Talk:Anthropic principle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.

Physics Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Mid

This article is on a subject of Mid importance within physics.

Help with this template

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] www.anthropic-principle.org

The anthropic principle is NOT a tautology. The fact that conditions be conducive and that we exist must necessarily be true does not make for a cosmological principle.

The fact that the actual observed structure of the universe occurs in dramatic contrast to the modeled expectation... where *many* fixed balance points are commonly or "coincidentally" pointing directly toward carbon-based life, *does* indicate that there is some good physical reason for this otherwise completely unexpected structuring, that is somehow "specially" related to the existence of carbon-based life.

The Anthropic Principle is a cosmological principle, so you most certainly *can* falsify it if you can show that the *surprising* configuration that we ended up with isn't contingent on the existence of carbon-based life, as is indicated by the physics that drove physicists to formalize the observtion as an "ecological correction" to the cosmological principle, which erroneously extends mediocrity where it does not apply.

Anthropic-Principle.ORG supports the physics for the anthropic principle that applies to a quasi-static example of Einstein's static cosmology, which notes that Einstein's cosmological model was never proven wrong, and he had no reason to abandon it, rather, he simply didn't know about the particle potential of the quantum vacuum, so many assumptions don't really apply.

1) In Einstein's static model, G=0 when there is no matter density.

He brought in the cosmological constant to counterbalance the runaway recollapse effect that occurs in this model because we do have matter, but in order to get rho>0 out of Einstein's matter-less spacetime structure, you have to condense the matter density from the zero pressure metric, and in doing so the pressure of the vacuum necessarily becomes less than zero, P<0, which causes expansion, while holding the universe stable and near-perfectly-"flat". (*Note that the background changes everytime that you do this.) It becomes evident from this "new-light" that most natural way to create new matter in Einstein's model, ("the most compatible with the spirit of general relativity"), also holds it flat and stable, (instability being the only reason that he abandoned it), so any other conclusions that have been made since Einstein abandoned his finite universe without this knowledge are therefore subject to suspect review, especially the reinterprtation of the negative energy states.

2) Add the physics for the observed universe that produces the anthropic principle to this finite, closed, bounded structure and what you get is a very strong statement about a biocentric structure that "evolves" perpetually forward to higher orders of entropic efficiency.

The WAP is subject to cosmological and environmental interpretation that makes it stronger or weaker, and this becomes problematic when people introduce probabilities where none are necessarily called for:

Weak anthropic principle (WAP): "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so."

That's a very strong statement in a single finite universe, but regardless, "not equally probable" was expected to mean that there is no other possible configuration once the stability mechanism that explains the otherwise completely unexpected structuring of the universe, so many fixed balance points that are all commonly/coincidentally pointing directly toward carbon-based life, indicate that there is some good physical reason for it that is somehow “specially” related to the existence of carbon-based life.

The clear implication is that we are directly connected to the stability mechanism, (which is exactly the kind of thing John Wheeler tried to put forth, for that exact reason). The evidence is most apparently telling us that we should look for something about us, or something that we do that explains why this is so. That doesn't mean that we should ignore the other more-distant possibilities, it just means that "variants" and their assumed probabilities are not what is most apparently indicated by the evidence, so they don't supercede nor equal the most apparent implication, per the scientific method.

sites where carbon-based life can evolve aren't restricted to Earth by the evolutionary physics, although they are restricted to a "plane" of similarly evolved galaxies, so that's where the expectation for life elsewhere is, and that is also an indication of what needs to be considered in context with the mechanism for stability.

The anthropic principle came about from an honest effort by physicists, like Herman Bondi, Fred Hoyle, Robert Dicke, and Paul Dirac, who kept running up against the same problems that we have today when trying to give a "causallity responsible" explanation for the physical structuring of the universe. Brandon Carter proposed the AP as an alternative cosmological principle to the type of Copernican extremism that led to the "Perfect Cosmological Principle", noting that it was equally arrogant to presume that we have the right to ignore the physics and large-scale observational evidence, as it is to presume that we are at the center of the universe. Carter pointed out that "our situation is not necessarily central, it is inevitably privileged to some extent". This point is critically important to this, because the anthropic principle readily extends to, and cannot be restricted from incuding the bands of every spiral galaxy that evolved within the same "layer/habitable-zone" of conditions, (time and location-wise), as our own galaxy, (in terms of the commonality and continuity in the evolution of the same basic raw materials that were produced by our observed Carbon Chauvinistic Universe). In this case, the principle is "biocentric", meaning that life is *more-generally* important to the physics of the universe at this particular time in its history, and so it will *necessarily* be every bit as common to the universe as the physical need for it demands. In this same scientific context, real HONEST scientists will ask questions like, "I wonder if intelligent life does something that *cumulatively* affects the physics of the universe that makes it necessary to the process?" There is a valid physics question about the apparent and evidenced intrinsic finality of goal-oriented thermodynamic structuring in nature that has nothing to do with god, nor any form of intelligent "designer", but this is rarely, (if ever) recognized by either side of the "debate". There is an openly hostile and ideologically motivated effort to downplay scientific interpretations that include the appearance of "anthropic specialness" which occurs as a result of the debate, and the effect is to blind science to the potential that the anthropic principles has for making predictions about life elsewhere in the cosmos, as well as more locally. If the most accurate cosmological principle is biocentric in nature, then the principle is telling us the good physical reason why the forces are constrained in the manner that they are. This science should not be ignored because politics and misplaced perceptions about geocentric arrogance get in the way.

http://www.anthropic-principle.ORG

[edit] Proponents and versions

I have added a paragraph after the Barrow & Tipler definitions pointing out that these differ considerably from those of Carter. I think this causes a lot of confusion because most professional physicists/astronomers use something much more like Carter's version, whereas Barrow & Tipler are the reference of choice for "outsiders". Carter is partly to blame: in particular the "must" in the SAP has been interpreted by B&T as a quasi-theological necessity, but careful reading suggests that Carter simply meant the universe "must" allow life because it does contain life! He points out that this remark is only useful if you believe that there is an actual ensemble of universes (a multiverse in modern terms), so for Carter both WAP and SAP refer to selection effects. Carter's ambiguity was exploited by B&T almost to reverse the meaning of the SAP: for Carter (and, e.g., Susskind) it is a strong counter to design arguments, whereas B&T's version essentially is a design argument.

82.6.76.199 13:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Carter did not originally support an ensemble of universes. As noted by him at the conference in Poland, he introduced the principle with John Wheeler in mind, since it was John who had urged him to formalize principle in order that he might add his idea of the kind of anthropic specialness that causality responsible physics requires, which had absolutely nothing to do with "ensembles" of theoretical speculation.

[edit] cause and effect, the fined-tuned universe

The Anthropic Principle (pick the version of your choice) requires that a universe remain amenable to life but only up to a point. I would define that point as being the first time that someone stands up at a scientific conference and speaks the words "anthropic principle" (or the equivalent waving of pseudo-pods or whatever). At that point the anthropic principle has done its job and it packs up its bags and goes home. The A.P. tells you nothing about the future, just that he past was conveniently arranged for you to reach a point where you can appreciate the (possibly improbable) course of events that lead to the "discovery" of the A.P. This should be a sobering thought to those who believe that the properties of the universe we see are highly improbable, since if this is the case then the chances that the universe will remain amenable to life after the discovery of the A.P. are by no means guaranteed. Your universe might very well undergo runaway inflation or something equally unpleasant shortly after people hit on the idea of the anthropic principle. --G.

I have reformulated the section Proponents and versions such that I feel the criticism below regading confusing cause and effect and the term fine-tuned universe are no longer valid. Maybe these users could pull their talks and signal approval?

I expect that people will criticise that I added "(weak)" to that section. However, it is wrong to discuss all three versions under one umbrella. To make the article more uncontestable, it is better to concentrate on the weak version. It would be sensible to move the 3rd paragraph up, but then the section would scare away readers unfamiliar with the topic.

Highlander 00:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that anthropic principle appears to confuse cause and effect. Because the universe is the way it is, intelligent life came up. If it were different, different life may have come up, right? Please help correct my misunderstanding.

Help me understand this, please. The Antropic principle can be interpreted as "The fact that the universe has a highly unlikely set of properties can be explained by the fact that if it didn't, we wouldn't be here wondering about it", right? And this is source for controversy as many think that it is not true that the statement explains anything, it just exposes a correlation. But what are the odds that you (yes, you) came to exist? The odds that the spermatozoid that combined with your mother's egg was the one that would lead to you were small. Combine that with the odds that your parents met. And with the odds that your parents existed. And so on until the original living cell. The odds that all that happened are extremely dim, probably smaller than the odds that the universe has the right set of constants to be stable and hospitable to life. And still you are there. I only see two ways to explain that: either predestination or Antropic Principle (if that incredibly unlikely set of events hadn't occurred, you wouldn't be here finding it unlikely). Personally I don't like predestination and I think it is an even more unlikely explanation than the antropic principle to this issue. Now, if the Antropic principle is an acceptable explanation for your personal existence, why isn't it a good explanation for the universe's hospitality?

Herbys

Some food for thought before personal prejudice eats this topic alive:

"The unmatched human-potential for directly affecting the symmetry of our expanding universe defines good physical reason for why intelligent life would necessarily be required to arise as a practical means for satisfying the increasing entropic impetus of a universe where negative pressure increases as the vacuum grows"

www.anthropic-principle.ORG

4/30/2005

I strongly feel that the Anthropic Principle (or one version of the Anthropic Principle) is widely misunderstood. It is often stated as saying "the parameters of our Universe are (mysteriously) within narrow limits which allow the origination of planets, water, intelligent life, etc." However, this is backwards. The only type of Universe which can have intelligent observers is one with parameters within such limits.

It's not just me then who has a problem with

The universe appears to be "fine tuned" to allow the existence of life as we know it.

then...A less contentious phrasing is the exact reverse: Life as we know it is finely tuned to the universe. Are the shapes and positions of the human eyes, nose and ears "fine tuned" to allow the use of spectacles?

