Anthropic Principle

[Northeast Rep Snowball]

For some reason this really is an explanation that I personally like, and in so far believe is true ( I essentially don't believe 'god' is the correct explanation of why the universe exists in the form it does, and either its just random, or anthropic, and random is too depressing so...

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

...If the universe isn't random, if it was put here solely for us, who put it there and why did they make it for us?

[DC Al Fine]

...If the universe isn't random, if it was put here solely for us, who put it there and why did they make it for us?

1) God... Although not necessarily Christian God.
2) That's not really something for the argument to explain. Other arguments take care of that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

...If the universe isn't random, if it was put here solely for us, who put it there and why did they make it for us?

A non-random universe does not imply that it was established for our benefit.  Hence, even in an ordered universe the anthropic principle can apply.

[DC Al Fine]

...If the universe isn't random, if it was put here solely for us, who put it there and why did they make it for us?

A non-random universe does not imply that it was established for our benefit.  Hence, even in an ordered universe the anthropic principle can apply.

Sure, but then we must look at the plausibility of the answers. Some quantum forces need to be extremely precise in order for life to exist in this universe. If it is that precise (Note: I don't know how precise it is) one would have to choose an extremely unlikely solution in order for the anthropic principle to apply.

Suppose you happened upon Mt. Rushmore. Its possible that the wind and the rain made it that way, but its far more likely that a sentient being designed it. I posit that the physical laws of the universe are the same way.

[DemPGH]

Well, we're part of nature, nothing more. I think that's the fallacy. All that exists (periodic table, laws of physics, gravity, inertia, laws of planetary motion, biology, etc.) exist so that we can exist, if I understand the anthropic principle correctly. Now that's a self-centered view. We're only a product of nature, and we're hardly a speck in the grand scheme of things.

This is the Earth from about four billion miles away, which is nothing in terms of celestial distances (lower middle right, the white speck, photo taken by Voyager 1 in 1994):

[Benj]

...If the universe isn't random, if it was put here solely for us, who put it there and why did they make it for us?

A non-random universe does not imply that it was established for our benefit.  Hence, even in an ordered universe the anthropic principle can apply.

The anthropic principle doesn't even say anything about the universe being non-random. It just says that any universe that is actually being observed must also be capable of supporting life that can observe it--or else it could not be observed. The weak anthropic principle is very compelling to the point of being logically necessary. The strong anthropic principle is foolish.

(I will point out that the term "anthropic principle" was coined by Brandon Carter, who very much agrees with all of the above, including the last sentence.)

[Benj]

...If the universe isn't random, if it was put here solely for us, who put it there and why did they make it for us?

A non-random universe does not imply that it was established for our benefit.  Hence, even in an ordered universe the anthropic principle can apply.

Sure, but then we must look at the plausibility of the answers. Some quantum forces need to be extremely precise in order for life to exist in this universe. If it is that precise (Note: I don't know how precise it is) one would have to choose an extremely unlikely solution in order for the anthropic principle to apply.

Suppose you happened upon Mt. Rushmore. Its possible that the wind and the rain made it that way, but its far more likely that a sentient being designed it. I posit that the physical laws of the universe are the same way.

That's not how probability works. We don't know that this is the only universe, only that it is a universe. There may be many universes; in fact, we have no reason to believe there are NOT other universes. If there are other universes, then it is quite compelling to believe that there many, many other universes. Think of the quantity of objects in our universe--surely it would reasonable to believe there are at least as many other universes as there are bosons and fermions in our universe (say). At that point, we're talking about an unimaginably large number of universes, and the odds of some universe having the properties necessary for intelligent life are extraordinarily high. We don't need for that to be any particular universe. The only universes that would be observable by intelligent beings would be those that have the ability to support intelligent life, so we would never exist in any of the universes that don't support intelligent life to observe them. Thus, it is entirely unsurprising that we exist in a universe that supports us, as we would not exist if the universe did not support us, and that the universe supports us is unlikely for any particular universe but quite likely on the larger scale of many universes.

[Mr. Morden]

I highly recommend the book "Anthropic Bias" for those who are interested in this stuff.  Yes, there are some mathematical equations, but IIRC, it's mostly written in layman's terms.  Looks like the whole thing is available online for free:

http://www.anthropic-principle.com/?q=book/table_of_contents

Chapter 2 addresses this question of "fine tuning" in cosmology, and whether we should be surprised that a number of physical constants seem to be fine tuned so as to support the existence of life:

http://www.anthropic-principle.com/?q=book/chapter_2

[pbrower2a]

...If the universe isn't random, if it was put here solely for us, who put it there and why did they make it for us?

It isn't. In another time the Earth was made for sabertooth cats. In an earlier time it was T Rex who existed at the top.

There's some question about what the most supremely-intelligent land animal is. The elephant may be smarter than us. Top of the food chain? The dog may be just above us. Dogs will force you to change your behavior if they don't like it.   

We have been in existence as a species for only a short time in the existence of the thirteen-billion-year-old universe.  If something goes wrong with us and we wreck ourselves it could be pigs who rule -- maybe with dogs as enforcers. That is not a new idea. Orwell came up with that one. 

[DC Al Fine]

...If the universe isn't random, if it was put here solely for us, who put it there and why did they make it for us?

A non-random universe does not imply that it was established for our benefit.  Hence, even in an ordered universe the anthropic principle can apply.

Sure, but then we must look at the plausibility of the answers. Some quantum forces need to be extremely precise in order for life to exist in this universe. If it is that precise (Note: I don't know how precise it is) one would have to choose an extremely unlikely solution in order for the anthropic principle to apply.

