Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Deleted by Lubos

Greetings. This blog is intended as a repository for comments that were deleted by Lubos Motl on his blog, The Reference Frame. Post your comment here if it was deleted, probably unjustly, by Dr. Motl. (All posts here by Dr. Motl or anyone claiming to be him will, of course, be deleted.)


1 comment:

island said...

I give up, and will now remove the tags that are causing the problem. Please delete my first two posts:

heheh... okay, I'll start, even though nobody will like what I have to say, but I'll gladly retract this, and apologize to Lubos if anyone can **reasonably** disprove my assertions, as they are more concretely represented in the most recent article of


my blog, named, "Science In Crisis", after statements made in one of Lee Smolin's interviews:

Anyway, I told Lumo that the anthropic physics enables us to make many testable predictions about the observed universe, in spite of his...


...claims to the contrary.

Lumo said:
you will also agree that the scientific character of the anthropic principle is questionable, to say the least, because its assertions can't be evaluated quantitatively with an ever increasing accuracy. The principle simply doesn't predict any sharp numbers that could be measured accurately and whether or not some qualitative predictions of the principle are confirmed may always be a subject of bias and it may be influenced by modifications of the rules during the game.

One example that I gave falls from the "Goldilocks Enigma", whose...


...coincidentally balanced nature enables us to make the tested prediction that life, (past or present), will not be found on Mars, nor Venus, due to the extreme opposing runaway tendencies that these "bookends" of the spectrum represent.

Lumo essentially laughed this off, calling my claims "silly", that 'no sane person would claim that the anthropic physics could be used to say that life can't occur on the next planet over'... even though I had previously warned him that physicists tend to isolate on only a few coincidences, and I explained why this is the wrong approach.

Anyway, I told him that he didn't know what he was talking about, and I ZINGED him with this, from...


....the relevant wikipedia article about it:

And you can read his reply, even though he removed/moderated/manipulated the proof, while leaving my claims hanging, apparently unjustified, making me look less than scientific.

What a unscientific loser you are, Lumo.