I have avoided trying to define the Anthropic principle because I am not a noted authority. My argument is simply that many top physicists and other scientsts have stated and currently state that scientific evidence appears to suggest the universe is designed. And if the string theory math used to speculate on the existence of billions of muliple universes proves faulty then you will be hard pressed to argue with the conclusion the universe is designed. (based on current scientific understandings.)
Well, your argument is demonstrably wrong, based on all the evidence cited by myself, others and even by yourself. And, as you seem unable/unwilling to define the most important linchpin of your argument, this explains, to me at least, why you are misunderstanding the science as supporting your position -- when in fact it does not. Of course I recognize that you will immediately disagree with my assessment of your position. So, let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that, because I don't see any reason to keep arguing in circles over a definition which we cannot both agree upon.
that is such baloney. I will not agree to disagree when these issues are sussceptible to resolution. I will not define anthropic principle because it has been done already. My argument the whole time has been -- some top physicists say our universe looks designed. You keep denying it. When you admit it I will agree to end it. You were wrong about probability theory and you were wrong about a multitude of things on this subject. Why would I agree to disagree. Leonard Susskind: I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. -- he also said the appearance of design is undeniable... I am not sure what more you need. I have given you quotes from Susskind, Weinberg and hawking.
Have you ever watched the PBS/Nova presentation The Elegant Universe? If not, then please do, because it may change your perception of the issues.
Jem: >I will not agree to disagree ... OMG -- that is just about the funniest and most telling response I have seen from Jem. I guess he'll just have to disagree to disagree. JB
Well then , i respectfully disagree with your disagreement. Hallelujah. (thats such a great line, i waited ages to use that again, and someone beat me to it )
Surely you don't have to be an authority on a subject to define it . Can you not define a principle or any word without being an authority on its subject matter? Perhaps you could define bullshite then, seeing as how you appear to be an authority on that. On the other hand, not being an authority doesn't stop you defining what Susskind, Weinberg and Hawking say though does it, Even when you have been given Susskind's own recorded voice saying something else. As you are not a noted authority on what they are saying, can you define what you mean by designed then, or are you not an authority on that either, but feel able to declare what others mean by it, even when they tell you they don't mean what you say they do? Do you consider design is something which couldn't be anything else but what a separate Thingygoddy designs ? Would you not consider a square design could just as easily be a circle design. All it would have taken is for humans to have decided a round shape was to be called a square shape and vice versa? You know by description in terms of anthropic principals. So when you say "some top physicists say our universe looks designed", what is it you are actually suggesting ?. To your way of thinking, which you have usually expressed generally in terms of a superstition, must 'designed ' entail intention and purpose? Do you think design is something which couldn't be there unless a separate special designer designs it? Can you not see anyway that a physicist might consider design and designed to be something completely natural, requiring no separate designer outside the things being described as designed. Not-not agree? Yes? No?
yes I have seen the elegant universe. Stu you are back to your old tweedle dee and tweedle dum persona. I did not define AP because it would have just led to Strong ap vs Weak ap discussion. And that discussion would have been entirely off point. I have no problem stating that Susskind said __________ or top physicists state________. However, I do not claim to be an expert in AP so it woud be pointless for me to create a defintion when the term definition is not set in stone. KJ s question could have been a setup, as I am sure he knows AP is defined different ways. So while he probably understood why I ducked the question. Apparently at least one dope did not.
You're being unnecessarily paranoid. I'm not trying to set you up. Substantively, you keep using Susskind's "New Scientist" interview from December 2005, as a defense of your position. The Paula Gordon Radio Show interview, from February 2006, that I provided you a while back in this thread, clearly presents Susskind, in his own words, correcting any misunderstanding by saying, unequivocally that he does not subscribe to any theory of intelligent design, and that he views life in this universe as "an accident." He's not equivocal in that interview, and I don't know how "New Scientist" managed to coax the bizarrely theological quote on which you base your position, out of Susskind, but there are no other Susskind quotes quite like the one you are using, and I think it highly unrepresentative of Susskind's views.