I

 

absolutely despise

"The anthropic principle, 

also known as the 

"observation selection effect", 

is the hypothesis, 

(Strike one.

It is an unscientific hypothesis, 

as a scientific hypothesis

has to be testable, measurable etc

and this clearly is not.

See: Saturday, April 20, 2024

Well? One of them was right :-).

Smolin–Susskind debate

"Smolin's argument that the "anthropic principle" cannot yield any falsifiable predictions, and therefore cannot be a part of science." It began on July 26, 2004, with Smolin's publication of "Scientific alternatives to the anthropic principle." Smolin e-mailed Susskind asking for a comment. Having not had the chance to read the paper, Susskind requested a summarization of his arguments. Smolin obliged, and on July 28, 2004, Susskind responded, saying that the logic Smolin followed "can lead to ridiculous conclusions." 

The next day, Smolin responded, saying that 

"If a large body of our colleagues feels comfortable 

believing a theory that cannot be proved wrong, 

then the progress of science could get stuck, 

leading to a situation in which false, 

but unfalsifiable theories dominate 

the attention of our field." 

That was in 2004 

and it is exactly what has happened.

 

This is merely an idea

that originated 

in somebody's mind.

Keep that in mind.

Get it?

Keep that in mind lol.

Nevermind lol.

OMG I crack myself up lo.)

"first proposed in 1957 by Robert Dicke, that 

the range of possible observations 

that could be made about the universe 

is limited by the fact 

that observations could happen 

only in a universe 

capable of developing intelligent life. 

("We only see things

the way we do

because we are in it."

Well what other 

recommendations 

might you have

for us to observe there Mr. Brainiac?

We cant exactly 

observe the unobservable.

Gotta point out 

the effects of the unobservable

are observable:

Wind, Dark Matter, Dark Energy ect.)

What would be the point

in a universe

that wasnt observable?

The logic is 100% backwards.

The reason it is observable

is because it was designed

for us to be in it

and observe it.

Duh.

There is evidence to back that up.

Wait for it...lol

A philosopher might even ask:

"Does it even really exist?

If we cant observe it,

or observe it's effects?"

Hello people 

who buy into 

this line of reasoning:

There is no point

in a universe that isn't observable.

It is the reason it exist 

in the first place.

So that we can observe it.

again more on that in a bit.)

"Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why the universe has the age 

and the fundamental physical constants 

necessary to accommodate conscious life, 

since if either had been different, no one would have been around to make observations. Anthropic reasoning is often used to deal with the idea that the universe seems to be finely tuned for the existence of life."

(Trying to find a way 

to work around

what you don't like seeing

is not science.

It is promoting 

a faith-based ideology.

(Ref: Monday, May 22, 2023

Here is what

and

Fine-Tuning Parameters)

And if it wasnt for that?

The anthropic principal

 would have never been dreamed up

in the first place.

It is the entire reason

it was dreamed up 

 to try and explain away why:

"the universe seems to be finely tuned 

for the existence of life."

Which it so obviously was

or I wouldn't be here right now

 writing this.

Duh.

So Strike two:

Trying to explain away 

what you dont like seeing

namely:

Fine-Tuning Parameters

Strike three:

It has led to all kinds of

unscientific hypotheses,

being presented as scientific

that we see today.

This was the spearhead

from which all of those emanated.

Anybody comes at me with:

"We just seein that way 

because we are in it"

kinda nonsense

And I straight up

hit em up with:

1) Information in the DNA molecule.

Im not just seeing it that way

because I want to,

it is a 100% physical reality

that exist

and that trumps any

 filthy dreamers dream

about we are just seeing it that way

because we exist in it.

Physical reality

always trumps

mans imagined

mental constructs.

PERIOD.

2) The method by which

Information was imputed

into the DNA molecule.

Again, that is a physical reality.

It is not based on us seeing it 

the way we want to.

3) It does absolutely

nothing to explain:

The initial conditions

of both:

the universe

and the laws 

that govern 

its existence.

4) It does nothing to explain

why the DNA molecule 

is always right handed

and the proteins 

it works with 

to form life

are always left handed.

And if it wasnt that way?

They wouldn't work

and there wouldn't be any life.

"All of yall go over there

(DNA)

and all the rest of yall 

go over there

(proteins)"

Isnt, in fact can not be

a random event or chance or an accident,

it is clear evidence

of design

which requires a designer.

