Is the Anthropic Principle a Logical Explanation or Just Confusion?

[Sciencelad2798]

TL;DR

Was reading this article: https://phys.org/news/2015-01-evidence-anthropic-theory-fundamental-physics.html

And was confused on the implications. Is there a more logical explanation for this? I'm very confused on what's happening here

 

[fresh_42]

I don't like the anthropic principle. It always sounds to me like an a posteriori argument. Because we are, physics has to be as it is. In my mind, this is the same as saying, since I write this here, no asteroid could have hit me. The real reason is that there wasn't an asteroid at all, which has nothing to do with me.

There are myriads of circumstances that had to happen to lead to the current situation. This doesn't explain physics, only that it couldn't have been much different. There is simply no insight in the anthropic principle, only lazyness.

 

[Sciencelad2798]

I don't like the anthropic principle. It always sounds to me like an a posteriori argument. Because we are, physics has to be as it is. In my mind, this is the same as saying, since I write this here, no asteroid could have hit me. The real reason is that there wasn't an asteroid at all, which has nothing to do with me.

There are myriads of circumstances that had to happen to lead to the current situation. This doesn't explain physics, only that it couldn't have been much different. There is simply no insight in the anthropic principle, only lazyness.

I understand that. It just seems strange to me how the universe seems fine tuned. It really does seem to imply a creator of some sort. Would love to hear a more logical opinion than mine though

 

[PeterDonis]

Summary:: Was reading this article: https://phys.org/news/2015-01-evidence-anthropic-theory-fundamental-physics.html

This article itself is not a valid reference. There are peer-reviewed papers published by physicists on the anthropic principle; a thread discussion should be based on those sources. Generally speaking, some physicists like anthropic arguments and some don't, but anthropic arguments do not play any fundamental role in our current physical theories.

Note also that by "evidence for anthropic theory" the article actually means "computer models showing that only a very narrow range of values for various physical parameters could produce a universe like ours", which is not the same thing. This kind of sloppiness is typical of pop science articles (and phys.org is a frequent culprit in this respect), and is one of the reasons why we don't accept them as valid references here at PF.

It really does seem to imply a creator of some sort.

Please note that you have already received one warning that this kind of claim is off topic here.