My belief is that searching for the meaning of everything and anything gives us a reason to continue living.

I would further offer that our drive for such understanding is the reason that YOU and I are members on a Cosmology Forum. After all, Cosmology is the study of Everything (the entire Universe).

Even in this day and time, there are some subgroups of people who only value human life according to unreasoned beliefs. Some have such great faith in “whatever” they believe, or have been told to believe, as to take life or even give up their own lives without much thought. To me this is an example of failure to have an “open mind” and a failure of understanding. Following blind faith, with such an “open mind failure” can make people look like the lemmings (that sometimes appear to commit suicide) going over cliffs in Norway “without reason"... just following each other... without thinking.

We need reason and to take a little time in our lives to review what we now believe, what our reasons are for that belief, and think about what is the “meaning” of everything and anything. Such reflection may give us new and better reasons for existing – which gives “meaning to our life” . Above all we must have an “open mind”.

The person with an open mind is not committed to total black or white, my theory or your theory , good or evil, your faith or mine, but prefers to follow a path to finding empirical and observational evidence for constructing a purely “Personal Belief” not forced on others... and always keeps an open mind toward newly observed and empirical evidence. Should that "Personal Belief" ever correspond to the prevailing belief, then they can have a great “Personal Pride” in that fact. However many times great people had a personal belief that nobody else on Earth believed until their time in history came along... and like Newton or Einstein... they kept an open mind -- never following the lemmings around them.

Having an open mind based on empirical observation of the Universe should be our goal. It is an unending process of “searching” for meaning. That unending search will prevent a closed mind that leads to blind faith and intolerance in our World. Understanding historically has always been advanced by those with an open mind... especially an open mind based on empirical observation. Modern Civilization now depends on the progress made by a long list of geniuses who had an open mind in the face of adverse opinions and even Inquisitions demanding blind faith.

I never expect to see the very final meaning of everything or anything, but am only suggesting that the pursuit of that meaning is a worthy, important, and continuing search. Studies have show that keeping an open active mind porlongs life. That search, besides improving previous understanding can also give meaning to our lives and is a goal to strive toward... it can be our best “raison de vivre”.

In that regard I only suggest that as humans we must be able to "understand" previous human meanings for things to advance and for us to conceive new meaning and understanding. Our foundation of knowledge must be solid to build on and have understandable meanings for things as we build upon the great works of others.

Understanding is not based on ambiguous words. Progress can only happen if we agree on what we mean by certain basic words and terms such as time, matter, space, energy, mass, inertia, gravity, Universe, Big Bang, weight, and a huge number of other terms that are often used to mean more than one thing... even in the same context.

In that regard I propose that we develop a Science Dictionary wherein every definition it contains is a “consensus definition”... first with each term submitted by those familiar with the field, and then one definition is voted best to get a consensus -- where many potential definitions are reviewed and voted upon. That way future theory will have clear meaning as it must use terms that are agreed upon and universally understood.

Understanding is only contained in thought. For that reason, we will never know if some things lie beyond our conception. The search continues.

Our thought can only advance when we agree by general consensus on the semantics of our common words and terms.

For Humankind only words convey meaning.

Out there beyond our reach is a vast and unexplained Universe of Everything... but Meaning is a possession of thought and might be ours for the keeping.

Al Alkan

If I am reading your post correctly, you see the quest for the "meaning of everything" through the open minded gathering and interpretation of empirical evidence as the reason for existance.  If so, your search will be be fruitless. 

The search for meaning in anything is the search for intent.  And no matter how much empirical data you collect, or how throughly you analize it, data will never define meaning.  The search for the meaning of the cosmos is the search for the why of the cosmos.  To try and glean meaning from piles of data is like trying to explain why a child's hug moves us by describing the pressure, warmth and texture.  The meaning is in the intent.

I agree that we are best served when we keep our minds open to new concepts of how our universe was born and has developed.  Part of the excitement of cosmology, part of its reward, is its ever changing newness.  That search, the quest for how, can and has provided a lifetime of purpose for many people.  For many, that is enough.  But, for many others the quest for why is more important, and the quest for why requires a different discipline, a different sort of open mind.  If meaning is your goal, then at some point in the gathering and scrutinizing of emperical evidence you must realize that faith becomes a factor.

