User talk:Eequor/Archives/Water

Important properties for life
There have been several conflicting edits on fine-tuning and anthropic principle. I believe that all edits have a bit of truth, and that keeping only one explanation to the unusual property of life is NPOV. Shouldn't we have one short paragraph briefly explaining the various answers as explained in fine-tuned universe, with a link to fine-tuned universe for more details ? And move any further discussion to this article ?


 * It's not gonna be easy :) -- I personally see no reason for inclusion of anthropic principle or fine tuning for life as both imply a designer and are nonscientific and unfalsifiable. Evolution is about the fine tuning of life forms to their environment.--Vsmith 22:14, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedy, not a scientific compendium. It contains many philosophical or religious articles.  I do not see why such issues would have to be removed from a "water" article. Pcarbonn 06:47, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, then put it in human culture or a Philosophy & Religion section. But, not in the main descriptive sections.Vsmith 16:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Neither the anthropic principle nor a fine-tuned universe imply intelligent design; they can only support it, and either may be irrelevant to the idea. They can be expressed scientifically, and frequently are, and they're "unfalsifiable" because they are true.  You're certainly free to try living in a universe with different physics or composition, or on a random starless planetoid.  In this universe, however, the peculiar coincidences of its existence make it very conducive to matter; the coincidence of Earth being where it is gives it conditions suitable for biological processes; and the aberrant behavior of water makes it especially conducive to life.


 * The argument, boiled down, is:


 * The conditions in the universe favor our existence.
 * Small variations in the conditions would make our existence impossible.
 * In fact, almost any conditions would prevent us from existing.
 * This universe is freaking weird.
 * Our universe is weird because we're part of it.


 * Therefore the anthropic principle is your own fault, so don't complain. --[[User:Eequor|&eta; [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &upsilon;&omega;&rho; ]]] 06:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * ... and they're "unfalsifiable" because they are true. Wow! That sounds like a religious statment. It's true: all you gotta do is believe. To be scientific an hypothesis must be testable or falsifiable. No way to test or falsify = not scientific. -Vsmith 17:00, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, well, observed facts are inherently true. Science is only concerned by why particular observations occur, not by whether the observations themselves have occurred.  It cannot change the facts, only interpret them.


 * Hmm... observed facts are not inherently true. Observed facts are our current interpretations of our sensory perceptions or our instrumental measurements of those facts. Thus these facts are subject to sensory and instrumental error and are not inherently true. Facts, except perhaps the most trivial kind, are subject to re-interpretation and re-measurement by more sophisticated instruments. The facts can and do change with new interpretations based on new theories and explanations undreamed of in previous times. -Vsmith 00:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * What I mean is, an observation has a definite existence, regardless of our interpretations. Someone who observes the sky to be blue will always have that observation in their history.  It is true that they observed a blue sky.  --[[User:Eequor|&eta; [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &upsilon;&omega;&rho; ]]] 17:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The anthropic principle is simply a truism. Because we observe only the universe, the universe must be in a state that allows us to observe it.  Such a statement is self-verifying and cannot be false.


 * A truism ... had to look that up as I don&#8217;t normaly use the term.
 * Found: A trite expression or idea: banality, bromide, cliché, commonplace, platitude...
 * and ... Often the word is used to disguise the fact that a proposition is really just a half-truth or an opinion, especially in rhetoric. from the Wiki article.
 * So, why would we even use the phrase - as it is indeed either a trite expression or just a half truth. I say be gone with it, not worthy of an article nor any kind of argument. -Vsmith 00:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Fine-tuned universe is a corollary to the anthropic principle. There is exactly one set containing every observation we have made or will make, in sequential subjective order.  Essentially, one's observed universe is "fine-tuned" for one state -- exactly that state which is observed -- to the exclusion of all other possible tunings.  It is unnecessary to refer to any specific properties of the universe; all other formulations of this idea concern the same set of observations.  Again, this statement is a truism.


 * The Universe we observe simply is and is not fine-tuned for anything. That would imply a tuner out there somewhere - an unknowable. The Universe is as it is. Life in the Universe has developed and evolved in and with the conditions of the Universe and has therefore tuned itself by evolution to the specific characteristics of the Universe that simply are. You state that fine-tuned universe is a truism. Again, be gone with the trite expression. -Vsmith 00:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It is, however, worth noting that water is necessary to our existence. Thus, we can also make stronger statements about the fine-tuned universe.  Since water is necessary for our existence, the set containing our history must contain water.  --[[User:Eequor|&eta; [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &upsilon;&omega;&rho; ]]] 17:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * In other words, anthropic principle and fine-tuned universe are invariant truths for all observers. It makes no more difference whether one believes in them, than whether one believes in one's own existence.  Each observer can verify the statements' truth by carefully conducting thought experiments about what, exactly, consciousness and self mean.


 * Thought experiments, good mental excercise. Didn't think we were discussing consciousness and self. Different horse, different ride :-) -Vsmith 00:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * But of course we are! ^_^
 * Must not all observations be observed by a self and interpreted by a consciousness? --[[User:Eequor|&eta; [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &upsilon;&omega;&rho; ]]] 17:19, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The idea that falsifiability is somehow necessary to the scientific method is an unfortunate but widespread error. Science survived quite well before the 20th century.  The possibility that an observer's interpretation of their observations is based on incorrect assumptions is irrelevant to their existence.  If a reasonable observer does, in fact, observe their interpretation is flawed, they will discard assumptions which have been demonstrated to be incorrect.  An unreasonable observer will discard the observation as spurious.  Neither has any inherent interest in knowing in advance whether they will make a contradictory observation.


 * In particular, thermodynamics and relativity both refute the idea that "falsifiability" means anything at all. --[[User:Eequor|&eta; [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ <font size="+1">&upsilon;&omega;&rho; ]]] 19:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The idea that falsifiability is somehow necessary to the scientific method is an unfortunate but widespread error.
 * Nonsense. A scientific theory or hypothesis is worthless if it cannot be tested. It must make predictions that can be tested, in other words - falsifiable - there must be a way to check its validity, to see if it is error. Other scientists must be able to either reproduce the results or falsify the theory if they cannot. Einstein&#8217;s relativity theory has been tested repeatedly on various points. It is a scientific theory because it makes predictions that can be and have been tested. But, then I gather from your responses that you really do not know what falsifiability means. -Vsmith 00:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Falsifiability isn't the same as verifiability. One can verify the truth of a hypothesis without needing to know whether it could be proven false with other knowledge.  One can also act on the discovery that a hypothesis is false without prior awareness that it could have been false (and, at that point, "falsifiable" becomes a truism anyway).  There is no particular reason one might need to know whether something can be proven true or proven false; one must only be able to state conditions which are sufficient (truth) or necessary (falsehood).


 * In the case of the anthropic principle, a sufficient condition for its truth is the fact that we observe the universe. One might say that fine-tuned universe is concerned with stating the necessary conditions for us to exist.  --[[User:Eequor|<font size="+1">&eta; <font style="position: relative; bottom: -1px; vertical-align: text-bottom">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ <font size="+1">&upsilon;&omega;&rho; ]]] 17:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)