Anthropic principle meets consciousness

[Sculptor1]

"How can genetic accidents and random mutations explain such abstract complexity? "

Nothing can ultimately explain what is simply the case. Given the structure of the universe the genetic consequences are more than described by natural selection. Any explanation simply defers to another level of complexity.
You simply have to accept. There is no ghost in the machine, and there shall be no deus ex machina.
We may describe but explanation is a human trait of late flowering in the universe. The universe seem to have no use for it.

Sculpter 1 !

Thank you kindly for your contribution. Could you maybe provide some examples to what you're trying to say here:
"We may describe but explanation is a human trait of late flowering in the universe. The universe seem to have no use for it."

How can I be more simple?
The universe has been continuing without humans for billions of years and shall continue for billions of years after we are dust and the sun is cold.

Are you essentially saying that human rationality seeks legitimate explanations for things and that we truly understand something only when it's explained?

Close.
I am saying that it is most likely that there can be no ultimate explanation. We can continue to decribe the universe in ever more detailed descriptions, but it is merely human hubris to think these really explain anything at all. And the worst of it is the arrogance that some humans beliece they divine a purpose to the universe. This is risible. Humans can have what purpose they want for themselves and the elements of world with which they share the popwer to act. But the consequnces of this is less than negligiible on a universal scale.

Though you may not be implying that the universe is absurd or meaningless, only that the understanding of its existence and properties lie outside the usual categories of human thought. However, that reasoning alone would simply imply something beyond reason itself accounts for the explanation behind the true nature of our existence (Kantian things-in-themselves and the reality of nature and natural world).

No I am actually saying without reservation that qualities such as "absurdity" and "meaning" are human hubris; there is no hint of it in the larger world or in the universe. There is no reason why we are here.
You are say there might be a reason beyind reason; or pretend there there is a true nature, but really?? Really?Where is your warrant? Kant's epistemology is great, but i do not think you get meaning from that. What we can gather from that is that we tend to view our world through human eyes, never seeing the underlying thing-in-itself. Kant is not imparting any meaning or purpose through this observation.

And if that is true it is certainly consistent with transcendental ideals or suppositions associated with metaphysical consciousness. Meaning, in the same way physicists make the judgments and posit: all events must have a cause, in order to advance a theory.

Not sure where you are going with this.
It seems obvious to me that the "anthropic" is purely phenomenal, not noumenal. It is the false veneer that we humans tend to impose on our world. The anthropic is an inauthentic filter through which we MIS-understand the universe. Surel that is what we may gather from Kant's copurnican turn?

Sculpter1 ! Thanks for your reply.

Well, let's see, I'm not sure that really answered my question about how the "universe has no use for it". In other words, I interpret your response of the universe existing before and after us, as somehow a refutation of the Anthropic principle. Unfortunately I don't think your answer captured the concern here. I mean, for example, how do you know when the universe started, space-time started, and what an ending point will look like?

How do I know? If you are going to play solipsistic games I'm not really interested. Do you accept the fact that we are able to see million of galaxies and that for them to be visible they must have existed millions of years before humans, given the limitations set by Einsteinian physics on the velocity of light. Yes ot no?
If yes, then it is as obvious as the sun shines that the universe is of massive antiqity
Do you accept that humans have only existed for a short period of time, and that they have evolved from more simple simians and even earlier froms of life. Yes or no?
If yes, then it is very hard to avoid the conclusion that humans are insigifiicant, less than a speck of dust on the hide of an elephant.
What you call the Anthropic principle is like beergoggles tha make every woman seem beatiful on a Saturday Night at the Pub. The anthropic principle is nothing more than a filter in which we cannot saee the thing in itself; the cold, indifferent, meaningless universe, but foolishly thing the universe is made for us. Children thing the whole world is for them to play with, until the dog bites and the fire burns.

For instance, according to our current theories 'our' time did start with the big bang. I say our time, because it is plausible to think of other parallel universes with their own laws and times.

Parallel universes are not fantays. There is ZERO evidence for them.

No law forbids that other universes have more than one time dimension.

No law forbids that swans are pink, and that cats are smart enough to win PhDs. I ahave to say so what?

This implies an independent existence of some sort-something outside of temporal time started BB time.

No. This implies nothing what ever.

As far as what existed before the BB, you have two possible answers, either nothingness, no time no space no nothing. Or a pre BB universe with its own concept of time. Time can or cannot have an end, having a beginning does not logically imply it will have an end. And so, I'm not sure what your point is... ?

With respect to something that is beyond our current categories of logic and reason, I think your answer that refers to 'purpose' in itself, refutes your notion of purposeless. No? In other words, how do you reconcile the two forces, and/or features and qualities of our consciousness? In that case, humans feel the need to have purpose; love, intention, beauty, etc. etc., and if not, many choose not to have a will to live. Without purpose, whether it is an illusionary or not, is all part of our (metaphysical) will to be. How do you reconcile purposeless from our consciousness? And how are any of those biological features of consciousness integral to Darwinian survival and instinct?


And finally, your last point and interpretation about Kant may be a little misguided. What I was referring to is the existence of the synthetic a priori that comes from our conscious mind. In layman's terms, our sense of wonder has no biological survival value. If we wonder about how things exist (things-in-themselves) yet we are unable to actually make things (physical matter), we come away with something outside of ourselves that is causational. A concept of causation or super turtle or God. Hence, all events must have a cause. That is my notion of transcendence. The irony there is, all physical theories start with synthetic propositions and judgements. Thoughts?

[Tegularius]

1. Physiological/biological/biochemical explanations of 'what it means to have an experience' would be like telling your friends, family and co-workers that you are a robot. And, let's just say for the sake of argument, that we are all robots. How are robots supposedly created? I believe the answer in part, is through abstract structures of mathematical calculations and design. Which in turn, in themselves, confer no biological survival value. So, we could also say we have another Platonic, abstract existence (mathematics and the laws of nature, engineering and so forth) of sorts similar to other abstract metaphysical features that exist in and from our consciousness (the will, beauty/aesthetics, intention, wonderment, music, etc.). Does that provide for any insight to your point?

Not in the least. A robot is nothing more than an advanced upright computer. It doesn't even amount to a definition of Artificial Intelligence which may, one day, unless preempted in our ability to advance - be as amenable to qualia as much as we ourselves presume to be.

We all know how the organic eight billion robots currently infesting the planet were made.

Also, there is no such thing as a Platonic abstract existence. That's just one of the innumerable absurdities' philosophy, in its effort to appear profound or scholarly, comes up with.

Why not just consider the DNA reality of our existence, which in its own way, is far more mysterious than any stupid philosophic lamination to make the real even more real...or should that be more unreal!

The physical brain incorporates your entire ability to know yourself, meaning ALL of your self-awareness. It's not your body but your brain which is the source of it. If your brain is dead except for its autonomic operations your body may still operate, but your sense of time is totally non-existent meaning all consciousness is lacking.

What does this imply! The be-all and end-all of your existence depends solely on that three pound piece of mush in your cranium which is also responsible for explaining existence - which must include itself - as an abstract Platonic one, thereby excluding itself as the source.

The brain does what it does without knowing - though it strives to know - the details of its own creative abilities, which includes all the abstract explanations of its own performance. Strange thing about the brain; it strives to objectify itself in order to know itself by any means possible.

[3017Metaphysician]

1. Physiological/biological/biochemical explanations of 'what it means to have an experience' would be like telling your friends, family and co-workers that you are a robot. And, let's just say for the sake of argument, that we are all robots. How are robots supposedly created? I believe the answer in part, is through abstract structures of mathematical calculations and design. Which in turn, in themselves, confer no biological survival value. So, we could also say we have another Platonic, abstract existence (mathematics and the laws of nature, engineering and so forth) of sorts similar to other abstract metaphysical features that exist in and from our consciousness (the will, beauty/aesthetics, intention, wonderment, music, etc.). Does that provide for any insight to your point?

Not in the least. A robot is nothing more than an advanced upright computer. It doesn't even amount to a definition of Artificial Intelligence which may, one day, unless preempted in our ability to advance - be as amenable to qualia as much as we ourselves presume to be.

We all know how the organic eight billion robots currently infesting the planet were made.

Also, there is no such thing as a Platonic abstract existence. That's just one of the innumerable absurdities' philosophy, in its effort to appear profound or scholarly, comes up with.

Why not just consider the DNA reality of our existence, which in its own way, is far more mysterious than any stupid philosophic lamination to make the real even more real...or should that be more unreal!

The physical brain incorporates your entire ability to know yourself, meaning ALL of your self-awareness. It's not your body but your brain which is the source of it. If your brain is dead except for its autonomic operations your body may still operate, but your sense of time is totally non-existent meaning all consciousness is lacking.

What does this imply! The be-all and end-all of your existence depends solely on that three pound piece of mush in your cranium which is also responsible for explaining existence - which must include itself - as an abstract Platonic one, thereby excluding itself as the source.

The brain does what it does without knowing - though it strives to know - the details of its own creative abilities, which includes all the abstract explanations of its own performance. Strange thing about the brain; it strives to objectify itself in order to know itself by any means possible.

Hi Teg! Thanks for your contribution/reply!

Just a few questions to consider with respect to our discussion about robots and consciousness:

1. You said we all know how organic robots were made, are you absolutely sure? I'm thinking, if that were true, we, or you yourself, could not only make a robot with consciousness and self-awareness, but make a human being(s) from primordial soup. Pardon the question if it seems absurd, but please share how that works.

