[MD] Through a glass darkly

[ADRIE KINTZIGER]

Ham, Can you clarify on how you define the term Antropocentrism?
In order to react on your article, better to keep in tune with your terms.
good work.Btw.

2011/2/18 Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>

> Adrie and Mark (Mary, DMB quoted) --
>
> [Mark]:
>
>  Thanks Adrie,
>> Interesting review
>> Several comments:
>> Life is fine-tuned for the universe, not the other way around.
>>
>
> Mark's comment refers to Hawking's statements about the "fine-tuning" of
> the universe.  According to the reviewer, Hawking says, "Our universe is
> fine-tuned for life, in the sense that if any number of delicate parameters,
> or physical laws, were tweaked, the conditions for making life as we know it
> possible would be removed.  As Hawking explains, the weak anthropic
> principle states that we must observe a universe whose properties are
> consistent with our existence, for otherwise we would not exist to observe
> anything at all."
>
> The phrase "we must observe" in that last assertion sparks my curiosity.
> Does the atheist Hawking mean that we could not observe a universe whose
> properties were not consistent with our existence?  Or is he gratuitously
> singling out the "weak anthropic principle" to support his theory?   As an
> anthropocentrist myself, I would have expected him to say simply that the
> properties of the universe must be life-supporting; otherwise we would not
> exist.
>
> But then physics gets the better of him, and he tells us that it's not
> "fine-tuning" at all, but probability that has made life possible in the
> universe.  "It's because there are so many of them, Hawking says. With ten
> to the power of five hundred universes floating about, each with its own
> different physical laws, it's unsurprising that at least one of them - our
> own - would randomly and contingently just happen to take the parameters
> making life possible."   That's a stretch of the imagination if I ever saw
> one!  (I wonder where the calculation "ten to the power of 500" comes from
> -- any physicist out there willing to stick his neck out?)
>
>
>  Technically we are at the "center" of the universe.
>>
>> Yes, we can be seen as dark glasses, I prefer that we are one of the
>> many eyes of God, as Ham and I have been writing
>>
>
> Evidently Mark is an anthropocentrist also.  When it comes to experiencing
> reality, however, I would chuck the dark glasses and return to my 'prism
> analogy' in which pure, undifferentiated Value is converted to a band of
> discrete values that are experienced as the properties of
> being-in-the-world.  (I offer this with apologies to the quantum physicists
> who try so hard to make objective data out of sub-atomic phenomena beyond
> the range of human sensibility.)
>
> Actually, Mary and David came very close to capturing this concept:
>
> [Mary]:
>
>  Another way to put that might be to say that we create our reality
>> from our experiences.  We see through the glass darkly and are unable
>> to experience the entirety of all possible realities.  DMB says we dip
>> our ladle into the stream of Quality and what we come back with
>> we call reality.
>>
>
> Essentially speaking, you're all on my page,
> Ham
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>



-- 
parser