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?

 

[Catastrophe]

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

I like doing this. It concentrates the mind on the subject we are meant to be discussing. If you are human then the anthropic principle is clearly right for you but if you are from anywhere else in the Universe you will say "What right have these worm-like creatures to believe that they are the centre of all importance."

However, there are a very few humans who appreciate that there are even better creatures than they, (them if you don't speak good English) who will survive humanity and outlive the dinosaurs. For them, the multitudinous residuals of the Universe gives thanks and wishes those sea amphibians and their insect cousins all the best to enjoy that tiny insignificant planet Earth.