Nowhere, where in the world did you equate a theory of everything with the Universe being explained by the anthropic principle?
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'm sorry Nowhere. I understand the subject you are talking about quite well. But the above linkage escapes me.
The TOE could show there are multiple Universes, and that there is 'room' for every probability in them, and the fact we happen to be in one where we can say "fancy that, we exist" is just a dumb fact without hidden meaning.
The TOE could show that the Universe had to be this way, or near this way, and that therefore the fact we happen to be here to say "fancy that, we exist" is just a dumb fact without hidden meaning.
The TOE could show that the Universe could only be this way, and that the fact we happen to be here to say "fancy that, we exist" is just a dumb fact without hidden meaning.
Us being here means nothing no matter what the TOE says.
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?
... doesn't make sense. You are saying that it is sooner or later going to happen, AND that it is a very very unlikely scenario? If something is sooner or later going to happen, the probability is one divided by the number of possible outcomes. Probability=1. 100%. 1 in 1. A cert.
So you ask, why? and I ask "why you ask why?" "It bleedin' obious", (sorry, had a boss who spoke like that... "why ask why, go do, if you no ask you have done by now!"). I believe that because it seems likely in the absense of any proof of a teleological Universe (from human standpoint) that the Universe is as it seems. Sans dieu. Inferring meaning in apparent design is speculation without knowledge of the variables involved.
For me it's Occam's Razor - the simplest explaination is most likely to be true.
Either there is a disinterested creator thingumy, which we can't prove, or there is no creator thingumy.
All the theories about interested creator thingumies fall over on the basis of internal logic alone, before you get to the complete and total lack of evidence of any reliable form throughout the whole of human history of any creator thingumy being anything other than a nice idea, something to scare the children with, a way of dealing with misery by concerted make-believe, or a damn good way to become rich and powerful.
And all of them rely on interior proof to answer the question of lack of proof from a concerned creator thingy, which I believe is a reasonable thing to expect, otherwise it becomes internalised with no probvable 'right', as many of many beliefs claim this same internalised proof, and often disagree with other people who also have internal proofs. To not provide proof is to allow chaos, and contradicts the concept of a caring creator.
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.
Not any Universe. If you thought I implied that, I'm sorry. We can only speculate about how likely our Universe is. What we can do is point out that there is life in places we thought impossible in our Universe (the tiny little bit we've looked at), and that just 'cause we can't think of what it might be like, doesn't mean that there may or may not be life elsewhere in conditions in this Universe allows that would not support our species.
We also cannot exclude the possibility of life able to ask itself the same questions as we do in Universes we would similary not be able to live in. As both quantities are unknown, it is all speculation, or as you describe it, belief.
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.
Nah, I believe we're here due to probabilities. Lots of them.
I believe there is an explanation for all this.
You can, it's okay. But you don't have proof, and the lack is a logical problem inescapable without internal proof.
Brilliant article, very funny!