Remix clone Hacker News

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

▲

Terr_ 31 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

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 minutes 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.

▲

recursive 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

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 14 minutes 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.