WHAT is the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

I believe you described what is called the weak
anthropic principle (WAP), which I don't find
very satisfying. As an analogy, I recalled on an
earlier post, a private plane crash that I lived
through. What transpired between the time of
the crash and my awaking in a hospital bed...?
Had I not survived, I would not be around to ask
questions about the time interval between the crash
and finding myself in the hospital.
This, I believe, is analogical to the WAP? In my
case, *wap* just would not be facing the hard
questions. I owe my life...


IMO the "strong" version doesn't do any better: it seems to amount to
"Goddidit!" OTOH what I get from the "weak" version is that the "why
are we here?" kind of question may not be answerable, at least not as
usually framed.

This is an interesting dichotomy. WAP and SAP are diameterally
opposed. But the SAP at least is pregnant with potential explanation
in the crash scenario that was posed. The WAP takes a powder.


--
Odysseus

Bob Smyth wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Hi Smyth Fast thought on this principle goes like this "We see the
universe the way it is because if it were different,we would not be
around to notice it."

I've done a little reading on the topic of the Anthropic Principle
since I began posting to this NG. So, if a little knowledge is a
dangerous thing, I guess I'm becoming more dangerous all
the time! Because this, for me, is a fascinating subject.
I went to the local library and checked out a book entitled
the Anthropic Cosmological Principle by Burrow & Tipper.
I'm an electrical engineer, so I never thought of myself as
particularly dumb, but damn, this book shakes my confidence!
It's tough going.

I believe you described what is called the weak
anthropic principle (WAP), which I don't find
very satisfying. As an analogy, I recalled on an
earlier post, a private plane crash that I lived
through. What transpired between the time of
the crash and my awaking in a hospital bed...?
Had I not survived, I would not be around to ask
questions about the time interval between the crash
and finding myself in the hospital.
This, I believe, is analogical to the WAP? In my
case, *wap* just would not be facing the hard
questions. I owe my life...

Hmmmm Smyth that is really not very scientific.
The principle to me is based on philosophy.

You really think so? I tend to think more in terms of
the A.P. as a hypothesis to explain certain observations
ie the cosmoligical constants and the precise values, and
the various relationships between different forces etc.

..

The AP is the explanation these observations and
measurements. Am I wrong?

..

No, you're not wrong, and you appear to be one of few that approach the
subject without the preconceived prejudices that stereotypically come
from abuses of the principle by creationist types, and then it also
runs into trouble again when it's implications for "purpose", RATHER,
"higher-function" in nature run contrary to chotic physics
interpretaions and the purist relativist's ideology

Because of abuses, the common reactionary tendency of people that are
normally strictly on the side of science is to try to down-play its
signifcance and "explain-away" the strangeness that would normally make
sane people step-back and take pause, which is what Herb is doing, but
the fact is that the anthropic principle is actually very strong and
able to make predictions about life elsewhere in the universe, as well
as predictions about origins and it's relationship to evolutionary
theory.

There is about a page full of information about exactly that, at this
site...

http://www.geocities.com/naturescience/EntropicAP.html

The first part the page is what you're interested in, because it covers
actual scientific strength of the existing how this mentality commonly
carries to cause people to approach the anthropic principle in the
wrong manner.

You can also see how this problem manifests if you look up the
anthropic principle on the wikipedia. The page has been moderated by
honest scientists and it gives an accurate description (as it is
currently understood), but if you flip to the discussion page, then you
will see with exception to the first entry that the stereotypical
arguments don't hold water, and the dissenters are left whining about
how they can't see anything unusal at all about winning the lottery
seven times in a row... etc...

Most all of the hard "left" explain-it-away rationale is just as lame
as the fundamentalist creationists arguments for intelligent design and
whatnot, but you will find it everywhere that the anthropic priniciple
is discussed.

The anthropic principle is a hard data point that is only able to
attain the level of a truism, or a tautology without the **complete**
physics for it. The principle is necessarily as incomplete as Dirac's
Large Numbers hypothesis was flawed, which is where Robert Dicke got
his anthropic coincidence from, as it pertains to the evolution of the
universe.

