[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can someone coin a word for a thread that simultaneously delivers and fails to deliver? This one really fits. Perhaps the universe was fine-tuned to deliver frustrating discussions that never go anywhere?
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- In other words, you accept the multiverse concept.
Click to expand...
That doesn't in the least follow from what I said.

This universe has (in a few isolated and far flung planets) places where the parameters are suitable for life. Life began on this planet about 3.7 billion years ago, and will continue for approximately another 5 billion years.

Whether this is the only universe that has ever been and ever will be, or if there are multiple universes, has nothing to do with the fact that we are here observing this universe.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- The WAP accepts the multiverse concept. The SAP does not.
Click to expand...

The multiverse concept has nothing to do with the Weak Anthropic Principle. I don't know where you got the idea that it did.

All the weak anthropic principle says is that if the universe weren't able to support life, there would be no living things observing the universe and wondering why life appeared. That's it.

We don't know all the possible ways the universe could have developed. We don't know how many of those possible ways would have resulted in life. All we know is that the way it did develop did allow for life to appear on at least one planet.

This may have been very unlikely. That doesn't make it a "coincidence".
 
Last edited:
What does the multiverse concept have to do with immortality, Jabba? We exist in this universe, not any of the other hypothesised universes.
 
Jabba said:
Zooterkin,
- Doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. That you fail to understand the difference between active and passive tense for "life" as we know it is pathetic.

I find myself a home = I did something active, seeking a place to live.
I find myself in a home = I was possibly committed, probably due to insanity for reading nonsense threads on JREF.
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
Incorrect. That you fail to understand the difference between active and passive tense for "life" as we know it is pathetic.

I find myself a home = I did something active, seeking a place to live.
I find myself in a home = I was possibly committed, probably due to insanity for reading nonsense threads on JREF.
Click to expand...

I find you my pajamas.

I find you, my pajamas.

I find you in my pajamas.

I find you, in my pajamas.

Grammar and lexicon, our only tools against the darkness.
 
Jabba said:
Pixel,
- Yes it does.
Click to expand...

Oh, no it doesn't!

Jabba: Oh, yes it does!

Others: Oh, no it doesn't!

Is this a pantomime? Who's playing the dame and who is the principal boy?

Weak Anthropic Principle: [Wiki, after Carter]Life capable of observing the universe will only arise in a universe compatible with such life. (no mention or necessity for multiverse)

Strong Anthropic Principle: [Barrow and Tipler] The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history. (no mention or necessity for multiverse)

It is true that one part of Barrow and Tipler's explanations behind their SAP touches on there being two likely scenarios, either one universe, or a multiverse. That doesn't mean that either the SAP or the WAP relies on the multiverse concept.

Modified Anthropic Principle: [Schmidhuber]: The 'problem' of existence is only relevant to a species capable of formulating the question. Prior to Homo sapiens' intellectual evolution to the point where the nature of the observed universe - and humans' place within same - spawned deep inquiry into its origins, the 'problem' simply did not exist. (no mention or necessity for multiverse).

Still, I don't know what this has to do with the actual topic of the thread.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Pixel42 said:
You see, you do know what an analogy is!
Click to expand...
Pixel,
- Do you really need to add this?
Click to expand...


My thought is "Probably, in the hope that repetition might help you to better observe the bleeding obvious."

I imagine, however, that Pixel42 will be more polite.



Jabba said:
I already know that you don't think much of my intelligence.
Click to expand...


Nobody has ever passed comment on your intelligence, Jabba.

On the other hand, essentially everyone has pointed out that your arguments (such as they are) aren't worth their weight in snap-frozen cocky cack.

Whether or not this is a reflection of your intelligence is perhaps something you need to have a long, hard think about yourself next time you're alone in the breakfast nook.
 
Jabba, have you been listening to Dinesh D'Souza or William Lane Craig? I seem to remember one of them uses the "fine tuning" argument for the existence of a creator god, and also erroneously claims that multiverse hypotheses were developed to find a way around the fine tuning argument.
 
Jabba said:
Pixel,
- Do you really need to add this?
Click to expand...
As you seemed to be struggling with the concept of an analogy I thought drawing your attention to one you'd come up with yourself might be helpful. Apparently not.

Jabba said:
Pixel,
- Yes it does.
Click to expand...
The claim that the universe is fine tuned for life does, the anthropic principle does not. You keep confusing the two. The claim is suggested by the principle, but they are two very different things.
 
Last edited:
godless dave said:
Jabba, have you been listening to Dinesh D'Souza or William Lane Craig? I seem to remember one of them uses the "fine tuning" argument for the existence of a creator god, and also erroneously claims that multiverse hypotheses were developed to find a way around the fine tuning argument.
Click to expand...

I think Jabba has read Barrow &Tipler and dislikes Martin Gardner calling FAP what it is: CRAP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom