Determinism and destiny

[Guille]

Mr.Nobody,

The anthropic principle and any other humanist existentialist view is very subjective and relative to the times. That is, the idea that the universe depends on us humans, and exists for us to exist, happens always when people feel they are nothing, when there is less value given to humans. This is why Jaspers, Sartre, MarlauPonty... Came with existentialism, becuse in the first hal fo fthe 20th century Europe had taken away all the rights of existence to humans. So it is not right to say the universe's determinism depends on our destiny. In fact, the universe is not determined, it's probabilistic. And we are not destined the complete meaning of the sentence. We have a predisposition, as Force5 said, but not a destiny. The determinism of the universe and destiny of humans don't exist, therefore they share the relationship of non-existence, if it is at all a property. Nevetheles, there is in fact a relationship between the times of humans (psicological time, historical time, biological time...) and the universal physical time, in that this embraces, or inheres all. What happens to our times, happens also to the universal time.

[harmonygirl]

I have started thinking about time. I think it is right that as the universe accelerates, we see less of it, but this is dependent upon speed which is dependent on time. What is this exactly? What are we talking about when we say time? I believe in infinite, co-existing universes, in which time is irrelevant for the co-existence but relevant for each universe. But is it simply a way to inject significance into our lives? Because it's brought on by our awareness (I think--did Helen Keller concieve of time? If not, and we do, does it exist for her? Hmmm....

[Mr. Nobody]

that the universe depends on us humans, and exists for us to exist

Why you addressed me, I don't know. However, since I am already here, I will try to explain the concept of Anthropy: Anthropy does not state that the universe exist FOR anybody, it just means that an observer from within the universe will never gain true objectivity about the probability of his/her existence, since he/she is part of this existence and subject to the selection process that produced the observer. The observer trying to observe himself, the brain looking at itself. Trying to be objective while being part of the observed will skew your observation towards "Intelligent Design". You see all those using the "Fine Tuned Universe" argumant as proof for an intelligent designer never fully grasp the idea of Anthropy.

The best example against the "Fine Tuned Universe" argument I once read is below:

If one were to go fishing and catch 50 fish, all of which were more than ten inches long, one might reasonably make the hypothesis that all of the fish in the lake are more than ten inches long. But what if, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that the net being used to catch the fish had 10 inch holes?

[Guille]

Why you addressed me, I don't know. However, since I am already here, I will try to explain the concept of Anthropy: Anthropy does not state that the universe exist FOR anybody, it just means that an observer from within the universe will never gain true objectivity about the probability of his/her existence, since he/she is part of this existence and subject to the selection process that produced the observer. The observer trying to observe himself, the brain looking at itself. Trying to be objective while being part of the observed will skew your observation towards "Intelligent Design". You see all those using the "Fine Tuned Universe" argumant as proof for an intelligent designer never fully grasp the idea of Anthropy.

The best example against the "Fine Tuned Universe" argument I once read is below:

If one were to go fishing and catch 50 fish, all of which were more than ten inches long, one might reasonably make the hypothesis that all of the fish in the lake are more than ten inches long. But what if, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that the net being used to catch the fish had 10 inch holes?

Oh, I had thought you were the starter of the thread, it was actually meatn to alecopoli. You define correctly the idea of anthropy, but what I want to ask you is if you really defend it, believe it?

By the way it's a great example the induction problem you present. It has shown me something: Feyerabend and Popper criticised the scientific induction method by stating it's problem sin cognition, it's inability to give knowledge (or wisdom, if we deal with philosophy). However, your example is a critique to induction by the experiments done on it, not by the thought. This is a new perspective which I lke a lot.