Anthropic Principle

[otseng]

This topic is an offshoot from Does God exist or not? Since this topic is a huge area of debate, I'm making this have it's own thread.

So, the question of debate is...
Does the Anthropic Principle point to the existence of God?

First, let's give some definitions of the Anthropic Principle (AP).

Wikipedia:
"Any valid theory of the universe must be consistent with our existence as carbon-based human beings at this particular time and place in the universe."

Philosophy Pages:
"Belief that the existence of human life entails certain features of the physical world. In a minimal form, this view merely points out that we would not be here to observe natural phenomena were they not compatible with our existence. Stronger versions of the anthropic principle, however, seem to rely upon the idealistic notion that the universe could not exist without intelligent observers."

Augustine Fellowship:
"The observation that the universe has all the necessary and narrowly-defined characteristics to make man and his sustained existence possible. The view that the universe is conspicuously 'fine-tuned' for human existence. "

[QED]

[Jose]

So, QED, let me see if I have this right. It's possible to find quotes from various flavors of smart people. Some of them say that we don't know everything. Some of them say that there are possibilities of all sorts. Some of them say they can't imagine any way to get where we are except by the action of gods. In short, different people have different opinions.

We're back to a couple of things that have been discussed here before. One is "trusting the experts" (for which there is a thread of the same name). If an expert says he can't imagine anything except god, should we trust him to have the One Right Answer? Or should we say "huh...I guess he can't imagine everything"?

It's a funny argument, this "anthropic principle." It says that if we can't imagine that things just happen to be adequate for humans to evolve, then we have to conclude that god set it up that way a-purpose. It's much like ID--if we can't imagine evolution doing it naturally, then we have to conclude that god set it up that way a-purpose. I wonder if this logic is really "the argument from incredulity," or perhaps "the argument from lack of imagination."

It seems to me that, if you're going to conclude that "evidence for god" is "lack of understanding," then you've doomed your god to an ever-diminishing role in the universe. What will happen in the next hundred years? Will our ecological devastation cause our civilization to collapse, and blow us back to the dark ages, or will understanding increase, and god disappear altogether?

I'd rather see us accept a god who works through nature, and can still be with us no matter what we learn.

[QED]

We're back to a couple of things that have been discussed here before. One is "trusting the experts" (for which there is a thread of the same name). If an expert says he can't imagine anything except god, should we trust him to have the One Right Answer? Or should we say "huh...I guess he can't imagine everything"?

What I would encourage people to consider (if they only wished they could be an expert themselves) is "have we been here before?" What I mean by this is to use the self-similar patterns in nature as a guide to extrapolation when trying to probe uncertain areas. We have hard evidence of this pattern in areas amenable to direct observation and from this it appears that the entire universe is fractal in nature. It appears to be a fundamental principle that shapes the cosmos and suggests that we are only ever seeing a tiny part of an infinite picture.

It seems to me that, if you're going to conclude that "evidence for god" is "lack of understanding," then you've doomed your god to an ever-diminishing role in the universe. What will happen in the next hundred years? Will our ecological devastation cause our civilization to collapse, and blow us back to the dark ages, or will understanding increase, and god disappear altogether?

I'd rather see us accept a god who works through nature, and can still be with us no matter what we learn.

Worries about the lack of a god miss the point entirely. I think we have to carry on as if god did not exist and take full responsibility for our actions. Some seem happy to let the heathens get on with the wrecking content in the knowledge that they will get what they deserve at judgment day, but this is like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. I can't help thinking that we need to grow-up and step bravely forth into the unsupervised territory bearing every last bit of our own responsibility.

[otseng]

If our universe is the only one that ever existed, then yes, it would seem improbable to the point of impossibility to have started out with these particular conditions.

Well, I'm glad we can agree on this point.

As a postulate, I'd say that a one-off universe is infinitely more fantastic than anticipating plural universes. There are many good reasons coming out of modern cosmology to say this.

So far, I've not seen any evidence for the existence of other universes. I'd be interested in hearing them out.

This goes to show that the Anthropic Principle problem is not likely to be solved.

In a naturalistic framework, I would agree that the AP problem will not likely be solved.

But it seems to me the height of arrogance to assume that the universe was created just for us in this form so that we could enjoy it for what it is.

I don't see arrogance as being apropos to describing our relationship to the universe any more than saying it is arrogant for a car driver to say that cars were designed to be driven by humans.

There is no particular reason to assume that we, as humans and shaped as we are, are the end-all of the universe's creative process, except for the fact that we can ponder the question.

With the AP argument, it is not an assumption, but rather a conclusion to be drawn from the data. So, based on observable evidence, it can be concluded that the universe is tailor made for man. And to get around this conclusion, the only way I can see is if there are many other universes that exist that each has different properties than ours.

[QED]

So far, I've not seen any evidence for the existence of other universes. I'd be interested in hearing them out.

