
#REDIRECT Anthropic principle
The anthropic principle in its most basic form states that any valid theory of the universe must be consistent with our existence as carbon-based human beings at this particular time and place in the universe. Attempts to apply this principle to develop scientific explanations in cosmology have led to some confusion and much controversy. Critics call it a truism. ==Origin== The term "anthropic principle" was first proposed in 1973 by Brandon Carter during the symposium "Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data" in Kraków celebrating Copernicus’ 500th birthday, as if to proclaim that humanity does hold a special place in the universe after all.1 In his contribution "Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology" Carter remarks: "Although our situation is not necessarily ''central'', it is inevitably privileged to some extent" (IAUS 63 (1974) 291). ==Proponents and versions== Proponents of the anthropic principle suggest that we live in a fine-tuned universe, i.e. a universe that appears to be "fine-tuned" to allow the existence of life as we know it. If any of the basic physical constants were different, then life as we know it would not be possible. Papers have been written arguing that the anthropic principle would explain the physical constants such as the fine structure constant, the number of dimensions in the universe, and the cosmological constant. The three primary versions of the principle, as stated by Barrow and Frank Tipler (1986), are: * Weak anthropic principle (WAP): "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so." * Strong anthropic principle (SAP): "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history." * Final anthropic principle (FAP): "Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out." The weak version has been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination for assuming no other forms of life are possible (see also carbon chauvinism). Furthermore, the range of constants allowing evolution of carbon-based life may be much less restricted than proposed (Stenger, "Timeless Reality"). The strong version is also criticized as being neither testable nor falsifiable, and unnecessary. The final version is discussed in more detail under final anthropic principle; Barrow and Tipler state that, although it is a physical statement, it is nevertheless "closely connected with moral values". Proponents of the intelligent design conjecture assert support from the anthropic principle. On the other hand, the existence of alternate universes is suggested for other reasons and the anthropic principle provides additional support for their existence. Assuming some possible universe would be capable of supporting intelligent life, some actual universes must do so, and ours clearly is one of those. However, alternatives of the intelligent design conjecture are not limited to proposing the existence of alternate universes. Also, [http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html it has been argued] that the anthropic principle as conventionally stated actually ''undermines'' the intelligent design conjecture (discussed in more detail under fine-tuned universe). == ''The Anthropic Cosmological Principle'' == In 1986, the controversial book ''The Anthropic Cosmological Principle'' by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler (Oxford University Press) was published. In this book Barrow, a cosmological scientist, pioneered what he called the anthropic principle in order to deal with the seemingly incredible coincidences that allow for our presence in a universe that appears to be perfectly set up for our existence. Everything from the particular energy state of the electron to the exact level of the weak nuclear force seems to be tailored for us to exist. The existence of carbon-based life in this universe is contingent upon several independent variables; and were any of these variables to take a slightly different value, carbon-based life could not exist. The anthropic principle implies that our ability to ponder cosmology at all is contingent on ''all'' the correct variables being in place. According to critics, this is simply a tautology, a very elaborate way of saying 'if things were different, they would be different'. This weak anthropic principle is a truism that says nothing and explains nothing because in order for us to be here to ponder the universe, it had to be such that we can exist. Brandon Carter presented his ideas about the anthropic principle in a 1974 publication of the International Astronomical Union. Later, in 1983, he claimed that, in its original form, the principle was meant only to caution astrophysicists and cosmologists of possible errors in the interpretation of astronomical and cosmological data unless the biological constraints of the observer were taken into account. In 1983 he also included the warning that the inverse was true for evolutionary biologists; Carter claimed that in interpreting the evolutionary record, one must take into account the astrophysical restraints of the process. Working with this in mind, Carter concluded that the evolutionary chain probably could include only one or two highly improbable links given the available time interval. A. Feoli and S. Rampone ("Is the Strong Anthropic Principle Too Weak," 1999) argued that the estimated size of our universe and number of planets allows a higher bound, indicating no evidence for intelligent design in evolution. There was renewed scientific interest in the anthropic principle in the late-1990s motivated by observational cosmology and theoretical work in quantum gravity. The theoretical work involved attempting to unify gravity with the other forces. While there were a number of promising developments, they all seemed to suffer from the problem that the fundamental physical constants seemed to be unconstrained. The observational motivation came from cosmological observations which gave firm values for quantities such as the matter density of the universe. Contrary to expectations, the value was not zero, but 0.7, which is a non-obvious value. Recent publications (2004) by Stephen Hawking suggest that our universe is much less 'special' than the proponents of the anthropic principle claim it is. According to Hawking, there is a 98% chance that a universe of a type as ours will come from a Big Bang. Further, using the basic wavefunction of the universe as basis, Hawking's equations indicate that such a universe can come into existence without relation to anything prior to it, meaning that it could come out of nothing. As of 2004, however, these publications and the theories in them are still subject to scientific debate, and in the past, Hawking himself has asked, "What is it that breathes fire into the physical law and makes a universe for them to describe?...Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" (Hawking, 1988). == Anthropic principle in string theory == String theory predicts a large number of possible universes, called the backgrounds or vacua. The set of these of vacua is often called the anthropic landscape or simply the landscape. Some physicists argue that the existence of a large number of vacua puts the anthropic reasoning on firm ground. Others, most notably Peter Woit and Lubos Motl argue that this is not predictive. M-theory attempts to deal with this problem. == Anthropic bias and anthropic reasoning == In 2002, Nick Bostrom asked "Is it possible to sum up the essence of observation selection effects in a simple statement?" He concluded that it might be, but that: :Many 'anthropic principles' are simply confused. Some, especially those drawing inspiration from Brandon Carter's seminal papers, are sound, but... they are too weak to do any real scientific work. In particular, I argue that existing methodology does not permit any observational consequences to be derived from contemporary cosmological theories, in spite of the fact that these theories quite plainly can be and are being tested empirically by astronomers. What is needed to bridge this methodological gap is a more adequate formulation of how observation selection effects are to be taken into account. His Self-Sampling Assumption is "that you should think of yourself as if you were a random observer from a suitable reference class." This he expands into a model of anthropic bias and anthropic reasoning under the uncertainty introduced by not knowing your place in our universe - or even who "we" are. This may also be a way to overcome various cognitive bias limits inherent in the humans doing the observation and sharing models of our universe using mathematics, as suggested in the cognitive science of mathematics. == See also == *Fine-tuned universe *Doomsday argument *Inverse gambler's fallacy *Big bounce *Anthropic landscape ==References== * Hawking, Stephen W. (1988). ''A Brief History of Time'', p.174. New York: Bantam Books. ISBN 0-553-34614-8. ==External links== * Kane, Gordon L., Malcolm J. Perry, and Anna N. Zytkow, "''[http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0001197 The Beginning of the End of the Anthropic Principle]''". (arxiv.org) * [http://arXiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/OR+ti:+AND+anthropic+principle+abs:+AND+anthropic+principle/0/1/0/all/0/1 debate among scientists on arxiv.org] * Anthropic Reasoning, Stephen Hawking [http://www.phys.cwru.edu/events/cerca_video_archive.php Kavli-CERCA Conference Video Archive] * A. Feoli, and S. Rampone, "''[http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9812093 Is the Strong Anthropic Principle too weak?]''". (arxiv.org) == Footnote == ¹ The principle had, however, been invoked before then, e.g. in 1957, R.H. Dicke wrote: 'The age of the Universe "now" is not random but conditioned by biological factors ... [changes in the values of the fundamental constants of physics] would preclude the existence of man to consider the problem.' (R.H. Dicke, ''Principle of Equivalence and Weak Interactions'', Rev.Mod.Phys. 29, 355 (1957).) Even earlier statements of the principle may be found in Alfred Russel Wallace's book ''Man's Place in the Universe'', which was first published in 1903. For example: "such a vast and complex universe as that which we know exists around us, may have been absolutely required ... in order to produce a world that should be precisely adapted in every detail for the orderly development of life culminating in man." (pp. 256-7 in the 1912 edition). It also has analogs in, e.g., Karl Marx's theory of historical materialism: "The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature." (''The German Ideology'', [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#a2 ch. 1]) It is also invoked to salvage string theory. Philosophy Controversial books
Some food for thought before personal prejudice eats this topic alive: "The unmatched human-potential for directly affecting the symmetry of our expanding universe defines good physical reason for why intelligent life would necessarily be required to arise as a practical means for satisfying the increasing entropic impetus of a universe where negative pressure increases as the vacuum grows" www.anthropic-principle.ORG 4/30/2005 ----- I strongly feel that the Anthropic Principle (or one version of the Anthropic Principle) is widely misunderstood. It is often stated as saying "the parameters of our Universe are (mysteriously) within narrow limits which allow the origination of planets, water, intelligent life, etc." However, this is backwards. The only type of Universe which can have intelligent observers is one with parameters within such limits. ----- It's not just me then who has a problem with ''The universe appears to be "fine tuned" to allow the existence of life as we know it.'' then...A less contentious phrasing is the exact reverse: Life as we know it is finely tuned to the universe. Are the shapes and positions of the human eyes, nose and ears "fine tuned" to allow the use of spectacles? ---- I think this article needs work. I, for one, find the entire argument for the "anthropic principal" to be specious and oversimplified. Life evolved to fit the conditions of the existing universe; the universe was not "fine-tuned" by a cosmic entity to allow for the existence of life. If the basic constants of the universe were different, then there would probably be another intelligent race out there awed by the fact that the universe was so perfectly tuned for their kind of life! Another thing. How is it possible for a principal to be true if it can be restated in a manner exactly opposite? User:Stormwriter ---- Of course TODAY's life is fine tuned to the needs of the Earth. The argument is that a universe which can have life to explain that same universe, must necessarily be fine tuned to harbour the BEGINNINGS of life. That means that the universe must eventually have the conditions that were in the primeval oceans hundreds of millions of years ago. After that, life fine tunes itself to the universe's changes. - CJWilly ---- i think the article needs work too. for one thing, the term needs disambiguation. some people ''use'' the term "Anthropic Principle" to prove that the universe was hand-tailored for us (also called ''anthropic coincidences'', a better term), some people ''use'' the term to show that we are the glasses that fit the nose and eyes. some people ''use'' the term to describe ''observation [/selection] effect'', (which is a better term anyway), to describe the fact that we are unduly amazed by the perfect fit between the glasses and the face. one or more ''uses'' of a term warrants its disambiguation, doesn't it? (i found a good disambiguating article on the matter at: http://www.anthropic-principle.com/primer.html ) '' If the basic constants of the universe were different, then there would probably be another intelligent race out there awed by the fact that the universe was so perfectly tuned for their kind of life! -- Stormwriter'' I don't think that the anthropic principle in any form really supports the word ''probably''...
