It’s controversial because it is sometimes used to support the idea of a multiverse:
So, the anthropic principle is neither unscientific, nor is it in general useless. But then why is the anthropic principle so controversial? It is controversial because it is often brought up by physicists who believe that we live in a multiverse, in which our universe is only one of infinitely many. In each of these universes, the laws of nature can be slightly different. Some may allow for life to exist, some may not.
If you believe in the multiverse, then the anthropic principle can be reformulated to say that the probability we find ourselves in a universe that is not hospitable to life is zero. In the multiverse, the anthropic principle then becomes a statement about the probability distribution over an ensemble of universes. And for multiverse people, that’s an important quantity to calculate. So the anthropic principle smells controversial because of this close connection to the multiverse.
However, the anthropic principle is correct regardless of whether or not you believe in a multiverse. In fact, the anthropic principle is a rather unsurprising and pretty obvious constraint on the properties that the laws of nature must have. The laws of nature must be so that they allow our existence. That’s what the anthropic principle says, no more and no less.
Sabine Hossenfelder, “Is the Anthropic Principle scientific?” at BackRe(Action)
It should be common sense to assume that a venue in which we exist must feature conditions that allow for that. But the multiverse does not need logic, evidence, or science.
Sabine Hossenfelder is the author of Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray.
See also: The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide
Follow UD News at Twitter!
I note that Sabine Hossenfelder pretty much ignores the other side of the logic behind the anthropic principle that would hold that the laws of nature are fine-tuned for life because they are DESIGNED with life in Mind.
Her ‘nothing to see here’ attitude aside, that is not a minor omission on her part.
Life, and human life in particular, are not nearly as inconsequential in this universe as many people are predisposed to believe,
I believe that Dr Hossenfelder has missed the point here.
It is true that the laws of nature must be what they are because they need to be to allow for a known fact, our existence “And that’s what the anthropic principle says, no more and no less.”
so far so good.
The problem begins when you ponder WHY these laws are what they are, when there is no apparent reason. Especially when one realizes that if they were different, by even an infinitesimal smidgeon, the universe we couldn’t be here.
The obvious and easy explanation, and the one that’s consistent with Occam’s razor, is the Creationist one: God made the laws the way they are so creatures like us could exist.
Of course, that puts Atheists in a jam. They cant fly with Creationism. They would have to give up Atheism and then they couldn’t be upscale profs, because federal judges say that creationism is against the constitution. That would mean no more gravy train. So they fly with the nonsensical infinite multiverse. It may be garbage, but for our poor Atheist friends, its the only show in town.
How nonsensical is it?
Consider this: According to MIT’s Atheist Multiverse guru, Dr Alan Guth,”in the infinite universe anything that can happen, and does not violate a fundamental law of conservation, will happen infinitely many times”. So an infinite number of universes multiverses will have laws like ours. Of course there’s no data for even a second universe, never mind an infinite number of them. Whatever.
It gets worse. By Dr Guths reasoning, in an infinite number of universes there will an infinite number of universes that contain a country with a system of government like ours. And as Dr Guth points out, there will an infinite number of them where reasonable and intelligent people think that Congress is doing a good job !!!! Now if that’s not nonsensical, tell me what is.
TAMMIE LEE HAYNES @2
Heh! “;^)
Dr. Guth has us caught in a whirlpool of infinities.
TAMMIE LEE HAYNES @ 2
Fortunately, however, Guth’s argument implies its own “defeater”. In an infinite number of universes there will be an infinite number of Donald Trumps. An infinite number of egos the size of Trump’s would instantly coalesce and form a singularity that would swallow up the whole of reality leaving one final tweet frozen on the event horizon. Since we are still here that cannot be…
In the multiverse, there are an infinite number of universes where Seversky isn’t a troll.
Obviously, the one we live in isn’t one of them.
Andrew
@Seversky
LOL