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. "

[perspective]

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."

I think this would be obvious. If life exists HERE, any theory must be consistent with life occurring HERE. Otherwise, we would be a counterexample to any theory that contradicted our own existence.

To take it one step further:
From Anthropic-Principle.com

The impermissibility of inferring from the fact that intelligent life evolved on Earth to the fact that intelligent life probably evolved on a large fraction of all Earth-like planets does not hinge on the evidence in this example consisting of only a single data point. Suppose we had telepathic abilities and could communicate directly with all other intelligent beings in the cosmos. Imagine we ask all the aliens, did intelligent life evolve on their planets too? Obviously, they would all say: Yes, it did. But equally obvious, this multitude of data would still not give us any reason to think that intelligent life develops easily. We only asked about the planets where life did in fact evolve (since those planets would be the only ones which would be “theirs” to some alien), and we get no information whatsoever by hearing the aliens confirming that life evolved on those planets (assuming we don’t know the number of aliens who replied to our survey or, alternatively, that we don’t know the total number of planets). An observation selection effect frustrates any attempt to extract useful information by this procedure. Some other method would have to be used to do that. (If all the aliens also reported that theirs was some Earth-like planet, this would suggest that intelligent life is unlikely to evolve on planets that are not Earth-like; for otherwise some aliens would likely have evolved on non-Earth like planets.)

This shows why we cannot make the assumption:
Because life evolved HERE, life must have evolved on other places like HERE.
no. There is no useful information that can be had (no appropriately positioned observer), thus we have an observational selection effect. There is no logical evidence. Not even probabilities - because there are no solid numbers.

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."

This theory sort of goes along the lines of "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?". The answer would be obviously "YES, it still makes a sound" because we know that sounds come from vibrations that would be caused by things colliding (like a tree falling and striking other trees). We can assume that just because no one is there to observe other physical phenomenon, doesn't prove that those physical phenomenon don't occur, but actually - analogous physics experiments (tree falling) suggest the contrary.

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. "

From this link:

Another example of reasoning that invokes observation selection effects is the attempt to provide a possible (not necessarily the only) explanation of why the universe appears fine-tuned for intelligent life in the sense that if any of various physical constants or initial conditions had been even very slightly different from what they are then life as we know it would not have existed. The idea behind this possible anthropic explanation is that the totality of spacetime might be very huge and may contain regions in which the values of fundamental constants and other parameters differ in many ways, perhaps according to some broad random distribution. If this is the case, then we should not be amazed to find that in our own region physical conditions appear “fine-tuned”. Owing to an obvious observation selection effect, only such fine-tuned regions are observed. Observing a fine-tuned region is precisely what we should expect if this theory is true, and so it can potentially account for available data in a neat and simple way, without having to assume that conditions just happened to turn out “right” through some immensely lucky—and arguably a priori extremely improbable—cosmic coincidence.

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

I'd say no. Observational selection effect accounts for most of the logical arguments in favor of divine creation.

See the summary:

.....In these three examples, a selection effect is introduced by the fact that the instrument you use to collect data (a fishing net, a mail survey, preserved trading records) samples only from a proper subset of the target domain. Analogously, there are selection effects that arise not from the limitations of some measuring device but from the fact that all observations require the existence of an appropriately positioned observer. Our data is filtered not only by limitations in our instrumentation but also by the precondition that somebody be there to “have” the data yielded by the instruments (and to build the instruments in the first place). The biases that occur due to that precondition—we shall call them observation selection effects—are the subject matter of this book....

The argument that Anthropic Principle suggests divine creation is laden with logical errors.

[Quarkhead]

This theory sort of goes along the lines of "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?". The answer would be obviously "YES, it still makes a sound" because we know that sounds come from vibrations that would be caused by things colliding (like a tree falling and striking other trees). We can assume that just because no one is there to observe other physical phenomenon, doesn't prove that those physical phenomenon don't occur, but actually - analogous physics experiments (tree falling) suggest the contrary.