User:Plasticlax ----- Removed this...... : A less contentious phrasing, and one generally overlooked by proponents of the anthropic principle, is the exact reverse: Life as we know it is finely tuned to the universe. In other words, life exists because it can exist. Phrased this way, it is easier to see that the anthropic principle does not necessarily give human life "special status" in any particular way, and is more easily understood through the application of evolution theory. Because in listening to proponents of the anthropic principle, they don't phase it that way because they don't actually believe that. ----- Is the weak form of the principle really controversial? It seems to just state an obvious fact that might otherwise be overlooked. (What I think one of the above comments about being `unduly amazed' is referring to.) I was under the (uninformed) impression that it was only the stronger form that was controversial. Either way, it would be nice if the article could be more explicit about this. :I agree with you - the weak form is tautological, the strong controversial (for being overly certain of what may apply in other universes). There are also forms ''in between'' the weak and the strong (as one might expect) which have been discussed since the origin of the theory. User:EntmootsOfTrolls ----- The article should include references to the ideas of the PAP (Participatory Anthropic Principle, and the FAP (Final Anthropic Principle) and other notions such as the HAP (Holistic Anthropic Principle). I might expand it eventually. User:Stormwriter, I disagree with you about the anthropic principle, I find it useful, though in the end it may explain nothing. That it can be explained in the reverse is not the point, the point is just the fact that there's a perfect fit. Yes, if the universe were different in its basic constants (if thats possible at all, or if its possible that different constants could sustain life; both questions which are philosophically interesting), the different observer would marvel that the universe fit them. However, if that were true maybe it would fit them; and maybe since its true we exist, it fits us. The following is a good webpage to draw information for the article from: http://dialogos3.tripod.com/dial3.htm . I will paste here something I wrote earlier today on the subject, for the purpose of not only generating discussion (which I understand Wikipedia talk isnt for), but also for eventually improving the content of the article: I am not a theist, but this isn't because I disbelieve in the anthropic principle, but for other reasons. I am among the people, who, when asked if they believe in God, doesn't know how to respond, because I don't know what I'm being asked about, I don't know what God is. You can say, I follow the Ludwig Wittgenstein argument that talk about metaphysics is nonsensical; but, more broadly, and more articulated, its just a statement of this: people say God not only created the universe, but existence itself--but that would require either God be ''outside'' of existence, ie non-existant!, or a pantheistic/deistic conception. In the latter case, which has been argued by some philosophers, such as Baruch Spinoza and Plotinus, that God is equilalent to the whole of Being or of existence, can be made to work, because you could argue that God is existence, and existence created itself into being, by some means (which I believe, as I'll explain later). However, saying God is the whole of being is just deflating the entire idea of God, you might as well cross out the words "nature" and "existence" and replace them with "God". On the different types of anthropic principles: most arguments against it, seem to miss some major issues, in that they resort too much to science and physics without looking at things philosophically. That is, scientific oriented thinkers tend to think the only thing at stake is the nature of the 'universe' and of 'matter', but really what is at stake is the issue of 'existence'--what it means for something to exist at all-- and, more peripherally, the issue of 'consciousness'. They seem oblivious to the issue of whether you can be certain anything exists at all after your death, or if anything exists at all outside of your thought. The latter, about things existing external to thought, has shown up in the history of philosophy under the term Idealism, in George Berkeley, and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and even in David Hume. It is at least misguided in one way: there is certainly something we talk about being "external" to us, regardless of metaphysical distinctions. There are similar problems with the former, in that we assume there are other conscious people, and that these people will have perceptions of the world at a time frame after our death. However, what is meant in asking these questions is more broad and profound: what does it mean for something to "exist" with nothing percieving it. Argumentors against the Participatory Anthropic Principle, think that the view relies specifically on a ''scientific interpretation'' the Copenhagen interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle, saying that the observer is part of the construction of reality. But there is no reason to be scientific about it ''at all'', and one needs to accept no scientific premises or interpretations of scientific theory. The issue is more plain: what does it mean for something non- percieved to exist? I understand and do not refute theories such as Cosmic inflation; I accept the idea that there could be muliple universes (although I am a skeptic as to how it is important, because, as you noted, they are obliterated or non-existent to us, which I will deal with later). However, this does nothing but support all forms of the Anthropic Principle, not offer an alternative. Because, among those universes that 'exist' and are there with no 'observer', one has to ask--do they really exist, did they really ''ever'' exist? One can propose that the universe exists in potentially infinite amount of possibilities--but the only manifestation that will really be real and exist, will be the one with the observer. And this one, with the observer, will meet laws necessary to sustain him. The possibility that other universes have observers may seem interesting, but also it is unclear as to whether we could really talk about them existing, as well, unless we can interact with them; because, for us, what doesn't effect our perceptions ''practically'' doesn't exist. As such, we can say that the only universe that we can ever be concerned with as 'existing' is ours. The multiple universe possibility inherent