Astronomy Buff

16 opinions for The Anthropic Principle: Am I missing something?

• Julie
  Feb 22, 2007 at 6:04 am

  Yeah, it’s called the Universe, not the YOUniverse, dumbasses! ;)

• island
  Feb 22, 2007 at 9:14 am

  The Anthropic Principle: Am I missing something?

  Yes, you most certainly are, but why didn’t you go right to the source, (me), when you had the opportunity, instead of running back here to hide from the answers? Are you in denial?… I think so.

  What is it about the human brain that won’t accept the idea that the cosmos simply isn’t about us?

  It has nothing to do with the human brain, it’s about evidence… or did you willfully ignore that part?… I think so.

  But, I realize that precisely because we live in a universe full of infinite possibilities…

  Prove it.

• Tony
  Feb 22, 2007 at 10:20 am

  @island: You’re the source of all things related to the anthropic principle? Wow. I had no idea, you really are an island.

  As for the human brain, what do you think interprets that evidence, a foot? The brain and the thoughts in it color our perception of the universe. Our brain is the tool we use to undertand everything, and the thing is, it’s biased as HELL. Human brains are PREDISPOSED to looking at our world to justify our beliefs, they try to fit the facts into their world view, regardeless of what they find to be actually true. Even honest scientists fall into the trap of getting married to an idea and forcing data to fit their theories. Many people really, really, really want to be special - they want humanity to be special. I’m not convinced it is.

  Finally, proving the statement about infinite possibilities is actually an entire field of study: Quantum Physics. Everything in the universe can be described as a probability wave function, at a fundamental level all things are possible. You can even have the exact same event occuring at the exact same time in two different places.

  It’s because of quantum mechanics that I don’t just dismiss this whole anthropic principle business entirely, even though it sounds ridiculous.

• Tony
  Feb 22, 2007 at 10:23 am

  @Julie: Youniverse is a great term for this. I love it! It’s also easier to write than anthropic principle. Maybe we can make it a synonym?

• island
  Feb 22, 2007 at 10:30 am

  As for the human brain, what do you think interprets that evidence, a foot?

  So you think that we are incapable of correctly interpreting evidence.

  I can’t help but to think about all those poor innocent bastards in jail.

• island
  Feb 22, 2007 at 1:25 pm

  Actually, Julie, the evolutionary physics that defines the AP applies a whole layer of similarly developed galaxy-systems, that exist on the same time/location plane as we do in the history of the universe:

  http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/2007/02/goldilocks-enigma-again.html

  Course, you’d have to actually study the subject to know that the physics isn’t strictly geocentric, but ignorance of the facts is no excuse for dismissing the anthropic observation “out of hand” just because you illogically and arrogantly conclude that it means that the universe is created especially for us, rather than the other way round, which makes a hell of a lot more sense.

  The fact that a cosmological principle can define a theory of everything is good enough reason not to ignore the evidence, so preconceived prejudice against the idea makes no statement relevant to science.

  Politics ain’t science.

• r06u3AP
  Feb 22, 2007 at 2:31 pm

  Actually, folks, far greater minds than ours have contemplated these issues:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler

  It was 1980 when I met Professor Wheeler, a man who actually knew and worked with Albert Einstein and had Richard Feynman as a student. The man who coined the term “black hole” was visiting the University of Louisville to give an informal lecture regarding Cosmogony. He expressed his ideas concerning the role of participating observers (as opposed to “objective non-participators”, which isn’t possible according to his thesis) which may reasonably lead to the notion of a self-excited universe.

  Anyone who’s interested can look it up and read about his ideas for themselves. I just mention it as an example of an idea that the universe depends on life and vice-versa may not be so outlandish after all.

  Tony, I think you might be a little inconsistent with your statement on how you can’t understand why people insist on making themselves important when you just got done writing an article about how love makes the whole universe seem small. I think that the thing that makes the human brain think that the universe is about us is that our conscious existence is something of a miracle in its own right.

  But that’s another thesis entirely….

• island
  Feb 22, 2007 at 2:53 pm

  Paul Davies is the most recent physicist to promote Wheeler’s strong interpretation in his book “The Goldilocks Enigma”… which is the physics that I was talking about when I recommended this:

  http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/2007/02/goldilocks-enigma-again.html

  Paul Davies book is available in the UK under the mentioned title:

  http://www.amazon.co.uk/Goldilocks-Enigma-Universe-Just-Right/dp/0713998830/ref=sr_11_1/026-8934482-6040423?ie=UTF8

  And it will be coming out sometime in mid-april in the U.S. under the title:

  Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life ”
  http://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Jackpot-Universe-Just-Right/dp/0618592261/sr=1-1/qid=1167149428/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-8082944-3852846?ie=UTF8&s=books

  John Wheeler is a brilliant man, and has written some wonderful stuff about relativity. His strong interpretation of the anthropic physics was the impetus for Brandon Carter to formalize the physics. Paul Davies also holds much respect for him, and has worked closely with him on the anthropic physics.

