3 ms·
"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 thi
by 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 agoNot 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 agoYep 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 agoAny 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 agoAny 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 :)
- dablya 17y agoDo you know how unlikely you are to win 10 times in a row? The odds of you winning 10 times in a row are exactly the same as the odds demonstrated by the results of the last 10 times powerball was run. Do you find the results of last 10 powerball runs surprising?
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- nopassrecover 17y agoWait I think I misinterpreted both of or you just switched sides. samh is now for the anthropic principle (things are the way they are because they are). while gort is now against the anthropic principle (you can't assume existence is necessary, so explain why we are here).
- nopassrecover 17y agoNo, the difference is not relevant. Just because it affects you doesn't make it more scientifically valid. This is akin to saying that life had to produce intelligent primates because I am an intelligent primate.
- gort 17y agoI disagree. What I believe is that, if some conceivable universes could support conscious observers, and some couldn't, this is an interesting fact which warrants further discussion. I see 5 possibilities: 1. It was an unlikely fluke. The universe had to have some properties, and it happened to have these ones. 2. It was a likely fluke. Many of the conceivable universes actually would support conscious observers of some sort. 3. There's some deep physical reason why the universe had to have the properties it has. 4. God did it. 5. Multiple universes exist, drastically raising the odds that conscious observers exist somewhere.
- nopassrecover 17y agoYeah I agree with you, I think I misunderstood you. See my other comments in this thread.
- amalcon 17y agoYou would not, but it's entirely possible that something else could be. The analogy is not man:pebble::you:universe. The analogy is man:pebble::universe:you. If the man had, by happenstance, picked up a different pebble, the current pebble would not be there (in the man's hand). If the universe had, by happenstance, slightly different constants, you would not be there (in the universe). Something else might be, but then, it might not: we really can't figure that out. The weak anthropic principle is basically survivor bias on an enormous scale.