Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Anthropic principle

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

There is a certain irony to it, Harrison. All that time and effort poured into seeking for intelligence out there, and coming here to parrot his findings, only to have his feathers ruffled.

 

In concept formation, it takes at least three elements to work with. Two or more similar blues look different among themselves. Add yellow or red as a foil, and suddenly the similarity between the blues leap to the foreground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>I was trying to be civil with you.

 

By posting that I'm a pig and that you hope I rot in hell? You must be chairman of the Welcoming Committee in Galt's Gulch.

 

>>>You still haven't explained what pattern in nature could exist without being the product of a mind.

 

Lots of them. Blades of grass form patterns that are not intentional from a mind; smoke swirls from a lit cigar form patterns that are not intentional from a designing mind; clouds form patterns that are not intentional from a designing mind; sand on a beach forms patterns that are not intentional from a designing mind; boiling oil can form convection patterns in the geometrical shape of a hexagon that are not intentional from a designing mind; sugar crystals in the form of "rock candy" forms a pattern that is not the intentional result of mental purposefulness; water crystals in the form of ice form patterns that are not the intentional result of mental purposefulness; all crystals, in fact, are regular repeating patterns of something called the "unit cell", repeating over and over, and completely predictable from the nature of the atoms of the given substance and how they interact with the atoms of their environment; erosion from wind and weather forms patterns in mountains that are not the intentional result of mental purposefulness; many more.

 

Not a single one of these examples has anything in common with the statement: "Let '—' mean the English letter 'T'." That's not a pattern; that's a code. The assignment of meaning between two arbitrarily chosen symbols in two different sets of symbols is the essence of a code, and it has nothing to do with patterns.

 

Since you've been so civil, I may as well ask: anything else I can help you with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>I was trying to be civil with you.

 

By posting that I'm a pig and that you hope I rot in hell? You must be chairman of the Welcoming Committee in Galt's Gulch.

Yes, and I stand by those statements.  If you'd like to rehash that conversation then send me a message.  I will not defile the public domain with it.

 

>>>You still haven't explained what pattern in nature could exist without being the product of a mind.

 

Lots of them. Blades of grass form patterns that are not intentional from a mind; smoke swirls from a lit cigar form patterns that are not intentional from a designing mind; clouds form patterns that are not intentional from a designing mind; sand on a beach forms patterns that are not intentional from a designing mind; boiling oil can form convection patterns in the geometrical shape of a hexagon that are not intentional from a designing mind; sugar crystals in the form of "rock candy" forms a pattern that is not the intentional result of mental purposefulness; water crystals in the form of ice form patterns that are not the intentional result of mental purposefulness; all crystals, in fact, are regular repeating patterns of something called the "unit cell", repeating over and over, and completely predictable from the nature of the atoms of the given substance and how they interact with the atoms of their environment; erosion from wind and weather forms patterns in mountains that are not the intentional result of mental purposefulness; many more.

 

Not a single one of these examples has anything in common with the statement: "Let '—' mean the English letter 'T'." That's not a pattern; that's a code. The assignment of meaning between two arbitrarily chosen symbols in two different sets of symbols is the essence of a code, and it has nothing to do with patterns.

 

Since you've been so civil, I may as well ask: anything else I can help you with?

Yes.  Research the reasons why RNA functions the way it does.

If you truly have any desire whatsoever to gain knowledge then I'll be happy to explain it to you in greater detail, afterwards.  Until then you can check your premises.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA

http://www.rna.uni-jena.de/rna.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...