A minor point, to be sure, but I believe the answer is NO. And you provide why in your own response. Technically, a vibration is just a vibration. Our various senses take that vibration and turn it into a particular category - sound, in this example. So really, the vibration made by the tree falling can only become "sound" when an organism with eardrums capable of perceiving that wavelength of vibration receives it. Without a creature to "hear" it, the only thing that can be said to happen is that when the tree falls, it causes the air and earth around it to vibrate in waves, outward from the point of impact.

But that said, I agree with your post.

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

[perspective]

A minor point, to be sure, but I believe the answer is NO. And you provide why in your own response. Technically, a vibration is just a vibration. Our various senses take that vibration and turn it into a particular category - sound, in this example. So really, the vibration made by the tree falling can only become "sound" when an organism with eardrums capable of perceiving that wavelength of vibration receives it. Without a creature to "hear" it, the only thing that can be said to happen is that when the tree falls, it causes the air and earth around it to vibrate in waves, outward from the point of impact.

But that said, I agree with your post.

Of course, I was making the assumption that an appropriately placed and an appropriately equipped observer would record the data (sound) in any circumstances where data collection was being put to test.

...Analogously, there are selection effects that arise not from the limitations of some measuring device but from the fact that all observations require the existence of an appropriately positioned observer. Our data is filtered not only by limitations in our instrumentation (deafness or hardness of hearing) but also by the precondition that somebody(an observer in the woods) be there to “have” the data yielded by the instruments(ears)....

I digress...but I was just clarifying the condition that not only an appropriately placed observer be present, but also properly equipped to record the data.

In the absence of said observer, the mere absence of the observer doesn't preclude the likelihood of the event still occurring regardless of the presence of such an observer.

edited: reword

[otseng]

As science progresses and we understand the universe better, scientists find that the odds of life ever occurring in the universe gets progressively smaller. With research in cosmology, biology, chemistry, physics, et al, we find that the chances of things happening the way they are to support life gets ridiculously miniscule. Hence the Anthropic Principle was born. Purely from a statistical point of view, the odds of life ever evolving is so remote that there has to be something else to explain the fact that we are here. This is the basis of the Anthropic Principle. It's not simply the fact that we are here, so we recognize that we are here. It's the fact that statistically, we are not supposed to be here. But, the problem is that we are here.

The question becomes, if statistically we are not supposed to be here, then how did we ever get here? There are two possible answers that I can think of.
1. We got really lucky.
2. It was not by luck, but the universe was specifically created for life.

If someone else has a third answer, please post it.

[veritas]

I was going to respond, but perspective has already stolen most of my thunder.

Justin

[veritas]

1. We got really lucky.
2. It was not by luck, but the universe was specifically created for life.

3: the universe was not fine-tuned for life: instead, life "fine-tuned" itself for the universe.

Call it luck if you will (or Divine guidance--I do), but that's the usual conclusion.

Justin

[perspective]

Purely from a statistical point of view, the odds of life ever evolving is so remote that there has to be something else to explain the fact that we are here. This is the basis of the Anthropic Principle. It's not simply the fact that we are here, so we recognize that we are here. It's the fact that statistically, we are not supposed to be here. But, the problem is that we are here.

The supposition of your question is that the statistics are accurate and uncorrupted. But they are corrupted by a selection effect. The observational selection effect that exists today (limitations in instrumentation and lacking an appropriately placed observer) prevents us from ever having an idea of the statistical likelihood of similar intelligent beings evolving in any setting.

From my previous posts:
The best case scenario - if we could survey all the aliens (intelligent life forms - human or otherwise) in the universe

we don’t know the number of aliens who replied to our survey or, alternatively, that we don’t know the total number of planets. An observation selection effect frustrates any attempt to extract useful information by this procedure. Some other method would have to be used
<snip>
all observations require the existence of an appropriately positioned observer. Our data is filtered not only by limitations in our instrumentation but also by the precondition that somebody be there to “have” the data yielded by the instruments

With the observational shortcomings that exist today, there is no way anyone can claim that the likelihood of life existing elsewhere is either great or slim. No statistics can suggest the probability, because any statistics derived today (without an appropriately placed observer and without the use of some alien communication system) suffer from selection effect, and are inaccurate statistics.

