• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Would The Universe Exist If Not For Mankind?

Paralogic said:
I have looked it up and studied it and have commented about it.

Why don't you tell us what you think the Anthropic Principle is about, without resorting to spam links for dubious websites?

Give it a try.
Click to expand...

Any Universe which is observed is a universe in which the natural laws of that universe give rise to life (otherwise there would be no one to observe it).
 
RGacky3 said:
Any Universe which is observed is a universe in which the natural laws of that universe give rise to life (otherwise there would be no one to observe it).
Click to expand...

"observed" by who?

The universe is independent of human reality, or human perception. That much is true, and evident.

The Anthropic Principle is false by definition.
 
Paralogic said:
"observed" by who?

The universe is independent of human reality, or human perception. That much is true, and evident.

The Anthropic Principle is false by definition.
Click to expand...

By anyone ... if ANYONE observes it, then that universe has natural laws that give rise to life, otherwise SOMEONE wouldn't be observing it ... It's TRUE by definition.
 
RGacky3 said:
By anyone ... if ANYONE observes it, then that universe has natural laws that give rise to life, otherwise SOMEONE wouldn't be observing it ... It's TRUE by definition.
Click to expand...

No one "observed" anything, by your criteria, 350 mil years ago... or pick another random period during the earth's life.

Humans are irrelevant to nature... and to the universe.
 
Paralogic said:
No one "observed" anything, by your criteria, 350 mil years ago... or pick another random period during the earth's life.

Humans are irrelevant to nature... and to the universe.
Click to expand...

yeah ... no one observed it 350 mil years ago, but the fact that it is observed within the space/time block, means that the laws of nature within the universe are such that they give rise to life ...

You obviously don't understand the anthropic principle ...
 
RGacky3 said:
yeah ... no one observed it 350 mil years ago, but the fact that it is observed within the space/time block, means that the laws of nature within the universe are such that they give rise to life ...

You obviously don't understand the anthropic principle ...
Click to expand...

There's an intellectual divide here...

I said that you have to justify past facts based on future realities, like humans existing.

You can't do that. Nobody can. It's not possible. The Anthropic Principle is false. By definition. Deal with it.
 
Paralogic said:
There's an intellectual divide here...

I said that you have to justify past facts based on future realities, like humans existing.

You can't do that. Nobody can. It's not possible. The Anthropic Principle is false. By definition. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

No **** you can justify past facts by present and future realities ... that's ALL of science.

We observe the universe now ... That means the universe is governed by laws of nature that lead to conscious life .... that is Anthropic principle, and it's plainly true, infact it's trivially true.

Paralogic, how often are you going to continue to embarrass yourself here.
 
RGacky3 said:
No **** you can justify past facts by present and future realities ... that's ALL of science.

We observe the universe now ... That means the universe is governed by laws of nature that lead to conscious life .... that is Anthropic principle, and it's plainly true, infact it's trivially true.

Paralogic, how often are you going to continue to embarrass yourself here.
Click to expand...

The Anthropic principle is a philosophical theory based on science, not necessarily accepted as scientific fact.

Alfred Russel Wallace anticipated the anthropic principle as long ago as 1904:
"Such a vast and complex universe as that which we know exists around us, may have been absolutely required ... in order to produce a world that should be precisely adapted in every detail for the orderly development of life culminating in man."

There are many proposed variants.

1 The absurd universe: Our universe just happens to be the way it is.
2 The unique universe: There is a deep underlying unity (Theory of Everything) in physics which necessitates the Universe being the way it is.
3 The multiverse: Multiple universes exist, having all possible combinations of characteristics, and we find ourselves within a universe that allows us to exist.
4 Intelligent Design: A creator designed the Universe with the purpose of supporting complexity and the emergence of intelligence.
5 The life principle: There is an underlying principle that constrains the Universe to evolve towards life and mind.
6 The self-explaining universe: A closed explanatory or causal loop: "perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist."
7 The fake universe :We live inside a virtual reality simulation.
 
grip said:
The Anthropic principle is a philosophical theory based on science, not necessarily accepted as scientific fact.

Alfred Russel Wallace anticipated the anthropic principle as long ago as 1904:
"Such a vast and complex universe as that which we know exists around us, may have been absolutely required ... in order to produce a world that should be precisely adapted in every detail for the orderly development of life culminating in man."

