A recent article in New Scientist, discussing whether fundamental scientific theories should be “beautiful”, dismisses the Anthropic Principle as something that just gets in the way of doing science.

Since this is the opposite of what I think, I had a look at Wikipedia to see what others had to say about it.

It reminded me that the originator of the idea (Brandon Carter) defined a “weak” and “strong” version, which seem to me identical, or at least the “strong” follows directly from the “weak”.

Then another couple of clowns came along (Barrow and Tipler) who invented some extensions to the “strong” principle that are just ludicrous, but people seem to take these inventions as legitimate philosophical proposals.

So my questions are:

1) Do scientists in general see Brandon’s principle(s) as being important statements that should be considered whenever looking at fundamental scientific data, hypotheses and theories (as I do), or do they follow the dismissive NS approach? (or something else?)

2) Why does anyone take the ridiculous Barrow and Tipler strong principle seriously?

The Rev Dodgson said:

A recent article in New Scientist, discussing whether fundamental scientific theories should be “beautiful”, dismisses the Anthropic Principle as something that just gets in the way of doing science.

Since this is the opposite of what I think, I had a look at Wikipedia to see what others had to say about it.

It reminded me that the originator of the idea (Brandon Carter) defined a “weak” and “strong” version, which seem to me identical, or at least the “strong” follows directly from the “weak”.

Then another couple of clowns came along (Barrow and Tipler) who invented some extensions to the “strong” principle that are just ludicrous, but people seem to take these inventions as legitimate philosophical proposals.

So my questions are:

1) Do scientists in general see Brandon’s principle(s) as being important statements that should be considered whenever looking at fundamental scientific data, hypotheses and theories (as I do), or do they follow the dismissive NS approach? (or something else?)

2) Why does anyone take the ridiculous Barrow and Tipler strong principle seriously?

Say again what the difference between the Brendon Carter strong principle and the Barrow and Tipler strong principle is. I wasn’t aware that there are two different versions of the strong principle.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

A recent article in New Scientist, discussing whether fundamental scientific theories should be “beautiful”, dismisses the Anthropic Principle as something that just gets in the way of doing science.

Since this is the opposite of what I think, I had a look at Wikipedia to see what others had to say about it.

It reminded me that the originator of the idea (Brandon Carter) defined a “weak” and “strong” version, which seem to me identical, or at least the “strong” follows directly from the “weak”.

Then another couple of clowns came along (Barrow and Tipler) who invented some extensions to the “strong” principle that are just ludicrous, but people seem to take these inventions as legitimate philosophical proposals.

So my questions are:

1) Do scientists in general see Brandon’s principle(s) as being important statements that should be considered whenever looking at fundamental scientific data, hypotheses and theories (as I do), or do they follow the dismissive NS approach? (or something else?)

2) Why does anyone take the ridiculous Barrow and Tipler strong principle seriously?

Say again what the difference between the Brendon Carter strong principle and the Barrow and Tipler strong principle is. I wasn’t aware that there are two different versions of the strong principle.

According to TATE (and I have no reason to believe they lie): the B&T statement of their “strong” principle is very similar to BC’s, but they extend it with made up nonsense such as:

“There exists one possible Universe ‘designed’ with the goal of generating and sustaining ‘observers’.”
“Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being.”

“There exists one possible Universe ‘designed’ with the goal of generating and sustaining ‘observers’.” “Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being.”

The fact an asteroid could hit Earth wiping out human observers contradicts this.
The above has religious overtones as well.
If above is true the some type of observers must have existed before or immediately after the Big Bang

“Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being.”

I like that because it’s sort of true.

Peak Warming Man said:

“Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being.”

I like that because it’s sort of true.

“Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being.”

Rubbish.

The universe would still exist without observers.

Peak Warming Man said:

“Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being.”

I like that because it’s sort of true.

Perhaps it gives the universe purpose besides just existing, a sentient universe that needs someone to appreciate it

Tau.Neutrino said:

Peak Warming Man said:

“Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being.”

I like that because it’s sort of true.

“Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being.”

Rubbish.

The universe would still exist without observers.

As far as we know it took billions of years for us to evolve to observe the universe so what was it doing before all that happened.

Perhaps the universe goes through stages were different forms of life/observers exist and as it ages these forms of life die out and new ones replace them

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Peak Warming Man said:

“Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being.”

I like that because it’s sort of true.

“Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being.”

Rubbish.

The universe would still exist without observers.

As far as we know it took billions of years for us to evolve to observe the universe so what was it doing before all that happened.

The universe would still evolve without us or aliens.

Cymek said:

Perhaps the universe goes through stages were different forms of life/observers exist and as it ages these forms of life die out and new ones replace them

If the universe goes through a cycle of expanding and contracting then maybe.

Peak Warming Man said:

“Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being.”

I like that because it’s sort of true.

Well observers are necessary to bring observations into being, but I don’t see any reason to believe that observations are necessary for the Universe to exist, and plenty of reasons to believe that they are not.

how would “we” (any observer) know the universe exists if there aren’t any observers? “we” are in no position to state that categorically.

Bogsnorkler said:

how would “we” (any observer) know the universe exists if there aren’t any observers? “we” are in no position to state that categorically.

We are not in a position to state anything categorically, but we can say what seems likely, based on scientific and philosophical principles.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

how would “we” (any observer) know the universe exists if there aren’t any observers? “we” are in no position to state that categorically.

We are not in a position to state anything categorically, but we can say what seems likely, based on scientific and philosophical principles.

yeah, based on our observation of this universe.

>The universe would still exist without observers.

We know things existed before the existence of observers became feasible, but the existence of observers at some later stage might be inevitable.

Bubblecar said:

>The universe would still exist without observers.

We know things existed before the existence of observers became feasible, but the existence of observers at some later stage might be inevitable.

It might be, but I not seen any convincing reason to suggest that it is (or was, if we are talking about the only universe we can observe).

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

A recent article in New Scientist, discussing whether fundamental scientific theories should be “beautiful”, dismisses the Anthropic Principle as something that just gets in the way of doing science.

Since this is the opposite of what I think, I had a look at Wikipedia to see what others had to say about it.

It reminded me that the originator of the idea (Brandon Carter) defined a “weak” and “strong” version, which seem to me identical, or at least the “strong” follows directly from the “weak”.

Then another couple of clowns came along (Barrow and Tipler) who invented some extensions to the “strong” principle that are just ludicrous, but people seem to take these inventions as legitimate philosophical proposals.

So my questions are:

1) Do scientists in general see Brandon’s principle(s) as being important statements that should be considered whenever looking at fundamental scientific data, hypotheses and theories (as I do), or do they follow the dismissive NS approach? (or something else?)

2) Why does anyone take the ridiculous Barrow and Tipler strong principle seriously?

Say again what the difference between the Brendon Carter strong principle and the Barrow and Tipler strong principle is. I wasn’t aware that there are two different versions of the strong principle.

According to TATE (and I have no reason to believe they lie): the B&T statement of their “strong” principle is very similar to BC’s, but they extend it with made up nonsense such as:

“There exists one possible Universe ‘designed’ with the goal of generating and sustaining ‘observers’.”
“Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being.”

Ah, I see. Let me start with what some consider to be the “fine tuned universe”. In our universe there is a startlingly narrow sequence of stable isotopes all the way up from hydrogen to lead, with only a few tiny gaps. We rely on this sequence for our physiology but the probability that 19 independent fundamental physical constants should randomly be assigned values to make this happen is vanishingly small.

We can loosen those constraints to allow carbon based life, and loosen them a bit more to allow for an intelligent observer of any chemical type. But that merely splits one problem into two.

The probability that the fundamental physical constants should be assigned values that allow any chemistry-based intelligent observer (eg. human) is still; vanishingly small. But the probability that, assuming the existence of an intelligent observer, that observer can be human-like is also vanishingly small.

So let’s take the weak anthropic principle and say that the constants of the universe have to be such as to allow an intelligent observer. Then the fine tuning problem still exists, not as strongly as before but strong enough to be a problem.

Then move up to the strong anthropic principle (as I know it) that the fundamental physical constants must be such as to allow the generation of a human being. That is terribly anthropocentric, but it dodges the fine tuning issue.

Before going further, how do we define “probability” in “probability that 19 independent fundamental physical constants”. Does or does not a probability require multiple events before it can be calculated? In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics it does not, but in everyday macroscopic life it does. If we reject the Copenhagen interpretation and insist on multiple events then we need a multiverse. One such multiverse is the eternal inflation multiverse in which our universe’s metastability provides the multiplicity of universes necessary for the anthropic principle to exist. Another such multiverse is the string theory multiverse in which individual branes floating in ten spatial dimensions and one time dimension in which different compactifications give different combinations of physical constants. So far so good. Searches for the compactification that yields our observed universe have so far not found it, there are more possibilities than can be easily handled by computers.

