The Anthropic Principle.

**T0rajir0u** · 09-12-2006, 11:30 PM

Re: The Anthropic Principle.

It's not really a meaningful idea. It's like saying,

"Why is the pot boiling?"
"Well, if it weren't boiling you wouldn't be asking me that, now, would you?"

It doesn't get at the question. What scientific principles can we use to explain why the pot is boiling, or why life has a chance of existing?

**Reach** · 09-13-2006, 10:15 AM

Re: The Anthropic Principle.

Person 1: But what if we were in a universe where life didn't come to be?
Person 2: Then you wouldn't be around to ask the question.

Seems like a fairly irrelevant statement to me.

The argument that the universe is 'fine tuned' is groundless...since we don't know where any of these things like relative electron mass came from, or why the universe inflated in the first place. They could be derived from a completely chanceless process for all we know.

The entire ID argument plays on human emotion and thought.

**talisman** · 09-13-2006, 02:02 PM

Re: The Anthropic Principle.

It's useful for explaining the improbabilities that we might see around us. For example, the improbability of the universe's inflation, or of a solar system forming like ours, or of a planet having a moon that exerts strong tidal forces, etc.

It's an important idea, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. It's not useful for explaining why things are the way they are, but it doesn't pretend to be useful for that purpose either.

**Cavernio** · 09-13-2006, 07:39 PM

Re: The Anthropic Principle.

If a tree falls in the woods, and no one's there to hear it, does it still make a sound?

**The_Q** · 09-15-2006, 06:40 PM

Re: The Anthropic Principle.

Originally posted by Cavernio

If a tree falls in the woods, and no one's there to hear it, does it still make a sound?

If a post is made in CT and it has nothing to do with the topic, is it still meaningful?

Q

The Anthropic Principle.

The Anthropic Principle.

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment