Talk:Anthropic principle
|
|
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
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...
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)
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)
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)