2. Can you share your thoughts about the qualities of consciousness that are metaphysical? I have shared the abstract features of experiencing life, perception and existence, and I couldn't find where you were able to respond to those existential facts.

3. Can you provide any example of Platonic existence as you alluded to in your explanation of existence? For example, if the laws of physics explain existence, which they do, that would imply an abstract metaphysical existence of some sort, much like that of a Platonic existence. (Physicist often debate whether the laws of physics are 'out there' waiting to be discovered or a human invention.)

Thanks again for your reply!

[Sculptor1]

1. Physiological/biological/biochemical explanations of 'what it means to have an experience' would be like telling your friends, family and co-workers that you are a robot. And, let's just say for the sake of argument, that we are all robots. How are robots supposedly created? I believe the answer in part, is through abstract structures of mathematical calculations and design. Which in turn, in themselves, confer no biological survival value. So, we could also say we have another Platonic, abstract existence (mathematics and the laws of nature, engineering and so forth) of sorts similar to other abstract metaphysical features that exist in and from our consciousness (the will, beauty/aesthetics, intention, wonderment, music, etc.). Does that provide for any insight to your point?

Not in the least. A robot is nothing more than an advanced upright computer. It doesn't even amount to a definition of Artificial Intelligence which may, one day, unless preempted in our ability to advance - be as amenable to qualia as much as we ourselves presume to be.

We all know how the organic eight billion robots currently infesting the planet were made.

Also, there is no such thing as a Platonic abstract existence. That's just one of the innumerable absurdities' philosophy, in its effort to appear profound or scholarly, comes up with.

Why not just consider the DNA reality of our existence, which in its own way, is far more mysterious than any stupid philosophic lamination to make the real even more real...or should that be more unreal!

The physical brain incorporates your entire ability to know yourself, meaning ALL of your self-awareness. It's not your body but your brain which is the source of it. If your brain is dead except for its autonomic operations your body may still operate, but your sense of time is totally non-existent meaning all consciousness is lacking.

What does this imply! The be-all and end-all of your existence depends solely on that three pound piece of mush in your cranium which is also responsible for explaining existence - which must include itself - as an abstract Platonic one, thereby excluding itself as the source.

The brain does what it does without knowing - though it strives to know - the details of its own creative abilities, which includes all the abstract explanations of its own performance. Strange thing about the brain; it strives to objectify itself in order to know itself by any means possible.

Hi Teg! Thanks for your contribution/reply!

Just a few questions to consider with respect to our discussion about robots and consciousness:

1. You said we all know how organic robots were made, are you absolutely sure? I'm thinking, if that were true, we, or you yourself, could not only make a robot with consciousness and self-awareness, but make a human being(s) from primordial soup. Pardon the question if it seems absurd, but please share how that works.

I seems obvious to me that when he said 8 billion organic robots he means humans! And if you don't know how they are made I suggest you ask your parents.

2. Can you share your thoughts about the qualities of consciousness that are metaphysical? I have shared the abstract features of experiencing life, perception and existence, and I couldn't find where you were able to respond to those existential facts.

I think the first statement is backwards. You can describe, using metaphysics about the qualities of consciousness, not the other way round.

3. Can you provide any example of Platonic existence as you alluded to in your explanation of existence? For example, if the laws of physics explain existence, which they do, that would imply an abstract metaphysical existence of some sort, much like that of a Platonic existence. (Physicist often debate whether the laws of physics are 'out there' waiting to be discovered or a human invention.)

What sort of "explanation" do you think the laws of physics provides? The laws of physics are primarily descriptive. I think this approach of yours hints at where the confusion seems to be. You might be labouring under the assumption that the universe is explicable. In normal parlance to have a reason or purpose requires volition and consciousness. So your assumption would have to include the idea that the universe was conscious as a whole. I think you have a lot of work to do to back up that assumption. This is a very primitive assumption which has not, in a million years of human history found to have the slightest reliable support. In fact everything science and learning has provided since at least Spinoza is that the universe has no such qualities.

[Sculptor1]

1. Physiological/biological/biochemical explanations of 'what it means to have an experience' would be like telling your friends, family and co-workers that you are a robot. And, let's just say for the sake of argument, that we are all robots. How are robots supposedly created? I believe the answer in part, is through abstract structures of mathematical calculations and design. Which in turn, in themselves, confer no biological survival value. So, we could also say we have another Platonic, abstract existence (mathematics and the laws of nature, engineering and so forth) of sorts similar to other abstract metaphysical features that exist in and from our consciousness (the will, beauty/aesthetics, intention, wonderment, music, etc.). Does that provide for any insight to your point?

Not in the least. A robot is nothing more than an advanced upright computer. It doesn't even amount to a definition of Artificial Intelligence which may, one day, unless preempted in our ability to advance - be as amenable to qualia as much as we ourselves presume to be.

We all know how the organic eight billion robots currently infesting the planet were made.

Also, there is no such thing as a Platonic abstract existence. That's just one of the innumerable absurdities' philosophy, in its effort to appear profound or scholarly, comes up with.

Why not just consider the DNA reality of our existence, which in its own way, is far more mysterious than any stupid philosophic lamination to make the real even more real...or should that be more unreal!

The physical brain incorporates your entire ability to know yourself, meaning ALL of your self-awareness. It's not your body but your brain which is the source of it. If your brain is dead except for its autonomic operations your body may still operate, but your sense of time is totally non-existent meaning all consciousness is lacking.

What does this imply! The be-all and end-all of your existence depends solely on that three pound piece of mush in your cranium which is also responsible for explaining existence - which must include itself - as an abstract Platonic one, thereby excluding itself as the source.

The brain does what it does without knowing - though it strives to know - the details of its own creative abilities, which includes all the abstract explanations of its own performance. Strange thing about the brain; it strives to objectify itself in order to know itself by any means possible.

Hi Teg! Thanks for your contribution/reply!

Just a few questions to consider with respect to our discussion about robots and consciousness:

1. You said we all know how organic robots were made, are you absolutely sure? I'm thinking, if that were true, we, or you yourself, could not only make a robot with consciousness and self-awareness, but make a human being(s) from primordial soup. Pardon the question if it seems absurd, but please share how that works.

I seems obvious to me that when he said 8 billion organic robots he means humans! And if you don't know how they are made I suggest you ask your parents.

2. Can you share your thoughts about the qualities of consciousness that are metaphysical? I have shared the abstract features of experiencing life, perception and existence, and I couldn't find where you were able to respond to those existential facts.

I think the first statement is backwards. You can describe, using metaphysics about the qualities of consciousness, not the other way round.

3. Can you provide any example of Platonic existence as you alluded to in your explanation of existence? For example, if the laws of physics explain existence, which they do, that would imply an abstract metaphysical existence of some sort, much like that of a Platonic existence. (Physicist often debate whether the laws of physics are 'out there' waiting to be discovered or a human invention.)

What sort of "explanation" do you think the laws of physics provides? The laws of physics are primarily descriptive. I think this approach of yours hints at where the confusion seems to be. You might be labouring under the assumption that the universe is explicable. In normal parlance to have a reason or purpose requires volition and consciousness. So your assumption would have to include the idea that the universe was conscious as a whole. I think you have a lot of work to do to back up that assumption. This is a very primitive assumption which has not, in a million years of human history found to have the slightest reliable support. In fact everything science and learning has provided since at least Spinoza is that the universe has no such qualities.

[3017Metaphysician]

Sculpter 1 !

Thank you kindly for your contribution. Could you maybe provide some examples to what you're trying to say here:
"We may describe but explanation is a human trait of late flowering in the universe. The universe seem to have no use for it."

How can I be more simple?
The universe has been continuing without humans for billions of years and shall continue for billions of years after we are dust and the sun is cold.

Are you essentially saying that human rationality seeks legitimate explanations for things and that we truly understand something only when it's explained?

Close.
I am saying that it is most likely that there can be no ultimate explanation. We can continue to decribe the universe in ever more detailed descriptions, but it is merely human hubris to think these really explain anything at all. And the worst of it is the arrogance that some humans beliece they divine a purpose to the universe. This is risible. Humans can have what purpose they want for themselves and the elements of world with which they share the popwer to act. But the consequnces of this is less than negligiible on a universal scale.

Though you may not be implying that the universe is absurd or meaningless, only that the understanding of its existence and properties lie outside the usual categories of human thought. However, that reasoning alone would simply imply something beyond reason itself accounts for the explanation behind the true nature of our existence (Kantian things-in-themselves and the reality of nature and natural world).

No I am actually saying without reservation that qualities such as "absurdity" and "meaning" are human hubris; there is no hint of it in the larger world or in the universe. There is no reason why we are here.
You are say there might be a reason beyind reason; or pretend there there is a true nature, but really?? Really?Where is your warrant? Kant's epistemology is great, but i do not think you get meaning from that. What we can gather from that is that we tend to view our world through human eyes, never seeing the underlying thing-in-itself. Kant is not imparting any meaning or purpose through this observation.

And if that is true it is certainly consistent with transcendental ideals or suppositions associated with metaphysical consciousness. Meaning, in the same way physicists make the judgments and posit: all events must have a cause, in order to advance a theory.

