The View From Here

[Andrew Karpinski]

I look out my window and see a dozen trees, a road, cars passing by, hydro polls, wires and a beautiful cloudy sky. It's almost night time.

On an amazing day like this it is almost possible to forget the questions that keep pounding at the back at my head. In any variation they're all the same. Why? How?

Science has taught me that I am energy, fundamentally the same as everything else in the universe, simply combined in a different fashion. You could say the ancients foresaw this... we are all one.

But why? How? WHY? HOW?

First off. How did we get here? Working backwords... we evolved in Africa; rudimentary humans. Farther... we were animals, bits of life floating in the sea... bacteria... amino acids? My memory is a little fuzzy at this stage. We were bits of matter bombarded by cosmic rays?

Why? How?

Why? Why did we come into being. Is it the inevitable consquence of a universe that formed (arbitrarily?) the laws that rule it. Are we the universes attempt to explain itself? A sort of cosmic joke?

Through whatever mechanism I am here and I am aware. I can see the world around me and attempt to understand it. I can wonder. I can cry. I can feel great sorrow and ecstatic happiness. I am alive.

The theists position is dazzling. It brings comfort to the unanswerable question of existance; but it is unacceptable. It does not make sense.

We are in the middle of the very big and the very small. At one end, atoms, electrons, protos (and smaller!). At the other... nebula so distant and galaxies so vast. Perhaps the inevitable result of complexity is conciousness.

Why? How?

[vhawk01]

Anthropic principle. To me its that simple.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
Anthropic principle. To me its that simple.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is an extremely efficient way to ignore a great many profound questions (rivaling "God did it" in its universal applicability), some of which may have very much more satisfying explanations.

[LadyWrestler]

[ QUOTE ]
I look out my window and see a dozen trees, a road, cars passing by, hydro polls, wires and a beautiful cloudy sky. It's almost night time.

On an amazing day like this it is almost possible to forget the questions that keep pounding at the back at my head. In any variation they're all the same. Why? How?

Science has taught me that I am energy, fundamentally the same as everything else in the universe, simply combined in a different fashion. You could say the ancients foresaw this... we are all one.

But why? How? WHY? HOW?

First off. How did we get here? Working backwords... we evolved in Africa; rudimentary humans. Farther... we were animals, bits of life floating in the sea... bacteria... amino acids? My memory is a little fuzzy at this stage. We were bits of matter bombarded by cosmic rays?

Why? How?

Why? Why did we come into being. Is it the inevitable consquence of a universe that formed (arbitrarily?) the laws that rule it. Are we the universes attempt to explain itself? A sort of cosmic joke?

Through whatever mechanism I am here and I am aware. I can see the world around me and attempt to understand it. I can wonder. I can cry. I can feel great sorrow and ecstatic happiness. I am alive.

The theists position is dazzling. It brings comfort to the unanswerable question of existance; but it is unacceptable. It does not make sense.

We are in the middle of the very big and the very small. At one end, atoms, electrons, protos (and smaller!). At the other... nebula so distant and galaxies so vast. Perhaps the inevitable result of complexity is conciousness.

Why? How?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think about such things when I am on my deck watching the moon shining on the water. It seems to form a golden path aimed straight at me. It is so beautiful I have to remember that I need to breathe.

"(and smaller!)" I have thought about that very thing until I better understood. There was an old, black and white movie I caught on TV one sleepless night..."The Incredible Shrinking Man". Near the end he said he was shrinking into nothingness, or something like that. I believe the answer is right there. We ARE energy. Everything is. It is God's mind, if you will. The smaller we see, the better we can understand. Einstein was right! Light is the constant, not time...as in "Let there be light..." E not only equals MC squared, E and M are the same imposters. And the free will is contained within the protection of the light. Free and limited at the same time. Most things are that way when really understood. Without God, there could be nobody to claim He does not exist. If He stopped existing, so would every thing...every one.

Sorry for the incomplete, rambling thoughts...my imperfect reach for answers that are just out of my grasp. Hoping to understand more tomorrow.

