Display:
by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:56:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't understand why there would be a why at all.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:00:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What would we talk about otherwise?
If there was no why? gee all the politicians would get away with everything.
by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:12:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Me not understand.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:14:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
slightly snarky comment.

I understood your question why there had to be a why in the first place to literal..... (-:

but since I gentically are unfunny I had to try and make a serious point in conjunction with a joke.

consequence... belly flop.

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:18:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
my excuse, English is not my mothertounge....

I also might not have understood what exactly you were refering to

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:20:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just can't quite disentangle the joke and the serious point: I could read it as "without myth/religion there is no ethics" and then I'd have to get cranky.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:20:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, would not want to make you cranky...

Serious point was, Why? is a most important question. especially with politicians.

snarky point was you seem to imply that the question is futile. ->"What would we talk about otherwise"

~Sorry a bad joke/snarke, does not get better by having to explain it - I then cannot even hide behind the

eh, that's just a snark..

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:34:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Serious point was, Why? is a most important question. especially with politicians.

But maybe not with the universe.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:35:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, I gathered that that might be your point, ok then I did understand correctly - and would indicated my difference in opinion.

It might not have everyday consequences with regard to our existance, it might even be completely inconsequencial. but it still is strange.

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:49:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nature is stranger than anything human imagination can come up with, which is why, for shock value, science beats myth hands down.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:56:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Definitely not with the universe.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:53:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As a gentically unfunny person myself, your joke actually made me laugh.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:03:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
aaah, the voice of reason.
by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:08:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ugh, string theory. I have to find a different explanation of the problem.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:10:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I hope you don;t want to imply that there is equality between mythological stories and ID? ID is fake science, plenty of mythologicalistic science, but it is neither science nor myth. As it lacks fundamental requirements to be either.
by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:16:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
??

At issue was the anthropic principle in cosmology, no more or less.

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:37:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry only read the introduction - decided that the article you linked to was way beyond me ....
by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 05:23:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just take this abstract...
The Physical Review: The eighteen arbitrary parameters of the standard model in your everyday life (1996)
Contrary to popular conception, the purpose of particle physics is to understand the everyday world. The current theory of fundamental interactions among the quarks and leptons depends on eighteen parameters, which are a priori arbitrary. Were these parameters different, our world would be changed dramatically. By exploring the connection between these parameters and everyday phenomena we can better appreciate the challenges confronting contemporary particle physics. Until we can explain the origin of these parameters, we cannot say we truly understand why our everyday world is as it is.
The point is this: the standard model of particle physics depends on 18 arbitrary parameters (not counting the masses of the elementary particles, I believe), and then there are a couple of purely gravitational parameters important in cosmology. These 20 (or 30-something if you include the masses) parameters appear to need to be tuned to a very high accuracy in order to be compatible with the macroscopic world we live in. If each parameter is tuned to 10% accuracy, the likelyhood of all parameters being in the range required for life as we know it to be possible is one part in one billion billion, give or take a couple of zeros. If the parameters need to be tuned to 1% accuracy, the likelyhood drops to one part in a trillion trillion trillion, again give or take a couple of zeros.

So, how do you explain our incredible luck?

The weak anthropic principle is an attempt to "explain" this as an observation bias. That is, it is possible that many universes support life, but of very different kinds. In any one universe, living beings within it will reason that, for life as they know it to be possible, dozens of parameters need to be carefully tuned. But that does not mean that, for any kind of life to be possible the parameters need to be tuned. It only means that living things will look around and find the universe strangely suited to hosting them, all the more so if you thow in the insight that life evolves to adapt to its environment.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 05:48:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series