Re: and who made god?

From: Albert (albertwagner_at_cox.net)
Date: 02/07/05 

Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:07:50 -0600

Barb Knox wrote:
<snip>
> Here's a more concrete attempt to show that the anthropic principle has at
> least as much explanatory power as the argument from design.

I think that you are confusing an argument *from* design with an
argument *for* design.

The anthropic principle is an argument *for* design.

> The argument from design is essentially that the universe as we see it seems
> so vastly improbable that it takes more faith to believe that it "just
> happened" to turn out this way (i.e. to be hospitable to intelligent life)
> than to believe that it was designed to be this way.

No. There is no need for 'faith'. You completely misunderstand
the argument for design.

(1)
> So, consider the probability space of all possible universes. (It doesn't
> matter whether or not you prefer to think of them as actually existing in
> some sort of multiverse, but thinking of it that way does have the benefit
> of concreteness.) Among all the possible universes, let's posit that only a
> very very small fraction are hospitable to intelligent life; that is,
> hospitable universes are very improbable, so improbable as to appear
> miraculous.

OK. This is the anthropic principle, which is an argument for
design.

(2)
> But in that vast majority of inhospitable universes, no-one is
> making an "argument of non-design", since there is no-one there to make any
> sort of argument at all.

The presence of life capable of making an 'argument of
non-design' in no way alters your statement #1 above.

(3)
> So the only universes in which any argument occurs
> MUST be those very improbable hospitable ones.

So what? It is totally irrelevant if any universe contains life
capable of argument.

(4)
> This is a massive "selection bias", to the extent that it
> actually doesn't matter how vastly improbable hospitable
> universes are.

A seriously flawed conclusion. It simply doesn't follow from
your argument. You have not justified using a different, much
smaller, sampling than 'all possible universes'. You are the one
displaying a 'selection bias.' 

-- 
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the 
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally 
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
     -- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... > "Speculative science" and exploration does not require specific plans. ... Tell me what you think the anthropic principle says. ... >>> and these other universes are potentially measurable. ... The reason we are surprised is equivalent to the surprise of a powerball ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... >>> Predicting that there are other universes does not necessarily mean we ... Science does not always provide clear-cut or guarenteed clues. ... Then you don't know what the anthropic principle is. ... No predictions are ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Abiogenesis
    ... complexity in nature leads to a design inference (i.e. the conclusion ... complexity), or you have to appeal to a supernatural designer. ... there somewhere creating other universes. ... when you propose a chronologically infinite ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... A fuzzy prediction is no prediction at all. ... The anthropic principle has nothing to say about probability distributions. ... >>> one would reason assuming there were other universes. ... >>> in whether fine tuning should surprise us. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • MYSTERIOUS COSMOS (THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE)
    ... Why is our Universe so exquisitely tuned to host life? ... Using the anthropic principle to explain the world might ... Yet the whole idea is roundly trashed by Lee Smolin, ... Most of these universes would be unable to support life. ...
    (sci.physics)