Anthropic Principle

[Homuncul]

The term anthropic principle was first introduced by B. Carter in a 1974 publication of the International Astronomical Union. In 1983, Carter claimed that, in its original form, the principle was meant only to caution astrophysicists and cosmologists of possible errors in the interpretation of astronomical and cosmological data unless the biological restraints of the observer were taken into account. In 1983 he also included the warning that the inverse was true for evolutionary biologists; Carter claimed that in interpreting the evolutionary record, one must take into account the astrophysical restraints of the process. Working with this in mind, Carter concluded that the evolutionary chain probably included one or two highly improbable links given the available time interval

 

There are two categories for anthropic principle:

 

the "Weak Anthropic Principle," which simply states that the existence of human life places limits on the laws of physics and physical constants that we will be able to observe. In this interpretation, the only restriction placed on the observable universe is that it be capable of producing observers; many variations may be possible.

 

the "Strong Anthropic Principle," which states that our observable universe must be the only type of universe capable of evolving observers.

 

Agree with one or argue them

 

There are many questions that can be elaborated from here:

 

- Is AP valid at all?

- Does AP put limitation on what we can know about reality?

- Does AP is a justification for existence of a designer?

[Homuncul]

Also try this page:

 

http://www.winternet.com/~gmcdavid/html_dir/anthropic.html

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Homuncul

the "Weak Anthropic Principle," which simply states that the existence of human life places limits on the laws of physics and physical constants that we will be able to observe. In this interpretation, the only restriction placed on the observable universe is that it be capable of producing observers; many variations may be possible.

 

This is intuitively obvious. The fact that we can observe the universe means that the universe must be capable of producing us, meaning, in turn, that certain requirements must be met. There is nothing in this to say, however, that it is not possible to construct a theoretical universe that does not obey these rules. Such a universe, however, would never be described by inhabitants, simply because it would never spawn inhabitants.

 

the "Strong Anthropic Principle," which states that our observable universe must be the only type of universe capable of evolving observers.

 

This is unsupported conjecture.

 

One aspect of this is that the Principle asserts that there is something special about our place in the universe. The example above shows that we must live in a particular segment of cosmic history. This goes against the general trend of science since Copernicus; that there is nothing special about our place. This makes a lot of scientists uncomfortable, but I think it is hard to dispute.

 

Imagine a steel ball falling from a cliff. This steel ball will reach a certain velocity (v1) at a certain time (t1) and a certain height (s1), and then it will reach a certain greater velocity (v2) at some later point (s2) and time (t2). If we make the small approximation that air resistance does not affect the fall, it will never reach those velocities at any other heights, nor at any other times during the fall from the top of the cliff. Let us say that we have placed a machine in the ball, that starts operating the moment the ball falls with a velocity v=v1, and stops at the point where v=v2. It then follows logically that the machine has a window of operation stretching from s1 to s2 in space and from t1 to t2 in time.

 

What the quote above states is that the time and place defined by s1, s2, t1, and t2 is 'special' compared to the rest of the fall. From the perspective of gravity, it's not. From the perspective of the ball, it is not. From the perspective of the outside observer, it is not. But from the perspective of the machine, it is very, very special.

 

s1 and t1 in the above analogy would correspond to the time and place of the forming of human life, and s2 and t2 would correspond to the end of aforementioned human life. The fall would be the history of the Universe, and the machine in the ball would be Man.

 

Hope this helped , ShadowTemplar - Templar of No God, Champion of No Cause.