AX: The anthropic principle and the meaning of life. (locked)

31 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Terence22205:

Please put a tl;dr. I’m lazy.

I did. Read past the axioms and you’ll see it.

 
Flag Post

Good post. It is unlikely to draw the attention of anyone other than people disputing evolution, despite the axioms. Perhaps the length will scare off the dumber creationists/IDers, and leave us with some sort of room for intelligent discussion.

 
Flag Post

Based on the axiom that eliminates the spirituality aspect of our existence, the answer to the question is relatively simple: we exist to reproduce to preserve our race. If we didn’t exist, our race would become extinct, something every race seeks to prevent.

 
Flag Post

If God doesn’t exist, isn’t a whole lot simpler not to use the anthropic principle for your methodology? just sayin’.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:

Based on the axiom that eliminates the spirituality aspect of our existence, the answer to the question is relatively simple: we exist to reproduce to preserve our race. If we didn’t exist, our race would become extinct, something every race seeks to prevent.

That’s, like, pretty much exactly what I said, man. No need to repeat it.

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

If God doesn’t exist, isn’t a whole lot simpler not to use the anthropic principle for your methodology? just sayin’.

Why?

 
Flag Post

Ok then, fair enough. I dont know what we are supposed to discuss now. I kinda worked out this simple concept years ago though.

 
Flag Post

If you agree, then of course there isn’t much to discuss.

 
Flag Post

Well, the three axioms kind of wall out everything. And if you dont have the spirtual and philosophical side, you cant really argue.

 
Flag Post

Well, so far no one has pointed out any gaping holes in anything I said, which is good.

And if you dont have the spirtual and philosophical side, you cant really argue.

Disregarding the spiritual and religious aspects of life does not necessarily restrict philosophical arguments.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Blood_Shadow:

Well, so far no one has pointed out any gaping holes in anything I said, which is good.

And if you dont have the spirtual and philosophical side, you cant really argue.

Disregarding the spiritual and religious aspects of life does not necessarily restrict philosophical arguments.

Because there’s nothing to argue.

Well, no, actually. The anthropic principle is principally about religious causes. If you’re going to argue teleology, don’t start with anthropocentrism. Pretending it’s the only theory available is a good way to make discussion irrelevant. Also given that the anthropic principle primarily works with spiritualism, it does seem a bit odd to pretend it’s irrelevant.

Outside of that, there is indeed nothing to discuss.

TLDR: It might help if you unlock some of your ax’s to allow more room for discussion. You’ve delivered us a theory with no room to advance it.

incidentally, your name sucks. Blood shadow? Why am I not jumping at the chance to converse with a scholar?

 
Flag Post

Because there’s nothing to argue.

“Because”? Do you see me asking a “why” question in what you quoted?

If you’re going to argue teleology, don’t start with anthropocentrism.

Rather hard to question the meaning of human life without centering it around humans.

It might help if you unlock some of your ax’s to allow more room for discussion.

If I do, the opposing side’s argument will just boil down to “your argument is invalid because God”. Those arguments are extremely tiring and I honestly don’t want to deal with them.

incidentally, your name sucks. Blood shadow? Why am I not jumping at the chance to converse with a scholar?

Condemning a book because of its cover? There goes all my respect for you.

 
Flag Post

Rather hard to question the meaning of human life without centering it around humans.

oh totally. unless of course you discount humanity as the major factor and look at the planet as a whole. Sorry man, didn’t realize you were against all the other numerous theories to explain life on the planet.

If I do, the opposing side’s argument will just boil down to “your argument is invalid because God”. Those arguments are extremely tiring and I honestly don’t want to deal with them.

Eh, personally positivists irritate me the most but given that you’re arguing anthropocentrism I’m not seeing how you’ve got many choices.

Condemning a book because of its cover? There goes all my respect for you.

OMG! Jhco, give me a gun, I have to shoot myself for shame. Or is that the suicide thread, sorry, can’t recall.

Just sayin’, if I wanted a WOW shaman to explain human potential to me, I’d have gone for it.