There are many proposed variants.

1 The absurd universe: Our universe just happens to be the way it is.
2 The unique universe: There is a deep underlying unity (Theory of Everything) in physics which necessitates the Universe being the way it is.
3 The multiverse: Multiple universes exist, having all possible combinations of characteristics, and we find ourselves within a universe that allows us to exist.
4 Intelligent Design: A creator designed the Universe with the purpose of supporting complexity and the emergence of intelligence.
5 The life principle: There is an underlying principle that constrains the Universe to evolve towards life and mind.
6 The self-explaining universe: A closed explanatory or causal loop: "perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist."
7 The fake universe :We live inside a virtual reality simulation.
Click to expand...

The anthropic principle does'nt say life was inevitable, it says that Our universe has laws that lead to the existance of life, i.e. you don't need to explain it more than that, any universe that is obvserved is one who's laws lead to the existance of conscious life.

All of those varients are compatible with the anthropic principle.

The anthropic principle is necessarily true, the question is whether or not it's a sufficient account of consciousness.
 
RGacky3 said:
The anthropic principle does'nt say life was inevitable, it says that Our universe has laws that lead to the existance of life, i.e. you don't need to explain it more than that, any universe that is obvserved is one who's laws lead to the existance of conscious life.

All of those varients are compatible with the anthropic principle.

The anthropic principle is necessarily true, the question is whether or not it's a sufficient account of consciousness.
Click to expand...

To say the universe has laws that led to life is not a revelation, kind of stating the obvious.

I'm not sure the anthropic principle had to be true the universe could've easily have never developed life on earth if a largest enough celestial object destroyed our planet before consciousness evolved. Consciousness may exist independent of biological life as some form of energy in the universe not yet recognized.
 
grip said:
To say the universe has laws that led to life is not a revelation, kind of stating the obvious.

I'm not sure the anthropic principle had to be true the universe could've easily have never developed life on earth if a largest enough celestial object destroyed our planet before consciousness evolved. Consciousness may exist independent of biological life as some form of energy in the universe not yet recognized.
Click to expand...

The anthropic principle IS obvious, the question is whether or not it's an explination or not.
 
It is hubris to suggest that the Universe exists to produce humankind let alone carbon-based life.
 
Manc Skipper said:
It is hubris to suggest that the Universe exists to produce humankind let alone carbon-based life.
Click to expand...

That isn't what the anthropic principle is, it doesn't imply "purpose" at all.

Whats funny is that the antrhopic principle is used generally by atheists to argue against the argument from contingancy that theists use .... Yet I'm a theist arguing the anthropic principle to atheist (well only arguing against Paralogics rediculous assertion that the anthropic principle has somehow been PROVEN wrong).
 
How curious that you should grasp only one of the many meanings the term has acquired.
 
RGacky3 said:
The anthropic principle IS obvious, the question is whether or not it's an explination or not.
Click to expand...

There's no current way of scientifically proving it. Most people won't accept anything less than empirical evidence for such claims.

For example I could postulate the universe is the result of some conscious energy that evolved humans. No way of proving that theory.
It seems the role of symmetry in physics had a bigger influence on nature and human development than the anthropic principle.

I find it hard to swallow that humans are the highest form of awareness in the universe. That something that made us is somehow not even as smart as us, yet we can't even figure out how our own brains work. Doesn't make sense to me that the universe could be so complex and advanced and somehow remain unaware of its own design.
 
grip said:
There's no current way of scientifically proving it. Most people won't accept anything less than empirical evidence for such claims.

For example I could postulate the universe is the result of some conscious energy that evolved humans. No way of proving that theory.
It seems the role of symmetry in physics had a bigger influence on nature and human development than the anthropic principle.

I find it hard to swallow that humans are the highest form of awareness in the universe. That something that made us is somehow not even as smart as us, yet we can't even figure out how our own brains work. Doesn't make sense to me that the universe could be so complex and advanced and somehow remain unaware of its own design.
Click to expand...

You can't scientifically prove it because it's not a scientific claim, it's a philosophical one. But all that is required for it to be true is that the universe is observed internally, and that that observation grew from things that were teh result of the internal laws of nature in the universe.
 