Now to move on to Barrow and Tipler.

Going beyond that, there’s more to physics than constants. It’s well known that the standard equations of gravitation, of quantum mechanics, and constitutive equations, can be modified without changing the existence of human life on Earth. For gravitation, human life is compatible with the Brans-Dicke model of gravity (as a replacement for General Relativity). For quantum mechanics, human life is compatible with the absence of neutrino oscillations. These are just two of an infinite number of examples where even the strong anthropic principle is not strong enough to explain why physics is what it is. Another example is the existence of the subatomic particles heavier than the kaon, without those 300 or more subatomic particles human life could still exist on Earth.

From quantum mechanics we know that observation is not passive, observing an event changes that event. And this has led to the quantum multiverse (which I personally detest but it has to be included as a possibility). Because the act of observing the universe changes the universe, selects which way the quantum multiverse jumps, it can be hypothesised that the weird complexity of the standard equations of gravitation, of quantum mechanics, and constitutive equations, etc. could have been selected by quantum observation. Forcing the multiverse to spew out a single universe that matches the physics that we now observe. This, as I see it, is the basis of the Barrow and Tipler version of the strong anthropic principle, that reality is a consequence of observation. This neatly sweeps all the problems of why the universe is like it is under the carpet, which would be why some people like it.

Have I got it right?

Observers being special is a bias I imagine, some big rock could come along smack into Earth and that’s the end of this particular type of observer

Cymek said:

Observers being special is a bias I imagine, some big rock could come along smack into Earth and that’s the end of this particular type of observer

That’s (one reason) I dislike the Barrow/Tipler conclusions, but in the BC version the only thing special about being an observer is that they can observe themselves observing.

mollwollfumble said:

Have I got it right?

Who am I to say, but not how I see it.

But I’ll have to respond in detail later.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Observers being special is a bias I imagine, some big rock could come along smack into Earth and that’s the end of this particular type of observer

That’s (one reason) I dislike the Barrow/Tipler conclusions, but in the BC version the only thing special about being an observer is that they can observe themselves observing.

Being an observer does mean you can appreciate the beauty of the universe and if inclined try to explain why something happens

life (here, on earth) evolved within, and because of the physics (evolution) of the universe, with the help of some local peculiarities.

locally (certainly recently of conscious creatures) you can say life co-evolved with the universe, though it’s clearly not anything like an equally bidirectional co-evolution.

from which is your view, or something of the shared view.

Observers which I assume means a life form capable of observing the universe and extrapolating data about it, would require intelligence which is probably not the ideal life form as it gives it the ability to bring about its destruction in a very short time.

Jesus looks after the universe, so there is no need to be alarmed.

PermeateFree said:

Jesus looks after the universe, so there is no need to be alarmed.

Jesus did a terrible job.

God should have sent someone else.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Jesus looks after the universe, so there is no need to be alarmed.

Jesus did a terrible job.

God should have sent someone else.

Gods in religion are really quite uninspiring and weak

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Jesus looks after the universe, so there is no need to be alarmed.

Jesus did a terrible job.

God should have sent someone else.

and that Alan guy was not much better either.

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Jesus looks after the universe, so there is no need to be alarmed.

Jesus did a terrible job.

God should have sent someone else.

Gods in religion are really quite uninspiring and weak

You will go to hell now.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Jesus looks after the universe, so there is no need to be alarmed.

Jesus did a terrible job.

God should have sent someone else.

After Jesus was such a fizzer he sent Mohammad who made things right.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Jesus did a terrible job.

God should have sent someone else.

Gods in religion are really quite uninspiring and weak

You will go to hell now.

They do come off as petty minded functionaries with a clipboard

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Jesus looks after the universe, so there is no need to be alarmed.

Jesus did a terrible job.

God should have sent someone else.

After Jesus was such a fizzer he sent Mohammad who made things right.

He stuffed it up as well.

Their women walk around fully covered in black clothing head to top.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Jesus did a terrible job.

God should have sent someone else.

After Jesus was such a fizzer he sent Mohammad who made things right.

He stuffed it up as well.

Their women walk around fully covered in black clothing head to top.

Like life is a funeral or something.

This thread seems to be pretty much trashed now.