in inflation theory, as only a potential, and in no substantial way, a reality. --- this brings to broader and substantial questions about the metaphysical and conceptual and logical (ie philosophical and non-scientific) issues/problems behind physics theories like inflation theory. That it looks like the possibility of multiple universes is inherent in inflation theory may reflect some distortion in the nature of conceptualizing about it. There are also other deep problems; such as the issue of whether there really could be any different way of ordering the universe than the way we see; and what exactly is manipulated to bring into being any inumerable amount of laws, that, in one combination brings consciousness? But these issues arent necessary to go into. A long time ago, I did this thought experiment: many scientists like to think of the universe as existing in terms of data like binary which is, by itself uninterpreted.Even if this isn't exactly accurate, which I guess it isn't, its at least assumed that how reality ''appears'' depends on the structure of the observing entity. Because its uninterpreted, we may frame it in inumerable abstractions and order it in many different ways. However, with the possibility of an abstraction that involves an observer; the universe "comes into being", it crystalizes or becomes concrete around the observer, in a way ordered to support or sustain its existence. The issue of God is a more abstruse matter, as I commented on at the start. However, proponents of this, don't really treat the notion of 'God' in a traditional manner; they just use the term to refer to a pervasive "consciousness" or drive towards complexity in the universe, finally realized in what we see in humankind in its drive to abstraction and truth. In Western history, the idea of God, anyway, has always been said to be a reflection of perfection, an idea of the perfect or the divine or the ideal--as talked about in Plato when he talks about the Good--or, as its called, in modern thought, the Supreme Being. Many Christian philosophers, like René Descartes, have sometimes dropped the word 'Supreme', talking about God as plainly 'Being', an ontological category referring to the substance of all things. Hegel, in his Idealistic philosophy, gives a teleology in which all of nature resolves all its contradictions, unity and difference, in what he calls the 'Absolute Spirit'. In proponents of this anthropic principle, these are synonymous with God. A truth about humankind and culture and society is that we are driven towards abstracting; resolving contradictions, unity and difference (as per Hegel); finding meaning; and the idea of the Good and perfection. In fact, the idea that we are somehow the result of a "playfulness," an "experiment," or even a "fall" from God and/or the spiritual world, and that we are groping to find our way back is an ancient and common idea to both Eastern and Western religions. Another way of saying this, which I'm not necessarily subscribing to, is that our consciousness is driven by the force of God. And furthermore, since the universe and nature is formed to sustain our existence, if you accept the anthropic principle, in its weakest form, the universe has a directionality towards our consciousness, and in turn, towards our own personal directionality towards the idea of the Good, of God. As such, philosophers and theologans, like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, have argued, that all of nature is a constant evolution in a sort of teleology that is driven by the fact of God. God is equivalent with 'unity in nature'. This is not circular in any way, because it doesnt seek to 'prove' God's existence; rather, it just finds that God is a perfect description for this creative force in nature. (For similar reasons, Descartes' arguments in favor of God, really aren't circular, as they are often claimed to be by analytic philosophers, if you realize he just descriptively equates perfect Being with God) User:Brianshapiro ---- Because this is a contentious issue, is there some way to identify the subject as such more explicitly? Is there a sensible way to include arguments against proposed by recognized theorists, as opposed to the ideally disinterested synthetic author of the wiki? Is the synthesized author of the wiki actually disinterested? I mean, should it be? I am one of those who finds little value in the Anthropic Principle as its stands (I am suspicious of any scientific argument based on speculative statistics, especially the use of the probability of the occurrence of some past event being revised to 100%), but I won't pursue the matter unless there is some way to disinterestedly cover the topic. The wiki is not here to add new knowledge, it is here to summarize existing facts about knowledge. Has anyone encountered a good, published, peer-reviewed criticism of the Anthropic Principle? User:Brent Gulanowski 16:09, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC) == truism? == In the first paragraph is "Critics call it a truism." Is there anyone who doesn't think that the weak A.P. is a truism? It is something that has to be true - it couldn't be any other way. User:Bubba73 01:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I didn't like the first sentence as an intro: "In its weak form, the anthropic principle is a truism". You can revert, but I'd like to work on the intro. --User:Goethean ॐ 02:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: I agree with you that it shouldn't be the first sentence. I'm not sure that only critics call it a truism. I'm talking about the Weak AP only, shich I assume is what is meant by "its most basic form". User:Bubba73 02:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Anthropic_principle:
Anthropic_Principle
Anthropic_principle
Anthropic_principle
Anthropic Principle
#REDIRECT Anthropic principle
Anthropic principle
