The Anthropic Principle **edited**

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

User avatar
sgttomas
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

The Anthropic Principle **edited**

Post by sgttomas » Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:23 am

Define life, L.

L = f{a(i)}

a(i) = all the possible individual activities that could constitute life.

f, is the participatory quality of those activities that constitute life.

Define the best of life, L'.

L' = g{L}

g, is the quality of excellence that defines the best of the participatory qualities of life.

let b(j) be the set of activities of life that constitute the set defined by L'.

B = b(j), for j = 1, 2, ...m, for some arbitrary m.
A = a(i), for i = 1, 2, ....n, for some arbitrary n.

For all A and B, m < n.

We define truth as that which is experienced by life, while falsehood is the opposite of truth - i.e. that which is not experienced by life.

This implies anything that's real is true, anything that's not real is false.
Truth = A
False = ~A

To maximize the best of Life, i.e. to maximize the number of elements in set B, we have to have B be identical to A. Therefore, the most comprehensive definition of truth is that which recognizes that B is identical to A, since having B identical to A actually introduces another element in A. But that also must then introduce a new element in B, which in turn will introduce a new element in A, and on to infinity. Therefore, the only way to maximize the appreciation of life, is for the universe to be able to appreciate itself continuously and eternally, since this feedback loop of B and A creates a continuous self-recognition of state (because of the verb, or action, "to appreciate").

The appearance of life added something good to the Universe. If the Universe were tending to negative feedback of life, then life could not exist therefore there is a tendency towards positive feedback of life, which demonstrates that there is agency towards maximizing life as something good. To the extent that it continues to fulfill or expand that capacity it will exist. Therefore, if truth is distinct from falsehood, and it is defined in terms of "life" and "not life", the best life possible is that in which there is a conscious appreciation of all life, from all possible perspectives, as this will maximize the set B (making it equivalent to A).

This tells us that in a world that makes sense (in which we can apply meaning through language) we are compelled to thinking of God (or an infinite being that constitutes all power and perspective in the universe) is the best possible meaning to Life, since it maximizes the appreciation of life, which maximizes the appearance of life, which distinguishes truth from falsehood and grounds our language in a consistent and objective formal framework.

Whatever the ultimate reality of God, we cannot conceive of a better world than one in which something identical to an omnipotent, omniscient being exists to both create life and appreciate it. This holds true even under an atheistic scenario, except that the God agency is renamed "Omega". Something which proposes a different ultimate meaning for life cannot explain reality as consistently. (***edited to remove reference to another post that I have subsequently removed because it sucked****.... I really need to explain my argument here in more detail, but my previous attempt sucked and...yeah....I'm working on it. It comes down to: a language that is necessarily purposeful has to attribute purpose to things and cannot be used to describe a universe with no purpose. There are all kinds of epistemological consequences to this, and this is chiefly why the anthropic principle was invoked - to remove the inherent bias of human thought from knowledge. What I tried to do here was use the anthropic principle to show the inconsistency with not allowing purpose to be inherent to the universe, because even an atheistic rendering of reality that recognizes a "better life" will inevitably try to fashion a "God" from out of the universe. This is remarkable (if valid) because the anthropic principle typically is used to remove "purpose" from cosmology by demonstrating that purpose is just something our bias injects into the perception of reality. Instead I see "purpose" as the only consistent way to view even cosmology because we cannot remove the "purpose-bias" from our language. To declare that something has no purpose is not possible because everything has a purpose by the very act of it being described. To be something real is to have a purpose. A conscious being cannot consistently think of reality differently. Okay...back to the regular post....)

Resurrection is hinted at by the sense of eternal appreciation for life, and even connotes some sense of judgment (only the truth can remain while the false passes away), but this is troublesome to formally define because it pertains to things beyond our experience of life and therefore the anthropic principle cannot be consistently applied (i.e. there is no consistent reference frame to distinguish real from unreal). If we allow that the recreation of life after death is an imperative under the anthropic principle, then we lose all descriptive power over what this life would be like, except to say that it would be the best life possible.

....thoughts? Further development? Critical shortcomings? I think the truth-false stuff might throw some people off, but it has to be in there. In fact, this is the most critical part, because this sets the parameters in which language can be defined and applied (I tried explaining this in a follow up post, but it sucked, so I removed it). This allows me to use descriptors in the definitions of the sets A and B without having to formalize the functions themselves, because whatever constitutes the meaning of "best" and "appreciates" is circularly defined by the recursive adding of elements between B and A. So my definition of truth is circular, which allows me to use the anthropic principle consistent with how it needs to be in order to develop the required feedback loop that can encompass all of Reality.

Peace,
-sgttomas

EDITED TO ADD....*sigh* this subject is so convoluted, as soon as I find a little error here, it propagates throughout and messes everything up. ....guess that's the beauty and trouble with formalism.
Last edited by sgttomas on Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:53 am, edited 3 times in total.
Prophet Muhammad (God send peace and blessings upon him) is reported to have said, "God says 'I am as My servant thinks I am' " ~ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9 #502 (Chapter 93, "Oneness of God")

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Post by Metacrock » Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:52 pm

you seem to be going through another evolution in religious thought. You seem to be transitioning form Muslim to Taoist or something like it; perhaps mystic? Sort of naturalistic mystic such that you could be an atheist and still believe in God in a sense that you can't quite define.

