tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post4782546451578283567..comments2024-02-15T19:40:29.872-08:00Comments on neopolitan's philosophical blog: Chance or Design?neopolitanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02501854905476808648noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-25443755026916622016-09-28T00:06:36.270-07:002016-09-28T00:06:36.270-07:00I have responded here.I have responded <a href="http://neophilosophical.blogspot.com/2016/09/another-chance-of-design-response-to.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.neopolitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02501854905476808648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-42628206908768684372016-09-27T09:47:46.084-07:002016-09-27T09:47:46.084-07:00And in case it wasn't obvious, 'Travis R&#...And in case it wasn't obvious, 'Travis R' = 'measureoffaith'.Travis Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00493818041928544851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-14565530145409782062016-09-27T09:45:36.327-07:002016-09-27T09:45:36.327-07:00You assume too much. I don't "want" ...You assume too much. I don't "want" Penrose's argument to say anything in particular, nor am I making a case for any particular view. I was simply skeptical of the story put forth in your original version and so wanted to inform you of the correct sources after locating them for myself. Perhaps I should have been more explicit - it is WLC, not me, <a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god#sdfootnote38sym" rel="nofollow">who refers to pages 762-765 of Penrose's TRtR</a> in the context of the quote. So the point was that your remarks about WLC presumably (and amusingly) referring to pg 784 is a strawman and is probably best exorcised from the post. As far as I can tell, WLC accurately characterizes the cited argument from Penrose, though he simultaneously fails to acknowledge the accompanying implications for theism that you outlined.Travis Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00493818041928544851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-43319142599311836162016-09-26T22:15:41.805-07:002016-09-26T22:15:41.805-07:00Thanks, I've updated accordingly. I don't...Thanks, I've updated accordingly. I don't think that pages 762-765 say what you want them to say. Penrose is arguing against the anthropic principle. Towards the end of an earlier section, "28.6 The anthropic principle", he writes (having linked the strong anthropic principle with a creationist god hypothesis):<br /><br />"My own position is to be extremely cautious about the use of the anthropic principle, most particularly the strong one. My impression is that the strong anthropic principle is often used as a kind of ‘cop-out’, when genuine theoretical considerations have seemed to reach their limit. I have not infrequently heard theorists resort to saying something like: ‘the values of the unknown constant parameters in my theory will be ultimately determined by the anthropic principle’. Of course it might indeed ultimately turn out that there is simply no mathematical way of fixing certain parameters in the ‘true theory’, and that the choice of these parameters is indeed such that the universe in which we find ourselves must be so as to allow sentient life. But I have to confess that I do not much like that idea!"<br /><br />Note that he moves from having particular issue with the strong anthropic principle to just referring to it as the anthropic principle. Thus, when he's protesting strongly against the anthropic principle in a later section, he is most particularly protesting against the strong anthropic principle, and thus against your god. Given the context, it's a little disengenuous to call upon Penrose in support of your case.<br /><br />I see no strong objection in Penrose's book against multiverses. Even when we limit ourselves to the very specific thing that WLC could be thought of as honestly referring to - the extravagance associated with having such a large, long-lived universe when perhaps we need a much smally region of order, no more than one galaxy, with the current laws in place only for as long as required for humans to evolve - we see that Penrose is arguing that for the purpose indicated (creating us, apparently) there would have been 10^10^123 more options that were significantly less extravagant. This is a strong argument against god, not a strong argument against multiverses. If anything, it implies that if there are multiverses (and thus more likelihood of the initial conditions from which intelligent life might spring) then the argument against god only increases.neopolitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02501854905476808648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-16706992875403478862016-09-24T18:00:37.286-07:002016-09-24T18:00:37.286-07:00FYI, the objections you list here appear to have b...FYI, the objections you list here appear to have been sourced from WLC rather than Robin Collins, and the accompanying reference to Penrose is on pages 762-765 of TRtR.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com