Question Is the Anthropic Principle wrong? Or, is it right?

[IG2007]

Well, here we are. Talking with friends, chatting in chat apps, asking and answering questions in Space.com Forums, or just sitting idle and meditating. Are all those things the reason the Universe exists?

The Anthropic Principle states that: any data we collect about the universe is filtered by the fact that, in order for it to be observable at all, the universe must have been compatible with the emergence of conscious and sapient life that observes it. There are two versions of the Anthropic Principle, the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) and the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP).

The SAP states that every universe ever created must be suitable enough for sapient life to emerge as, if no sapient life emerges, there wouldn't be anyone to view the universe and discover it. Many critics of the SAP instead favour the WAP. The WAP states that, only in a few number of universes which have settings like our universe can sapient life exist and grow.

Now, the question is, is the Anthropic Principle correct? If it is, which of the two versions is correct? And if it is not, why is it not correct? Anyone?

 

[Helio]

Interesting topic. I'm curious how others see it because I am not sure I really get it.

IMO, if we start with a ham sandwich it's reasonable to assume it required both bread and ham to come together. We could also ask what was the reason they came together without suggesting who did it, I suppose.

That may sound facetious, but it's not meant to be. The principle may help to put separate focus on each item in hand - bread and ham. But is the focus really needed? What is it about the principle that if we didn't state it then we might be led astray?

 

[Hudata]

In other words, if a man says something and no woman is there to hear it is he still wrong?

Well, if something requires observation to exist, sure. But instinctively I don't think it does.

 

[IG2007]

Interesting topic. I'm curious how others see it because I am not sure I really get it.

IMO, if we start with a ham sandwich it's reasonable to assume it required both bread and ham to come together. We could also ask what was the reason they came together without suggesting who did it, I suppose.

That may sound facetious, but it's not meant to be. The principle may help to put separate focus on each item in hand - bread and ham. But is the focus really needed? What is it about the principle that if we didn't state it then we might be led astray?

You are right that you don't understand it fully. It's not about ham and bread and hamburger. Well, you ain't facetious there. You are not fully right there, in relating the universe to a hamburger. But, you are quite close. The focus is on the fact that, coincidentally or whatever you say, the Earth is perfectly inhabitable in this time of the universe. And, that is the basis for the Anthropic Principle.

In other words, if a man says something and no woman is there to hear it is he still wrong?

Well, if something requires observation to exist, sure. But instinctively I don't think it does.

Well, the man says but the woman doesn't hear but the microphone does. And the microphone uploads it to youtube where the whole world, along with the woman hears. Well, now?

 

[Hudata]

You are right that you don't understand it fully. It's not about ham and bread and hamburger. Well, you ain't facetious there. You are not fully right there, in relating the universe to a hamburger. But, you are quite close. The focus is on the fact that, coincidentally or whatever you say, the Earth is perfectly inhabitable in this time of the universe. And, that is the basis for the Anthropic Principle.

Well, the man says but the woman doesn't hear but the microphone does. And the microphone uploads it to youtube where the whole world, along with the woman hears. Well, now?

But what if there is no microphone? What if there were nobody in the universe but the man?

 

[Hudata]

Could the world be otherwise, and yet perfectly habitable for a different kind of critter?

 

[Catastrophe]

IG, my friend, first of all. there is no need to talk about universes. One Universe is enough to consider this question.

I would define the Anthropic Defect as the abuse of any knowledge filtered through the human senses to exaggerate its importance relative to that species.

This, in turn, leads to anthropomorphism.

 

[IG2007]

IG, my friend, first of all. there is no need to talk about universes. One Universe is enough to consider this question.

I would define the Anthropic Defect as the abuse of any knowledge filtered through the human senses to exaggerate its importance relative to that species.

This, in turn, leads to anthropomorphism.

And that's what my thoughts answer me.

 

[akashrao]

putting it in a slightly different way, we as humans perceived this world and universe in this way but then other creatures may perceive it in other ways; if aliens exist they have their own perception i believe ...

but the question being asked i believe is - do the properties of universe as defined by us are human-centric or independent of them ...?

i believe they can not be independent of our perception. for instance, a tiger has a different perception of the universe, a dog has another, a cat still another, a goat something else, a sheep another still ...

yeah very good question indeed ... quite been on my mind for some time

liked

 

[Helio]

I would define the Anthropic Defect as the abuse of any knowledge filtered through the human senses to exaggerate its importance relative to that species.

This, in turn, leads to anthropomorphism.

That's a dandy!

