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?

 

[IG2007]

"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.

Well, I agree. I am still of the opinion that the universe is not infinite. Although some say that there are answers to the Field Theory that claim that the universe is infinite. Just, my logic says that infinity cannot be covered by a universe which started to expand 14 billion years ago and did not have an expansion speed of infinity.

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.

Well, I guess you are not getting the point, Sir. (No offense meant, sir. Really.) Quoting the quote again, “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!”

I have basis that it doesn't exist. The basis is that no mammal except bats can fly. And a flying pig wouldn't be categorized as a Sus scrofa domesticus . And also, as far as I remember the book, Hermione meant it positively rather than negatively. She meant that if you have no evidence to falsify a claim except that it hasn't been proved exist, paradoxically thinking, there is 50% chance that the claim is right. I just gave a multiverse example there and I gave that only to support the quote, believe it or not. I have the whole evolution graph to falsify your claim, but there is still a little chance. Another example, if I say that I just saw a spaceship clearly in the night sky, You can say that I saw something else or I am lying. Even if I show you a photo I took on my phone, you can say that it is photoshopped. Even if I get certified that the photo is not photoshopped, you can say that it is something else, maybe a secret mission initiated by the Government. And here, both of our logic breaks down. We don't know. "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!”

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

Thanks, but I myself found it strange.

 

[Helio]

On the whole I find this an excellent response. Perhaps a little less about the tree and a lot more about the sound?

Ok, how does this sound....
In regard to recent posts, we need to distinguish sound between what happens at the transmitter separate from that of the receiver. If sound propagates, no receiver is needed as long as we understand the scientific principals of a transmitter and that energy is been converted to thermodynamic work.

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

Well, that would make quite an impact but, like a disease, this cure would be demonstrably worse.

 

[Catastrophe]

Ok, how does this sound....
In regard to recent posts, we need to distinguish sound between what happens at the transmitter separate from that of the receiver. If sound propagates, no receiver is needed as long as we understand the scientific principals of a transmitter and that energy is been converted to thermodynamic work.

Well, that would make quite an impact but, like a disease, this cure would be demonstrably worse.

als or les?

 

[Helio]

Is that French?

 

[IG2007]

Is that French?

Seems Catalian

 

[Catastrophe]

They are not words in any language.

 

[IG2007]

They are not words in any language.

als means as in Catalian. And les means the in Catalian.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

This is an interesting way to think of it. You and your buddy look up at the moon and both see the exact same moon.
A moon was not created for each viewer and no information passes between you and your buddy yet you see the same moon with the same features.
The moon was always in it's location and just looking at it doesn't make it come into existence.
If a tree falls it falls, if someone hears it fall it makes a noise that person can hear.

 

[akashrao]

i one day walk in the
night sky, filled in gloom
and sorrow out of worry

i shall not rise again
thought i to my utterly
dismayed mangled hurry

i then saw a pink moon
which was light in shade
and glistening in calm

and that put my heart
that is full of random thought
into a fair order, and fragrant balm!

 

[akashrao]

yeah capturing celestial objects on phone is worthwhile indeed

 

[Helio]

als means as in Catalian. And les means the in Catalian.

Wiki notes it, unsurprisingly, has Latin root, but it's more Spanish than French. It was banned after the French Revolution, apparently.

 

[Catastrophe]

The answer is so simple. They are not complete words in any language.

Now do you get it - not too much to hope surely?

Cat

 

[IG2007]

The answer is so simple. They are not complete words in any language.

Now do you get it - not too much to hope surely?

Cat

Well, now I understand what you mean to say. And, I quite agree with you.

 

[Catastrophe]

Well, now I understand what you mean to say. And, I quite agree with you.

Have you cracked the puzzle?

 

[IG2007]

Have you cracked the puzzle?

Yes, sir.

 

[akashrao]

 

[Helio]

Have you cracked the puzzle?

Now you see my true level of grammar and I’m still working on my principles.

 

[Catastrophe]

Well, I agree. I am still of the opinion that the universe is not infinite. Although some say that there are answers to the Field Theory that claim that the universe is infinite. Just, my logic says that infinity cannot be covered by a universe which started to expand 14 billion years ago and did not have an expansion speed of infinity.

Well, I guess you are not getting the point, Sir. (No offense meant, sir. Really.) Quoting the quote again, “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!”

