Avoiding the Anthropic Principle?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic1seeks

Guest
The Anthropic Principle basically states that all physical and cosmological quantities are just right as to allow life to develop in the Universe.

QUESTION: How do Atheists and others avoid the implications of this principle?

I’ve heard of the *multiple universes *theory by which there are many universes, not just one, and form through the black holes of other universes. And if many universes can exist, one is bound to have the qualities to allow intelligent life to form (or so the argument goes).

ALSO:Is there any evidence for this multiple universe theory and what are others ways atheists (and others) diminish the Anthropic Principle?

MORE INFO: I found this at Wikipedia under “Multiverse” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_IV:_Ultimate_Ensemble
The concept of other universes has been proposed to explain why our universe seems to be fine-tuned for conscious life as we experience it. If there were a large number (possibly infinite) of different physical laws (or fundamental constants) in as many universes, some of these would have laws that were suitable for stars, planets and life to exist. The weak anthropic principle could then be applied to conclude that we would only consciously exist in those universes which were finely-tuned for our conscious existence. Thus, while the probability might be extremely small that there is life in most of the universes,*** this scarcity of life-supporting universes does not imply intelligent design ***as the only explanation of our existence.
Click to expand...
 
catholic1seeks said:
The Anthropic Principle basically states that all physical and cosmological quantities are just right as to allow life to develop in the Universe.

QUESTION: How do Atheists and others avoid the implications of this principle?

I’ve heard of the *multiple universes *theory by which there are many universes, not just one, and form through the black holes of other universes. And if many universes can exist, one is bound to have the qualities to allow intelligent life to form (or so the argument goes).

ALSO:Is there any evidence for this multiple universe theory and what are others ways atheists (and others) diminish the Anthropic Principle?

MORE INFO: I found this at Wikipedia under “Multiverse” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_IV:_Ultimate_Ensemble
Click to expand...
What do you mean anthropic principle?

The “weak” anthropic principle merely states that it is a necessary requirement for the university to be amiable for sentient life. If the properties of the universe was not compatible with sentient lifeforms, then we would not be able to contemplate the issue, since this would preclude the evolution of sentient life in a naturalistic process. In other words, we should not be surprised that the parameters of the universe appear to be “fine-tuned”, since if they were not fine-tuned, we would not be here to think about it.
 
The multiverse is the only way out. It is a stretch and the odds are way out there. They will keep spouting it though until they dream up something else up.

No evidence for it. Not verifiable or falsifiable.

In addition, if all universes can exist, then so can fake ones and ones with a God.

And - one still has to ask what is the cause of the multiverses.
 
Black_Rose said:
What do you mean anthropic principle?

The “weak” anthropic principle merely states that it is a necessary requirement for the university to be amiable for sentient life. If the properties of the universe was not compatible with sentient lifeforms, then we would not be able to contemplate the issue, since this would preclude the evolution of sentient life in a naturalistic process. In other words, we should not be surprised that the parameters of the universe appear to be “fine-tuned”, since if they were not fine-tuned, we would not be here to think about it.
Click to expand...
Huh? Of course our Universe has the properties necessary for conscious, intelligent life. This is obvious, since we’re here. The implications of this, with the fact of the universe’s beginning, would seem to indicate an Intelligent Designer.

So how do the atheists get around it? And as for the multiverse theory, is there any evidence?
 
buffalo said:
one still has to ask what is the cause of the multiverses.
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s what I’ve thought. But I guess the atheists refer to this as “god of the gaps,”
for I think they usually say something to the effect that other Universes may not have cause and effects the same way ours does.
??
 
catholic1seeks said:
Yeah that’s what I’ve thought. But I guess the atheists refer to this as “god of the gaps,”
for I think they usually say something to the effect that other Universes may not have cause and effects the same way ours does.
??
Click to expand...
I do not have a problem with a God of the Gaps. There will always be at least one gap or we would be God. However, it should not be invoked foolishly.
 
catholic1seeks said:
The Anthropic Principle basically states that all physical and cosmological quantities are just right as to allow life to develop in the Universe.

QUESTION: How do Atheists and others avoid the implications of this principle?

I’ve heard of the *multiple universes *theory by which there are many universes, not just one, and form through the black holes of other universes. And if many universes can exist, one is bound to have the qualities to allow intelligent life to form (or so the argument goes).

ALSO:Is there any evidence for this multiple universe theory and what are others ways atheists (and others) diminish the Anthropic Principle?

MORE INFO: I found this at Wikipedia under “Multiverse” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_IV:_Ultimate_Ensemble
Click to expand...
Catholic1:

The problem I have with this defensive construct is the problem of the impossibility of an actual infinity. Again; why here, why now?

God bless,
jd
 
catholic1seeks said:
The Anthropic Principle basically states that all physical and cosmological quantities are just right as to allow life to develop in the Universe.

QUESTION: How do Atheists and others avoid the implications of this principle?
Click to expand...
The same way one can avoid the implications of any property of the universe which suggests God. Say that it “just is” and that asking “why” is irrelevant.
 
Black_Rose said:
What do you mean anthropic principle?

The “weak” anthropic principle merely states that it is a necessary requirement for the university to be amiable for sentient life. .
Click to expand...
I dunno…sometimes the university I went to was amiable, sometimes not!😃 Not picking on you, I was an English major and couldn’t resist!

As long as we’re on the subject now, I did find the state university not as amenable to my Catholicism.:rolleyes:

But this is a really fascinating thread. I’m writing a Catholic science fiction novel and learning as I go, as I decide which possibilities to include in my book and which would have to have another book to explore. In literature too there are many possibilities!:juggle:

I’m thinking we have to think in terms of “meta-universe” almost – because God is omnipotent and it would still have to be God creating ex nihilo, right? Did I get the Latin correct? If not someone else can tease me.