 

[Helio]

putting it in a slightly different way, we as humans perceived this world and universe in this way but then other creatures may perceive it in other ways; if aliens exist they have their own perception i believe …

Very important point. But notice that intelligent aliens would agree with our scientific results such as how gravity behaves. This is the importance in separating that which is objective (measurable facts) and that which is subjective (opinions). Both are required to draw conclusions and make hypotheses and theories.

but the question being asked i believe is - do the properties of universe as defined by us are human-centric or independent of them ...?

i believe they can not be independent of our perception. for instance, a tiger has a different perception of the universe, a dog has another, a cat still another, a goat something else, a sheep another still …

Yes, whatever we think will separate us from our own minds is constrained to the very minds that do the thinking.

 

[IG2007]

The thing is:- We don't yet know "how likely they are." We don't yet have enough knowledge to make a probability for life in other planets. We don't yet know whether there are only organic life forms and no other. We haven't yet done every chemical reaction possible, maybe we can't. And you know, it is inevitable that, if we exist, we will find that the universe has suitable properties for us to exist. It is just a tautology in my opinion, and nothing else.

 

[dfjchem721]

For some reason the whole concept reminds me of that simple question:

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?

This actually can be considered a really trick question. It should depend on the definition of sound (and the listener!), but others might not agree.

I submit that it will make sound waves, and if anyone, meaning human, is around to receive and interpret the waves, then it makes a sound. This is postulated because humans have defined sounds and we can certainly hear them. But then so can a dog when you call its name.

So back to the forest. There are no humans or dogs around, but there are plenty of other life forms, many with well developed hearing. They too will hear something, but is it only humans that hear a "sound"?

Probably just malarkey. It is getting late in the night, but thought I would throw this out as a possible notion on that Anthropic Principle.

After all, recall that animals are probably not "conscious and sapient life (forms)". Or are they?!

 

[Catastrophe]

You have answered the question. There are sound waves which are interpreted by humans as sound waves. If the humans are not there, then there is 'nobody' there to interpret them as such. If there are organisms there with suitable auditory organs, then they will interpret them according to the capabilities of their organs.

Same thing applies to light, or any electromagnetic radiation. If the suitable organs are there they will be interpreted. Does not affect the presence of the waves themselves, as you point out.

"They too will hear something, but is it only humans that hear a 'sound'." This is just semantics. You are defining sound as that which is heard only by humans, and than saying only humans hear sound. Other organisms may have the organs to hear the "same" waves, but their response to the "same" waves, they might "call" 'gobbledeegook' - if they had the ability to "call" anything by a name.

Cat

 

[akashrao]

right. wonderfully said.

so can we now say for instance, that if a tiger speaks language of tigratian for instance, then if we manage to understand that language then we would be able to know how they understand the universe, but then we are not designed to understand tigratian because our gene pool is different from a tiger's

thus to say that whether a tree-fall sound is interpreted in russian, english or tigratian in various ways, the sound has same frequency, pitch and other properties; or do they also change depending on the organism that perceives it ... just asking ...

can it be another relativity principle here - the properties of material or energy that an organism defines for itself to have its life smoothly going, depend on the genetic structure of that organism, rather than being same in general in the perceptions of all organisms ... ??

 

[IG2007]

Suppose there is a single tree standing in the centre of a 1000 square metre field. The tree fell but no living being heard it falling. So, does that mean the tree didn't fall?

No, the tree fell but that didn't bother anything or anyone. So, the value of the tree or the falling of it didn't matter to anyone. But that doesn't mean that it didn't exist.

Well, another suppose. Suppose that our universe is one of the infinite universes in the multiverse. No universe has any effect on the other universe. So, does that mean that no other universe except ours exist? Maybe or maybe not. As we can't observe them. But, that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. We do not have proof that it exists but, at the same time, we don't have any proof that it doesn't exist.

Quoting JK Rowling who said it through the mouth of Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter series, “I mean, you could claim that anything's real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist!”

You might say that it's laughable. But, you can't just put out the probability by saying that it is a reductio ad absurdum of the Big Bang Theory.

 

[akashrao]

okay; logic is nice

 

[Helio]

No, the tree fell but that didn't bother anything or anyone. So, the value of the tree or the falling of it didn't matter to anyone. But that doesn't mean that it didn't exist.

Yes, and I suppose this gets closer to the reason someone (philosopher?) propagated the saying, because it just seems a bit silly to me otherwise.

We understand quite well what is meant by the meaning of the word "tree"; it's solid, having mass, is tall though the "tallness" can vary.

So, given a tree, we have something that can be treated objectively (i.e. science).

"Value" is subjective. What is valuable for one may not be so for another. So a tree's value is drawn into question given no one is around to witness, occasionally, a tree event (falling).

Falling is an objective element in the story as well. We have very exacting laws that determine velocity, acceleration, momentum, etc. But the falling is almost a ruse to what really happens if we're to address sound.

I enjoy the joke of, "If a parachute doesn't open, will the fall kill them?" No but the sudden stop will!

We know (science) what happens when a mass (tree) slams into another mass (Earth). We don't need lab time to reveal to us that a sound is inevitable in order to dissipate some of the KE removed by impact.

Quoting JK Rowling who said it through the mouth of Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter series, “I mean, you could claim that anything's real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist!”

Well it's true that in science, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence". Black holes, for instance, are completely invisible to us by every sensory means, but we do observer them indirectly -- x-ray emissions if they have active disks, light bending around them, stars with incredibly fast orbits around the big ones, etc.

You might say that it's laughable.

Funny you should say that. Often, the subjective realm has little or no objective evidence to work with. IMO, one must weigh where their views fit in the wide spectrum from extremely likely to disgustingly laughable. Consider why the Greek gods are gone?

I like to call the more laughable views as claims that get shipped to Sillyville. But, they aren't destroyed and some views return with great accolades. The view that the Moon was formed by a monster impact was laughed at. Even Darwin took a lot of flack for not providing any reasonable reproductive means to advance a useful change to improve a variety of any species.

For me at least, I find it very helpful to dissect any claim between that which is objective and that which is subjetive.

 

[Catastrophe]

right. wonderfully said.

so can we now say for instance, that if a tiger speaks language of tigratian for instance, then if we manage to understand that language then we would be able to know how they understand the universe, but then we are not designed to understand tigratian because our gene pool is different from a tiger's

thus to say that whether a tree-fall sound is interpreted in russian, english or tigratian in various ways, the sound has same frequency, pitch and other properties; or do they also change depending on the organism that perceives it ... just asking ...

can it be another relativity principle here - the properties of material or energy that an organism defines for itself to have its life smoothly going, depend on the genetic structure of that organism, rather than being same in general in the perceptions of all organisms ... ??

I really like your post:
Just a couple of comments:
"thus to say that whether a tree-fall sound is interpreted in russian, english or tigratian in various ways, the sound has same frequency, pitch and other properties; YES or do they also change depending on the organism that perceives it ... just asking …" ABSOLUTELY NOT That would postulate that something in the ear of the hearer changed the sound may by the crashing of the tree.
. . . . . . . . . and . . . . . . . . .
"the properties of material or energy that an organism defines for itself to have its life smoothly going, depend on the genetic structure of that organism"
I am not entirely sure I understand what you mean by this. I would put it the other way round. We react to circumstances by developing different abilities or habits which prove useful in survival and by (good old) natural selection, that improves our survival capabilities. Yes, good old Darwinism. I am not saying that I believe that 100%, but I would give natural selection probably 95%. I would go for this, unless you are suggesting that it is natural selection which programs the genes.

Cat

 

[dfjchem721]

Great to see you again Cat. I really did not think some fool tree would rouse such interest.

Since evolution insists that at least all vertebrates have evolved similar organs for hearing, than all of them can detect sound, much in the same way as humans. What it means to their brains is another issue, but the sound they hear (at least in many cases) should be the same since their tympanic membranes, bones, etc. are so similar. Frequency range is another issue. Dogs might tell us humans cannot hear squat!

Have known dogs and cats that are not so happy listening to certain forms of music. The sounds are too high frequency, or some other aspect we are not aware of. Maybe chamber music over Led Zep would be the answer..........

 

[akashrao]

right. what proves useful for survival is staying behind and the rest leaves a trail of its past. this is natural selection. therefore natural selection chooses genes which have greater capability and scope

now look at how we improved upon our perception of the world with the advance of culture; culture also evolves by natural selection if i may like to propose ...

so, all that we learn, invent, say, profess, about the world has a trail of who we are on it, doesn't it? if i were not chosen by means of natural selection why would i have an opportunity to stand here today defining what i see and formulating some rules and laws that govern it?

 

[Catastrophe]

Suppose there is a single tree standing in the centre of a 1000 square metre field. The tree fell but no living being heard it falling. So, does that mean the tree didn't fall?

No, the tree fell but that didn't bother anything or anyone. So, the value of the tree or the falling of it didn't matter to anyone. But that doesn't mean that it didn't exist.

