Anthropic Principle

[Nathan Poe]

Both:

1 Corinthians 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
1 Corinthians 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Which pretty much shoots down the Anthropic principle then, doesn't it? You can't really say that the universe was designed just for you if both you and it are going to need to be completely redesigned.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which pretty much shoots down the Anthropic principle then, doesn't it? You can't really say that the universe was designed just for you if both you and it are going to need to be completely redesigned.

Are you having a problem understanding this?

• Earth-1 currently operates under the Anthropic Principle.
• Earth-2 will not.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Are you having a problem understanding this?

• Earth-1 currently operates under the Anthropic Principle.
• Earth-2 will not.

Not so much a problem understanding it as keeping a straight face -- you simply must tell me your secret.

I can see the appeal of "dispensation theology," however -- free reign to chuck away any and all inconvenient realities the moment they become burdensome.

BTW, how many Earths (dispensations, if you will) do you think God will need in total before He gets it right? You think 2 will do it, or will He go back to the drawing board yet again?

 

[Bushido216]

Unfortunately Earth-3 will operate under the Anthropic principle.

Thankfully, Earth-4 will be under the sole supervision of the Ministry of Funny Walks.

 

[matthewgar]

Well the problem of the anthropic principle is that it doesn't prove a god, as much as I would like it too. It simply says, we are here, because everything is setup for us to be here. Evolution explains this just as easily as sticking god there. Is it a miracle that polar bears are perfectly suited for the artic, if they lived in the desert they die of dehydration likly, even creationists accept the idea of the polar bears traveling there after the flood and adapting to it, so arguing that the universe is perfect for us is proof of god, is like saying it's a miracle that the polar bear just happened to be where he was suited.

 

[Cabal]

Are you having a problem understanding this?

• Earth-1 currently operates under the Anthropic Principle.
• Earth-2 will not.

I thought in Earth-2, Superman became Black Lantern?

 

[Cabal]

Well the problem of the anthropic principle is that it doesn't prove a god, as much as I would like it too. It simply says, we are here, because everything is setup for us to be here. Evolution explains this just as easily as sticking god there. Is it a miracle that polar bears are perfectly suited for the artic, if they lived in the desert they die of dehydration likly, even creationists accept the idea of the polar bears traveling there after the flood and adapting to it, so arguing that the universe is perfect for us is proof of god, is like saying it's a miracle that the polar bear just happened to be where he was suited.

I do like Stephen Hawking's take on it though - the fact that we exist means we can rule out certain possible (scientific) origins theories as not having occurred as they wouldn't have resulted in the right properties for our form of life to exist.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.'

Its an interesting analogy, but that analogy fails to cover the scope of the fine-tuning arguments. One cannot evolve to a lack of organized matter or fit in to a universe that doesn't exist.

So no, evolution doesn't provide a legitimate answer or argument against the idea that fine tuning arguments are empirical evidence for the existence of God.
​

 

[Chesterton]

Anthropic principle? Well, you need cheese before you can make a cheese pizza, eh? How brilliant is that idea?

 

[AV1611VET]

Anthropic principle? Well, you need cheese before you can make a cheese pizza, eh? How brilliant is that idea?

You also need a pan @ the right diameter, or your crust will either be too thin or too thick.

And the oven needs to be the right temperature, or your pizza will be either underdone or overdone -- (unless you compensate by adjusting the time your pizza is subjected to the heat).

 

[Chesterton]

And you need an intelligent willful mind to conceive of a pizza and to stick it in the oven.

 

[Cabal]

Its an interesting analogy, but that analogy fails to cover the scope of the fine-tuning arguments. One cannot evolve to a lack of organized matter or fit in to a universe that doesn't exist.

So no, evolution doesn't provide a legitimate answer or argument against the idea that fine tuning arguments are empirical evidence for the existence of God.
​

I don't think evolution was in the argument. That said, the argument usually revolves around the universe being fine-tuned specifically for human life, so it is not unreasonable to address it from the point of view of life.

And fine tuning arguments aren't empirical evidence for the existence of God in the first place - it's predicated on an assumption that given fine-tuning (which is debatable at best) it was the Judeo-Christian god thatdidit.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think evolution was in the argument. That said, the argument usually revolves around the universe being fine-tuned specifically for human life, so it is not unreasonable to address it from the point of view of life.

And fine tuning arguments aren't empirical evidence for the existence of God in the first place - it's predicated on an assumption that given fine-tuning (which is debatable at best) it was the Judeo-Christian god thatdidit.

I'm glad it was God Who created this universe and not man.

Thalidomide was supposed to be anthropically friendly, but wasn't.

 

[Cabal]

I'm glad it was God Who created this universe and not man.

Thankfully no-one is claiming that man created the universe (and I really hope this isn't going to proceed into a strawman of epic-fail proportions).

Thalidomide was supposed to be anthropically friendly, but wasn't.

Neither was the "choice" involving the death-fruit tree.

And hey, at least we aren't going around claiming that we're living in a "fine-tuned universe" while perched precariously on a speck in the middle of an utterly inhospitable void. Makes Baghdad Bob look pessimistic.

Anyway, anytime you want to make a statement that's actually relevant to the point, do let us know

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyway, anytime you want to make a statement that's actually relevant to the point, do let us know

So you can recognize it?

 

[Cabal]

So you can recognize it?

No, it would just be a novelty.

 

[matthewgar]

I don't think evolution was in the argument. That said, the argument usually revolves around the universe being fine-tuned specifically for human life, so it is not unreasonable to address it from the point of view of life.

And fine tuning arguments aren't empirical evidence for the existence of God in the first place - it's predicated on an assumption that given fine-tuning (which is debatable at best) it was the Judeo-Christian god thatdidit.

No I said that the anthropic principle fails, because evolution least explains why we are here from the lesser anthropic principle, though to a greater extent, we wouldn't have evolved if the universe wasn't this way. The problem with both anthropic arguments especially the lesser one, is that it's based on the assumption that this either A) could have been any different or B) isn't multiple universes. With A) yes we know how razor edge the universe is to support life, but do we know that any other variable ACTUALLY could be done? That razor's edge, could be blocked on all sides by walls prventing. Plus computer simulations have shown that many different settings could end up with us here.

Again the anthropic principle could be a sign of god, or it can't, but we don't know enough about wether this is the only universe, or if the variables can be changed at all to be sure wether or not this was some unlikly outcome.And in such won't convince anyone, that isn't already convinced,.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You also need a pan @ the right diameter, or your crust will either be too thin or too thick.

Too thin or too thick compared to what?

And the oven needs to be the right temperature, or your pizza will be either underdone or overdone -- (unless you compensate by adjusting the time your pizza is subjected to the heat).

Overdone or underdone compared to what?

 

[lucaspa]

What is everyone's take on the anthropic principle? What do you believe has been "monkeying with the physics" (quote I believe from Fred Hoyle)? Do you believe that it supports the evidence of a Creator (as many in the ID movement apparently do since it has been brought up in many of the ID commentaries I've read), or that science will one day be able to logically explain the anthropic principle doing away with the need for God?

You are referring to the Strong Anthropic Principle. It's an error in logic.

"According to the Anthropic Principle, we are entitled to infer facts about the universe and its laws from the undisputed fact that we (we anthropoi, human beings) are here to do the inferring and observing. The Anthropic Principle comes in several flavors.
In the "weak form" it is a sound, harmless, and on occasion useful application of elementary logic: if x is a necessary condition for the existence of y, and y exists, then x exists. If consciousness depends on complex physical structures, and complex physical structures depend on large molecules composed of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium, then, since we are conscious, the world must contain such elements.
"But notice that there is a loose cannon on the deck in the previous sentence: the wandering "must". I have followed the common practice in English of couching a claim of necessity in a technically incorrect way. As any student in logic class soon learns, what I really should have written is: It must be the case that: if consciousness depends ... then, since we are conscious, the world contains such elements.

The conclusion that can be validly drawn is only that the world does contain such elements, not that it had to contain such elements. It has to contain such elements for us to exist, we may grant, but it might not have contained such elements, and if that had been the case, we wouldn't be here to be dismayed. It's as simple as that.

Take a simpler example. Suppose John is a bachelor. Then he must be single, right? (That's a truth of logic.) Poor John -- he can never get married! The fallacy is obvious in this example, and it is worth keeping it in the back of your mind as a template to compare other arguments with."
Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Ideas, pp. 165-166.

 

[lucaspa]

No I said that the anthropic principle fails, because evolution least explains why we are here from the lesser anthropic principle, though to a greater extent, we wouldn't have evolved if the universe wasn't this way. The problem with both anthropic arguments especially the lesser one, is that it's based on the assumption that this either A) could have been any different or B) isn't multiple universes.

The problem with the Strong Anthropic Principle (what you call "lesser") is that it say the universe must be fine tuned the way it is. But there is no requirement for the universe to be find-tuned. If it is not, then we simply don't exist to wonder about it.

Multiverse is indeed a set of theories to get around the problem of the improbability of the universe having the physical parameters it does. Scientists don't like improbable events. But if there are a large number of universes each with independent parameters, then the odds that one of the universes will have the parameters in this one become virtual certainty. Just like with enough lottery tickets sold it becomes a certainty that one of them will have the winning numbers.

We, of course, happen to be in the universe with these parameters.

With A) yes we know how razor edge the universe is to support life, but do we know that any other variable ACTUALLY could be done? That razor's edge, could be blocked on all sides by walls prventing. Plus computer simulations have shown that many different settings could end up with us here.

What do you mean by "us"? If you mean "modified ape", then no. The existence of the particular species H. sapiens is indeed contingent and unlikely. If you mean "sapient species", then yes. As evolution explores the Library of All Possible Genomes, it is eventually going to hit upon some set of genomes for sapience.

There was a Scientific American article several months back that showed that it was possible to get carbon-based life with a small set of alternative physical parameters. It's not "many different setting" but some different settings.

Again the anthropic principle could be a sign of god, or it can't, but we don't know enough about wether this is the only universe, or if the variables can be changed at all to be sure wether or not this was some unlikly outcome.

One of two questions in science where it is still possible to hypothesize direct action by deity is the question:
Why does the universe have the particular order it does (anthropic principle)? A possible answer is: Deity created it this way.

BUT, even if it turns out that we have a single universe and the parameters are unlikely, that still isn't going to "prove" the existence of deity, because of the logical mistake I noted in my previous post.

And in such won't convince anyone, that isn't already convinced,.

LOL! You think this is about convincing people? I thought it was about searching for the truth.