Replies

If I point out one of the offered assumptions and show that it is not necessarily a requirement, would the entire house of anthropic cards fall? Not likely, but the notion that our sun's energy is an absolute necessity for life is on very shaky grounds because tidal forces in the moons of Jupiter and Saturn will produce sufficient energy for the sustaining of life above a minimal temperature level. It is now thought that there are life forms here on earth that may never have been in sunlight, drawing their requisite energy for metabolism from the energy escaping through faults in the tectonic plates where heat escapes at the ocean floors and sulfur compounds are in abundance. But let's explore the anthropic principle because no less than Stephen Hawking is now in that speculative camp and I've had a moderate correspondence with him, indirectly (have to go through the Cambridge Library for faxing to him, and of course his aides), over that very issue. I'll cite a 'neutral' source, then perhaps we may take it from there. This should be fun!

Anthropic Principle: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/mar31/anthropic.html

Note that if some of the finely-balanced quantities were not finely-tuned then our Universe would have grossly different properties. The properties would in fact be so different that it is highly likely that life (as we know it) would not develop and be around to ask the question of why the Universe is special. That is, selection effects would say that it is only in universes where the conditions are right for life (thus pre-selecting certain universe) is it possible for the questions of specialness to be posed. This statement and variants of this statement are the gist of the Anthropic Principle. Note that the Anthropic Principle is probably true and says that there is nothing mysterious about why our Universe is special. However, it does not rule out the possibility that there is a deeper level to our understanding of the Universe which makes our Universe the most probable universe from the plethora of all possible universes. This still may be true but is not required philosophically or scientifically.

There are several vexing facts about the Universe:
· Horizon problem
· Flatness problem
· Matter/Anti-matter asymmetry
· Cosmological constant
· ....

It appears as though we live in a special universe. Some quantities seem to be highly improbable values, for example, the flatness of the Universe is disturbing. Several questions are:

· Are these special values simply the way our Universe is (that is, is it a coincidence that our Universe has these properties)?
· Is there a deeper level to the physical nature of the Universe which we do not understand (which makes our type of Universe the most probable type of Universe)?
· .....

*************

You cited several weak arguments for the antrhopic principle notion, such as the necessity of our sunlight in the origin and maintenance of life froms. I offered a simple refutation, but of course I have no proof that life yet exists on those moons of Jupiter and Saturn since none have been found, YET. Let's discuss the vagaries of the anthropic principle, hopefully with the aid of Physicist and Right Whale and radioastronomer and others, if they would like to join in. [Uh, by the by, can we leave off the macho chest thumping? I appreciate your service to this country ... without Marines there might not even now be a Unites States due to the rising sun and the bloody thumping you folks gave them to place them back on their islands. Let's enjoy a spirited discussion without the catcalls back and forth. ... That goes for anyone trying to tweak the jarhead, also!]

I can see that you are well-versed and knowledgeable in this area. Your counter-arguments are thought-provoking. It is plausible that energy from the earth's crust would be sufficient for life, however, that is only one factor out of many. There are, of course, other factors I did not mention: Amount of hydrogen in the universe, for one. Does Jupiter, with its immense gravitational pull, also not serve as a bulwark of sorts, protecting the Earth from collisions with various space rocks? One could justifiably extrapolate from the anthropic principle that the universe and solar system are fine-tuned expressly to support life on earth. Of course, this conclusion springs from my judeo-Christian worldview. I believe it can be shown, if a person be honest, that one's worldview is the basis and starting point for all scientific and moral beliefs. With the advent of naturalism in the 19th century, science shifted from its based in judeo-Christian thought ("uniformity of natural causes in an open system") to "uniformity of natural causes in a closed system." Indeed, the explosion of scientific breakthroughs from the 16th to 18th centuries are directly attributable to theistic men (many of them Christian), to wit: Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Pascal, Bacon, etc. Indeed, Christian thought. is responsible for the scientific breakthroughs in history - anyone who takes an objective look at the past will have to admit this. These breakthroughs did not come from China or Asia because those worldviews did not have the correct philosophical foundation that would enable such discoveries. For instance, relativistic worldviews (e.g. "both and") is not conducive to scientific discovery, since it is plain that the universe is ordered. In the late 17th century, a shift occurred with the faulty philosophies of Hegel, Hume, Kant, Freud, Darwin, Marx, et al. Science is philosophically driven. There is no such thing as an unbiased scientist because one interprets the evidence through the lens of his particular worldview. Presently, science is being monopolized by dogmatic neodarwinian naturalists who are terrified that judeo-Christian thought might creep back into the picture and people may begin to question the status quo (which is happening). Where am I going with this?

My first Gut reaction to your posting at 285 is to cite a quotation of Paul(i'll find the scripture reference if the show me types wish it): "In Him we live, and move, and HAVE OUR BEING"(emphasis mine since I wish to differentiate that statement from what Hindu's and Buddhists might state).

The second reaction I have is to point interested parties to CS Lewis' work, The Great Divorce(meaning the great divide or split, or "fixed gulf" if you are a KJV purist) which describes a fictional bus ride from Earth, to Hell, and to Heaven. Lewis thru-out the book works to spring a multidimesional/temporal trap on the reader that leaves one breathless at the very end, in which our present reality looks very large to us, until we spend time in God's reality. and we realize that the entrance that the protagonist(written in first person) took into his kindom has shrunk into insignificance, as the protagonist has grown to fit the proportions of God's kingdom. The end of the book was totally shattering to my consciousness(like a cold slap in the ego), in the sudden finality, like a sleeper awakening from a God given dream, just before God was about to deliver the punch line....then again I don't want to give away too much of the book.