Anthropic Principle

[otseng]

This topic is an offshoot from Does God exist or not? Since this topic is a huge area of debate, I'm making this have it's own thread.

So, the question of debate is...
Does the Anthropic Principle point to the existence of God?

First, let's give some definitions of the Anthropic Principle (AP).

Wikipedia:
"Any valid theory of the universe must be consistent with our existence as carbon-based human beings at this particular time and place in the universe."

Philosophy Pages:
"Belief that the existence of human life entails certain features of the physical world. In a minimal form, this view merely points out that we would not be here to observe natural phenomena were they not compatible with our existence. Stronger versions of the anthropic principle, however, seem to rely upon the idealistic notion that the universe could not exist without intelligent observers."

Augustine Fellowship:
"The observation that the universe has all the necessary and narrowly-defined characteristics to make man and his sustained existence possible. The view that the universe is conspicuously 'fine-tuned' for human existence. "

[Furrowed Brow]

The Flatness-Oldness Problem - The valued of Density leaves a very very small window of opportunity for the universe as we observes it to come into being. Any denser by a very very small degree and crunch, and less dense by a very very small degree and the universe balloons in a way that observation does not bear out. The value of this figure is then critical to any universe that is not a crunch universe nor a balloon universe.

Ive already debated this same point with 4gold and QED here. But we can go over it again. And perhaps I can put things better.

The critical density as observed pretty much singles out this universe as the only universe that is not crunch or balloon. But lets say that density is a different figure to the one observed. Causing the universe to be a crunch universe, or a balloon universe. If we then judge this alternative universe, and any universe where we changed the density value, by the density criteria, we shall always come to the same single conclusion. Our actual universe is unique. And that is the problemthis is not a valid analysis. For a proper assessment we do not compare alternatives by the very criteria that makes this universe look special. Instead we need to seek the criteria that might make the alternatives look special.

What we need is a way of quantifying the criteria which make all those other universe unique in their own way. So lets call the critical density figure of this universe x. Within all those other mathematically possible universe where x takes a different value, there may or may not be some other variable - call that variable w, y, z and so forth. These other variables are themselves set at a tipping point for some other characteristic manifested by the universe for which the value taken by that variable is critical. Which is to say, for instance, w might belong to a crunch universe, yet this particular crunch universe will be unique in some other respect. And analysed from a w perspective our x universe appears to be just one of zillions of alternatives that look just the same.

Now if every universe has it own critical variable I.e. w, x, y, z.. then x is not special at all. If the majority of the alternatives, but not all have a critical variable then x is just ordinary. The rarer the number of critical variables the more unique x appears. If x were the only critical variable then it really would be a wow!!! look that!! Number - damn we really are numerically special.

But at present no such analysis has been attempted let alone completed! Moreover if we reject all alternative universes as off limits because they cannot be observed, then the analysis can never get started. In either case, at present x stands alone without any context by which to evaluate its significance. Thus it is meaningless to cite the criticality of the density number as evidence of anything - other than the density as observed is critical for this universe appearing as it does. Which is to not say very much at all -and pretty much the weak anthropic principle.

The next step in the argument is to say something like ah but our universe is the only universe with life. And the response to that isso what. That observation does not complete the math. If the analysis is complete and there are zillions of alternative critical variables then we should ask why are we picking out life as a special case. And the answer to that will have nothing to do with improbability. However, we really dont know the answer to the math, so again picking out life as a special case again has nothing to do with the math.

What really is going on is that we are making an evaluation that life is special, finding some finely balanced number, and incorrectly deducing that that number demonstrates that life is special.

[QED]

Ive already debated this same point with 4gold and QED here. But we can go over it again. And perhaps I can put things better.

Thanks for reminding us of the debate in the Winning Life's Lotteries thread. Although it certainly appears to be technically correct I don't think your argument will overcome people's emotional objections enough for it to be compelling. I realise that this is a rather dopey kind of statement, but I can't see many people being able to decouple themselves sufficiently from their state of being to appreciate your point. I'm sure you'll want to slap me for this, but I think there's a far more accessible argument that gets the same results.