Doesn’t the above principle assume some sort of creator though if an observer is so important

Peak Warming Man said:

This thread seems to be pretty much trashed now.

Cymek said:

Doesn’t the above principle assume some sort of creator though if an observer is so important

I wonder if anyone observed the creator?

Cymek said:

Doesn’t the above principle assume some sort of creator though if an observer is so important

Which version are you talking about?

The BC versions (i.e. the ones that make sense) certainly don’t require a “creator”.

Neither do they assign any great importance to observers.

They simply say that if at least one type of observer exists, then it should be no great surprise that the laws of the universe are such that it is possible for at least that type of observer to exist.

Peak Warming Man said:

This thread seems to be pretty much trashed now.

Not if you ignore the trash.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Doesn’t the above principle assume some sort of creator though if an observer is so important

Which version are you talking about?

The BC versions (i.e. the ones that make sense) certainly don’t require a “creator”.

Neither do they assign any great importance to observers.

They simply say that if at least one type of observer exists, then it should be no great surprise that the laws of the universe are such that it is possible for at least that type of observer to exist.

Yes that makes sense

Pick your own universe…

“No possible observational evidence bears on Carter’s WAP, as it is merely advice to the scientist and asserts nothing debatable. The obvious test of Barrow’s SAP, which says that the universe is “required” to support life, is to find evidence of life in universes other than ours. Any other universe is, by most definitions, unobservable (otherwise it would be included in our portion of this universe). Thus, in principle Barrow’s SAP cannot be falsified by observing a universe in which an observer cannot exist.”

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

After Jesus was such a fizzer he sent Mohammad who made things right.

He stuffed it up as well.

Their women walk around fully covered in black clothing head to top.

Like life is a funeral or something.

Most westerners dressed just as covered up little more than a century ago.

The Rev Dodgson said:

A recent article in New Scientist, discussing whether fundamental scientific theories should be “beautiful”, dismisses the Anthropic Principle as something that just gets in the way of doing science.

Since this is the opposite of what I think, I had a look at Wikipedia to see what others had to say about it.

It reminded me that the originator of the idea (Brandon Carter) defined a “weak” and “strong” version, which seem to me identical, or at least the “strong” follows directly from the “weak”.

Then another couple of clowns came along (Barrow and Tipler) who invented some extensions to the “strong” principle that are just ludicrous, but people seem to take these inventions as legitimate philosophical proposals.

So my questions are:

1) Do scientists in general see Brandon’s principle(s) as being important statements that should be considered whenever looking at fundamental scientific data, hypotheses and theories (as I do), or do they follow the dismissive NS approach? (or something else?)

2) Why does anyone take the ridiculous Barrow and Tipler strong principle seriously?

I honestly can’t speak for what “scientists in general” think. You’d probably need to a big survey to answer questions of that kind. I can talk about what I think, and what authors I read think, but there is of course some selection bias among authors that I read.

With regard to your first question, then, Brandon’s SAP is a somewhat more general version of his WAP, and they are more relevant to some fields than others. If you’re thinking about the genesis of galaxies or life on earth, they are worth taking into consideration.

I don’t think the Barrow-Tipler versions of either the SAP or WAP are well-formulated.

Ian said:

Pick your own universe…

“No possible observational evidence bears on Carter’s WAP, as it is merely advice to the scientist and asserts nothing debatable. The obvious test of Barrow’s SAP, which says that the universe is “required” to support life, is to find evidence of life in universes other than ours. Any other universe is, by most definitions, unobservable (otherwise it would be included in our portion of this universe). Thus, in principle Barrow’s SAP cannot be falsified by observing a universe in which an observer cannot exist.”

It is possible to find life in a universe other than ours, and in fact it has been done. By numerical simulation.

mollwollfumble said:

Ian said:

Pick your own universe…

“No possible observational evidence bears on Carter’s WAP, as it is merely advice to the scientist and asserts nothing debatable. The obvious test of Barrow’s SAP, which says that the universe is “required” to support life, is to find evidence of life in universes other than ours. Any other universe is, by most definitions, unobservable (otherwise it would be included in our portion of this universe). Thus, in principle Barrow’s SAP cannot be falsified by observing a universe in which an observer cannot exist.”

It is possible to find life in a universe other than ours, and in fact it has been done. By numerical simulation.

Depending on your definition of “life”, numerical simulation of life in another universe is either not life, or is life in our universe.

greedy isn’t it, confusing the work of minds with what’s really out there