4 ms·

Isn't this just a form of "survivor bias"? I don't get why anthropic arguments are considered "weak". The article seems to just be complaining that anthropic

Isn't this just a form of "survivor bias"? I don't get why anthropic arguments are considered "weak". The article seems to just be complaining that anthropic arguments cannot explain the precise _value_ of the fine structure constant. Well, nor can Occam's Razor, but we don't seem to have a problem quoting that!

rbanffy 6y ago
My understanding is that they are an attempt to explain away something that may or may not be random. We wouldn't be debating it if the universe were substantially different, but that doesn't explain why the universe we observe is the way it is.
- m4r35n357 6y ago
  OK fair enough, to me the opposition to the weak AP just seems to be people "unhappy" that a physical constant should need to be that precise. In other words, for some reason they expect the universe to be more "understandable" or "sensible" than this . . . Of course the strong AP is ludicrous in the extreme ;)
  - XorNot 6y ago
    It wraps up a concern that there are these seemingly random constants in our models that don't seem to be a product of our measurement system. There's no number system you can invent where the fundamental constants turn into simple integers or have obvious ratios. So why do they have those values? What gave them those values? The anthropic principle is disliked because it rejects further inquiry and progress.
    - greatquux 6y ago
      I don't think we can reject it though. We may not / shouldn't "like" it, and we can sort of shove it to the background and try to come up with other explanations or theories that are more explanatory, but we do have to acknowledge that at least the weak form does make a kind of sense and we can't ignore it.
      - rbanffy 6y ago
        AP can't really make sense because it doesn't explain anything. We know a universe with our values works because we are observing one. Any set of values that "work" in this sense will have someone to make the same observation. Unfortunately, that doesn't explain how these values are generated. That is the important question.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >OK fair enough, to me the opposition to the weak AP just seems to be people "unhappy" that a physical constant should need to be that precise. No, their opposition is to the fact that a physical constant is a mere accident, a mere facet coming with the universe as a set, and not explained by some more fundamental mechanism.
- Rury 6y ago
  More like it's an attempt to answer nonsensical questions like: "why are apples... apples?" And anthropic arguments are like: "if they weren't apples, then they wouldn't be apples..."
catawbasam 6y ago
I don't think it is just survivor bias, since the claim applies to all life as we understand it and not just life in human form. "Anthropic Principle" is kind of a poor name for it.
coldtea 6y ago
>Well, nor can Occam's Razor, but we don't seem to have a problem quoting that! Well, Occam's Razor is just a heuristic, not a logical necessity. Sometimes the more complex answer is actually the correct.
Keysh 6y ago
Well, nor can Occam's Razor, but we don't seem to have a problem quoting that! Occam's Razor is not an argument or explanation. It's a heuristic for discriminating among different arguments/explanations. And anthropic arguments amount to "there isn't any explanation for the precise value of the fine structure constant!" Or "you should just give up trying to explain why it has the value it has!"

rbanffy 6y ago

My understanding is that they are an attempt to explain away something that may or may not be random. We wouldn't be debating it if the universe were substantially different, but that doesn't explain why the universe we observe is the way it is.

m4r35n357 6y ago
OK fair enough, to me the opposition to the weak AP just seems to be people "unhappy" that a physical constant should need to be that precise. In other words, for some reason they expect the universe to be more "understandable" or "sensible" than this . . . Of course the strong AP is ludicrous in the extreme ;)
- XorNot 6y ago
  It wraps up a concern that there are these seemingly random constants in our models that don't seem to be a product of our measurement system. There's no number system you can invent where the fundamental constants turn into simple integers or have obvious ratios. So why do they have those values? What gave them those values? The anthropic principle is disliked because it rejects further inquiry and progress.
  - greatquux 6y ago
    I don't think we can reject it though. We may not / shouldn't "like" it, and we can sort of shove it to the background and try to come up with other explanations or theories that are more explanatory, but we do have to acknowledge that at least the weak form does make a kind of sense and we can't ignore it.
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      AP can't really make sense because it doesn't explain anything. We know a universe with our values works because we are observing one. Any set of values that "work" in this sense will have someone to make the same observation. Unfortunately, that doesn't explain how these values are generated. That is the important question.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >OK fair enough, to me the opposition to the weak AP just seems to be people "unhappy" that a physical constant should need to be that precise. No, their opposition is to the fact that a physical constant is a mere accident, a mere facet coming with the universe as a set, and not explained by some more fundamental mechanism.
Rury 6y ago
More like it's an attempt to answer nonsensical questions like: "why are apples... apples?" And anthropic arguments are like: "if they weren't apples, then they wouldn't be apples..."

catawbasam 6y ago

I don't think it is just survivor bias, since the claim applies to all life as we understand it and not just life in human form. "Anthropic Principle" is kind of a poor name for it.

coldtea 6y ago

>Well, nor can Occam's Razor, but we don't seem to have a problem quoting that! Well, Occam's Razor is just a heuristic, not a logical necessity. Sometimes the more complex answer is actually the correct.

Keysh 6y ago

Well, nor can Occam's Razor, but we don't seem to have a problem quoting that! Occam's Razor is not an argument or explanation. It's a heuristic for discriminating among different arguments/explanations. And anthropic arguments amount to "there isn't any explanation for the precise value of the fine structure constant!" Or "you should just give up trying to explain why it has the value it has!"