[MD] Dawkins quotes RMP on religion.

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Ian]
Yes, the conjecture is a hypothesis - nothing more, nothing less.

[Arlo]
Okay, well I guess we are on the same page here.

[Ian]
But it's a hypothesis (a whole series of hypotheses) arrived at after 
a lot of "the best thinking available"...

[Arlo]
I have no doubt.

[Ian]
The value in the hypothesis is this. ... Ok, so it has no knowledge 
value until supported by some empirical evidence, which is going to 
be negative, or highly indirect inference, until it's "proven" 
positive - which for a hypothesis on this scale is going to be a very 
long time...

[Arlo]
Of course. And not that we can know anything with certainty, this is 
one where its evident upfront there are some things we will never be 
able to experience (like the unfolding of two different cosmoses (is 
that a word? cosmi? cosmii?) with differing variables... unless we 
can figure out how to get through a black hole, if Hawking and others 
are correct). This is why I was saying I have trouble with the 
language of certainty here, sometimes I can excuse it as "almost 
certain" or "as certain as we can be... or need to be". But this 
overarching statement (in my humble opinion) can't by its very nature 
approach this.

Try this, instead of "the cosmos is perfectly balanced to support 
life" say "the cosmos appears perfectly balanced to support life". I 
can buy that. Does the distinction make sense to you? Do you reject it?

[Ian]
So, like any hypotheses, it's value to science and knowledge is to 
ask, and how could we design some tests or observations to validate 
it ? This creative thinking is what 99% of science (and any kind of 
research) is about.

[Arlo]
Kinda like a mind exercise. I can buy this too. And along the way who 
knows what else will "pop up".

[Ian]
... but if this does turn out to be true, as our best thinking seems 
to suggest it is,.... why is this the case ?

[Arlo]
For many, this is already evidence of that "sentient teleology". I 
just Googled "perfectly balanced cosmos life" and nearly EVERY site 
that came up uses this "perfect alignment" to SHOUT "we have proof 
God exists!"

But that danger aside, yes, I find notions like anti-time causation 
(where quarks moving backwards in time actually order our past based 
on their interactions with our present and future) quite intriguing.