THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

by Nowhere 27 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Nowhere

I found this in one of my course books. It's quite interesting, added to a chapter dealing with dynamics of Friedman-Robertson-Walker universes. It looks to me like this man doesn't deny the possibility of a diety, and he is a respected scientist, no creation-pseudo-nonsens-scientist. I find it very compeling. What are your thoughs?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be reassuring if one could believe that our universe (which seems destined either to recollapse and suffer a fiery death, or else to expand indefinitely and suffer a freezing death) is not the sum-total of all physical existence. A philosophically persuasive line of argumentation has, in fact, led some modern cosmologists to posit the existence of infinitely many alternative universes, all with different initial conditions. For them that seems to be the only way out of a profound puzzle: why is our universe favorable to human existence? The number of lucky 'coincidences' required to produce an environment in which life as we know it is possible, seems to defy the laws of chance.
Let us begin with the big bang. A slightly lower initial expansion rate, or higher density, or higher constant of gravity, would have made the universe recollapse and reheat before it had time to cool sufficiently to make life possible. A slightly higher expansion rate, or lower gravitational constant, would have thinned the matter too fast for galaxies to condense. It takes billions of years to cook up and distribute the basic building blocks of life (carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen) in the only suitable furnaces, the interiors of stars. A life-supporting universe must get to be at least that old, and it's laws must permit the process. For example, it is 'lucky' that the nuclear force is not quite strong enough to allow the formation of 'diprotons' (proton + proton), a process that would have quickly used up all primordial hydrogen and so deprived the stars of their fuel, and life of one of its bases. Yet that force is just strong enough to favor the formation of deuterons (proton + neutron), without which higher nucleosynthesis cannot proceed. Without a 'lucky' energy level in the carbon nucleus the formation of carbon out of helium (3H4 ? C12 + 2?) would have failed. But equally luckily, the oxygen nucleus has an energy level that prevents the reaction C12 + H4 ? O16, which would have depleted the carbon as soon as it was formed.
Examples of this kind abound in all branches of science. Here we shall mention only two others. One from biology: apparently the whole basis of life (DNA) would be in jeopardy if the charge or mass of the electron were only slightly different from what they are. And an example from ecology: water possesses the rare yet vital property that its solid form (ice) is lighter than its liquid form. As a consequence, lakes freeze over in winter and the ice protects the life below, possibly even emerging life. Were in otherwise, more and more ice would grow from the bottom upwards without being melted in the summers, until lakes and oceans were frozen solid.
Can all these 'lucky' coincidences be due to pure chance? The law that multiplies probabilities makes this highly unlikely. One can perhaps hope for the eventual discovery of a 'Theory of Everything' - a theory that fixes all the laws and constants of Nature and shows our universe to be unique. But the mystery would remain: why does the only possible universe permit life? One supposition that cannot be disproved is that a benevolent deity so designed the world. But it is part of the credo of modern science not to invoke a deity to explain physical facts. (Newton did not yet feel that so strongly, he believed God would have to intervene periodically to adjust the planetary orbits, since it seemed to him that the mutual gravity of he planets lead to instabilities. It took a hundred years before Laplace was able to solve the stability problem the modern way.) Out of all these difficulties grew the anthropic principle: if there are infinitely many alterative universes, then there is no mystery in finding ourselves in one that permits our presence.
Quoted from: Relativity - special, general and cosmological, Wolfgang Rindler
Carmel

An artificial rationale raised to the level of principle? And the humanists claim the deists concoct imaginary answers!
caveman
Tashawaa

Here's a "lucky" coincidence...
Out of my dad's millions of little "squigily, squirmy, sperms" one in particular made it to my mom's egg at the right time of the month, in the right year, month, day, hour, etc. for me to be concieved.
Had they not met, I wouldn't be here. Had it been a month later, a different egg would have meant a different person. Had a different sperm fertilized the egg, I wouldn't be here. What are those odds???? I'm "lucky" to be here I guess.
Then if you go back... what were the chances of each of their parents meeting and producing them... what about my grandparents? We have a whole family history of the odds of these two people meeting and having their children.
Keep going back. The odds mount to an impossible set of "lucky" coincidences that we were even born. Crazy. Yet there are billions of us walking around, despite the odds of our individual self being here.
So the odds of all life are infinitesimal - immeasurable, but it happened. What are the odds that a "creator" exists out of nowhere (no explaination there) and made everything? What are you saying, that a powerful, intelligent being can exist without a creator? Hmmmm, I believe I'm saying the same thing. We humans, animals, life, universe, exist "out of nothing", and I believe in it.
Nowhere

