[island]

Correlation does not imply causation. I would argue that the principles don't point to carbon-based life, but rather it is the carbon-based life that points to the principles.

Okay, I'll buy that, but that's a huge step in the right direction if you ask me.

What other correlations might be made?

It seems to me that the human evolutionary process would also correlate, so scientists should be looking for a mechanism that enables the universe to "leap" to higher orders of the same basic structure... which makes absolute symmetry an unrealizable *goal*.

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2006-02/msg0073320.html

It can be shown that this is a perpetually "downhill" process in terms of the energy that gets expended.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by island

What other correlations might be made?

If your sample size is large enough, you can show a correlation between just about anything.

[pgrmdave]

100% of heroin addicts drank milk when they were young children.

[island]

Yeah, I should have only agreed that a correlation doesn't *necessarily* mean that a dead body with a bullet in it means that the smoking gun on the ground next to it, had something to do with it.

What specifically is it that you fellas think makes all these dumb scientists like Dawkins and Susskind say that the universe "appears designed"?

The fact that heroin addicts drank milk?

...or something more akin to a smoking gun and and dead body with a bullet in it?

I'm only uh, guessing, but I'd say that it's the latter, so pretending like a smoking gun and a dead body don't carry an implication is, well, very "neodarwinian"... haha!

Too bad that you can't judge the validity of the very simple physics that I linked, or maybe we wouldn't be here now.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by island

Try as they might, the anthropic principle just won't go away... but denial is always easier than it is to honestly look for the reason why we are relevant to the structure and stability of the universe.

Scientists/NOT

How perfectly disengenuous to invoke honesty in search of stability while at the same time dismissing science directly with implied theism.
Theists/NOT

From my previous quote from Wickpedia:

Originally Posted by Wicki

This is the cosmological constant problem, the worst problem of fine-tuning in physics: there is no known natural way to derive the infinitesimal cosmological constant observed in cosmology from particle physics.

I have boldened a pertinent phrase as it allows that the scientist explicitly acknowledges a lack of knowledge with the implication such knowledge may come to light in the future through the application of the scientific method, wheras the theist explicity accepts supernatural explanation with the implication that no new knowledge is forthcoming.

[island]

No, I'm an atheist, thanks.

So is Davies.

So is Wheeler.

So is Carter.

So was Dicke.

So was Dirac.

So was Einstein.

But hey... how perfectly disrespectful of you, anyway... heh

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by island

No, I'm an atheist, thanks.

But hey... how perfectly disrespectful of you, anyway... heh

My pleasure to return the favor. I note with interest the your earlier comment

Originally Posted by island

Too bad that you can't judge the validity of the very simple physics that I linked, or maybe we wouldn't be here now.

as it acknowledges your favor as well as begins from a rather lame position for science.

Originally Posted by island

I'd like to talk about what I think is already proven to happen to the gravity of the universe when we make particles from negative-energy
states, and the effect that this has on the thermodynamic structuring of
our universe.

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2006-02/msg0073320.html

A blog is a blog, even if it's a Cornell blog.

[island]

Like I said... Too bad that YOU can't judge the validity of very simple physics for yourself.

I won't bother to tell you that I know for a fact that it is valid, since I've obviously found the devil's advocate, himself.

You have no imagination, son.

How do you think that it is possible to have purpose in nature without god?

You don't know because you think that it can't be so.

You have no imagination, son.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by island

You have no imagination, son.

I imagine this News Article is just that, an article, Pop. To clarify your earlier quote attribution to Tormod, he did not write the article, he merely posted the article. We have drifted off topic here, but if you search the other areas of the Forum I don't doubt you will find suitable threads for posting your imaginings.

[pgrmdave]

I am once again awed at hypography. Only here have I found people to be passionate about such things as the anthropic principle Both of you, keep the debate civil, and please refrain from personal attacks, mild though they have been.