The term “Anthropic Principle” was coined by a theoretical physicist named Brandon Carter in 1973.
It basically claims that the conditions of the Universe as it was unfolding from the Big Bang were so “finely tuned” that if anything was just a slight bit different along the way then our universe would have turned out in such a way that we wouldn’t be here.
Some with a theistic bent use this sort of thinking to claim that the universe unvailing the way it did was so improbable that a Creator must surely be at the controls.
The problem with this sort of thinking (in the context of probabilities of conditions) is that it assumes that we we are *supposed* to be here.
Why is this wrong?
Because in universes where semi-intelligent people (not talking about truck drivers) don’t arise, there is no one there to speculate on their good fortune. It could be that a tremendous amount of universes have arisen and ours happened to be, by chance one where intelligent life could arise.
Here is an analogy: Suppose someone was dazzling you with the odds against your parents conceiving a child with your exact genetic makeup? Because of the number of possible arrangements of genes, the odds are staggering, probably trillions to one against you existing, yet here you are reading this article today.
Does this mean that you were destined to be here? No. If the car hadn’t run out of gas that night or if the liquor cabinet had been empty or if a number of variables had been a little different, then someone else might have been conceived to speculate on their good fortune.
Back to the Creator argument: In order to calculate probabilities, you have to know how many samples you have in a set. The theist asserting that AP supports a creator would likely assert a very low number for the number of universes and most likely they would assert just 1, but we have no idea of how many universes there are or have ever been, so we can’t say. The number is somewhere between 1 and infinity. If you don’t know how many universes there are and if universes unfold in at least somewhat random ways, you can’t calculate the probability of a given universe unfolding a certain way.
The problem with this sort of thinking is the arrogant assumption that we are *supposed* to be here.
The problem with your thinking is that you’re so arrogant that you willfully ignore evidence to the contrary.
You have some proof that an infinite number of universes exists?… or are you making unfounded philosophical leaps of fath?
MeThinks it’s the latter.
… and even if given an infinite number of universes… you can’t say that we aren’t specially necessary to the physics of this one.
Got anything besides nothing?
Wait a minute… where’d your reply go?… lol
>> The problem with your thinking is that you’re so arrogant that you willfully ignore evidence to the contrary.
I’m not ignoring evidence either for or against the anthropic principle. I’m merely pointing out that it’s fundamentally flawed in that it assumes that the current universe is the only one that exists or has ever existed.
In the context of an almost infinite amount of universes, the likelyhood of many universes coming about where intelligent life can arise becomes inevitable.
Capella
I already responded to that… heheh
Give me some proof that there aren’t a large number of other universes and we’ll talk. As I said the Anthropic Principle ignores the possibility and that’s it’s fatal flaw.
I’m wondering how string theorists are going to use the anthropic principle to predict the correct vacuum solution out of an infinite number of possibilities, if the anthropic principle “ignores the possibility”…
but…
I don’t have to prove squat, because the special implications fall from the observed universe, so empiricism supercedes thoretical speculation when it comes to facts of the observed universe, unless and until a multiverse is shown to be necessary to the theory of everything.
But… that ain’t gonna happen.
Still waiting for an argument…
If you are going to attempt to establish the probability of certain conditions, then you have to have all samples in a set. If you don’t know the values and number of samples in your set, it’s your probability estimates that aren’t worth squat.
Capella
Now… I’ve got a better question:
Why do you suppose that it is that people don’t look for a good physical reason why we might actually be specially necessary to the physics of the observed universe, instead of **automatically** taking the devil’s advocte approach to the evidence?
I mean… If you found a dead body and a smoking gun lying twenty feet away in this universe, you wouldn’t look to an infinite number of solutions to come up with rationale for how the gun fired itself, would you?
Why is it that people REFUSE to look for the killer?
Could it be that they have bought straight into the creationist’s hype?
I’m thinkin so… AGAIN.
If you are going to attempt to establish the probability of certain conditions
Nope, that’s only one interpretation of the AP.
There is also one that says that ther is no possibilty for things to be different.
The one that’s derived from first principles.
The one that says that the configuration of our universe must follow the principle of least action, so there is no chance to it.
> Now… I’ve got a better question:
> Why do you suppose that it is that people don’t look for a good physical reason why we might actually be specially necessary to the physics of the observed universe, instead of **automatically** taking the devil’s advocte approach to the evidence?