I'm afraid you don't get the points being made her tashawaa and camel. The important points is that, one, there aren't much hope today for finding the theory of everything, and two, it is big mystery why, why does the only possible universe permit life?
And for your sperm theory tashawaa, tou have just explaind evolution, that is not chance, it is a selection. The best equipped sperm wins, it isn't a lottery you know?
One more thing, the world or the universe doesn't depend on you being born or not tashawaa, but it does depend on the early expansion rate for example. Out of 200 million sperms, it really doesn't matter who reaches the egg. Do you understand the differnence?, any sperm would be the winner, but only one expansion rate can be the winner.
And if you didn't notice, the anthropic principle doesn't, I repeat, doesn't involve a diety to explain the mystery.
Next time, read what the question was about before throwing around accusations.
Tashawaa

Nowhere - you posted the article. I responded... I got the point. The chances of this universe being able to support life are soooooo small that some are turning to a "multiple universe" theory. Simple. All I was pointing out, was just because something, by chance is infinitesimal - doesn't mean it can't happen.
The 200 million sperm, just shows your odds were 1 in 200 million + the right time of the month + the right 2 people x all the generations prior. Yes, I know we have "fighter sperm" and "weak sperm"... but unlike Monty Python, I wasn't singing the praises of sperm. And my point was it does matter "who" reaches the egg, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Ahhh, live well my friend.
anti-absolutism

No offense to you, Nowhere, but I can grasp Tashawaa's explanation a little bit better than yours. And, if my assumptions are right from your somewhat impolite response to her, I will beat you to the punch that you are not necessarily more intelligent than either of us.
I could sit here and theorize with you all day long and ultimately all we would have is more theory. I would suggest that, POSSIBLY, what Tashawaa is saying is the same things that I feel. Ever listen to Pearl Jam's song, "I Am Mine"? (By the way I am not a Pearl Jam fanatical, but this song reminds me of what I consider the 'reality' of this world we DO know.) To quote their song, "I know that I will live and I will die.... the in-between is mine".
I personally have pondered, analyzed, and studied a lot of THEORIES of life and the only one that I do know for sure is that it DOES exist.... Perhaps the degree of enjoyment that people derive from their own life is directly related to how close they can come to sticking to the basics. Does trying too hard to find the ABSOLUTE answer possibly take away from our enjoyment of it?
I know I like LIFE a lot more now that I keep it more simple.
Brad
Abaddon

