[Ian] Sorry Arlo, we really must be talking past each other on this one still ... just a few new points inserted initially ..
[Arlo] Maybe we are. And I think is the crux. [Arlo previously] To say, "the cosmos is perfectly balanced to support life" is the sort of arrogant presumption I just can't take. [IG] No, no, no Arlo. Cart before the horse. Not a presumption. A conclusion based on open-minded analysis of all the "conceivable" possibilities. [Arlo] Conclusion? You see, at best I see this statement, "the cosmos is perfectly balanced to support life", as a hypothesis not a conclusion. And as a hypothesis, all the "evidence" to support it seems (to me) to be theoretical at best or conjecture at worst. Its also a hypothesis I don't find much value in. What would be, again, the fundamental difference in value for you between a cosmos in which "life only could exist in this one specific permutation" and one where "life would exist in some form, inconceivable to us, in any permutation"? Since we will always be truly unable to prove either one, what value is there in speculation? For you, I mean, Ian? 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/