The anthropic principle in its most basic form states that any valid theory of the universe must be consistent with our existence as carbon-based human beings at this particular time and place in the universe. Attempts to apply this principle to develop scientific explanations in cosmology have led to some confusion and much controversy. Critics call it a truism. ==Origin== The term "anthropic principle" was first proposed in 1973 by Brandon Carter during the symposium "Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data" in Kraków celebrating Copernicus’ 500th birthday, as if to proclaim that humanity does hold a special place in the universe after all.1 In his contribution "Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology" Carter remarks: "Although our situation is not necessarily ''central'', it is inevitably privileged to some extent" (IAUS 63 (1974) 291). ==Proponents and versions== Proponents of the anthropic principle suggest that we live in a fine-tuned universe, i.e. a universe that appears to be "fine-tuned" to allow the existence of life as we know it. If any of the basic physical constants were different, then life as we know it would not be possible. Papers have been written arguing that the anthropic principle would explain the physical constants such as the fine structure constant, the number of dimensions in the universe, and the cosmological constant. The three primary versions of the principle, as stated by Barrow and Frank Tipler (1986), are: * Weak anthropic principle (WAP): "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so." * Strong anthropic principle (SAP): "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history." * Final anthropic principle (FAP): "Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out." The weak version has been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination for assuming no other forms of life are possible (see also carbon chauvinism). Furthermore, the range of constants allowing evolution of carbon-based life may be much less restricted than proposed (Stenger, "Timeless Reality"). The strong version is also criticized as being neither testable nor falsifiable, and unnecessary. The final version is discussed in more detail under final anthropic principle; Barrow and Tipler state that, although it is a physical statement, it is nevertheless "closely connected with moral values". Proponents of the intelligent design conjecture assert support from the anthropic principle. On the other hand, the existence of alternate universes is suggested for other reasons and the anthropic principle provides additional support for their existence. Assuming some possible universe would be capable of supporting intelligent life, some actual universes must do so, and ours clearly is one of those. However, alternatives of the intelligent design conjecture are not limited to proposing the existence of alternate universes. Also, [http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html it has been argued] that the anthropic principle as conventionally stated actually ''undermines'' the intelligent design conjecture (discussed in more detail under fine-tuned universe). == ''The Anthropic Cosmological Principle'' == In 1986, the controversial book ''The Anthropic Cosmological Principle'' by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler (Oxford University Press) was published. In this book Barrow, a cosmological scientist, pioneered what he called the anthropic principle in order to deal with the seemingly incredible coincidences that allow for our presence in a universe that appears to be perfectly set up for our existence. Everything from the particular energy state of the electron to the exact level of the weak nuclear force seems to be tailored for us to exist. The existence of carbon-based life in this universe is contingent upon several independent variables; and were any of these variables to take a slightly different value, carbon-based life could not exist. The anthropic principle implies that our ability to ponder cosmology at all is contingent on ''all'' the correct variables being in place. According to critics, this is simply a tautology, a very elaborate way of saying 'if things were different, they would be different'. This weak anthropic principle is a truism that says nothing and explains nothing because in order for us to be here to ponder the universe, it had to be such that we can exist. Brandon Carter presented his ideas about the anthropic principle in a 1974 publication of the International Astronomical Union. Later, in 1983, he claimed that, in its original form, the principle was meant only to caution astrophysicists and cosmologists of possible errors in the interpretation of astronomical and cosmological data unless the biological constraints of the observer were taken into account. In 1983 he also included the warning that the inverse was true for evolutionary biologists; Carter claimed that in interpreting the evolutionary record, one must take into account the astrophysical restraints of the process. Working with this in mind, Carter concluded that the evolutionary chain probably could include only one or two highly improbable links given the available time interval. A. Feoli and S. Rampone ("Is the Strong Anthropic Principle Too Weak," 1999) argued that the estimated size of our universe and number of planets allows a higher bound, indicating no evidence for intelligent design in evolution. There was renewed scientific interest in the anthropic principle in the late-1990s motivated by observational cosmology and theoretical work in quantum gravity. The theoretical work involved attempting to unify gravity with the other forces. While there were a number of promising developments, they all seemed to suffer from the problem that the fundamental physical constants seemed to be unconstrained. The observational motivation came from cosmological observations which gave firm values for quantities such as the matter density of the universe. Contrary to expectations, the value was not zero, but 0.7, which is a non-obvious value. Recent publications (2004) by Stephen Hawking suggest that our universe is much less 'special' than the proponents of the anthropic principle claim it is. According to Hawking, there is a 98% chance that a universe of a type as ours will come from a Big Bang. Further, using the basic wavefunction of the universe as basis, Hawking's equations indicate that such a universe can come into existence without relation to anything prior to it, meaning that it could come out of nothing. As of 2004, however, these publications and the theories in them are still subject to scientific debate, and in the past, Hawking himself has asked, "What is it that breathes fire into the physical law and makes a universe for them to describe?...Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" (Hawking, 1988). == Anthropic principle in string theory == String theory predicts a large number of possible universes, called the backgrounds or vacua. The set of these of vacua is often called the anthropic landscape or simply the landscape. Some physicists argue that the existence of a large number of vacua puts the anthropic reasoning on firm ground. Others, most notably Peter Woit and Lubos Motl argue that this is not predictive. M-theory attempts to deal with this problem. == Anthropic bias and anthropic reasoning == In 2002, Nick Bostrom asked "Is it possible to sum up the essence of observation selection effects in a simple statement?" He concluded that it might be, but that: :Many 'anthropic principles' are simply confused. Some, especially those drawing inspiration from Brandon Carter's seminal papers, are sound, but... they are too weak to do any real scientific work. In particular, I argue that existing methodology does not permit any observational consequences to be derived from contemporary cosmological theories, in spite of the fact that these theories quite plainly can be and are being tested empirically by astronomers. What is needed to bridge this methodological gap is a more adequate formulation of how observation selection effects are to be taken into account. His Self-Sampling Assumption is "that you should think of yourself as if you were a random observer from a suitable reference class." This he expands into a model of anthropic bias and anthropic reasoning under the uncertainty introduced by not knowing your place in our universe - or even who "we" are. This may also be a way to overcome various cognitive bias limits inherent in the humans doing the observation and sharing models of our universe using mathematics, as suggested in the cognitive science of mathematics. == See also == *Fine-tuned universe *Doomsday argument *Inverse gambler's fallacy *Big bounce *Anthropic landscape ==References== * Hawking, Stephen W. (1988). ''A Brief History of Time'', p.174. New York: Bantam Books. ISBN 0-553-34614-8. ==External links== * Kane, Gordon L., Malcolm J. Perry, and Anna N. Zytkow, "''[http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0001197 The Beginning of the End of the Anthropic Principle]''". (arxiv.org) * [http://arXiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/OR+ti:+AND+anthropic+principle+abs:+AND+anthropic+principle/0/1/0/all/0/1 debate among scientists on arxiv.org] * Anthropic Reasoning, Stephen Hawking [http://www.phys.cwru.edu/events/cerca_video_archive.php Kavli-CERCA Conference Video Archive] * A. Feoli, and S. Rampone, "''[http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9812093 Is the Strong Anthropic Principle too weak?]''". (arxiv.org) == Footnote == ¹ The principle had, however, been invoked before then, e.g. in 1957, R.H. Dicke wrote: 'The age of the Universe "now" is not random but conditioned by biological factors ... [changes in the values of the fundamental constants of physics] would preclude the existence of man to consider the problem.' (R.H. Dicke, ''Principle of Equivalence and Weak Interactions'', Rev.Mod.Phys. 29, 355 (1957).) Even earlier statements of the principle may be found in Alfred Russel Wallace's book ''Man's Place in the Universe'', which was first published in 1903. For example: "such a vast and complex universe as that which we know exists around us, may have been absolutely required ... in order to produce a world that should be precisely adapted in every detail for the orderly development of life culminating in man." (pp. 256-7 in the 1912 edition). It also has analogs in, e.g., Karl Marx's theory of historical materialism: "The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature." (''The German Ideology'', [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#a2 ch. 1]) It is also invoked to salvage string theory. Philosophy Controversial books
Anthropic principle
Some food for thought before personal prejudice eats this topic alive: "The unmatched human-potential for directly affecting the symmetry of our expanding universe defines good physical reason for why intelligent life would necessarily be required to arise as a practical means for satisfying the increasing entropic impetus of a universe where negative pressure increases as the vacuum grows" www.anthropic-principle.ORG 4/30/2005 ----- I strongly feel that the Anthropic Principle (or one version of the Anthropic Principle) is widely misunderstood. It is often stated as saying "the parameters of our Universe are (mysteriously) within narrow limits which allow the origination of planets, water, intelligent life, etc." However, this is backwards. The only type of Universe which can have intelligent observers is one with parameters within such limits. ----- It's not just me then who has a problem with ''The universe appears to be "fine tuned" to allow the existence of life as we know it.'' then...A less contentious phrasing is the exact reverse: Life as we know it is finely tuned to the universe. Are the shapes and positions of the human eyes, nose and ears "fine tuned" to allow the use of spectacles? ---- I think this article needs work. I, for one, find the entire argument for the "anthropic principal" to be specious and oversimplified. Life evolved to fit the conditions of the existing universe; the universe was not "fine-tuned" by a cosmic entity to allow for the existence of life. If the basic constants of the universe were different, then there would probably be another intelligent race out there awed by the fact that the universe was so perfectly tuned for their kind of life! Another thing. How is it possible for a principal to be true if it can be restated in a manner exactly opposite? User:Stormwriter ---- Of course TODAY's life is fine tuned to the needs of the Earth. The argument is that a universe which can have life to explain that same universe, must necessarily be fine tuned to harbour the BEGINNINGS of life. That means that the universe must eventually have the conditions that were in the primeval oceans hundreds of millions of years ago. After that, life fine tunes itself to the universe's changes. - CJWilly ---- i think the article needs work too. for one thing, the term needs disambiguation. some people ''use'' the term "Anthropic Principle" to prove that the universe was hand-tailored for us (also called ''anthropic coincidences'', a better term), some people ''use'' the term to show that we are the glasses that fit the nose and eyes. some people ''use'' the term to describe ''observation [/selection] effect'', (which is a better term anyway), to describe the fact that we are unduly amazed by the perfect fit between the glasses and the face. one or more ''uses'' of a term warrants its disambiguation, doesn't it? (i found a good disambiguating article on the matter at: http://www.anthropic-principle.com/primer.html ) '' If the basic constants of the universe were different, then there would probably be another intelligent race out there awed by the fact that the universe was so perfectly tuned for their kind of life! -- Stormwriter'' I don't think that the anthropic principle in any form really supports the word ''probably''...