Suppose you happened upon Mt. Rushmore. Its possible that the wind and the rain made it that way, but its far more likely that a sentient being designed it. I posit that the physical laws of the universe are the same way.

That's not how probability works. We don't know that this is the only universe, only that it is a universe. There may be many universes; in fact, we have no reason to believe there are NOT other universes. If there are other universes, then it is quite compelling to believe that there many, many other universes. Think of the quantity of objects in our universe--surely it would reasonable to believe there are at least as many other universes as there are bosons and fermions in our universe (say). At that point, we're talking about an unimaginably large number of universes, and the odds of some universe having the properties necessary for intelligent life are extraordinarily high. We don't need for that to be any particular universe. The only universes that would be observable by intelligent beings would be those that have the ability to support intelligent life, so we would never exist in any of the universes that don't support intelligent life to observe them. Thus, it is entirely unsurprising that we exist in a universe that supports us, as we would not exist if the universe did not support us, and that the universe supports us is unlikely for any particular universe but quite likely on the larger scale of many universes.

On the other hand, we have no direct evidence that there are other universes. The best we've got is some predictions by some highly contentious and not broadly accepted hypotheses within string theory. The entire notion of a universe based anthropic principle is contingent on universes existing that have never been observed.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The anthropic principle really never struck me as a good argument. It's one of the weakest 'arguments for God' there is (when it's used as such), and 'arguments for or against God' tend to be pretty weak (or, at least, set off bullsh**t detectors even when they're logically sound).

[Blue3]

I believe in God, but really, some form of life was bound to evolve no matter what the laws of the universe were going to be.

Obviously, our form of life depends on our laws of physics... but if there was a different set of physical laws, then a form of life would have arisen that depended on that set of laws. It's just the way that life works.

[Mr. Morden]

I believe in God, but really, some form of life was bound to evolve no matter what the laws of the universe were going to be.

Obviously, our form of life depends on our laws of physics... but if there was a different set of physical laws, then a form of life would have arisen that depended on that set of laws. It's just the way that life works.

I don't think that's true at all.  One could easily imagine a set of physical laws that would result in every particle flying as far apart from every other particle as fast as possible.  No two particles ever meet = no chance for any real form of complexity to arise = no life.  Of course, that's an extreme example, but you get the point.  There's no reason whatsoever to believe that life is inevitable.  Not sure why one would think that it was.

[Torie]

In other news, I doubt we will ever know how life began. So our species will be debating this as long as we exist I suspect. In the meantime, I must agree with Morden that there is no reason to believe one way or the other as to whether life was inevitable in this universe given molecules interacting with one another and various energy forces and the passage of time, or simply was a random event of some sort that obviously did occur, but might not have.

[DemPGH]

It's important to understand the "God of the gaps" concept in a conversation like this. The God of the gaps goes that, if you cannot understand something, simply attribute it to God. Now over time we have seen this play out: God used to be a deity who created everything in six days about four thousand years ago, but since then we have discovered better explanations than that to where God has been reduced to a deistic kind of deity who created molecules that stick together. That's a major demotion for God. My post on the Dover evolution trial shows it. God went from performing everything (moving the planets themselves - until the Law of Harmony was discovered in 1619) to now a deity who is merely a "designer," which overall is bogus. How can anyone possibly know? They don't know, so they just make up these things.

Life may be inevitable because the conditions are right for it. What if molecules did repel? Well, they don't (if they did, nothing would exist, so it would be moot). We only know what they actually do. We know that Carbon forms malleable, soft bonds with a great number of other elements, making it ideal for the basis of life. Contrast that to Silicon, which forms only a few, very hard bonds, making it not ideal for a basis for life. The conditions are there, so life could be just "part of the cosmos," and it probably is. It's taken this long for it to rise to our level of consciousness.

[Mr. Morden]

Life may be inevitable because the conditions are right for it. What if molecules did repel? Well, they don't (if they did, nothing would exist, so it would be moot).

Right, but that bolded part is the point of the anthropic principle.  The question being addressed is "Is there only a very narrow range of the values of the physical constants that would allow for any complexity to arise in the universe?  And if so, what are we to make of the fact that we happen to live in a universe where the parameters are just so?"

If it's true that the physical constants appear to be "fine-tuned", then there are only a few possible explanations.  E.g.,

1) We just got really lucky.  The universe just happened to have the right parameters so that stars would form, creating heavier elements, and eventually leading to complex creatures like us.

2) There are actually many universes with different physical constants.  Most of them don't have life, but some of them do.  By definition, we're in one of the ones that does.  So asking why we live in a universe that supports life is like asking why we live on a planet that supports life.  The question answers itself: There's no one in the universes without life to ask the question.

3) There is some kind of designer to the universe, who made sure that the physical constants would create stars, and the complexity to create life.

The anthropic principle is basically explanation #2.  Without it, you're left with 1 or 3.  (Again, assuming that you think the physical constants need to be fine tuned in the first place, which you may or may not agree with.)

[DemPGH]

The anthropic principle is really a massive assumption that assumes, then, that 1) we are special (violation of the Copernican Principle), and 2) that multiple universes exist, each containing different numerical constants. It's quite possible as well that the current numerical constants (and how constant they are is being researched) are what they "should be" (perhaps natural) when you take into consideration the universe's expansion, cooling, and its dispersal of radiation. The constants could be different in multiple universes, but maybe not - IF multiple universes exist. Of course at this point as well, multiple universes are not really scientific, but rather untestable and unobservable. So they are somewhere between sci-fi and New Age, perhaps, but on the border with real science since equations can be played with enough to show how they might happen. To me, though, things have to be more than just technically possible.

I think I would just as soon assume that the constants are what we might expect them to be if I am to assume anything. So then there should certainly be a natural cause or reason.