Not criticizing, I just see this possible permutation in what you are saying. what you do think? (certainly not a carm type atheist).
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
sgttomas
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Post by sgttomas » Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:59 am

Hm, dunno about that. I just speak the truth ;)

Peace,
-sgttomas
Prophet Muhammad (God send peace and blessings upon him) is reported to have said, "God says 'I am as My servant thinks I am' " ~ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9 #502 (Chapter 93, "Oneness of God")

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts: 1814
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Post by fleetmouse » Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:27 am

I think we should rename you Sgt. Bong Hits. :mrgreen:

User avatar
sgttomas
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Post by sgttomas » Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:22 pm

lol

....been a while since my, "Jesus Christ is LORD of Canabis" avatar has graced the internet. ;)

Aw, I'm shocked that more people aren't totally digging the Anthropic Principle. hahahah.

-sgtt
Prophet Muhammad (God send peace and blessings upon him) is reported to have said, "God says 'I am as My servant thinks I am' " ~ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9 #502 (Chapter 93, "Oneness of God")

User avatar
sgttomas
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Post by sgttomas » Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:57 pm

See!! I knew I was right... http://www.anthropic-principle.com/

rule of internet: someone else has thought of it before you....and made a website about it.

lol.

-sgtt
Prophet Muhammad (God send peace and blessings upon him) is reported to have said, "God says 'I am as My servant thinks I am' " ~ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9 #502 (Chapter 93, "Oneness of God")

User avatar
Gwarlroge
Posts: 575
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:37 pm

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Post by Gwarlroge » Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:04 pm

Aight, Sgt. T, I've got some questions.

(1) On the notation used: what does f{x} mean? Is it equivalent to f(X), the set of values for f(x) for all x in some set X? (So like, f(N)--f of the set of natural numbers--would equal {f(1), f(2), f(3), ...}.)

(2) What do you mean by "recursively adding elements"?

(3) What do you mean by "feedback loop"?

I can't nitpick until we get these straight. ;) However, it looks good so far. Provokes a feeling of awe, doesn't it?

I wonder how it compares to the theology of Jonathan Edwards.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Post by Metacrock » Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:53 pm

what I know about the anthropic principle is that atheists argue it against fine tuning.

Of cousre that doesn't mean i think that's all there is to it. This is out of my field but I'm trying to get the drift.

now explain this:
This tells us that in a world that makes sense (in which we can apply meaning through language) we are compelled to thinking of God (or an infinite being that constitutes all power and perspective in the universe) is the best possible meaning to Life, since it maximizes the appreciation of life, which maximizes the appearance of life, which distinguishes truth from falsehood and grounds our language in a consistent and objective formal framework.
seems to me like that makes God a creation of the anthropic principle? Or is God the anthropic principle?
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
sgttomas
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Post by sgttomas » Fri Dec 25, 2009 3:33 am

Gwarlroge wrote:Aight, Sgt. T, I've got some questions.

(1) On the notation used: what does f{x} mean? Is it equivalent to f(X), the set of values for f(x) for all x in some set X? (So like, f(N)--f of the set of natural numbers--would equal {f(1), f(2), f(3), ...}.)
Cool. Thanks for taking a look.

Squiggly brackets means a set, regular brackets means a single variable or value. That's why you see I have a function g{a(i)} applied to a set and that set is constructed by the output of the function a(i), which is a function applied to a single variable. So in your example, a function applied simultaneously to the set of all natural numbers would be f{N}, but a function applied to the set of all natural numbers one number at a time would be f(n).
(2) What do you mean by "recursively adding elements"?
Gaining knowledge.
(3) What do you mean by "feedback loop"?
Self-awareness. Thinking about thought.
Provokes a feeling of awe, doesn't it?
What in particular?
I wonder how it compares to the theology of Jonathan Edwards.
I have no idea, as I am not well read in Edwards. Let me know what you find!

Peace,
-sgttomas
Last edited by sgttomas on Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:18 am, edited 3 times in total.
Prophet Muhammad (God send peace and blessings upon him) is reported to have said, "God says 'I am as My servant thinks I am' " ~ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9 #502 (Chapter 93, "Oneness of God")

User avatar
sgttomas
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

Re: The Anthropic Principle

Post by sgttomas » Fri Dec 25, 2009 4:01 am

Metacrock wrote:now explain this:
This tells us that in a world that makes sense (in which we can apply meaning through language) we are compelled to thinking of God (or an infinite being that constitutes all power and perspective in the universe) is the best possible meaning to Life, since it maximizes the appreciation of life, which maximizes the appearance of life, which distinguishes truth from falsehood and grounds our language in a consistent and objective formal framework.
seems to me like that makes God a creation of the anthropic principle? Or is God the anthropic principle?
Conscious beings create the idea of God.

Entities that possess "agency" can follow a principle, but otherwise a principle is not any kind of activity. God is not the anthropic principle, though if the anthropic principle is valid, and God is the Creator, then God must also act consistently with the anthropic principle. This is why the anthropic principle applied to "fine tuning" is only a half-way-there approach to denying the reality of a Creator - it merely causes us to re-frame the subject of "Creator" while within the subject of cosmology. Outside of cosmology, the idea of Creator can be more...um...creative. But since cosmology is a formally defined activity, "Creator" has to be formally and properly used. There are many notions of "Creator" that don't fit with cosmology. All this tells us is that whenever we are speaking "cosmologically" we have to keep in mind what "Creator" means in that context.

Peace,
-sgttomas
Prophet Muhammad (God send peace and blessings upon him) is reported to have said, "God says 'I am as My servant thinks I am' " ~ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9 #502 (Chapter 93, "Oneness of God")

Post Reply