I think this article needs work. I, for one, find the entire argument for the "anthropic principal" to be specious and oversimplified. Life evolved to fit the conditions of the existing universe; the universe was not "fine-tuned" by a cosmic entity to allow for the existence of life. If the basic constants of the universe were different, then there would probably be another intelligent race out there awed by the fact that the universe was so perfectly tuned for their kind of life!

Another thing. How is it possible for a principal to be true if it can be restated in a manner exactly opposite? Stormwriter

It doesn't matter if we think about carbon based life or a more open view about life. Fact is, if the universe wasn't fine tuned to a very strict set of variables, it wouldn't have lasted enough for it to harbor ANY typo of life. A universe that lasts only a few milliseconds and it's a trillion degrees in temperature doesn't leave much room for life, even if you depart a lot from our current definition of life. Much less, intelligent life.

Herbys

Reply:Both non-predestination and the Anthropic Principle both rely on a point of view which does not depend on exactly YOU coming into being at this time and place. The Anthropic Principle is a social construct, because it is communicated to other human beings - so it depends on being humans in general being there. Similarly, the concept of yourself, your identity, still leaves room for chance.

Highlander 13:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course TODAY's life is fine tuned to the needs of the Earth. The argument is that a universe which can have life to explain that same universe, must necessarily be fine tuned to harbour the BEGINNINGS of life. That means that the universe must eventually have the conditions that were in the primeval oceans hundreds of millions of years ago. After that, life fine tunes itself to the universe's changes. - CJWilly

i think the article needs work too. for one thing, the term needs disambiguation. some people use the term "Anthropic Principle" to prove that the universe was hand-tailored for us (also called anthropic coincidences, a better term), some people use the term to show that we are the glasses that fit the nose and eyes. some people use the term to describe observation [/selection] effect, (which is a better term anyway), to describe the fact that we are unduly amazed by the perfect fit between the glasses and the face. one or more uses of a term warrants its disambiguation, doesn't it? (i found a good disambiguating article on the matter at: http://www.anthropic-principle.com/primer.html )

If the basic constants of the universe were different, then there would probably be another intelligent race out there awed by the fact that the universe was so perfectly tuned for their kind of life! -- Stormwriter

I don't think that the anthropic principle in any form really supports the word probably...

Plasticlax

Removed this......

A less contentious phrasing, and one generally overlooked by proponents of the anthropic principle, is the exact reverse: Life as we know it is finely tuned to the universe. In other words, life exists because it can exist. Phrased this way, it is easier to see that the anthropic principle does not necessarily give human life "special status" in any particular way, and is more easily understood through the application of evolutionary theory.

Because in listening to proponents of the anthropic principle, they don't phase it that way because they don't actually believe that.

Is the weak form of the principle really controversial? It seems to just state an obvious fact that might otherwise be overlooked. (What I think one of the above comments about being `unduly amazed' is referring to.) I was under the (uninformed) impression that it was only the stronger form that was controversial. Either way, it would be nice if the article could be more explicit about this.

I agree with you - the weak form is tautological, the strong controversial (for being overly certain of what may apply in other universes). There are also forms in between the weak and the strong (as one might expect) which have been discussed since the origin of the theory. EofT

The article should include references to the ideas of the PAP (Participatory Anthropic Principle, and the FAP (Final Anthropic Principle) and other notions such as the HAP (Holistic Anthropic Principle). I might expand it eventually. Stormwriter, I disagree with you about the anthropic principle, I find it useful, though in the end it may explain nothing. That it can be explained in the reverse is not the point, the point is just the fact that there's a perfect fit. Yes, if the universe were different in its basic constants (if thats possible at all, or if its possible that different constants could sustain life; both questions which are philosophically interesting), the different observer would marvel that the universe fit them. However, if that were true maybe it would fit them; and maybe since its true we exist, it fits us. The following is a good webpage to draw information for the article from: http://dialogos3.tripod.com/dial3.htm . I will paste here something I wrote earlier today on the subject, for the purpose of not only generating discussion (which I understand Wikipedia talk isnt for), but also for eventually improving the content of the article:

I am not a theist, but this isn't because I disbelieve in the anthropic principle, but for other reasons. I am among the people, who, when asked if they believe in God, doesn't know how to respond, because I don't know what I'm being asked about, I don't know what God is. You can say, I follow the Wittgensteinian argument that talk about metaphysics is nonsensical; but, more broadly, and more articulated, its just a statement of this: people say God not only created the universe, but existence itself--but that would require either God be outside of existence, ie non-existant!, or a pantheistic/deistic conception. In the latter case, which has been argued by some philosophers, such as Spinoza and Plotinus, that God is equilalent to the whole of Being or of existence, can be made to work, because you could argue that God is existence, and existence created itself into being, by some means (which I believe, as I'll explain later). However, saying God is the whole of being is just deflating the entire idea of God, you might as well cross out the words "nature" and "existence" and replace them with "God".

On the different types of anthropic principles: most arguments against it, seem to miss some major issues, in that they resort too much to science and physics without looking at things philosophically. That is, scientific oriented thinkers tend to think the only thing at stake is the nature of the 'universe' and of 'matter', but really what is at stake is the issue of 'existence'--what it means for something to exist at all-- and, more peripherally, the issue of 'consciousness'.

They seem oblivious to the issue of whether you can be certain anything exists at all after your death, or if anything exists at all outside of your thought. The latter, about things existing external to thought, has shown up in the history of philosophy under the term Idealism, in Berkeley, and Hegel, and even in David Hume. It is at least misguided in one way: there is certainly something we talk about being "external" to us, regardless of metaphysical distinctions. There are similar problems with the former, in that we assume there are other conscious people, and that these people will have perceptions of the world at a time frame after our death. However, what is meant in asking these questions is more broad and profound: what does it mean for something to "exist" with nothing percieving it.

Argumentors against the Participatory Anthropic Principle, think that the view relies specifically on a scientific interpretation the Copenhagen interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle, saying that the observer is part of the construction of reality. But there is no reason to be scientific about it at all, and one needs to accept no scientific premises or interpretations of scientific theory. The issue is more plain: what does it mean for something non- percieved to exist?

I understand and do not refute theories such as Inflation theory; I accept the idea that there could be muliple universes (although I am a skeptic as to how it is important, because, as you noted, they are obliterated or non-existent to us, which I will deal with later). However, this does nothing but support all forms of the Anthropic Principle, not offer an alternative. Because, among those universes that 'exist' and are there with no 'observer', one has to ask--do they really exist, did they really ever exist? One can propose that the universe exists in potentially infinite amount of possibilities--but the only manifestation that will really be real and exist, will be the one with the observer. And this one, with the observer, will meet laws necessary to sustain him. The possibility that other universes have observers may seem interesting, but also it is unclear as to whether we could really talk about them existing, as well, unless we can interact with them; because, for us, what doesn't effect our perceptions practically doesn't exist.

As such, we can say that the only universe that we can ever be concerned with as 'existing' is ours. The multiple universe possibility inherent in inflation theory, as only a potential, and in no substantial way, a reality. --- this brings to broader and substantial questions about the metaphysical and conceptual and logical (ie philosophical and non-scientific) issues/problems behind physics theories like inflation theory. That it looks like the possibility of multiple universes is inherent in inflation theory may reflect some distortion in the nature of conceptualizing about it.

There are also other deep problems; such as the issue of whether there really could be any different way of ordering the universe than the way we see; and what exactly is manipulated to bring into being any inumerable amount of laws, that, in one combination brings consciousness? But these issues arent necessary to go into.

A long time ago, I did this thought experiment: many scientists like to think of the universe as existing in terms of data like binary which is, by itself uninterpreted.Even if this isn't exactly accurate, which I guess it isn't, its at least assumed that how reality appears depends on the structure of the observing entity. Because its uninterpreted, we may frame it in inumerable abstractions and order it in many different ways. However, with the possibility of an abstraction that involves an observer; the universe "comes into being", it crystalizes or becomes concrete around the observer, in a way ordered to support or sustain its existence.

The issue of God is a more abstruse matter, as I commented on at the start. However, proponents of this, don't really treat the notion of 'God' in a traditional manner; they just use the term to refer to a pervasive "consciousness" or drive towards complexity in the universe, finally realized in what we see in humankind in its drive to abstraction and truth. In Western history, the idea of God, anyway, has always been said to be a reflection of perfection, an idea of the perfect or the divine or the ideal--as talked about in Plato when he talks about the Good--or, as its called, in modern thought, the Supreme Being. Many Christian philosophers, like Descartes, have sometimes dropped the word 'Supreme', talking about God as plainly 'Being', an ontological category referring to the substance of all things. Hegel, in his Idealistic philosophy, gives a teleology in which all of nature resolves all its contradictions, unity and difference, in what he calls the 'Absolute Spirit'. In proponents of this anthropic principle, these are synonymous with God. A truth about humankind and culture and society is that we are driven towards abstracting; resolving contradictions, unity and difference (as per Hegel); finding meaning; and the idea of the Good and perfection. In fact, the idea that we are somehow the result of a "playfulness," an "experiment," or even a "fall" from God and/or the spiritual world, and that we are groping to find our way back is an ancient and common idea to both Eastern and Western religions.

Another way of saying this, which I'm not necessarily subscribing to, is that our consciousness is driven by the force of God. And furthermore, since the universe and nature is formed to sustain our existence, if you accept the anthropic principle, in its weakest form, the universe has a directionality towards our consciousness, and in turn, towards our own personal directionality towards the idea of the Good, of God.

As such, philosophers and theologans, like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, have argued, that all of nature is a constant evolution in a sort of teleology that is driven by the fact of God. God is equivalent with 'unity in nature'.

