I think it’s worth pointing out the Anthropic Principle embodies conditional probability and Baye’s Law. This is a topic that has confounded a great number of very smart (possible less) people for a very long time. You may be familiar with the **Monty Hall Problem. 
2 Likes
I appreciate the honesty and humbleness!
I guess my larger point is that it is opinion. There is no objective way to say that the universe was fine tuned for complex life any more than it was fine tuned to produce Saturn. It reminds me of the Victorian values that leaked into biology in the 18th and 19th century which led scientists to label humans as being highly evolved and the use of human-centric taxonomic names (e.g. Primates).
We definitely agree on this point.
This is a good rebuttal. I am thinking through it. One response to “why single out complex life” would be (to narrow things a bit) that there is an interesting reason to single out conscious beings as compared to anything else, because there is something fundamentally unique (maybe “meta” on some level that I can’t articulate right now) about a universe having “fine-tuned” properties to allow for the existence of contents that are aware of that very universe and aware of those properties in the first place.
It might be possible for any number of universes with other ranges of properties to produce, say, different kinds of planets or other collections of atoms with unique properties that are mutually exclusive from our universe’s Saturn’s properties, yet with none of those objects having any awareness of their universes or those properties at all. Or, rather, it seems that the range of properties that allow for the forming unique collections of objects is much broader than the range of properties that also allow for the forming of unique self-aware collections of objects. If true, I at least find that interesting.
1 Like
But why is a conscious species unique and special in an objective sense? Don’t get me wrong, I think consciousness and human beings are absolutely amazing, but I’m a human.
On the flip side, I can fully understand why believers see fine tuning in the way they do. I would also say that subjective isn’t the same as wrong. I love my mother more than any other mother in the world, and I believe she is one of the greatest women in existence. I also know that is a very subjective opinion, but I am sticking with it. Subjectivity is part of the human experience. However, if we try to jump from the subjective to the objective (or the intersubjective if you want to split hairs) it takes some extra work and some heavy lifting.
Because we are aware that all of the non-conscious things in the universe exist, but none of those things are aware that we exist. As Kenneth Miller says, “The very fact that we contemplate and we debate our own uniqueness makes us unique”. Our subjectivity is objectively unique 
1 Like
But why is that any more unique than the other unique things we can find in the universe? There may only be a handful of conscious species in our universe, or perhaps just one, but there is also probably only one Saturn.
1 Like
We agree more than you may realize. Remember, the reason why I posted in response to the article was because the article was conflating the science of AP with the opinion (implications) and then rejecting AP because of the opinions, not because of the science. The two should be separate. They could even be covered in the same article, but the distinction between the two areas should be made. To me, this discussion is a perfect example of how we try to follow the PS ground rules.
The issue that you bring forth above is a philosophical one. Based upon logic and/or philosophy, one can accept or reject the implications of AP. You are calling it into question, but you are doing so on philosophical grounds. If you, instead, are saying that the ratio of the gravitational force constant to the electromagnetic force constant is able to vary by more than one part in 1040, then you are making a scientific judgment. But you are doing so based upon data, not upon feelings or opinions.
We seem to be talking in circles. I may be articulating poorly, or I may simply be wrong. Maybe we are not thinking of the word “unique” in the same way. Let me try an analogy.
Imagine a set of paintings, each with a unique background, depicting the following in the foreground: a red flower, a green flower, a blue flower, and a yellow pig. Technically, each painting is unique, yet there is also something “more” unique about the painting of the pig than any one of the flowers. Maybe the way to say it is in addition to having some differences, it also has fewer similarities compared to any of the other paintings than the other paintings have to each other.
Now consider instead a set of paintings, with the first three the same as before, depicting: a red flower, a green flower, a blue flower, but the last painting including paintings of the other three paintings inside it. Now not only does the latter painting “uniquely” have fewer similarities to other paintings, it’s not just an arbitrary distinction of properties, it’s also uniquely a “meta-painting.” I am making the claim that consciousness is something like that.
Now I need to take some time to think more on these things…
I thought that the Monty Hall problem was keeping his eyes off of Carol Merrill, who stood in front of door number two. I’m not smart enough to know what you are getting at here. So are you saying that the Monty Hall problem is an issue for the data points that are noted in the AP? Or are you saying that it is a logical/philosophical issue for those who might want to use the data points noted in AP as evidence for an “intelligence” who tinkered with the dials?
1 Like
What a great conversation this is! I was going to suggest that Saturn is a gas giant and there are plenty more gas giants… but I’ve been called the same, too. So maybe there is nothing special about us. 
Seriously, though, I think that Joshua makes a valid point. At least it seems valid to me. Awareness is an outstanding characteristic that could be worthy of separating into a category all its own. There are plenty of things that are unique, like a snowflake, but they are not improbable and outstanding. Maybe, though, it is a philosophical / theological opinion that this is true. Is it something that can be fleshed out logically? Or is it just a matter of opinion?
I can’t get past the feeling that we are just biased towards consciousness being important and somehow quantitatively different than any other state of matter in the universe. It may be one of those topics that we add to the list of intriguing disagreements.
2 Likes
The Monty Hall Problem is an ill posed mess. There are unstated premises that change answer. Much “confusion” is just people coming in with different conceptions of Monty. Does he want you to succeed or not? Would he have offered a switch if you didn’t have the right answer? Does he know where the right answer is? Will he ever lie?
None of these things are specified in the original question. That is what confused people. Removing the social framing and making this explicit, it is far easier to solve.
1 Like
Ugh! I had completely forgotten about Tab! It had sunk down into oblivion, deep in the recesses of my mind. Now you’ve brought back that unpleasant memory.
Dr. Pepper rules! However, a number of other drinks deserve honorable mention, including Hires Root Beer.
1 Like
2 Likes
Is consciousness simply a state of matter? That is surely disputable.
1 Like
So … sort of like this?
3 Likes
Consciousness being an emergent property of matter is certainly debatable, but I have yet to see it proven wrong. I think there is currently a thread on this very topic, so I won’t go into it here.
2 Likes
I was offering no disproof of emergence. I just wanted to note that the phrase “than any other state of matter in the universe” implied that consciousness was “a state of matter” – which is debatable. Vapor, liquid and solid are states of matter; particular arrangements of atoms in crystals are states of matter; the particular shape of Mt. Everest is a state of matter. But is consciousness a state of matter? That is not obvious to me.
I think we are “biased toward consciousness” because we notice the very wide range of things that conscious beings can do that non-conscious beings cannot. It’s a natural thing to notice.
2 Likes
I’m saying the answer is different depending on how the problem is posed and what other information you assume (as noted by @swamidass).
Also, you seem to have an eye for the chicks!
3 Likes
It is more obvious to me, but I am willing to admit that it isn’t proven. This is part of the reason that different people have different views of the Anthropic principle. You might say that how you describe the Anthropic Principle is a reflection of the premises you bring to the argument.