Didn't finish this article, twice.

[wolven7]

Mozart - [Symphony No. 35 in D major ("Haffner"), K. 385 - II. Andante]--- In fact, i barely finished it once, before i wanted to sleep. Damnable approach-avoidant behaviours.

Question: Why is it so "insensible" to believe that, if experiencing creatures-- let's say "Humans," for the sake of generalising-- had never existed, then the universe, as we understand it would not exist? It seems logically necessary, to me. We understand the universe in Form A. Without the Human perspective, Form A, as a mode in which to understand, would not exist. Therefore, necessarily, if we did not exist, reality as we know it would not exist.

Gorillaz - [Re-Hash]--- There may, in fact, be something to experience, but it would not be the same thing we see and experience, every day, for a few reasons which i would hope are Obvious. Our not being there, being one of them. Secondly, if we are not there to experience, if there are no experiential entities, then the nature of the universe is, necessarily, irrelevant.

*sigh* 3 pages, or so, left, then sleep.

Dream Well

Comments

[lupusfeuer.livejournal.com]

There is more to be said here but this concept is generally referred to as the "anthropic principle," and generally comes up in cosmology. It is, however, considered a logical cop out.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Why? If anything it seems More a reason to learn and understand as many permutations of what we have, as possible.

My argument would be it's atheistic

[karishi.livejournal.com]

This argument should be considered irrelevant, because the universe itself should be treated as an experiential entity. In spite of having infinite materials that were composed of the same types it diversified them until it came up with creatures complex enough to experience things in some small portion of the way it did. That's statistically unlikely given infinite time.

[mendori.livejournal.com]

Brhama dreams the universe... and then he wakes. And then he sleeps and dreams us again.

[unknownbinaries.livejournal.com]

Your last argument is the key and the breaking of the opposition, here, love.

'Secondly, if we are not there to experience, if there are no experiential entities, then the nature of the universe is, necessarily, irrelevant.'

People take this to be arrogance on our part, but seriously. If there was NOTHING with any kind of perception, not just people. Nothing with any way to sense and process the world around them, then the nature of things doesn't matter, because nothing would be here debating the nature of things. If this is from your article, then your article would be irrelevant. Because it wouldn't exist. :P

[lupusfeuer.livejournal.com]

It's like people that argue for the existance of a benevolent god because the world we live on is so suited to human life without bothering to consider that we could not have evolved anywhere else.

This takes a broader scope cosmologically. We ask, "why do these four forces have to be balanced in such proportions," or "why is this the matter to energy ratio of the universe," or "why does the uiverse, given the flattness dillema, seem to be X old." There may be many answers to these questions but simply to point out that if one were to change one of the contributing factors, we would not exist to ask these questions dose not, in fact, answer any of them. That is why the anthropic principle is a cop out as it doesn't answer anything, it merely identifies a particular state.

That's why I said argument

[karishi.livejournal.com]

I take the universe to be an experiential entity, which if true means you're saying: If there were no universe as we know it, there would be no universe as we know it.
If the universe itself dreams and notices, that makes the whole argument irrelevant. Even without "life," the universe would still do its thing, because it is itself alive, in its way.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

But when the "Question" is "What would this be like/would this be the same, if we weren't here" it's the only logical answer.

Re: My argument would be it's atheistic

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I'm willing to accept that, but the road to the "scientific community" (I know, i Know) accepting it is a Very long one.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

See above.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

My point precisely. As i said, above, if the question is "What would the universe be like, without experiencing creatures" then it is an irrelevant question.

Re: That's why I said argument

[wolven.livejournal.com]

See above. And Below.

.......


..........

*ahem*