Problem with the anthropic Principle

[Marc_Anthony]

The problem I see with the anthropic principle is that it can’t stand on its own; it only works if we assume that the universe has an actual beginning.

Let’s say the universe has been here infinitely. If so, then eventually you would assume that every possible configuration of molecules and particles, or any possible arrangement of energy, however unlikely, would eventually occur. Including one that would create life.

The anthropic principle only works if the universe has an actual beginning-and you need a cosmological argument to prove that (and those are flawed). So the anthropic principle doesn’t work on its own.

 

[Touchstone]

The problem I see with the anthropic principle is that it can’t stand on its own; it only works if we assume that the universe has an actual beginning.

Let’s say the universe has been here infinitely. If so, then eventually you would assume that every possible configuration of molecules and particles, or any possible arrangement of energy, however unlikely, would eventually occur. Including one that would create life.

The anthropic principle only works if the universe has an actual beginning-and you need a cosmological argument to prove that (and those are flawed). So the anthropic principle doesn’t work on its own.

I don’t think a finite beginning helps. If you take the six cosmological constants (or pick your own set of parameters) and suppose it’s odd that we got “lucky”, consider dealing yourself six cards from a thoroughly randomized deck of cards. Should you be surprised to get “9-10-J-Q-K-A of spades”, dealt in that order?

No.

That deal is just as likely as another hand you might deal yourself. But if we equate the “9-10-J-Q-K-A of spades” hand with the “just-so” parameters theists imagined are tuned by a Cosmic Designer to support life, the odds are steep in both cases. There are a lot more configurations of those parameters that don’t support life in that universe than ones that do, by a long shot. Similarly, there are more “non 9-10-J-Q-K-A of spades” hands than “9-10-J-Q-K-A of spades” hands, by a long shot.

That’s true, but doesn’t change the fact that some hand will be dealt, and the “life supporting hand” is just as likely as any other, on a random pull. If this were not true, we be astonished that anyone ever won the lottery, or was dealt a straight flush — there are TOO MANY ways to NOT get that outcome.

This is psychological flaw in humans, who are surprisingly inept at largely numbers and probabilites (OK, maybe it’s not suprising, given our evolutionary heritage).

With a finite beginning, the Anthropic Principle gains no ground. Where it gains traction is not from a beginning, but from the premise that a God exists somehow outside the universe that could turn the knobs and dials to the just-so settings needed for life.

But that gives the game away, going there. It assumes what it seeks to prove in that case. Without a predicate for a “knob turner”, the Anthropic Principle is entirely unconvincing, no more than it would be in a universe with an infinite past and flexible cosmological parameters.

-TS

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Touchstone,

Here is a reply by Luke K from the thread “Eternal Forces”;

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7148223&postcount=18

I thought it was very good; it is thinking similar to mine that leads me to believe that’s a poor objection.

I’ve said before, and I’ll say again now, that it’s sort of like death row lined up to kill us-and missed.

BUT, all this being said, even if you still think that’s a solid objection (you’re smart-I’m sure you will) this thread is not about that discussion. Let’s assume, for the purpose of the thread, that it’s NOT a solid objection, even if it is. The question still remains; without establishing that we live in a finite unverse, does the anthropic principle work?

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone,

Here is a reply by Luke K from the thread “Eternal Forces”;

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7148223&postcount=18

I thought it was very good; it is thinking similar to mine that leads me to believe that’s a poor objection.

I’ve said before, and I’ll say again now, that it’s sort of like death row lined up to kill us-and missed.

BUT, all this being said, even if you still think that’s a solid objection (you’re smart-I’m sure you will) this thread is not about that discussion. Let’s assume, for the purpose of the thread, that it’s NOT a solid objection, even if it is. The question still remains; without establishing that we live in a finite unverse, does the anthropic principle work?

OK, fine. I’ll have to go think about responding to Luke K’s post there, as there’s all sorts of things going wrong there I’d like to address, but per your constraint at the end there, an universe with an eternal past is no more challenged by that eternal past than a universe with a finite past, as I see it. This is because even in a universe with an eternal past, physical laws – and the parameters we are talking about – constrain what is possible, even with infinite timelines. If the weak nuclear force is out of range, inifinite lengths of time will not be sufficient to create life-enabling atoms and molecules.

As I see it, the finitude or eternality of our universe’s past is a non-factor. What’s amazing (if there’s anything amazing at all) is the “fine-tunedness” of the parameters, at seemingly arbitrary values. That makes organic life plausible (or not) no matter how much time has scrolled into the past.

What I think you may be getting at is the actuality of life, not the compatibility of life and the cosmological parameters. Given a (recent, relatve to eternal!) finite beginning, it’s arguably more remarkable that we have life here after 13+ billion years, rather than after umpteen gazillion years and more (at some point in there, life would behold its situation and say ‘hey, it’s kind of weird we’re here, no?’). That’s a different question from what the Anthropic Principle drives at, which is why I don’t see an eternal past changing your answer.

We’d be just as surprised (or not) in a universe that was infinitely old to find ourselves alive, “enabled by nature” as we would in a 14 billion year old universe.

The Anthropic Principle marvels at the fact that life is possible, at all, under any circumstances, no matter how much or how little time has elapsed. It’s a metaphysical conjecture, as opposed to your notion (interesting but different), which is a physical distinction.

-TS

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

*We’d be just as surprised (or not) in a universe that was infinitely old to find ourselves alive, “enabled by nature” as we would in a 14 billion year old universe. *

But there is no evidence of an infinitely old universe, whereas there is evidence of a universe 14 billion years old.

“Enabled by nature”? What does that mean? Does that mean that the laws of chance enabled our existence? How is that possible? Did the laws of chance exist before the universe, or were they created at the time of the Big Bang? If the latter, wouldn’t those laws of chance have to have been created in such a way as to make us “enabled by nature”?

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone

*We’d be just as surprised (or not) in a universe that was infinitely old to find ourselves alive, “enabled by nature” as we would in a 14 billion year old universe. *

But there is no evidence of an infinitely old universe, whereas there is evidence of a universe 14 billion years old.

I’m not taking any position on an infinitely old universe here, but rather saying that infinite or finite doesn’t change any appeals made by the Anthropic Principle.

“Enabled by nature”? What does that mean?

The Anthropic Principle wonders why the universe is “fine tuned” (to use some prejudicial language) to support life. The parameters of our universe enable life, as the constants are such that elements can form, and thus carbon, and thus organic compounds…

Does that mean that the laws of chance enabled our existence? How is that possible?

Laws of chance? These are universal constants (so far as we know). The opposite of chance, an absolute, consistent constant value.

Did the laws of chance exist before the universe, or were they created at the time of the Big Bang? If the latter, wouldn’t those laws of chance have to have been created in such a way as to make us “enabled by nature”?

Dunno. We have no way to know. We have conjectures that we can apply from working and successful theories from this universe, but that cannot ever be more than conjecture. It’s an unknown, and will remain an unknown.

If we suppose, however, that this universe is part of a larger, enclosing (in some sense) multiverse, then the question of the Anthropic Principle becomes a non-question. A universe like ours would be inevitable in that case, and not surprising in the least. Which is just to offer conjecture that nullifies, or meets at parity, theological conjectures or intuitions of a deity or some such monkeying with the dials. Could be, but it’s just one of N scenarios we might conceive of, none of which will ever be more than conjecture for us.

-TS

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the anthropic principle?

I always understood it as this: The odds of our existence, are extraordinarily low. The chances of all the circumstances necessary for us to be here being present at one time (the grammar sounds bad but whatever) are ridiculously low. So the fact that it has occurred is amazing (remember, we’re throwing out your objection from earlier for the purpose of argument).

BUT, that’s only if we live in a finite universe; if the universe is not infinite, then indeed this is extraordinary. But if it IS infinite, why would it be implausible for EVERY possible combination of atoms, particles, molecules, and energy, however unlikely, to arrange itself in a way that would create life. You’d think that would happen eventually…like the old monkeys on typewriters thought experiment. If they keep typing eventually the complete works of Shakespeare will be produced.

