On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 22:32:40 GMT, George Hammond
<Nowhere1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 12:21:52 -0700 (PDT), litsohate@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>On Apr 4, 3:02 pm, litsoh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> On Apr 4, 11:42 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> > The AP is accepted by all of Science including the world's
>> > leading scientists... Hawking, Penrose, Weinberg, Wheeler,
>> > Carter and thousands of others.
>>
>> Penrose:
>>
>> "In my opinion, the strong anthropic principle has a somewhat
>> dubious character, and it tends to be invoked by theorists
>> whenever they do not have a good enough theory to explain the
>> observed facts"
>>
[Hammond]
"Strong" AP is a red herring because it is a bogus
version of the "conventional" AP which has been contorted to
sup****t Everett's dubious "Many World's" theory of QM.
Neither I, Penrose or the scientific community generally
believe Everett's (unproven) "Many World's" theory and
therefore do not sup****t so called "strong" AP. "Strong AP"
is a malignant version of the "conventional" and universally
accepted AP.
Meanwhile it is well known that Penrose sup****ts the
"normal" Anthropic Principle (called "weak AP" to
distinguish it from Everett's fanciful theory):
Roger Penrose explains the generally accepted form
of AP here:
======Penrose block quote=============
The argument can be used to explain why the conditions
happen to be just right for the existence of (intelligent)
life on the earth at the present time. For if they were not
just right, then we should not have found ourselves to be
here now, but somewhere else, at some other appropriate
time. This principle was used very effectively by Brandon
Carter and Robert Dicke to resolve an issue that had puzzled
physicists for a good many years. The issue concerned
various striking numerical relations that are observed to
hold between the physical constants (the gravitational
constant, the mass of the proton, the age of the universe,
etc.). A puzzling aspect of this was that some of the
relations hold only at the present epoch in the earth's
history, so we appear, coincidentally, to be living at a
very special time (give or take a few million years!). This
was later explained, by Carter and Dicke, by the fact that
this epoch coincided with the lifetime of what are called
main-sequence stars, such as the sun. At any other epoch, so
the argument ran, there would be no intelligent life around
in order to measure the physical constants in question-so
the coincidence had to hold, simply because there would be
intelligent life around only at the particular time that the
coincidence did hold!
– The Emperor's New Mind, Chapter 10
======End block quote=============
Clearly Penrose agrees with the so called weak or
"conventional" version of the AP.
>
>Hawking:
>
>"Many physicists dislike the Anthropic Principle. They feel
>it is messy and vague, it can be used to explain almost anything,
>and it has little predictive power."
>
[Hammond]
He's talking about physicists who are in the minority,
for he also says:
"Few people would quarrel with the validity or the
utility of the weak Anthropic Principle."
(Brief History of Time, p. 120)
CLEARLY Hawking believes the conventional AP.
>
>
>Miller:
>
>"The Anthropic Principle is based on the underlying belief
>that the universe was created for our benefit. Unfortunately
>for its adherents, all of the reality-based evidence at our
>disposal contradicts this belief."
>
>
[Hammond]
Obviously Miller is an irritated anti religious nut....
the AP clearly DOES NOT say anywhere that the universe was
created for man's benefit.... the guy is a crackpot!
What Science says is that Life can de facto only appear
where and when the universe happens to be suitable for life.
This is a NO BRAINER and an obvious scientific truism as
both Penrose, Hawking and the majority of scientists point
out. In addition they "prove" the idea by pointing out the
scientific results that confirm it (cited above).
What Miller doesn't know, and what you don't know, and
what most scientists don't realize is that there is an a
prior generalization of the (accepted "conventional
scientific" AP) which I call the GAP (General-AP) which
merely points out that the "existence" itself of the
universe only came into being when Man appeared, since
scientifically, the determination that the universe (or
anything else for that matter) "exists" is ENTIRELY
DEPENDENT upon Man as the "observer". All of Science is
founded upon "observables" and "observations" (e.g.
measurements) and Man is clearly and unequivocally the
OBSERVER who therefore "actualizes existance per se".
This is WHY our theologians say "God created the
universe", since, after all, the classical God is nothing
more than a "Perfect Man"... e.g. the "a perfect observer".
Without Man, therefore, the Universe and everything in it,
does not "exist"; BY DEFINITION! Hence, the universe "came
into existence" (i.e. was "created") when Man appeared
200,000 years ago (6,000 years ago according to the Bible).
Ergo.... the AP, or more generally it's full blown
generalization, the GAP, is the FOUNDATION of the entire
historical phenomenon, and now the scientific proof of,
"GOD".
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================
|
