island

Sat, 09 Sep 2006 09:54:03 -0800

Ask Krauss how he likes my entry into the wikipedia article on the anthropic principle. Specifically, ask him how he can say that he sees no evidence for purpose in nature, or was he just being hypocritical when he said that?... ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle Observational Evidence Direct observational evidence in support of the Anthropic Principle includes the Cosmic microwave background radiation, whose anthropic relevance has only been partially "explained-away": CERN Courier "Does the motion of the solar system affect the microwave sky?" http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/44/10/4/1/CCEsky1_12-04 "On the large-angle anomalies of the microwave sky." http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508047/ "The Energy of Space That Isn't Zero." http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/krauss06/krauss06.2_index.html In this article, Lawrence Krauss is quoted as follows: "But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe." So... which is it, Krauss, do you give this evidence equal time, or do you willfully ignore it like most other scientists do while they wait for a better way to rationalize this evidence away? Silly me, of course the correct answer is the one that involves "lame rationale"...

Seattlest: Krauss: Einstein No Rocket Scientist

island