4 ms·

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

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.

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.