This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The anthropic principle simply says that the probability of every "explanation" (particular sequence of events through which life came to be?) we need to consider in determining the most likely one is its probability conditioned on our existence, since our existence is a given. What this does is countering arguments that actually are along the lines of "abiogenesis is unlikely, therefore the existence of a creator must be likely, since probabilities sum to 1", because there is no requirement for the absolute probability to sum to 1. If there is a 10^-8 probability of a creator god and a 10^-6 probability of abiogenesis (whatever even is the sample space; call it "multiverse hypothesis" if you need to reify it by imagining 10^8 different universes of which one has a creator god and about 100 have abiogenesis occurring), the anthropic principle simply states that if you find yourself alive, there is nothing to "explain" about the ~10^-6 probability of this having happened at all. Honestly, maybe I've been brainwashed by probability theory too much, but it's hard for me to even imagine what there is to be confused by - whenever you are dealt a hand in a game of cards, do you feel the need to explain the fantastically unlikely event that just unfolded before you? What exactly do you consider an explanation, anyway?
He will still need to explain his memories of existing before he started to skydive (and everyone else's cultural and individual memory of there having been life before it).
Fighter jets are huge. Even ignoring the far greater fluidity of organic soup compared to fighter jet parts, an agglomeration of raw materials for as many potential fighter jets as there were for potential basic amino acid replicators in the organic soup on Earth's surface they presumably arose on would rapidly collapse into a black hole.
Because our eyes and hands are far better suited for arranging hunks of metal than they are for arranging molecules. Forget fighter jets - artificial diamonds at least as of a few decades ago still were smaller and less pretty than their natural counterpart, but nature has never wrought a single steel knife of the type we've had for centuries. Do you consider this an argument for divine creation of diamonds?
If we were to turn out to live in the "Made-by-Jesus" world, I would have no problem updating in favour of Christianity, although the question of course would remain somewhat open because I'd have to ask if there was some way the Jesus crowd could have put that string there (or knocked me out cold and locked me up in their Jesus-affirming VRMMO), or if maybe there was some connection between that string being there and the words "made", "by" and "Jesus" coming to mean what they do in modern English to begin with.
To be clear, the anthropic principle says that there's nothing to explain if we're in a multiverse.
That's much less clear for a one-shot.
Re: cards, wouldn't you suspect the dealer, if you got a royal flush in poker, or a full suit in bridge? For an ordinary hand, yes, the event is unlikely, but it's not unlikely in an interesting way such that any other hypotheses are privileged enough to overcome their prior lower probability.
It seems pretty clear to me that our existence raises the probability of the "multiverse" hypothesis and the "God" hypothesis relative to a hypothetical observerless universe.
Even a single universe still contains quintillions of planets, in which potential abiogenesis would take place almost completely independently, so I'm not sure it would be correct to consider a single universe a single chance for the emergence of life.
Right, the abiogenesis isn't a single chance. The relevant part is cosmic fine-tuning, like fine-tuning of the physical constants to exactly what they need to be. That seems to be something where we have to go universe by universe instead of bucket of chemicals by bucket of chemicals.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link