Arlo, I did of course mean to use "appears" rather than "is" in that statement ;-)
(But of course in my my mind there is no different betwen appears and is .... but that's another story. After applying all the best quality experience and thinking available to you, what appears, is. It's that caveat on every contingent truth we hold, and they're ALL contingent.) Ian On 3/27/08, ian glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK Arlo, pretty well spot on ... > > "the cosmos is remarkably well balanced to support any kind of life" > .... is a high quality hypothesis. > > People jumping to the conclusions as to "why ?" are the ones being > arrogant / presumptious, but there is a lot better quality debate > around AP's than the ones that come top in Google rankings. They take > a bit of finding, a bit of interaction, a bit of DQ. > > BTW did I ever mention memes ;-) > The most popular ideas are rarely the best, but they are always the > ones that are easiest to spread. This interweb-thingy simply > exaggerates this memetic effect. > > Which is why it is ever more urgent that we make the quality thinking > idea stick, somehow. Otherwise all the really interesting debates > about time / causation / cosmology / physics fundamentals get buried > in the authority of "received wisdom" stampede. > > We made it. > Ian > > On 3/26/08, Arlo Bensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [Ian] > > Yes, the conjecture is a hypothesis - nothing more, nothing less. > > > > [Arlo] > > Okay, well I guess we are on the same page here. > > > > [Ian] > > But it's a hypothesis (a whole series of hypotheses) arrived at after > > a lot of "the best thinking available"... > > > > [Arlo] > > I have no doubt. > > > > [Ian] > > 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 hypothesis on this scale is going to be a very > > long time... > > > > [Arlo] > > Of course. And not that we can know anything with certainty, this is > > one where its evident upfront there are some things we will never be > > able to experience (like the unfolding of two different cosmoses (is > > that a word? cosmi? cosmii?) with differing variables... unless we > > can figure out how to get through a black hole, if Hawking and others > > are correct). This is why I was saying I have trouble with the > > language of certainty here, sometimes I can excuse it as "almost > > certain" or "as certain as we can be... or need to be". But this > > overarching statement (in my humble opinion) can't by its very nature > > approach this. > > > > Try this, instead of "the cosmos is perfectly balanced to support > > life" say "the cosmos appears perfectly balanced to support life". I > > can buy that. Does the distinction make sense to you? Do you reject it? > > > > [Ian] > > 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. > > > > [Arlo] > > Kinda like a mind exercise. I can buy this too. And along the way who > > knows what else will "pop up". > > > > [Ian] > > ... but if this does turn out to be true, as our best thinking seems > > to suggest it is,.... why is this the case ? > > > > [Arlo] > > For many, this is already evidence of that "sentient teleology". I > > just Googled "perfectly balanced cosmos life" and nearly EVERY site > > that came up uses this "perfect alignment" to SHOUT "we have proof > > God exists!" > > > > But that danger aside, yes, I find notions like anti-time causation > > (where quarks moving backwards in time actually order our past based > > on their interactions with our present and future) quite intriguing. > > > > > > 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/