[otseng]

The supposition of your question is that the statistics are accurate and uncorrupted. But they are corrupted by a selection effect. The observational selection effect that exists today (limitations in instrumentation and lacking an appropriately placed observer) prevents us from ever having an idea of the statistical likelihood of similar intelligent beings evolving in any setting.

As we look at the universe, we see that life can only evolve to be one certain way. And that way is what we have here on earth.

OK, I'll start getting into some of the supporting details now. :Holds breathe and dives in:

Let's start with light.

Light is a subset of the electromagnetic spectrum. On the short end of the EMS are gamma rays (wavelengths of 10E-12 m and shorter). On the long end are radio waves (10E+3 m and longer). Just in this range, the scale is 10E+15. Visible light is in a very small range, from .4 um to .7 um. So, this range occupies .00000000000000000003 % of the EMS range just mentioned. This in itself is interesting, but doesn't prove much.

When you move to the shorter wavelengths to the x rays and gamma rays, the electromagnetic radiation alters atoms and molecules to the point of being destructive. So without stable atoms/molecules, life cannot exist with exposure to x rays and shorter.

On the other end are far infrared and microwaves, both are also harmful to life.

So, a certain amount of energy is needed for chemical reactions to occur, yet not too much so that it damages atoms and molecular structures. We find this range to be the visible light and infrared area. And, like mentioned before, this is an extremely small band.

It would be hard to imagine life evolving from any range outside of the visible light/infrared.

So, life has to exist within this small range.

Now, if we look at our sun, what range of electromagnetic radiation does it emit? 70% of the energy is in a very small band (from .3 microns to 1.5 microns). Precisely in the range of visible light.

So, a star like our sun is needed for life. Moreover, it will need to maintain that for the full duration of the existence of life on it's orbiting planet. It cannot be any hotter or cooler or else damaging radiation will be emitted.

Though the sun emits energy useful to life, it does also emit some energy harmful to life. Fortunately for us, our atmosphere is full of water particles. Water has an interesting quality in that it lets visible light through, but absorbs all other radiation. So, our atmosphere acts as a filter of harmful radiation. Without this characteristic of water, life cannot exist. Ozone also has a characteristic of absorbing UV light below .3 microns, further reducing harmful radiation.

[perspective]

The supposition of your question is that the statistics are accurate and uncorrupted. But they are corrupted by a selection effect. The observational selection effect that exists today (limitations in instrumentation and lacking an appropriately placed observer) prevents us from ever having an idea of the statistical likelihood of similar intelligent beings evolving in any setting.

As we look at the universe, we see that life can only evolve to be one certain way. And that way is what we have here on earth.

OK, I'll start getting into some of the supporting details now. :Holds breathe and dives in:

Let's start with light.

The entirety of your post still suffers from a selection effect. Yes, I agree that it is likely that life can only exist withint a narrow frame of conditions. What I do not agree is that these conditions are so rare as to negate the possibility of them happening from a natural (read: biological, chemical or physical) cause. The supposed rarity of the existence of these conditions is faulty - we have no way to know how rare or how abundant the conditions. You can't say "statistically speaking, the possibility is slim" because statistics require numbers and we are no where near having a full set of numbers to work with.

Also, this statement:

As we look at the universe, we see that life can only evolve to be one certain way. And that way is what we have here on earth.

is ludacris. You can't possibly conclude that life can only evolve one certain way from our (humankind's) observation of the universe. We can't begin to see the detail and the depth of the universe, and we know this. Errors made from not knowing what we don't know are forgivable. But knowing what we don't know, and ignoring the possibilities (producing "definate" conclusions despite known unknowns) is bad science and flawed logic.
In short, your statement "we see that life can only evolve to be one certain way..." is flawed logic. It implies that 'all we can see' is all that exists. The implication is false.