 

[Touchstone]

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the anthropic principle?

I think so. I didn’t find a good, straightforward article on the Anthropic Principle over at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but have a look at the Wikipedia article to get an idea why I think you’re thinking of a different (but perhaps nearby) problem than the Anthropic Principle:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Admittedly, it’s badly named, and has always been a source of confusion as a philosophical problem.

I always understood it as this: The odds of our existence, are extraordinarily low.

Yes, but the key is “low, but with respect to what?”. The Anthropic Principle wonders why the parameters that govern (or calibrate) the physical laws of nature are compatible at all with organic life. It doesn’t matter how much time is allowed, even in an infinite amount of time, on this intuition, it’s “miraculous” that life is possible at all. It appears (on this view) the the cosmological constants are set “just so” at otherwise seemingly arbitrary values, just so life could possibly happen. Even if no life never evolved, by chance, it’s a wonder that it’s even possible, on this view.

The chances of all the circumstances necessary for us to be here being present at one time (the grammar sounds bad but whatever) are ridiculously low.

Yes, but not as a matter of elapsed time, as a result of parameters governing physical law (the strong and weak nuclear forces, for example) that even enable atoms and molecules to form that make organic life possible. Again, the Anthropic Principle focuses on a higher level than you are looking at, it looks at why the physical laws are the way the are at all, not what the odds are of life coming about given the fact that the parameters are what they are.

So the fact that it has occurred is amazing (remember, we’re throwing out your objection from earlier for the purpose of argument).

Understand. This is another argument from ignorance/awe than the Anthropic Principle invokes, though.

BUT, that’s only if we live in a finite universe; if the universe is not infinite, then indeed this is extraordinary. But if it IS infinite, why would it be implausible for EVERY possible combination of atoms, particles, molecules, and energy, however unlikely, to arrange itself in a way that would create life. You’d think that would happen eventually…like the old monkeys on typewriters thought experiment. If they keep typing eventually the complete works of Shakespeare will be produced.

Yeah, I think this would be called the Argument from Fear of Large Numbers, or some such. It’s a question that deserves attention, but this is not the issue the Anthropic Principle raises.

-TS

 

[Black_Rose]

I do not know what Marc means by the anthropic principle though.

I don’t think a finite beginning helps. If you take the six cosmological constants (or pick your own set of parameters) and suppose it’s odd that we got “lucky”, consider dealing yourself six cards from a thoroughly randomized deck of cards. Should you be surprised to get “9-10-J-Q-K-A of spades”, dealt in that order?

(The probability of your particular draw coming up by chance 1.465 x 10[sub]-10[sub/])

Actually, you should be surprised to get that draw (in any order though) since there are possible draws of a five card poker card (in any order) 2,598,960. The odds of getting a spade royal flush is the inverse of that, as would be true for any other hand. But the four possible royal flushes are designated as “special hands” so it is not equivalent to drawing any other hand. It is a reasonable inference to assume that the deck was stacked when one draws a royal flush from a single draw.

How does one formulate a (naturalistic) null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis (designer’s intervention) when addressing the nature of the constants of the universe? If one chooses a “universe” from the set of all possible universes, assuming that each possible universe are equally probable, it would be vastly improbably to randomly select a universe that is able to support life because such universes are a small proportion of the set one must chose from. If one does select a universe that is able to support life from this set from a single trial, then one can reject a null hypothesis (defined in this case that the selection process is random) and adopt the alternative hypothesis (for example that one had some knowledge of the properties of the universe that they are selection).

Needless to say, that if there are multiple trials, the probably of selecting at least one universe that is able to support life rises. While winning the lottery on a single trial by purchasing one ticket is highly improbably, some win the lottery simply because there are many players buying multiple tickets which allows the ticket purchasers, collectively, to have a large proportion of the possible outcomes of the lottery covered.

