I couldn’t think of a better title for this than the one Scott Bailey provided.
From Failbook via Scotteriology
Heh! At least he got more "Likes" for his comment than either the original post or the other comments! So at least some people out there appreciate sound information.
I understand being wrong – I do it a lot. I also understand denial. What I can't understand is reveling in your wrongness. Anti-intellectualism is an ugly and dangerous thing.
There was no "like" after these two posts. Too bad as I would double like these comments!
I don't think there's a "like" feature for comments on Blogger. Only on Facebook, alas.
you can "like" comments on disqushttp://disqus.com/but didn't you try that some time before?Some of us are just happy to get comments at all!
I did try Disqus, to the delight of some and the dismay of others. In the end, the practical difficulties of getting existing comments to transfer into the new system made me abandon the attempt.I've had some folks mention problems commenting here, and in at least one instance I know that they were using Firefox. I wonder whether that is a problem for many, and if so how to solve it.
I applaud his/her enthusiasm for the weak anthropic priciple. The fact that we exist, and observe, means that we were lucky enough to be in a location optimized for life. Not a problem for aetheists to explain. Although the Goldilocks zone is not just 10 feet. However, I find it more interesting that physicists like Hawking have gone out of their way to try and develop explanations to wave-away the strong anthropic principle, i.e. the constants of physics, such as in the strength of the stong and weak forces and gravitation (which should be constants througout the universe), and are optimized for life. This even goes way back to the triple-process for the generation of carbon in stars, developed by Hoyle, I think. The aetheist's only solution is to generate an "almost" infinite number of universes (all with potentially different constants of physics), so that pretty much anything is possible, even a simulated "matrix" universe – as stated by "The Cosmic Jackpot" -I forget the author's name, but we discussed it before. Anyway, proof that the more you know, the more you need to know more. And we all need to recognize someone doing backflips to explain something they can't really explain (I'm refering to Hawking, btw).
Nothing is "optimized for life". If conditions were otherwise life would have developed differently. Besides, we currently have a sample size of one for abiogenesis – not enough to draw conclusions of any kind.
"Nothing is "optimized for life""…. So you don't believe in the strong anthropic principle? Too bad. Your loss.
I don't believe in the strong anthropic principle because there is no credible evidence to support it. I'm not sure what you feel I've lost by that.
Some very responsible physicists believe it, such as Frank Tipler. Although some don't. The ones that don't are generally atheists. What you've lost, is only from my perspective, which may not mean anything to you. Basically, a meaning to life, beyond eating, sleeping, reproducing, and having fun. But that is not science. More philosophy. Although the anthropic principle is a VERY valid scientific theory. Only, "almost infinite" number of universes, can be used to deflate it. And the "almost infinite" number of universes is only supported based upon a math model that gives an "almost infinite" number of solutions, without paying attention to the probabilities of the solutions, or the math model itself. And the string theories have many singularities, that are not real solutions.