User:Plasticlax ----- Removed this...... : A less contentious phrasing, and one generally overlooked by proponents of the anthropic principle, is the exact reverse: Life as we know it is finely tuned to the universe. In other words, life exists because it can exist. Phrased this way, it is easier to see that the anthropic principle does not necessarily give human life "special status" in any particular way, and is more easily understood through the application of evolution theory. Because in listening to proponents of the anthropic principle, they don't phase it that way because they don't actually believe that. ----- Is the weak form of the principle really controversial? It seems to just state an obvious fact that might otherwise be overlooked. (What I think one of the above comments about being `unduly amazed' is referring to.) I was under the (uninformed) impression that it was only the stronger form that was controversial. Either way, it would be nice if the article could be more explicit about this. :I agree with you - the weak form is tautological, the strong controversial (for being overly certain of what may apply in other universes). There are also forms ''in between'' the weak and the strong (as one might expect) which have been discussed since the origin of the theory. User:EntmootsOfTrolls ----- The article should include references to the ideas of the PAP (Participatory Anthropic Principle, and the FAP (Final Anthropic Principle) and other notions such as the HAP (Holistic Anthropic Principle). I might expand it eventually. User:Stormwriter, I disagree with you about the anthropic principle, I find it useful, though in the end it may explain nothing. That it can be explained in the reverse is not the point, the point is just the fact that there's a perfect fit. Yes, if the universe were different in its basic constants (if thats possible at all, or if its possible that different constants could sustain life; both questions which are philosophically interesting), the different observer would marvel that the universe fit them. However, if that were true maybe it would fit them; and maybe since its true we exist, it fits us. The following is a good webpage to draw information for the article from: http://dialogos3.tripod.com/dial3.htm . I will paste here something I wrote earlier today on the subject, for the purpose of not only generating discussion (which I understand Wikipedia talk isnt for), but also for eventually improving the content of the article: I am not a theist, but this isn't because I disbelieve in the anthropic principle, but for other reasons. I am among the people, who, when asked if they believe in God, doesn't know how to respond, because I don't know what I'm being asked about, I don't know what God is. You can say, I follow the Ludwig Wittgenstein argument that talk about metaphysics is nonsensical; but, more broadly, and more articulated, its just a statement of this: people say God not only created the universe, but existence itself--but that would require either God be ''outside'' of existence, ie non-existant!, or a pantheistic/deistic conception. In the latter case, which has been argued by some philosophers, such as Baruch Spinoza and Plotinus, that God is equilalent to the whole of Being or of existence, can be made to work, because you could argue that God is existence, and existence created itself into being, by some means (which I believe, as I'll explain later). However, saying God is the whole of being is just deflating the entire idea of God, you might as well cross out the words "nature" and "existence" and replace them with "God". On the different types of anthropic principles: most arguments against it, seem to miss some major issues, in that they resort too much to science and physics without looking at things philosophically. That is, scientific oriented thinkers tend to think the only thing at stake is the nature of the 'universe' and of 'matter', but really what is at stake is the issue of 'existence'--what it means for something to exist at all-- and, more peripherally, the issue of 'consciousness'. They seem oblivious to the issue of whether you can be certain anything exists at all after your death, or if anything exists at all outside of your thought. The latter, about things existing external to thought, has shown up in the history of philosophy under the term Idealism, in George Berkeley, and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and even in David Hume. It is at least misguided in one way: there is certainly something we talk about being "external" to us, regardless of metaphysical distinctions. There are similar problems with the former, in that we assume there are other conscious people, and that these people will have perceptions of the world at a time frame after our death. However, what is meant in asking these questions is more broad and profound: what does it mean for something to "exist" with nothing percieving it. Argumentors against the Participatory Anthropic Principle, think that the view relies specifically on a ''scientific interpretation'' the Copenhagen interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle, saying that the observer is part of the construction of reality. But there is no reason to be scientific about it ''at all'', and one needs to accept no scientific premises or interpretations of scientific theory. The issue is more plain: what does it mean for something non- percieved to exist? I understand and do not refute theories such as Cosmic inflation; I accept the idea that there could be muliple universes (although I am a skeptic as to how it is important, because, as you noted, they are obliterated or non-existent to us, which I will deal with later). However, this does nothing but support all forms of the Anthropic Principle, not offer an alternative. Because, among those universes that 'exist' and are there with no 'observer', one has to ask--do they really exist, did they really ''ever'' exist? One can propose that the universe exists in potentially infinite amount of possibilities--but the only manifestation that will really be real and exist, will be the one with the observer. And this one, with the observer, will meet laws necessary to sustain him. The possibility that other universes have observers may seem interesting, but also it is unclear as to whether