This is not circular in any way, because it doesnt seek to 'prove' God's existence; rather, it just finds that God is a perfect description for this creative force in nature. (For similar reasons, Descartes' arguments in favor of God, really aren't circular, as they are often claimed to be by analytic philosophers, if you realize he just descriptively equates perfect Being with God)

Brianshapiro

Because this is a contentious issue, is there some way to identify the subject as such more explicitly? Is there a sensible way to include arguments against proposed by recognized theorists, as opposed to the ideally disinterested synthetic author of the wiki? Is the synthesized author of the wiki actually disinterested? I mean, should it be?

I am one of those who finds little value in the Anthropic Principle as its stands (I am suspicious of any scientific argument based on speculative statistics, especially the use of the probability of the occurrence of some past event being revised to 100%), but I won't pursue the matter unless there is some way to disinterestedly cover the topic. The wiki is not here to add new knowledge, it is here to summarize existing facts about knowledge.

Has anyone encountered a good, published, peer-reviewed criticism of the Anthropic Principle? Brent Gulanowski 16:09, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] truism?

In the first paragraph is "Critics call it a truism." Is there anyone who doesn't think that the weak A.P. is a truism? It is something that has to be true - it couldn't be any other way. Bubba73 01:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't like the first sentence as an intro: "In its weak form, the anthropic principle is a truism". You can revert, but I'd like to work on the intro. --goethean ॐ 02:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that it shouldn't be the first sentence. I'm not sure that only critics call it a truism. I'm talking about the Weak AP only, shich I assume is what is meant by "its most basic form". Bubba73 02:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re Peak's revert - you should really discuss something like that rather than reverting it for the third time. Anyway, can someone explain to me how it is not a tautology? I've read the truism and tautology articles. Also, as goethean suggested above, I reverted "In its weak form, the anthropic principle is a truism", but not in the first sentence. Improvements are of course welcome :p ··gracefool |☺ 23:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply:

A tautology is adding something redundant, e.g. qualifying an attribute of an object twice. A truism is similar, but it is in the form of a logical statement, and as long the statement is interesting to someone, it is not redundant. e.g. (leaving same-sex marriages aside for a moment): "The female bride" is a tautology, "Brides are female" is a true statement, "The bride was female" is a truism (and is redundant, but only as long as it is obvious to the reader of the truism that the statement "Brides are female" is true, which it might not be).

The weak anthropic principle can be expressed in mathematical terms:

The probability to live in a universe that allows intelligent human life to exist under the condition that human life exists in the universe is exactly 1.

Be A="human life exists in the universe(it is implied that it is intelligent)" and B="the universe exists", then the truism is "A and B => A", which implies the weak anthropic principle which is: "P(A and B|A)=1", which means probability of A happening if A and B equals true. This means the WAP follows from a truism, but is not necessarily one.

That "critics call it a truism" is not a failure of the WAP, but a sign that these critics are not most intelligent lifeforms around, since how can you refute a statement by saying that it is true?

--Highlander 19:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Parody

I was wondering if it would be possible (or indeed wise) to add a section mentioning parodies of the anthropic principle. Of course, I suppose it's a bit of a long shot -- the anthropic principle isn't exactly the butt of as many parodies as, say, Schrodinger's cat -- but I can think of at least one example. --Yar Kramer 05:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About the anthropic principles on /.

The weak anthropic principle can be expressed in mathematical terms:

The probability to live in a universe that allows intelligent human life to exist under the condition that human life exists in the universe is exactly 1.

So you(someone who is arguing for the religious interpretation of the SAP) don't have a point. You would spent your time better at debunking the SAP(strong anthropic principle) and the FAP(final anthropic principle) both of which are either bullshit or logical trickery.

By the way, the last time I visited wikipedia to look up the definition, the WAP was formulated the wrong way around, and the SAP was formulated correctly - now it seems to me the SAP has no value different from the WAP(except that is has a diffent motivation), and the WAP by Carter is formulated in accordance with the mathematical definition above. Moreover, the german version of WAP/SAP differ.

The FAP is logical trickery, because if intelligent beings would ever die out completely, nobody in the universe would have the required intelligence to notice that the statement is wrong - so the statement cannot be refuted, it has a boolean value of "true" as long as philosopers exist, but it can be considered harmful insofar as it inspires the confidence that life and human life could never die out, even if the entire intelligent life-forms in the universe decided to commit universal seppukko just to put the theory to a test(of course, if they did that, maybe they would never have been intelligent at all, SCNR).

Likewise, intelligent design is logical trickery, because it cannnot be refuted without complete knowledge of the history of our universe; So, let me add the bon-mot: "Only an omniscent God can refute intelligent design, and I am sure he'll do that, if he exists." The inherent danger in the ID ideas is that ID proponents somehow believe that because one their claims cannot be ultimately refuted (except by God), they somehow have the authority to declare the rest of science "bullshit". There is no logic in that unless you are on crack.

--Highlander 18:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Given that I feel like Arthur Dent in front of the poetry-reading Bogon, I thought I would cast a little more dark:

In the weak antropic principle, it seems completely irrelevant that it be life as we know it, or the life form be carbon. According to my understanding of the principle, it is irrelevant and confusing. I would re-phrase WAP as follows:

"Given that you can think and observe the universe, and you are part of the universe. Of all possible universes, the only universe you can possibly observe is one where the physical conditions allow for your existence."

Regarding SAP: "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history." This is redundant. It states the obvious in a non-obvious way. If another method of explaining the AP is necessary, I submit the following:

"You are the evidence that the universe we inhabit has properties which allow life to develop within it at some point in it's history"

Regarding FAP: "Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out." I have seen and know of self-aware intelligent beings die. There is plenty of evidence that intelligent beings can die on a grand scale. There is no scientific evidence that the universe preserves the existence of self-aware intelligence. Furthermore, this assumes the universe will not come to an end. The FAP should perhaps be filed under theology/christianity/Heaven and Hell.

The closest reasonably scientific true statement I can imagine which can align with FAP is "Intelligence has a natural tendency for a dominion over matter and space. All matter and space may therefore ultimately fall under the dominion of intelligence". Nick R Hill 00:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Lest we all forget the poignant maxim: "Reality is relative to the measuring apparatus." MPD 18 March 2006

"The probability to live in a universe that allows intelligent human life to exist under the condition that human life exists in the universe is exactly 1."

This is incorrect. It is certainly true that if you exist, you are existing in a place that allows you to exist, at least for a moment. That much is obvious. However, the unstated assumption in your statement is that humans exist (which we know to be true, but it is still an unstated assumption). The correct form is "If humans exist, the propability that they exist in a universe were they can exist is exactly 1".

Is this nitpicking? Of course it is. However, it is a very important point to make, since anthropic principle is usually given as the answer to the question "Why is the universe as it is?" Answering that question with a version of anthropic question that can be expressed as you did is really saying "the universe is like this because we couldn't live in a different universe"; it makes us, or rather allowing our existence, the reason why the universe is like this. This, of course, might very well be true, but it is no longer a matter of science and shouldn't be dressed up as such.

In short, your version of antropic principle dries up to "Universe is as it is because God created it for us to inhabit", which may or may not be true but is not something that cosmology could answer either way.

80.186.134.28 22:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lest we forget

Lest we all forget the poignant maxim: "Reality is relative to the measuring apparatus." MPD 18 March 2006

[edit] A good comment

I noticed this comment in one of the above discussions and found it highly appropriate and accurate:

"It's not just me then who has a problem with 'The universe appears to be "fine tuned" to allow the existence of life as we know it.' then...A less contentious phrasing is the exact reverse: Life as we know it is finely tuned to the universe. Are the shapes and positions of the human eyes, nose and ears 'fine tuned' to allow the use of spectacles?"

-Silence 04:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why no opposing visions?

How come in this article there is a sections dedicated to the views of the proponents of the Anthropic principle but not those of the opponents? Myself I know too little about this subject to be able to add it, but someone out there should be able to add such a section, not?

Someone, sometime

Reply: As the (weak) anthropic principle is a truism, i.e. true by logic, critics of it would either need to claim access to other sources of information beyond our common reality, or would need to misformulate the WAP to attack it, such as in the strong anthropic principle. Actually, other wordings of the SAP are more along the lines of "Someone created the universe such that we, or at least some other beings(able to please God) exist". While this formulation of the SAP is fine as an argument between two believers, it isn't a reasonable statement for improving scientific knowledge, which is working with the tools of Occam's Razor and the assumption that experiments may be repeated to support or disprove a hypothesis (allowing some margin for uncontrolled effects and yet unknown effects) to promote a hypothesis to receive merit as a theory or law.

Highlander 22:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear expression

From the intro: "If something must be true for us, as humans, to exist, then it is true simply because we exist."

This can be interpreted as either "we know it is true because if it wasn't, we wouldn't exist" or "it is this way because we wouldn't exist otherwise". The former is simply deducing additional information about the structure of the universe from known facts (we exist), the latter is claiming that the universe was custom tailored for us - which may or may not be true but is a matter for the Intelligent Design article. So, please clear this up, and possibly reference the appropriate articles about creationism or ID if you think that Anthropic Principle has ties to either (as it does if the latter interpretation is used).

80.186.134.28 22:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they both imply the same situation; the interpretation that "it is this way because we wouldn't exist otherwise" is just another of saying that the obvious fact that we exist is evidence. There's no comment whatsoever as to "tailoring". siafu 02:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning! Note that many versions of the anthropic principle exist.

This article has slowly improved over time, but it is still flawed. Many versions of the anthropic principle exist, not just the three that were listed here before I added another option.

If we are going to present arguments for or against any point of view, let us be precise in noting which form of the anthropic argument this argument refers to. If we cannot tell which form it refers to, and someone insists on quoting such a criticism within this article, then we must note within the article that the criticism is vague, and does not specific its target. RK 00:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sort of frustrated with the style of arguing quoting experts. John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler did not use a wording of the anthropic principles that actually is anthropic, that is, referring to humans. Instead they talk about carbon-based life, life and intelligent life. This is why I support the sections on the Anthropic Cosmological Principle despite having an odd feeling when seeing them come before the section on variants.