..


Kind of leads my thoughts to
What is the purpose of the universe? How does humankind fit in
with the
vast magnificent cosmos? Can our brains and computers over time
give us
complete knowledge,or will we have to bring in some profound source
of
spirituality into the picture? Steven Weinberg(one of my
ideals)
shocked me when he said this. "The more the universe seems
comprehensible,the more it also seems meaningless". In all my life
I'm
glad to say a thought like that never crossed my mind.
Sagan on the other hand I think went a little far out he tied to
much of
his thinking of the universe as having "spiritual values" A
thought
just entered to find out what does spirit means hmmm Just found out
it
is Latin "To breathe" I don't see the implication??? Do
you?
Bert

Too early, and I'm too bewildered to tell.

Bob Smyth wrote:
"Peter Webb" wrote in message

u...
Apparently, the Anthropic Principle is a hypothesis
to explain many constants, coincidences and curiosities observed
about the Universe beginning with the Big Bang, the strengths of
various forces i.e. the strength of the "explosion" the strength
of
gravity, strong & weak nuclear forces and other curious relation-
ships. All of which had to be "fine tuned" before life could
appear.
The slightest variation in a large number of factors would result
in a universe where matter, stars, planets and life would be
impossible.


The logical conclusion is not that our Universe is unique, but
rather that
there also are an infinite number of Universes, where the constants
of
Nature are different and perhaps stars cannot form and life cannot
exist.
This to me is a powerful reason to suspect that some constant(s) in
the
laws of physics must be arbitrary - the laws of physics cannot
create the
one possible Universe that happens to work without producing all
those
that don't.

I'm not sure I follow you here. What other universes? Are you
in reference to other solar systems? If so we _know_ there
are billions and billions and billions of other solar systems. So
if there are infinate numbers of solar systems there must be infinate
numbers of planets with and infinate planets with intelligent life.

OTOH, there may also be an ifinite number of Universes we can't
imagine,
populated by intelligent beings made of different sorts of matter.

You are confusing me here. Do you actually mean infinite numbers
if Universes? Is there any empirical evidence of other Universes
springing from other Big Bangs?

..

No, there is no empirical evidence, only theoretically supported
speculation:

1) The only way to apply quantum uncertainty to the wave function of
our universe is to project an infinite potential in space-time where a
"grand-scale" *random* quantum fluctuation is responsible for the
matter distribution of the initial conditions at the moment of the
big-bang.

See: Hartel-Hawking universe...

2) There is also a "multi-verse" hypothesis, where there are an
inifinite number of different conditions and if you hold them strictly
to the observed universe, then the anthropic principle carries all the
weight...

Interesting innit?... there isn't one shred of observable evidence for
all of the bull**** that gets thrown up against the AP.

..

Note the word anthropic comes from the Greek root for man
("anthro.."); it
means looking at the world from our perspective.

"Bob Smyth" wrote in message
t...

"Luigi Caselli" wrote in message
...
"Bob Smyth" ha scritto nel messaggio
...

"Luigi Caselli" wrote in message
...
"Bob Smyth" ha scritto nel messaggio
.. .

This is not very satisfactory. It doesn't explain anything!
It reminds me of an unanswered chapter in my life.

I was in a private plane crash a few years ago. We, the
pilot and I, were flying cross country when the engine
suddenly flamed out and we crashed into a large frozen
lake. I recall seeing the lake coming very fast up to us
and knew there was no way to escape crashing into it.

This was a wilderness area with nothing around for
many miles. I saw no chance of surviving, This is about
the last thing I remember, but I woke up the next day in
a hospital bed with some rather serious injuries, but I
lived.

Now, had I not survived the crash, gotten prompt
medical attention, I would not be here to ask any
questions.
But I don't find that very satisfactory, although I am
happy to be alive, I'm not satisfied. Some questions
beg an answer. Sadly, the pilot who was my best
friend, didn't make it.

You were very lucky, you found a bug in the Big Simulation so instead
to
die
you woke up the next day in the hospital.