Not sure where you are going with this.
It seems obvious to me that the "anthropic" is purely phenomenal, not noumenal. It is the false veneer that we humans tend to impose on our world. The anthropic is an inauthentic filter through which we MIS-understand the universe. Surel that is what we may gather from Kant's copurnican turn?

Sculpter1 ! Thanks for your reply.

Well, let's see, I'm not sure that really answered my question about how the "universe has no use for it". In other words, I interpret your response of the universe existing before and after us, as somehow a refutation of the Anthropic principle. Unfortunately I don't think your answer captured the concern here. I mean, for example, how do you know when the universe started, space-time started, and what an ending point will look like?

How do I know? If you are going to play solipsistic games I'm not really interested. Do you accept the fact that we are able to see million of galaxies and that for them to be visible they must have existed millions of years before humans, given the limitations set by Einsteinian physics on the velocity of light. Yes ot no?
If yes, then it is as obvious as the sun shines that the universe is of massive antiqity
Do you accept that humans have only existed for a short period of time, and that they have evolved from more simple simians and even earlier froms of life. Yes or no?
If yes, then it is very hard to avoid the conclusion that humans are insigifiicant, less than a speck of dust on the hide of an elephant.
What you call the Anthropic principle is like beergoggles tha make every woman seem beatiful on a Saturday Night at the Pub. The anthropic principle is nothing more than a filter in which we cannot saee the thing in itself; the cold, indifferent, meaningless universe, but foolishly thing the universe is made for us. Children thing the whole world is for them to play with, until the dog bites and the fire burns.

For instance, according to our current theories 'our' time did start with the big bang. I say our time, because it is plausible to think of other parallel universes with their own laws and times.

Parallel universes are not fantays. There is ZERO evidence for them.

No law forbids that other universes have more than one time dimension.

No law forbids that swans are pink, and that cats are smart enough to win PhDs. I ahave to say so what?

This implies an independent existence of some sort-something outside of temporal time started BB time.

No. This implies nothing what ever.

As far as what existed before the BB, you have two possible answers, either nothingness, no time no space no nothing. Or a pre BB universe with its own concept of time. Time can or cannot have an end, having a beginning does not logically imply it will have an end. And so, I'm not sure what your point is... ?

With respect to something that is beyond our current categories of logic and reason, I think your answer that refers to 'purpose' in itself, refutes your notion of purposeless. No? In other words, how do you reconcile the two forces, and/or features and qualities of our consciousness? In that case, humans feel the need to have purpose; love, intention, beauty, etc. etc., and if not, many choose not to have a will to live. Without purpose, whether it is an illusionary or not, is all part of our (metaphysical) will to be. How do you reconcile purposeless from our consciousness? And how are any of those biological features of consciousness integral to Darwinian survival and instinct?


And finally, your last point and interpretation about Kant may be a little misguided. What I was referring to is the existence of the synthetic a priori that comes from our conscious mind. In layman's terms, our sense of wonder has no biological survival value. If we wonder about how things exist (things-in-themselves) yet we are unable to actually make things (physical matter), we come away with something outside of ourselves that is causational. A concept of causation or super turtle or God. Hence, all events must have a cause. That is my notion of transcendence. The irony there is, all physical theories start with synthetic propositions and judgements. Thoughts?

Thanks Sculpter1 for your reply! Allow me to answer your questions in a succinct matter:

1. Yes, I accept that the universe is old. I think the measurements made by NASA's WMAP spacecraft have shown that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, plus or minus about 130,000 years. How does that explain conscious existence though?

2. Yes, comparative to the age of the universe:

Approximately 300,000 years ago, the first Homo sapiens — anatomically modern humans — arose alongside our other hominid relatives. It is unknown whether we descended directly from Homo erectus, heidelbergensis, or antecessor, although Neanderthals, which came slightly later at 240,000 years ago, most certainly came from Homo heidelbergensis. Modern speech is thought to have arisen almost as soon as Homo sapiens did.

It took 13.8 billion years of cosmic history for the first human beings to arise, and we did so relatively recently: just 300,000 years ago. 99.998% of the time that passed since the Big Bang had no human beings at all; our entire species has only existed for the most recent 0.002% of the Universe. Yet, in that short time, we've managed to figure out the entire cosmic story that led to our existence. Fortunately, the story won't end with us, as it's still being written.



Accordingly, how does that explain conscious existence (consciousness), and do you think that consciousness itself will continue to develop? If so, in what way would you speculate? That's a very exciting supposition as it relates to our human condition. (For example, would the universal/metaphysical qualities from the human concept of Love and sentience evolve into something different than what it is today?)

3. Are you able to explain what happened before the BB and how temporal time was created? I apologize if I misread something.

4. With respect to no laws forbidding Multiverse, how does that relate to logically possible worlds existing? For instance, we know in logic you have things such as logically necessary truth's (the Ontological argument) based on a priori logic. Then you have logical possibility that cannot be disproved, but provides for logical inferences based on empirical data, which is very similar to the synthetic a priori judgement from physics that posit: all events must have a cause.

That said, how can we connect the dotes between random mutations/natural selection and the logical possibility of a 'design' from what we know of our cosmic conditions (laws of physics) that somehow morphs into consciousness itself? Using the OP/Models relative to human value systems (please refer to the OP), an input of physical matter that is processed into a conscious mind, along with the associated value systems of self-awareness (and metaphysical qualities of existence; love, beauty, the will, apperception of mathematics, music, the feelings of colors/aesthetics and other value systems), seem to produce something that is rich in organized complexity.

And so, if your saying we are simply unable to make a complete connection metaphysically, in order to explain the nature of reality through the usual categories of rational human thought, does it not infer something beyond 'Kantian pure reason' as it were to explain that nature of existing things-in-themselves?

Alternatively, perhaps try to provide a more lucid argument for the development of consciousness from the aforementioned things in themselves aka: the relationship between mind and matter.

Thanks again Sculpter1 for your patience, I know this topic can be quite frustrating at times (and even to some extent emotionally charged). And I know you are passionate about your position, but please know you have provided sufficient counter points which in-turn is causing very intriguing discussion thus far!

Thank you.

[Sculptor1]

How can I be more simple?
The universe has been continuing without humans for billions of years and shall continue for billions of years after we are dust and the sun is cold.

Close.
I am saying that it is most likely that there can be no ultimate explanation. We can continue to decribe the universe in ever more detailed descriptions, but it is merely human hubris to think these really explain anything at all. And the worst of it is the arrogance that some humans beliece they divine a purpose to the universe. This is risible. Humans can have what purpose they want for themselves and the elements of world with which they share the popwer to act. But the consequnces of this is less than negligiible on a universal scale.

No I am actually saying without reservation that qualities such as "absurdity" and "meaning" are human hubris; there is no hint of it in the larger world or in the universe. There is no reason why we are here.
You are say there might be a reason beyind reason; or pretend there there is a true nature, but really?? Really?Where is your warrant? Kant's epistemology is great, but i do not think you get meaning from that. What we can gather from that is that we tend to view our world through human eyes, never seeing the underlying thing-in-itself. Kant is not imparting any meaning or purpose through this observation.


Not sure where you are going with this.
It seems obvious to me that the "anthropic" is purely phenomenal, not noumenal. It is the false veneer that we humans tend to impose on our world. The anthropic is an inauthentic filter through which we MIS-understand the universe. Surel that is what we may gather from Kant's copurnican turn?

Sculpter1 ! Thanks for your reply.

Well, let's see, I'm not sure that really answered my question about how the "universe has no use for it". In other words, I interpret your response of the universe existing before and after us, as somehow a refutation of the Anthropic principle. Unfortunately I don't think your answer captured the concern here. I mean, for example, how do you know when the universe started, space-time started, and what an ending point will look like?

How do I know? If you are going to play solipsistic games I'm not really interested. Do you accept the fact that we are able to see million of galaxies and that for them to be visible they must have existed millions of years before humans, given the limitations set by Einsteinian physics on the velocity of light. Yes ot no?
If yes, then it is as obvious as the sun shines that the universe is of massive antiqity
Do you accept that humans have only existed for a short period of time, and that they have evolved from more simple simians and even earlier froms of life. Yes or no?
If yes, then it is very hard to avoid the conclusion that humans are insigifiicant, less than a speck of dust on the hide of an elephant.
What you call the Anthropic principle is like beergoggles tha make every woman seem beatiful on a Saturday Night at the Pub. The anthropic principle is nothing more than a filter in which we cannot saee the thing in itself; the cold, indifferent, meaningless universe, but foolishly thing the universe is made for us. Children thing the whole world is for them to play with, until the dog bites and the fire burns.

For instance, according to our current theories 'our' time did start with the big bang. I say our time, because it is plausible to think of other parallel universes with their own laws and times.

Parallel universes are not fantays. There is ZERO evidence for them.

No law forbids that other universes have more than one time dimension.

No law forbids that swans are pink, and that cats are smart enough to win PhDs. I ahave to say so what?

This implies an independent existence of some sort-something outside of temporal time started BB time.

No. This implies nothing what ever.

As far as what existed before the BB, you have two possible answers, either nothingness, no time no space no nothing. Or a pre BB universe with its own concept of time. Time can or cannot have an end, having a beginning does not logically imply it will have an end. And so, I'm not sure what your point is... ?