Nowhere: "Can all these 'lucky' coincidences be due to pure chance?"
It appears so. I have a hat ready and waiting for the day someone proves our universe is teleological. Given that no one's done it yet, and that most of human history has been spent insisting our universe IS teleological, and there is still not one shred of evidence to support it, my digestive system and hat are quite safe. "The law that multiplies probabilities makes this highly unlikely."
Hmmm. Badly put, or they're putting 'spin' on the statement. If there are multiple probabilities, it actually means that pure chance is a certainty, due to a infinate (near as) number of probabilities existing simultaneously in different universes. The sum of improbabilties in different universes produces probability somewhere and somewhen. "One can perhaps hope for the eventual discovery of a 'Theory of Everything' - a theory that fixes all the laws and constants of Nature and shows our universe to be unique."
Why? Why does it have to be unique? Why should one 'perhaps hope' for this? Bad sloppy writing by the quoted person. "But the mystery would remain: why does the only possible universe permit life?"
Assertion; "why does the only possible universe permit life". This is unfounded and speculative. "One supposition that cannot be disproved is that a benevolent deity so designed the world."
Yawn. Yes, but god cannot be proved, and IF god DIDN'T exist, you wouldn't be able to prove it didn't exist, so the fact that a supposition cannot be disproved when the opposite supposition is untestable means precisely nothing. "But it is part of the credo of modern science not to invoke a deity to explain physical facts."
Again, badly written (I think so), or trying to put spin on something (but badly). The above sentence implies an abstract belief is responsible for excluding god in science, rather than a coherent reason.
BECAUSE you cannot explain physical facts with a diety, a diety is not invoked in modern science. It is not needed to explain physical effects.
The issue of why certain physical effects are the way they are is a different thing, but the poor way this article is written fails to really split that out well. It sounds apologetic, but I don't think the writer intended that. "Out of all these difficulties grew the anthropic principle: if there are infinitely many alterative universes, then there is no mystery in finding ourselves in one that permits our presence."
Yes, quite. Saying because it's amazing that there is life is like the archaea at the bottom of the Atlantic, clinging to volcanic vents saying;
"There must be a great microbe; it stands to reason, if it were 15 degrees warmer or colder, or there was any variation in salinity, or pressure was off a bit, we wouldn't exist".
... or postulated beings living on a high-mass planet orbiting an A3 star at 0.5AU saying;
"Without this level of radiation to stimulate mutation, and the resultant rapid evolution, without this amount of heat and pressure, and without this high gravity field and super-abundance of heavy elements, we wouldn't exist. The HAS to be a JU!IT##DG'AUY, it stands to reason".
Carmel:
"An artificial rationale raised to the level of principle? And the humanists claim the deists concoct imaginary answers!
caveman"
They do. And a blind statement that doesn't address the issue at all, merely passes a barely relevent observation, doesn't get you anywhere in this discussion.
Tashawaa; Yes, precisely.
Nowhere's response to Tashawaa "I'm afraid you don't get the points being made her tashawaa and camel."
Camel/Caveman's response was not really a response, just an opinion. Tashawaa seems to have the point. You don't seem to have manners. "The important points is that, one, there aren't much hope today for finding the theory of everything,"
That's not an important point, it's a banal historical observation. " ... and two, it is big mystery why, why does the only possible universe permit life?"
Read the last sentence of what YOU quoted; "Out of all these difficulties grew the anthropic principle: if there are infinitely many alterative universes, then there is no mystery in finding ourselves in one that permits our presence."
The whole point you seem to be missing (and then hilariously, go on to being rude to someone who got the point) is that there is, allegedly, no such thing as the only possible universe. "And for your sperm theory tashawaa, tou have just explaind evolution, that is not chance, it is a selection. The best equipped sperm wins, it isn't a lottery you know?"
Ding-dong, wrong. Everything is some sort of CHANCE, by definition. You are looking at it from an erroneous viewpoint. It is not the sperm alone that determmines whether it wins the battle, it is the sperm. the time period, the presence of infection then or previously, the presence of contraceptives, the orgasmic response of the man and the woman, the presence of other males sperm in the vagina, the interaction of sperm with the environment they are ejaculated into and the egg they seek. It is a combination of various CHANCES. Some sperm may have more of a CHANCE than others, but the next day, when conditions are different, the CHANCES will be different, and other sperm might be better suited. "One more thing, the world or the universe doesn't depend on you being born or not tashawaa, but it does depend on the early expansion rate for example. Out of 200 million sperms, it really doesn't matter who reaches the egg. Do you understand the differnence?, any sperm would be the winner, but only one expansion rate can be the winner."
Okay, to make this a valid point, then prove that life could not arrise in a Universe with differing physical constants or early development. It's not a fair question, I know, as you can't, but you need to realise this and not make statements that are essentially meaningless.
"And if you didn't notice, the anthropic principle doesn't, I repeat, doesn't involve a diety to explain the mystery.
Next time, read what the question was about before throwing around accusations."
You said; "It looks to me like this man doesn't deny the possibility of a diety, and he is a respected scientist, no creation-pseudo-nonsens-scientist. I find it very compeling. What are your thoughs?"
You seem to think the writer is arguing in favour of god - simply because of a sentence where the writer says "One supposition that cannot be disproved is that a benevolent deity so designed the world". You ignore the concluding "... if there are infinitely many alterative universes, then there is no mystery in finding ourselves in one that permits our presence." When someone else says what they think, it's an accusation? huh?
Who pi$$ed in your Cherios (sp?)?
greven

abbadon,
your reasoning is flawless! I really enjoyed reading your posts!
just had to say it!
Greven
Nowhere

