The Anthropic Principle

Minder

Please explain The Anthropic Principle. Please don't offer me a link to Wiki or google, I can do that myself. I would like to hear what board members believe this principle to be. Thanks

bonkey

I'd be quite happy to give ita shot, if you are first willing to explain why this is in Christianity and not Science.

kelly1

Minder wrote: »

Please explain The Anthropic Principle. Please don't offer me a link to Wiki or google, I can do that myself. I would like to hear what board members believe this principle to be. Thanks

I believe it is the principle that the universe seems to be constructed in such a way as to allow the existence of life. Related to this is the fact that extremely small changes in various physical constants such as electromagnetic, gravitational and weak/strong nuclear forces would make life impossible or unlikely.

See a list at http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200608_fine_tuning_for_life_in_the_universe.shtml

And seeing as this is the Christianity forum, I wish you the blessings of God!

Pompey Magnus

Douglas Adams descibed it nicely:

"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!"

Basically religious people argue that because we know of one tiny planet in an obscure area of the Universe on which life has developed then obviously the Universe was designed with life in mind. I like the point of the American physicist, Lee Smolin, who shows that the fundamental constants of the Universe, if they were set by some higher power, were far more likely to have been set to create a Universe which was absolutely ideal for Black Hole creation. There is no concievable Universe more ideal for creating Black Holes than this Universe. Smolin dismisses the antropic principle and suggests that life may be just a tiny, insignificant by-product of a Black Hole creating universe.

raah!

From what i have read about it quite some time ago there were several different interpretations.

Depeche mode is putting it forward here as something that religious people are fond of, the version of it I got was entirely different, and i have gotten this version from several different sources

It is this : The anthropic principle states that the laws of the universe vary as you travel through the universe. So massively improbable things like "the cosmological constant" or various other problems with "fine tuning" are less improbable. Since these constants are varying throughout the universe, and the universe is so big it is only a matter of time before these improbable ones come together to give life.

This is a counter theory to "creator" or "fine tuner" theories, and that multiverse theory. It would seem unlikely for a religious person to use this as a description for how life came about, as it rules out a god or anything like that

raah!

kelly1 wrote: »

I believe it is the principle that the universe seems to be constructed in such a way as to allow the existence of life. Related to this is the fact that extremely small changes in various physical constants such as electromagnetic, gravitational and weak/strong nuclear forces would make life impossible or unlikely.

See a list at http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200608_fine_tuning_for_life_in_the_universe.shtml

And seeing as this is the Christianity forum, I wish you the blessings of God!

I think this is the opposite to the anthropic principle

*however, I may be wrong too, as far as I've seen there are several interpretations of it, the one I have is the anthropic principle as an explanation for the apparant "fine tuning" of the physical constants, and is a counter theory to any ones which would point to a god or a friendly universe..etc

P.S I also wish you the blessings of God

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

I believe it is the principle that the universe seems to be constructed in such a way as to allow the existence of life. Related to this is the fact that extremely small changes in various physical constants such as electromagnetic, gravitational and weak/strong nuclear forces would make life impossible or unlikely.

No, Raah says, it is actually the exact opposite.

It is the assertion that humans when looking at the emergence of life on Earth and in the universe, should take into consideration that we find life where life could develop.

For example, it is often stated that the Earth may have been fine tuned to allow life to develop here. Too close to the sun, no life, too far away, no life.

The problem with that is that assumes life developing on Earth was some sort of goal.

We are only hear wondering about this because life did develop on Earth. If the Earth had been unsuitable for life we wouldn't have developed on it, in the same way that we don't find ourselves on Mars or Venus.

Therefore there is nothing particularly peculiar that we find ourselves on Earth, because we would have found ourselves on a planet that can support life.

raah!

Well as i have said, I've heard several differnt accounts, My version there was taken from a biography on stephen hawking (haven't gotten aroudn to the full book, but i found taht in my house) in which he is quoted explaining it in that manner. And also from various other internet sites where I looked it up (although wikipedia waaas waaaaay ambiguous for me). Also on a show i saw on discovery science, which was about fine tuning and all that. Also if you type "the anthropic principle" up in google, you get "the anthropic principle to refute divine something or other" a few pages down.

I may be wrong here, but I'm certainly not lying about those sources. The rest of my knowledge on the anthropic principle was found whilst researching the cosmological constant, which was a strong arguing point for things like creationism. Here i came across things like the anthropic principle and the multiverse theorey to counter it

P.S........ oh you were agreeing... ho ho ho nevermind then

P.P.S it's still an extra post :P

Super P.S I just thought of a very good summary of the anthropic principle (forgive me for being overly enthusiastic).

-In the "fine tuner" theorey, there is one universe with one set of constants. These therefore can seem special because thye allow life to happen
-In the multiverse theory there are many universes, so these special constants are bound to pop up
-In the anthropic principle, there is one big universe, but with varying physical laws and constants throughout, so similarily to the multieverse theory, these constants allowing for life are no longer special and don't require a "fine tuner" to explain them

Minder

bonkey wrote: »

I'd be quite happy to give ita shot, if you are first willing to explain why this is in Christianity and not Science.

I asked the question on the Christianity forum because that is where I first came across the principle.

bonkey

Minder wrote: »

I asked the question on the Christianity forum because that is where I first came across the principle.

Fair enough.

So....my take on it.

The Anthropic Principle arose out of attempts to address the question "why is the universe the way it is?"

A simple answer, which then grew into something far more profound was "because if it was significantly different, we wouldn't be here to ask this question".

To expand on that a bit...it is not just that our universe appear to be particularly suited to life, but that this place (earth), at this time is particularly suited to life. But if the universe was even slightly different, then it might be a different place and different time, and someone else asking the same question. Indeed, even if our universe was no different, there could be other places, at other times, which will be suited to intelligent life....and those observers could ask the same question and receive the same answer.

Some people see the anthropic principle as a non-answer. Others see it as a most profound insight which leads to all sorts of interesting things. Some critics say that its putting the cart before the horse - as neatly put by Douglas Adams (mentioned in an earlier post).

Ultimately, it all boils back to the notion that our universe, at this time, in this place, seems to be particularly suited for life...and trying to explain why. The Principle doesn't tell us why, but can offer some insight into how to approach the question.

Some have interpreted it to mean that a\the universe must be suited to life at some point at some time. Others have interpreted it to only show (somewhat tautologically) that our universe is suited to life at some point at some time.