn't it amazing that I'm here?" To which the answer is something along the lines of, "Yes, well, you are here, so you'd better deal with it."

Re: The Anthropic Principle

I think people's puzzlement about this observation mostly reflects a lack of phantasy on our part. The particular way we happen to have come into existence seems very improbable; we cannot imagine how intelligent life could have emerged under alternative physical laws; ergo there's a deep mystery that needs an explanation.

There is no deep mystery. It's just us being dense.

I believe that the material universe is created and that it exists for a purpose, as it to me would make a lot more sense if matter is a result of consciousness than the other way around. I simply don't believe that atoms can be formed in ways that create consciousness, self-awareness and ability to reason on abstract levels far above itself. To me it would seem that consciousness is separate from matter, and that it exists on a supermaterial level.

Derevon; your comment is all about 'belief', and completely devoid of 'evidence'; not what i would call a compelling 'theory'!

If you consider that 'time' as in 'the clicking of a clock' does not exist; it is merely (not to minimize its importance) the 'yardstick' we use to measure the relationships of objects in our universe, then the whole concept of 'creation' becomes moot.

Everything, as we know it (and i suspect that this is only 'part' of it) just 'is'.

Well, there is absolutely no evidence that cognition is a result of evolution either. There is no reason why evolution would evolve it from a natural selection point of view. Ultimately everything is about beliefs in this kind of matters. Ultimate reality can never be proven, since one in order to prove something has to exist outside that which one is to prove.

As for time, it's just as real, or unreal as space, as none can exist without the other. The creator (first cause) would of course have to be self-existent, independent of time and space.