The MWI and the Anthropic Principle

[SprocketPower]

The MWI and the Anthropic "Principle"

How is it that the MWI and the Anthropic "Principle, " which is especially distasteful, are regarded as compatible? It seems to me they are totally incompatible.

 

[JesseM]

Which type of "anthropic principle" are you referring to? The "weak" version of the principle just says that naturally if sentient observers exist, they must find themselves in a part of the universe (or multiverse) with suitable conditions for their existence to occur--conditions which may be rather "special" with regard to the larger universe/multiverse. It doesn't say that such conditions must exist--we could very well imagine a universe whose laws were such that there were no sentient observers at all, the weak anthropic principle doesn't say it was somehow "inevitable" that the real universe would be a more hospitable one (the 'strong anthropic principle' does say this, and is thus harder to swallow if you don't believe the universe evolves according to natural laws which don't have any foresight or goal). But if we assume that some of the seeming "constants" of nature were decided in a random way by spontaneous symmetry breaking shortly after the Big Bang, then even if very few possible values were compatible with the evolution of sentient observers, the many-worlds interpretation makes it natural there would be some fraction of "worlds" where the constants allow for sentient observers, and the weak anthropic principle says that naturally we will find ourself living in this fraction, however small and non-representative this fraction may be. So in a way the MWI would make the "fine-tuning problem" go away (assuming the argument is correct that most values of the constants would be incompatible with intelligent life) by saying that even if it's a priori quite improbable the constants would take just the right values to allow for intelligent life, in a multiverse even the most improbable events are bound to happen in some history, and as long as some such histories exist it should be no great surprise that we find ourselves in one of them.

 

[yoda jedi]

How is it that the MWI and the Anthropic "Principle, " which is especially distasteful, are regarded as compatible? It seems to me they are totally incompatible.

MWI refutes AP

 

[SprocketPower]

The weak anthropic principle doesn't seem to be an anthropic principle at all. And a fraction of the multiverse where life like us is possible and exists does not mean it was made for us, contrary to the strong anthropic principle. That is looking at the question backwards and is a very anthropocentric view.

The MWI is not at all compatible with the anthropic principle contrary to the orthodox view and MWI does refute the AP.

 

[Fredrik]

MWI refutes AP

and MWI does refute the AP.

No it doesn't.

And no, I don't really want to elaborate. These discussions take too much of my time, and SprocketPower has already demonstrated that he's not here to learn (in the post that got deleted, twice).

 

[JesseM]

The weak anthropic principle doesn't seem to be an anthropic principle at all.

Sure it is. In fact, it's what most scientists mean when they talk about the "anthropic principle", they aren't talking about God or some other force guaranteeing the universe would be hospitable to life, just saying that as long as there is any region of the universe/multiverse that happens to be hospitable to life, then we as intelligent observers are going to find ourselves in such a region, even if such regions are rare and not really "representative" of what most regions of the larger universe/multiverse are like.

And a fraction of the multiverse where life like us is possible and exists does not mean it was made for us, contrary to the strong anthropic principle.

Yes, the MWI can be seen as a reasonable argument against the strong anthropic principle (since it lessens the a priori 'unlikeness' of finding the constants of nature fine-tuned to allow life), but again few scientists who talk about the anthropic principle are referring to the strong version, although if you read a religious apologist talking about the anthropic principle it is probably the strong version they're talking about.

 

[yoda jedi]

The weak anthropic principle doesn't seem to be an anthropic principle at all. And a fraction of the multiverse where life like us is possible and exists does not mean it was made for us, contrary to the strong anthropic principle. That is looking at the question backwards and is a very anthropocentric view.

The MWI is not at all compatible with the anthropic principle contrary to the orthodox view and MWI does refute the AP.

so weak that is dead ...lol...

 

[yoda jedi]

and:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.2444v1.pdf

"Here evidence is presented against the hypothesis of fine tuning by a biophilic principle that maximizes the fraction of baryons that form living beings. "
"In conclusion, the fact that the observed cosmological constant is positive is evidence against a biophilic fine tuning of it to maximize the fraction of baryons that develop into living organism, since to maximize that fraction, the cosmological constant would instead need to be slightly negative."