Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Dániel Boros

The Anthropic principle

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antropic_principle

 

If I understand it correctly the anthropic principle states that the Universe is fine tuned for life because otherwise we would not be here asking why the Universe is finely tuned.

 

It is true that we would not be here if fine tuning was out of sync with life, but that doesn't mean that that is the cause of the fine tuning.

 

If the Universe conisted of many 'smaller universe' it would makes sense that life would only exist in a universe where the laws and constants are finely tuned, that however does not prove that there are more than one universe, therefore (if no evidence for a Multiverse exists) the anthropic principle is wrong.
 

Also there is no need to explain any supposed fine tuning of the Universe. It is what it is and that's all we need to know.

 

Or am I wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If life exists, then the universe is where life exists.  Can't argue with that.  On the other hand, if it were all that finely tuned you'd have to wonder why every organism eventually dies.

 

"More than one universe" is a contradiction in terms, unless these people are working from a private definition that they haven't shared with us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the term Universe may be used in methaphysics in a different way than in epistemology. Fine tuning is methaphysics.

For a definition I would say: The thing that started with the big bang. Obviously the Universe did not start...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If life exists, then the universe is where life exists.  Can't argue with that.  On the other hand, if it were all that finely tuned you'd have to wonder why every organism eventually dies.

 

"More than one universe" is a contradiction in terms, unless these people are working from a private definition that they haven't shared with us.

dude you never heard of heaven?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wiki article gives two versions, the strong and the weak anthropic principle.  The distinction is basically that the SAP is wish fulfillment (consciousness creates the universe, or at least makes it be the particular form it has) and the WAP is selection bias.  WAP is better, but it is not even necessarily true that there was a process of selection.  

 

The process of evolution and adaption is what makes life well suited to its environment.  I think where life is possible at all life will seem to be good (given long time scales so adaptation can happen).  Life is valuing, and it must be successful valuing if it continues for generation after generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could any anthropic theory rest on anything other than primacy of consciousness?

The universe must be of such a nature that a brain like ours can arise by purely biological physical processes.   

 

Do you deny that the brain is the seat of consciousness?  If not,  then you have to ask how did a brain such has humans posses come about?

 

ruveyn1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asking how a brain came to be is a valid question,yes? But theorizing why is invalid, yes(too)?

 

The other parts of both WAP and SAP that seem invalid to me is when existence is somehow compared to an alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I understand it correctly the anthropic principle states that the Universe is fine tuned for life because otherwise we would not be here asking why the Universe is finely tuned.

Do you think that it would be more likely for life to be fine tuned by the universe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no tuning, fine or coarse, existence exists. Tuning would suggest either a purpose or an alternative.

"Tuning" can also indicate a simple physical chain of causation. That we are alive in this particular form does fit the specific prexisting physical condition of liquid water extremely well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Tuning" can also indicate a simple physical chain of causation. That we are alive in this particular form does fit the specific prexisting physical condition of liquid water extremely well.

No tuning implies a 'conscious' choice between alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No tuning implies a 'conscious' choice between alternatives.

A thermostat - furnace system will tune the ambient temperature to oscillate gently around its set point.  No consciousness is necessary.

 

All that is required is a negative-feedback regulating function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A thermostat - furnace system will tune the ambient temperature to oscillate gently around its set point.  No consciousness is necessary.

 

All that is required is a negative-feedback regulating function.

For a thermosat to function no consciousness is necessary? Given the full context of reality , for a thermostat to function no consciousness is necessary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should have used a comma " No, tuning implies..."?

That's a relief, Tad... didn't think you had come over to the dark side. ;)

 

Using the same example... tuning is not necessarily conscious. It can be something as unconscious as a physical law governing harmoniously resonating frequencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asking how a brain came to be is a valid question,yes? But theorizing why is invalid, yes(too)?

 

Theorizing how human brains came to be so complex (ie: evolved from a more primitive form) is not invalid at all. See wiki's entry on the human brain or on the evolution of human intelligence. 

 

Do you think that it would be more likely for life to be fine tuned by the universe?

 

The universe isn't a conscious entity capable of tuning, or making adjustments wherever necessary. def universe: All existing matter and space considered as a whole

Edited by mdegges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theorizing how human brains came to be so complex (ie: evolved from a more primitive form) is not invalid at all. See wiki's entry on the human brain or on the evolution of human intelligence. 

 

 

The universe isn't a conscious entity capable of tuning, or making adjustments wherever necessary. def universe: All existing matter and space considered as a whole

"fine tuning" is an unfortunate phrase.  It implies conscious adjustment.   However adjustment and modification can occur with no consciousness.  A negative feedback  control loop  functions strictly according to physical laws.  Not an ounce of consciousness there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theorizing how human brains came to be so complex (ie: evolved from a more primitive form) is not invalid at all. See wiki's entry on the human brain or on the evolution of human intelligence. 

 

 

The universe isn't a conscious entity capable of tuning, or making adjustments wherever necessary. def universe: All existing matter and space considered as a whole

It was a poor way to argue my point, what I meant to convey is that how questions in this context are legitimate, it's the why ones that are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theorizing how human brains came to be so complex (ie: evolved from a more primitive form) is not invalid at all. See wiki's entry on the human brain or on the evolution of human intelligence. 

Heard some interesting facts about the brain. There are a about 100,000,000,000 neurons, each connected to 10,000 other neurons, for a total of 1,000,000,000,000,000  (1 quadrillion) connections. This is complexity beyond comprehension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard some interesting facts about the brain. There are a about 100,000,000,000 neurons, each connected to 10,000 other neurons, for a total of 1,000,000,000,000,000  (1 quadrillion) connections. This is complexity beyond comprehension.

And there's the rub, IT is what it IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...