RE: Life is at the center of everything
March 9, 2014 at 1:02 pm
(This post was last modified: March 9, 2014 at 1:08 pm by Angrboda.)
(March 9, 2014 at 12:39 pm)Heywood Wrote:(March 9, 2014 at 12:27 pm)rasetsu Wrote: This only works if you use a logarithmic scale rather than a linear one. Thus it is just an artifact of the scale chosen, not an actual result. On top of that, humans still aren't at the center, as the planck scale is at 10^-36, whereas the universe is at 10^27 (humans are roughly 2x10^0). The only place we're actually at the center of is where the designer of the app chose to put the scroll bar's midpoint.
At conception, human beings are 1.2 X 10^-4 meters which is almost the exact midpoint. Logarithmic scales are often used to compare size.
This is just an example of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, you pick the point in a human's life which fits the argument, retroactively. There's no reason to consider the size at conception as opposed to the size at birth as opposed to the size at adulthood, it's just an ad hoc addition to the question to make the answer turn out as you would like it to be.
(March 9, 2014 at 12:39 pm)Heywood Wrote: This scale wasn't created or selected just because it fits the result desired by a theistic argument. The little scale of the universe game wasn't created to support a theistic argument.
You're missing the point. Since the choice of scale was arbitrary, where something falls on that scale is arbitrarily chosen as well. If I were to choose a scale based on the logarithm using base 80 instead of 10, then something else would show up as the item at the center. Because the choice of scale is purely arbitrary and without sense, the result of what is at the center is without meaning or sense. We have ten fingers and use base ten math, so a base 10 logarithm seems natural. An animal with 80 tentacles might consider a logarithm using base 80 more natural. On top of that, depending on the size of the creature, it might be at the center of the scale using base 80, even though it's a different size than a human egg! So the fact that the scale can be fitted to the result rather than being a necessary choice makes it a second, deeper example of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)