• Tony
  Feb 23, 2007 at 12:29 am

  @r06u3AP: In the article about love making the universe seem small, I was conveying a perspective. I wasn’t trying to prove that it actually WAS small nor that it it MUST be small when compared to love. It was just an emotional frame of reference.

  Sometimes things seems so true and real and powerful and intense when you’re under the influence of certain emotions, that doesn’t mean it is, in fact, a true reflection of things, it’s just how we feel inside.

  But that’s just my brain interpreting things isn’t it? And it’s wrong. Of course the universe can’t be compared to an emotion, yet our brains do this all the time when trying to make sense of the world and that’s the real danger.

  In that article, if I had been trying to convince you that it MUST be small compared to love, then I would be taking the approach that AP advocates seem to be taking: The universe MUST have conditions that support life because we are in it. I just don’t buy that the universe gives preference to those conditions over all others. There is simply no evidence of that (and don’t quote string theory as proof either, yikes).

  My feeling (and that’s all it is) is that the universe isn’t predisposed to doing anything (like harboring life), rather it is our brains, because of our biology and the way we have evolved, that are pre-disposed to certain ideas. Namely, that we are more important in the grand scheme than we really are.

  I’m not discounting the AP, but it’s very similar to a lot of earth-centric stuff we’ve been hearing about since Copernicus, and I’m highly skeptical of it.

  And you’re absolutely correct: Much greater minds have been thinking about this for a long time before us.

• Tony
  Feb 23, 2007 at 12:57 am

  @island: I do think that we are capable of correctly interpreting evidence, but we must always strive to be very careful. Too much of our evolution is tied up into justifying our belief systems and views of our place in the world.

  We’ve needed that biology in the past to keep us alive, but if we’re not careful, it will betray us into reaching the wrong conclusions.

  My biggest problem with the AP is that there simply isn’t enough evidence to support any of it, although it is interesting and gives me warm fuzzies to think that it might be true.

  It just seems strange that the universe would need us in it to survive.

  But, strange ideas are often justified over time.

• island
  Feb 23, 2007 at 3:48 am

  Tony, my point is that the evidence merrits further scientific investigation that it does not get due to the type of preconceived prejudice that you clearly expressed at the onset, without really knowing a whole lot about it.

  I proved, hands-down, that this mentality extends to the highest level of science in the thread that prompted your post:

  http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/2007/02/physicists-debate-nature-of-space-time.html

  The all too common response that I got in that forum to my points was ultimately, silent-denial, for the lack of a better argumement, not because anyone recognized that I had proven my point. They now sit in willful denial of the fact that there is valid science that should be actively pursued.

  You cannot even begin to understand the non-scientific mentality that stands in the way of gaining equal time for the strong implication.

  Listen to me. Brandon Carter, and not I, originally pointed out that the community is plauged by an ideological disease, (anitfanaticism), that he called, “anticentrist dogma”, whose mediocre mentality lead to the perfect cosmological principle absurdity.

  His point is that these people are equally anti-fanatical to the most rabid creationist’s fanaticism.

  Trust me when I say that he had very good reason to make this observation.

  Now, with all due respect to John Wheeler and Paul Davies, you’d have to be independently wealthy to think that we’re just here to watch.

• island
  Feb 23, 2007 at 4:06 am

  There are some other scientists who have picked up on the local effect of the real need for intelligent life, namely; James Kay, Eric Schneider, Dorion Sagan, (Carl Sagan and Lynn Margulis’ son), Scott Sampson… a couple of others.

  This is a brief summary, but beware it is popularized beyond science:

  http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990

  This is Sagan and Schneider’s book:

  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226739368/sciencewriter-20?creative=327641&camp=14573&link_code=as1

  Look up, Lynn Margulis, and then take note that she called her fanatical peers, “neodarwinian bullies” at the last evolution conference, when she was the honored guest speaker!

  She took her best shot at exactly what I’m talking about here. There is no denying it.

• Julie
  Mar 1, 2007 at 12:04 pm

  A friend of mine read this string of comments and pointed to Voltaire’s Candide. So, I thought, what the hell–I’ll post it. I kinda think of the anthropic principle like this, too:

  Quoting Voltaire’s Candide:

  Master Pangloss taught the metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology. He could prove to admiration that there is no effect without a cause; and, that in this best of all possible worlds, the Baron’s castle was the most magnificent of all castles, and My Lady the best of all possible baronesses.

