The Anthropic principle

[OneLastBreath]

Just curious about some of your opinions on an interesting idea about the reason the Universe is what it is today, called the Anthropic Principle.

If you know anything about Greek roots, then you've probably figured out that, anthropo being the Greek word for 'man', this theory has something to do with humans. Basically, it says that if you believe humans are the sole reason for the existence of the Universe, then the reason any part of the Universe is the way it is today, can be explained in terms of human existence. For example, the Universe appears to be isotropic (the same in all directions). The Anthropic Principle says that this because if matter hadn't been distributed evenly over the entire Universe, then stars, galaxies, etc. wouldn't have formed the same way and the material required to make a human (things like carbon, the dust mentioned in Genesis) wouldn't have made there way to form planets and life couldn't have started (or been Created, from a more Christian standpoint). Therefore, since according to the AP, humans are the sole reason for the Universe, it had to form isotropically. Obviously there are laws of physics that actually govern this behaviour, but this is basically saying what the reason for all those laws as we know them is.

Just wondering what your take on the whole idea is.

 

[seebs]

The anthropic principle runs into the incredible and mysterious way that potholes invariably shape themselves precisely around the puddles you find in them when it rains.

 

[lucaspa]

"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.

 

[OneLastBreath]

The anthropic principle runs into the incredible and mysterious way that potholes invariably shape themselves precisely around the puddles you find in them when it rains.

lol, yes i suppose that is true. I suppose the question is, did God create the Universe with humans in mind and hence create the pothole around the puddle? The irony of your comparison is that if you look into the physics of potholes, they actually due form around the puddles you find in them as opposed to vice versa, because it's the water in a crack in the road that eventually leads to a pothole. maybe God created potholes as a way of alluding to the creation of the Universe ;-) Hmm...the theology of a hole in the road.

 

[OneLastBreath]

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.

Well, the fact the we exist because the world contained such elements is no new idea, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Though this being in a theology forum, I guess that brings it back to: did God create the Universe from day 1 with humans in mind or were we an afterthought after everything else had been created? Which I guess is really the whole test of the anthropic principle...if we weren't on God's mind right from the beginning, the whole idea is useless. As seebs said, we're just trying to see the pothole as having formed around the puddle.

 

[lucaspa]

lol, yes i suppose that is true. I suppose the question is, did God create the Universe with humans in mind and hence create the pothole around the puddle?

As I noted in my response, the Strong Anthropic Principle, which is what you are using, is simply a flaw in logic. The universe does not have to have us in it. If the universe were different, we simply would not be here to wonder about it.

The same applies to those who try to cite the "perfect" position of the earth from the sun in order to have life. If earth were not in that position, then life would have happened on another planet that was the correct distance. With 100 billion suns in our galaxie and billions of galaxies, the odds that a sun would have a planet at the right distance is virtual certainty. It didn't have to be this sun.

 

[OneLastBreath]

I'm not claiming this theory as my own beliefs, simply seeing people's opinion of it. Though while the universe doesn't have to have us in it, it once again brings me back to my question

did God create the Universe from day 1 with humans in mind or were we an afterthought after everything else had been created

The point is, we ARE here, so is the logic of the AP really flawed or is it a valid assumption? So again, the question of "are we an afterthougt or a reason for the universe". The answer determines the validity of your statements "we simply would not be here to wonder about it" and "It didn't have to be this sun"

 

[Aeschylus]

It's not really an argument for theism it merely recognizes that the probabilty of humans existing GIVEN that humans exist is 1.

edited to add: Lets say I get the jackpot in the UK lottery, which has a probaitly of about 1/14,000,000 (it's even less than that condisedring I don't play the lottery), I could conclude that because the chance was so tiny it must of been an act of God. what the anthropic principle says that I can't conclude that it was an act of God because I'm ignoring the fact that we're talking after the event when the results are known i.e. the proabilty of me winning the lottery, given that I have won the lottery is not 1/14,000,0000,000, it's 1.

If before the event I had said "I will win the lottery, because God wills it", then I would of reasonably be able to offer the fact that I won the lottery was an act of God.

The anthropic principle does howvere contain many tacit assumptions.

 

[OneLastBreath]

But is it a question what the probability we exist is (1)? Or is it what was the probability we would come into existence? With your lottery example, even after winning, you can still say that you're odds of winning before the actual draw were still 1/14,000,0000,000. Even in hindsight, it's possible for one to conclude that the odds were too low for it to simply happen by chance. Still, no one has bothered to give their opinion of my question of whether God started creating on day 1 with us in mind? Because we don't need to worry about the probability of us just happening to exist, because as Christians we believe we were created by God (be it directly or through evolution) and are part of his plan. So that's the real question, reason for the universe, or afterthought after everything else was in place?

 

[Aeschylus]

I wouldn't say that the anthorpic principle really proves anything as by it's nature it cannot say whether or not the unievrse was planned or even say whether it was likely or unlikely it was planned.

In the lottery example, you can say that the proabilty of you winning the lottery before the actual darw was 1/14,000,000,000, but it doesn't change the fact that the proabilty that you did win it is now 1.

 

[OneLastBreath]

you're right it asks more questions than it answers. still, comparing the lottery the Creation isn't a fair comparison. The Creation had someone in control, not completely random like a lottery. Say the lottery was stacked, and your chance of winning before the draw was also one. The odds of not winning were nil before and after, but after the draw you wouldn't believe you were lucky, you'd know it had been controled. If God created the Universe with humans in mind (I'm not stating that as fact, just a hypothetical statement) then just because we're looking back on it, does that mean we can't take valid observations? In the lottery example, say the winner didn't know it had been stacked. On winning, if something gave him reason to suspect it wasn't pure chance (and for the corresponding Creation example, we are surrounding by such reasons), would his suspiscion that it had been stacked not be a valid suspiscion, despite the fact that it was made in hindsight?

 

[Aeschylus]

In hindsight there is no test that you can perform (well in relaity you could there are bviously ways of telling whether the lottery is stacked or not, but thta's irrelevant as it's an example) to differentiate between the random and planned models, because they both predict the same result.

 

[OneLastBreath]

So what's the source of your faith? Why do you, as an Anglican, believe in a Creator? Once again, I'm not trying to put the Anthropic principle forward as an answer to this, indeed, even if I were to agree with the idea, it's only really of use if you already believe in Creation. It's useless as confirmation of this.

 

[Aeschylus]

So what's the source of your faith? Why do you, as an Anglican, believe in a Creator? Once again, I'm not trying to put the Anthropic principle forward as an answer to this, indeed, even if I were to agree with the idea, it's only really of use if you already believe in Creation. It's useless as confirmation of this.

It's a difficult one, but faith doesn't come from arguments based on science.

 

[billwald]

It is circular: what is, is.

 

[OneLastBreath]

I'm sorry...what?