It's not actually a fallacy really, although incorrect deductions can be made from it.
Let's take out the factor of consciousness. For example,
There is a bag with 1000000000000 marbles in and a bag with 10 marbles in. You are give a marble and told it is from the small bag.
Naturally you call the person a liar, certainly if this is the first trial. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the maths.
What you're essentially doing though is adding consciousness as a key factor, and asserting the anthropic principle is true. Thing is, not everybody believes that the anthropic principle is logically sound.
The first quote of yours is mine, and it's completely valid. It's just a way of refuting the traditional view of 'current time' as being something which moves from point time 0 to time x irregardless of me or you like a vehicle travelling along a straight road at the same speed constantly which at certain times happens to be between specific points; that our 'nothingness' has been 'waiting' for a few billion years, and now that nothingness is consciousness, and soon it'll be nothing for a few more billion years (so to speak). That view is improbable to the extent that it is impossible, for the above reason: treating time like an impartial vehicle which by a sheer coincidence is on 'your inch' on a road which is a million miles long is clearly incorrect.
The fact that I am conscious now and that the universe is so old does give me faith in the endurance of consciousness, but probably not in the traditional sense of reincarnation into other animals in this universe upon death. See, gnome, nobody knows what consciousness is, nobody has any idea why it arises, nobody knows the nature of reality, in fact we cannot even yet get our observed universe to make sense yet, and nobody understands the nature of time or causality or possibly even logic. That's why the anthropic principle is so dodgy, I personally think it's a cop-out in some respects.
The second quote; well at face value that is wrong because evolution is true. But I'm of the opinion that the universe is fine tuned; I'm guessing there's no need to explain that to you. And then of course you evoke the anthropic principle... yeah, again there's a bit of a problem about making any assertions because we have no idea about the ultimate structure of reality. I'm personally of the view that we are part of a multiverse simply due to its brilliant elegance as a solution (although the multiverse theory still does nothing to explain why it should be there in the first place), but there are some people who reckon it's due to some kind of deity and I respect that opinion to quite a large extent.
Welcome back by the way, you were a very good poster... how's the neuroscience thing working out? I'm looking at a maths degree at the mo before specialising in computational neuroscience research, but I'm still unsure.
|
|
Bookmarks