With respect to something that is beyond our current categories of logic and reason, I think your answer that refers to 'purpose' in itself, refutes your notion of purposeless. No? In other words, how do you reconcile the two forces, and/or features and qualities of our consciousness? In that case, humans feel the need to have purpose; love, intention, beauty, etc. etc., and if not, many choose not to have a will to live. Without purpose, whether it is an illusionary or not, is all part of our (metaphysical) will to be. How do you reconcile purposeless from our consciousness? And how are any of those biological features of consciousness integral to Darwinian survival and instinct?


And finally, your last point and interpretation about Kant may be a little misguided. What I was referring to is the existence of the synthetic a priori that comes from our conscious mind. In layman's terms, our sense of wonder has no biological survival value. If we wonder about how things exist (things-in-themselves) yet we are unable to actually make things (physical matter), we come away with something outside of ourselves that is causational. A concept of causation or super turtle or God. Hence, all events must have a cause. That is my notion of transcendence. The irony there is, all physical theories start with synthetic propositions and judgements. Thoughts?

Thanks Sculpter1 for your reply! Allow me to answer your questions in a succinct matter:

1. Yes, I accept that the universe is old. I think the measurements made by NASA's WMAP spacecraft have shown that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, plus or minus about 130,000 years. How does that explain conscious existence though?

I'm not looking to explain anything.
I'm simply saying that the anthropopic principle is not valid.

2. Yes, comparative to the age of the universe:

Approximately 300,000 years ago, the first Homo sapiens — anatomically modern humans — arose alongside our other hominid relatives. It is unknown whether we descended directly from Homo erectus, heidelbergensis, or antecessor, although Neanderthals, which came slightly later at 240,000 years ago, most certainly came from Homo heidelbergensis. Modern speech is thought to have arisen almost as soon as Homo sapiens did.

It took 13.8 billion years of cosmic history for the first human beings to arise, and we did so relatively recently: just 300,000 years ago. 99.998% of the time that passed since the Big Bang had no human beings at all; our entire species has only existed for the most recent 0.002% of the Universe. Yet, in that short time, we've managed to figure out the entire cosmic story that led to our existence. Fortunately, the story won't end with us, as it's still being written.

This is not "succinct", nor is any of that detail relevant.
I have a degree in archaeology so really could do without the copy& paste. What is your point?

Accordingly, how does that explain conscious existence (consciousness), and do you think that consciousness itself will continue to develop? If so, in what way would you speculate? That's a very exciting supposition as it relates to our human condition. (For example, would the universal/metaphysical qualities from the human concept of Love and sentience evolve into something different than what it is today?)

I thought that was your aim.
I'm not here to explain something that has no explanation, nor could have.
I just think that the idea there might be one is just hubris.

3. Are you able to explain what happened before the BB and how temporal time was created? I apologize if I misread something.

Are you?

4. With respect to no laws forbidding Multiverse, how does that relate to logically possible worlds existing? For instance, we know in logic you have things such as logically necessary truth's (the Ontological argument) based on a priori logic. Then you have logical possibility that cannot be disproved, but provides for logical inferences based on empirical data, which is very similar to the synthetic a priori judgement from physics that posit: all events must have a cause.

With respect to no laws forbidding Unicorns how do you account for the lack of magic virgins?

That said, how can we connect the dotes between random mutations/natural selection and the logical possibility of a 'design' from what we know of our cosmic conditions (laws of physics) that somehow morphs into consciousness itself? Using the OP/Models relative to human value systems (please refer to the OP), an input of physical matter that is processed into a conscious mind, along with the associated value systems of self-awareness (and metaphysical qualities of existence; love, beauty, the will, apperception of mathematics, music, the feelings of colors/aesthetics and other value systems), seem to produce something that is rich in organized complexity.

I do not know. But I can't wait to hear your inevitable account about "god".

And so, if your saying we are simply unable to make a complete connection metaphysically, in order to explain the nature of reality through the usual categories of rational human thought, does it not infer something beyond 'Kantian pure reason' as it were to explain that nature of existing things-in-themselves?

You are just putting words in my mouth here. I sure you can answer your own questions.

Alternatively, perhaps try to provide a more lucid argument for the development of consciousness from the aforementioned things in themselves aka: the relationship between mind and matter.

You are just putting words in my mouth here. I sure you can answer your own questions.

Thanks again Sculpter1 for your patience, I know this topic can be quite frustrating at times (and even to some extent emotionally charged). And I know you are passionate about your position, but please know you have provided sufficient counter points which in-turn is causing very intriguing discussion thus far!

Thank you.

There is nothing here to argue for or against.
History is littered with many failed attempts. The most likely answer is to take the position that Spinoza did. When he "proved god" he made himself atheistic. It's about accepting the universe as we find it; and to not pretend there is any over reaching account that give a universal purpose. Nor should we be so arrogant as to think that we humans are anything more than the temporary biological scum on the surface of an insignificant planet revolving around a third rate sun in an unfashionable arm of a minor galaxy.
I would suggest that were you to take on the notion that we as humans tend to see things through human eyes; that these filter out the wide raging objectivity of existence, and drive us towards and phoney "anthropic principle" you might get the hint that we only think there might be an answer to life the universe and everything when it is most probably that no such answer could ever exist.

[3017Metaphysician]

Sculpter1 ! Thanks for your reply.

Well, let's see, I'm not sure that really answered my question about how the "universe has no use for it". In other words, I interpret your response of the universe existing before and after us, as somehow a refutation of the Anthropic principle. Unfortunately I don't think your answer captured the concern here. I mean, for example, how do you know when the universe started, space-time started, and what an ending point will look like?

How do I know? If you are going to play solipsistic games I'm not really interested. Do you accept the fact that we are able to see million of galaxies and that for them to be visible they must have existed millions of years before humans, given the limitations set by Einsteinian physics on the velocity of light. Yes ot no?
If yes, then it is as obvious as the sun shines that the universe is of massive antiqity
Do you accept that humans have only existed for a short period of time, and that they have evolved from more simple simians and even earlier froms of life. Yes or no?
If yes, then it is very hard to avoid the conclusion that humans are insigifiicant, less than a speck of dust on the hide of an elephant.
What you call the Anthropic principle is like beergoggles tha make every woman seem beatiful on a Saturday Night at the Pub. The anthropic principle is nothing more than a filter in which we cannot saee the thing in itself; the cold, indifferent, meaningless universe, but foolishly thing the universe is made for us. Children thing the whole world is for them to play with, until the dog bites and the fire burns.

For instance, according to our current theories 'our' time did start with the big bang. I say our time, because it is plausible to think of other parallel universes with their own laws and times.

Parallel universes are not fantays. There is ZERO evidence for them.

No law forbids that other universes have more than one time dimension.

No law forbids that swans are pink, and that cats are smart enough to win PhDs. I ahave to say so what?

This implies an independent existence of some sort-something outside of temporal time started BB time.

No. This implies nothing what ever.

As far as what existed before the BB, you have two possible answers, either nothingness, no time no space no nothing. Or a pre BB universe with its own concept of time. Time can or cannot have an end, having a beginning does not logically imply it will have an end. And so, I'm not sure what your point is... ?

With respect to something that is beyond our current categories of logic and reason, I think your answer that refers to 'purpose' in itself, refutes your notion of purposeless. No? In other words, how do you reconcile the two forces, and/or features and qualities of our consciousness? In that case, humans feel the need to have purpose; love, intention, beauty, etc. etc., and if not, many choose not to have a will to live. Without purpose, whether it is an illusionary or not, is all part of our (metaphysical) will to be. How do you reconcile purposeless from our consciousness? And how are any of those biological features of consciousness integral to Darwinian survival and instinct?


And finally, your last point and interpretation about Kant may be a little misguided. What I was referring to is the existence of the synthetic a priori that comes from our conscious mind. In layman's terms, our sense of wonder has no biological survival value. If we wonder about how things exist (things-in-themselves) yet we are unable to actually make things (physical matter), we come away with something outside of ourselves that is causational. A concept of causation or super turtle or God. Hence, all events must have a cause. That is my notion of transcendence. The irony there is, all physical theories start with synthetic propositions and judgements. Thoughts?

Thanks Sculpter1 for your reply! Allow me to answer your questions in a succinct matter:

1. Yes, I accept that the universe is old. I think the measurements made by NASA's WMAP spacecraft have shown that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, plus or minus about 130,000 years. How does that explain conscious existence though?

I'm not looking to explain anything.
I'm simply saying that the anthropopic principle is not valid.

2. Yes, comparative to the age of the universe:

Approximately 300,000 years ago, the first Homo sapiens — anatomically modern humans — arose alongside our other hominid relatives. It is unknown whether we descended directly from Homo erectus, heidelbergensis, or antecessor, although Neanderthals, which came slightly later at 240,000 years ago, most certainly came from Homo heidelbergensis. Modern speech is thought to have arisen almost as soon as Homo sapiens did.

It took 13.8 billion years of cosmic history for the first human beings to arise, and we did so relatively recently: just 300,000 years ago. 99.998% of the time that passed since the Big Bang had no human beings at all; our entire species has only existed for the most recent 0.002% of the Universe. Yet, in that short time, we've managed to figure out the entire cosmic story that led to our existence. Fortunately, the story won't end with us, as it's still being written.

This is not "succinct", nor is any of that detail relevant.
I have a degree in archaeology so really could do without the copy& paste. What is your point?

Accordingly, how does that explain conscious existence (consciousness), and do you think that consciousness itself will continue to develop? If so, in what way would you speculate? That's a very exciting supposition as it relates to our human condition. (For example, would the universal/metaphysical qualities from the human concept of Love and sentience evolve into something different than what it is today?)