So actually some of these anthropic principles should have different names, maybe universal principle or principio sapiensis (consider intelligent life other than humans as well).

As another reference point I'd like to offer Peter Schaefer's (2005) formulation of a weaker weak anthropic principle, which is named the Solipsistic Anthropic Principle:

All observations of an observer must allow the observer to exist, and to read about the Solipsistic Anthropic Principle right now.

Highlander 11:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin, Reasoning, and Evidence - the CMB

I'll clean up the section "Origin, Reasoning, and Evidence for the weak anthropic principle". Improvements are:

less red links which would spawn new copies of this grand topic

references to other sources better sorted

Regarding the topic, the universe will always appear to work according to laws of the universe that are valid everywhere, because you need at least to observe the observer. This doesn't mean the laws will be easy to operate with. Highlander 13:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I was planning to fill-in the red links with pages that explain their relevance in context with the article. Island1 11:55, 13 August 2006

Well, it looked a bit too red for me, and the links where partly redundant. I am optimistic you can still connect every point you want to make, at least every topic that can stand by itself.

Also the Anthropic principle text looked perfectly cromulent to me before that. Maybe you try to pack too much into the section, or just your main point into the section .. Highlander 16:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No, my mistake. You are perfectly correct about everything that you say, (except that I think that Krauss' quote is highly relevant and should be included, as with previously included quotes, since it is not easy to find in the long article at edge.org) but I would like to mention that I'm fairly certain that I can easily prove that Brandon Carter was voicing John Wheeler's idea of a "Strong", causally-responsible connection between the forces of the universe and human existence, so I thiink that the title, "Origins Reasoning and Evidence For" was more accurate. Island1 13:36, 13 August 2006

Okay, I finally understood some of what you were saying, Highlander, and I made some clarifying edits accordingly, I hope, let me know. Island1 20:46, 13 August 2006

I made some links go blue, and split the section, this means you may have the entire quote there Highlander 07:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Highlander. I'm going to remove the rest of the red, at least temporarily, until I am more familiar with the protocol for new topics, as I didn't do very well in my first attempt. Also, I am making changes to the section names that are more accurate.Island1 5:35, 15 August 2006

Highlander, in your note you said that you had split the section, (which I don't disagree with), because the astro-ph/0508047 anomaly might soon be explained away if CMB radiation has a positive effect on the formation of planetary systems).

This is not even funny, but Krauss also said, "I want theory to be wrong, not right, because if it's wrong there's still work left for the rest of us.

There is a clear predispositioning among scientists toward "explaining-away" evidence, rather than following the scientific method which at least gives equal time to the Occam's razor implication for for anthropic preference that is called for by the observation, which occurs chronologically *before* they start explaining-away evidence, while inventing conditions and universes that fall into the category of an theoretical speculation. Part of the problem has to do with the misplaced perception that anthropic favoritism requires geocentric arrogance, (that we truly are at the center of the universe), but that comes from a failure to look, because it is easily supported that the physics for the anthropic principle isn't limited to our planet, since it also applies to planets near stars in every galaxy that evolved under the same conditions as our own system, time/"location"-wise in the history of the universe. This is further discussed in the paper that I've linked, below, but the coincidentally balanced "goldilocks constraint" limits the possibility for intelligent life to evolve elsewhere in the universe to a fine-layer of galaxies that are similar to our own in terms of the evolution of similar raw materials under common conditions.

This would be the "ecliptic" that Krauss referred to, so yeah, there should be evidence that the CMB radiation has a positive effect on the formation of planetary systems, but the "ecliptic" is "special".

The previously mentioned "predispositioning" says that this won't be noticed, so the consensus will be wrong.

Is the Strong Anthropic Principle Too Weak? http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9812093

Island1 14:43, 13 August 2006

I should have included that the Fermi paradox supports the above given facts, since contact with other life should not be expected YET, since there hasn’t even been time even for radio transmissions from nearby planetary-systems in our own galaxy to reach us, given that the above physics supports that all intelligent life is equally developed, technologically as all other intelligent life is. So the anthropic principle actually resolves the problem, while making a testable prediction about the most likely locations for life elsewhere in the cosmos. The Fermi paradox isn't. Rather, it is a misrepresentation of the mediocrity principle, which is another pure "copernican-extension" that doesn't actually extend to the time domain. Island1 14:43, 13 August 2006

I hold this belief that a metaverse(cf. multiverse, a metaverse is: (do ask me in person) ) tends to explain away wonders in its universes. Maybe you could explain multipole theory so that I understand what kind of correlation is found with the ecliptic.

The physics you suggested supports that all intelligent life is ABOUT equally developed. So my guess is that it is somewhat likely either that estimates for the viability of a civilization such as ours are wrong, or that advanced civilizations avoid (verifiable) contact out of wisdom, fear, or economic reasons. These are boundary events AFAICS.

Highlander 16:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ehm, it just came to me, can you explain how the Anthropic Principle didn't always cover the Cosmological Anthropic Principle as well? Isn't this just evidence presented that our universe is just one of several which are possible in the realms of mathematical (meta-)physics?

Highlander 16:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If the microwave background at the multipoles is correlated with the geometry and direction of motion of the solar system, and the incoherence manifests via octopole and quadrupole components in a bound universe, then there should be a center of gravity at the center of the visible universe that correlates to the ecliptic. - The anthropic principle isn't about evidence presented that our universe is just one of several which are possible when the configuration that we observe follows the least action principle, rather than uncertainty, as a causality responsible mechanism for stability, rather than the cop-out that string theorists are accused of making. It is the failure of any theory to answer that question that forces them to rely on the AP, which leaves a very bitter taste when it gets used to "explain-away" causality. Science would support that the unidentified physical reason behind the AP is what enables the universe to take the form that it does while still holding to the least action principle, so this is what needs to be researched in context with anthropic significance, without bias. Also, be careful about what assumptions about the nature of universe are being accepted and then projected into more advanced theories, as nothing has been settled, and the physics takes on drastically different meanings, depending on what universe we actually live in.

Island1 18:29, 16 August 2006

I want to raise a flag that "JB" seems to be trying to make changes that are ideologically biased, rather than being honestly scientific, which is against wiki policy.

Island1 15:09, 17 August 2006

Well, I find it strange that Anthropic principle now is referred to as Anthropic Cosmological Principle. How about just The Anthropic Principle in Cosmology? And that you talk about evidence. I have the feeling you are following a red herring: If the Anthropic principle indeed is a truism, it doesn't need evidence, at best it needs examples. It has been suggested that Biocosm be merged with this node, so JB is acting in a natural way. I'll re-read the intro.

Highlander 12:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Because, for example, an anthropic principle in a multiverse is not a cosmological principle, (unless all universes are anthropic), which is what the following statement of fact indicates without adding theoretically speculative extra entities, and unobserved conditions:

The actual structure of the universe is in "dramatic contrast" to the "expectation", so many fixed balance points that are commonly pointing directly toward carbon-based life indicate that there is some good physical reason for it that is somehow "specially" related to the existence of carbon-based life.

The fact that it is a truism doesn't make the unexpected physics any less significant, so it is important to note that this indicative evidence differentiates between, 1) "yeah, conditions had to be right, so what?" and 2) "yeah, conditions had to be something different from the normal expectation", truism or otherwise. The aspect of truism is commonly used in the first sense without consideration for the nature of the physics in order to downplay the implied significance that Carter, Dicke, Hoyle, and others have pointed to as evidence for an anthropic cosmological principle, so nobody's "feelings" about this evidence matter, without proof that extra entities are necessary. - - Maybe I misread JB though, (and if I did, then I apologize), because the way that you reinserted the term, "randomly" reads just fine in context with everything that I just said. - - Also, the observed universe is carbon-rich by a ratio of approximately 10:1, but carbon based molecules and chains also form more readily when the ratio is reversed, (as is the case on Earth!), 10:1 in favor of the next most plausible life-form that we have been able to imagine, (silicon based life), so there is absolutely no justification for speculation about other forms of life in context with the known physics. Again, extra entities must be justified with something more than... "maybe conditions are different elsewhere", so I "think" that you're chasing a red herring". Island1 20 August 2006

Okay, point noted regarding carbon-based life being favored. But since I opened up time and location for discussion, I felt like opening up the carbon base as well. I think of the Anthropic principle as the simplest truism you can get away with - the restriction to carbon seems unnecessary, because it leaves the safe ground of a truism. I re-inserted the random elsewhere because I felt that it was maybe what JB meant. Regarding the term Anthropic Cosmological Principle I see what you mean. However, cf. Anthroposophy, it derives from human in Greek, so it is tied to our cosmos (or set of cosmos' ?) already, and I guess if it would ever be necessary to extend the principle to aliens, the term would be kept as in sloppy terminology.

A concise anthropic version of the AP could simply say humans instead of carbon-based life.

BTW.: A version of the strong AP I came with is: There will always be philosophers in the universe(Because otherwise the weak AP will be worthless).

Highlander 16:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to study gravity, and frankly, I wish that the AP didn't exist... but. Anyway, I think that an unfounded leap of faith was made to call the principle anthropic, since the evolutionary physics can't be strictly limited to our own galaxy, much less the Earth. Wheeler was on the forefront of Carters mind in Cracow. Island1 20 August 2006

Regarding the change labeled "The cosmic microwave background has nothing to do with the anthropic principle. It's a necessary consequence of the Big Bang, but not anthropy."