we could really talk about them existing, as well, unless we can interact with them; because, for us, what doesn't effect our perceptions ''practically'' doesn't exist. As such, we can say that the only universe that we can ever be concerned with as 'existing' is ours. The multiple universe possibility inherent in inflation theory, as only a potential, and in no substantial way, a reality. --- this brings to broader and substantial questions about the metaphysical and conceptual and logical (ie philosophical and non-scientific) issues/problems behind physics theories like inflation theory. That it looks like the possibility of multiple universes is inherent in inflation theory may reflect some distortion in the nature of conceptualizing about it. There are also other deep problems; such as the issue of whether there really could be any different way of ordering the universe than the way we see; and what exactly is manipulated to bring into being any inumerable amount of laws, that, in one combination brings consciousness? But these issues arent necessary to go into. A long time ago, I did this thought experiment: many scientists like to think of the universe as existing in terms of data like binary which is, by itself uninterpreted.Even if this isn't exactly accurate, which I guess it isn't, its at least assumed that how reality ''appears'' depends on the structure of the observing entity. Because its uninterpreted, we may frame it in inumerable abstractions and order it in many different ways. However, with the possibility of an abstraction that involves an observer; the universe "comes into being", it crystalizes or becomes concrete around the observer, in a way ordered to support or sustain its existence. The issue of God is a more abstruse matter, as I commented on at the start. However, proponents of this, don't really treat the notion of 'God' in a traditional manner; they just use the term to refer to a pervasive "consciousness" or drive towards complexity in the universe, finally realized in what we see in humankind in its drive to abstraction and truth. In Western history, the idea of God, anyway, has always been said to be a reflection of perfection, an idea of the perfect or the divine or the ideal--as talked about in Plato when he talks about the Good--or, as its called, in modern thought, the Supreme Being. Many Christian philosophers, like René Descartes, have sometimes dropped the word 'Supreme', talking about God as plainly 'Being', an ontological category referring to the substance of all things. Hegel, in his Idealistic philosophy, gives a teleology in which all of nature resolves all its contradictions, unity and difference, in what he calls the 'Absolute Spirit'. In proponents of this anthropic principle, these are synonymous with God. A truth about humankind and culture and society is that we are driven towards abstracting; resolving contradictions, unity and difference (as per Hegel); finding meaning; and the idea of the Good and perfection. In fact, the idea that we are somehow the result of a "playfulness," an "experiment," or even a "fall" from God and/or the spiritual world, and that we are groping to find our way back is an ancient and common idea to both Eastern and Western religions. Another way of saying this, which I'm not necessarily subscribing to, is that our consciousness is driven by the force of God. And furthermore, since the universe and nature is formed to sustain our existence, if you accept the anthropic principle, in its weakest form, the universe has a directionality towards our consciousness, and in turn, towards our own personal directionality towards the idea of the Good, of God. As such, philosophers and theologans, like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, have argued, that all of nature is a constant evolution in a sort of teleology that is driven by the fact of God. God is equivalent with 'unity in nature'. This is not circular in any way, because it doesnt seek to 'prove' God's existence; rather, it just finds that God is a perfect description for this creative force in nature. (For similar reasons, Descartes' arguments in favor of God, really aren't circular, as they are often claimed to be by analytic philosophers, if you realize he just descriptively equates perfect Being with God) User:Brianshapiro ---- Because this is a contentious issue, is there some way to identify the subject as such more explicitly? Is there a sensible way to include arguments against proposed by recognized theorists, as opposed to the ideally disinterested synthetic author of the wiki? Is the synthesized author of the wiki actually disinterested? I mean, should it be? I am one of those who finds little value in the Anthropic Principle as its stands (I am suspicious of any scientific argument based on speculative statistics, especially the use of the probability of the occurrence of some past event being revised to 100%), but I won't pursue the matter unless there is some way to disinterestedly cover the topic. The wiki is not here to add new knowledge, it is here to summarize existing facts about knowledge. Has anyone encountered a good, published, peer-reviewed criticism of the Anthropic Principle? User:Brent Gulanowski 16:09, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC) == truism? == In the first paragraph is "Critics call it a truism." Is there anyone who doesn't think that the weak A.P. is a truism? It is something that has to be true - it couldn't be any other way. User:Bubba73 01:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I didn't like the first sentence as an intro: "In its weak form, the anthropic principle is a truism". You can revert, but I'd like to work on the intro. --User:Goethean ॐ 02:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: I agree with you that it shouldn't be the first sentence. I'm not sure that only critics call it a truism. I'm talking about the Weak AP only, shich I assume is what is meant by "its most basic form". User:Bubba73 02:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
A
AB | AC | AD | AE | AF | AG | AH | AI | AJ | AK | AL | AM | AN | AO | AP | AR | AS | AT | AU | AW | AX | AY | AZ |Words begining with Anthropic_principle:
Anthropic_Principle
Anthropic_principle
Anthropic_principle
Sponsored links: praca.
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