Here is what I believe.  There is a meaning to everything and everything has meaning because it was created with intent.  How that creation took place, how it has developed, and where it is heading is a wonderfully complex and fascinating story that science has only just begun to discover.  If there was no intent, if everything is the result of random acts of physics, then there is no meaning.

In closing I want to say that, even though I am sure it was not your intent, I resent the implication that just because I have a belief system that did not come from a textbook, or a calculator, that I have a closed mind. 

Hmm...I think we might be bordering on a religious discussion here....

But I would ask, why does there need to be meaning?  What difference does it make, there probably is no meaning to anything other than what we perceive.  Does the Universe need to have a meaning?  Are we capable of understanding it even if it did?  People look for a "purpose" to life.  Does there need to be a purpose?  I saw a quote once, unfortunately I don't remember who it was, but they said "the only purpose to life is to live."

I agree about having an open mind.  Too many people blindly accept what they're told without question.  Without thinking about it for themselves in a rational, logical manner.  They cling to opinions and beliefs even when the evidence points to the contrary.  That's what I call being closed minded.

jsmoody wrote:

Hmm...I think we might be bordering on a religious discussion here.... But I would ask, why does there need to be meaning?  What difference does it make, there probably is no meaning to anything other than what we perceive.  Does the Universe need to have a meaning?  Are we capable of understanding it even if it did?  People look for a "purpose" to life.  Does there need to be a purpose?  I saw a quote once, unfortunately I don't remember who it was, but they said "the only purpose to life is to live." I agree about having an open mind.  Too many people blindly accept what they're told without question.  Without thinking about it for themselves in a rational, logical manner.  They cling to opinions and beliefs even when the evidence points to the contrary.  That's what I call being closed minded.

You are correct that the Universe doesn't care about the "meaning" of meaning as meaning is a possession of thought, and closed minded as opposed to open minded -- is something I also associate with blind faith.

Meaning however is conveying some intent by definition. To me the conveying is conveying more than the sum of the parts and for me what is conveyed is to myself. It is difficult to convey my meaning to you unless you know all my parts, definitions, empirical evidence, tools used, and the process resulting in what is conveyed to me.

My intent to me is most often only seen in retrospect after the whole process becomes a personal belief. The search and process is the fun in my life -- but from the beginning and even after forming the personal belief, an open mind is required.

That process to me depends on having definitions that are stable as my tools and previous works of others based on stable definitions and based on empirical data (often called previous theory) also form my tools. Then taking from the universe (that is unconcerned about meaning) new empirical observations to try and fit into the puzzle in order to make new works I attempt new and hopefully greater meaning. Sometimes the new works replace the works of others or add new features to the works of others. Sometimes they agree. If they fail they are rejected. The end result (if not rejected) is my present personal belief... which can and often does change.

My great thing is the search and the process for my own personal beliefs as it furnishes me with a "esprit de vivre". Each person must develop their personal beliefs for themselves according to what they consider important.

Some would rather accept other's beliefs on blind faith. That is their decision. I would then suggest that they become a student of history before doing so -- as beliefs of others led to things like the Crusades and many other unpleasant memories for historians -- and even worse for victims. Many accepted beliefs of others are worthy and there are benign things taken on faith. If you accept beliefs from others consider their motives and how they have stood the test of time. Did they ever cause historical problems? Does the person trying to give you a belief even "fully" understand their own belief? Is their belief an unproven hand me down? There is not enough time in life to make all beliefs personal beliefs. Choose what is important to think about. If your teacher requires you to be a parrot, be a parrot -- but you can still think for yourself after you get their A.

I consider the search for meaning an unending search for personal belief.

So to attempt to convey what I "mean" by meaning -- meaning is the end product of the process that leads to my personal belief, and the original intent is only the urge to discover that blossoms at the end of the search. It is not an intent to prove something is what something already is but is an attempt to convey more of the essence and overall picture -- but it often becomes much much more. It is complicated and to me is best described by the word "Gestalt".

I apologize if you do not understand. 

