Roughly, the Anthropic Principle means that any qualities we attribute to the universe must be consistent with the facts of our existence. Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel offers some examples of how the Principle has been fruitfully used but cautions,
Unfortunately, the Anthropic Principle has been grossly
misinterpreted, and is often misapplied. Claims are common in the scientific literature today that the Anthropic Principle:– supports a multiverse,
– provides evidence for the string landscape,
– demands that we have a large gas giant to protect us from asteroids,
– and explains why we’re located at the distance we are from the galactic center.
In other words, people argue that the Universe must be exactly as it is because we exist the way we do in this Universe, which exists with its presently observed properties
. Ethan Siegel, “The Anthropic Principle Is What Scientists Use When They’ve Given Up On Science” at Forbes
He goes on to say that universes with quite different properties might have produced observers too. Maybe so but that’s science fiction.
He is surely mistaken in thinking that the Anthropic Principle motivates people to believe in a multiverse or a string landscape. Such beliefs exist comfortably without evidence; the evidence points to a coherently designed universe.
Theories multiply because the facts favor fine-tuning of the universe.
Any abyss will seem preferable to many theorists and many have been proposed. To the extent that evidence rears its ugly head, it sometimes triggers private wars on falsifiability as well. A
Follow UD News at Twitter!
See also: Ethan Siegel tackles fine-tuning at Forbes
How naturalism rots science from the head down
and
What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?
“- demands that we have a large gas giant to protect us from asteroids,
– and explains why we’re located at the distance we are from the galactic center. ”
Well, YES. Any competent cosmologist knows THAT. The universe is FILLED with stuff apparently designed to KILL Life, and this includes large numbers of random and quite deadly asteroids and the DENSE concentration of LETHAL radiation near the centers of galaxies. We’re talking radiation severe enough to STERILIZE any planet unfortunate enough to form there.
There is a similar problem with being too far out or located in a zone that encourages the creation of novas: the radiation blast is also Sterilizing, and any planet within a hundred light years or so will simply be wiped clean.
And there is the problem that ALL 1st and 2nd Generation Galaxies lack, and will NEVER acquire, any of the “heavy” elements. We’re talking carbon and iron, not Einsteinium. And ALL of the new galaxies (5th and 6th generation) have TOO MANY heavy, radioactive elements. So the planets themselves kill all Life just from their rocks.
Factoid: if the amount of Thorium in Earth’s crust was only SLIGHTLY higher, the heat from radioactive decomposition would MELT the crust. (Talk about yer “Global Warming”)
So Earth is a RARE planet, in every way we can imagine. And there is the very good chance that Luna, our moon, was built and installed not only as a final shield against meteors, but as a Remarkable Thing for humans to stare at and Wonder. There is simply nothing like Luna anywhere else in the Solar System. Among other things ONLY Luna produces the spectacular Total Eclipse of Sol (which requires EXACTLY the right diameter at EXACTLY the right orbital radius). And so manpacks of Humans can stand together and Wonder about the Cosmos.
Actually, the first scientist I know who used the Anthropic principle was atheist, Sir Fred Hoyle. He observed that carbon is only made in stars. And stars are burning hydrogen, so they need some way to make carbon that might actually be found in large quantities. He proposed that C-12 had a resonance that allowed He + He -> 8Be, and then 8Be + He –> 12C. The resonance in 12C would then permit the last He to “stick”. He pestered William Fowler to measure it, and finally after 3 years he measured it, and Fowler (not Hoyle) got the Nobel prize. When Hoyle was asked why he was so sure it was there, he replied that it had to be there or we wouldn’t be here. I read a quote where Hoyle said this discovery was the best evidence he had for believing in God.
‘Theories multiply because the facts favor fine-tuning of the universe.’
A hilarious, wonderful non sequitur, expressed as a madman’s sequitur ! Can’t beat that kind of ‘faux innocent’ irony. Once again, the atheists seem fated to have to wait for a Christian paradigm-shifter, before they can make their necessarily plagiaristic contributions, as the drudges of science. Evidently, by their own choosing, they are denied access to sound metaphysical conjecturing.
Vmahuna at 1, beautifully put. If I may add to what you stated here,,,
Indeed, ‘perfect solar eclipses’ were one of the main motivations behind Guillermo Gonzalez working out the details behind the privileged planet principle.
The ‘privileged planet principle is, simply stated, as such:
A more in depth explanation of the ‘privileged planet principle’ is available in the following video:
Robin Collins, building off the work of Gonzalez, predicted and confirmed that the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) is such “as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers.”
Moreover, besides the CMB being such “as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers”, we also, as Dr. Hugh Ross points out in the following video, “Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History to see the Cosmic Background Radiation”:
Moreover, there are ‘anomalies’ in the Cosmic Background Radiation that strangely line up with the earth and solar system.
At the 13:55 minute mark of this following video, Max Tegmark, an atheist who specializes in this area of study, finally admits, post Planck 2013, that the CMBR anomalies do indeed line up with the earth and solar system
Moreover besides the earth and solar system lining up with the anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation, Radio Astronomy now reveals a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe:
What is interesting about these large scale structures of the universe, i.e. quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe, (i.e. distributions that reveal a “surprising rotational coincidence for Earth”), is that the tiny temperature variations (in the CMBR) correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe.
Thus, contrary to the presumption of atheists, far from the temperature variations in the CMBR being a product of randomness as they presuppose, the temperature variations in the CMBR correspond to the ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’ and these ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’ reveal “a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth”. Moreover, we were only able to discover this correlation between the tiny temperature variation in the CMB and the largest scale structures in the universe via the ‘insane coincidence’ of the universe being fine-tuned to at least 1 in 10^57 flatness.
Moreover, the way in which they were able to detect the anomalies in the CMBR, which ‘strangely’ line up with the earth and solar system, is that they ‘smeared’ and/or ‘averaged out’ the tiny temperature variations in the CMBR.
Here is an excellent clip from the documentary “The Principle” that explains, in an easy to understand manner, how these ‘anomalies’ were found, via ‘averaging out’, in the tiny temperature variations in the CMBR data.
Thus, the “tiny temperature variations” in the CMBR, (from the large scale structures in the universe, to the earth and solar system themselves), reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan), that specifically included the earth from the start. ,,, The earth, from what our best science can now tell us, is not some random cosmic fluke as atheists presuppose.
Of supplemental note, here are many more examples of the fine-tuning of light
Bornagain77 @4
It is humorous to me that the scientists who discovered the so-called Axis of Evil dubbed it as “evil.”
It shouldn’t seem odd I suppose — we’re living almost 500 years after Copernicus after all. Maybe I’ve spent too many hours in church. But to be honest, I find it all but impossible to relate to the attitude that it is somehow evil to find out that our place in the cosmos, instead of being random and insignificant, is meaningful and self-evidently planned-for.
In addition to the map of the universe putting the lie to the Copernican Principle, it seems to me that the more easily-perceived scale of the universe does the same thing.
If humans appear insignificantly small when pondering how big the universe is, does that mean that humans appear significantly big when pondering how small its particulars are? Because, in fact, when looking at the entire scale of the cosmos – from a Planck length to the size of the whole – what sits smack-dab in the middle is the human egg. And even more strangely, the human egg also happens to be the size of the smallest objects that the unaided human eye can see.
Considering the scale of the universe in which we live, to me, Sagan waxing poetic about the meaninglessness of earth and humanity when pondering “the pale blue dot” as viewed 4 billion miles away, sounds ridiculous.