The removed link claims that something called multipole theory shows a correlation between the CMB and the eclipse. This is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence, but if verified would belong here. Highlander 12:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro needs help, regardless

Although some may think otherwise, this intro is in definite need of some help. See the first sentence : "The Anthropic Principle represents an effort by some physicists to explain the structure of the universe by considering how the forces are precariously balanced in a manner that constrains it to evolve to a point that it produces carbon-based life at a specific time and location in the universe." It ought to be "constrained against" not "constrained to". If it were "constrained to" then it would mean that forces were constrained towards the creation of planets like our earth, i.e. the "creative forces" (btw, what is meant by "forces" anyways? Can we come up with a better word than that?) have a greater tendency to create life as we know it on earth, in more instances than not. However, as far as we can tell with our limited ability to search the universe so far, we have found no reason to believe that is the case at all. In fact, the opposite is true. See Merriam Webster, m-w.com, where the definition of constrains is given as: "to force by imposed stricture, restriction, or limitation". Thus, this sentence says that the universe is precariously balanced in a manner that forces it to evolve. That simply does not make sense.

Island1 17 August 2006 Yes, "constrained to" most appropriately does mean that the forces are constrained "towards the creation of planets like our earth", but this is a facet of the evolution of the constraint on the matter field that gets layed-down by the big bang. Both Carter and Dicke noted that this means we are "inevitably priveledged" to whatever level of relevance, and it can't be both, "constrained against" and "inevitibly priveledged" at the same time. Automatically discounting or willfully lowering the <a href=http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/mar31/anthropic.html>necessarily implied significance</a> isn't what is called for by the physics, rather, it is typically motivated by something else, less scientific. The "selfish biocosm" would be one example, and John Wheeler's derivation is another, of good scientific physical reasons why the universe is necessarily "anthropically constrained" which will be excluded if "anthropic preference" is discounted or downplayed from the view of science. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec28.html

Island1 17 August 2006 Looking back on it, this is exactly the reason why I stuck with the more awkward statement that I originally made before "JB" broke it up for further dissection, because there are three critical facets to this that can be taken apart separately when the first sentence gets separated from the rest of the point:

The Anthropic Principle represents an effort by physicists to explain the structure of the universe from the fact that the forces are coincidentally balanced in a manner that constrains it to evolve to a point that it produces carbon-based-life at a specific time and location in history the universe, in dramatic contrast to what is indicated by any practical model of turbulance driven structuring that should result from our big bang.

The actual structure of the universe is in "dramatic contrast" to the "expectation", so many fixed balance pointsthat are commonly pointing directly toward carbon-based life indicate that there is some good physical reason for it that is somehow "specially" related to the existence of carbon-based life.

The Introduction, much of sections 1-3, and much of this Talk page are very badly written. Moreover, nearly everything that leaves me baffled and deeply dissatisfied has been contributed in the last 100 odd days. A reader of this entry as it stood 24 hours ago would never suspect that large parts of Barrow and Tipler (1986) are clear and engaging. I have spent the last several hours trying to clean up this article, but more work is still needed: whole paragraphs of what I found earlier today left me so baffled that some of my editing work is, frankly, a stab in the dark. This article is in very bad need of tender loving care by the likes of Nick Bostrom.132.181.160.42 05:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that Highlander should put the previous revision back in place as Highlander left it, before I do it myself. The above person has no idea what the anthropic physics is about, and Nick Bostrom's speculations have been shown to fail when extended to the time domain anyway. Island1 25 August 2006

Mr .42 is a but right that the intro needs care, since it fails to tell what the Anthropic principle actually is. However, having yet another expert on the subject might not help that much, since experts tend to add their own version of the AP, and because the experts Barrow and Tipler offered two wordings of the AP which in my opinion also are not the clearest possible wording. Thus we end up with the situation that the experts introduction of the subject is not the best source for an accurate wording. I do not feel the edits by Mr .42 were meant to be harmful, but given that we are looking for a truism, then the words The Anthropic Principle is a convenient heading .. do simply miss the target. Highlander 13:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the talk page being badly written, I have been told that it is nice to leave the talk in place like a historic record to give others a clue what is going on. I am not opposed to clear or rewrite some sections, but I have no idea what the proper procedure is. Highlander 13:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That's because Carter made no real statment telling "what the Anthropic principle actually is"... and furter formulations at his advice are different flavors, rather than complete statements about the anthropic physics. I agree that it is extremely important not to allow personal bias to enable one flavor or another to dominate, which is why I commonly dispute assumptions that will benefit my own interpretation... if they are not warrented. But it is equally important not to allow them to include statements that exclude interpretations like John Wheeler's.

This statement, for example by Mr. 42 is a biased attempt to insert randomness where it it is not justified, based on an assumption about sensitivity to iniitial conditions that is not indicated by any physics that is associated with the anthropic principle:

and the randomness of events during the subsequent several seconds

The statement is not justified, since the balanced conditions that define the anthropic physics start unfolding from the moment of the big bang, and then continue to appear periodically throughout the evolution of the universe. Seriously, that statement needs to come out.

Mr 42's statement: Given the extreme simplicity of the universe at the start of the Big Bang, and the randomness of events during the subsequent several seconds, the friendliness of the universe to complex structures such as galaxies, planetary systems, and biology, is unexpected... by any model of turbulence driven structuring that we have ever been able to derive.

That last part is not just a minor incidental fact, yet people keep trying to get rid of it!

http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/mar31/anthropic.html

This is the opening statement from uoregon.edu: Anthropic Principle We may occupy a preferred place or preferred time in the Universe (we may also occupy a preferred universe).

Note that if some of the finely-balanced quantities were not finely-tuned then our Universe would have grossly different properties. The properties would in fact be so different that it is highly likely that life (as we know it) would not develop and be around to ask the question of why the Universe is special. This statement and variants of this statement are the gist of the Anthropic Principle.

My (now much revised) statment: The Anthropic Principle represents an effort by physicists to explain the structure of the universe from the fact that the forces are coincidentally balanced in a manner that constrains it to evolve to a point that it produces carbon-based-life at a specific time and location in history the universe, in dramatic contrast to what is indicated by any practical model of turbulance driven structuring that should result from our big bang.

Mr. 42: In physics and cosmology, the Anthropic Principle begins with the observation that the universe appears surprisingly hospitable to the emergence of life, even complex multicellular life, in at least one particular place and time, namely Sol III. Given the extreme simplicity of the universe at the start of the Big Bang, and the randomness of events during the subsequent several seconds, the friendliness of the universe to complex structures such as galaxies, planetary systems, and biology, is unexpected. The Anthropic Principle is a convenient heading for physical and cosmological reasoning that takes into account the existence of a biosphere on Earth in an essential way.

Mr. 42's claims that sections 1, 2, and 3 need work are highly suspicious since he claims "that nearly everything that leaves me baffled and deeply dissatisfied". Mr. 42 seems to think that Nick Bostrom wrote the anthropic principle, so empirical evidence for an anthropic specialness, and staments made by its originator leave him "deeply dissatisfied" and baffled, since it conflicts with his belief in observation selection biases that don't necessarily pertain.

I am removing Mr. 42's unjustified statment and I think that we should watch what happens to sections 2 and 3 carefully. Island1 25 August 2006

eh oops... I seem to have edited a version that wasn't current to your changes, Highlander, which happened because I already had it up on my screen and thought that it was the latest revision. I would like to reiterate though that my original statement is more accurate in less steps than any so far. Please review it in context with the statement by uoregon.edu, and you'll see why I made my statement as concice as possible, in one **complete** sentence. Island1 25 August 2006

Here is my last edit which you skipped. Notice how it actually gives an example of the AP, as the strongest version of the WAP I do think of. I have no time today to fully check it against the changes, maybe someone would like to review it:

In physics and cosmology, the Anthropic Principle begins with the observation that the universe appears surprisingly hospitable to the emergence of life, even complex multicellular life, in at least one particular place and time, namely Sol III. The cosmological models developed by theoretical physics like the Big Bang-theory allow chains of events and different selections of parameters in the mathematical models which would not be hospitable to intelligent life as we know it.

The Anthropic Principle tries to explain this riddle by stating that the observations of an observer who is entirely inside his universe (by definition) must be consistent with his existence. However, different wordings of the principle and similar principles do exist, leading to controversy.

As formulated above it is a truism, since any valid cosmology must be consistent with the existence on Earth of biochemistry and human beings. It is the balanced nature of the evolutionary physics defining anthropic significance that stands out. Similarly, most anthropic coincidences are balanced between the extremes of a spectrum, ranging from the Earth's ecosystem, to the near-perfect balance between the strength of gravitation and the cosmological constant governing the expansion of the universe.

The Anthropic Principle is often misunderstood as discouraging any further research into the origins, state and development of the universe. It however does not rule out further discoveries, though it is a restriction.

Highlander 16:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The cosmological models developed by theoretical physics like the Big Bang-theory allow chains of events and different selections of parameters in the mathematical models which would not be hospitable to intelligent life as we know it.in dramatic contrast to what is indicated by any practical model of turbulance driven structuring that we have ever been able to derive. The second statement correctly identifies the significance of the problem that the other ignores. It is the whole reason that Dirac developed his Large Numbers Hypothesis where Dicke got his anthropic coincidence from. It is the only reason that string theorists are forced to use the AP. The Anthropic Principle tries to explain this riddle by stating that the observations of an observer who is entirely inside his universe (by definition) must be consistent with his existence....in spite of the fact that this occurs in dramatic contrast to the normal expectation. Similarly, most anthropic coincidences are balanced between diametrically opposing extreme runaway tendencies of the given anthropic coincidence... ranging from the Earth's ecosystem, to the near-perfect balance between the strength of gravitation and the cosmological constant governing the expansion of the universe. It is very important to note that any sustained deviation in either direction rusults in a cumulatively runaway effect, because this sends conditions racing so far away from our wildest dreams for what constitues conditions that are conducive to life that speculation about other possibilities is meaningless.Example, expansion/recollapse. Example: The runaway greenhouse effect, vs. Long term tendencies toward glaciation that are predicted by empirically derived milankovitch models. Etc... examples... if necessary.Island1 25 August 2006

[edit] The cosmogenic anthropic principle

Let us call "An observer will have observed only facts which are necessary for its existence" "the cosmogenic anthropic principle". What do you think about it? If it is wrong, is it because an observer may measure and thus collapse the quantum wave functions? Will the CAP appear to be true right after the observation taken?

