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. "

[perspective]

[Quarkhead]

This theory sort of goes along the lines of "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?". The answer would be obviously "YES, it still makes a sound" because we know that sounds come from vibrations that would be caused by things colliding (like a tree falling and striking other trees). We can assume that just because no one is there to observe other physical phenomenon, doesn't prove that those physical phenomenon don't occur, but actually - analogous physics experiments (tree falling) suggest the contrary.

A minor point, to be sure, but I believe the answer is NO. And you provide why in your own response. Technically, a vibration is just a vibration. Our various senses take that vibration and turn it into a particular category - sound, in this example. So really, the vibration made by the tree falling can only become "sound" when an organism with eardrums capable of perceiving that wavelength of vibration receives it. Without a creature to "hear" it, the only thing that can be said to happen is that when the tree falls, it causes the air and earth around it to vibrate in waves, outward from the point of impact.

But that said, I agree with your post.

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

[perspective]

[otseng]

As science progresses and we understand the universe better, scientists find that the odds of life ever occurring in the universe gets progressively smaller. With research in cosmology, biology, chemistry, physics, et al, we find that the chances of things happening the way they are to support life gets ridiculously miniscule. Hence the Anthropic Principle was born. Purely from a statistical point of view, the odds of life ever evolving is so remote that there has to be something else to explain the fact that we are here. This is the basis of the Anthropic Principle. It's not simply the fact that we are here, so we recognize that we are here. It's the fact that statistically, we are not supposed to be here. But, the problem is that we are here.

The question becomes, if statistically we are not supposed to be here, then how did we ever get here? There are two possible answers that I can think of.
1. We got really lucky.
2. It was not by luck, but the universe was specifically created for life.

If someone else has a third answer, please post it.

[veritas]

I was going to respond, but perspective has already stolen most of my thunder.

Justin

[veritas]

1. We got really lucky.
2. It was not by luck, but the universe was specifically created for life.

3: the universe was not fine-tuned for life: instead, life "fine-tuned" itself for the universe.

Call it luck if you will (or Divine guidance--I do), but that's the usual conclusion.

Justin

[perspective]

[otseng]

The supposition of your question is that the statistics are accurate and uncorrupted. But they are corrupted by a selection effect. The observational selection effect that exists today (limitations in instrumentation and lacking an appropriately placed observer) prevents us from ever having an idea of the statistical likelihood of similar intelligent beings evolving in any setting.

As we look at the universe, we see that life can only evolve to be one certain way. And that way is what we have here on earth.

OK, I'll start getting into some of the supporting details now. :Holds breathe and dives in:

Let's start with light.

Light is a subset of the electromagnetic spectrum. On the short end of the EMS are gamma rays (wavelengths of 10E-12 m and shorter). On the long end are radio waves (10E+3 m and longer). Just in this range, the scale is 10E+15. Visible light is in a very small range, from .4 um to .7 um. So, this range occupies .00000000000000000003 % of the EMS range just mentioned. This in itself is interesting, but doesn't prove much.

When you move to the shorter wavelengths to the x rays and gamma rays, the electromagnetic radiation alters atoms and molecules to the point of being destructive. So without stable atoms/molecules, life cannot exist with exposure to x rays and shorter.

On the other end are far infrared and microwaves, both are also harmful to life.

So, a certain amount of energy is needed for chemical reactions to occur, yet not too much so that it damages atoms and molecular structures. We find this range to be the visible light and infrared area. And, like mentioned before, this is an extremely small band.

It would be hard to imagine life evolving from any range outside of the visible light/infrared.

So, life has to exist within this small range.

Now, if we look at our sun, what range of electromagnetic radiation does it emit? 70% of the energy is in a very small band (from .3 microns to 1.5 microns). Precisely in the range of visible light.

So, a star like our sun is needed for life. Moreover, it will need to maintain that for the full duration of the existence of life on it's orbiting planet. It cannot be any hotter or cooler or else damaging radiation will be emitted.

Though the sun emits energy useful to life, it does also emit some energy harmful to life. Fortunately for us, our atmosphere is full of water particles. Water has an interesting quality in that it lets visible light through, but absorbs all other radiation. So, our atmosphere acts as a filter of harmful radiation. Without this characteristic of water, life cannot exist. Ozone also has a characteristic of absorbing UV light below .3 microns, further reducing harmful radiation.

[perspective]

The supposition of your question is that the statistics are accurate and uncorrupted. But they are corrupted by a selection effect. The observational selection effect that exists today (limitations in instrumentation and lacking an appropriately placed observer) prevents us from ever having an idea of the statistical likelihood of similar intelligent beings evolving in any setting.

As we look at the universe, we see that life can only evolve to be one certain way. And that way is what we have here on earth.

OK, I'll start getting into some of the supporting details now. :Holds breathe and dives in:

Let's start with light.

The entirety of your post still suffers from a selection effect. Yes, I agree that it is likely that life can only exist withint a narrow frame of conditions. What I do not agree is that these conditions are so rare as to negate the possibility of them happening from a natural (read: biological, chemical or physical) cause. The supposed rarity of the existence of these conditions is faulty - we have no way to know how rare or how abundant the conditions. You can't say "statistically speaking, the possibility is slim" because statistics require numbers and we are no where near having a full set of numbers to work with.

Also, this statement:

As we look at the universe, we see that life can only evolve to be one certain way. And that way is what we have here on earth.

is ludacris. You can't possibly conclude that life can only evolve one certain way from our (humankind's) observation of the universe. We can't begin to see the detail and the depth of the universe, and we know this. Errors made from not knowing what we don't know are forgivable. But knowing what we don't know, and ignoring the possibilities (producing "definate" conclusions despite known unknowns) is bad science and flawed logic.
In short, your statement "we see that life can only evolve to be one certain way..." is flawed logic. It implies that 'all we can see' is all that exists. The implication is false.