But in my musings for the underpinnings of my novel, last night I was thinking something like, OK, we just can’t really say what is random and what is designed either, because we are in the consequence rather than the cause. We might be smart enough to ask the questions but we’re also a bit like the fish that doesn’t know that what he swims in is called “water.” 🤷
 
3DOCTORS said:
But in my musings for the underpinnings of my novel, last night I was thinking something like, OK, we just can’t really say what is random and what is designed either, because we are in the consequence rather than the cause. We might be smart enough to ask the questions but we’re also a bit like the fish that doesn’t know that what he swims in is called “water.” 🤷
Click to expand...
What we can say is that randomness occurs within the framework of order and design…
 
Yeah! That sums it up well. Less convoluted than my ramblings too.:o
 
I’ve been studying the Anthropic Principle for quite a while–here are some good references:
Universes by John Leslie;
The Cosmic Jackpot–why our universe is just right for life by Paul Davies;
God and the New Cosmology–the Anthropic Design Argument by M.A. Corey.

The best web site–giving pro and cons–is that for a course by Robert Koons (Professor of Philosophy at University of Texas):
leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/lec11.html

One of the arguments against the Anthropic coincidences as being evidence for intelligent design is that they are “old evidence”. However, the prediction by Sir Fred Hoyle of the unlikely excited nuclear energy level resonances for Be-8 and C-12, which facilitated the otherwise unlikely formation of Carbon-12 from the three alpha particle process, gainsays that.
The multiverse universe argument is interesting but it’s science-fiction; by definition, since we can’t contact these universes in any way, there’s no way to prove or disprove their existence. A much more economical hypothesis, using Ockham’s razor, is that of an intelligent designer.
 
Anselm33 said:
I’ve been studying the Anthropic Principle for quite a while–here are some good references:
Universes by John Leslie;
The Cosmic Jackpot–why our universe is just right for life by Paul Davies;
God and the New Cosmology–the Anthropic Design Argument by M.A. Corey.

The best web site–giving pro and cons–is that for a course by Robert Koons (Professor of Philosophy at University of Texas):
leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/lec11.html

One of the arguments against the Anthropic coincidences as being evidence for intelligent design is that they are “old evidence”. However, the prediction by Sir Fred Hoyle of the unlikely excited nuclear energy level resonances for Be-8 and C-12, which facilitated the otherwise unlikely formation of Carbon-12 from the three alpha particle process, gainsays that.
The multiverse universe argument is interesting but it’s science-fiction; by definition, since we can’t contact these universes in any way, there’s no way to prove or disprove their existence. A much more economical hypothesis, using Ockham’s razor, is that of an intelligent designer.
Click to expand...
What is “old evidence?”
 
Anselm33 said:
The multiverse universe argument is interesting but it’s science-fiction; by definition, since we can’t contact these universes in any way, there’s no way to prove or disprove their existence. A much more economical hypothesis, using Ockham’s razor, is that of an intelligent designer.
Click to expand...
A multi-verse hypothesis might be testable. I don’t see how anyone can summarily reject that possibility. It is certainly more testable than a non-empirically verifiable ‘supernatural’ intelligent agent.
 
catholic1seeks said:
What is “old evidence?”
Click to expand...
“Old Evidence” means explaining something already known in terms of a new theory. For example, the advance in the perhelion of Mercury was known in the 19th century but could not be quantitatively explained by Newton’s theory of gravitation. Einstein’s general theory of relativity did, however, explain the advance quantitatively. (And no one objected). Look at Robert Koons’ website for a more complete explanation
 
MormonHero said:
A multi-verse hypothesis might be testable. I don’t see how anyone can summarily reject that possibility. It is certainly more testable than a non-empirically verifiable ‘supernatural’ intelligent agent.
Click to expand...
And just how might the proposition that there are multiverses be testable? Short (and very incomplete) story: one hypothesis for multiverses is that of bubble universes, as advanced by Linde: the hyperexpansion occurred faster than light-speed, giving no causal connection between different portions of the multiverse–different possible natural laws, physical constants. But if these are truly different universes, then there is, a priori, no way of communicating with them. And as far as “testable” goes, the hypothesis of an intelligence design isn’t testable as a logical proposition with major,minor premises and conclusion, nor as a reproducible experiment (unfortunately we can’t do experiments on the universe), but it certainly is the simplest explanation for an event with probability occurring by chance of essentially zero. So, if you want to follow Ockham’s principle, and not multiply hypotheses, that for an intelligent designer is the most acceptable. I’ll quote from Sir Fred Hoyle, who was a militant atheist before becoming aware of all the implications of the anthropic coincidences (including that which he discovered–the improbable resonance of nuclear energy levels required for the formation of Carbon-12):
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces speaking about in nature. The numbers one clculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming, as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Click to expand...
 
Anselm33 said:
And just how might the proposition that there are multiverses be testable?..
Click to expand...
If you want to give up the scientific adventure, and invoke a non-empirically verifiable supernatural designer, be my guest. Part of the adventure of science is to figure out how multi-verses might be testable, not to give up the challenge prematurely.
 
Actually, that problem would belong to epistemology. But anyways, knowledge of a supernatural being can be justified differently, since it is a priori knowledge (independent of experience). Whereas a multi-verse, if it is going to be scientific, is a posteriori (dependent on empirical evidence). Of course, we could try to argue philosophically for a multi-verse, though I’ve never heard such an argument. So it’s still hard for me to see how anyone can prove the existence of a multi-verse either philosophically or scientifically.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top