Highlander 20:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Pedantic note: the formulation should be more along the lines that an observer can only be guaranteed to observe values necessary for its existence at its origin; an observer could observe many contingent facts which have no bearing on its existence, and even observing values necessary for its origin could well be a temporary condition - what if they went to another universe where values are different? Of course, one could address that by saying that an observer is only guaranteed to observe at any moment the values necessary for the observer to exist at that moment... -- Gwern (contribs) 20:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This principle is unnecessary.

This much is fact:

In the first sentence of the second paragraph under 'criticisms,' there is a link to 'tautology' that actually leads to 'trusim.'

What follows is opinion:

I want to believe the above mis-link was intentional, because a 'tautology dressed as a truism' is, in some ways, the perfect metaphor for this 'principle,' sometimes called a theory, though it has no claim to the term.

There is absolutely nothing to this principle - there never was, and there never will be - other than a truism inheirent in the scientific method (theories inconsistent with the universe as it is are dismissable) which was unrecognized as such by string theorists (due to their unfamiarity with the scientific empiricism?) and later misinterpreted and modified by others, creating a scientific zone of confusion into which poured theistic apologists who now exploit it to advance intelligent design.

Don't blame the thiests for doing what they will always do - blame string theorists who forgot how to be scientists. Unless of course, as I sometimes suspect, they conceived the entire thing as a social experiment, or even, possibly, a joke. In that case - more power to them, the world always needs more jokes, and this one is a doozy.

If this is so obvious, why does no one see it? Because the anthropic principle is always applied to particle physics - never to anything about which anyone has any tangible understanding - although it easily could be. Here, therefore, is the reductio ad absurdum that should have ended this discussion 30 years ago.

Four astronauts, Eliott the Empiricist, Stewart the String Theorist, Cory the Confusable, and Theo the Theist crash land on an alien planet. Having survived the crash, the four realize that all their windows have broken. They are panic stricken because they have no space-suits, and assume they will die for lack of oxygen. But they don't die - they are able, in fact, to breathe normally.

"Fantastic!" shouts Eliott. "There is oxygen in the atmosphere! We can remain alive until we are resucued!"

"Thank God!" says Theo.

"I'm not convinced," says Stewart. "Given the number of planets in the universe, and the percentage that have any oxygen at all, the chance of crashing on a planet with the exact amount of oxygen capable of supporting life is astronomically low."

"He's right!" shouts Corey, who is verifying the information in the ship's encyclopedia. "The chance is only one in 10 to the power of 60,000! We'd be fools to assume that!"

"Actually," says Eliott, "it already happened, so we'd be fools not to assume it."

"But those ways of looking at it are utterly ireconcileable!" shouts Corey.

"Wait!" says Stewart, "I have an idea. I admit, that the possibility of crashing on a planet that supports life is remote, but we needn't concern ourselves with the probability of crashing on a planet that does not have oxygen."

"What are you saying?" asked Corey.

"Well," said Stewart, "I'm proposing something new - a principle that may seem radical. We can statistically favor the probability that we might have landed on a planet that supports life. Doing so is justified by the logical deduction that the planet we are on must have enough oxygen to sustain life, or else this very discussion would not be possible."

"Uh..." said Eliott, "isn't that the same as just accepting what we can all clearly see, rather than postulating something else that could have been, had things been different?"

"No!" shouts Corey. "Don't you see? He is saying that this planet supports life because there is no possibility that it would not support life!"

"Uh..." said Eliott.

"That this planet supports life is a constant!" says Corey. "All other factors that make up the universe exist only to the extent that they support this. It is the single, immutable truth of exitstence."

"Yes!" says Theo, chiming in. "And don't you see? The purely random universe is one in which there is virtually no chance we would be alive! Clearly, an outside force, a designer, established the nature of the universe, including, of course, the sustainability of life by this planet as its single, immutable truth, because he loves us and wishes for us to worship him. I assert that this new principle can best be understood in light of the ancient texts I base my understanding of absolutely everything else on."

"Amazing!" says Corey. "We should demand that your theory be printed in astronomy textbooks, side by side with existing theories, under a large heading that states that no theory is necessarily better than any other."

Eliott turns to Stewart. "You totally confused them with that weird probability talk," he says. "Shouldn't you explain to them that they are getting it wrong?"

"Shh...," says Stewart. "If they keep talking about my principle, I might get tenured!"

Sevenwarlocks 15:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

We are not editing a physics handbook but an encyclopedia. You may say "What's the difference?". The difference does exist and is crucial for understanding why we need the article. In a physics handbook (or university course) one does not need to present ideas which are not stricly physics but more philosophy. One needs not include all views and even more importantly, to treat them equally. An encyclopedia is completely different. We are supposed to present all the views. We should have articles not only on physical but also philosophical and religious views. We should present not only theories based on shaky ground (like Heim theory) but also pure crap (like Time cube) if it is well known enough ("newsworthy"). The articles should inform the reader about the mainstream view on any idea but also on minority views. Therefore, the article is needed as dozens of scholars publish papers on anthropic principle. According to ISI Web of Science there were 13 peer reviewed papers on "Anthropic principle" in years 1991-1995, 18 in 1996-2000 and 45 in 2001-2005. Please, notice the increasing trend. Anyway, this is certainly newsworthy. Friendly Neighbour 17:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, OK, point taken.

I don't dispute that such an article should exist. Maybe my comments should be on a physics bulletin board and not here. However, this particular article can, and I see from the discussion, has been, criticized for numerous things. I could add a number of criticisms, and may, but as I tried to do this, I found it was almost impossible to discuss what is wrong about the article outside the context of what is wrong about the principle itself, given this subject's connection reality creation.

I am not at all sure that this article should be so long or comprehensive. Comprehensive is almost always a positive in an encyclopedia article, but is that always so? Here the subject begins with sub-conscious self-mockery, passes through subtle, ironic self-mockery (SAP, WAP...) and arrives, at conscious, nominal self-mockery (CRAP). I'm not sure any reader has any reasonable way of determining how much of this is meant to be taken seriously. Some parts, such as this one...

"Copernicus argued that the Earth is not the centre of the solar system, but Carter noted that pure cosmological extensions of this idea are what he called the anticentrist dogma, that led to cosmological formulations like the Perfect Cosmological Principle, which does not result from the evolutionary physics that derives the cosmic coincidences and the otherwise unexplained large scale structuring of the universe that becomes absurdly apparent with the cosmological constant problem. This vexing problem is why the Anthropic Principle has acquired a following among String Theorists trying to choose the correct vacuum solution from the landscape, since no other stability mechanism explaining why this is so has been proposed."

...defy argument merely by virtue of passive language, unclear antecedents, flawed parallel structure, and nested prepositional phrases.

In short, I think this article might best be labled as in need of total overhaul, and that its re-release should await a writer who both A) understands the principle, and B) is a writer.

Sevenwarlocks 18:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Probability

Is this principle tied to probability issues?

The odds of winning a lottery are said to be small, yet someone always wins. Why should the arbitrary existence of the universe and its physical laws be any different? Pendragon39 01:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

if you're an adherent to the multiverse theory, then the existance of a universe that is fine-tuned in the manner that ours is, is not remarkable (given an infinite number of attempts, i can eventually hit a bullseye at 15 meters with a dart that i toss blindly). if, on the other hand, this is the only universe there is in all of reality (not an unreasonable belief, considering the meaning of "universe"), it's pretty remarkable that it came out the way it has. it could have very well come out in a manner that no one could be around to observe it, and in fact, an inhospitable universe is far, far more likely. that observation is what some intelligent design advocates refer to for support of their position.

if you roll a pair of dice often enough, the occasional snake eyes is not remarkable. if you had one chance to roll the dice, and if your very existence depended on rolling "two", i wouldn't want to hold out much hope. it's much, much more so the case for the fine-tuned universe. r b-j 00:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, multiverse 'solves' the odds by rolling the dice again and again. In the case of a single big bang, something remarkable happened and here we are! But this assumes that initial conditions could have differed. Perhaps there was only one way for our universe to evolve, due to as yet undiscovered fundamental laws of physics. Btw, is there such a thing as absolutely fundamental laws or particles? Pendragon39 14:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The weak anthropic principle in its most abstract form points out that one cannot be an unbiased observer of events that are necessary for the existence of the observer(oneself). Even attempting to step out of ones box and to calculate a probability for such an event is hard to do the right way, since it is unknown whether all possible universes would have equal chance of existence, or whether e.g. universes with symmetries would be viewed as the more likely ones. Highlander 17:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

But there is a fundamental difference between a universe where the the constants are forced to what they are, and a universe where they are allowed to be random. This is why the AP is, as I pointed out before (below), more of a tool for introducing possible alternatives rather than weeding out impossible ones. --Swift 05:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"is there such a thing as absolutely fundamental laws or particles?" As in: The only possible ones for a universe? We don't know and won't for the forseeable future. The current GUT canditates are all tunable which implies that there is an infinite number of possible universes. These theories are, however, far beyond the realm of anything we will be able to test for the forseeable future. --Swift 05:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Then this means the root of causation cannot be fully determined. There may yet be room for God to play a role in ;) Pendragon39 20:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Quantum mechanics appears to dissolve causality. There will always be a point at which science cannot provide an explanation as to why certain properties in fundamental particles are the way they are. Pendragon39 01:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The fact that you only have one chance has little to do with it. If hitting the bullseye is the only way of sparking a civilization that can probe into the question of where the dart landed, it is of no surprise that such a civilization will find itself puzzling over why the dart hit the bullseye so well.

It is more like an accident. It happens randomly, leaving some to ask: "why me?". It can also be compared to survivor bias since only a certain scenario will allow for survivors.

