The latest Discover has an article entitled "A Universe That Is Built for Life" that makes some
reputable scientists sound like they are closet theologians, "trying to understand why the
universe is so benevolent, providing conditions that are nearly perfect for human life."
The "anthropic principle" = " What we can expect to observe must be restricted by the
conditions necessary for our presence as observers."

The "anthropic principle" = " What we can expect to observe must be restricted by the conditions necessary for our presence as observers."

Oh that is soooo true. In fact it is so true it is stupid. Silly fellow. We also observe when we imagine.

...the universe is a living thing that has enabled itself to observe itself.

Obviously.

"We also observe when we imagine". milum

Why yes. That's why I think daydreaming is such a valuable tool....access to an entirely other realm of reality....(so m, turn off that computer and get back on that couch and dream!)

"the universe is a living thing that has enabled itself to observe itself".
- "Obviously". milum

Well. I'm happy to hear you say that. While it is *obvious* to some, it certainly seems to be lost on the many.

I find it extremely interesting, and probably significant that there are so many physics constants
that if changed only a little would have made life impossible. One I reaad in Scietific American I think
many years ago, is the fact that when water freezes, just before it solidifies it expands enough
to lower its specific gravity enough that it floats.Otherwise the oceans would have become solid
ice, with only a few feet of water on the surface, and life in the oceans would be impossible, except
for algae and other microscopic forms.

there's that great book of lee smolin "the life of the cosmos" i think. it appeared a few years ago. IMHO defeating argument against all "anthropists". suppose they wouldn't agree :)

Bill:

In my view the actuality is that the life on earth is built to live in the universe that exists. The universe is not benevolent. It doesn't give a rat's patoot. It exists, and this strange combination of molecules has found a way to replicate itself, perhaps in perpetuity, but in all likelihood not.

TEd

the life on earth is built to live in the universe that exists.

Good point. If this universe weren't just perfect for us to exist we wouldn't be here to marvel at how perfect it was for us to exist.

On the other hand, other comments that with just some minor changes in some very fundamental constants, atoms, even subatomic particles, couldn't exist carry some weight, too. See Just Six Numbers by Martin J. Rees.

But on the third hand, if things were just that little bit different, perhaps there would be completely different subatomic particles, and we would be beings of some completely different nature that we can't begin to comprehend, marveling at the fact that if the basic constants were just a little bit different we wouldn't exist.

What it boils down to, as far as I'm concerned, is that the universe is neither compelled nor constrained by our imagination or lack of imagination.

Well, I agree with Faldage....life has evolved this way, and if it hadn't, it would have evolved 'that way' or some (other) way, and surely it has in places we haven't yet found or perhaps even conceived of (and may not ever as human beings; we are constrained by the very fact of our existence). And I find that fascinating.

"What it boils down to, as far as I'm concerned, is that the universe is neither compelled nor constrained by our imagination or lack of imagination". -faldage

But *we* apparently are. And that's why I try to let set my imagination free....I let it roam around with ideas like qanats and speleogenesis, high altitude sprites and collective minds...somehow its all part of the larger evolving....imho, anyway....

magimaria said: "Why yes. That's why I think daydreaming is such a valuable tool....access to an
entirely other realm of reality....(so m, turn off that computer and get back on that
couch and dream!)"

And Schopenhauer said:"Alles Urdenken geschieht in Bildern. Darum ist die Phantasie ein so notwendiges Werkzeug desselben." Yeah, that's what he said. But what he meant was "All primal, basic thought happens in pictures. For that reason, imagination is itself a very necessary tool." And I'm a lousy translator. But I saw that in a book I cataloged once and copied it down and stuck it to my studio wall. I really don't know how to render "Urdenken" into English satisfactorily.

After all, people did indeed think before they had words. On a few occasions
I have carried out a very detailed action without any words needed.
If anybody wants a sample, I'll give a couple by PM on request.

A small group of "if"f"s from Scienific American for December 1999:
"Our universe could not have become structured if it were not expanding at a special rate.
If the big bang had produced fewer density fluctuations, the universe would have remained
dark and featureless, with no galaxies or stars. And there are other prerequisites for complexity.
If our universe had more than three spatial dimensions planets could not stay in orbits around
their stars. If gravity were much stronger, it would crush organisms of human size, and stars would
be small and short lived. If nuclear forces were a few percent weaker, only hydrogen would be stable:
there would be no periodic table, no chemistry and no life. On the other hand, if nuclear forces were
slightly stronger, hydrogen itself could not exist.