4 ms·

> Is there a better answer to “Why am I not in intergalactic space right now?” than “life can’t form in the emptiness of space”? Putting aside a) the fact that

> Is there a better answer to “Why am I not in intergalactic space right now?” than “life can’t form in the emptiness of space”? Putting aside a) the fact that there are a few people who suspect that life did (or could) start in the emptiness of space, b) the possibility of Boltzmann Brains, and c) that in your original post, you claimed that "there are plenty of mundane coincidences that have no other answer [than the anthropic principle]" [my emphasis], there are better arguments for why we do not find ourselves in the emptiness of intergalactic space, based on what we know of the complexity of both our bodies and of the biological environment they require to sustain them, what it took for all this to evolve, and the thermodynamic improbability of such assemblages forming in intergalactic space. This is a better answer because, instead of taking “life can’t form in the emptiness of space” as an axiom, it explains why in terms of more general principles. In fact, without some sort of explanation, your claim that “life can’t form in the emptiness of space” would be a speculative non-answer (ironically, the rest of your comment here is a demonstration of what I am saying: you are using these better explanations to justify this claim!) Similarly, the precise value of the fine structure constant (and even that there is such a thing) would not even be recognized as an issue if it were not for our understanding of how much is dependent on it. Clearly, we did not, and could not have, reached that level of understanding by invoking the anthropic principle in response to all the "why is...?" questions that came up along the way (for example, "Why do the chemical elements have the properties that allow life to form from them?" "Because if they did not, we would not be here.") It is only when we reach the end of our current ability to explain that the anthropic principle is invoked.

goodside 6y ago
“Life can’t form in the emptiness of space” obviously isn’t a fundamental axiom. I’m not sure why you think I was claiming that. I even caveated with “less likely” with Boltzmann brains in mind — the probability is never exactly zero. And nobody seriously believes that life on Earth started in intergalactic space, meaning outside of the Milky Way entirely. How would it even get here? Even the most exotic theories require some non-trivial density of matter for life to form. Nobody believes life was actually “Boltzmann-brained” into existence from a literal void — those are very distinct levels of implausible, and both are distractions from the issue at hand. My point is that however specific your arguments are for exactly why life forming in intergalactic void is impossible (or “vastly unlikely” if you want to be pedantic), if you reject the notion that you should only expect to find yourself in places where life is possible (or “not vastly unlikely”), what does it matter? By appealing to the particular reasons why intergalactic space is inhospitable to life, you’re implicitly assuming that the plausibility of life is somehow pertinent to what conditions we should expect to observe in our local environment, given that we exist. That assumption is the anthropic principle.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  > “Life can’t form in the emptiness of space” obviously isn’t a fundamental axiom. I’m not sure why you think I was claiming that. I am not claiming you said that, I am pointing out that there are better answers (more fundamental, more specific) than “life can’t form in the emptiness of space” to the question “why am I not in intergalactic space right now?”, which is what you asked for in the post I was replying to. Note that when people begin a sentence "Putting aside..." they do so precisely because they do not think the things being put aside are relevant to the discussion. > By appealing to the particular reasons why intergalactic space is inhospitable to life, you’re implicitly assuming that the plausibility of life is somehow pertinent to what conditions we should expect to observe in our local environment, given that we exist. That assumption is the anthropic principle. This is, to put it mildly, a highly idiosyncratic definition of the anthropic principle, which does not seem to accord with the usual definitions of either the strong or weak anthropic principle, as given, for example, in Wikipedia [1]. Both versions of the anthropic principle are explicitly cosmological ones, and you appear to be trying to extend it to cover more mundane issues. The problem with your attempt to do so is that, as discussed previously at some length, there are better explanations for the cases you have given, that do not depend on the anthropic principle. As an additional premise, your extended AP is unnecessary; these better explanations have no need of it, while still yeilding more fundamental and specific explanations than your extended AP can. As an alternative explanation, your extended AP is inferior, as you demonstrated when you resorted to the better explanations in an attempt to justify your use of it! Furthermore, several of your examples are trivial, in that no-one seriously thinks that the scenarios you present are feasible; invoking a somewhat epistemologically-suspect cosmological principle to tackle them is like using a sledgehammer (with a loose head!) to crack a nut. Your cases may be consistent with your extended AP, but that does not make it the best explanation of them, let alone that they have no other answer, as you claimed in your original post. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    I think the disagreement here is about the idea that you can explain a huge collection of phenomenon by saying "anthropic principle", or you can use logic and math to reduce them all to a few root phenomena that are explainable by "anthropic principle".

goodside 6y ago

“Life can’t form in the emptiness of space” obviously isn’t a fundamental axiom. I’m not sure why you think I was claiming that. I even caveated with “less likely” with Boltzmann brains in mind — the probability is never exactly zero. And nobody seriously believes that life on Earth started in intergalactic space, meaning outside of the Milky Way entirely. How would it even get here? Even the most exotic theories require some non-trivial density of matter for life to form. Nobody believes life was actually “Boltzmann-brained” into existence from a literal void — those are very distinct levels of implausible, and both are distractions from the issue at hand. My point is that however specific your arguments are for exactly why life forming in intergalactic void is impossible (or “vastly unlikely” if you want to be pedantic), if you reject the notion that you should only expect to find yourself in places where life is possible (or “not vastly unlikely”), what does it matter? By appealing to the particular reasons why intergalactic space is inhospitable to life, you’re implicitly assuming that the plausibility of life is somehow pertinent to what conditions we should expect to observe in our local environment, given that we exist. That assumption is the anthropic principle.

mannykannot 6y ago
> “Life can’t form in the emptiness of space” obviously isn’t a fundamental axiom. I’m not sure why you think I was claiming that. I am not claiming you said that, I am pointing out that there are better answers (more fundamental, more specific) than “life can’t form in the emptiness of space” to the question “why am I not in intergalactic space right now?”, which is what you asked for in the post I was replying to. Note that when people begin a sentence "Putting aside..." they do so precisely because they do not think the things being put aside are relevant to the discussion. > By appealing to the particular reasons why intergalactic space is inhospitable to life, you’re implicitly assuming that the plausibility of life is somehow pertinent to what conditions we should expect to observe in our local environment, given that we exist. That assumption is the anthropic principle. This is, to put it mildly, a highly idiosyncratic definition of the anthropic principle, which does not seem to accord with the usual definitions of either the strong or weak anthropic principle, as given, for example, in Wikipedia [1]. Both versions of the anthropic principle are explicitly cosmological ones, and you appear to be trying to extend it to cover more mundane issues. The problem with your attempt to do so is that, as discussed previously at some length, there are better explanations for the cases you have given, that do not depend on the anthropic principle. As an additional premise, your extended AP is unnecessary; these better explanations have no need of it, while still yeilding more fundamental and specific explanations than your extended AP can. As an alternative explanation, your extended AP is inferior, as you demonstrated when you resorted to the better explanations in an attempt to justify your use of it! Furthermore, several of your examples are trivial, in that no-one seriously thinks that the scenarios you present are feasible; invoking a somewhat epistemologically-suspect cosmological principle to tackle them is like using a sledgehammer (with a loose head!) to crack a nut. Your cases may be consistent with your extended AP, but that does not make it the best explanation of them, let alone that they have no other answer, as you claimed in your original post. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  I think the disagreement here is about the idea that you can explain a huge collection of phenomenon by saying "anthropic principle", or you can use logic and math to reduce them all to a few root phenomena that are explainable by "anthropic principle".