The anthropic principle has been critizised for being more of a tool than a principle. There is nothing that says that nature's constants were arbitrarily chosen. The laws of physics may very well guide the constants to their current values. See http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-10/p8.html for an interesting article on this (it is elementary in the beginning, but have patience; the good stuff is towards the end). --Swift 07:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate both answers and your thoughts :)

While we may feel that improbable events are remarkable, are they really? If we remove emotional judgement regarding unlikely events, what are we left with?

Arbitrary means 'no reason'. If all possibilities have an equal chance of occuring, why would a (remarkable) outcome be viewed as having to have a reason behind it? Pendragon39 14:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"why would a (remarkable) outcome be viewed as having to have a reason behind it?" It wouldn't. The thing is that while the there needn't be a reason behind it, there still may be. This is why the AP isn't a principle by which we can deceide between theories. --Swift 05:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Either there is an uncovered scientific reason or it is arbitrary. When someone wins the lottery there is no reason, unless you count being lucky. So, the universe we live in also 'got lucky'. Pendragon39 19:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism: direction of causality

The article is quite well writen and objective (at least, to me). I will not (as some of you here, excuse me for saying that) say that the article needs work or is incorrect because I do not agree with the theory in itself. On some points I agree, on others I disagree but that doesn't mean the article needs to be changed. However, I do have a problem with the following in the article:

"Another, obvious, criticism of the anthropic principle is that the direction of causality it asserts is mistaken; humans have evolved to adapt to the universe as it currently is, cosmological constants and all, and not the converse. That is, we exist because we are adapted to the physical universe; the physical universe is not adapted specifically for us."

It's not hard to see what the writer believes here. The word obvious is obviously misused here. Apart from that, the statement that "the direction of causality it asserts is mistaken" may be widely accepted but is debatable. I believe this statement to be in line with evolution theory...

Thus, I have changed the text into: "Another criticism of the anthropic principle is that the direction of causality it asserts is inconsistant with that of evolution theory. This theory claims humans to have adapted to the universe as it currently is, cosmological constants and all taken into account, and not the converse. That is, we exist because we are adapted to the physical universe. The strong anthropic principle states, in contrast, that the physical universe is adapted specifically for us." Info D 16:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

if we take out "obvious", i think the previous statement makes the point more clearly and consisely. r b-j 02:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The main problem I see is the statement that "the direction of causality it asserts is mistaken". Like I said before; it may be widely accepted but is debatable, which is precisely what the principal does: it questions the validity of the direction of causality 'normally' taken! It cannot be that the article says it is a mistake. It's a point of discussion caused by the principal. So yes, I do believe this should be corrected. And that's why I've changed the text a bit... Info D 08:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No the anthropic principle is not in conflict with evolutionary theory since the physics is all about environmental enablement. Even the weak anthropic principle notes that "sites" must exist that are conducive to life and evolution. Natural selection can only work if the environment is conducive to it within the limits of practicality, so if anything, it challenges one aspect of claims that the "anti-randomness mechanism", as Richard Dawkins calls it, is itself. "randomly-enabled". "island" 27 October

Yes, I have found myself tumbling over this 'critisism' wondering if it's not possible for both the anthropic principle and evolutionary theory to be thought of as correct. My mind, at times, doesn't seem to be able to understand the proposed conflict between them! It seems as if evolution theory deals with a whole other subject than the anthropic principle does and in fact there is no real conflict between them. How do you folks see this? Can anyone make this more clear to me? Info D 16:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere on this page, the Anthropic Principle is observer bias (a variant of [survivor bias] as mentioned above). So any science that is relevant to the existence of the observer (eg, the research of life on Earth to Human scientists) will be influenced at least through the data collected. The theory of evolution though is just a theory about how Earth-based life changes. It has no dependence on the existence of the observer and is either correct or not based on how accurately it describes how life changes in the real world. I see no real relation between the two. -- KarlHallowell 17:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if no one objects I will remove it soon. Info D 16:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed: "Another criticism of the SAP and FAP is that the direction of causality it asserts can be considered mistaken; in the view of evolution caused by natural selection, humans have evolved to adapt to the universe as it currently is, cosmological constants and all, and not the converse. That is, life exists because life is adapted to the physical universe. The strong anthropic principle states, in contrast, that the physical universe has adapted, a priori, specifically for life." Info D 07:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Buddha's teaching and the Anthropic principle

Interesting point to make is the simularity of this theory with Buddhist cosmology linked ideas. Simply said, Buddhism states that 'worlds' come into existance when there is perception. It is the perception that creates the world, not the world in itself. This seems to take ""Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being." Barrow and Tipler believe that this can be validly inferred from quantum mechanics." even further by saying that the Universe is created by the observer.

Forgive me if this seems to be too much out of touch with this subject (I might be biased!) but for those interested I can recommend Buddhism and evolution and Fourteen unanswerable questions. Info D 16:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need to define the principle

The term "anthropic principle" needs to be defined. I don't see why it shouldn't be in the first paragraph. I prefer Rbj's version of the introduction:

In physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the principle that any valid cosmology must be consistent with the existence on Earth of biochemistry and human beings. This original (and "weak") form of the anthropic principle is a truism or tautology that begins with the observation that the universe appears surprisingly hospitable to the emergence of life, particularly complex multicellular life, that can make such an observation and concludes with that premise that in only such a fine-tuned universe can such living observers be. Given the extreme simplicity of the universe at the start of the Big Bang, the friendliness of the universe to complex structures such as galaxies, planetary systems, and biology is unexpected by any normal model of turbulence driven structuring that we have been able to derive. The anthropic principle also acts as a convenient category for physical and cosmological reasoning that takes into account the existence of a biosphere on Earth in an essential way.

Attempts to invoke the "principle" to develop scientific explanations has led to more than a little confusion and controversy.

This version of the intro is short. It defines the term in the first sentence. Subtle problems and concepts should be saved for later in the article IMHO. The current version has bloated to five paragraphs including several external links and doesn't address the subject (I mean in the way an introduction should, ie, define the subject and give the reader a brief outline of what it's about). I don't really want to just paste back Rbj's version of the intro back in, but I don't see what else to do. -- KarlHallowell 16:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to be a happy camper if I have to rehash this crap again, but I'll just say this:

Anybody that thinks thinks that they can project Barrow and Tipler's interpretation into Dicke and Carter's mind need not be "contributing" to this subject, because the cannot defend this position. Anybody that thinks that the anthropic physics necessarily represents a tautology need not be commenting on this subject, and anybody that doesn't recognize the relevance of external links doesn't either. island 00:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

okay, Island, to leave your sig (and accurate UTC time stamp) type 4 tildes: ~~~~ .

Not that it's my version, but i thought Karl's version was concise and (after i edited it) accurate. the Anthropic principle is an evolving concept. many authors have expounded upon and expanded it since Dicke. i think that the "Dicke coincidence" should be mentioned (as the first use of the term) in the intro. but authors like Stephen Hawking have used the term also in a manner that is more consistent with the version that Karl and i both prefer. i actually do not like all of the variants (SAP, FAP) that Barrow and Tipler brought into it. from my reading of the lit, what they call the "weak anthropic principle" is simply the anthropic principle of the lit. i think that SAP and FAP are deservedly called CRAP and moves beyond any real science. but also, the WAP (and the AP as written about by multiple authors including Davies) is basically a tautology or, more flatteringly, a truism so it has two salient properties: ^1. it is true (so disputing it is a loser) and ^2. it is a vacuous truth - it says practically nothing and cannot be counted on as a necessary fact to support a theory that makes a larger claim about reality. but, a third property of a truism (or less flatteringly, a tautology) is that it helps people think about a question. it helps us order our thoughts to explain something, even if it is says practically nothing other than its premise.

there is more to the fine-tuned universe than just the age (in natural units of time) as we presently observe it, or the remarkable (or "coincidental") values of a score of fundamental physical constants. there is the clumping of matter in the early universe (evident from the background radiation seen in the COBE research) and other parameters that i don't know about that needed fine-tuning. but, today, in multiple monographs (Brief History of Time and others), what the AP means when it is referred to includes Dicke's observation (which was really just an answer to why is the universe about 14 billion years old instead of 4 billion or 140 billion) but is a principle that has been extended to attempt to answer other similar questions, such as why is the fine-structure constant about the reciprocal of 137.036. a good intro for this topic would be broad enough and comprehensive enough to include these concepts. i think you should be a little more open minded about this. Dicke (dunno who Carter is) does not own the AP concept. (and neither do Barrow, Tipler, or Hawking.) r b-j 01:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Weak Anthropic Principle Is not necessarily a Tautology

Prove that the WAP is necessarily a tautology that cannot define causality or I'll be returning the statement to my last edit of it.

(WAP): The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.

Since the values can be restricted by a real physical need for anthropic structuring that affects the probabilities to cause the quantities to take on the values that they do, then this statement can be falsified as it stands by proving that this is not so.

