4 ms·

I’m not sure what you mean by “better answers” — is there a better answer to “Why am I not in intergalactic space right now?” than “life can’t form in the empti

I’m not sure what you mean by “better answers” — is there a better answer to “Why am I not in intergalactic space right now?” than “life can’t form in the emptiness of space”? You can justify that with the causal reasons why life couldn’t form, like there being not enough atoms out of which to form life, no stars to provide energy, etc., but the conclusion is the same: Life can form some places much more easily than others, so we should expect to find ourselves in the places where it forms easily, even if those places are vastly unrepresentative of space in general.

posterboy 6y ago
> Why am I not in intergalactic space right now? That's a different question than you initially posted. The anserr is trivial, so nobody would ask this question, except in the futuristic sense, "what's stopping me", or the naive sense, "why is the sky blue, who am I, and why does it hurt when my teeth grow". The initial question entsils a lot more, depending on how far you want to take it, at least, "why am I", but I would argue that independent of your or my own endeavour, it is ultimately deep. You can try to answer the "how", but not the "why" without circular reasoning. Circular reasoning (which is tautologic, but not necessarily a formal fallacy) is rather human indeed, insofar we ascribe reason ability exclusively to humans--because we are egoists, since we are limited by our event horizont. So in contrast to assuming the anthropic principle as an answer, I'd rather hold it with Plato. tl;dr: Here's the fallacy. "Why am I"--"because I am not not" is an inadmissable argument, if nonexistence (not being) cannot be the cause for anything. It's nothing, pretty much by definition. Coralary: If you take the short cut and reduce the double negation, "Why am I"--"Because I am" is a step back from descartes, "I think therefore I am", who managed at least to include a necessary argument for the definition of being human. Although, this only answers the how. Beyond that, I am only able to argue on linguistical semantic grounds. If "why" is as good as "what for", while "to be for something" means preference, the real content of the question becomes apparent. What am I to do, write more philosophical absurdity, get a cheese cake, or try to have my cake and eat it too?
- goodside 6y ago
  > That's a different question than you initially posted. It isn’t, though. I gave three questions as examples, and this was the first one. I added “intergalactic” as shorthand for “not near any star”, but it’s the same question. I don’t understand what contrast you’re making between the two.
mannykannot 6y ago
> Is there a better answer to “Why am I not in intergalactic space right now?” than “life can’t form in the emptiness of space”? Putting aside a) the fact that there are a few people who suspect that life did (or could) start in the emptiness of space, b) the possibility of Boltzmann Brains, and c) that in your original post, you claimed that "there are plenty of mundane coincidences that have no other answer [than the anthropic principle]" [my emphasis], there are better arguments for why we do not find ourselves in the emptiness of intergalactic space, based on what we know of the complexity of both our bodies and of the biological environment they require to sustain them, what it took for all this to evolve, and the thermodynamic improbability of such assemblages forming in intergalactic space. This is a better answer because, instead of taking “life can’t form in the emptiness of space” as an axiom, it explains why in terms of more general principles. In fact, without some sort of explanation, your claim that “life can’t form in the emptiness of space” would be a speculative non-answer (ironically, the rest of your comment here is a demonstration of what I am saying: you are using these better explanations to justify this claim!) Similarly, the precise value of the fine structure constant (and even that there is such a thing) would not even be recognized as an issue if it were not for our understanding of how much is dependent on it. Clearly, we did not, and could not have, reached that level of understanding by invoking the anthropic principle in response to all the "why is...?" questions that came up along the way (for example, "Why do the chemical elements have the properties that allow life to form from them?" "Because if they did not, we would not be here.") It is only when we reach the end of our current ability to explain that the anthropic principle is invoked.
- goodside 6y ago
  “Life can’t form in the emptiness of space” obviously isn’t a fundamental axiom. I’m not sure why you think I was claiming that. I even caveated with “less likely” with Boltzmann brains in mind — the probability is never exactly zero. And nobody seriously believes that life on Earth started in intergalactic space, meaning outside of the Milky Way entirely. How would it even get here? Even the most exotic theories require some non-trivial density of matter for life to form. Nobody believes life was actually “Boltzmann-brained” into existence from a literal void — those are very distinct levels of implausible, and both are distractions from the issue at hand. My point is that however specific your arguments are for exactly why life forming in intergalactic void is impossible (or “vastly unlikely” if you want to be pedantic), if you reject the notion that you should only expect to find yourself in places where life is possible (or “not vastly unlikely”), what does it matter? By appealing to the particular reasons why intergalactic space is inhospitable to life, you’re implicitly assuming that the plausibility of life is somehow pertinent to what conditions we should expect to observe in our local environment, given that we exist. That assumption is the anthropic principle.

