Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on January 23, 2002 16:16:03 UTC


I also think that synchronicity occurs at all levels in the world (including human relationships), but I don't think synchronicity can be used to prove anything since there is no effective means to study this phenomena. It is very subjective - based on what we find meaningful, but there is no means to predict when a synchronous event will occur (at least none that I am aware of).

***As for the circular reasoning in Smolin's hypothesis- it seems to me that both math and physics are inherently circular, being self-consistent.***

Perhaps we have different definitions of what circular reasoning is. My view of circular reasoning is if you assume as a premise the conclusion you wish to reach. For example, black holes cause universes (premise) which leads to fine-tuned universes that can cause black holes (conclusion). Circulus in demonstrando.

Mathematics does not fit this description. Math starts with simple axioms (e.g., there is an empty set that contains no set) and makes proofs that are altogether unexpected (e.g., Gödel's second incompleteness theorem).

***My point however is that one can propose a natural mechanism for antropicity that could be an alternative for intellectual design.***

Absolutely. Every feature of the world can be described as a product of contingency or a product of necessity (or combination of the two). The question is what kind of baggage does each carry. We could describe all the events in the world as the result of a infinite collection of random event universes. Our universe may be the one that appears more ordered up until now, but it may quickly become totally random in the next second (i.e., an infinite collection of random universes imposes no real law that keeps the atoms and molecules together - they just happened to be in this state up until now). The reason we don't accept this view is because philosophically it seems to be a much less likely to be true ontology.

This is why the anthropic principle is as much a philosophical concern as it is a scientific concern. It is very important to review the options and make reasonable philosophical distinctions as to what is the more reasonable perspective.

Warm regards, Harv

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins