5 ms·
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,
by 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 agoIt 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 agoI 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 agoAP 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.