Al Alkan 

I understand as well.  Although in my mind, gestalt would describe the human mind more than the Universe.  It may apply to the Universe as well though.  My point is that there may not be a "meaning" to the Universe nor to life.  There may be, but there may not be.  It doesn't really matter that much to me.  I'm fascinated by science and the search to understand the Universe but I have no desire to find "meaning" to the Universe. 

I would like to understand the "workings" of the Universe although that goal is probably unattainable by any human, in the next few centuries anyway.  I don't look for any spiritual, metaphysical or supernatural essence in the Universe but I do enjoy learning about the properties and mechanisms of the natural laws that drive it.

I think enjoying your life is the meaning of life

And we will colonize Mars & Venus in the future?

That will be the great meaning of life  

The answer to life, the universe, and everything?  42.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I do appreciate the thoughtful insights, and I agree, but as far as meaning goes it does come down to faith.  And that's where I agree 100% with the Einstein quote "Science without religion is lame.  Religion without science is blind."

Well...I guess Einstein couldn't be right about everything.

Although I might be sidetracking on this note, yes I agree with you in relation to why I came here. What brought me here is my search for truth. In a naive sense yes I know its general, but these are all tiny yet key features in this vast puzzle to me.

In my personal quest, what makes my tick everyday, is the fact there is a quest. There is this undetermined knowledge of existense which stirs a curiousity we all share as a race. At least something we all have in common.

I can look to the sky and feel. I can pass away today's drama and forget my perception of time in the knowledge which intimidates me from above. To me thats awesome.

I've always had an open mind of our existense, even about current issues. Unfortunately most friends, even family, will never accept an alternative beyond one they've been so perfectly taught. So I'm the only one who feels like theres more? Or maybe the acceptance of this type of science propose we view all variables with serious elasticity.

Thankyou for making this post.

Yes mjolnir, there are only a few who take the time in their chaotic lives -- ruled by the hand me down beliefs of others -- to look at the Total Universe and think about how they fit into a bigger picture. 

That is the reason we are here. 

Al Alkan 

I disagree.  I believe there are billions of people who contemplate their place in the universe on a daily basis.  That contemplation may not take the same form for each of them, in fact I'm sure that it doesn't.  But still it happens.  When a person looks at the dark roiling wall of clouds preceeding a summer storm and feels small and insignificant, yet excited aren't they realizing their place in the universe?  When a man considers taking a new job to better the lot of his family, isn't he contemplating his role?  Picture an astronomer in his observatory making some groundbreaking discovery, and then picture his small child playing outside of that same observatory seeing his first praying mantis.  Is one discovery more valuable than the other?

Don't sell people short just because they do not use the same methods of study, contemplation and thought that you do.  Some people are comfortable with examining the universe on its grandest scales.  Probing the limits of space and time, trying to push back the envelope to the outer edges of creation.  And that is fine.  It is a developing mystery with new clues being uncovered everyday.  Exciting.  Other people turn their contemplation to the universe's smallest scales like quantum mechanics where the solutions will only lead to smaller and smaller -- or larger and larger -- scales.  Most people don't deal with the universe on either of those levels.  They deal with, they contemplate and study the universe as it effects them.  They do it in the ways they have learned and developed through their experience.  Isn't experience the purest form of study?

Physics is the study of the interaction of matter and energy.  I seems to me there are a great number of ways to look at those interactions.  To limit it to "look at the Total Universe" seems a bit closed.  Everyone, at least partly,  builds their belief system upon "the handed down beliefs of others".  Even if those 'others' have the names of Newton, Einstien, Feynman, or Hawking.  I am a biologist by training, an engineer by vocation, and an amature astronomer by choice.  I've loved science since I was a child, but I've never kidded myself that science wasn't filled with every bit as much narrowmindedness and dogma as any other form of philosophy.  To give the study of cosmology too much weight in the grand scheme of things would be, in-my-humble-opinion, a mistake.  Yes the search for knowledge is entertaining and enlightening, but understanding the cosmos is basicly useless.  Nothing learned has any practical value.  We are seperated from the events that we study by such enormous distances and time spans that it is like looking at ancient photograph album.  The future evolution of the universe will play out long after our species is extinct.  So the more valuable contemplation might be the thought we put into the interactions we have on a daily basis.

Ah, the dizzying intelect of Al! No offense intended Al, I follow your various posts with great pleasure.