> I mean… If you found a dead body and a smoking gun lying twenty feet away in this universe, you wouldn’t look to an infinite number of solutions to come up with rationale for how the gun fired itself, would you?
> Why is it that people REFUSE to look for the killer?
You can’t attack these sort of things with a pragmatic way of thinking.
In science, as a discipline, you have to consider all possibilites no matter how seemingly improbable.
Again, to derive statistics from a sample set of 1 is meaningless if you don’t know that the number in your set is in fact 1. That is where people who try to apply the Anthropic Principle as evidence of a Creator fall on their fannies.
Example. What are the odds of dice all coming up with 6s? Well, how many dice? 1, 2, 10, 1000? You have to know how many dice in order to properly calculate the odds.
As far as Universes, we can say that the number is somewhere between 1 and infinity but we don’t know and may never have any way of knowing, so any assertions about the probability of conditions arising in a given universe are meaningless.
Capella
You can’t attack these sort of things with a pragmatic way of thinking.
No, that’s false, because you’re assuming without cause that that there isn’t good reason for it for the AP, and that’s not what’s indicated.
It is the indication for specialness in the observed universe that justifies pragmatic thinking.
In science, as a discipline, you have to consider all possibilites no matter how seemingly improbable.
And I asked a direct question as to why people *automatically* don’t do that, but you mananged to willfully ignore that, and this form of willful denial is often noted to be a characteristice of skeptical antifanatics, not scientists, so be careful what you call your dishonest self.
Again, to derive statistics from a sample set of 1 is meaningless if you don’t know that the number in your set is in fact 1.
Nope, that statement is completely false if there is good reason for us to be here, which is what the special implications of the AP say, so again, you don’t have a clue, yet persist.
[SNIP!}
>Nope, that’s only one interpretation of the AP.
>There is also one that says that ther is no possibilty for things to be different.
>The one that’s derived from first principles.
>The one that says that the configuration of our universe must follow the principle of least action, so there is no chance to it.
I have no problem with a reductionist point of view but I wouldn’t think that theists would be too crazy about it because of the free will implications.
Exactly… but I’m an atheist who never gave the first indication that the special implications of the AP can be anything greater than a necessary facet of the physics of our universe.
I asked why people *automatically* assume that this is a god thing… because they never stop to consider the what the freaking physics is actually trying to tell them!
Now, I note that you are not totally unreasonable, so I apologize for the harsh statements that I made.
>>You can’t attack these sort of things with a pragmatic way of thinking.
> No, that’s false, because you’re assuming without cause that that there isn’t good reason for it for the AP, and that’s not what’s indicated.
If you are talking in analogies of chasing killers and ignoring other possibilities of how the gun fired, then of course it’s not false.
> It is the indication for specialness in the observed universe that justifies pragmatic thinking.
>> In science, as a discipline, you have to consider all possibilites no matter how seemingly improbable.
> And I asked a direct question as to why people *automatically* don’t do that,
And you inserted your strawman about looking at an infinite number of solutions.
> but you mananged to willfully ignore that, and this form of willful denial is often noted to be a characteristice of skeptical antifanatics, not scientists, so be careful what you call your dishonest self.
If I were you, I would look up the definiton of “ad hominem.”
> >Again, to derive statistics from a sample set of 1 is meaningless if you don’t know that the number in your set is in fact 1.
> Nope, that statement is completely false if there is good reason for us to be here, which is what the special implications of the AP say, so again, you don’t have a clue, yet persist.
I’d say right back at ya, but I don’t engage in ad hominem in “serious” discussions.
take care,
Capella
>Exactly… but I’m an atheist who never gave the first indication that the special implications of the AP can be anything greater than a necessary facet of the physics of our universe.
> I asked why people *automatically* assume that this is a god thing… because they never stop to consider the what the freaking physics is actually trying to tell them!
> Now, I note that you are not totally unreasonable, so I apologize for the harsh statements that I made.
That’s alright. I’ll tell you what. I’ll ammend my article to make sure it’s clear that I disagree only with those who try to use the AP to justify a Creator by improbability of necessary conditions.
Thanks for taking the time to give your input.
Capella
I appreciate that more than you know, thanks… you’re not an antifanatic… ;)