foodchain Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 Basic fallacy in anthropic principle. How can it say life could never evolve in anything else but here? That question has no answer in this universe yet let alone a multiverse. Yes, life physically evolves, so to assume it did this via how our universe is I do not think even needs to evoke such a principal, otherwise I think to suggest that would require life to exist outside the physical universe, such as its laws, like a human being able to fall a 1000 feet with no injury. I would also think that such a statement means that the multiverse to infinity or whatever needs to be correct for our universe to exist, and toilets. Then again life goes extinct, so the universe arthritically must exist to kill us via global warming with cars and indoor skiing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 2, 2008 Share Posted August 2, 2008 The anthropic principle doesn't say that life couldn't evolve anywhere but here. In this incarnation it means that it's meaningless to worry about the odds that conditions here were amenable to life, since we exist. If conditions were different, we wouldn't be here to argue about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foodchain Posted August 2, 2008 Author Share Posted August 2, 2008 The anthropic principle doesn't say that life couldn't evolve anywhere but here. In this incarnation it means that it's meaningless to worry about the odds that conditions here were amenable to life, since we exist. If conditions were different, we wouldn't be here to argue about it. That’s just the thing. Its giving some deterministic notion to the universe, how, or why? I think to accept this you can say if the universe were different, toilets would not exist. I mean what is the point of saying that, its just stupid. Plus so much lacks definition in it really for it to be called a principal, I mean it might rank as such if this were star wars the movie but really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 I don't understand where your confusion is. We exist, therefore life was possible here. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted August 3, 2008 Share Posted August 3, 2008 "Anthropic principle" can mean a few different things, depending on who is saying it. I think foodchain is talking about a different "anthropic principle" than SwansonT and iNow are, I'm guessing the "Anthropic Cosmological Principle" proposed in the book of the same title by Darrow and Tipler. Correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now