To claim that some unproven interpretation invalidates this is just wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Island1 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC).

please sign your talk page edits, island.

it depends on whos defining it. i don't necessarily support how Barrow/Tipler put it. and it also requires the fact that we observers are around to obserse the universe with us in it. from Merriam-Webster:

   anthropic principle
   Function: noun
      either of two principles in cosmology: 
      a: conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to
         exist -- called also weak anthropic principle
      b: the universe must have properties that make inevitable the existence of
         intelligent life -- called also strong anthropic principle

definition a: is pretty self-evident as a tautology, providing the trivial fact that we observers exist in the universe we observe. definition b: that the universe must have been forced to take on these properties is not a tautology simply because it is not even known to be true. it could have been chance and we just happen to be around to see it. it also have happened to take on such properties (to eventually allow for life) and no one would ever be around to see it.

also, if you read some of this stuff (in anthropic principle), there is nothing about the WAP that invalidates it. it's true, but being a tautology, you cannot draw other conclusions from it. x + ¹⁄₂ = ¹⁄₂((x+1)² - x²) is true also, but it doesn't tell us much about what x is. r b-j 04:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, and a "principle" requires an element that determines intrinsic nature, so the correct proven identification of the stability mechanism should be expected to clear up the question once and for all, which means that the principle can be further supported or falsified, and is relegated to the ranks of a circular reasoned tautology if and only if it can be proven that we are not necessary to the coincidentally balanced physics that appears to require an anthropic principle. "island", 2 November 2006

well whatever is in that gobbledigook, it can be worded much more simply. here is what the issue is about: whether the SAP, which is not a tautology, is defensible. it really is an issue of causality. sure, after the fact the early universe must have had these properties that would permit structure, matter, and life because here we are and that fact cannot be disputed (WAP). but is there some anthropic bias that would have forced the universe to take on such properties for these living observers to observe it (the SAP)? even though it isn't yet to be shown false, i find it hard to believe that this position is even considered natural science (it makes for a good theistic explanation, which the IDers want to cloak with "science") by reputable natural scientists that know of the arrow of time and that events at earlier times are the causes of events at later times which are the effects. and i have no confidence that it is falsifiable. it surely seems to me that the SAP is speculative at best and just not good conservative empirical and deductive science.

i really don't think the whole paragraph belongs, island, that it is original research, but it is saying that if there can be a causal link of carbon life to the structure and stability of the universe, then the SAP has some support. but if not, we are just the lucky benefactors of some universal structure that's a helluva lot bigger than us, the SAP is rejected (like aether) and what remains is the WAP and lots of questions for why the universe would have bothered to have such structure and stability (let alone existence).

this historical stuff with Dicke should be in the intro (crediting him with the earliest coining of the concept), but otherwise, there is little in the version you made, even with others trying to tighten in up and to simplify the conceptual reference, that made it better or more accurate than what User:KarlHallowell wrote with some subsequent fixing up (some by me). that version is better, clearer, more concise, but lacks the reference to Dicke and "Dicke's coincidence" (a term with no Google hits other than in WP, but i know what you mean). can we somehow cross-synthesize a version that is accurate, includes Dicke but goes beyond Dicke to include what other, more recent authors are basically saying what the AP is and make this more accessible and informative to a reader less familiar or unfamiliar with the term? r b-j 06:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about when you speak of "original research", but I'd like for you to please be very specific, because I think that it may have something to do with the fact that I am equally baffled by the fact that somebody that is contributing to this topic doesn't know what Dickes' coincidences are with a fairly good in-depth understanding of them, because this means that they can't know how the physics defines "location and time" etc, other evolutionary features like the flatness problem that are relevant. Try looking in wikipedia under inflationary theory for the closest at hand mention of Dicke's coincidence, but don't stop there you might try Dirac too, good grief.

I am also taken back by the fact that Karl thinks that the requirement in physics that a principle requires an element that determines intrinsic nature, is "gobledigook".

So I'm at a complete loss as to how to deal with this, but I'm going to leave the final statement as it stands in the interest of political correctness in science. Tipler and Barrow MADE Dickes' observation into a "weak" uncontroversial statement, and they admit this in their book.

HIGHLANDER!!!... "island", 2 November 2006

The intrinsic element in the weak anthropic principle(WAP) appears to me to be that we are observers, and thus think we know how observers work, including the need to exist at all, thus making the WAP a tautology.

Thus we set out in a solipsistic way, only granting others existence when we use Nick Bostrom's Self-Sampling Assumption that we belong to a reference class of observers. This we need to do, because otherwise, talking to a forum would be pointless. Highlander 17:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm mostly satisified with the changes that have been made, although a couple of things bother me. The first is the fact that physicists and even evolutionary biologists find it necessary to posit a multiverse to "explain-away" anthropic significance. Leonard Susskind even went as far as to say that "we'd be hard-pressed to answer the IDers if the landscape fails'. Lenny obviously doesn't recognize the difference between natural bias and intelligent design, but Richard Dawkins said that "the the anthropic principle delivers its devastatingly neat solution" [to creationists abuse of the principle]. He said, "Physicists already have reason to suspect that our universe - everything we can see - is only one universe among perhaps billions. Some theorists postulate a multiverse of foam, where the universe we know is just one bubble. Each bubble has its own laws and constants."

So how is it that the weak anthropic principle doesn't define anthropic relevance without a multiverse to lose the MOST APPARENT significance in? Without a multiverse the WAP tells us about a special form of environmental enablement that can't be avoided without postulating unproven extra entities, and the SAP then becomes about "why" this is so. "island", 2 November 2006

Just an FYI, but Richard Dawkins is doing a radio show today and this is my question for him that I think will very likely be asked:

"I'd like to ask Professor Dawkins what mechanism he thinks controls his "anti-chance process" if interpretations of scientists like Paul Davies' are correct? In this case, isn't natural selection guided by the practicality of environmental enablement and constraint, per the weak anthropic principle, which restricts the physics to require gradual uphill slopes, "sites" where life can arrise and evolve"? I didn't ask for reasons not to believe phyisicsts, like Davies, I'd like your opinion on exactly where the link between evolutionary theory and the forces of nature would be, if Davies is right about purpose in nature, without god?"

I think/hope that the answer will be along the lines of the following: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASYMTRANS.html

Illustrated: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASYMILL.html "island", 2 November 2006

As might be guessed, I agree with r b-j here that the WAP is essentially a tautology (more a truism rather) since it is dependent only on the existence of observers which has already been demonstrated. I do think however tautologies are useful. For example, "2x-4=0, iff x=2" is a tautological statement, but this tautology can be used to show that the relatively complicated statement "2x-4=0" is equivalent to a simpler and generally more useful statement "x=2".

The WAP doesn't depend on the existence of multiple universes in order to be correct. Some other variants may have that dependency.

I continue to be puzzled by the insistence of certain people to avoid defining the term, "anthropic principle". For example, in the first sentence of the version I currently see:

In physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is an umbrella term for various dissimilar attempts to explain the structure of the universe by way of coincidentally balanced features that are necessary and relevant to the existence of carbon-based life.

A literal reading of this sentence gives bizarre consequences. Suppose my crackpot theory is that the universe is constructed out of carbon atoms. Since carbon atoms are necessary and relevant to the existence of carbon-based life and I attempt to explain the structure of the universe with them, then my theory is an anthropic principle? Looks like it fits the above to me. Instead any anthropic principle is an elaboration of the idea that since an observer exists, then the structure of the universe must be consistent or compatible with the existence of that observer.

I'm not trying to channel anyone here or push an agenda. It's just that a wikipedia article about the "anthropic principle" should very quickly define what the term means. Further, there are numerous dictionary entries we can use as inspiration. We can make this article useful.

Finally, I note some discussion about whether certain formulations of the anthropic principle are scientific or not. My take is that the SAP and FAP (perhaps some other variants as well) aren't scientific (namely some things which appear not to be observable have to be true before those versions are true), but they clearly have a place in an article about the anthropic principle since they are part of the history. -- KarlHallowell 23:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

listen, Karl, i agree with you (not that i was trying to author any OR, just state, to the common person, what is meant by the AP. and i was really picking up on your edit which i thought was mostly accurate, from what i read. "island" didn't think our composite edit was accurate, and, being an electrical engineer, i didn't want to take that on unless i felt more confident that i was reading the literature right (i think i was, but not enough to start an edit war here). i totally agree that "island's" edit made the intro oppaque. whether it is accurate or not or more accurate or not (vis-a-vis all of the lit that he mentioned, i only read pieces of it. to repeat what i said before:

this historical stuff with Dicke should be in the intro (crediting him with the earliest coining of the concept), but otherwise, there is little in the version you made, even with others trying to tighten in up and to simplify the conceptual reference, that made it better or more accurate than what User:KarlHallowell wrote with some subsequent fixing up (some by me). that version is better, clearer, more concise, but lacks the reference to Dicke and "Dicke's coincidence" (a term with no Google hits other than in WP, but i know what you mean). can we somehow cross-synthesize a version that is accurate, includes Dicke but goes beyond Dicke to include what other, more recent authors are basically saying what the AP is and make this more accessible and informative to a reader less familiar or unfamiliar with the term?

if you change it back, i will support it (in a revert contest). r b-j 03:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely follow your line of thinking, Karl, but the question is, where do we take the authority from to redefine the WAP from Barrow/Tipler's definition(13 years after Carter "ecological correction") with the carbon-based lifeforms to its most abstract version that the observer must be allowed to exist? Because it must survive the editing process of wikipedia as well.Highlander 14:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

the term "Anthropic principle" has existed for a long time before the Barrow/Tipler book but perhaps without the prefixes, "weak", "strong", or "final" (or "completely ridiculous") and, semantically, appears to be equivalent to Barrow/Tipler's weak version. actually, i don't think that there should be so much emphasis on the Barrow/Tipler treatment of the term. certainly a mention or even a section discussing the various meanings of variants of the AP should be there, but i don't see why the article should be so much about Barrow/Tipler. personally, i think the SAP and FAP are certainly not tautologies and are controversial, to say the least. i don't observe many non-ID scientists buy into the SAP or FAP (or CRAP) theories at all and i see no scientific means of experimentation to test such and thus are not falsifiable and therefore are more philosophy than actual science. histortically, it should start with Dicke (what "island" called the "Dicke coincidence" which is a term that does not appear after Googling except for WP and derivatives). i think the intro section should have some of this original coinage from Dicke retained but should revert back to the version that Karl wrote and that i modified. much less gobbledigook. r b-j 19:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hawking??

"Hawking (2004) suggests that our universe is much less 'special' than the proponents of the anthropic principle claim it is. According to Hawking, there is a 98% chance that a Big Bang will result in a universe of the same type as ours. However, some question whether the equations Hawking employs to reach this conclusion are scientifically meaningful, and what sort of universe can be said to be of the "same type as ours"."

There is no reference given for this statement. I don't know what same type means. Does it mean having the same constants for the fundamental forces?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LinkinPark (talk • contribs) .

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/t/Talk%7EAnthropic_principle_aa75.html"

Categories: B-Class physics articles | Mid-importance physics articles