Quote from jem:
I have avoided trying to define the Anthropic principle because I am not a noted authority.
Surely you don't have to be an authority on a subject to define it . Can you not define a principle or any word without being an authority on its subject matter?
Perhaps you could define bullshite then, seeing as how you appear to be an authority on that.
On the other hand, not being an authority doesn't stop you defining what Susskind, Weinberg and Hawking say though does it,
Even when you have been given Susskind's own recorded voice saying something else.
Quote from jem:
My argument the whole time has been -- some top physicists say our universe looks designed.
As you are not a noted authority on what they are saying, can you define what you mean by
designed then, or are you not an authority on that either, but feel able to declare what others mean by it, even when they tell you they don't mean what you say they do?
Do you consider design is something which couldn't be anything else but what a separate Thingygoddy designs ?
Would you not consider a square design could just as easily be a circle design. All it would have taken is for humans to have decided a round shape was to be called a square shape and vice versa? You know by description in terms of
anthropic principals.
So when you say
"some top physicists say our universe looks designed", what is it you are actually suggesting ?.
To your way of thinking, which you have usually expressed generally in terms of a superstition, must 'designed ' entail intention and purpose? Do you think design is something which couldn't be there unless a separate
special designer designs it?
Can you not see anyway that a physicist might consider design and designed to be something completely natural, requiring no separate designer outside the things being described as designed. Not-not agree? Yes? No?
