Support NeoGAF

[iapetus]

There's an argument that goes something along the incredibly vague lines that the universe exists in a state that is conducive to the existence of the universe and life in the universe because if it didn't we wouldn't be here to discuss why the universe exists in such a state.

Obviously that's an almost utterly incomprehensible rendering of something I once heard a long time ago. Can anyone see through the drivel to tell me what I'm talking about and where I can find more information on it?

 

[DrEvil]

Go see I Heart Huckabees. All questions will be answered.
Or at least, sort of answered.


-d

 

[ge-man]

It's very poor argument first of all. But the general idea is that life and universe exist because we know that we exist.

The main problem with this line of argumentation is that I can come by and say--how do you know that you truly exist? Our subjectivity makes impossible to truly answer a question like this.

 

[iapetus]

I know it's a poor argument. I also know it has a name, and I can't remember what it is. I'm not planning on espousing it as a world view, but I'm using it in my NaNoWriMo novel, along with other discredited ideas (synchronicity, anyone?) so I need to read up a bit of background.

 

[Screenboy]

''Whoa''







-SB

 

[ge-man]

I know it's a poor argument. I also know it has a name, and I can't remember what it is. I'm not planning on espousing it as a world view, but I'm using it in my NaNoWriMo novel, along with other discredited ideas (synchronicity, anyone?) so I need to read up a bit of background.

Sorry, that's what I thought you wanted to know.

I have no idea who to ascribe the theory to, however. I'll try to find out today from my philosophy of mind professor if I remember.

 

[geogaddi]

There's an argument that goes something along the incredibly vague lines that the universe exists in a state that is conducive to the existence of the universe and life in the universe because if it didn't we wouldn't be here to discuss why the universe exists in such a state.

Obviously that's an almost utterly incomprehensible rendering of something I once heard a long time ago. Can anyone see through the drivel to tell me what I'm talking about and where I can find more information on it?

Yes. It's called nominalism or anti-realism.

Nominalism can be understood as compatible with a thorough-going materialism (only matter -- that "stuff" which can be detected by the five senses -- is real) and correlative empiricism (only knowledge of material entities is legitimate knowledge).

Specifically, nominalism takes the model of meaning discussed above as the sole and sufficient model of meaning. That is, if a universal term as a name is to have meaning, it can only have meaning by way of reference. But, as we have seen in the Platonic arguments for the reality of the Forms, universals (e.g., the definition of a triangle) are not found in the material domain as objects of sense-knowledge. In this domain, instead, we find only particular entities -- and, by definition, universal terms do not refer (directly) to such particulars. But,

if there exist only particular entities as the objects of sense; and
if legitimate meaning can be had for a term only if it refers to a real entity;
then:

a) no universal entities exist, and
b) hence any universal terms which appears to mean "something" by way of refering to "something -- in fact refers to nothing -- and
c) hence universal terms are meaningless.
Correlatively, nominalists ask the question the question which Plato himself raises as a critique of a putative theory of Forms: if universal entities exist -- where do they come from?

I love this stuff.

 

[iapetus]

Don't think nominalism is what I was looking for - though that's more down to my half-assed description than anything else.

Found what I was looking for: the Anthropic Principle. The fact that one of its forms is abbreviated FAP is only an added bonus.

 

[Loki]

It sounds sort of like a "reverse teleological" argument-- or at least a teleological argument that uses a different POV as its basis. As for what such a thing would be called formally (if it's even been given a formal name), I have no idea. But I, too, have heard of that line of thinking before; in fact, it was brought up as evidence against the classical teleological argument for the existence of God (i.e., it attempted to refute the seemingly "just so" quality of the conditions for our existence).


Beyond that, I can't help you. There are transcripts of a debate between Plantigna and some noted scientist floating around somewhere, and I'm pretty sure this argument is invoked at some point. I don't recall what site I read it at, though, sorry-- it was years ago.


EDIT: Didn't read down to your last post, so I didn't see that you had found what you were looking for. I've heard of the Anthropic Principle before, but it was only in passing-- I never bothered to look up the argument/theory referred to. Lazy Loki, lazy.

 

[geogaddi]

It sounds sort of like a "reverse teleological" argument-- or at least a teleological argument that uses a different POV as its basis. As for what such a thing would be called formally (if it's even been given a formal name), I have no idea. But I, too, have heard of that line of thinking before; in fact, it was brought up as evidence against the classical teleological argument for the existence of God (i.e., it attempted to refute the seemingly "just so" quality of the conditions for our existence).


Beyond that, I can't help you. There are transcripts of a debate between Plantigna and some noted scientist floating around somewhere, and I'm pretty sure this argument is invoked at some point. I don't recall what site I read it at, though, sorry-- it was years ago.


EDIT: Didn't read down to your last post, so I didn't see that you had found what you were looking for. I've heard of the Anthropic Principle before, but it was only in passing-- I never bothered to look up the argument/theory referred to. Lazy Loki, lazy.

In the transcripts you are talking about ....Alvin Plantinga argued against the teleological argument for the existence of God? Plantinga was the guy known for proving God's existence by the problem of evil.

About the anthropic principle, I think this is used for the fine-tuned universe argument for the existence of an Intelligent Designer. I am not convinced of such "evidential" philosophical approaches . Van Til's pre-suppositionalism, for me, is a better approach for a stronger argument for the existence of God, basically a tougher cookie for atheists to crumble—although infidels.net have taken stabs at it there are some philosophical difficulties they did not address.

 

[Loki]

In the transcripts you are talking about ....Alvin Plantinga argued against the teleological argument for the existence of God? Plantinga was the guy known for proving God's existence by the problem of evil.

No, no-- the other guy (whoever it was) brought up the Anthropic Principle at one point, though it wasn't explicitly mentioned by name.

 

[Hitokage]

Bah, I could have told you.

Anyway, the anthropic principle only takes real meaning when you drop the assumption that this universe is the only one that has, was, or is currently existing. Given the chance that multiple itterations can be attempted, it becomes certain that at least once during an infinite span of time one would result in conditions that give rise to life and thus our current conversation.

 

[geogaddi]

Bah, I could have told you.

Anyway, the anthropic principle only takes real meaning when you drop the assumption that this universe is the only one that has, was, or is currently existing. Given the chance that multiple itterations can be attempted, it becomes certain that at least once during an infinite span of time one would result in conditions that give rise to life and thus our current conversation.

This certainty is based on the anthropic (being a product of chance that gave rise to life) pre-supposition that this universe is not the only one that was, has and is?

In a universe governed by chance, isn't one incapable of even carrying out the volition to even think this? How can one be so confident to think otherwise, without a presupposition?

 

[Zaptruder]

This certainty is based on the anthropic (being a product of chance that gave rise to life) pre-supposition that this universe is not the only one that was, has and is?

In a universe governed by chance, isn't one incapable of even carrying out the volition to even think this? How can one be so confident to think otherwise, without a presupposition?

obviously infinite time gives rise to infinite occurences of a universe with thought; where one of those universes can have exactly that occur.

 

[Dilbert]

The anthropic principle is exactly backwards: We are a product of the universe which happened...not that the universe happened in such a way as to produce us.