While we’re on the subject – your posts are the book. I judge them retarded. If i’d read the ‘cover’ before the book, I wouldn’t have read them, but therein lies the constraints of the internet – you know, not at all fitting with book/cover blatherscath?

 
Flag Post

unless of course you discount humanity as the major factor and look at the planet as a whole. Sorry man, didn’t realize you were against all the other numerous theories to explain life on the planet.

Might as well quote Wikipedia here:

The term anthropic in “anthropic principle” has been argued to be a misnomer. While singling out our kind of carbon-based life, none of the finely tuned phenomena require human life or some kind of carbon chauvinism. Any form of intelligent life would do; so, specifying carbon-based life, per se, is irrelevant.

In fact, I have no clue why you brought up anthropocentrism to begin with. I don’t recall basing any of my argument on the human species in specific.

Eh, personally positivists irritate me the most

If positivists irritates you, I guess you’re the kind of person that irritates me. Oh well, such is the world.

OMG! Jhco, give me a gun, I have to shoot myself for shame.

Can’t say I’d feel bad if you did that.

Just sayin’, if I wanted a WOW shaman to explain human potential to me, I’d have gone for it.

So anyone with a name like “Blood_Shadow” is somehow automatically a “WoW shaman” and incapable of philosophical discussions? See, I don’t like your avatar, and I think your username is weird, but I wouldn’t just assume you’re stupid based on these things. How is our usernames even relevant in a discussion like this? Why even bring it up unless you’re trolling?

Oh well. I don’t want to waste time dealing with trolls. Congratulations, you win. You’re the newest addition to my ForumMute list. Feel free to waste your time making more posts in this thread that I will no longer be able to see.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Blood_Shadow:

Obviously, such an intelligent designer could exist.

No, it couldn’t.

axioms that must be assumed true for the duration of this thread.

1. God does not exist.

 
Flag Post

Okay. So you guys are mostly just swooping down like vultures toward that one little loophole I’ve made. Nice to see that the general populace of SD is so nice and tolerant.

I’ll fix that right now.

 
Flag Post

It’s not a little loophole, it’s the gaping hole that you claimed nobody had pointed out. And actually, Zzzip50 did point it out.

 
Flag Post

Okay, thank you for pointing it out then. I didn’t think it was serious enough that it needed fixing.

And I’ve reread Zzzip’s posts but don’t see where he supposedly pointed out that loophole. But maybe it’s just because it’s 12:30 AM.

Anyways, my final paragraph has been changed to the following:

Of course, the axioms of this thread already state that no “intelligent designer exists”, but I do not want people to misunderstand the point I am trying to make. I have only said that there doesn’t have to be an “intelligent designer” who gave a higher purpose to life by supposedly designing us, and the anthropic principle is sufficient to explain both our existence and our instinctive desire to perpetuate our existence. I am not saying, however, that an intelligent designer definitely does not exist, or somehow my arguments refute the existence of such an intelligent designer. I do not want to argue about that in this thread, so please respect the axioms and not bring it up.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Blood_Shadow:

According to the axioms, humanity evolved from some proto-human species. Apes, monkeys, whatever you want to call it; that’s not important right now. And that species evolved from some other, earlier species. At any time, there exist variations in a species’ genome, be they from mutations or simply different combinations of genes resulting from sexual reproduction. These genetic variations lead to variations in biological traits. The process of natural selection generally ensures that organisms with “better” traits, i.e. traits more suited for survival and successful reproduction, actually do survive to successfully reproduce. Over time, only the organisms with these “better” traits remain; any other organisms of that species will have died out due to being unable to survive and successfully reproduce. This is the central mechanism that drives evolution and causes species to change over time.

Pretty good so far.