I thought that was your aim.
I'm not here to explain something that has no explanation, nor could have.
I just think that the idea there might be one is just hubris.

3. Are you able to explain what happened before the BB and how temporal time was created? I apologize if I misread something.

Are you?

4. With respect to no laws forbidding Multiverse, how does that relate to logically possible worlds existing? For instance, we know in logic you have things such as logically necessary truth's (the Ontological argument) based on a priori logic. Then you have logical possibility that cannot be disproved, but provides for logical inferences based on empirical data, which is very similar to the synthetic a priori judgement from physics that posit: all events must have a cause.

With respect to no laws forbidding Unicorns how do you account for the lack of magic virgins?

That said, how can we connect the dotes between random mutations/natural selection and the logical possibility of a 'design' from what we know of our cosmic conditions (laws of physics) that somehow morphs into consciousness itself? Using the OP/Models relative to human value systems (please refer to the OP), an input of physical matter that is processed into a conscious mind, along with the associated value systems of self-awareness (and metaphysical qualities of existence; love, beauty, the will, apperception of mathematics, music, the feelings of colors/aesthetics and other value systems), seem to produce something that is rich in organized complexity.

I do not know. But I can't wait to hear your inevitable account about "god".

And so, if your saying we are simply unable to make a complete connection metaphysically, in order to explain the nature of reality through the usual categories of rational human thought, does it not infer something beyond 'Kantian pure reason' as it were to explain that nature of existing things-in-themselves?

You are just putting words in my mouth here. I sure you can answer your own questions.

Alternatively, perhaps try to provide a more lucid argument for the development of consciousness from the aforementioned things in themselves aka: the relationship between mind and matter.

You are just putting words in my mouth here. I sure you can answer your own questions.

Thanks again Sculpter1 for your patience, I know this topic can be quite frustrating at times (and even to some extent emotionally charged). And I know you are passionate about your position, but please know you have provided sufficient counter points which in-turn is causing very intriguing discussion thus far!

Thank you.

There is nothing here to argue for or against.
History is littered with many failed attempts. The most likely answer is to take the position that Spinoza did. When he "proved god" he made himself atheistic. It's about accepting the universe as we find it; and to not pretend there is any over reaching account that give a universal purpose. Nor should we be so arrogant as to think that we humans are anything more than the temporary biological scum on the surface of an insignificant planet revolving around a third rate sun in an unfashionable arm of a minor galaxy.
I would suggest that were you to take on the notion that we as humans tend to see things through human eyes; that these filter out the wide raging objectivity of existence, and drive us towards and phoney "anthropic principle" you might get the hint that we only think there might be an answer to life the universe and everything when it is most probably that no such answer could ever exist.

Hey Sculper1, happy Friday!

Gosh, I hope you are not throwing in the towel I mean, if you are finding some difficulty in supporting your position, I certainly understand that. Metaphysics, is the study of topics 'about' physics, as apposed to the scientific subject itself. Traditional metaphysical problems include the origin, nature, and purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying reality and order, the relationship between mind and matter (as discussed here), and the existence of the Will.

Before we go any further, let me offer an observation thus far from our dialogue (or discourse, but wouldn't want associate your ad hoc with philosophical discourse), you seem to be moving the goal post. Please don't take this the wrong way, you seem to be shifting your goal from arguing the merits of 'universal meaninglessness' or consciousness to a straw man or ad hoc response that basically says; without sufficient reason, I simply don't like the Anthropic principle and that's because I have a dogmatic position that can't possibly be accepted as wrong without losing face.

I hope I'm wrong there. On the other hand, maybe you are thinking that this is a religious thread, but am not sure. It certainly is not, though many consider the similarities as such. As discussed, it's what is known in philosophy as Metaphysics (emphasis intended). I say this because I gather from one of your answers (which suggests an emotional response towards a concept of a God or a super-turtle) that there may be an aversion toward same. To this end, if you wish to debate the logic of atheism, please start another thread, as I would be more than happy to participate. Generally speaking, the one common theme to Metaphysics is that atheism/theism is a belief system that is something beyond pure reason or logic. Accordingly, that may well be where you are getting tripped-up and not grasping the point. Again, I would be happy to debate that particular subject matter with you if you would like to in another thread. Maybe call it something like, is atheism/theism logical?

Be that as it may, rather than argue your ad hoc, I'll just answer the questions that you've posed:

1. The point about positing the history of the universe, and the humans in it, was to speak to your concern that somehow the age of the universe makes the Anthropic position invalid. Thus far your responses are ad hoc.

2. I asked you about what happened before the BB because you seemed to know precisely why and how humans appeared on the scene. Not to mention your prowess about Time itself, and how that came into being. Thus far your responses are ad hoc.

3. With respect to no laws forbidding Multiverse, you haven't parsed the meaning of logical necessity and logical possibility, much less provided support for your position that the universe has no intended purpose and that's there is no relationship between consciousness and matter. (Not to mention the other Metaphysical arguments concerning the nature of existence and reality and conscious life itself-self-awareness.)

[Sculptor1]

How do I know? If you are going to play solipsistic games I'm not really interested. Do you accept the fact that we are able to see million of galaxies and that for them to be visible they must have existed millions of years before humans, given the limitations set by Einsteinian physics on the velocity of light. Yes ot no?
If yes, then it is as obvious as the sun shines that the universe is of massive antiqity
Do you accept that humans have only existed for a short period of time, and that they have evolved from more simple simians and even earlier froms of life. Yes or no?
If yes, then it is very hard to avoid the conclusion that humans are insigifiicant, less than a speck of dust on the hide of an elephant.
What you call the Anthropic principle is like beergoggles tha make every woman seem beatiful on a Saturday Night at the Pub. The anthropic principle is nothing more than a filter in which we cannot saee the thing in itself; the cold, indifferent, meaningless universe, but foolishly thing the universe is made for us. Children thing the whole world is for them to play with, until the dog bites and the fire burns.

Parallel universes are not fantays. There is ZERO evidence for them.

No law forbids that swans are pink, and that cats are smart enough to win PhDs. I ahave to say so what?

No. This implies nothing what ever.

Thanks Sculpter1 for your reply! Allow me to answer your questions in a succinct matter:

1. Yes, I accept that the universe is old. I think the measurements made by NASA's WMAP spacecraft have shown that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, plus or minus about 130,000 years. How does that explain conscious existence though?

I'm not looking to explain anything.
I'm simply saying that the anthropopic principle is not valid.

2. Yes, comparative to the age of the universe:

Approximately 300,000 years ago, the first Homo sapiens — anatomically modern humans — arose alongside our other hominid relatives. It is unknown whether we descended directly from Homo erectus, heidelbergensis, or antecessor, although Neanderthals, which came slightly later at 240,000 years ago, most certainly came from Homo heidelbergensis. Modern speech is thought to have arisen almost as soon as Homo sapiens did.

It took 13.8 billion years of cosmic history for the first human beings to arise, and we did so relatively recently: just 300,000 years ago. 99.998% of the time that passed since the Big Bang had no human beings at all; our entire species has only existed for the most recent 0.002% of the Universe. Yet, in that short time, we've managed to figure out the entire cosmic story that led to our existence. Fortunately, the story won't end with us, as it's still being written.

This is not "succinct", nor is any of that detail relevant.
I have a degree in archaeology so really could do without the copy& paste. What is your point?

Accordingly, how does that explain conscious existence (consciousness), and do you think that consciousness itself will continue to develop? If so, in what way would you speculate? That's a very exciting supposition as it relates to our human condition. (For example, would the universal/metaphysical qualities from the human concept of Love and sentience evolve into something different than what it is today?)

I thought that was your aim.
I'm not here to explain something that has no explanation, nor could have.
I just think that the idea there might be one is just hubris.

3. Are you able to explain what happened before the BB and how temporal time was created? I apologize if I misread something.

Are you?

4. With respect to no laws forbidding Multiverse, how does that relate to logically possible worlds existing? For instance, we know in logic you have things such as logically necessary truth's (the Ontological argument) based on a priori logic. Then you have logical possibility that cannot be disproved, but provides for logical inferences based on empirical data, which is very similar to the synthetic a priori judgement from physics that posit: all events must have a cause.

With respect to no laws forbidding Unicorns how do you account for the lack of magic virgins?

That said, how can we connect the dotes between random mutations/natural selection and the logical possibility of a 'design' from what we know of our cosmic conditions (laws of physics) that somehow morphs into consciousness itself? Using the OP/Models relative to human value systems (please refer to the OP), an input of physical matter that is processed into a conscious mind, along with the associated value systems of self-awareness (and metaphysical qualities of existence; love, beauty, the will, apperception of mathematics, music, the feelings of colors/aesthetics and other value systems), seem to produce something that is rich in organized complexity.

I do not know. But I can't wait to hear your inevitable account about "god".

And so, if your saying we are simply unable to make a complete connection metaphysically, in order to explain the nature of reality through the usual categories of rational human thought, does it not infer something beyond 'Kantian pure reason' as it were to explain that nature of existing things-in-themselves?

You are just putting words in my mouth here. I sure you can answer your own questions.

Alternatively, perhaps try to provide a more lucid argument for the development of consciousness from the aforementioned things in themselves aka: the relationship between mind and matter.

You are just putting words in my mouth here. I sure you can answer your own questions.

