the weak antropic principle

Holy Crap!
spinoza99
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:19 am
Contact:

the weak antropic principle

Post by spinoza99 » Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:29 pm

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
Those who are most effective at reproducing will reproduce. Therefore new species can arise by chance. Charles Darwin.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: the weak antropic principle

Post by mistermack » Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:44 pm

The real fallacy is that you can get anything of any value out of that kind of pseudo mathematical "logic".
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: the weak antropic principle

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:47 pm

There was a joke about that in the first X-men movie.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: the weak antropic principle

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:48 pm

spinoza99 wrote: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.

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: the weak antropic principle

Post by FBM » Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:09 pm

"If A then ~D" is missing from this anthropic principle, methinks. :biggrin:
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

spinoza99
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:19 am
Contact:

Re: the weak antropic principle

Post by spinoza99 » Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:20 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
spinoza99 wrote: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?
Those who are most effective at reproducing will reproduce. Therefore new species can arise by chance. Charles Darwin.

User avatar
Atheist-Lite
Formerly known as Crumple
Posts: 8745
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 12:35 pm
About me: You need a jetpack? Here, take mine. I don't need a jetpack this far away.
Location: In the Galactic Hub, Yes That One !!!
Contact:

Re: the weak antropic principle

Post by Atheist-Lite » Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:31 pm

You only have to wait a couple of centuries to realise how futile it is to ask questions about existence. :crumple:
nxnxm,cm,m,fvmf,vndfnm,nm,f,dvm,v v vmfm,vvm,d,dd vv sm,mvd,fmf,fn ,v fvfm,

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: the weak antropic principle

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:35 pm

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.

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: the weak antropic principle

Post by Rum » Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:36 pm

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
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:19 am
Contact:

Re: the weak antropic principle

Post by spinoza99 » Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:45 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote: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.
Those who are most effective at reproducing will reproduce. Therefore new species can arise by chance. Charles Darwin.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: the weak antropic principle

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:10 pm

spinoza99 wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote: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
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:19 am
Contact:

Re: the weak antropic principle

Post by spinoza99 » Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:35 pm

So you agree with me that Susskind does not have an argument.
Those who are most effective at reproducing will reproduce. Therefore new species can arise by chance. Charles Darwin.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41043
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: the weak antropic principle

Post by Svartalf » Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:18 pm

Gawdzilla wrote: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 :bb: 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.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41043
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: the weak antropic principle

Post by Svartalf » Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:24 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
spinoza99 wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote: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.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: the weak antropic principle

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:25 pm

spinoza99 wrote: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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests