@180 Proof

Clarification

Not any ol' pattern is conducive to carbon-based life. Let's keep it simple and subscribe to carbon-chauvinism for the moment.

The anthropic principle question: Why are the properties of the universe such that it allows carbon-based (intelligent) life?

What we're looking for is not just patterns but patterns that make carbon-based (intelligent) life possible. In other words, why is the universe comprehensible (has patterns) to us (carbon-based intelligent life)?

No reason says the Anthropic Principle. There's multiverse out there and we're simply one of them. Nothing special about us at all i.e. the answer to "why does the universe make sense to us?" has no answer or if you want an answer it's, "it's just a fluke!"

Comprehensibility is not something we can project/impose onto something that is inherently incomprehensible — Agent Smith

In case you refer to "must" in my statement "We must create one for ourselves", I didn't use it in the sense of an absolute need or of imposing comprehensibilty onto something incomprehensible, as you say, but rather that if we want that life has a meaning for us, then we should create one ourselves (and for ourselves).

In case you refer to "must" in my statement "We must create one for ourselves", I didn't use it in the sense of an absolute need or of imposing comprehensibilty onto something incomprehensible, as you say, but rather that if we want that life has a meaning for us, then we should create one ourselves (and for ourselves). — Alkis Piskas

The word "meaning", it seems, has different meanings. Comprehensibility (meaning-wise), as herein relevant, has to do with patterns. Meaning as purpose seems relevant too if we take the fine-tuning aspect of the Anthropic Principle into consideration. Where do you wanna go with this?

My problem with the anthropic principle so used is that it can be used to explain everything and so explains nothing. Why is the earth 93m miles from the sun? Because if it was closer or further away we would burn up or freeze. We are here and alive. No more explanation needed. Nah. It's a principle that should not be invoked to steamroller tricky questions flat.

Update

$Life \rightarrow Comprehension$

$Life \nrightarrow Comprehensibility$

Update

In a totally chaotic (patternless) universe, Boltzmann brains may form i.e.

$Life \nrightarrow Comprehension/Comprehensibility$

Where do you wanna go with this? — Agent Smith

Nowhere! I'm good. :grin:

The idea that man is not a rational animal (a la Aristotle) goes way, way back:

Concerning the first generation of the universe this is the account which we have received. But the first men to be born, he says, led an undisciplined and bestial life, setting out one by one to secure their sustenance and taking for their food both the tenderest herbs and the fruits of wild trees. Then, since they were attacked by the wild beasts, they came to each other’s aid, being instructed by expediency, and when gathered together in this way by reason of their fear, they gradually came to recognize their mutual characteristics. And though the sounds which they made were at first unintelligible and indistinct, yet gradually they came to give articulation to their speech, and by agreeing with one another upon symbols for each thing which presented itself to them, made known among themselves the significance which was to be attached to each term.
But since groups of this kind arose over every part of the inhabited world, not all men had the same language, inasmuch as every group organized the elements of its speech by mere chance. This is the explanation of the present existence of every conceivable kind of language, and, furthermore, out of these first groups to be formed came all the original nations of the world.
Now the first men, since none of the things useful for life had yet been discovered, led a wretched existence, having no clothing to cover them, knowing not the use of dwelling and fire, and also being totally ignorant of cultivated food. For since they also even neglected the harvesting of the wild food, they laid by no store of its fruits against their needs; consequently large numbers of them perished in the winters because of the cold and the lack of food. Little by little, however, experience taught them both to take to the caves in winter and to store such fruits as could be preserved. And when they had become acquainted with fire and other useful things, the arts also and whatever else is capable of furthering man’s social life were gradually discovered. Indeed, speaking generally, in all things it was necessity itself that became man’s teacher, supplying in appropriate fashion instruction in every matter to a creature which was well endowed by nature and had, as its assistants for every purpose, hands and speech and sagacity of mind — Diodorus Siculus

The LNC is the foundation of classical comprehensibility; it's a litmus test for sense as opposed to nonsense. Nonsense is a much broader concept (incoherence is a bigger world than mere inconsistency). — Agent Smith

Sure, but my point was that our experience of the empirical world is completely consistent with the the LNC. Our logic might be different if our world had been logically different; if things could be black and white all over simultaneously, for example. Seems impossible I know. But does it seem impossible to us because it really is metaphysically impossible, or do we see it as logically impossible because our world is the way it is?

My problem with the anthropic principle so used is that it can be used to explain everything and so explains nothing. — Cuthbert

:up:

(2) we are aspects of the universe who must make as much sense of it (via myths, metaphysics, arts, histories, natural sciences, etc) as we can in order to help ourselves survive and our descendents thrive despite the universe. — 180 Proof

Indeed!
We are sense making creatures. That is simply what we do, we try to make sense of things. that presupposes that there is something to make sense of and that in turn presupposes that, in the end, it makes sense somehow even if we do not fathom it. (if it was not, then there would not be something to make sense of) Even if you declare something totally absurd you have made sense of it in a way in the sense that you have brought it under a category of somprehension. You have said something about it, somthing purportedly true.

Whether it really really really makes sense or not, is a question of metaphysics of the impossible kind. We want to say something, but simply can't because we have no access to it. We can't speak (or think or reason) about it. We have simply determined the rational to be real. We can try to do otherwise but will neven succeed, or necessarily 'relapse' in our rationalistic presuppositions.

:up: Reason's Greetings, my friend! :sparkle:

Reason's Greetings, my friend! :sparkle: — 180 Proof

Happy winter reasoning friend! :sparkle:

Sure, but my point was that our experience of the empirical world is completely consistent with the the LNC. — Janus

I wonder how much of the empirical world you've personally experienced but though my world is small, I've seen some pretty weird stuff - not cognitive contradictions I must confess but emotive contradictions, definitely! Just yesterday, a student of Howard University said something in an interview that might be of relevance (paraphrasing): "It's one of those things that isn't funny but you still laugh!"

Seems impossible I know. But does it seem impossible to us because it really is metaphysically impossible, or do we see it as logically impossible because our world is the way it is? — Janus

Interesting! A few questions:

1. What do you mean by metaphysically impossible?

2. What do you mean by logically impossible?