Thanks again Sculpter1 for your patience, I know this topic can be quite frustrating at times (and even to some extent emotionally charged). And I know you are passionate about your position, but please know you have provided sufficient counter points which in-turn is causing very intriguing discussion thus far!

Thank you.

There is nothing here to argue for or against.
History is littered with many failed attempts. The most likely answer is to take the position that Spinoza did. When he "proved god" he made himself atheistic. It's about accepting the universe as we find it; and to not pretend there is any over reaching account that give a universal purpose. Nor should we be so arrogant as to think that we humans are anything more than the temporary biological scum on the surface of an insignificant planet revolving around a third rate sun in an unfashionable arm of a minor galaxy.
I would suggest that were you to take on the notion that we as humans tend to see things through human eyes; that these filter out the wide raging objectivity of existence, and drive us towards and phoney "anthropic principle" you might get the hint that we only think there might be an answer to life the universe and everything when it is most probably that no such answer could ever exist.

Hey Sculper1, happy Friday!

Gosh, I hope you are not throwing in the towel I mean, if you are finding some difficulty in supporting your position,

tututut! Passive agressive.
THis is your thread. I do not have a position I need to support. That is your burden, not mine.

I certainly understand that. Metaphysics, is the study of topics 'about' physics, as apposed to the scientific subject itself. Traditional metaphysical problems include the origin, nature, and purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying reality and order, the relationship between mind and matter (as discussed here), and the existence of the Will.

Metaphysics has no answers. It only says what something is like to be. Metaphysics only examines the concepts, but has not role in empirically establisheing any reality. Maybe that is where you are confused here?

Before we go any further, let me offer an observation thus far from our dialogue (or discourse, but wouldn't want associate your ad hoc with philosophical discourse), you seem to be moving the goal post. Please don't take this the wrong way, you seem to be shifting your goal from arguing the merits of 'universal meaninglessness' or consciousness to a straw man or ad hoc response that basically says; without sufficient reason, I simply don't like the Anthropic principle and that's because I have a dogmatic position that can't possibly be accepted as wrong without losing face.

Don't take it the worng way? That is funny.
THe goals posts are pretty much set by the content of the thread. You still have to define, justify and defend this thing you call an "Antropic Principle" - I have yet to see evidence of your efforts in this respect. When you do that we'll see about me assessing what you think it is. Until then you have to take my contributions as they are. You have said very little yourself.

I hope I'm wrong there.

You have not worries on that score. You definitley are.

On the other hand, maybe you are thinking that this is a religious thread, but am not sure. It certainly is not, though many consider the similarities as such. As discussed, it's what is known in philosophy as Metaphysics (emphasis intended). I say this because I gather from one of your answers (which suggests an emotional response towards a concept of a God or a super-turtle) that there may be an aversion toward same. To this end, if you wish to debate the logic of atheism, please start another thread, as I would be more than happy to participate. Generally speaking, the one common theme to Metaphysics is that atheism/theism is a belief system that is something beyond pure reason or logic. Accordingly, that may well be where you are getting tripped-up and not grasping the point. Again, I would be happy to debate that particular subject matter with you if you would like to in another thread. Maybe call it something like, is atheism/theism logical?

Thanks for the dance. But perhaps it is time to say what the thread is about now?

Be that as it may, rather than argue your ad hoc, I'll just answer the questions that you've posed:

1. The point about positing the history of the universe, and the humans in it, was to speak to your concern that somehow the age of the universe makes the Anthropic position invalid. Thus far your responses are ad hoc.

Please indicate how this might be wrong.

2. I asked you about what happened before the BB because you seemed to know precisely why and how humans appeared on the scene. Not to mention your prowess about Time itself, and how that came into being. Thus far your responses are ad hoc.

Neither you nor I nor anyone at anytime could ever make any statement about that. It is thought that the BB also represents the beginning of time. Making your question LOGICALLY meaningless. That is either true, or not. If not, we are still clueless about the idea.
So what ask the question.

3. With respect to no laws forbidding Multiverse, you haven't parsed the meaning of logical necessity and logical possibility, much less provided support for your position that the universe has no intended purpose and that's there is no relationship between consciousness and matter. (Not to mention the other Metaphysical arguments concerning the nature of existence and reality and conscious life itself-self-awareness.)

Multiverses, are no better than Before the BB. Why waste time on things you have no insight or evidence of. You seem to have missed my humour.
Please indicate the extent of the power of the horn of a unicorn, because, as we all know, there are no laws forbidding the existence of unicorns.

PS it is Sculptor, not Sculpter.

[3017Metaphysician]

Thanks Sculpter1 for your reply! Allow me to answer your questions in a succinct matter:

1. Yes, I accept that the universe is old. I think the measurements made by NASA's WMAP spacecraft have shown that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, plus or minus about 130,000 years. How does that explain conscious existence though?

I'm not looking to explain anything.
I'm simply saying that the anthropopic principle is not valid.

2. Yes, comparative to the age of the universe:

Approximately 300,000 years ago, the first Homo sapiens — anatomically modern humans — arose alongside our other hominid relatives. It is unknown whether we descended directly from Homo erectus, heidelbergensis, or antecessor, although Neanderthals, which came slightly later at 240,000 years ago, most certainly came from Homo heidelbergensis. Modern speech is thought to have arisen almost as soon as Homo sapiens did.

It took 13.8 billion years of cosmic history for the first human beings to arise, and we did so relatively recently: just 300,000 years ago. 99.998% of the time that passed since the Big Bang had no human beings at all; our entire species has only existed for the most recent 0.002% of the Universe. Yet, in that short time, we've managed to figure out the entire cosmic story that led to our existence. Fortunately, the story won't end with us, as it's still being written.

This is not "succinct", nor is any of that detail relevant.
I have a degree in archaeology so really could do without the copy& paste. What is your point?

Accordingly, how does that explain conscious existence (consciousness), and do you think that consciousness itself will continue to develop? If so, in what way would you speculate? That's a very exciting supposition as it relates to our human condition. (For example, would the universal/metaphysical qualities from the human concept of Love and sentience evolve into something different than what it is today?)

I thought that was your aim.
I'm not here to explain something that has no explanation, nor could have.
I just think that the idea there might be one is just hubris.

3. Are you able to explain what happened before the BB and how temporal time was created? I apologize if I misread something.

Are you?

4. With respect to no laws forbidding Multiverse, how does that relate to logically possible worlds existing? For instance, we know in logic you have things such as logically necessary truth's (the Ontological argument) based on a priori logic. Then you have logical possibility that cannot be disproved, but provides for logical inferences based on empirical data, which is very similar to the synthetic a priori judgement from physics that posit: all events must have a cause.

With respect to no laws forbidding Unicorns how do you account for the lack of magic virgins?

That said, how can we connect the dotes between random mutations/natural selection and the logical possibility of a 'design' from what we know of our cosmic conditions (laws of physics) that somehow morphs into consciousness itself? Using the OP/Models relative to human value systems (please refer to the OP), an input of physical matter that is processed into a conscious mind, along with the associated value systems of self-awareness (and metaphysical qualities of existence; love, beauty, the will, apperception of mathematics, music, the feelings of colors/aesthetics and other value systems), seem to produce something that is rich in organized complexity.

I do not know. But I can't wait to hear your inevitable account about "god".

And so, if your saying we are simply unable to make a complete connection metaphysically, in order to explain the nature of reality through the usual categories of rational human thought, does it not infer something beyond 'Kantian pure reason' as it were to explain that nature of existing things-in-themselves?

You are just putting words in my mouth here. I sure you can answer your own questions.

Alternatively, perhaps try to provide a more lucid argument for the development of consciousness from the aforementioned things in themselves aka: the relationship between mind and matter.

You are just putting words in my mouth here. I sure you can answer your own questions.

Thanks again Sculpter1 for your patience, I know this topic can be quite frustrating at times (and even to some extent emotionally charged). And I know you are passionate about your position, but please know you have provided sufficient counter points which in-turn is causing very intriguing discussion thus far!

Thank you.

There is nothing here to argue for or against.
History is littered with many failed attempts. The most likely answer is to take the position that Spinoza did. When he "proved god" he made himself atheistic. It's about accepting the universe as we find it; and to not pretend there is any over reaching account that give a universal purpose. Nor should we be so arrogant as to think that we humans are anything more than the temporary biological scum on the surface of an insignificant planet revolving around a third rate sun in an unfashionable arm of a minor galaxy.
I would suggest that were you to take on the notion that we as humans tend to see things through human eyes; that these filter out the wide raging objectivity of existence, and drive us towards and phoney "anthropic principle" you might get the hint that we only think there might be an answer to life the universe and everything when it is most probably that no such answer could ever exist.

Hey Sculper1, happy Friday!

Gosh, I hope you are not throwing in the towel I mean, if you are finding some difficulty in supporting your position,

tututut! Passive agressive.
THis is your thread. I do not have a position I need to support. That is your burden, not mine.

I certainly understand that. Metaphysics, is the study of topics 'about' physics, as apposed to the scientific subject itself. Traditional metaphysical problems include the origin, nature, and purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying reality and order, the relationship between mind and matter (as discussed here), and the existence of the Will.

Metaphysics has no answers. It only says what something is like to be. Metaphysics only examines the concepts, but has not role in empirically establisheing any reality. Maybe that is where you are confused here?

