funkyderek: Are you trying to use the anthropic principle to prove there is a god, or to prove that none is needed or something else altogether?
I think the anthropic principle seems to be a likely explanation of our universe, and doesn't have to depend on small probabilities. God for me exists, but has nothing to do with the anthropic principle or the universe. To me, God is what caused the universe into existence, and by that he doesn't have to be a living being. He can be pure chance or absolute law or nothing but chemical and electrical substances and signals in my brain or something else, but I'm satisfied with that.
Tashawaa: if you feel backed into a corner with your reasoning, perhaps accept a different perspective (and disregard it if necessary
????? I am not impressed by your reasoning, and I don't feel backed into a corner.
Tashawaa personally believe "life" is hardy, not rare, and exists in the most difficult of conditions.
How do you define life? Is life possible in a universe without molecules? or maybe even without matter?
anti-absolutism: my life is certainly a lot more enjoyable now that there are so many theories that I allow to enter my mind
I certainly agree.
Elsewhere: This is a very arrogant thought... suggesting that the universe is custom designed for us.
Uh? That is not what I meant . I meant the universe is very unlikely, but with a multitude of universes, the unlikeliness becomes an likeliness .
Elsewhere: If there are other universes and they also have life, then the life in them will also be formed around the natural properties of each universe.
Do you believe there exists life in a possible universe without matter? I don't.
rem: If anything, the universe is favorable to the existance of rocks.
If anything, the universe is favourable to hydrogen and empty space.
rem: Yep, certainly looks like this lil' universe was created just for human life!
Have you even read my posts? How can you read that into my posts?
Abaddon: Nowhere, where in the world did you equate a theory of everything with the Universe being explained by the anthropic principle?
I didn't, I meant that it will be one of them who explains our universe, either the TOE or the antropic principle, but I don't believe in an unique universe, that formed by mere chance. The TOE would explain why there couldn't be other possible universes. The anthropic principle is the other extreme, that there is an unlimited multitude of universes, and therefor it's likely to find ourselves in one that permits our existence .
Abaddon: The TOE could show there are multiple Universes
Yes, but not infinitely many. If there is infinitely many universes, we will never find the TOE.
Abaddon: You are saying that it is sooner or later going to happen, AND that it is a very very unlikely scenario?
NO, is my english that bad? I meant : If there are infinitely many universes it is going to happen sooner or later. But if there is only one, but not unique universe (no TOE), that is to me a very very unlikely scenario, which I don't believe in.
Abaddon: I believe we're here due to probabilities. Lots of them.
I beleive we are here due to either exact laws and constants in which case we will sooner or later find the TOE, or we are here due to the fact that there are infinitely many possible laws, constants and universes (the anthropic principle), and therefore, our presence is obvious.
But I will never accept that we are here in a one and only universe, which could have formed in any way. Of course I believe we could have been pigs, eating metal or evolve without carbon, but that is only details. The gravitational constant, the speed limit of light, the expansion rate of the universe are not details , those are necessary for a universe which permits life as we think of life.
Abaddon: You can, it's okay. But you don't have proof, and the lack is a logical problem inescapable without internal proof.
We don't have proofs yet, but we will sooner or later be able to explain the universe, one way or the other, I'm dead sure of that. Either a TOE or an anthropic principle.
I suggest that you read through what I wrote about that. Two main points. A child birth is not an event caused by pure chance, we can explain why a certain child is born, and second, it has absolutely nothing, NOTHING, to do with any theory of the universes. the probabilities are independent.
MYOHNSEPH: Exactly what is "natural selection"?
This is taken from an article in Scientific American:
Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.
As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days."
But you cannot compare the evolution theory with the TOE or anthropic principle.