From our perspective, we are not selecting universes at random; we certainly know that our universe has the properties of being able to support life. The aforementioned null hypothesis does not apply in our case because our universe is already selected, simply by being able to observe our universe. The null hypothesis in this case purports that the parameters of the universe in which we inhabit can be explained without a “designer”. Since the naturalistic hypothesis assumes by definition that the universe has the properties to allow the origin and development to arise naturally, the null hypothesis does not conflict with the naturalistic hypothesis and it is compatible with the empirical evidence. This does not necessarily mean that the null hypothesis is correct (accepting the null hypothesis when it is incorrect is classically known as type II error; a false negative in other words), just that the evidence does not make it necessary to invoke an alternative hypothesis and that evidence has not falsified the null hypothesis.

 

[tonyrey]

1. There is no scientific explanation of how the universe and rational beings originated.
   2… The existence of rational beings is related to highly specified complexity.
2. As far as we know a universe with such highly specified complexity is far more improbable than other possible universes.
3. There is no evidence that such highly specified complexity is fortuitous.
4. The success of science is convincing evidence that such highly specified complexity has a rational origin.

 

[inocente]

The problem I see with the anthropic principle is that it can’t stand on its own; it only works if we assume that the universe has an actual beginning.

Out of all the possible number plates I could see, I just saw “BGH 127 KF”. If I only think in hindsight then the odds of seeing that particular plate would be astronomical, it would be absolutely amazing.

We all know that conclusion would be wrong, and really that’s all the anthropic principle says. There’s a long string of coincidences that make our universe appear special, but then there’s a long string of coincidences that led me and “BGH 127 KF” to the same place at the same time.

The universe may well be special, but I think the principle is really just a reminder to be very careful when drawing conclusions based on hindsight alone.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

So, let’s clarify something here: Does everybody here agree that the anthropic principle fails?

If you don’t think so, can you explain why not?

I’dll point out now that Touchstone’s objection from earlier is now back in play. I want to understand why the anthropic principle fails, or why you disagree with that.

 

[Windfish]

So, let’s clarify something here: Does everybody here agree that the anthropic principle fails?

If you don’t think so, can you explain why not?

I’dll point out now that Touchstone’s objection from earlier is now back in play. I want to understand why the anthropic principle fails, or why you disagree with that.

I really don’t understand the response that any other combination is just as likely. It seems to me that it entirely misses the point.

 

[Luke_K]

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the anthropic principle?

I always understood it as this: The odds of our existence, are extraordinarily low. The chances of all the circumstances necessary for us to be here being present at one time (the grammar sounds bad but whatever) are ridiculously low. So the fact that it has occurred is amazing (remember, we’re throwing out your objection from earlier for the purpose of argument).

BUT, that’s only if we live in a finite universe; if the universe is not infinite, then indeed this is extraordinary. But if it IS infinite, why would it be implausible for EVERY possible combination of atoms, particles, molecules, and energy, however unlikely, to arrange itself in a way that would create life. You’d think that would happen eventually…like the old monkeys on typewriters thought experiment. If they keep typing eventually the complete works of Shakespeare will be produced.

Here’s the way I currently view the anthropic principle.

The universe’s physics are such that that life is possible, but only under very specific circumstances. Life can be described as self-preserving, self-replicating molecules. Now, every atom and electron in your body has absolutely no conscious reason or purpose for doing what it does other than following the physics of the universe. Under specific conditions which have yet to be replicated in a lab, carbon, phosphorous, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen come together to form nucleotide polymers (DNA or RNA). These nucleotide polymers, because of the way the universe’s laws are set up, organize the matter and energy around themselves in such a way as to preserve their existence, and they also create more of themselves. This seems incredibly fortuitous. Why should these polymers “code” for anything meaningful or useful? Why should a particular arrangement of atoms be able to arrange another set of atoms so as to prevent the former arrangement from being annihilated? Why should the nucleotide polymers replicate themselves and carry on meaningful information?

