The (let's-name-it) Principle - Unnecessary assumptions hinder progress and reveal our bloated sense of self-importance.

Harv,

The actual word "why" itself may not be in many of your posts, but I think it underscores your position on many things, especially in the anthropomorphic form I detailed in that last response.

Despite the tendency of some to read into 'why,' it is merely the tool that opens the door to cause-effect relationships, and nothing else; it doesn't per se mean anything any deeper.

>>>"...as the term 'weak' alludes, it is not an effective response to the coincidences seen in the laws of physics."

What coincidences?

An 'effective' response is only necessary for those who see the necessity of an 'effective' response. But this perceived necessity stems from the choice to ignore science. Science that has shown us over the years that much of what we used to perceive as 'coincidences' are actually affirmations of evolutionary principles.

Remember -- the relationship of two phenomena constitutes a coincidence only if these two phenomena have previously had nothing to do with each other.

You agree our experience has shown us that unification is a valid principle. But our experience has also shown us that what we often perceive as coincidence is NOT coincidence after all.

(Incidentally, you might want to review that Polkinghorne/Weinberg debate on counterbalance; Weinberg deflates the 'coincidental' energy levels of carbon.)

The WAP exists because its proponents acknowledge the position of the SAP proponents, and in turn respond that what we perceive as 'coincidence' is usually not coincidental at all.

-LH

• Thanks for that reference - harvey1 - January 20, 2002 - 19:55 UTC
  • Correction - harvey1 - January 20, 2002 - 19:56 UTC
    • Origin of universal order. - alexander - January 20, 2002 - 20:54 UTC
      • A good paper that discusses this issue - harvey1 - January 20, 2002 - 22:00 UTC
      • Left=right, sure, and up=down, okay, but what=us? - luis_hamburgh - January 21, 2002 - 17:33 UTC
        • Luis, you are a little too selfish. - alexander - January 21, 2002 - 17:52 UTC
          • Alex, again you are making my point. Slow down & read it again. - luis_hamburgh - January 28, 2002 - 01:21 UTC
        • psychology of math - yanniru - January 22, 2002 - 15:10 UTC
          • Rain check. - luis_hamburgh - January 28, 2002 - 01:25 UTC
            • Thanks(nt) - yanniru - January 28, 2002 - 15:42 UTC
  • Condensed soup - luis_hamburgh - January 21, 2002 - 17:23 UTC
    • re: Our condensed differences - harvey1 - January 21, 2002 - 18:11 UTC
      • if we do not know a thing, it is better to define it - yanniru - January 22, 2002 - 15:24 UTC
        • re: black holes - harvey1 - January 22, 2002 - 15:42 UTC
          • Celestine Prophecy - yanniru - January 23, 2002 - 15:30 UTC
            • Synchronicity - harvey1 - January 23, 2002 - 16:16 UTC
              • A good example of circularity - yanniru - January 25, 2002 - 00:34 UTC
                • That doesn't make any sense to me - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 01:32 UTC
                  • I do not understand - yanniru - January 25, 2002 - 14:42 UTC
                    • You can never reach infinity via a finite process - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 15:29 UTC
                      • Give me a week - yanniru - January 26, 2002 - 14:32 UTC
                      • By the way, does evolution of BH multiverse produce - alexander - January 27, 2002 - 01:24 UTC
                        • Still an open question in string theory - yanniru - January 27, 2002 - 18:49 UTC