Anthropic means "relating to mankind" so I think all anthropic arguments get off to a bad start. We should be able to exchange mankind for anything at all in the universe without doing damage to the argument. Everything depends on the specifications of the universe yet how we define universe is problematic. If it means the collection of everything having an existence then we must accept that it is divided into visible and invisible portions.

So we can only talk about the specifications of a local, observable, portion of the universe (confusingly, this portion is often termed "the universe" as though it was all that exists!). It is unknown if the set of specifications for the observable universe are truly universal. That is, there may be other portions that have different specifications, and from that pool of possibility we may be able to extract our "lucky" ticket. "May be" doesn't impress people who want an unequivocal answer, but that's too bad. We can't simply reject the inherent uncertainty that lies in what exists beyond our actual (not potentially imaginary, but definitely real) horizon and base another unequivocal answer on that rejection. This new answer would take on all the uncertainty that was just rejected.

In short, we can't judge anything based on the apparent amount of luck involved unless we can see the "big picture" (that is, have knowledge of all contributing factors). This much should really be rather obvious, but it's very rare to be in a situation where the most significant potential factor is so obscured (i.e. we cannot see the cause of the big bang). This makes it very difficult to come up with a suitable analogy, which is probably why this matter still seems debatable to some. It really isn't.

[Confused]

This topic is an offshoot from Does God exist or not? Since this topic is a huge area of debate, I'm making this have it's own thread.

So, the question of debate is...
Does the Anthropic Principle point to the existence of God?

First, let's give some definitions of the Anthropic Principle (AP).

Wikipedia:
"Any valid theory of the universe must be consistent with our existence as carbon-based human beings at this particular time and place in the universe."

Philosophy Pages:
"Belief that the existence of human life entails certain features of the physical world. In a minimal form, this view merely points out that we would not be here to observe natural phenomena were they not compatible with our existence. Stronger versions of the anthropic principle, however, seem to rely upon the idealistic notion that the universe could not exist without intelligent observers."

Augustine Fellowship:
"The observation that the universe has all the necessary and narrowly-defined characteristics to make man and his sustained existence possible. The view that the universe is conspicuously 'fine-tuned' for human existence. "

Ok, so I admit I only quickly glanced at the preceding pages, so if this is redundant, please forgive me.

How do any of these provided definitions give any credence to a God? The closest one might derive it from is from Augustine but for his observation to be correct, he would have to show some support of it being anthropocentric rather than simply biocentric. To say God created the universe specifically for man cannot be supported. Genesis even has man being created last. Not first. So it would seem to make more sense that the universe was created for life as the ultimate reason. All forms of life were given directions to reproduce etc... The only special thing about man is He is created in the image of God. But that gives no special indication that the universe was created for man. If it was, shouldn't man have been created before beasts? Man didn't require beast to survive. Only vegetation, fruits, etc.... Man wasn't even given tools to hunt beasts. So why were they created first if the universe was anthropocentric?

[Furrowed Brow]

Thanks for reminding us of the debate in the Winning Life's Lotteries thread. Although it certainly appears to be technically correct I don't think your argument will overcome people's emotional objections enough for it to be compelling. I realise that this is a rather dopey kind of statement, but I can't see many people being able to decouple themselves sufficiently from their state of being to appreciate your point. I'm sure you'll want to slap me for this, but I think there's a far more accessible argument that gets the same results.

Well you're the first to say the point I'm making is correct QED . So that now makes two of us.

True its not the kind of argument that is going to win hearts, but I've really been trying to build an argument that shows the technical flaws with the fine tuning arguments that employ big improbabilities.

We should not let them do the math if they don't do it properly.

[Furrowed Brow]

The analogy that I see more apropos is the firing squad execution. A person is blindfolded and lined up to be shot. He hears "fire!" Then to his surprise, he did not get shot. He reasons, "I did not get shot because I'm here." If we stopped here, it would simply be a truism. But, suppose he finds out that there is a 0.0001% chance of each gunman to miss. And that 1000 gunmen shot at him. Then he can conclude either he got extremely lucky or that some sort of intervention happened. This is the main thrust of the AP argument. Either we got very lucky (which is highly improbable) or that some intelligent intervention happened.

The central point is that the analysis that backs up the fine tuning math has not been completed. As far as the firing squad analogy goes it is fine, but it fails to capture the full picture. Here is a more thorough analogy.