In this particular thread I feel you have come perilously close to transgressing the no religeous discussions rule. You have posited that "religeous" belief is inherently closed minded and then held up great scientists as examples of openmindedness who have publicly stated, among other things, that "true science is the discovery of Gods creative process" and "scientific discovery is predicated on the assurance that God is an orderly god and has created an orderly universe" and the afore mentioned Einstine quote.

I am here because I am open minded and require proof for what I believe. I see much more "lemming like behavior" amongst the evolutionists than anywhere else.

Alas I think your quest for a consensis bassed dictionary, while laudable, is hopeless because closed minds want no deffinitions except thier own.

carpenter wrote:

Ah, the dizzying intelect of Al! No offense intended Al, I follow your various posts with great pleasure. In this particular thread I feel you have come perilously close to transgressing the no religeous discussions rule. You have posited that "religeous" belief is inherently closed minded and then held up great scientists as examples of openmindedness who have publicly stated, among other things, that "true science is the discovery of Gods creative process" and "scientific discovery is predicated on the assurance that God is an orderly god and has created an orderly universe" and the afore mentioned Einstine quote. I am here because I am open minded and require proof for what I believe. I see much more "lemming like behavior" amongst the evolutionists than anywhere else. Alas I think your quest for a consensis bassed dictionary, while laudable, is hopeless because closed minds want no deffinitions except thier own.

Thank you for this opinion. 

First let me beg your forgiveness if anything I post offends. It is “not” my intent to change any opinions -- far from it. I respect your views and opinions as I would any of your personal possessions.

Even though I used the words "blind faith" in a critical sense where those words apply to anything harmful to others individually or as a group, I can see where my meaning was unclear.

In other posts I have mentioned that "blind faith" of the benign or even worthy type exists.  Also some blind faiths are time savers as we don't have time to personally reflect on everything.

I only mentioned that pathological types of blind faith were not a characteristic of the greatest scientists, as none of those I know about advocated such beliefs directing harm to others. Certainly Newton had deep personal faith that was not part of his scientific persona. He never used such blind faith to be intolerant against others. His was the type of "blind faith" that I respect.

In general, blind faith with me is a neutral issue unless it is used for scientific arguments. I myself have certain blind faiths I don't understand, but attribute that to being human. Everybody has some blind faiths and if they don't use them against others for irrational harmful reasons, it is fine with me.

If they expound "malicious blind faith" beliefs against others "knowing better" and for rational, calculated personal, political, financial, or power gain then they deserve whatever they get from history or society. Not all people believe the "blind faith" they try to sell others -- just study history.

There is good and bad blind faith, but I only "try" to do better when I choose to construct a personal belief. 

I only posit things to be considered – mostly to be considered in my own mind, but have been using the space here as merely a place to think while I type... where potential feed back may help my personal understanding. Thank you for your opinions, as they are worthy of consideration.

I always tell myself to keep an "open mind".

In that regard, I wonder if it is possible to keep a truly open mind -- as in the past I have considered that an open mind is only a relative position and not completely possible. If I use that term, certainly I only mean it in a relative sense to mean as open as personally I am capable.

I mentioned that “meaning is a possession of thought” and I still believe that. Because meaning and understanding of the Universe is limited (as far as I know) to the thought of humans, some analysis of "that" is worth thinking about. Humans have a very very unique position in the local Universe.

Because of our animal heritage we have urges, instincts, emotions, loyalties to other humans, human biases formed over the eons, and endless other human traits.

But our being human has other things like our size and the planet we live on. Gravity for us affects us much more (and is more of a problem) than say for a tiny insect that is pulled around by static electricity and is much less subject to falling and weight problems... just as huge huge  dinosaurs had weight problems and had to have bones relatively much thicker and stronger than say a tiny bird just to support their weight. For them a fall would be very dangerous to their skeleton.

We find ourselves to be “influenced” by other things such as our senses (especially vision) and our stable environment on a stable planet with viable temperatures, atmosphere, lack of major predictors (other than each other) , and  available food sources -- all these things are so very suitable for human life. The very fact that we only became Homo sapiens after becoming more carnivorous (as shown by study of early hominid teeth) as we became less herbivorous taints our human bias -- but by protein and hunting the meat in our diet is theorized to have increased our hominid brain size and intelligence. There is a lot of speculation in anthropology, but we haven't been intelligent very long in geologic time.