posterboy 6y ago

> Why am I not in intergalactic space right now? That's a different question than you initially posted. The anserr is trivial, so nobody would ask this question, except in the futuristic sense, "what's stopping me", or the naive sense, "why is the sky blue, who am I, and why does it hurt when my teeth grow". The initial question entsils a lot more, depending on how far you want to take it, at least, "why am I", but I would argue that independent of your or my own endeavour, it is ultimately deep. You can try to answer the "how", but not the "why" without circular reasoning. Circular reasoning (which is tautologic, but not necessarily a formal fallacy) is rather human indeed, insofar we ascribe reason ability exclusively to humans--because we are egoists, since we are limited by our event horizont. So in contrast to assuming the anthropic principle as an answer, I'd rather hold it with Plato. tl;dr: Here's the fallacy. "Why am I"--"because I am not not" is an inadmissable argument, if nonexistence (not being) cannot be the cause for anything. It's nothing, pretty much by definition. Coralary: If you take the short cut and reduce the double negation, "Why am I"--"Because I am" is a step back from descartes, "I think therefore I am", who managed at least to include a necessary argument for the definition of being human. Although, this only answers the how. Beyond that, I am only able to argue on linguistical semantic grounds. If "why" is as good as "what for", while "to be for something" means preference, the real content of the question becomes apparent. What am I to do, write more philosophical absurdity, get a cheese cake, or try to have my cake and eat it too?

goodside 6y ago
> That's a different question than you initially posted. It isn’t, though. I gave three questions as examples, and this was the first one. I added “intergalactic” as shorthand for “not near any star”, but it’s the same question. I don’t understand what contrast you’re making between the two.

mannykannot 6y ago

> Is there a better answer to “Why am I not in intergalactic space right now?” than “life can’t form in the emptiness of space”? Putting aside a) the fact that there are a few people who suspect that life did (or could) start in the emptiness of space, b) the possibility of Boltzmann Brains, and c) that in your original post, you claimed that "there are plenty of mundane coincidences that have no other answer [than the anthropic principle]" [my emphasis], there are better arguments for why we do not find ourselves in the emptiness of intergalactic space, based on what we know of the complexity of both our bodies and of the biological environment they require to sustain them, what it took for all this to evolve, and the thermodynamic improbability of such assemblages forming in intergalactic space. This is a better answer because, instead of taking “life can’t form in the emptiness of space” as an axiom, it explains why in terms of more general principles. In fact, without some sort of explanation, your claim that “life can’t form in the emptiness of space” would be a speculative non-answer (ironically, the rest of your comment here is a demonstration of what I am saying: you are using these better explanations to justify this claim!) Similarly, the precise value of the fine structure constant (and even that there is such a thing) would not even be recognized as an issue if it were not for our understanding of how much is dependent on it. Clearly, we did not, and could not have, reached that level of understanding by invoking the anthropic principle in response to all the "why is...?" questions that came up along the way (for example, "Why do the chemical elements have the properties that allow life to form from them?" "Because if they did not, we would not be here.") It is only when we reach the end of our current ability to explain that the anthropic principle is invoked.

goodside 6y ago
“Life can’t form in the emptiness of space” obviously isn’t a fundamental axiom. I’m not sure why you think I was claiming that. I even caveated with “less likely” with Boltzmann brains in mind — the probability is never exactly zero. And nobody seriously believes that life on Earth started in intergalactic space, meaning outside of the Milky Way entirely. How would it even get here? Even the most exotic theories require some non-trivial density of matter for life to form. Nobody believes life was actually “Boltzmann-brained” into existence from a literal void — those are very distinct levels of implausible, and both are distractions from the issue at hand. My point is that however specific your arguments are for exactly why life forming in intergalactic void is impossible (or “vastly unlikely” if you want to be pedantic), if you reject the notion that you should only expect to find yourself in places where life is possible (or “not vastly unlikely”), what does it matter? By appealing to the particular reasons why intergalactic space is inhospitable to life, you’re implicitly assuming that the plausibility of life is somehow pertinent to what conditions we should expect to observe in our local environment, given that we exist. That assumption is the anthropic principle.