Anthropic principle

[pavelcherepan]

Hello everyone.

 

It seems to me that too many established scientists nowadays like to bring up anthropic principle way too often. It's like this principle is a new deus ex machina - if you don't know how to explain something just bring up anthropic principle.

 

Oh, yeah, and it's also infallable by the definition.

 

Can you help me understand why it's so popular?

 

Thanks!

[Nicholas Kang]

Frankly, I don`t support anthropic principle. That is just a speculation of the unseens like assuming aliens would be the same as human. I learnt this principle from Michio Kaku`s book including The Future of the Mind and Hyperspace.

[hoola]

I see a sort of anthropic principle by default....any system complex enough to create a universe has complexity enough to support awareness developing within it....that doesn't mean that a particular universe has to develop awareness, only having the potential given the right conditions.

Edited July 9, 2014 by hoola

[Delta1212]

Hello everyone.

 

It seems to me that too many established scientists nowadays like to bring up anthropic principle way too often. It's like this principle is a new deus ex machina - if you don't know how to explain something just bring up anthropic principle.

 

Oh, yeah, and it's also infallable by the definition.

 

Can you help me understand why it's so popular?

 

Thanks!

The anthropic principle is a pushback against the argument from incredulity that the Earth/Universe/Whatever is finely tuned to human life and that this implies that the universe must have been purposely constructed so that we could live within it.

 

The point of the anthropic principle is, roughly, that since we are here, we can assume that the universe's underlying framework is conducive to our existence or we wouldn't be here, and since we are here, it shouldn't be that surprising that the universe is a place we are capable of living in.

 

In other words, the fact that we are capable of living in the universe shouldn't be treated as evidence for a specific reason why the universe exists as it does.

 

It's a bit like a fireman thinking that there must be an arsonist running around town because every time the firetruck takes him to a house, it's on fire. The anthropic principle would be pointing out that if the houses weren't on fire, the firetruck wouldn't be taking him there, so the mere fact that they are on fire shouldn't be surprising and isn't evidence one way or another of what caused the fires.

[MonDie]

[snip]

if you don't know how to explain something just bring up anthropic principle.

[/snip]

The anthropic principle doesn't give a how. As far I know, the anthropic principle doesn't solve any problems; it merely elaborates why fine-tuning isn't actually a problem (or at least not a big problem). It's more like a logical principle than a physical phenomenon.

Edited July 10, 2014 by MonDie

[Bill Angel]

I find the use of the anthropic principle in the context of cosmology intriguing. The idea is that there are an infinite number of universes, each with slightly different values for the physical constants. In the universe where the constants are compatible with the formation of stars and galaxies , life ultimately develops. But there are also an infinite number of universes outside of our own that are barren of life, planets, stars, galaxies, etc, because the physical constants for them are different than for ours. This view does away with the idea of a deity that purposefully created one universe with just the right values for the physical constants for stars and galaxies to exist and for life ultimately to emerge.

[MigL]

Whoah ! Cyrillic ?!?!

 

The anthropic principle is a cop-out as it can be applied to any system.

Things are like this otherwise we wouldn't be here to observe things being like this, can be applied to anything because ALL things are exactly as we measure/observe them.

It also explains absolutely nothing.

[dimreepr]

This Douglas Adams quote neatly describes the flaw:

 

 

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

 

[MonDie]

A occurred, so any bias was probably a bias toward A.

Any bias was probably a bias toward A, and A ocurred, so there was probably a bias.

 

That's not to say you can't argue it non-circularly, but this circularity is particularly insidious.

Edited October 6, 2014 by MonDie

[Delta1212]

A occurred, so any bias was probably a bias toward A.

Any bias was probably a bias toward A, and A ocurred, so there was probably a bias.

 

That's not to say you can't argue it non-circularly, but this circularity is particularly insidious.

Is that supposed to be the anthropic principle or the argument against which it is generally used?

 

Used properly, I think the anthropic principle goes something more like:

 

If A exists then if there is a bias in the system it is most probably toward A

We can only examine systems where A exists, therefore we can only examine system where, if there is a bias, it is most probably toward A

Therefore the expected outcome of any bias we discover is that it will probably be toward A

 

This is used to counter the argument that discovering a bias toward A automatically implies a particular cause for the bias, which is not the case because under the parameters we are working with, a bias toward A is the most expected outcome regardless of why there is a bias.

[MonDie]

Is that supposed to be the anthropic principle or the argument against which it is generally used?

 

The latter. It's (circular) Bayesian reasoning.