Our mathematics came from observation in a stable environment and at first was required by a need for trade using counting with integers and addition and subtraction for more accurate understanding. Crops and land measurement led to "geo-metry". As we are intelligent, we had abstraction that led to a number system based on our ten fingers and later to decimal fractions and a required zero and a decimal point. Further abstraction led to algebra and to all the advanced mathematics we have today. Our ability to abstract things separates us from species that have "no cosmologists"... even amateur ones.

My point is that we have a heritage that biases our own point of view related to us being human, our position near our star, our size, our time, and environmental factors in the Universe. Probably someone from our time would be amazed at the changes in just a few years, much more in a century, and vastly more in a millennium from now. We are what we are, where we are, at our time and our heredity. There is even a long long list of other possibly less important reasons.

What could the above have to do with meaning and understanding?

Being our size, all our observations of our “macro” world biases us and our definitions of words, as words with their meaning are the human way we think (just try to think about something complicated without the meaning of words). We think about multiples or divisions of time and space with time in terns of days or years, and space according to our feet, or stepping yards (and later meters) ... all from the bias of human anatomy or the planetary revolutions about an axis or the Sun. We are confronted now with findings that came along recently -- long long after we developed as a civilization. We already had our time, space and mass concepts deeply ingrained in our heritage and human thought when new observation of the micro appeared.

All I am trying to say is we have biases to build our meaning upon. I am not saying those biases are “wrong”. I am saying those words with their meanings are “all we have” until our abstraction can build new words with different meanings. That is a slow process but accelerating in recent years. For future meaning and understanding, we as a civilized race must allow ourselves to use what we have (our present words with their definitions) to think with and to try and abstract things greater than the sum of their parts... our Gestalt comes from that abstraction. We will need to build even greater meaning by abstraction. Abstraction seems to be a trait that advances in step with intelligence.

This heritage of ancient definitions for words to think with may be hindering advancement as we find things like divisions of our concept of space and of time that are quantized and not further divisible (as most things that are observed in the macro of everyday life are found divisible). Also we have to accept that time itself is not independent of relative motion just as space is likewise. We now must accept that our word "simultaneous" has no physical meaning for relative velocities. Most people never think about light curving in space that is warped by gravity or light velocity that does not change no matter "where" the space or the velocity. We are beginning to get other clues to new abstractions that “will be required” in the future to explain things like the new observations we make in our sub-universe -- and most are classifying these new things under a "mutating" theory called the Big Bang.

So what is abstraction? To me it is very very complicated and requires a sort of process of playing with a multitude of previous meanings and abstraction upon abstraction it is a little like trying to move those meanings around like pieces on a chess board of thought to find the best next move. For many people it is mostly visual mentally. It is also sort of a game we play with words and their meanings in mental space. Rarely everything fits together and suddenly we have abstracted something greater than the sum of its parts... a new meaning...a new Gestalt.

In the future, we may be required to have simple basic new terms (words) that have meanings previously unknown or never thought about before -- to allow us to advance. Possibly such basic words will come in the next century of our time. they will just be basic words to convey meaning never thought of in early human history. Then new theory can build upon them.

Theory is merely the abstraction of what we observe and conceive.

Sometimes the very best abstraction is flawed and will require a lot of mutation or even replacement by a new theory that better abstracts how things work.

These abstractions are called physical theories and only if they have never been observed to fail, are they temporarily referred to as "Laws of Physics". Even those are subject to future observations.

Theory that abstracts and simplifies the important features of how things work is something that makes thinking with an open mind worthwhile. It has nothing to do with final meaning as that is impossible.  After all, meaning is a possession of thought and human thought (possibly is unique in our local sub-universe) and is mortal.

If all the number of seconds of an average human lifetime were compared by ratio to all the number of years life has existed on this planet we can calculate that vast number of seconds in a lifetime is almost the same as the vast number of years there has been life on Earth. 

To try and understand our civilization better, Modern Physics has been around for a hundred years or a hundred of your seconds (only 1 2/3 of your minutes). In your hour and 15 minutes 4500 years will have passed. I would venture that Humanity might not last that long.

