I Is the Anthropic Principle a Logical Explanation or Just Confusion?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Sciencelad2798
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Anthropic Principle
AI Thread Summary
The discussion critiques the anthropic principle, arguing it lacks logical depth and merely states that our universe must be as it is because we exist. Participants express confusion over its implications, likening it to a flawed a posteriori argument that fails to provide genuine insight into physics. Concerns are raised about the validity of popular science articles that claim evidence for the anthropic principle without rigorous peer-reviewed support. Some participants suggest that the apparent fine-tuning of the universe hints at a creator, though this claim is deemed off-topic. Overall, the thread emphasizes skepticism towards the anthropic principle and calls for more substantial scientific discourse.
Space news on Phys.org
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.
 
fresh_42 said:
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
 
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy
Sciencelad2798 said:
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.

Sciencelad2798 said:
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.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top