Have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[aeest400]

As Aristotle shows with his "four causes," the force of why questions can be interpreted in different ways. It asks sometimes for a mechanistic explanation ("why does water boil"), sometimes for an intentional one (based on a general understanding of rational action given certain beliefs, "why did Jimmy decide to join the army,"), and sometimes a teleological explanation ("for what broader purpose"). The question, "why are humans/the earth here" can either be approached teleologically or mechanistically.

Unfortunately, no one seems to have any good evidence to support their views on the teleological part--every religion comes up with its own evidenceless account to satiate our natural thirst for knowledge/hope, and some are clever enough to cover up the lack of evidence by proposing "faith" as a virtue. As for me, given that every geographically distinct group of people has its own contradictory answer for the teleological problem, it would take some very solid evidence for me to beleive that one is actually correct. However, if I did believe one was correct, I think it would be rational to devote my life to this "purpose."

So, this leaves us with the mechanistic part. Through the project of science generally, we can hope to come to terms with the reality in which we live in an orderly and organized manner that allows for successful prediction and explanation. That is pretty cool. However, other than by casting doubt due to lack of or false evidence, science doesn't seem to link up with the teleological part. In fact, given the natualistic account science offers for every aspect of human evolution, development, and being--it looks as though science beings to jostle the prospect for an overriding "purposeful" answers to the side.

In the end, the only why question that seems to bridegs the gap between the mechanistic and purposeful is: why is there something rather than nothing? One discredited answer (whether Christian or Aristotelian) is: because it is good. However, I do think there are three main candidates for a genuine answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing: 1) just because, 2) it had to be that way, and 3) that's the way it's always been (presupposes expansion/collapse of the universe--depending on one's understanding of time). Each of these is pretty empty at this point, and depending on the mechanics they may be the same answer. However, they are not completely empty and in some sense do answer the question. I'd be interested to hear any more enlightening answers that don't imply facts for which we either have no evidence or for which we possess contrary evidence.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anthropic principle. To me its that simple.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is an extremely efficient way to ignore a great many profound questions (rivaling "God did it" in its universal applicability), some of which may have very much more satisfying explanations.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think there is a more complete and satisfying answer to the ultimate 'Why?' question than the Anthropic Principle? Please share it with me, I've yet to encounter it.

[surftheiop]

I dont know much if anything about the anthropic principle at all so if you could help my understanding that would be appreciated.
Is it saying that there are nearly infinite universes and in this one the laws of physics just happened to be perfect for allowing life? Or is it saying that the laws of physics somehow "wanted" to be the way they are so life could be produced? Like i said i know very little about this principle and the tiny bit i do know just makes it seem like a tautology saying something to the effect that if the universe constants werent the way they are we wouldnt be here to observe them. (I know thats a flawed statement but i think you might understand what im saying). This principle to me doesn't seem to answer they why question tho, it seems more to talk about "IF" things were different we wouldnt be here.

Also completly unrelated, doesnt this principle assume that the only type of life that can exist is life that is similar to our own chemically?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont know much if anything about the anthropic principle at all so if you could help my understanding that would be appreciated.
Is it saying that there are nearly infinite universes and in this one the laws of physics just happened to be perfect for allowing life? Or is it saying that the laws of physics somehow "wanted" to be the way they are so life could be produced? Like i said i know very little about this principle and the tiny bit i do know just makes it seem like a tautology saying something to the effect that if the universe constants werent the way they are we wouldnt be here to observe them. (I know thats a flawed statement but i think you might understand what im saying). This principle to me doesn't seem to answer they why question tho, it seems more to talk about "IF" things were different we wouldnt be here.

Also completly unrelated, doesnt this principle assume that the only type of life that can exist is life that is similar to our own chemically?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, one interpretation (the one I'll be using as its mine) is sort of a weak interpretation. Let me give an analogy. Winning the lottery is, for the purposes of the analogy, 200 million to 1 against. Yet I won the lottery yesterday. Now, it seems almost impossible that this could happen to me...so there must be some sort of reason. Something this miraculous could really only be the work of some sort of God, right? So I can only surmise that God must have chosen me to win the lottery, and that the lottery win is good evidence of God's existence. Except we know this is silly. SOMEONE had to win the lottery, and if it wasn't me, whoever it was would be asking these same questions and perhaps surmising a different God, one who likes them. So, the anthropic principle says that, it is only because we 'won' this lottery that we are even able to ask these questions at all, and that no matter how rare it may be, there is absolutely no reason to use that as any sort of evidence for divine creation, etc.

