My understanding of the anthropic principle, however weak (bwahahaha, I crack myself up), is that in a universe of billions of galaxies with billions of stars each, with billions of planets each, it's not hard to imagine a very improbable development, eg. self-consciousness, occurring somewhere. Where, precisely, is immaterial, until after the development. Then, consciousness might ask, "wow, look how improbable I am, what are the odds that this could have happened here, on Earth???". Well, if you choose just a single point amongst all those billions and billions, the already improbable becomes even more so. Perhaps unimaginably so, for some, and that's the problem and the argument.
Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
You copy and paste misquotes, change words and deal in downright dishonesty.
They are pointed out to you time after time but you grind on blindly repeating the same deceit.
You do that as do other nutty religionists because there is no science anywhere that says what you want it to.
What you imagine scientists are saying would have to be supported by science before it is scientific. There is nothing whatsoever scientific to support ideas of fine tuning or imaginary designers in DNA or anywhere else.
The mathematical odds on a few playing cards coming up in a particular order are 'cosmically' high against, yet it happens all the time every day. If someone didn't know better, they might imagine a full house must be fine tuned as the chances are so ridiculously against it. Universe, no different.
Why should full houses and universes not happen just because they can. Attaching unsupportable anthropic fine tuning pre conclusions onto either is unwarranted.
You do it only because you want to believe an imaginary tuner is needed, where actually according to the science, one isn't needed at all.
I have had enough of your lies.
You are a piece of shit spineless lying troll.
I do not lie. I do not take quotes out of context.
You are a fricken troll and say ridiculous shit.
Are you some sort of idiot... did you see Penrose's credentials?
You think he does not understand probability theory... are you that stupid?
You have been outed in this thread and others , copying and pasting misquotes usually from religious websites, misrepresenting science with pseudoscience , jumping from one ridiculous bible thumping review to the next, and actually changing words said in videos YOU posted. As if you can get more dishonest than that.
You've nothing to add but deny and ignore it all, to come back with little but cheap vulgar insult.
It's been pointed out how misquoting Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking is what you did in this thread and others, by changing Dawkins words and his clear meaning, another by copying an edited quote lifted from Stephen Hawking's book on a marked as disputed wiki page.
Of course Penrose understands probability theory. You obviously don't.
A few coins thrown up in the air and the result will be a sequence of heads and tails that have a probability for landing the way they do with so many zeros attached to it, the chances of them being that way would appear impossible. You'd be saying the sequence is far too improbable and it must have been fine tuned.
Not knowing the true circumstances , whatever number of coins, whatever sequence they fell in that you could observe, you'd be asserting they were fine tuned, even if they were in a different sequence. That's the pointlessness of your fine tuning idea. It's only because you can observe, and therefore expect to observe the specific sequence, that you assume the appearance of it must have been fine tuned.
In comparison, the chances of just a mere few physical cosmological constants being the way they are, appearing like the coins, to be improbable, are called fine tuned by the theistic imaginary friend fraternity, just because they are the way they are. As if that is supposed to be any kind of reasoning for why an invisible deity should exist.
Penrose would continue to explain a probability calculation needs its density function, so in the case of a universe, how equally likely are those probabilities, is the next question.
You've tried unsuccessfully to offer up an ignorant false choice between what you think is meant by a mulitverse, or a magical tuner, yet it would require only a form of evolutionary natural self-selection of cosmological values for those enormous odds to alter so drastically that their vast probabilities become almost a certainty. A certainty which of course the universe actually is.
In your ever deceitful mad dash to assert a fine tuning tuner called god, the most basic understanding of Penrose's probabilities has flown right over your thick skull like everything else.
You should go back to the no clue club with the other member who has come up with the bizarre idea that 96% and 4% can somehow be backward to a ........ 100% of everything else!!
