4 ms·

> This is the exact opposite of the Anthropic Principle, which says (correctly) that we cannot deduce anything about the probability of life originating from th

> This is the exact opposite of the Anthropic Principle, which says (correctly) that we cannot deduce anything about the probability of life originating from the fact of our own existence. Your definition of the Anthropic Principle seems to clash with the Wikipedia definition [1], which states: > The anthropic principle is the philosophical premise that any data we collect about the universe is filtered by the fact that, in order for it to be observable at all, the universe must have been compatible with the emergence of conscious and sapient life that observes it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle Also you use the word "correctly" for your definition, but as it isn't self-evident, some sort of proof should probably be required.

cthalupa 6y ago
Well, even within the wikipedia article you see quite a few definitions under 'variants'. It's also nearly a word for word copy of how it is defined in contrast to the mediocrity principle ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle ) Either way, his point is fundamentally pretty close to even the WAP definition in the summary. I think it's fairly self evident, though. If there is only one set of observers in the entirety of the observable universe, those observers would be inaccurate in assuming that they are unlikely to be special because they exist and therefor others likely to as well. We just can't make a deduction about the probability of life based on the fact we exist, because for us to make that observation we have to exist, regardless of (im)probable it was. You can reach the same conclusion just thinking about selection bias - we have selected for intelligent life out of necessity, because if we hadn't, we couldn't be around to make the argument either way.

cthalupa 6y ago

Well, even within the wikipedia article you see quite a few definitions under 'variants'. It's also nearly a word for word copy of how it is defined in contrast to the mediocrity principle ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle ) Either way, his point is fundamentally pretty close to even the WAP definition in the summary. I think it's fairly self evident, though. If there is only one set of observers in the entirety of the observable universe, those observers would be inaccurate in assuming that they are unlikely to be special because they exist and therefor others likely to as well. We just can't make a deduction about the probability of life based on the fact we exist, because for us to make that observation we have to exist, regardless of (im)probable it was. You can reach the same conclusion just thinking about selection bias - we have selected for intelligent life out of necessity, because if we hadn't, we couldn't be around to make the argument either way.