Disclaimer: This is my own personal view of the AP, and is not by any means the only version. There are strong and weak versions, and even those have many variations. This is just how I see it.

[surftheiop]

Sorry if i double post - interenet is weird but i dont think my first one went through

Anyhow with the lottery example i understand, there HAS to be a winner for the lottery (or it would be against the law) but is there any reason there HAS to be a universe/mass/energy etc?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if i double post - interenet is weird but i dont think my first one went through

Anyhow with the lottery example i understand, there HAS to be a winner for the lottery (or it would be against the law) but is there any reason there HAS to be a universe/mass/energy etc?

[/ QUOTE ]

you arent understanding the analogy in the way it was intended.

to put it more directly, the AP says that if there was no mass/energy/universe/5 finely tuned constants etc we wouldnt be here to ask why and how, no matter how improbable the combination of factors that gave rise to human life and intelligence. We are because they are.

It doesnt say that our form of chemical life is the only one possible. There may be other universes with different "natural laws" that give rise to a different form of life, and they would have their own AP.

[surftheiop]

"to put it more directly, the AP says that if there was no mass/energy/universe/5 finely tuned constants etc we wouldnt be here to ask why and how, no matter how improbable the combination of factors that gave rise to human life and intelligence. We are because they are."


This might explain life but still fails to explain why there is even a universe. So AP basically says because our universe is favorable to life , life is in it. This doesnt seem to be anything other than common sense. What im trying to say is does it explain anything for why there is a universe and does it account for the astronomical odds of life by saying there are infinite universes or does it just hold that we got very lucky?

Basically as i understand from these posts AP can be summed up as "There is life because the universe can support life" is that correct?

[LadyWrestler]

"Basically as i understand from these posts AP can be summed up as "There is life because the universe can support life" is that correct?"

It is sort of silly when you really think about it, yes? That would mean that every place in the universe that could sustain some sort of life should have life. What limited evidence we have seems to contradict that, yes? Have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"to put it more directly, the AP says that if there was no mass/energy/universe/5 finely tuned constants etc we wouldnt be here to ask why and how, no matter how improbable the combination of factors that gave rise to human life and intelligence. We are because they are."


This might explain life but still fails to explain why there is even a universe. So AP basically says because our universe is favorable to life , life is in it. This doesnt seem to be anything other than common sense. What im trying to say is does it explain anything for why there is a universe and does it account for the astronomical odds of life by saying there are infinite universes or does it just hold that we got very lucky?

Basically as i understand from these posts AP can be summed up as "There is life because the universe can support life" is that correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well its trivially true that because life exists in the universe then the universe can support life but that not the key bit.

Why does the universe seem just right for the life that exists within it. Could be designed that way but a designer is not neccesary or the simplest explanation.

Douglas Adams explains it by imagining a puddle that becomes conscious, the puddle looks at its world and discovers that it fits perfectly inside its environment, if the hole was slightly smaller or more rounded or less slopey etc etc then it wouldn't exist. The puddle marvels at the perfection, 'surely this hole has been designed just for me', it thinks, 'what other possible explanation could there be for such a perfect fit'.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
...Why? How?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there any other question that is more important - or even more interesting for that matter?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...Why? How?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there any other question that is more important - or even more interesting for that matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Why" is no longer interesting for those who do not think there is a "Why". "Why" implies purpose, accept that there is no purpose and that question goes away.

"How" won't be completely answered in our lifetimes, though we are closer than anyone thought we would be 100 years ago.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
"Why" is no longer interesting for those who do not think there is a "Why".

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think so.


[ QUOTE ]
"Why" implies purpose, accept that there is no purpose and that question goes away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously.

[ QUOTE ]
"How" won't be completely answered in our lifetimes, though we are closer than anyone thought we would be 100 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

If “how” gets answered then “why” will be either moot or the next big question.

Choosing to ignore the “why” question is understandable - indeed it seems logical to do so until "how" is answered. Dismissing it, though, is nonsense.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"to put it more directly, the AP says that if there was no mass/energy/universe/5 finely tuned constants etc we wouldnt be here to ask why and how, no matter how improbable the combination of factors that gave rise to human life and intelligence. We are because they are."


This might explain life but still fails to explain why there is even a universe. So AP basically says because our universe is favorable to life , life is in it. This doesnt seem to be anything other than common sense. What im trying to say is does it explain anything for why there is a universe and does it account for the astronomical odds of life by saying there are infinite universes or does it just hold that we got very lucky?

Basically as i understand from these posts AP can be summed up as "There is life because the universe can support life" is that correct?

[/ QUOTE ]


If you can accept the AP for life here on Earth, why is it different for the existence of the universe? The universe exists, or else we couldn't be here. There are an infinite number of non-existent universes.

I'm also sort of partial to the idea of evolution applied to black holes, creating universes that have characteristics that make them likely to have more black holes.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"to put it more directly, the AP says that if there was no mass/energy/universe/5 finely tuned constants etc we wouldnt be here to ask why and how, no matter how improbable the combination of factors that gave rise to human life and intelligence. We are because they are."


This might explain life but still fails to explain why there is even a universe. So AP basically says because our universe is favorable to life , life is in it. This doesnt seem to be anything other than common sense. What im trying to say is does it explain anything for why there is a universe and does it account for the astronomical odds of life by saying there are infinite universes or does it just hold that we got very lucky?

Basically as i understand from these posts AP can be summed up as "There is life because the universe can support life" is that correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well its trivially true that because life exists in the universe then the universe can support life but that not the key bit.

Why does the universe seem just right for the life that exists within it. Could be designed that way but a designer is not neccesary or the simplest explanation.

Douglas Adams explains it by imagining a puddle that becomes conscious, the puddle looks at its world and discovers that it fits perfectly inside its environment, if the hole was slightly smaller or more rounded or less slopey etc etc then it wouldn't exist. The puddle marvels at the perfection, 'surely this hole has been designed just for me', it thinks, 'what other possible explanation could there be for such a perfect fit'.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you chez, I forget about this analogy until you posted it, this is a much better one than the one I gave.

[ZenMasterFlex]

So this is actually your view of existence?

I see too much order where others may see chaos.

200 million to 1 is obviously a joke of a number to use for existence. I know it was just an example, but If I were going to take this view it might look something like this.



One day on interstate 5 in California, something very special is about to happen. There are 12 semi 18 wheelers going in opposite directions 6 going north 80mph and 6 going south at 78mph exactly. When all of the sudden All 12 semis have blow-outs and impact heads on at the exact same time. All six impacts are very violent and result in Giant explosions. Chunks of heated metal, glass, and Rubber go flying in all directions......... After the dust settles look what happened!!!!!!

Out of the explosion and chaos 6 identical rolex watches were formed, exploded together. They all keep perfect time, they all have glass covering the hands and gears and they all have perfect ROLEX emblems on them. Wow very cool eh?

The Odds of this happening are far Less likley than 200 million to 1 I'd say. But on the scale of eternity still VERY likly to happen eventually. So lets make it more realistic and say not only does this have to happen, but it has to happen 100 million days in a row. Naaaa still not even close, in fact, still a downright joke. But you get the picture, THIS is a slightly better picture of what some people see when they look at existence. Hell, God doesn't look all that unlikley all the sudden. But if you have to see pure coincidence and chaos where others see order that is on you.

Don't bother flaming me for being a christian, as I will not even reveal my beliefs in this forum. The point of this is just to say that dismissing God is so far from the reaches of science right now, that it is a mistake to say that the "Why" is unimportant.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
You think there is a more complete and satisfying answer to the ultimate 'Why?' question than the Anthropic Principle? Please share it with me, I've yet to encounter it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not claim to have "the ultimate answer to the ultimate question." I merely claim that the anthropic principle isn't it. It could have been used at any stage of scientific inquiry to justify closing the books on further understanding (things are the way they are because if not, we wouldn't be here to ask the question -- end of story).

Furthermore, it is known that the anthropic principle is not "the answer" to certain cosmological mysteries. For example, it is known that the universe requires a large degree of "thermodynamic fine tuning" for life to exist -- however, there is a great deal more of this than is required for us/life to exist.

At some point, one has to admit that there is something deeper going on...

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I see too much order where others may see chaos.

[/ QUOTE ]
We all see the same order, the issue is how it came about.

[ QUOTE ]
Out of the explosion and chaos 6 identical rolex watches were formed, exploded together. They all keep perfect time, they all have glass covering the hands and gears and they all have perfect ROLEX emblems on them. Wow very cool eh?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah very cool. its nothing like that.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You think there is a more complete and satisfying answer to the ultimate 'Why?' question than the Anthropic Principle? Please share it with me, I've yet to encounter it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not claim to have "the ultimate answer to the ultimate question." I merely claim that the anthropic principle isn't it. It could have been used at any stage of scientific inquiry to justify closing the books on further understanding (things are the way they are because if not, we wouldn't be here to ask the question -- end of story).

Furthermore, it is known that the anthropic principle is not "the answer" to certain cosmological mysteries. For example, it is known that the universe requires a large degree of "thermodynamic fine tuning" for life to exist -- however, there is a great deal more of this than is required for us/life to exist.

At some point, one has to admit that there is something deeper going on...

[/ QUOTE ]
True but its crazy not to believe that we have only scratched the surface. In 5000, 10000, 1000,000 years time humanity wont look back on us and say that lot from the 21 century had it all pretty much sussed.

That's a reason to carry on investigating and, as you say not close the book.

The anthropic principle is just a way of trying to prevent our ego running ahead of reason, and to remind us that any conception of the world better make darn sure it allows for the life found within it.

chez

[vhawk01]

You see a lot of order in the world around you because thats what humans are hardwired to do. We've evolved to be excellent at pattern recognition. As far as machines go, thats practically our brains main objective. People are very good at this...to the point that they almost ALWAYS see patterns, even when there are none. I'm not just talking "Jesus in my burrito" here, although that is certainly a good example. Your perception of order around you, while perhaps convincing to you, is hardly a good argument.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You think there is a more complete and satisfying answer to the ultimate 'Why?' question than the Anthropic Principle? Please share it with me, I've yet to encounter it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not claim to have "the ultimate answer to the ultimate question." I merely claim that the anthropic principle isn't it. It could have been used at any stage of scientific inquiry to justify closing the books on further understanding (things are the way they are because if not, we wouldn't be here to ask the question -- end of story).

Furthermore, it is known that the anthropic principle is not "the answer" to certain cosmological mysteries. For example, it is known that the universe requires a large degree of "thermodynamic fine tuning" for life to exist -- however, there is a great deal more of this than is required for us/life to exist.

At some point, one has to admit that there is something deeper going on...

[/ QUOTE ]
True but its crazy not to believe that we have only scratched the surface. In 5000, 10000, 1000,000 years time humanity wont look back on us and say that lot from the 21 century had it all pretty much sussed.

That's a reason to carry on investigating and, as you say not close the book.

The anthropic principle is just a way of trying to prevent our ego running ahead of reason, and to remind us that any conception of the world better make darn sure it allows for the life found within it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I was about to respond to the post, then I read your response. Thats exactly what I would have wanted to say.

Also, I don't see why the AP limits scientific inquiry or progress in the least. Science answers the how question. The AP is more of a philosophical theory anyhow, and tries to answer, or at least ameliorate, the Why question. The two have little to do with each other, IMO.

[Metric]

My original post was, of course, motivated by your post saying roughly that it's all about the anthropic principle and "it's that simple." I am saying, in so many words, that it's not that simple.