Why should a lipid bi-layer form a sphere around the DNA to protect it? Why should organelles form inside this sphere to assist the DNA? Why should enzymes form and be able to reduce the energy barrier for certain chemical reactions necessary for the DNA’s existence? Why should these relatively huge and multi-faceted machines of molecules known as cells be able to function at all?

Why should fortuitous, random alterations in the DNA be able to make even more complicated molecular machines? Why should enough rearrangements, additions, and alterations to the DNA and cells eventually produce the body that you have today? Why should 6.7 x 10^27 atoms all cooperate across relatively huge distances (compared to atomic sizes) to create a macroscopic human body, with all its anatomy and functions? And finally, why should these bodies then go on to alter their environment and after many centuries of trial and error and passing on information to subsequent generations, create ever-more complex machines like cars and computers, just like the DNA that started it all?

There’s no necessary reason for them to do this. None at all. They just do because of thermodynamic, kinetic, and bonding principles which all the matter in the universe follows. It also all happened because something after the big bang made the matter and energy in the universe separate into a non-homogenous configuration where useful work could be done from the available energy instead of an immediate “heat-death.”

The anthropic principle points out that the laws of the universe are such that very specific conditions activate a natural chemical program that produces you and me. Arguments go from there, I guess.

We will never be able to observe an infinite universe, and the current density of what we can observe is 4 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter, so there is no reason to think that there is an infinite amount of matter.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Here’s the way I currently view the anthropic principle.

The universe’s physics are such that that life is possible, but only under very specific circumstances. Life can be described as self-preserving, self-replicating molecules. Now, every atom and electron in your body has absolutely no conscious reason or purpose for doing what it does other than following the physics of the universe. Under specific conditions which have yet to be replicated in a lab, carbon, phosphorous, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen come together to form nucleotide polymers (DNA or RNA). These nucleotide polymers, because of the way the universe’s laws are set up, organize the matter and energy around themselves in such a way as to preserve their existence, and they also create more of themselves. This seems incredibly fortuitous. Why should these polymers “code” for anything meaningful or useful? Why should a particular arrangement of atoms be able to arrange another set of atoms so as to prevent the former arrangement from being annihilated? Why should the nucleotide polymers replicate themselves and carry on meaningful information?

Why should a lipid bi-layer form a sphere around the DNA to protect it? Why should organelles form inside this sphere to assist the DNA? Why should enzymes form and be able to reduce the energy barrier for certain chemical reactions necessary for the DNA’s existence? Why should these relatively huge and multi-faceted machines of molecules known as cells be able to function at all?

Why should fortuitous, random alterations in the DNA be able to make even more complicated molecular machines? Why should enough rearrangements, additions, and alterations to the DNA and cells eventually produce the body that you have today? Why should 6.7 x 10^27 atoms all cooperate across relatively huge distances (compared to atomic sizes) to create a macroscopic human body, with all its anatomy and functions? And finally, why should these bodies then go on to alter their environment and after many centuries of trial and error and passing on information to subsequent generations, create ever-more complex machines like cars and computers, just like the DNA that started it all?

There’s no necessary reason for them to do this. None at all. They just do because of thermodynamic, kinetic, and bonding principles which all the matter in the universe follows. It also all happened because something after the big bang made the matter and energy in the universe separate into a non-homogenous configuration where useful work could be done from the available energy instead of an immediate “heat-death.”

The anthropic principle points out that the laws of the universe are such that very specific conditions activate a natural chemical program that produces you and me. Arguments go from there, I guess.

What I was trying to say:

All of that is highly unlikely if you don’t have, literally, FOREVER to try and create that precise formation of energy and molecules and general physics and biology. If you have literally an INFINITE number of chances to get this configuration, well, then you’d assume that EVERY possible configuration of energy would occur eventually, no?

EDIT: I’m not saying there’s an ininite amount of stuff in the universe, I’m saying that the universe could have been around infinitely.

 

[Luke_K]

What I was trying to say:

All of that is highly unlikely if you don’t have, literally, FOREVER to try and create that precise formation of energy and molecules and general physics and biology. If you have literally an INFINITE number of chances to get this configuration, well, then you’d assume that EVERY possible configuration of energy would occur eventually, no?