  “It is demonstrable,” said he, “that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end. Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles. The legs are visibly designed for stockings, accordingly we wear stockings. Stones were made to be hewn and to construct castles, therefore My Lord has a magnificent castle; for the greatest baron in the province ought to be the best lodged. Swine were intended to be eaten, therefore we eat pork all the year round: and they, who assert that everything is right, do not express themselves correctly; they should say that everything is best.”

  ………………………………………..
  oh, tee-heee-heee, silly, silly man thought the nose was a tripod for the spectacles! pffftttttt…. :)

• Astronomy Buff - Extraterrestrial Beings Do Not Exist
  Mar 10, 2007 at 11:47 pm

  […] Earlier today, I was in the astrophysics library at the university and I happened upon a paper in 1980 by Frank Tipler, a proponent of the Anthropic Principle. The title of the paper is Extraterrestrial Beings Do Not Exist. […]

• Astrolink [English Edition] » Intelligent Extraterrestrial Beings Do Not Exist
  Mar 19, 2007 at 1:37 pm

  […] library at the university and I happened upon a paper in 1980 by Frank Tipler, a proponent of the Anthropic Principle. The title of the paper is Extraterrestrial Intelligent Beings Do Not […]

• Rathtyen
  Mar 19, 2007 at 9:04 pm

  I stumbled on to Tony’s series of musings, and I have to say found them quite entertaining and interesting.

  This particular one seem to miss some fundamental points, with Island leading the way. I thinks perhaps too much physics and too little biology.

  There are only really two possibilities. Fundamentally the Anthropic principle assumes some degree of intent or design, be it God, gods or some force of nature that has directed the design of the universe. It is essentially religious in nature, but without the ceremonial trappings of a religion. At its very foundation, if we were ever able to get there, I think we would find this type of belief is driven by a very human need to believe there must be a reason for it all (ie life, the universe etc). Most of humanity believes it just can’t be random chance we exist…its an emotive security driver that fits in somewhere before Maslow’s hierachy of needs starts. And who knows, it may all be by some unfathomable grand design.

  More likely however, the Universe exists for whatever reason it came into being, and then everything else fit into what was available, because, lets face it, there was no other choice. Don’t fit, don’t exist.

  Life on earth exists in every known niche, including the deep sea hell holes (in fact they are some of the most densely populated places on Earth). Life finds a way. A key point however is that life must fit into the available environment, unless it has the means to create its own environment (which is unlikely at the start).

  By definition therefore, its not that the laws of the universe must be consistent with the allowing of life, but that if life is to exist, it must be able to do so within context of the laws of the universe. And only life that can so fit will be able to exist.

  That said, the universe is big and therefore has a wide range of environments, so presumably a pretty wide range of life could occur, if it is able to get a start (no guarantees there). Life on Earth tends to indicate that life is the rule rather than the exception, and wherever there is a niche, something will find a way to fit into it (tree kangaroos are the classic example).

  The other aspect of life seems to be that it doesn’t take much for it to expand into different niches. Life on Earth seems to have evolved from only a few original life-starting amino acids, and these few successful starters evolved into the variety we have today.

  The human mind tends to be selfish in the sense we assess everything from our perspective, which is very limited. Island reminds me a little of the Easter Islanders who, after cutting down all their trees, became so isolated that until the Europeans arrived, believed they and their island were the entire world. Migratory birds were a mystery, but otherwise, for all intents and purposes, it was just them and the ocean.

  Science tends to be limited by what it can understand. In the case of life, as there is no proof of life elsewhere, some conclude there can only be life on Earth. In this instance, because there is no proof of randomness, there must be design. The reality is, the science has not yet caught up with the wholeness of existence. We are in a sense primatives trying to figure it all out. We have a compulsion to make sense of it, but our conclusions are limited by what we know, and we aren’t seeing the whole picture. Religion has its basis here.

  Sometimes however you’d think the answer is pretty obvious even though the reason behind it isn’t known. In this case its that life fits what the universe makes available, not that the universe is crafted to fit life. A completely different type of universe therefore would allow types of life that are not able to exist in ours.

Have an opinion? Leave a comment:

• Use this area to discover new blogs and content in the b5media network.
• Beauty & Style
• Business
• Celebrities
• Entertainment
• Health & Wellness
• Lifestyles
• Music
• Sports
• Team Blogs
• Technology
• Travel & Culture
• Video Games

• Social Web
• E-mail