This was a chapter in my life, it was no simulation. I lived it. And
to me saying if we were not here we would't be asking questions.
This is taking the easy way out. It's evading the hard questions.

You're right, I'm taking the easy way because the other ones are too
difficult.
Like Bert I love Steven Weinberg's sentence: "The more the universe seems
comprehensible,the more it also seems meaningless".

If we subscribe to the WAP hypothesis, it would seem to be the case.
But for me, there's no need for the WAP. I suspect the observations
is a elephant in the living room of some scientist, the WAPs only
purpose is to bannish it from the room.

So I like the Simulation hypothesis (I don't say I believe in it) because
it
explains everything in the simplest way...


I know you can tell me: "And the Simulators universe? Who created it? Who
are they? and so on" but like Sims in the popular game can't have answers
about humans so humans can't have answers about Simulators...

I'm not a very religious man, but I don't discount it. Maybe *reality*
including us and everything we observe, is just a figment in the mind
of God.

Luigi Caselli

Lets face it .. Some of us choose not to be "boxed" into set "Mindset" ??!!
There always more to discover on ALL levels .. if some have never had
experiences then of course there is no way these kind wil be able to find
any understanding to what another has experienced ..

L

Bee-Ji

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
Apparently, the Anthropic Principle is a hypothesis
to explain many constants, coincidences and curiosities observed
about the Universe beginning with the Big Bang, the strengths of
various forces i.e. the strength of the "explosion" the strength of
gravity, strong & weak nuclear forces and other curious relation-
ships. All of which had to be "fine tuned" before life could appear.
The slightest variation in a large number of factors would result
in a universe where matter, stars, planets and life would be
impossible.


The logical conclusion is not that our Universe is unique, but rather that
there also are an infinite number of Universes, where the constants of
Nature are different and perhaps stars cannot form and life cannot exist.
This to me is a powerful reason to suspect that some constant(s) in the
laws of physics must be arbitrary - the laws of physics cannot create the
one possible Universe that happens to work without producing all those
that don't.

OTOH, there may also be an ifinite number of Universes we can't imagine,
populated by intelligent beings made of different sorts of matter.

Note the word anthropic comes from the Greek root for man ("anthro.."); it
means looking at the world from our perspective.

There are many perspectives depending on the state of conciousness the
person is in at the time .. Doorays only open to those that are open to it
...

L

bee

Tom wrote:


WAP and SAP are diameterally
opposed.

False

Bee wrote:
"Peter Webb" wrote in message

u...
Apparently, the Anthropic Principle is a hypothesis
to explain many constants, coincidences and curiosities observed
about the Universe beginning with the Big Bang, the strengths of
various forces i.e. the strength of the "explosion" the strength
of
gravity, strong & weak nuclear forces and other curious relation-
ships. All of which had to be "fine tuned" before life could
appear.
The slightest variation in a large number of factors would result
in a universe where matter, stars, planets and life would be
impossible.


The logical conclusion is not that our Universe is unique, but
rather that
there also are an infinite number of Universes, where the constants
of
Nature are different and perhaps stars cannot form and life cannot
exist.
This to me is a powerful reason to suspect that some constant(s) in
the
laws of physics must be arbitrary - the laws of physics cannot
create the
one possible Universe that happens to work without producing all
those
that don't.

OTOH, there may also be an ifinite number of Universes we can't
imagine,
populated by intelligent beings made of different sorts of matter.

Note the word anthropic comes from the Greek root for man
("anthro.."); it
means looking at the world from our perspective.

There are many perspectives depending on the state of conciousness
the
person is in at the time .. Doorays only open to those that are open
to it
..

lol... what's getting missed in this particular point is that anthropic
bias is justified if this is the mechanism that constrains the forces
of the universe.

http://www.geocities.com/naturescien...ropicBias.html

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bee wrote:
"Peter Webb" wrote in message

u...
Apparently, the Anthropic Principle is a hypothesis
to explain many constants, coincidences and curiosities observed
about the Universe beginning with the Big Bang, the strengths of
various forces i.e. the strength of the "explosion" the strength
of
gravity, strong & weak nuclear forces and other curious relation-
ships. All of which had to be "fine tuned" before life could
appear.
The slightest variation in a large number of factors would result
in a universe where matter, stars, planets and life would be
impossible.