So once again

we have a physical reality

(not a mental construct)

that is not dependent

on us wanting to see it

in any particular manner.

Which is exactly 

what the anthropic principal 

was based on. 

The physical realities

described above

just "Are".

All of that mentioned

above, exist independent of 

any "built in observer bias".

Where did any of that get difficult?

So just go on 

keep on coming up more 

unscientific hypothesis, 

and see where that leads ya.

“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers [the constants of physics] seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” 

(Stephen Hawking A Brief History of Time, p. 125) 

Thursday, January 23, 2025

I spent

 about three hours yesterday

expanding on 

what he talked about 

in a lil over Eight minutes.

Chuck Missler Genesis Commentary Session 6 

(Genesis 1:20-21) The fifth day.

"So if you wanna believe:

"left-handed electrons preferentially destroy

 left-handed precursors of biological molecules"

"This selective destruction 

could explain why life primarily utilizes 

right-handed structures..."

"cosmic radiation, which may have favored"

"nature favored one type of enantiomer"

"polarized cosmic radiation 

could have selectively destroyed"

"If our Universe hadn’t created..."

a matter-antimatter asymmetry early on..."

"If the inflation (Field) 

treated right-handed particles 

differently than the left-handed ones

then it could have 

preferentially created particles 

of one handedness over the other."

As opposed to:

"At some point in time 

one has to reach the logical conclusion 

 the entities themselves 

are not the ones 

making decisions/exercising preferences, 

("electrons preferentially destroy"

"selective destruction"

"cosmic radiation, which may have favored

"nature favored one type of enantiomer"

"polarized cosmic radiation 

could have selectively destroyed"

"If our Universe hadn’t created..."

a matter-antimatter asymmetry

"If the inflation (Field) 

treated right-handed particles 

differently

So Thats: 

Electrons, Cosmic Radiation,

Nature, The Universe

and 

"The inflation field"

(0 evidence of one BTW)

all conspiring together

to favor life 

but no creator?

"Occam's Razor (or Ockham's Razor) is a problem-solving principle stating that when presented with competing explanations, the simplest one—requiring the fewest assumptions—is usually the best.)

"...but that 

the entities (listed above)

CREATOR 

is exercising his preference 

for there to be life 

in the universe he created.

?????????????

THEN YOU JUST GO RIGHT AHEAD 

AND DO SO."

One more piece of evidence

pointing to 

the universe having been created 

for us to be in it 

and to observe it.

OBSERVATION CHANGES REALITY.

Wave-particle duality: Before observation, subatomic particles can exist in multiple states at once, behaving like waves spread out in space.

Collapse of the wave function: When a measurement is made, the particle is forced to "choose" a single, definite state and act like a particle.

(Witnessed it first hand,

ask me sometime I'll share it with you.

It wasnt an experiment

I'll just put it that way.)

The double-slit experiment: This is a classic example. When unobserved, particles create an interference pattern on a screen, showing their wave-like behavior. However, if scientists try to detect which slit the particle goes through, the interference pattern disappears, and the particles behave like discrete objects."

Think that was the result of an accident?

If we were not

 supposed to be in it?

Then why would it 

have been 

designed that away?

Infinite Wisdom

didn't design the Quantum Realm?

You people are insane!

Or put another way?

In summary then?

Fuck your anthropic principal.

It's nothing but a bunch of

"ascientific" nonsense

that led to a whole lot of

host of other problems

and explains away none

of the physical reality

listed above.

Things that try and explain away things

(Multiverse, Anthropic principal etc)

prove to you they are not 

a valid answer as they invariantly produce

more questions than they solve.

Not that there is anything inherently wrong with having more questions, that's not the problem as its part of the scientific method, 

it's the strawmanish:

"Well this explains all of that"

faulty way of thinking

that doesn't really solve anything

and causes more issues

is the problem.

1 Corinthians 3:19

For the wisdom of this world 

is foolishness with God. 

For it is written, 

He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Been saying for a long time now:

I want a shirt that says 

on the back of it 

in big black block letters:

"ELECTRONS

DONT MAKE DECISIONS

THEIR CREATOR DOES."

Just to see who would understand 

what was being said.

Come to your senses.

Time is getting late.

Speaking of which:

Leads me right into my next post.

:-).

Love ya babe.