The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (reject, evolve, atheist, bless, God)

[Mr Spinkles]

According to wikipedia:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Proponents of the anthropic principle suggest that we live in a fine-tuned universe, i.e. a universe that appears to be "fine-tuned" to allow the existence of life as we know it. If any of the basic physical constants were significantly different, then life as we know it would not be possible. Papers have been written arguing that the anthropic principle would explain the physical constants such as the fine structure constant, the number of dimensions in the universe, and the cosmological constant.

The three primary versions of the principle, as stated by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler (1986), are:

• Weak anthropic principle (WAP): "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so."
• Strong anthropic principle (SAP): "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle


Sounds like tautology to me. The anthropic principle explains absolutely nothing.

The article goes on....

Some alternatives to the anthropic principle do exist, the most optimistic being that a Theory of everything will ultimately be discovered, uniting all forces in the universe and deriving the properties of all the particles in the universe from scratch. Some candidates include M-Theory and various theories of quantum gravity, although much of this is speculative. Another possibility is Lee Smolin's model of Cosmological natural selection, also known as Fecund universes, which proposes that universes give "offspring" which are more plentiful if they happen to possess features common to our universe.

Recent publications (2004) by Stephen Hawking suggest that our universe is much less 'special' than the proponents of the anthropic principle claim it is. According to Hawking, there is a 98% chance that a universe of a type as ours will come from a Big Bang. Further, using the basic wavefunction of the universe as basis, Hawking's equations indicate that such a universe can come into existence without relation to anything prior to it, meaning that it could come out of nothing. As of 2004, however, these publications and the theories in them are still subject to scientific debate, and in the past, Hawking himself has asked, "What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?...Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" (Hawking, 1988).

I read in The Whole Shebang: A State of the Universe(s) Report that most serious cosmologists nowadays view the anthropic principle as simply a constraint on their theories....in other words, any theory regarding the universe must be consistent with the existence of carbon-based life forms, or at least the possibility for their existence. Theories that result in carbon-based life being impossible or very improbable must be rejected.

[Mr Spinkles]

*bump*

I started this thread in "The Material World" because I wanted opinions on the anthropic principle from a more scientific/philosophical perspective, rather than from a religious perspective. Does anyone disagree that the anthropic principle is little more than tautology?

[YmirGF]

My 2 cents Mr. Sprinks is that if Hawking isn't into it, it probably isnt worth analysis.

[Terrywoodenpic]

Originally Posted by YmirGF

My 2 cents Mr. Sprinks is that if Hawking isn't into it, it probably isnt worth analysis.

At this state of the game, It is hardly likely that a layman could out think Hawking.

as you can see from the two quote of his, he is prepared to change his view over time as new facts and theories come to light.

He is not in the position of feeling the need to defend the existing Anthropic theories.

Terry_____________________
Blessed are the merciful, mercy shall be shown unto them.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

*bump*

I started this thread in "The Material World" because I wanted opinions on the anthropic principle from a more scientific/philosophical perspective, rather than from a religious perspective. Does anyone disagree that the anthropic principle is little more than tautology?

I agree, basically, if I understand it correctly, it's a case of what a cockney would call "Stating the bleedin' obvious"......

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

Does anyone disagree that the anthropic principle is little more than tautology?

... or reality check.

[robtex]

The last link post by Mr Spinkles is gone from cyberspace.

If you guys get a chance. Jef Raskin's page on the principle is really good stuff.
http://jef.raskincenter.org/publishe...principle.html

I remember Bob (Pah) saying in some thread I will never find again, that until such time that the cause is produced (in the case of the thread it was God) that any production credited with the output of the universe is produced under the logical fallicy of begging the question. Meaning that unless the cause of any componet is discovered emperically it can't be definitivly stated that it is the cause.

Postitive atheism.com similarly sites that the principle is begging the question here
http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/anthropic.htm

If you read their explaintion which states it promotes two ideas of fine-tuning.

1) It pre-supposes that the physical constraints can be fine tuned
2) it introduces God as the fine tuner.

I would further stipulate that along that same line of thinking that fine-tuning isn't even an applicable analysis because we have no basis of comparision. What I mean is that the universe is as it is and the only one we are aware of so when proponets of the principle say "fine tuned" I would say "fine tuned from what" We don't have before and after universes to work with.

I really this essay on it by Ikeda and Jeffery's that asserts that the anthropic principle does not support supernaturalism:
http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html

In the article they premise three things:

a) Our universe exists and contains life.
b) Our universe is "life friendly," that is, the conditions in our universe (such as physical laws, etc.) permit or are compatible with life existing naturalistically.
c) Life cannot exist in a universe that is governed solely by naturalistic law unless that universe is "life-friendly."

and than apply it to a game of poker in which they state:
Let A ="I am holding a royal flush"
Let B="I will win the poker hand"

and states that "It is evident that p(a/b) is nearly 0."

A person advocating the principle can state that the probablity of even getting a royal flush is so small that something must have intervened to which I have heard frequently from the atheist camp that given enough hands draws and tries sooner or later somebody is going to get a royal flush in poker. I played poker from the ages of mabye 12-24 on a monthly basis and in tens of thousands of hands I got two royal flushes that I can remember. The question becomes is it really academically honest to profess the two times that I got one as mircles when they happen or realize that

1) within the all the possible outcomes of a poker hand one has to happen
2) with all the number of hands I was given in that decade sooner or later factoring in the laws of probablity that I was going to get one sooner or later given the constraints of the game?

footnote 1 probablity of a royal flush: http://www.indepthinfo.com/probabili...al-flush.shtml

In post three of this thread:
What do you think the purpose meaning of life?

Seyorni states qoute: " Meaning and purpose are human ideas. The Universe deals only in function."

I think that is quite a fitting statement here too. To state for the sake of arguement anthropic principle as a function only leaves us with "so what" but to state it as a proposition of meaning we have to justify that meaning by producing both the "what and why" which as of date has yet to be produced in an emperical, tangible way.

[robtex]

As a postnote about the cosmological anthropic principle and tap (theistic anthropic principle) by using what we know of the universe as a standard and starting point those using this theory to expound on alternate theories need to understand that the standard of measurement used to achieve what is currently known is emperical evaluation whereas, by flippantly adding God to the mix they are making a metaphysical postulation which is to say that the standard for producing the aspects of the theory are no longer homogeneous but varied in meathod used to propose the theories.