RGacky3 said:
You can't scientifically prove it because it's not a scientific claim, it's a philosophical one. But all that is required for it to be true is that the universe is observed internally, and that that observation grew from things that were teh result of the internal laws of nature in the universe.
Click to expand...

Ok, I thought you were saying it was a scientific fact. I agree that the universe existed without humans for billions of years but the eventual development of biological life forms may have happened on some planet because of the Universe evolving into more complex forms of organized matter.

It seems the Universe went thru a series of stages to bring new forms into existence.

a. Division - Primal matter (energy, particles) separates.
b. Individualism - As a result of conditions divided particles become specialized, unique, different from each other.
c. Union - The individual particles begin combining with one another to form new atoms and elements.
d. Diversity - The group, as a whole, becomes more diverse from the interaction of separate forces.

This pattern is very similar to biological evolution. The process of universal evolution was reduced to a planetary scale with a combination of different conditions and many of the same elements, carbon, iron, silicon, oxygen, hydrogen, helium with water being the rarest.
 
grip said:
Ok, I thought you were saying it was a scientific fact. I agree that the universe existed without humans for billions of years but the eventual development of biological life forms may have happened on some planet because of the Universe evolving into more complex forms of organized matter.

It seems the Universe went thru a series of stages to bring new forms into existence.

a. Division - Primal matter (energy, particles) separates.
b. Individualism - As a result of conditions divided particles become specialized, unique, different from each other.
c. Union - The individual particles begin combining with one another to form new atoms and elements.
d. Diversity - The group, as a whole, becomes more diverse from the interaction of separate forces.

This pattern is very similar to biological evolution. The process of universal evolution was reduced to a planetary scale with a combination of different conditions and many of the same elements, carbon, iron, silicon, oxygen, hydrogen, helium with water being the rarest.
Click to expand...

The athrophic principle is not a ontological or developmental theory, it's simply a answer to the Contingency of the Universe question, or the fine tuning question, the question is not whether or not it is true, it most definately is, it is whether or not it is a sufficient explanation or just tutology.

Here is an example:

Questioner: Why do we observe a universe that seams fine tuned to develop conscious life.

Theist response: God designed it as such.

Atheist response: The anthropic principle, any universe that IS observed must necessarily be one who's laws of nature lead to conscious life, a universe that didn't have such properties wouldn't have anyone to observe it and thus no one to ask the question of why. Thus the question is trivial.

It's used often as a response to theists (of which I am one), and i find it interesting that I (a theist) is arguing the anthropic principle against paralogic (an atheist).

I don't buy it as an explanation, but its patently IDIOTIC to claim, as paralogic did, that it has been "proven" wrong, he throws that word "proven" around so much it's become meaningless.
 
RGacky3 said:
The athrophic principle is not a ontological or developmental theory, it's simply a answer to the Contingency of the Universe question, or the fine tuning question, the question is not whether or not it is true, it most definately is, it is whether or not it is a sufficient explanation or just tutology.

Here is an example:

Questioner: Why do we observe a universe that seams fine tuned to develop conscious life.

Theist response: God designed it as such.

Atheist response: The anthropic principle, any universe that IS observed must necessarily be one who's laws of nature lead to conscious life, a universe that didn't have such properties wouldn't have anyone to observe it and thus no one to ask the question of why. Thus the question is trivial.

It's used often as a response to theists (of which I am one), and i find it interesting that I (a theist) is arguing the anthropic principle against paralogic (an atheist).

I don't buy it as an explanation, but its patently IDIOTIC to claim, as paralogic did, that it has been "proven" wrong, he throws that word "proven" around so much it's become meaningless.
Click to expand...

That sounds like "determinism", which basically states everything was predetermined to happen exactly the way it did from the first cause. The universe had no choice but to ultimately produce conscious life because of the cause and effect theory being a predetermining factor? Or that the universe is life friendly, since it ultimately created biological life?

As far as I'm concerned that all could be true and I'm a theist but not in the traditional sense. Many atheists posit that no God of religion or otherwise is even remotely possible because of no empirical evidence and science is the only reference. While many theists say that God exists because the bible and church tells them so. I think it has more to do with both science and historical evidence from books. I don't draw this BIG gap between science and a supreme being or source of conscious life though I do believe faith/hope are important factors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom