Actually Krim, that is one take, but not the only, or even most likely, take I'm afraid.
The balance in physics (and chemistry) that any conceivable kind of life or intelligence seems tightly linked to the balance that exists ... I'm not ready to jump to conclusions about Anthropic Principles yet. I'd agree "obligation" is a useless distraction. Ian On 3/20/08, Krimel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Krimel] > The quote Ham supplies, simply serves to demonstrate a severe > misunderstanding. The laws of physics are under no obligation to balance > themselves in such a way as to support animal life. On the contrary, life > balances itself to accommodate to the laws of physics. If anything > whatsoever in the distant past had been different than what it was, life > here might be completely different. > > I believe this is the essence of the anthropic principle in all its forms. > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > Ham, Platt, et al > > This is the great "anthropic debate" about why cosmic physics seems so > finely tuned to the emergence of intelligent life (aka humanity) .... > > There are many different Anthropic Principles doing the rounds of > debate amongst physicists and theologians alike .... but the physics > is highly complex mathematical bleeding edge stuff, and long odds > statistical stuff (like "mount improbable" .... so not easy to debate > or explain in one liners and handy quotes - or words like "exactly". > > One such Anthropic Principle is the Competely Ridiculous Anthropic > Principle. (Go figure) I have to say the jury is out for me, much > research and study to be done, but the finely balanced fact appears to > be real. > > Ian > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > On 3/19/08, Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Platt -- > > > I hate to disappoint you, Ham, but your view of my (and Pirsig's) > > > view is wrong. The laws of physics and the laws of the jungle are > > > inimical to human life, that is, not good at all. > > > Society evolved for the specific purpose of protecting humans > > > from the evils of the lower levels, whether it be protection from > > > the elements or tigers. > > > > That's simply untrue, Platt, as Robert Lanza (a biotechnologist) makes > > clear in an essay from which I quoted in my book. Since you apparently > > missed it,he says: > > > > "Modern science cannot explain why the LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE EXACTLY > BALANCED > > for animal life to exist. For example, if the big bang had been > > one-part-in-a-billion more powerful, it would have rushed out too fast for > > the galaxies to form and for life to begin. If the strong nuclear force > > were decreased by two percent, atomic nuclei wouldn't hold together. > > Hydrogen would be the only atom in the universe. If the gravitational > > force were decreased, stars (including the sun) would not ignite. These > > are just three of more than 200 physical parameters within the solar > > system and universe so exact that they cannot be random. Indeed, the lack > > > of a scientific explanation has allowed these facts to be hijacked as a > > defense of intelligent design." [Emphasis mine] > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
