Explaining universe based on purpose/source

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jimjohnson
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
32 replies · 6K views
jimjohnson said:
Is this response an opinion? Many scientist support the anthropic principle which has life as a purpose.
That's just completely false. The anthropic principle says nothing even close to that.

The anthropic principle, in the form it is generally used by scientists, is just a selection effect: it says that the only sort of universe observers will ever observe is one where they can exist. For example, intelligent observers will never observe themselves living on an uninhabitable planet, because if it were uninhabitable, they couldn't survive there.

This is the way the anthropic principle is used within science, and it is the only way that it is even a coherent statement.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
You are quoting the weak principle. The "final" principle states "intelligence must develop wihin the universe and then never die out." Also, the strong principle "the universe must have the properties for life..." This is purpose.
 
jimjohnson said:
You are quoting the weak principle. The "final" principle states "intelligence must develop wihin the universe and then never die out." Also, the strong principle "the universe must have the properties for life..." This is purpose.
Yeah, you won't find any significant support for that within the scientific community. A good summary of what most scientists think of this sort of thing can be summed up by the last sentence in the Wikipedia page on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_anthropic_principle
Martin Gardner dubbed FAP the "completely ridiculous anthropic principle" (CRAP).