OK Arlo, right ... So we're not really talking about AP's any more; just about what a hypothesis is.
Yes, the conjecture is a hypothesis - nothing more, nothing less. But it's a hypothesis (a whole series of hypotheses) arrived at after a lot of "the best thinking available" - by people at pains to exclude the human perspective from their thinking so far as possible, people acutely aware of the arrogance such a perspective might entail. It's the particular complication of recognising / including / discounting this human hind-sight perspective that makes these particular hypotheses AP's. The value in the hypothesis is this. Ok, so it has no knowledge value until supported by some empirical evidence, which is going to be negative, or highly indirect inference, until it's "proven" positive - which for a hypthesis on this scale is going to be a very long time. Cosmic life is like that (clue - all life is really like that - language, metaphor, cognitive constructs .... but I digress.) So, like any hypotheses, it's value to science and knowledge is to ask, and how could we design some tests or observations to validate it ? This creative thinking is what 99% of science (and any kind of research) is about. But, the value in this particular statistical conclusion (hypothesis borne out by all the conceiving available) is in asking, but if this does turn out to be true, as our best thinking seems to suggest it is, ..... why is this the case ? Posited answers to that question might also suggest some better science (and metaphysics, etc) The why question throws up some very interesting alternative cosmogenies, teleologies, views of time and causation generally, not to mention alternative fundamental physics. I guess all I was picking you up on was the suggestion that the hypothesis itself was somehow spurious, casual, arrogant, presumption, whatever .... Some people using the hypothesis may be arrogant in the manner they hold and presume to use it, no doubt, that's people for you, but the hypothesis - of the statistically "surprising" fine balance - is not. (Final aside - "surprising" and "conceivable" are very closely linked with why and causation .... another big topic.) Ian On 3/26/08, Arlo Bensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [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/ > 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/