Before we go any further, let me offer an observation thus far from our dialogue (or discourse, but wouldn't want associate your ad hoc with philosophical discourse), you seem to be moving the goal post. Please don't take this the wrong way, you seem to be shifting your goal from arguing the merits of 'universal meaninglessness' or consciousness to a straw man or ad hoc response that basically says; without sufficient reason, I simply don't like the Anthropic principle and that's because I have a dogmatic position that can't possibly be accepted as wrong without losing face.

Don't take it the worng way? That is funny.
THe goals posts are pretty much set by the content of the thread. You still have to define, justify and defend this thing you call an "Antropic Principle" - I have yet to see evidence of your efforts in this respect. When you do that we'll see about me assessing what you think it is. Until then you have to take my contributions as they are. You have said very little yourself.

I hope I'm wrong there.

You have not worries on that score. You definitley are.

On the other hand, maybe you are thinking that this is a religious thread, but am not sure. It certainly is not, though many consider the similarities as such. As discussed, it's what is known in philosophy as Metaphysics (emphasis intended). I say this because I gather from one of your answers (which suggests an emotional response towards a concept of a God or a super-turtle) that there may be an aversion toward same. To this end, if you wish to debate the logic of atheism, please start another thread, as I would be more than happy to participate. Generally speaking, the one common theme to Metaphysics is that atheism/theism is a belief system that is something beyond pure reason or logic. Accordingly, that may well be where you are getting tripped-up and not grasping the point. Again, I would be happy to debate that particular subject matter with you if you would like to in another thread. Maybe call it something like, is atheism/theism logical?

Thanks for the dance. But perhaps it is time to say what the thread is about now?

Be that as it may, rather than argue your ad hoc, I'll just answer the questions that you've posed:

1. The point about positing the history of the universe, and the humans in it, was to speak to your concern that somehow the age of the universe makes the Anthropic position invalid. Thus far your responses are ad hoc.

Please indicate how this might be wrong.

2. I asked you about what happened before the BB because you seemed to know precisely why and how humans appeared on the scene. Not to mention your prowess about Time itself, and how that came into being. Thus far your responses are ad hoc.

Neither you nor I nor anyone at anytime could ever make any statement about that. It is thought that the BB also represents the beginning of time. Making your question LOGICALLY meaningless. That is either true, or not. If not, we are still clueless about the idea.
So what ask the question.

3. With respect to no laws forbidding Multiverse, you haven't parsed the meaning of logical necessity and logical possibility, much less provided support for your position that the universe has no intended purpose and that's there is no relationship between consciousness and matter. (Not to mention the other Metaphysical arguments concerning the nature of existence and reality and conscious life itself-self-awareness.)

Multiverses, are no better than Before the BB. Why waste time on things you have no insight or evidence of. You seem to have missed my humour.
Please indicate the extent of the power of the horn of a unicorn, because, as we all know, there are no laws forbidding the existence of unicorns.

PS it is Sculptor, not Sculpter.

Hello Sculpt-or1, I hope you have a good weekend!!

Allow me offer an olive branch for you to consider. Since metaphysics may not be your strong suit, or at least the best method in arguing your points against the various Anthropic conditions (metaphysical features of reality/the nature of existence), would you care to open a thread in the religion section to argue the logic associated with atheism? I would be more than happy to participate. Call it : Atheism is logical.

I make this suggestion because I'm sensing you may have an axe to grind here. Since logically, you haven't been able to answer any of the questions relative to consciousness and cosmology, I'm thinking you might have better success in a religious context. Please don't take this the wrong way, it's just a suggestion. Or if you prefer to look at it as a challenge, I'm certainly okay with that too.

Alternatively, would you like me to summarize all of the metaphysical questions that seem to be tripping you up in defense of your position? I would be happy to do so, just let me know. Perhaps that would be another way to salvage the concerns v. your ad hoc.

Thanks again for your interest!

[Sculptor1]

I'm not looking to explain anything.
I'm simply saying that the anthropopic principle is not valid.

This is not "succinct", nor is any of that detail relevant.
I have a degree in archaeology so really could do without the copy& paste. What is your point?

I thought that was your aim.
I'm not here to explain something that has no explanation, nor could have.
I just think that the idea there might be one is just hubris.

Are you?

With respect to no laws forbidding Unicorns how do you account for the lack of magic virgins?

I do not know. But I can't wait to hear your inevitable account about "god".

You are just putting words in my mouth here. I sure you can answer your own questions.

You are just putting words in my mouth here. I sure you can answer your own questions.


There is nothing here to argue for or against.
History is littered with many failed attempts. The most likely answer is to take the position that Spinoza did. When he "proved god" he made himself atheistic. It's about accepting the universe as we find it; and to not pretend there is any over reaching account that give a universal purpose. Nor should we be so arrogant as to think that we humans are anything more than the temporary biological scum on the surface of an insignificant planet revolving around a third rate sun in an unfashionable arm of a minor galaxy.
I would suggest that were you to take on the notion that we as humans tend to see things through human eyes; that these filter out the wide raging objectivity of existence, and drive us towards and phoney "anthropic principle" you might get the hint that we only think there might be an answer to life the universe and everything when it is most probably that no such answer could ever exist.

Hey Sculper1, happy Friday!

Gosh, I hope you are not throwing in the towel I mean, if you are finding some difficulty in supporting your position,

tututut! Passive agressive.
THis is your thread. I do not have a position I need to support. That is your burden, not mine.

I certainly understand that. Metaphysics, is the study of topics 'about' physics, as apposed to the scientific subject itself. Traditional metaphysical problems include the origin, nature, and purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying reality and order, the relationship between mind and matter (as discussed here), and the existence of the Will.

Metaphysics has no answers. It only says what something is like to be. Metaphysics only examines the concepts, but has not role in empirically establisheing any reality. Maybe that is where you are confused here?

Before we go any further, let me offer an observation thus far from our dialogue (or discourse, but wouldn't want associate your ad hoc with philosophical discourse), you seem to be moving the goal post. Please don't take this the wrong way, you seem to be shifting your goal from arguing the merits of 'universal meaninglessness' or consciousness to a straw man or ad hoc response that basically says; without sufficient reason, I simply don't like the Anthropic principle and that's because I have a dogmatic position that can't possibly be accepted as wrong without losing face.

Don't take it the worng way? That is funny.
THe goals posts are pretty much set by the content of the thread. You still have to define, justify and defend this thing you call an "Antropic Principle" - I have yet to see evidence of your efforts in this respect. When you do that we'll see about me assessing what you think it is. Until then you have to take my contributions as they are. You have said very little yourself.

I hope I'm wrong there.

You have not worries on that score. You definitley are.

On the other hand, maybe you are thinking that this is a religious thread, but am not sure. It certainly is not, though many consider the similarities as such. As discussed, it's what is known in philosophy as Metaphysics (emphasis intended). I say this because I gather from one of your answers (which suggests an emotional response towards a concept of a God or a super-turtle) that there may be an aversion toward same. To this end, if you wish to debate the logic of atheism, please start another thread, as I would be more than happy to participate. Generally speaking, the one common theme to Metaphysics is that atheism/theism is a belief system that is something beyond pure reason or logic. Accordingly, that may well be where you are getting tripped-up and not grasping the point. Again, I would be happy to debate that particular subject matter with you if you would like to in another thread. Maybe call it something like, is atheism/theism logical?

Thanks for the dance. But perhaps it is time to say what the thread is about now?

Be that as it may, rather than argue your ad hoc, I'll just answer the questions that you've posed:

1. The point about positing the history of the universe, and the humans in it, was to speak to your concern that somehow the age of the universe makes the Anthropic position invalid. Thus far your responses are ad hoc.

Please indicate how this might be wrong.

2. I asked you about what happened before the BB because you seemed to know precisely why and how humans appeared on the scene. Not to mention your prowess about Time itself, and how that came into being. Thus far your responses are ad hoc.

Neither you nor I nor anyone at anytime could ever make any statement about that. It is thought that the BB also represents the beginning of time. Making your question LOGICALLY meaningless. That is either true, or not. If not, we are still clueless about the idea.
So what ask the question.

3. With respect to no laws forbidding Multiverse, you haven't parsed the meaning of logical necessity and logical possibility, much less provided support for your position that the universe has no intended purpose and that's there is no relationship between consciousness and matter. (Not to mention the other Metaphysical arguments concerning the nature of existence and reality and conscious life itself-self-awareness.)

Multiverses, are no better than Before the BB. Why waste time on things you have no insight or evidence of. You seem to have missed my humour.
Please indicate the extent of the power of the horn of a unicorn, because, as we all know, there are no laws forbidding the existence of unicorns.

PS it is Sculptor, not Sculpter.

Hello Sculpt-or1, I hope you have a good weekend!!

Allow me offer an olive branch for you to consider. Since metaphysics may not be your strong suit,

An olive branch does not usually come with an insult.

.. or at least the best method in arguing your points against the various Anthropic conditions (metaphysical features of reality/the nature of existence), would you care to open a thread in the religion section to argue the logic associated with atheism? I would be more than happy to participate. Call it : Atheism is logical.

I make this suggestion because I'm sensing you may have an axe to grind here. Since logically, you haven't been able to answer any of the questions relative to consciousness and cosmology, I'm thinking you might have better success in a religious context. Please don't take this the wrong way, it's just a suggestion. Or if you prefer to look at it as a challenge, I'm certainly okay with that too.