Well...adaddon... (Satan?)
First, my intension is not to be rude to anyone, my apologies.
Ok, let me now explain basic probability. With a dice, you have a probability of 1/6 to hit 6. That means, it is more likely that you don't hit 6.
Ok, now, if the chance of something is very small, that means it is not very likely that it will happen.
Back to the dice, if you throw the dice 10 times in a row, the probability that 6 doesn't show up at least ones is only about 1/6 (in fact 16.15%). Did you see what happened? If you throw the dice 10 times, or throw 10 dices at once, it is likely to get at least one 6.
What does that mean to the universe? It means, if this isn't the first or if this is just one of many universes, there isn't such a mystery why the probability seems to be so small. Sooner or later it is going to happen.
But you cling to the theory of a very very unlikely scenario. Why?
You also wanted to know why our universe has to be unique. Well, if it isn't unique, we still want to know why our universe isn't unique. Why is G the value we know? Why isn't the gravitational constant higher or lower? A theory of everything would explain that. It would show why G doesn't have a different value.
We already know that human life isn't unique. We could have evolved in a different direction, or another sperm could have won the race, and we have a theory of evolution that to some extent explains how the evolution of human beings was possible, and how it might have happened. And it DOES NOT depend on pure chance to explain it!
Today we have a quantum field theory that explains how the universe behaves, but doesn't answer the question why. A theory of everything would explain why.
I'll explain the sperm to you once more. Your explanation depends on the statement that only one sperm is the winner. To me, any sperm can be the winner, and it doesn't matter if A or B or C wins, the result would be the same. But, I believe that there is a one and only possible universe (for life), only one winner, but here you turn around and tells me that any universe can be the winner, and we are here due to pure chance, that life could have evolved from any universe.
If the universe is unique, the theory of everything is what we have to hope for, if not, then the anthropic principle is the most logical explanation. Do you understand? I see that you are satisfied with the explanation that we are here due to pure chance, I am not, that is not an explanation. I believe there is an explanation for all this. And the anthropic principle migh be just that explanation, and it is very compelling. Then we don't have to wonder why we are here, the answer would be that there is no other alternative. And for me, a diety is something that explaines why there is a universe in the first place. It does not explain why the universe is as we know it.
//N
Tashawaa

Abaddon (angel) - thanks for seeing my point, some folks on this board are "obsessed with sperm" and still don't get the point... perhaps "A" should have made it instead of "C" and then we'd see how important it is... I'm wondering if Nowhere believes a "soul" enters the fertilized egg (hmmmm), if so I could see how it doesn't matter.
Nowhere - "And the anthropic principle migh be just that explanation, and it is very compelling. Then we don't have to wonder why we are here, the answer would be that there is no other alternative. And for me, a diety is something that explaines why there is a universe in the first place. It does not explain why the universe is as we know it."
I respect your "for me, a diety explains why there is a universe", thinking. My thinking is, why wonder beyond the reality of life - you need an invisible to expain the reality (a diety, multiple universes THEORY). Then you're hooped. It may satisfy some for short while, but then others may begin asking "Who created the diety?" "What were the conditions that allow/ed for his existence?" or "Was there a 'Big Bang' that caused all the multiple universes?" "Were there multiple/multiple universes?" I have a headache.
Ahhh, Abaddon - I do believe that all life wonders about the conditions that permit it to live. I know my cats ponder "if the food wasn't crunchy and given to me daily, the toilet seat left up so I could drink cold fresh water, the house temp. kept to a chilly 69C" (oops)... I'm degressing - can't get that damn sperm out of my head.

THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

Share this