the weak antropic principle

[spinoza99]

Leonard Susskind arguest in the Cosmic Landscape paraphrasing:

The evidence for fine-tuning is so overwhelming that many are lead to believe that the universe must be designed. He responds with a parable. He imagines fish debating the meaning of the fine-tuning of the temperature of the water. He calls them fishicists and they develop what is called the ickthropic principle. Eventually they conclude that the water must be fine-tuned within a certain temperature, otherwise they would not exist. Therefore, it is not surprising that the water is fine-tuned.

Susskind's argument has the following structure:

1. D or not D
2. If A then B
3. A
4. Therefore B
5. Therefore not D

1. The environment is designed or not designed
2. If we exist then the environment is fit for life
3. We exist
4. Therefore the environment is fit for life
5. Therefore the environment is not designed

This is a fallacy. There is nothing in premises 2 and 3 that obtains the conclusion in 5 which is not D

[mistermack]

The real fallacy is that you can get anything of any value out of that kind of pseudo mathematical "logic".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There was a joke about that in the first X-men movie.

[Coito ergo sum]

Leonard Susskind arguest in the Cosmic Landscape paraphrasing:

The evidence for fine-tuning is so overwhelming that many are lead to believe that the universe must be designed. He responds with a parable. He imagines fish debating the meaning of the fine-tuning of the temperature of the water. He calls them fishicists and they develop what is called the ickthropic principle. Eventually they conclude that the water must be fine-tuned within a certain temperature, otherwise they would not exist. Therefore, it is not surprising that the water is fine-tuned.

Susskind's argument has the following structure:

1. D or not D
2. If A then B
3. A
4. Therefore B
5. Therefore not D

1. The environment is designed or not designed
2. If we exist then the environment is fit for life
3. We exist
4. Therefore the environment is fit for life
5. Therefore the environment is not designed

This is a fallacy. There is nothing in premises 2 and 3 that obtains the conclusion in 5 which is not D

It's also an argument nobody actually makes, by the way.

[FBM]

"If A then ~D" is missing from this anthropic principle, methinks.

[spinoza99]

Leonard Susskind arguest in the Cosmic Landscape paraphrasing:

The evidence for fine-tuning is so overwhelming that many are lead to believe that the universe must be designed. He responds with a parable. He imagines fish debating the meaning of the fine-tuning of the temperature of the water. He calls them fishicists and they develop what is called the ickthropic principle. Eventually they conclude that the water must be fine-tuned within a certain temperature, otherwise they would not exist. Therefore, it is not surprising that the water is fine-tuned.

Susskind's argument has the following structure:

1. D or not D
2. If A then B
3. A
4. Therefore B
5. Therefore not D

1. The environment is designed or not designed
2. If we exist then the environment is fit for life
3. We exist
4. Therefore the environment is fit for life
5. Therefore the environment is not designed

This is a fallacy. There is nothing in premises 2 and 3 that obtains the conclusion in 5 which is not D

It's also an argument nobody actually makes, by the way.

Coito,

how have you been? long time no see. why don't you tell me the argument S is making?

[Atheist-Lite]

You only have to wait a couple of centuries to realise how futile it is to ask questions about existence.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh, Susskind is making that argument, sure. I meant that nobody who argues against the "fine tuning" argument makes the argument Susskind is making. He's creating a false logic, one that I've heard nobody but him advance.

And, based on what you've set forth above, the conclusion "5" is just as properly "Therefore the environment was designed." -- based on that logic.

1. Not D or D
2. If A then B
3. A
4. Therefore B
5. Therefore D.

From what you posted, we have no reason to pick "not D" over "D" just because A and therefore B happens to be the case.

[Rum]

If you win the lottery, no matter how high the odds against it, you still won.

You might even end up wondering how come everyone else didn't.

[spinoza99]

Oh, Susskind is making that argument, sure. I meant that nobody who argues against the "fine tuning" argument makes the argument Susskind is making. He's creating a false logic, one that I've heard nobody but him advance.

And, based on what you've set forth above, the conclusion "5" is just as properly "Therefore the environment was designed." -- based on that logic.

1. Not D or D
2. If A then B
3. A
4. Therefore B
5. Therefore D.

From what you posted, we have no reason to pick "not D" over "D" just because A and therefore B happens to be the case.

Do you admit that Susskind, does not prove what he sets out to prove? He's trying to prove that the universe is not designed.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh, Susskind is making that argument, sure. I meant that nobody who argues against the "fine tuning" argument makes the argument Susskind is making. He's creating a false logic, one that I've heard nobody but him advance.

And, based on what you've set forth above, the conclusion "5" is just as properly "Therefore the environment was designed." -- based on that logic.

1. Not D or D
2. If A then B
3. A
4. Therefore B
5. Therefore D.

From what you posted, we have no reason to pick "not D" over "D" just because A and therefore B happens to be the case.

Do you admit that Susskind, does not prove what he sets out to prove? He's trying to prove that the universe is not designed.

I don't believe the "logic" works either way. It doesn't demonstrate design, or not design. Absolutely. It's bollocks.

[spinoza99]

So you agree with me that Susskind does not have an argument.

[Svartalf]

There was a joke about that in the first X-men movie.

Never noticed that one... Of course, that shit was so horrible that I kind of applied after seeing it to resist the impulse of performing murderous and terrorist acts, particularly in Burbanks Cal, and against whatever NYNY building holds the marvel offices.

[Svartalf]

Oh, Susskind is making that argument, sure. I meant that nobody who argues against the "fine tuning" argument makes the argument Susskind is making. He's creating a false logic, one that I've heard nobody but him advance.

And, based on what you've set forth above, the conclusion "5" is just as properly "Therefore the environment was designed." -- based on that logic.

1. Not D or D
2. If A then B
3. A
4. Therefore B
5. Therefore D.

From what you posted, we have no reason to pick "not D" over "D" just because A and therefore B happens to be the case.

Do you admit that Susskind, does not prove what he sets out to prove? He's trying to prove that the universe is not designed.

I don't believe the "logic" works either way. It doesn't demonstrate design, or not design. Absolutely. It's bollocks.

Definitely... then again, without proper context, it feels like susskind might have aimed to show that the logic is bollocks rather than making sophisms.

[Coito ergo sum]

So you agree with me that Susskind does not have an argument.

I don't know if he has some other argument. I agree that the argument you posted in the OP is bollocks. I'm not sure if you fairly presented his argument or not, though, or if he overall has an argument. I'm only referring to what you wrote in the OP and attributed to Susskind. It's bollocks, for reasons stated.