There is of course only circumstantial evidence at the moment although I think the strength of this can be gauged by the credentials of the numerous luminaries of science who subscribe to it: Stephen Hawking, James Hartle, Martin Rees, David Deutsch, Marcus Chown, Brian Greene -- are all but a handful that spring to mind.

In a naturalistic framework, I would agree that the AP problem will not likely be solved.

It can be solved in principle by inference. If we examine a manmade artifact like a wooden bowling-pin, for example, we can infer from the tooling marks that it was shaped by rotation relative to a cutter - even if we had never seen a lathe before. Similarly the grail of physics, grand unification, should also reveal 'tooling marks' that give away the creation conditions of for the universe.

But it seems to me the height of arrogance to assume that the universe was created just for us in this form so that we could enjoy it for what it is.

I don't see arrogance as being apropos to describing our relationship to the universe any more than saying it is arrogant for a car driver to say that cars were designed to be driven by humans.

I don't go along with your analogy here. We make cars for ourselves. We didn't have a hand in the creation of the universe. If you recall the puddle that marvels at how well his hole fits his outline I think you would have to agree that he was being arrogant. Please tell me how our relationship with our environment is fundamentally different to this.

[ST88]

This goes to show that the Anthropic Principle problem is not likely to be solved.

In a naturalistic framework, I would agree that the AP problem will not likely be solved.

Essentially what this means is that barring God coming down here and saying He had anything to do with it, theists will be left in the same boat as non-theists.

But it seems to me the height of arrogance to assume that the universe was created just for us in this form so that we could enjoy it for what it is.

I don't see arrogance as being apropos to describing our relationship to the universe any more than saying it is arrogant for a car driver to say that cars were designed to be driven by humans.

Probably coming from a design point of view, this might make sense. However, though we can say for certain that the car will not be able to operate as designed without a human, I think it's fair to say that the earth would go on just fine without any humans on it. This is the arrogance. There is nothing about the earth or the universe that would make any more or less sense if humans weren't there.

There is no particular reason to assume that we, as humans and shaped as we are, are the end-all of the universe's creative process, except for the fact that we can ponder the question.

With the AP argument, it is not an assumption, but rather a conclusion to be drawn from the data. So, based on observable evidence, it can be concluded that the universe is tailor made for man. And to get around this conclusion, the only way I can see is if there are many other universes that exist that each has different properties than ours.

I would disagree here. The vast majority of the universe is hostile to life, particularly to human life. For that matter, so is the vast majority of the environments on Earth. And there are literally thousands of ways that a human can die in some of the not-so-hostile environments, just look through the Merck Manual.

[Rational_Robin]

referring back to "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?".
What if a bird hears it, or a monkey or a half asleep person is it any less of a sound ?
Clearly the notion that it only makes a sound if it's heard is nonsense.

As regards the anthropic principle.. If one believes in infinity & an infinite number of universes there is no problem becuase there are bound to be universes ordered enough for life to evolve.
Why after all would there not be infinity ?
In a way this universe proves there is infinity.
For the fact that some thing so improbable in terms of all the constant of nature to be just right for life to evolve, shows there is infinity.
Just for those of you that want to believe in a God there you have one... he's infinity & the immortal laws of nature outside of space & time. I just don't think there is a scrap of evidence to show he's a caring father figure though.

[QED]

Why after all would there not be infinity ?
In a way this universe proves there is infinity.
For the fact that some thing so improbable in terms of all the constant of nature to be just right for life to evolve, shows there is infinity.
Just for those of you that want to believe in a God there you have one... he's infinity & the immortal laws of nature outside of space & time. I just don't think there is a scrap of evidence to show he's a caring father figure though.

Welcome to the forums Rational_Robin! The evident fine-tuning does indeed suggest either deliberate, supernatural, design or else a great number of natural universes making the score: Theists 1, Atheists 1 -- as there is no compelling evidence either way. However, there is slim possibility that there is an as-yet unknown natural cause for this apparent fine-tuning taking place in a single instance which would make the Atheist score somewhat higher.

[Jose]

Yes, the atheist score would be infinitessimally higher. In the limit, the scores might be equal, but they approach 1 asymptotically from opposite sides.

or something

The correct version of the tree in the forest is:

If a man speaks in the forest, where no woman can hear, is he still wrong?

Welcome, Robin!

[Curious]

referring back to "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?".
What if a bird hears it, or a monkey or a half asleep person is it any less of a sound ?
Clearly the notion that it only makes a sound if it's heard is nonsense.

The fact is that sound is perception. A tree that falls even when there is a hearer still makes no sound. The sound is just the interpretation of the vibration made. When you shout you make no sound, the hearer interprets the vibration and it is this interpretation that you believe is sound. When we say the speed of sound we actually mean the speed of vibration in air.