5 ms·

Ok lets end this anthropic principle crap now

11 points by samh 17y ago

albertsun 17y ago
It sounds like what he's talking about is the weak anthropic principle, that if the universe were any other way we wouldn't be here and able to observe it, and so it must be that way. The pebble analogy doesn't really hold true for that.
- viraptor 17y ago
  > The pebble analogy doesn't really hold true for that. I'm actually interested in why you think that analogy doesn't hold true. (apart from the last bit about fireball - it makes the same mistake as the one he complains about) I would generalise the behaviour to: Pick object X and its property Y after you confirmed that property. Be amazed because of Y. claim that Z must exist based on only that one sample. X ∈ (earth, pebble), Y ∈ (sustains life, specific dimension), Z = power that caused X to have Y Am I missing something here?
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- IsaacSchlueter 17y ago
  Agreed. It's not clear if the OP knows what "anthropomorphic" means. It's not the same as "anthropic".
  - samh 17y ago
    I meant anthropic, and have changed the post and link title.
- IsaacSchlueter 17y ago
  Agreed. It's not clear of the OP knows what "anthropomorphic" means. It's not the same as "anthropic". The anthropic principle is actually an explanation for the irrational amazement he's complaining about.
- gort 17y ago
  Yes, the weak anthropic principle as originally formulated by Carter is just this: "We must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers." This is obviously true - we don't inhabit a random location in the universe, which is mostly empty space. We inhabit a rather unusual location, planet Earth. There's nothing particularly mysterious about this. What I take from the WAP is that it's possible there are vast swathes of reality that we can't possibly observe, because observers can't exist there.
gort 17y ago
"He then thinks, Wow the chances of me picking up a pebble at random that has this weight and this diameter are tiny" Meh. The difference between anthropic thinking and the pebble example is that, without the universe being the way it is, I wouldn't even be here to see it. This is a relevant difference. ETA: Another relevant difference is this: the amazing thing is not that the universe has precisely the physical constants that it has. The amazing thing is that it has any physical constants suitable for conscious observers.
- mquander 17y ago
  Not if you rephrase the argument. Regarding the pebble, one might say that no matter which pebble he chose, its measurements would be unique and equally "unlikely." Similarly, no matter which universe we could ever observe ourselves in, it would have equally "unlikely" parameters enabling us to live in it.
  - samh 17y ago
    Yep That's the crux of it.
  - gort 17y ago
    "no matter which universe we could ever observe ourselves in" But you can't just assume that our existence is necessary. We might not have existed at all.
    - samh 17y ago
      Any universe in which a thinking being exists will be suited to the existence of that thinking being. No one can claim "isn't it suprising that the universe suits me" because anyone who can say it, can say it :)
      - jibiki 17y ago
        Any universe in which I win powerball 10 times in a row will be suited to me winning powerball 10 times in a row. I can't claim "isn't it suprising that I won powerball 10 times in a row" because anyone who can say it, can say it :)
teilo 17y ago
What this says to me is that the argument is fruitless, whether you are an IDer, or a "new athiest". So let's stop using it.
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  Except that the argument is used as part of science not just religious discussions.
samh 17y ago
I modified the title to Anthropic on the post and here.
boredguy8 17y ago
I thought this was going to be a post about people who over-use "Information wants to be free/anthropomporphized." That would have been worth reading, perhaps. Clearly NHN
nopassrecover 17y ago
This has been a personal bugbear of mine for a while. The anthropic principle is science's equivalent of the "God did it" card and is invoked anytime people test the limits of existing models. Take for example this extract from the wiki article(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) Roger Penrose explained the weak form as follows: "The argument can be used to explain why the conditions happen to be just right for the existence of (intelligent) life on the earth at the present time. For if they were not just right, then we should not have found ourselves to be here now, but somewhere else, at some other appropriate time. This principle was used very effectively by Brandon Carter and Robert Dicke to resolve an issue that had puzzled physicists for a good many years. The issue concerned various striking numerical relations that are observed to hold between the physical constants (the gravitational constant, the mass of the proton, the age of the universe, etc.). A puzzling aspect of this was that some of the relations hold only at the present epoch in the earth's history, so we appear, coincidentally, to be living at a very special time (give or take a few million years!). This was later explained, by Carter and Dicke, by the fact that this epoch coincided with the lifetime of what are called main-sequence stars, such as the sun. At any other epoch, so the argument ran, there would be no intelligent life around in order to measure the physical constants in question-so the coincidence had to hold, simply because there would be intelligent life around only at the particular time that the coincidence did hold!" The Emperor's New Mind, Chapter 10 Rather than create a model of how this coincidence occurs, it is simply ignored as "well it had to occur or we couldn't talk about it". For example, this coincidence may occur because we somehow derive our relational understandings and measurements from universal constants in the first place. You can certainly derive something from the fact that we (life) exist but when you explain away observations with a simple "well we couldnt be here to talk about it otherwise" you are implying one of the following: 1. There is a design to the universe 2. The universe as it is is inevitable 3. Every possible combination of variables has existed or does exist and we are simply the result of the law of large numbers. Either way there is some burden of proof.
praptak 17y ago
The king went through a village and was amazed to see shooting targets painted everywhere - fences, walls, trees. Exactly in the middle of each target was an arrow. "Wow, the greatest archer in the whole kingdom must live here" thought the King to himself. Soon he spotted a man carrying a bow and some arrows. Pointing to the targets and arrows the King asked the man "Have you shot all of them?". "Yes" replied the man. "How did you manage to do that?" "Simple" replied the man "It's not that hard if you shoot before painting the target."
hc 17y ago
i'd say you nailed it here

11 points by samh 17y ago

It sounds like what he's talking about is the weak anthropic principle, that if the universe were any other way we wouldn't be here and able to observe it, and so it must be that way. The pebble analogy doesn't really hold true for that.

viraptor 17y ago
> The pebble analogy doesn't really hold true for that. I'm actually interested in why you think that analogy doesn't hold true. (apart from the last bit about fireball - it makes the same mistake as the one he complains about) I would generalise the behaviour to: Pick object X and its property Y after you confirmed that property. Be amazed because of Y. claim that Z must exist based on only that one sample. X ∈ (earth, pebble), Y ∈ (sustains life, specific dimension), Z = power that caused X to have Y Am I missing something here?
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
IsaacSchlueter 17y ago
Agreed. It's not clear if the OP knows what "anthropomorphic" means. It's not the same as "anthropic".
- samh 17y ago
  I meant anthropic, and have changed the post and link title.
IsaacSchlueter 17y ago
Agreed. It's not clear of the OP knows what "anthropomorphic" means. It's not the same as "anthropic". The anthropic principle is actually an explanation for the irrational amazement he's complaining about.
gort 17y ago
Yes, the weak anthropic principle as originally formulated by Carter is just this: "We must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers." This is obviously true - we don't inhabit a random location in the universe, which is mostly empty space. We inhabit a rather unusual location, planet Earth. There's nothing particularly mysterious about this. What I take from the WAP is that it's possible there are vast swathes of reality that we can't possibly observe, because observers can't exist there.

gort 17y ago

"He then thinks, Wow the chances of me picking up a pebble at random that has this weight and this diameter are tiny" Meh. The difference between anthropic thinking and the pebble example is that, without the universe being the way it is, I wouldn't even be here to see it. This is a relevant difference. ETA: Another relevant difference is this: the amazing thing is not that the universe has precisely the physical constants that it has. The amazing thing is that it has any physical constants suitable for conscious observers.

mquander 17y ago
Not if you rephrase the argument. Regarding the pebble, one might say that no matter which pebble he chose, its measurements would be unique and equally "unlikely." Similarly, no matter which universe we could ever observe ourselves in, it would have equally "unlikely" parameters enabling us to live in it.
- samh 17y ago
  Yep That's the crux of it.
- gort 17y ago
  "no matter which universe we could ever observe ourselves in" But you can't just assume that our existence is necessary. We might not have existed at all.
  - samh 17y ago
    Any universe in which a thinking being exists will be suited to the existence of that thinking being. No one can claim "isn't it suprising that the universe suits me" because anyone who can say it, can say it :)
    - jibiki 17y ago
      Any universe in which I win powerball 10 times in a row will be suited to me winning powerball 10 times in a row. I can't claim "isn't it suprising that I won powerball 10 times in a row" because anyone who can say it, can say it :)

teilo 17y ago

What this says to me is that the argument is fruitless, whether you are an IDer, or a "new athiest". So let's stop using it.

nopassrecover 17y ago
Except that the argument is used as part of science not just religious discussions.

samh 17y ago

I modified the title to Anthropic on the post and here.

boredguy8 17y ago

I thought this was going to be a post about people who over-use "Information wants to be free/anthropomporphized." That would have been worth reading, perhaps. Clearly NHN

nopassrecover 17y ago

This has been a personal bugbear of mine for a while. The anthropic principle is science's equivalent of the "God did it" card and is invoked anytime people test the limits of existing models. Take for example this extract from the wiki article(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) Roger Penrose explained the weak form as follows: "The argument can be used to explain why the conditions happen to be just right for the existence of (intelligent) life on the earth at the present time. For if they were not just right, then we should not have found ourselves to be here now, but somewhere else, at some other appropriate time. This principle was used very effectively by Brandon Carter and Robert Dicke to resolve an issue that had puzzled physicists for a good many years. The issue concerned various striking numerical relations that are observed to hold between the physical constants (the gravitational constant, the mass of the proton, the age of the universe, etc.). A puzzling aspect of this was that some of the relations hold only at the present epoch in the earth's history, so we appear, coincidentally, to be living at a very special time (give or take a few million years!). This was later explained, by Carter and Dicke, by the fact that this epoch coincided with the lifetime of what are called main-sequence stars, such as the sun. At any other epoch, so the argument ran, there would be no intelligent life around in order to measure the physical constants in question-so the coincidence had to hold, simply because there would be intelligent life around only at the particular time that the coincidence did hold!" The Emperor's New Mind, Chapter 10 Rather than create a model of how this coincidence occurs, it is simply ignored as "well it had to occur or we couldn't talk about it". For example, this coincidence may occur because we somehow derive our relational understandings and measurements from universal constants in the first place. You can certainly derive something from the fact that we (life) exist but when you explain away observations with a simple "well we couldnt be here to talk about it otherwise" you are implying one of the following: 1. There is a design to the universe 2. The universe as it is is inevitable 3. Every possible combination of variables has existed or does exist and we are simply the result of the law of large numbers. Either way there is some burden of proof.

praptak 17y ago

The king went through a village and was amazed to see shooting targets painted everywhere - fences, walls, trees. Exactly in the middle of each target was an arrow. "Wow, the greatest archer in the whole kingdom must live here" thought the King to himself. Soon he spotted a man carrying a bow and some arrows. Pointing to the targets and arrows the King asked the man "Have you shot all of them?". "Yes" replied the man. "How did you manage to do that?" "Simple" replied the man "It's not that hard if you shoot before painting the target."

hc 17y ago

i'd say you nailed it here