Alternatively, would you like me to summarize all of the metaphysical questions that seem to be tripping you up in defense of your position? I would be happy to do so, just let me know. Perhaps that would be another way to salvage the concerns v. your ad hoc.

Thanks again for your interest!

Please answer the questions I put to you.
You are still beating around the bush.
I wonder if you really understand what metaphysics is? It is not an alternative physics. It is a method of discussion about the basis for the concepts from which physics is available to us. It asks what is it like to know gravity, or light. What are the limits of the use of abstractions and concepts, and how can they be critiqued.
There are many who have the Anthropic principle precisely backwards. I believe that you might be one of those persons.
The fact is that humans are adjusted to the environment; the universe is not adjested TO the Anthropic principle, but rather the idea of the AP is a consequence of humans being the observers. It is highly unlikely that this is some sort of special case since we have yet to meet the other civilisations that are likley to teem throughout the billions of galaxies each with billions of planets. One has to wonder if also the bugblatter beasts of Traaal think that the universe is based upon the Bugblatic principle?
Generally any credibility for the AP is limited to the consequent since by and large Space and all know planets are utterly hostile to the needs of human flesh.

[Atla]

Initial Conditions--->Laws of Physics--->Organized Complexity

The universe starts out in some relatively simple and featureless initial state, which is then processed by the laws of physics to produce an output state which is rich in organized complexity. This is a symbolic representation of the cosmic evolution.

This view creates more problems than it solves. Now we have to explain how the laws of physics somehow "process" the universe, and we also have to explain how these laws came to be / how they evolved in the first place.

Matter--->Laws of Physics---> Mind

The evolution of matter from simplicity to complexity represented from the foregoing includes the production of conscious organisms from initially inanimate matter.

There is also no reason to think that the laws of physics can make this quite impossible jump from inanimate matter to animate matter possible.

Primates--->Value Systems--->Humans

Self awareness is somehow produced by a value system that includes many intellectual concepts of sentient phenomena. Intention, will, beauty, ingenuity, mathematics, music, love, the color red, etc., and other metaphysically abstract structures/concepts are part of this value system.

Looks like a wrong idea from phenomenology, where 'value' is seen as the basis of human existence or something like that.

[3017Metaphysician]

Initial Conditions--->Laws of Physics--->Organized Complexity

The universe starts out in some relatively simple and featureless initial state, which is then processed by the laws of physics to produce an output state which is rich in organized complexity. This is a symbolic representation of the cosmic evolution.

This view creates more problems than it solves. Now we have to explain how the laws of physics somehow "process" the universe, and we also have to explain how these laws came to be / how they evolved in the first place.

Matter--->Laws of Physics---> Mind

The evolution of matter from simplicity to complexity represented from the foregoing includes the production of conscious organisms from initially inanimate matter.

There is also no reason to think that the laws of physics can make this quite impossible jump from inanimate matter to animate matter possible.

Primates--->Value Systems--->Humans

Self awareness is somehow produced by a value system that includes many intellectual concepts of sentient phenomena. Intention, will, beauty, ingenuity, mathematics, music, love, the color red, etc., and other metaphysically abstract structures/concepts are part of this value system.

Looks like a wrong idea from phenomenology, where 'value' is seen as the basis of human existence or something like that.

Hello Alta! Thank you for your thoughts and contribution.

With respect to the problem of why abstract mathematical structures so effectively explain the universe and our cosmological conditions, we know the ongoing debate is insoluble. Much like many existential features of the human condition and the mind itself, as you know, there is ongoing discourse associated with whether mathematics is out there to be discovered, or whether it's a human invention.

None-the-less to support an anthropic model that includes human value systems, we can see the parallel between other abstract structures from consciousness (love, the will, Kantian aesthetics, wonderment, music, intuition, intention, Schopenhauer metaphysics, sentience...) itself. So in this sense I would agree, it is perhaps a wonderful problem to have... any thoughts?

With respect to your second point, could we be saying the laws of physics (mathematics/metaphysics) is an ancillary feature of human consciousness (not required for darwinian survival)? I ask this because if we agree mathematics itself cannot explain how inanimate matter becomes animent matter, and that the nature of reality ( neurons, protons etc.) at its most fundamental level can only be described mathematically, how do we reconcile those important abstract features of existence, reality and consciousness? In other words what do any of these foregoing abstract features have in common and what is their purpose... .

Finally, to remove phenomenology from human value systems would essentially mean to remove the concept of Anthropology from the universe; there would be no need or reason to make a connection in the first place and posit same. The concept of value (systems) in itself, relates directly to self-aware conscious beings with higher levels of intellect... .

[Atla]

Hello Alta! Thank you for your thoughts and contribution.

With respect to the problem of why abstract mathematical structures so effectively explain the universe and our cosmological conditions, we know the ongoing debate is insoluble. Much like many existential features of the human condition and the mind itself, as you know, there is ongoing discourse associated with whether mathematics is out there to be discovered, or whether it's a human invention.

None-the-less to support an anthropic model that includes human value systems, we can see the parallel between other abstract structures from consciousness (love, the will, Kantian aesthetics, wonderment, music, intuition, intention, Schopenhauer metaphysics, sentience...) itself. So in this sense I would agree, it is perhaps a wonderful problem to have... any thoughts?

With respect to your second point, could we be saying the laws of physics (mathematics/metaphysics) is an ancillary feature of human consciousness (not required for darwinian survival)? I ask this because if we agree mathematics itself cannot explain how inanimate matter becomes animent matter, and that the nature of reality ( neurons, protons etc.) at its most fundamental level can only be described mathematically, how do we reconcile those important abstract features of existence, reality and consciousness? In other words what do any of these foregoing abstract features have in common and what is their purpose... .

Finally, to remove phenomenology from human value systems would essentially mean to remove the concept of Anthropology from the universe; there would be no need or reason to make a connection in the first place and posit same. The concept of value (systems) in itself, relates directly to self-aware conscious beings with higher levels of intellect... .

But why would values be needed for self-awareness? I guess the simplest refutation of this is when we meet a self-aware psychopath.

The Anthropic principle works just fine without a central role for value systems. It just says that a self-aware, intelligent organism will necessarily find itself in a world capable of producing a self-aware, intelligent organism. Maybe ultimately we are here to give the universe purpose, values, maybe something else is going on altogether.

[3017Metaphysician]

Hello Alta! Thank you for your thoughts and contribution.

With respect to the problem of why abstract mathematical structures so effectively explain the universe and our cosmological conditions, we know the ongoing debate is insoluble. Much like many existential features of the human condition and the mind itself, as you know, there is ongoing discourse associated with whether mathematics is out there to be discovered, or whether it's a human invention.

None-the-less to support an anthropic model that includes human value systems, we can see the parallel between other abstract structures from consciousness (love, the will, Kantian aesthetics, wonderment, music, intuition, intention, Schopenhauer metaphysics, sentience...) itself. So in this sense I would agree, it is perhaps a wonderful problem to have... any thoughts?

With respect to your second point, could we be saying the laws of physics (mathematics/metaphysics) is an ancillary feature of human consciousness (not required for darwinian survival)? I ask this because if we agree mathematics itself cannot explain how inanimate matter becomes animent matter, and that the nature of reality ( neurons, protons etc.) at its most fundamental level can only be described mathematically, how do we reconcile those important abstract features of existence, reality and consciousness? In other words what do any of these foregoing abstract features have in common and what is their purpose... .

Finally, to remove phenomenology from human value systems would essentially mean to remove the concept of Anthropology from the universe; there would be no need or reason to make a connection in the first place and posit same. The concept of value (systems) in itself, relates directly to self-aware conscious beings with higher levels of intellect... .

But why would values be needed for self-awareness? I guess the simplest refutation of this is when we meet a self-aware psychopath.

The Anthropic principle works just fine without a central role for value systems. It just says that a self-aware, intelligent organism will necessarily find itself in a world capable of producing a self-aware, intelligent organism. Maybe ultimately we are here to give the universe purpose, values, maybe something else is going on altogether.

Alta!

That's a great question. I believe value systems are subordinate to self-awareness. Much like the will to be, over intellect. Meaning, I think self-awareness causes such value systems to come into being which is intrinsic to why people have the desire to go on living. It is important to their way of Being. And that is apparently different from lower level life forms of instinct. In other words, one's own subjective truth would be one example of this distinction between self-aware beings and lower life forms. Lower life forms, of course, would not have the intellect and the reasoning capabilities associated with such higher levels of self-awareness. And those value systems in themselves, are abstract metaphysical features of the mind, much like all the other metaphysical languages and phenom from consciousness we've been discussing... .

Another way of looking at it would be an obvious layman's comparison. Imagine that there were no human lifeforms but instead, just lower level life forms such as plants and animals. The concept of Anthropology itself would not exist. At the very least, you may even say out of logical necessity, that it does exist.

But the existential part of the so-called human condition, as you alluded, is that we cannot escape this need to seek happiness and purpose. Our intentions are to seek out ways to discover and uncover a certain way of Being. That's pretty distinct from ordinary instinct, since the Will itself, provides for such purpose, each person still has to find their own unique way of being-happy. The painter must paint, the scientist must research, the doctor must discover, the teacher must teach, the musician must make music, the writer must write, the carpenter must build, ad nauseum.

Along with our sense of wonder (i.e., causation, etc.), those things are part of human value systems.