The logical conclusion is not that our Universe is unique, but
rather that
there also are an infinite number of Universes, where the constants
of
Nature are different and perhaps stars cannot form and life cannot
exist.
This to me is a powerful reason to suspect that some constant(s) in
the
laws of physics must be arbitrary - the laws of physics cannot
create the
one possible Universe that happens to work without producing all
those
that don't.

OTOH, there may also be an ifinite number of Universes we can't
imagine,
populated by intelligent beings made of different sorts of matter.

Note the word anthropic comes from the Greek root for man
("anthro.."); it
means looking at the world from our perspective.

There are many perspectives depending on the state of conciousness
the
person is in at the time .. Doorays only open to those that are open
to it
..

lol... what's getting missed in this particular point is that anthropic
bias is justified if this is the mechanism that constrains the forces
of the universe.

O.K .. So I made you laugh .. Better than not!G

http://www.geocities.com/naturescien...ropicBias.html

wrote in message
ups.com...

Tom wrote:


WAP and SAP are diameterally
opposed.

False

If you consider that SAP is pregnant with possibilities, and
WAP is barren and sterile. What could be more opposed?

"Bob Smyth" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
Apparently, the Anthropic Principle is a hypothesis
to explain many constants, coincidences and curiosities observed
about the Universe beginning with the Big Bang, the strengths of
various forces i.e. the strength of the "explosion" the strength of
gravity, strong & weak nuclear forces and other curious relation-
ships. All of which had to be "fine tuned" before life could appear.
The slightest variation in a large number of factors would result
in a universe where matter, stars, planets and life would be
impossible.


The logical conclusion is not that our Universe is unique, but rather
that there also are an infinite number of Universes, where the constants
of Nature are different and perhaps stars cannot form and life cannot
exist. This to me is a powerful reason to suspect that some constant(s)
in the laws of physics must be arbitrary - the laws of physics cannot
create the one possible Universe that happens to work without producing
all those that don't.

I'm not sure I follow you here. What other universes? Are you
in reference to other solar systems? If so we _know_ there
are billions and billions and billions of other solar systems. So
if there are infinate numbers of solar systems there must be infinate
numbers of planets with and infinate planets with intelligent life.

No, I am talking about different Universes, where the force of Gravity (G),
speed of light (c), Planck's constant (h) etc are different to the values in
our Universe.

This is almost a logical neccesity for an (atheistic) physicist. It would be
an impossible co-incidence that there is only one Universe, and it just
happened to have exactly the values of physical constants that are required
to support life. If thise were true, it would suggest that somebody (ie God)
made our Universe with exactly these constants so that life could evolve ...
or we have miraculously won the Universe's only lottery, getting exactly the
values of G, c, h etc that we need to exist. Far more palatable is the
thought that every possible value of G, c, h etc exists in some Universe,
and we (not surprisingly) inhabit one of the Universes where these values of
G, c, h etc allow intelligent life to evolve.

I believe that the argument that G, c, h etc have to be exactly the values
in our Universe for life to exist as evidence that there must be Universes
where this is not true, because otherwise we have a "designed" Universe or
an incredibly lucky co-incidence.

Its a bit like if somebody rings you up and tells you that you have won a
lottery, this is evidence that some people must have bought lottery tickets
that didn't win, even if you never meet them.



OTOH, there may also be an ifinite number of Universes we can't imagine,
populated by intelligent beings made of different sorts of matter.

You are confusing me here. Do you actually mean infinite numbers
if Universes? Is there any empirical evidence of other Universes
springing from other Big Bangs?

Well, yes, sort of - David Deutsch (almost 5 million hits on Google!)
believes that some quantum effects are evidence of parallel Universes. This
is slightly different, because in his other Universes the underlying
physical constants (G, c, h etc) are the same as in ours. But if you accept
an infinite number of Universes, then an infinite number of Universes with
different values of G, c, h etc are not so hard to imagine ...