Now I will bring to our attention the anthropic principle, which basically states that the laws and parameters of nature seem so coincidentally, miraculously well-suited for our survival because if they were not, we would not exist to wonder why nature seems to be tailored for us. Some may think that nature is so well-suited for our existence because some higher entity, e.g. God, has specifically designed it for us. But according to the anthropic principle, this needs not to be the case. For example, say we randomly generate a million different environments, each with different physical parameters. Assume that only one such environment has the parameters suited for the existence of any form of intelligent life. Obviously, intelligent life will only arise in that particular environment. These intelligent lifeforms may look at their environmental parameters, then look at the parameters of all the other 999,999 environments in which intelligent life failed to develop, and think that their one-in-a-million environment must have been specifically designed by some higher being to have those parameters that just seem so perfectly suited for intelligent life. But that obviously isn’t the case, is it? Their particular environment was randomly generated just like all the other ones. If it wasn’t suited for intelligent life, there would be no intelligent life to begin with; then they wouldn’t even be capable of pondering why their environment is so suited for their own existence.

<rant>

With the idea of “nature miraculously tailored to us [humans]”, it isn’t better to say “humans miraculously tailored to nature”? Take the scenario of a million of environments. With evolution stated as “continuation of species” via “surviving the environment”, in theory, every single of these places could be suitable to life, and eventually, intelligent, self-aware life. This is like an argument about extraterrestrial life, a problem is how life came into origin (it may or may not be the same as here). But we can see it even in our very Earth: could a freshwater fish live in the bottom of the ocean?

</rant>

Lol, loopholes.

 
Flag Post

With the idea of “nature miraculously tailored to us [humans]”, it isn’t better to say “humans miraculously tailored to nature”?

[Isn’t that the point of the post?]

Take the scenario of a million of environments. With evolution stated as “continuation of species” via “surviving the environment”, in theory, every single of these places could be suitable to life, and eventually, intelligent, self-aware life. This is like an argument about extraterrestrial life, a problem is how life came into origin (it may or may not be the same as here). But we can see it even in our very Earth: could a freshwater fish live in the bottom of the ocean?

[Axiom two covers this, does it not?]

2. There exists a set of laws of physics that explain how the universe behaves on the most fundamental level. All physical phenomena in the universe emerge from these fundamental behaviors and interactions. Nothing can violate any of these laws of physics under any circumstances.

[The ‘how’ is an exact process, according to Axiom Two as I understand it. So no randomness is involved: The conditions for ‘how’ must be present just as much as physical conditions. The environments must contain the materials, and the way in which they will meet, and this comes across as a contrived coincidence because of how contrived everything has to be to support intelligent life, which is why people think it is designed.]

 
Flag Post

[Axiom two covers this, does it not?]

It says “All physical phenomena in the universe emerge from these fundamental behaviors and interactions.”, i took physical as in the studies of space and matter . Through, depending of definitions, it could also include biology. After all, a biologist is a chemist that can’t do math

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EzekielMaple:

[Axiom two covers this, does it not?]

It says “All physical phenomena in the universe emerge from these fundamental behaviors and interactions.”, i took physical as in the studies of space and matter . Through, depending of definitions, it could also include biology. After all, a biologist is a chemist that can’t do math

[The materials that constitute a body are physical, right?]

 
Flag Post

[The materials that constitute a body are physical, right?]

Obvious. But in my original post states that life could (in theory, again) be created anywhere, not necessary the exact same way as in Earth (i.e., it doesn’t have fundamental behaviors, lol loopholes again). Here life has rules as “it’s made (mostly) of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen”, “its most basic unit is the cell”, “it has a DNA (or a similar enough substitute, such as RNA)” and others. Viruses don’t have a cell structure, so maybe isn’t a living being, but they still born, grow, reproduce and die. Our idea of living being could change in the future.

 
Flag Post

Dude, stop nitpicking. By “fundamental” I meant the most basic level from which everything in the universe emerges. It could be explained by string theory, or something even deeper. A theory of everything.

No, don’t bring up Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. I have counterarguments specifically reserved for that but I really don’t want to have to type them out. It’s tiring.

 
Flag Post

Sorry about Godel’s theorem (i wasn’t aware of it’s very existence). I admit that i was kind of sidetracked from the main topic. Taking out the alien crap of my comments, i still keep the statement of “humans designed to fit nature” and not the other way.

 
Flag Post

Taking out the alien crap of my comments, i still keep the statement of “humans designed to fit nature” and not the other way.

That was just a creationist strawman I made to try to explain the anthropic principle. I really don’t care how accurate it is, as long as it isn’t totally wrong.