Well, another suppose. Suppose that our universe is one of the infinite universes in the multiverse. No universe has any effect on the other universe. So, does that mean that no other universe except ours exist? Maybe or maybe not. As we can't observe them. But, that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. We do not have proof that it exists but, at the same time, we don't have any proof that it doesn't exist.

Quoting JK Rowling who said it through the mouth of Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter series, “I mean, you could claim that anything's real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist!”

You might say that it's laughable. But, you can't just put out the probability by saying that it is a reductio ad absurdum of the Big Bang Theory.

"Suppose that our universe is one of the infinite universes in the multiverse. No universe has any effect on the other universe. So, does that mean that no other universe except ours exist?"
Oh IG, not only universes but infinite. Your argument would work just as well with one other "universe". Notwithstanding the fact that I believe the definition of Universe precludes there being more than one "everything, all". Still it is your right to use such words if you want to. ("infinite" UGGHHHHH). The rest of the paragraph is IMO harmless waffle.

" you could claim that anything's real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist!”
Don't you think the character was pointing out how silly that was? Some negatives just cannot be proved incorrect.
WOW. A sky blue pink pig just flew by my window. Prove it didn't.

"You might say that it's laughable. But, you can't just put out the probability by saying that it is a reductio ad absurdum of the Big Bang Theory."
No. I don't think it laughable in any critical way, but I do consider it to be a rather extreme example. Congratulations on thinking up something so over the top!

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Yes, and I suppose this gets closer to the reason someone (philosopher?) propagated the saying, because it just seems a bit silly to me otherwise.

We understand quite well what is meant by the meaning of the word "tree"; it's solid, having mass, is tall though the "tallness" can vary.

So, given a tree, we have something that can be treated objectively (i.e. science).

"Value" is subjective. What is valuable for one may not be so for another. So a tree's value is drawn into question given no one is around to witness, occasionally, a tree event (falling).

Falling is an objective element in the story as well. We have very exacting laws that determine velocity, acceleration, momentum, etc. But the falling is almost a ruse to what really happens if we're to address sound.

I enjoy the joke of, "If a parachute doesn't open, will the fall kill them?" No but the sudden stop will!

We know (science) what happens when a mass (tree) slams into another mass (Earth). We don't need lab time to reveal to us that a sound is inevitable in order to dissipate some of the KE removed by impact.

Well it's true that in science, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence". Black holes, for instance, are completely invisible to us by every sensory means, but we do observer them indirectly -- x-ray emissions if they have active disks, light bending around them, stars with incredibly fast orbits around the big ones, etc.

Funny you should say that. Often, the subjective realm has little or no objective evidence to work with. IMO, one must weigh where their views fit in the wide spectrum from extremely likely to disgustingly laughable. Consider why the Greek gods are gone?

I like to call the more laughable views as claims that get shipped to Sillyville. But, they aren't destroyed and some views return with great accolades. The view that the Moon was formed by a monster impact was laughed at. Even Darwin took a lot of flack for not providing any reasonable reproductive means to advance a useful change to improve a variety of any species.

For me at least, I find it very helpful to dissect any claim between that which is objective and that which is subjetive.

On the whole I find this an excellent response. Perhaps a little less about the tree and a lot more about the sound?
I like the idea of reproducing the Theia impact. Most definitely an experiment to confirm what actually happened. Better still, several repeat experiments just to be sure

 

[Catastrophe]

Great to see you again Cat. I really did not think some fool tree would rouse such interest.

Since evolution insists that at least all vertebrates have evolved similar organs for hearing, than all of them can detect sound, much in the same way as humans. What it means to their brains is another issue, but the sound they hear (at least in many cases) should be the same since their tympanic membranes, bones, etc. are so similar. Frequency range is another issue. Dogs might tell us humans cannot hear squat!

Have known dogs and cats that are not so happy listening to certain forms of music. The sounds are too high frequency, or some other aspect we are not aware of. Maybe chamber music over Led Zep would be the answer..........

What can I say? Just the usual dfj First Class Science!

 

[Catastrophe]

right. what proves useful for survival is staying behind and the rest leaves a trail of its past. this is natural selection. therefore natural selection chooses genes which have greater capability and scope

now look at how we improved upon our perception of the world with the advance of culture; culture also evolves by natural selection if i may like to propose ...

so, all that we learn, invent, say, profess, about the world has a trail of who we are on it, doesn't it? if i were not chosen by means of natural selection why would i have an opportunity to stand here today defining what i see and formulating some rules and laws that govern it?

I agree.