I don't know, I think the arthropic principle is still going really strong: It's like this because if it wasn't we would be asking different questions or not around to ask at all.

It's hard to consider something "so improbable that it must have been God" when we look out at a universe so incomprehensibly bigger that the real question becomes why we haven't evidence of it happening more.

▲

AnimalMuppet 8 months ago | parent | next [-]

As it's often used, the anthropic principle is fatally flawed.

It often starts with an argument between a creationist (could also be an advocate of intelligent design, but I'll just call them the creationist) and an evolutionist. The creationist says, look, the origin of life by purely naturalistic means is ridiculously improbable (and therefore it's reasonable to consider the possibility that God did it). They trot out some generally-accepted scientific principle, do a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and come up with a number that is, in fact, ridiculously improbable.

The evolutionist responds with the anthropic principle - if no life had arisen in this universe, we would not be here arguing about how life arose. This is clearly logically correct. It is also completely irrelevant.

The creationist didn't argue that life couldn't have arisen in this universe. They argued that it could not have arisen by purely naturalistic means. They're arguing about how, not about whether. The creationist might answer: "Yes, I agree that if life had not arisen in this universe, either by creation or by naturalistic processes, then we would not be here having this conversation. But the question is, which way did life begin?" The anthropic principle doesn't address that issue whatsoever.

It doesn't address that issue unless you add an assumption - that life had to begin by purely naturalistic means, that is, that the probability of creation is precisely zero. Then the anthropic principle is relevant, but then there's a new issue, that of begging the question.

I suspect that this assumption is present on the side of everyone on the evolution side that pulls out the anthropic principle in an argument with a creationist, but I have never heard it explicitly stated. I'm not even sure the evolutionist realizes they're making an assumption - it's so ingrained in their world view that they can't think that the alternative might be possible.

I grant you that the universe is huge and the evidence available is small. But that can turn into an "evolution of the gaps" argument quite easily, so I'm not sure you want to seriously use it.

▲

philsnow 8 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I know it was just a typo but "arthropic principle" sounds like something from A Deepness in the Sky

	▲	Terr_ 8 months ago \| parent [-]
		That would dovetail with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation

▲

beltsazar 8 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The anthropic principle is ridiculous. Suppose that, against all odds, you survive the worst plane crash in history. Then you ask NTSB what caused the crash and why you survived. They answer:

"Nonsense! You wouldn’t have asked the questions if you hadn't survived."

Questions stand alone, regardless of whether someone or something exists to ask them.

▲

cowl 8 months ago | parent | prev [-]

Anthropic principle is the most useless of all and it's used to avoid explanation instead of trying to find one. Imagine Newton answering to why objects fall with "because if they did not we would be asking different questions"... what a great advance for humanity /s

▲

recursive 8 months ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think your fictional Newton is really invoking the anthropic principle.

In all the zillions of galaxies that exist, the ones where intelligent life developed are more likely to be observed by intelligent life. Therefore, intelligent life can't make any arguments based on probability that intelligent life developed, because our observation of the phenomenon is not independent.

And maybe some people have used it to avoid explanation, but it also doesn't really conflict with any effort to explain either.

▲

cowl 8 months ago | parent [-]

more likely or less likely has nothing to do with observation indipendece. I flip a weighted coin and it's tails 99% of the time, it's the coin that is weighted it has nothing to do with me. The same thing with the parameters of the universe, the fact that life is present on Earth and not on Mercury (to take an exterme example) is not dependent on the observer being intelligent or even alive. even a non intelligent "aparatus" can detect it. it may not "know" to clasify it as life/not life but it can detect the difference.

Saying that we wouldn't be here to ask the question is not an answer to anything because we are here and we need to understand how and why.

	▲	recursive 8 months ago \| parent [-]
		I think we are vigorously agreeing with each other.

▲

Terr_ 8 months ago | parent | prev [-]

You're confusing two different kinds of question:

1. "What the mechanisms or rules that explain or seem to govern this observable phenomenon?"

2. "The rules behind our own existence seem unique or low-probability, can I use our N=1 sample to safely assume we are inherently special and/or the existence of a god?"

	▲	cowl 8 months ago \| parent [-]
		Those are the same kind of question. take god or the "special" out of the second one and you will see that is only that part that most react against. Noone reacts with the antropic principle to the Fermi's paradox, noone even reacted with it to the simulation hypotheses that in my view is for all intents and purposes the religious one. but only because it did not contain, by Name, the God, it is acceptable.