The results are in at Scott Aaronson's blog:
"The anthropicism that had to win"
Aside from the fact that NONE of the entries correctly analogizes the physics for the AP, I made the following comment, which nobody bothered to acknowledge:
Greg Kuperberg had said:
Now that you've had your fun, you should realize that the anthropic principle is true, even though it is the source of so much bad science. It has something in common with the Copernican principle, that the Earth is not in a special position in the universe. After all, why would anyone ever have thought that it does? That question has an obvious anthropic explanation.
My reply went as follows:
Not quite. Neither the copernican principle, nor the principle of mediocrity apply to a universe that is observationally proven to be, "less-than-copernican", and this is what Brandon Carter was saying.
Although the following *SHOULD* have an affect on dogmatic anticentrists... alas... it has none:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/krauss06/krauss06.2_index.html
Lawrence Krauss, (after his vacation Pow-Wow with the rest of the leading physicists of today's world), said:
When you look at [the cosmic microwave background] map, you see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.
I'd like to know when the game quits being one of "explaining-away" the hardest empirical evidence that exists in support of anthropic specialness?... rather than to look for some good physical reason why the implication for specialness might be true.
Where and when to scientists start acting like real scientists again?... in other words.
I'm guessing that never is too soon for most, and don't pretend that I don't have a damned good empirically supported point.
I said the same thing to this this clown, but he didn't have any problem at all admitting that he is a non-scientific loser:
http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.com/2006/07/misanthropic-me.html#comments
I rest my case.
~ ~ ~
It was no surprise that neither Greg nor anyone else replied to my point, as they sit in silent denial. They can't shoot me down, so they simply ignore the point.
These people are not scientists, they are ideologically motivated losers.
27 comments:
I have no idea what you're talking about here, but, oddly enough, I don't hate you for it. Thanks for leaving a comment on my first blog post ever.
By the way, I'm a social scientist. You probably hate us...
Only if you can't tell me how to get past people's half-warped belief systems to face-up to what the evidence is actually telling them.
Otherwise, you're useless... ;)
I'm a sociologist, so actually I could probably help you with that. But the postmodernist (or the troublemaker) in me would want to engage in the debate of what really is evidence and the subjectivity of "truth".
I'm guessing you find that sort of mental masturbation to be fairly useless, no? Yeah, me too.
No, I'm into it, but from a perspective than you've likely ever engaged before, that uses the kind of "purpose in nature" that Einstein recognized to derive that some truths are more absolute than others.
Your last comment made me hate you. I'm going to go write a post about you now. ;)
A postmodernist would argue that it is problematic to quantify the worth of "truths".
hahaha... it IS problematic but I kin doit.
Here's a hint:
It's near-exact between most debates, ideologies, bla bla ideologically biased deviations from reality... ;)
But there are constant additions to scholarship, therefore the exact place of "in between" ideologies, etc. is always shifting. So the truth is always shifting.
See? You're a postmodernist and you didn't even know it!
But it shifts in accordance with time and our purpose in nature per the second law of thermodynamics, I did say MORE-absolute than not... ;)
It's near-exact between most debates, ideologies, bla bla bla ideologically biased deviations from reality... ;)
Now, if we extend this, teleologically, to the extemely balanced, (near-static, yet expanding) structuring of the whole universe, then the ongoing entropic effort toward absolute thermal equilibrium derives that the one absolute moral value in our universe is that:
"Balance is good"... even though we can't get there from here...
so we "seek" emotional/financial/spiritual/whatever satisfaction that we can never *really* attain.
Thereby satisfing the entropic god via the survival instinct.
I only understood a portion of that... but here's what I think:
"Balance is good" is pretty much the same thing as "All things in moderation", which everybody's grandma has said to them at one point or another. So how many degrees do you have to tell me what my grandma told me when I threw up in 7th grade after drinking too much peach schnapps?
Sorry, I'm being a smartass now. But seriously, what does "blanace" even mean? It is wildly subjective and depends on who you ask and when you ask them.
In this case it would be absolute thermal equilibrium, which, it is hard-proven that every action, no matter how seemingly insignificant, serves to satisify.
I don't think that's subjective.
Did you intentionally avoid that grandma was talking about what is commonly known as "nature's balance"?
Isn't "nature's balance" a brand of apple juice or organic frozen food?
No, I don't think that's subjective either, but perhaps it has notes of subjectivity? Is there disagreement as to the nature of "to satisfy"? The degree of satisfaction. Even the word satisfaction implies subectivity, no?
Just so you know, the above paragraph is me talking out of my ass. It's the lame attempt of someone who hasn't taken a hard science class since high school physics to understand and intelligently talk about that which she has no fucking idea.
haha... okay, let's say that teleological manifestations of the absolute are "subjectively interpreted".
And I go by the definition of the "preferred theory" to qualify my belief system:
-No reflection of nature is perfect, (due to human subjectivity), but some are more absolute than others...
...which is why "relativity" is the necessarily preferred theory of how things work in our universe, because it's extensions have been tested experimentally and hold-up to the nth degree of precision.
His reflection of nature is more absolute, than not, to the point of near-absolute.
We can observe that the result of a physical "need" is an effort to "satisfy" it... call this whatever you want.
"impetus"
Where's my dictionary?
I don't have to tell you that I'm in over my head with this conversation.
My response to your post: "um, ok"
That's how I always win, I just speak greek until they cry uncle.
That's pretty cheap. More evidence that those who are "right" are merely the ones who talk the loudest and longest.
I almost took you seriously for a minute, although I can do better in terms of understandability if you're *really* that interested.
nah, I'm being a smartass. An explanation in understandable English, not using the word, "teleologically", would be delightful.
No comments from you at all today!!!! What will I do without the lone reader of my blog?
Yeah, I'm having a busy couple or three days, but I have a few minutes, so I'll try to figure out where we were in this conversation:
You HAVE to understand teleology in order for me to relay this to you, which is the idea that there exists a "final cause", or development toward a purposeful end.
Read this from answers.com:
Causality in which the effect is explained by an end (Greek, telos) to be realized. Teleology thus differs essentially from efficient causality, in which an effect is dependent on prior events. Aristotle's account of teleology declared that a full explanation of anything must consider its final cause-the purpose for which the thing exists or was produced. Following Aristotle, many philosophers have conceived of biological processes as involving the operation of a guiding end. Modern science has tended to appeal only to efficient causes in its investigations.
Teleology is a perfectly valid scientific reality in the cosmological model that I use, and it answers the "why" questions that "efficient causes" don't fully address.
OK, so that makes a lot of sense. I'm certainly familiar with the law of causal order, so I get it. ;)
Okay, so now you have to tell me how to sway the opinion of masses if ideologically warped minds.
Sounds like a bid for the presidency... ;)
if=of
I=lazy writer
So tell me, in a nutshell, what the debate is exactly, and where intelligent design (an idea I find problematic) plays into it.
Hello, Island. I just came across your comment on my July 24 entry, and left a reply there. Your writings on the AP are enjoyable and well-balanced. Have you read Barrow and Tipler's "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle"? It is good that someone examines the AP as you have.
Whoops, that was July 11 when you left a comment. Science is in a crisis, all right.
Hi, Louise, thank you for your comment. It is surprisingly refreshing to have someone recognize the scientific honesty of my effort.
Post a Comment