Can somebody post the diferences. To me they seem to be the same
So if life has a number of places it can arise, for example billions of galaxies, would this also be an example of the strong Anthropic Principle?Garth said:The Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) says the physical properties of the universe must be propitious for life somewhere within it, that is there is some unspecified 'law' or reason why the various physical parameters have the values they do, and why this set of values are propitious for life.
Just out of curiosity, doesn’t Smolin argue that the Athropic Principle is unfalsifiable, and that CNS is an example of a falsifiable multiverse theory? Whether or not this is still Athropic Reasoning is unclear.Garth said:One example of the SAP is Smolin's Cosmological Natural Selection (CNS) theory
If there were only one universe, I think we would be forced to resort to the SAP, regardless of the number of galaxies, because the subspace of conceivable laws of physics that don't produce galaxies at all is much larger than that for those that do. It's true that this universe has billions of galaxies in which life could potentially form, but if you change the fundamental parameters of our universe by a significant amount, it's likely that none of them will be able to produce life (in fact, the galaxies may not even form).Vast said:So if life has a number of places it can arise, for example billions of galaxies, would this also be an example of the strong Anthropic Principle?
That would be one example of the SAP, yes. I suppose one could also subscribe to the notion that the universe is just "here for us" and bypass the deity entirely.Vast said:In this light the SAP would seem to represent an intelligent design or creator, is this correct?
I don't think anyone's trying to convince you that you should. The SAP is extremely unscientific.werner heisenberg said:Certainly if our universe was the only one the SAP would be true but I think there cannot be a way of working this out. And until somedoby shows me the oposite I do not feel like joining the SAP
It all depends on what you mean by the Anthropic Principle itself and what it is used for.werner heisenberg said:That 's what I was trying to say. Is fits better in a religious myth
or, simply as a recognition that things could not be otherwise if we are around to recognise it.The idea of a multiverse – an ensemble of universes or universe domains – has received increasing attention in cosmology, both as the outcome of the originating process that generated our own universe, and as an explanation for why our universe appears to be fine-tuned for life and consciousness.
Yes the WAP is unfalsifiable in the sense that 'things' could not be otherwise; to our minds it is self evident because it is consistent with the existence of such minds.Chronos said:I'm confident the WAP is the most unfalsifiable conjecture imaginable. But I don't see it as being predictive, merely a logical test of validity. I would argue that any observation that leads to the conclusion it is impossible to make such an observation has fatal flaws. Either the observation or interpretation must be incorrect.
I hope I’m reading that right, because when you use "she" in this particular context it sounds as if we’re an unplanned pregnancy.Chronos said:The other option is that 'God' [I don't mean the ' ' negatively, I like her immensely] has selectively shielded us from every observation that contraindicates our existence. I resist that argument.
Did you hear about the right-wing fundamentalist who went to heaven? He found that not only was God black, but she was Jewish!Emergence, in contrast, suggests a very different model of the God-world relationship. In this model God sets in motion a process of ongoing creativity.
his theory involves major errors in attribution, in the use of language, in understanding the character of knowledge relative to reality, in logic and consistency, and in the justifiability of fundamental assumptions.