1 blindfolded prisoner x 1000 gunmen. Therefore chances of prisoner surviving very very small.
1 blindfolded prisoner x 1000 attempts to hang prisoner. Therefore chances of
1 blind folder prisoner x 1000 arrows
1. x 1000 grenades
.

And so on for an unknown number of times and methods.

Chances of one someone surviving execution are therefore unknown. We cannot then use improbability to support our astonishment that one prisoner survives. If however, we decided that we are the prisoner in question, and we cannot observe any other prisoners, then we still are unable to quantify the improbabilities, because of the unknowns. The best we can say is "Phew!glad it was me."

[Cathar1950]

The analogy that I see more apropos is the firing squad execution. A person is blindfolded and lined up to be shot. He hears "fire!" Then to his surprise, he did not get shot. He reasons, "I did not get shot because I'm here." If we stopped here, it would simply be a truism. But, suppose he finds out that there is a 0.0001% chance of each gunman to miss. And that 1000 gunmen shot at him. Then he can conclude either he got extremely lucky or that some sort of intervention happened. This is the main thrust of the AP argument. Either we got very lucky (which is highly improbable) or that some intelligent intervention happened.

The central point is that the analysis that backs up the fine tuning math has not been completed. As far as the firing squad analogy goes it is fine, but it fails to capture the full picture. Here is a more thorough analogy.

1 blindfolded prisoner x 1000 gunmen. Therefore chances of prisoner surviving very very small.
1 blindfolded prisoner x 1000 attempts to hang prisoner. Therefore chances of
1 blind folder prisoner x 1000 arrows
1. x 1000 grenades
.

And so on for an unknown number of times and methods.

Chances of one someone surviving execution are therefore unknown. We cannot then use improbability to support our astonishment that one prisoner survives. If however, we decided that we are the prisoner in question, and we cannot observe any other prisoners, then we still are unable to quantify the improbabilities, because of the unknowns. The best we can say is "Phew!glad it was me."

I like the odds of 1000 blind unarmed gunmen and one armed prisoner if I am going to be the prisoner.
I am sure I wouldn't want to be around 1000 blind gunmen with grenades even as an observer.

But I do agree. Given the Universe is only about 13 to 17 billion years old it is hard to know or count what didn't happen before that. It could have been going on for a very long time or an almost infinite amount of time.
In our experience it is hard to imagine what possibilities are until they happen but our imagination can make anything possible, even the irrational.

[otseng]

Having 1000 marksmen doing the shooting distracts us from the poverty of the analogy: you say it's extremely lucky that they all missed, but what if something in the order of 500 billion executions happen like this every day? (one for every solar system in our galaxy).

I don't think it would have much relevance on the person who survived. The odds would be calculated for his own survival, not for the survival of one person out of all the possible executions that could happen. I would think for your analogy to work, we would have to assume that there are many other universes that toyed around with the numbers and ours happened to work out.

But lets say that density is a different figure to the one observed. Causing the universe to be a crunch universe, or a balloon universe. If we then judge this alternative universe, and any universe where we changed the density value, by the density criteria, we shall always come to the same single conclusion. Our actual universe is unique.

Your assumption is that there are many other universes out there. However, this is an unsupported assumption.

Further, our universe is unique in that it is flat and exists to this point. And there is only one value that can fulfill this (critical density = 447,225,917,218,507,401,284,016 gm/cc).

What can account for this?
1. We got really lucky.
2. We are not lucky, but we happen to be in the one universe out of a zillion that happen to have this number.
3. Some intelligent intervention happened.

Since the odds are too small for 1 to happen, we can discount that. There are no evidence for 2, so it would be speculative. There are other independent evidence for 3, so that answer would be preferred.

[QED]

Having 1000 marksmen doing the shooting distracts us from the poverty of the analogy: you say it's extremely lucky that they all missed, but what if something in the order of 500 billion executions happen like this every day? (one for every solar system in our galaxy).

I don't think it would have much relevance on the person who survived. The odds would be calculated for his own survival, not for the survival of one person out of all the possible executions that could happen.

