You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–] kingminos 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Living things may make the entire of reality conform to its own needs. See the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE for details. Self-aggrandizing non-linear feedback in biosystems is very like a Hamiltonian in classical mechanics. The 19-th Century determinist/random TOE you worship is decades old and miles wrong.

[–] shrink 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Living things may make the entire of reality conform to its own needs

If you throw tropical parrots onto the Arctic sheet, they will not survive. The reality will not conform to their needs and you have zero evidence with which to claim that it will. Additionally, you run into the problem of multiple species with conflicting and contradictory needs being in the same place: what does reality do to conform to them then? If you place rats and fish in one spot, will there be water or not? This is one step away from claiming that all of reality bends to one's will and if you think that's the case you're delusional.

See the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE for details

Okay. "The principle was formulated as a response to a series of observations that the laws of nature and parameters of the universe take on values that are consistent with conditions for life as we know it rather than a set of values that would not be consistent with life on Earth. The anthropic principle states that this is a necessity, because if life were impossible, no living entity would be there to observe it, and thus would not be known." Makes sense to me, but I fail to see how that supports your claim. This has to do with observation only.

Even better: "Some critics of the SAP argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle similar to the one defined by Brandon Carter, which states that only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing and reflecting on the matter." Which is pretty in line with what I was talking about. Still not sure why you brought this principle up.

The 19-th Century determinist/random TOE you worship

I "worship"? So you're some kind of religious zealot then, and this is not wholly deterministic either. You're simply making completely out of left field assertions and basically saying "nuh uh you're wrong" without actually saying anything about it. So let me retort by saying "no u."

[–] kingminos 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Fish and rats ... do you mean red-snapper and otter ? I eat the 1st, and my gal-pal wears the 2nd. Your arguments in-defense-of WAP are plausable ... nothing more. Looking beyond SAP, reality may need both instrumental and final causes ... it's an old argument thought discredited by the English sensationalists, but life could provide such a final cause. Not left field ... just not a popular speculation.