Cheer up, Humanity might even last 9,000 years or two and a half of your hours -- if the human race lasts as long as Brandon Carter's theory would predict. He is the great Austalian Cosmologist that found another solution to General Realitivity. His argument is for 9120 more years (thought by some to have a 95% probability) -- but I contend that he didn't allow for human mass suicide events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument

Some newer theory is becoming less and less based on what we observe and more like string theory -- finding things that even in theory can never be observed. From my personal viewpoint I hold theory based on the vast vast world of observed facts to be more important, but have no objection to “pure” mind games not based on observation.

For me life is too short to play that game. As an example, if we observe quanta and still can't fit previous words and meanings to fully explain “why” I would rather see new abstraction to explain that known observation. Right now Quantum field theory is rules of thumb rather than rules meaning. The great thing is that the rules of thumb fit observation very very well... someday somebody will make it rules of meaning. New meaning is an unending building process.

So to me "all we have" to work with (to construct meaning and understanding) is based on us being human and what we have "available" in our little home here on a little planet using only our heritage and what we were given from our animal beginnings and biases. We can only TRY to have an open mind. We build layer by layer by abstraction (that which captures the essence of observation... or even the essence of pure thought... if you are tired of observation).

It is flawed and not ideal –but it is ALL we have.

Because understanding is "flawed", we will never understand Everything, and we can only "try" to keep an open mind.

Again thank you.

I would not want to live in a World where everyone thought the same way as I do... discussion would become a monologue or a soliloquy.

Al Alkan

Let's look at the lemming metaphore in the light of actual fact.  Lemmings do not mindlessly follow others to their doom.  That is a myth.  Lemmings do group together (they are typically solitary creatures) and begin seeking better forage in times of population stress, or when the food supply runs short.  So the stout hearted little rodents band together and set out to find a practical solution to their problem and most of them survive the journey.  Many do die on this quest however.  Some die when they are pushed too far by those behind.  Others die when they make the considered choice to jump into the icy water (most however survive this, and survive the leaps from low cliffs that have been so popularized, because they are tough little beggers and good swimmers).  So, to sum it up lemmings do not commit suicide and they are not blind followers.  They die seeking.

Not a bad model to follow.  Count on yourself when you can, count on others when you must, keep your eyes open, be tough, and keep searching for what you believe in.

By the way; the myth of lemming mass suicide was propogated by a Disney film in which the researchers -- oh! those seekers of truth -- faked the scenes of the lemmings jumping off cliffs by throwing the little beasts.

zachsdad wrote:

Let's look at the lemming metaphore in the light of actual fact.  Lemmings do not mindlessly follow others to their doom.

Thank you for this.

I also have heard that no proof of suicidal traits for lemmings ever has been proven -- but it is a good metaphor with those pathological human minds whose beliefs lead to such things.

There are very numerous examples and definitely more evidence for mass suicide that is "very well" documented throughout human history -- than for lemmings. So my use of the lemming metaphor, rather than expose our minds to such "unpleasant history".

Forgive me for appearing to have a human bias against lemmings, but I wanted to soften the horror  of the idea -- they might even be a good example for some people as you mention.

I enjoyed your comment and thank you again. I will look up lemmings. They might make good pets.

Al Alkan 

People who accept the scientific fact of evolution may indeed band together like lemmings.  The better to defend against the blind closed mindedness of the "blind faith" crowd.  Evolution is a fact.  It's not just a "theory" It's a "Scientific Theory" and as such is subject to a much more rigorous proofs.  Look it up.  There's quite a difference.  One definition of Scientific Theory is - a group of statements that explain the facts.  The fact is that life evolves.  The "theory" part is the definition of exactly how that happens. 

Thosands upon thousands of scientists with advanced degrees and high IQ's have studied it for over a  hundred and fifty years now and the mountains of evidence all point to one thing.  Evolution is a fact.  There are some minor disagreements between some scientists on some of the exact mechanisms but the fact of evolution is accepted almost universally by the scientific community.  Why?  Because of the mountains upon mountains of indisputable evidence.  Not just the fossil record, Darwin based his theories mostly on his observations of animals that were alive at the time of his voyage, not on fossils.  I don't have to read a book or attend a lecture to see that evolution is a fact.  All I have to do is go out and look closely at the animals around me.  It's so obvious it just slaps you in the face. 

But a lot of closed minded people ignore scientific evidence and blindly accept alternatives that lack any evidence at all.  They think they know more than hundreds of thousands of scientists.  Go figure.

I don't want to debate evolution.  I'd about as soon debate whether the Earth is flat or round.  Not much difference as far as I can see.  The evidence speaks for itself, as it does for evolution.

jsmoody,

Yes in my mind evolution is a fact. As far as my personal belief can determine. I also have experience by observation from my youth when I worked on oil wells observing each layer of the sediments and observing the different fossils. I was curious and watched for fossils from the surface on down through the layers of geologic time. This has been verified by unquestionable radioisotope dating. 

 On one cable tool well that brought up huge chunks of rock making it easy to see fossils, I looked at and found different fossils from each layer.  I even watched through the Ordoviician fossils which is proven by such dating to have ended about 488.3 million years ago and even deeper layers as far as a half billion years to still find the existance of more and different fossils in those Cambrian layers. I never was on a well however that reached the granite below the sedimentary layers. So in my mind I can only vouch for layer after layer of former life on Earth for only half a billion years.

I have read about evidence elsewhere for much longer life such as eukaryotes and stromatolites tracing life back 2 billion years or so, but know very little about them and never even saw that type of fossil.

However I will keep an open mind if someone can prove the theory incorrect in spite of my personal opinion about the subject.

In my mind, the odds of someone proving the theory wrong is similar to the odds for any carbon based life existing in our sub-universe without evoking a statistically based anthropic principle.

I only came to accept the anthropic principle recently but see no proof so far to change my opinion and can not imagine how we could exist without such a cause. To my mind the product of all the independent chances for carbon based life even makes me think the total Universe has vast if not infinite numbers of sub-universes just to allow our rare rare type sub-universe and its tiny tiny chance to even exist by statistics.

I certainly am open to reversing my opinion given new reasons if anyone can find  valid reasons "against" a statistical type anthropic principle. 

But "first hand" I do know there has been life on Earth a long long time. I once found a trilobite in a rock I broke open. I don't know the age but read they became extinct by radioisotope dating 250 million years ago. It is beautiful.This happened when I was a kid walking a stream bed in Missouri (the "show-me" state). I still have it after all these years. That personal finding may have started me thinking more about my place in the Universe.

Al Alkan 

There are two basic definitions of the anthropic principle:

1. "in cosmology, a principle saying that conditions that are observed in the universe confirm that the observer exists and is compatible with the observed conditions."

2. "in cosmology, a principle saying that the observability of the universe relies on and is constrained by the existence of intelligent life."

I find neither of them to be the least bit believable.  They're based on the same old "human centered" Universe concept that brought us the Earth centered Universe and the flat Earth.  Just more of the old "If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one to hear, does it make a sound." nonsense.  And that's all it is, nonsense.  The Universe would exist with or without intelligent beings.  Can animals not observe the Universe?  Do they not see stars, the Sun, the Moon?  Sorry, it just seems totally ridiculous to me.

In my opinion such nonsense is just mind games played by pseudo-intellectials in their futile attempts to impress people.  It means nothing and is totally irrelevant to reality.  Human beings are not the "crown of creation" or the end-all and be-all of the Universe.  It's far past the time when we should stop thinking of the Universe in human terms.  That, to me just seems arrogant and conceited.  I thought that sort of thing went out when it was discovered that the Earth orbits the Sun and not vice versa.

Again, this is just my opinion.  And I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound harsh, but it does sound to me like the Anthropic Principle is more like the Anthropomorphic Principle, which would certainly not be valid in my mind. 

If you disagree, please state a valid case, giving evidence and logical reasons.

justintree wrote:

The answer to life, the universe, and everything?  42. Sorry, I couldn't resist. I do appreciate the thoughtful insights, and I agree, but as far as meaning goes it does come down to faith.  And that's where I agree 100% with the Einstein quote "Science without religion is lame.  Religion without science is blind."

It's important to note that Einstein did not believe in a personal deity.  His concept of religion was that of scientific pantheism.

From http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man." (Albert Einstein)

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God