I have basis that it doesn't exist. The basis is that no mammal except bats can fly. And a flying pig wouldn't be categorized as a Sus scrofa domesticus . And also, as far as I remember the book, Hermione meant it positively rather than negatively. She meant that if you have no evidence to falsify a claim except that it hasn't been proved exist, paradoxically thinking, there is 50% chance that the claim is right. I just gave a multiverse example there and I gave that only to support the quote, believe it or not. I have the whole evolution graph to falsify your claim, but there is still a little chance. Another example, if I say that I just saw a spaceship clearly in the night sky, You can say that I saw something else or I am lying. Even if I show you a photo I took on my phone, you can say that it is photoshopped. Even if I get certified that the photo is not photoshopped, you can say that it is something else, maybe a secret mission initiated by the Government. And here, both of our logic breaks down. We don't know. "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!”

Thanks, but I myself found it strange.

I do appreciate your point and, knowing you, I give it the utmost consideration. However, if a winged pig-like creature arrived from alpha Centauri I would not be that surprised in a 'world' of which we know less than 5%.

It is only this wretched anthropic principle which lulls us into the falsehood that we are the greatest and we know all that matters.

Cat

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

I do appreciate your point and, knowing you, I give it the utmost consideration. However, if a winged pig-like creature arrived from alpha Centauri I would not be that surprised in a 'world' of which we know less than 5%.

It is only this wretched anthropic principle which lulls us into the falsehood that we are the greatest and we know all that matters.

Cat

If the universe was infinite it would also have infinite mass and collapse on itself.
This universe isn't infinite but we might have infinite universes all in foggy bubbles that can interact over very long periods of time, if such a thing as time exists.

I see the real universe as simply endless quantum fluctuation and the product of it is the mass and energy.
The universe just that balance of energy in mass/energy form in a universe bubble of quantum fluctuation.
Quantum fluctuations reason a void has potential energy.
Time the quanta distance in fluctuation.
Gravity a compression of time.

Math from above idea works very well to explain why a black hole doesn't shrink forever or become an infinite mass point.
Black hole.. >G=T<
More mass, less time,self regulated.

 

[akashrao]

nice
anthropic principle discussion has been fruitful

 

[Catastrophe]

Use of the word infinity and derivatives gives anyone licence to postulate the glories of pigs flying by your windows - ooops, there goes another one - until six legged cows swim through the asteroid belt.

The only thing that beats it for utter waste of time is anthropomorphism.

Cat

 

[dfjchem721]

The only thing that beats it for utter waste of time is anthropomorphism.

Cat

"A waste of time"!

Now doesn't that seem itself the height of anthropomorphism? I used that term, a waste of time, in a recent post on another thread and regretted it. There was some miscommunication with another poster debating hope and faith. And I too labeled it a waste of time. It was an overly harsh assessment. (Sorry Helio).

But your post, Cat, has brought up the very notion of "a waste of time" of and by itself.

Can there be anything other than a waste of time for all things? This debate also may redefine time!

Avoiding aspects of faith-based concepts on the past, present and future, for the rest of us, all of human activities will one day cease as a result of some cosmic event, or even brought about by our own activities.

So, wouldn't everything we do, in the end, be a waste of time? Of course one can argue degrees or magnitude of "a waste of time", but that does not dispel the notion that everything we do, and see, and hear, etc. is all a waste of time!

"Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day
Fritter and waste the hours in an offhand way. "

From Time, by Pink Floyd

 

[Helio]

I kinda like, from Alabama....

"I'm in a hurry to get things done
Oh I rush and rush until life's no fun
All I really gotta do is live and die
But I'm in a hurry and don't know why."

One way perhaps that the Anthropic Principle may be popular is because it helps put focus on working backwards, IMO. Normally, at least in engineering, the problem solving steps are: Given-Required-Solution. In science, you normally start with the initial conditions and work from there.

But for things like abiogenesis, or BBT, you start with the Solution and work backwards to the Given or initial conditions. So given life as a solution, we can think more about working backwards from there.

The differences between the strong and weak principles seem more about what initial condition you want to shoot for, perhaps.

 

[Catastrophe]

Well, I did consider coming on here and wasting my precious time, especially as it gets more the valuable the more you waste. And I decided not to.

I am spending (wasting?) a great deal of my time studying everything from (and before!?) the BB, through nucleosynthesis, cosmology, astronomy to geology. There you are, I have wasted time telling you again.
Eventually I decided to take a little time off from my studies to come on here and 'see' you guys. What a waste I hear you cry. No, actually. I don't consider it a waste. I kind of like you guys. Well . . . . . . . . . some of you!

Just kiddin'

Cat

 

[akashrao]

nice