Ok lets end this anthropic principle crap now
samonsoftware.com
samonsoftware.com
The pebble analogy doesn't really hold true for that.
"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.
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?
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.
It's not clear if the OP knows what "anthropomorphic" means. It's not the same as "anthropic".
Take for example this extract from the wiki article(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
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.
"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."
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.
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.
But you can't just assume that our existence is necessary. We might not have existed at all.
No one can claim "isn't it suprising that the universe suits me" because anyone who can say it, can say it :)
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 :)
Do you find the results of last 10 powerball runs surprising?
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).
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.
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.
Clearly NHN