EDIT: I’m not saying there’s an ininite amount of stuff in the universe, I’m saying that the universe could have been around infinitely.

There won’t be an infinite amount of time to do it because eventually all useful energy available for work in the universe will be converted to useless heat, known of course as the “heat death” of the universe.

If there are an infinite (or extremely many) number of unique universes, then yes, the argument is null. But if you go by Ockham’s razor, it’s superfluous to propose a bajillion unique universes all with their own laws and configurations instead of a single, transcendental being.

 

[Anselm33]

Out of all the possible number plates I could see, I just saw “BGH 127 KF”. If I only think in hindsight then the odds of seeing that particular plate would be astronomical, it would be absolutely amazing.

We all know that conclusion would be wrong, and really that’s all the anthropic principle says. There’s a long string of coincidences that make our universe appear special, but then there’s a long string of coincidences that led me and “BGH 127 KF” to the same place at the same time.

The universe may well be special, but I think the principle is really just a reminder to be very careful when drawing conclusions based on hindsight alone.

I believe you’re misapplying probability principles here. You have a large sample space of license plates. There is only one universe (I am rejecting, for reasons which I will be glad to enlarge upon and which are the same as Fr. Stanley Jaki’s) multiple universes. For the anthropic coincidennces, one would use Bayesian probability, not evidential probability, and use it as a measure of belief (I can enlarge upon that notion later also). There’s lots of work to justify Bayesian probability in looking at “old evidence” (what you term hindsight). Richard Jeffrey analyzes such in Einstein’s use of General Relativity to establish the correct numerical values for the advance in the perhelion of Mercury (unexplained by Newtonian mechanics)>
There are two very convincing pieces of evidence that focus on a notion of unlikelihood that does not involve evidential probability, i.e. large sample spaces:

1. Roger Penrose’s argument of a smooth initial phase space in the beginning, which has a probability (relative volume in phase space) of 1/10 ^(10^123) and which is the origin of the low entropy of the big bang and the Second Law (see “Road to Reality”)
2. The nucleo-synthesis of Carbon-12, which requires a closely matched nuclear energy levels of Be-8 and Carbon-12, for the resonance condition that enhances the rate of C-12 production in red stars (the level predicted by Fred Hoyl.
   (and lots and lots of other unlikely values for universal constants, force laws, chemistry).
   It would take a book (and has) to talk about all the improbable (in the sense I’m using probability) anthropic coincidences.

 

[inocente]

(and lots and lots of other unlikely values for universal constants, force laws, chemistry).
It would take a book (and has) to talk about all the improbable (in the sense I’m using probability) anthropic coincidences.

Even so, all the principle says to me is watch out – the universe appears to be custom built for us, but then any complicated life-form in any universe would be able to say the same. Given our complexity and need for a very special environment, which includes enough time for heavy elements to have formed, it would be remarkable if we didn’t find coincidences all over the shop.

The principle has its uses. I think Hoyle used it to make the carbon-12 prediction you mentioned: life is based on C-12 which must therefore be synthesized in stars. But the principle needs to be used carefully - ignore it and false conclusions may be drawn, think too highly of it and it stops further work.

The danger of drawing philosophical conclusions in this area is that future work may explain what we currently think of as fine-tuning and then we’re left in god-of-the-gaps territory, up the creek without a paddle.

For example, I think it would be unwise for a pope to proclaim fine-tuning as a proof for God.

 

[Anselm33]

Even so, all the principle says to me is watch out – the universe appears to be custom built for us, but then any complicated life-form in any universe would be able to say the same. Given our complexity and need for a very special environment, which includes enough time for heavy elements to have formed, it would be remarkable if we didn’t find coincidences all over the shop.

The principle has its uses. I think Hoyle used it to make the carbon-12 prediction you mentioned: life is based on C-12 which must therefore be synthesized in stars. But the principle needs to be used carefully - ignore it and false conclusions may be drawn, think too highly of it and it stops further work.