This is the same incorrect position that you've been placing yourself into. Out of all those solar systems, I've shown that the probability of there being one lucky survivor could be 100%. That survivor would be just like the national lottery winner (who can understand her luck given that in her country someone was likely to win) but if the survivor didn't know that life and firing squads were a common feature of their universe (they thought they were living on the only inhabitable planet) then their ability to understand their luck would be compromised -- as I keep on trying to explain: If you can't see the big picture you can't assess the situation properly.

I would think for your analogy to work, we would have to assume that there are many other universes that toyed around with the numbers and ours happened to work out.

That is the whole point of my analogy! I'm not saying that there is any proof in the existence of these other universes -- but the potential for their existence is not something that can be dismissed for the purposes of estimating probabilities regarding fine-tuning. Their potential is equal to any other unobservable bestowed with the capacity to produce an apparently fine-tuned universe.

I think the difficulty here is that most contributing factors are easy to determine. there are no "horizons" quite like the one imposed by the light-cone of an observer in space and time.

[Furrowed Brow]

I don't think it would have much relevance on the person who survived. The odds would be calculated for his own survival, not for the survival of one person out of all the possible executions that could happen.

As far as the analogy goes this is correct, but it is the application of this limited analogy to our universe that is incorrect.

I would think for your analogy to work, we would have to assume that there are many other universes that toyed around with the numbers and ours happened to work out.

Well yes and no. We do not have to assume a multiversity theory, and posit the existence of actual universes. However when doing statistics you are engaging in the abstract. Statsitics deals in logical possibilities. For the math to be correct you need to ensure every variable is included - for the eventual number to be meaningful.

Further, our universe is unique in that it is flat and exists to this point. And there is only one value that can fulfil this (critical density = 447,225,917,218,507,401,284,016 gm/cc).

What can account for this?
1. We got really lucky.

Yes we got lucky.

2. We are not lucky, but we happen to be in the one universe out of a zillion that happen to have this number.

That another possibility, but it is not the argument I have been putting forward.

3. Some intelligent intervention happened.

No we got lucky

Since the odds are too small for 1 to happen, we can discount that.

The odds? But as I spent some time pointing out you're are not working out the odds correctly. Heres another analogy.

Imagine a tom bola. On one ticket and only one ticket is written the words "critical density 447,225,917,218,507,401,284,016 gm/cc) = only flat universe."

Lets imagine their are zillions of tickets in this tom bola and the ticket that says "only flat universe" is pulled. The odds of that are zillions to one.

However we should consider what was written on those other tickets. If all the zillions of other tickets left in the tom bola have to the words "critical density" with some alternative value and then the words "not a flat universe" then the only flat ticket amongst zillions of non flat tickets would have been drawn.

This analogy accurately expresses the logic of your point Otseng. It is also a crooked analogy.

The correct analogy goes. Each of those alternative tickets will have written on some feature of an alternative universe unique to that universe, or nothing at all if there is a universe that lacks a unique feature. On the tickets that have something written, alongside the unique feature will be some critical number upon which that feature depends. As we know the winning ticket has the feature of flatness, no other ticket left in the tom bola can have that unique feature written on it.

So what we can say is that a ticket with a unique feature has been drawn. The odds of that ticket being drawn are zillions to onethats the bit we are agreed on but the bit of the analysis your approach systematically avoids are the unknowns written on the tickets left in the tom bola and not drawn. Thus the odds of a ticket with a unique feature being drawn are.unknown. And whilst we are not allowed to put our hands into the tom bola and observe what is written those odds remain unknown.

This is the correct analogy that gives full expression to the problem and the improbabilities involved. So yes that "critical density 447,225,917,218,507,401,284,016 gm/cc) = only flat universe." is highly improbable, but we lack knowledge of how many other critical universes there could have been. Thus - as far as the fine tuning argument go - this number is meaningless.




.

[debase.ethos]

If one dropped thousands of iron marbles in a chamber and adjusted the magnetic field in that chamber just so, that the marbles formed a teapot, we would perceive a teapot, but we know that it is just an arrangement of spherical marbles subject to the electromagnetic demands of the chamber.

If a Christian accepts the Anthropic principle, he could ask who made the chamber, but he would also have to accept that we are nothing but atoms, constantly flux in the cosmological demands of the universe. And life is just the perception of an arrangement thereof.

The question then becomes, if life is just a perception, how to do we transcend it?