The Anthropic Principle: "If there were nothing you’d still be complaining!"

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@Eddie

Is consciousness simply a state of matter?

In my opinion – no. It’s more an attribute of our interactive behavior in the world, but that oversimplifies.

[Patrick]

@Eddie

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.

Okay if you didn’t likeTab, you must of loved Tang because the astronauts drank it.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

Very well played, Dan!!

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Patrick

must of loved Tang

Harking back to our earlier discussion, this is what a generation that relies on spell-checkers comes up with. That should be “must have loved”.

Tang was OK, but I didn’t drink it because the astronauts drank it. I just liked it. And some of its rivals, such as “Start”, were probably just as good, but I can’t remember because it has been so many years since I drank powdered, sugared drinks.

[John_Dalton]

@Michael_Callen

The issue is that there is a false dichotomy established at the very beginning which conflates the two issues (1. the details of the anthropic principle, and, 2. the implications of the anthropic principle.) The anthropic principle is a set of conditions that have been identified over time by a variety of scientists. They have been aggregated into a list of details that appear to have been finely tuned. As I’m sure you know, for each one these details, if they were to be slightly adjusted one way or another, it potentially would not allow for complex life to form.

I don’t see why. “fine tuned” does not mean “intelligently designed”. It does not seem to be any kind of outrageous wording, if not the most elegant. I’d also say that the scientists have identified the conditions, and the anthropic principle is a separate principle, which the findings of scientists tends to support.

@Michael_Callen

By presenting the principle and associating its proponents with the ID movement, they are presenting an argument that calls into question the principle itself.

I don’t really see why. The thing is that ID and other people tend to draw certain conclusions from the evidence. Such conclusions are a valid target for criticism. I don’t see the author questioning any of the scientifically determined conditions.

What I’m contending is that the principle, and the implications that some draw from the principle, should be evaluated on their own.

The principle and the implications are so closely intertwined at this point, I’m not really sure that’s practical. Should he never mention the term “anthropic principle” in the article?

@Michael_Callen

If the author has a problem with the ratio of the gravitational force constant to the electromagnetic force constant not being able to vary by one part in 1040, then he should state why he believes this is the case. And on and on for any other data point on the list. If he has no issue with these details, then the problem is not with the anthropic principle itself. But this is not at all made clear.

I don’t know. It seems quite clear to me. It’s obvious that he doesn’t have an issue with the details. I don’t see how a reader of the article would think he does.

@Michael_Callen

So now he gets to what he considers the big problem - some people conclude that these conditions were set forth by God, and that they were ultimately for the benefit of humans.

There’s not really a point to the article otherwise. Obviously this is what he is getting at.

@Michael_Callen

These conclusions are certainly some that could be drawn by people who peruse the list, but they are not implicit in the anthropic principle itself. So, what we end up is the baby being thrown out with the bathwater. The author does not point out any real, significant problems with the data, rather he conflates the topic with a group of people who draw a certain conclusion and rejects it all because of that.

They certainly are drawn by many people, and not particularly quietly. That is the point. It seems to me he is rejecting the conclusion, and not it all.

@Michael_Callen

If I were a scientist, I would be disappointed by this, because in reading the article, it is impossible to walk away not believing that the anthropic principle is just some silly idea dreamed up by the Discovery Institute, for instance… We know that isn’t the truth, but the reader does not.

I don’t know. I’m not taking that from it at all, but I have some familiarity with the issues. Maybe someone else could chime in.

@Michael_Callen

Now this is truly amazing , because if we lived in outer space we would be dead. If we humans existed by chance alone, we may die in the vacuum of space. But we live on earth, so it is not a coincidence that we occupy a planet that is suitable for life? Why, because we cannot survive where we cannot exist!! Now the picture is becoming much more clear!! This is the entire point of the anthropic principle.

This is not clear to me No, it is not a coincidence. I’m not sure where you’re going with this

@Michael_Callen

The point of the anthropic principle is that there are dozens of conditions wherein a very slight adjustment one way or another would utterly preclude life. This analogy has nothing to do with the topic. It is an utter straw man. An analogy that would be similar would be to suggest that one hits a golf ball, blindfolded, out into space and it ends up on the tip of a pin a million miles away, instead of ending up in any other location in the universe. I’m sure that the author understands this, but he makes the topic sound more humiliating by describing it this way.

I don’t think it’s intended to be humiliating, or is in any way humiliating. It’s an analogy intended to simplify a point. We’ve only got this one golf ball shot to work with. It seems amazing on the surface, but what amazing things might have happened on other shots? Some amazing things have happened which are possible under our set of conditions. Ultimately, it’s impossible to say more.

@Michael_Callen

That anyone wins a lottery is not amazing. That I win a lottery is amazing. Yes, someone had to win, but it was so unlikely that it would be me, that I would never even conceive of winning.

It’s amazing to you. That’s the point. There’s billions of other people who it’s not amazing to.

No one would minimize the inconceivable odds by saying, “It’s nothing. Someone had to win anyhow.”

As an occasional gambler, I would never say the first sentence–and nor would I about our incredible fortune in inheriting our set of circumstances–something which is equally true even if you think gods made it happen–but the second seems undeniable.

@Michael_Callen

Again, I’m sorry that this is so long!

Don’t be! I hope I have done your efforts justice in my responses, even if we do not agree.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@John_Dalton

The principle and the implications are so closely intertwined at this point, I’m not really sure that’s practical. Should he never mention the term “anthropic principle” in the article?

Hi John: Thank you very much for your thoughtful response. I don’t want to drag out a long debate when the issue is as nuanced as this one and the debate may be over opinions rather than demonstrable facts. I appreciate everything that you are saying and can see where you are coming from. I do disagree with your conclusions as you do with mine. No worries, I forgive you… (just kidding…)

I will simply say this in response and let it drop unless you wish to continue the discussion: This arena (i.e. the discussions here at PS) is one where there is too much unnecessary debate because there is often a lack of defined terms. As such, people argue for A₁ while others argue against A₂. They think that they are arguing for or against the same thing, but in actuality they are not. As such, the discussion leads to much ado about nothing, really. If I sense that something is not being defined clearly, or that A₁ is introduced as a subject, but A₂ is what ends up being discussed, I will tend to call that out. It is, truly, what I perceived from this article. As such, I think that inspires unnecessary debate and draws incorrect conclusions.

When I appeal to you (scientists) for agreement, it is for that reason. In your defense, I see much unnecessary debate here, as well. For the same reason. Terms are not defined and groups that honestly believe that they are arguing about the same topic are really not.