The danger of drawing philosophical conclusions in this area is that future work may explain what we currently think of as fine-tuning and then we’re left in god-of-the-gaps territory, up the creek without a paddle.

For example, I think it would be unwise for a pope to proclaim fine-tuning as a proof for God.

Nothing in science is “proof” in the logical or mathematical sense. All that the anthropic coincidences point to is that what science tells us about the world is not inconsistent with our faith. And the anthropic coincidences (I don’t like the term “anthropic principle”) should really have been named the biotropic coincidences. As you correctly point out, they don’t point to a universe created for man but rather for carbon-based life.

If the fine-tuning is a result of some unifying TOE (theory of everything) then that in itself does not preclude some agent setting things up. For example, there has been recent publications (Oberhummer et al) in which the nuclear levels of Be-8 and C-12 were “calculated” by a 3-alpha model (which I don’t altogether understand), and the conclusion drawn that if the strong-interaction and weak interaction parameters were varied by more than 1.5 %, the levels would not be close enough to give the resonance match for the required C-12 rate of production.

And I agree entirely; it is unwise for popes and bishops to declare that anything from science is a “proof” for God.

 

[Touchstone]

Nothing in science is “proof” in the logical or mathematical sense. All that the anthropic coincidences point to is that what science tells us about the world is not inconsistent with our faith. And the anthropic coincidences (I don’t like the term “anthropic principle”) should really have been named the biotropic coincidences. As you correctly point out, they don’t point to a universe created for man but rather for carbon-based life.

Agree with this – “Anthropic Principle” is a problematic name. “Anthropic Coincidences” is much better, if arguably prejudicial (if one understands a coincidence to be “non-planned”).

On a high level, I think the best summary of the Anthropic Principle is the choosing of “the physics of the universe are adapted for C-12-based life”, rather than its antithesis: “C-12-based life is adapted to the physics of the universe”.

We tend to choose sides along that watershed. And the Anthropic Principle looks at the cosmological parameters as the basis for “the physics of the universe are adapted for C-12-based life”.

If the fine-tuning is a result of some unifying TOE (theory of everything) then that in itself does not preclude some agent setting things up.

Very true. But the theist’s intuition here is invincibly unfalsifiable. There’s no context, even in principle, which cannot have a telic deity overlaid. So that doesn’t seem to be very useful as an observation, given that.

For example, there has been recent publications (Oberhummer et al) in which the nuclear levels of Be-8 and C-12 were “calculated” by a 3-alpha model (which I don’t altogether understand), and the conclusion drawn that if the strong-interaction and weak interaction parameters were varied by more than 1.5 %, the levels would not be close enough to give the resonance match for the required C-12 rate of production.

Right. I wonder though: for a theist, willing to posit a deity behind that fact, why would something more economical like some as-yet-undiscovered gauge relationship between those two be preferred as the answer (outside of the deity confirming one’s theism, that is)?

For quite a long time, this was the Holy Grail of String Theory, the quest for the hidden mathematical relationship between the fundamental values, which would establish the existing values as mathematically necessary based on some deeper internal relationship. At length this was abandoned, as the maths of the “cosmic landscape” prevailed and showed that there was no “single solution”, but a landscape of compatible solutions. But in any case, wouldn’t “a undiscovered physical relationship” between these parameters be the more elegant conjecture?

And I agree entirely; it is unwise for popes and bishops to declare that anything from science is a “proof” for God.

Hmmm. Does this mean that if a miracle could actually scientifically captured, documented, in a way that just embarrasses the Padre Pio type of “documentation”, it would be unwise to do so? That would be something I’m both interested in, and open to as actual evidence for god, or at least some kind of plasticity in nature that was consistent with manipulation by a deity.

It’s a bit disappointing, I guess. I don’t believe there’s any good basis to believe in God, but I can imagine science being a very solid way to support the idea as a matter of reasoning on evidence. It’s one way I imagine my atheism could be falsified, so it’s interesting to hear (if I understand you) that the Church would avoid going there, even if the events supported a real, skeptic-compatible miracle.

-TS