Strong Anthropic Principle vs Creationism

[DaFinchi]

Hi all,

This is a question that's been bothering me for a while. I'd be interested to read your thoughts.

Don't the assumption that there's a multiverse in which all possible combinations of physical constraints exist, and the assumption that some form of timeless deity created the universe, both require the same number of unprovable assumptions?

I'm not talking about belief - by belief, I'm an atheist (I found the site intro's breakdown of atheists into agnostic and gnostic very useful) - but I'd like to think my perspective is based on logic and reason. And applying Occam's Razor, it's hard to pick the strong anthropic principle over creationism (specifically, I would hope it goes without saying, a creator that sets everything in motion then stands back and is entirely noninterventionist) because they both require an untestable assumption.

Without a logical preference for either option, I have to resign myself to agnostic atheism, which seems a poor option as it's as much based on belief as a theist's position (no offence, you theists).

So please, point out my logical fallacy...

Apologies if I've misunderstood the anthropic principle, or if this is a well-discussed topic - a quick search turned up a couple of general threads about universal origins with hundreds of posts.

All the best,

DF

[Mudhammam]

The weak anthropic principle seems to me far more persuasive than either of those two options.

[vorlon13]

Either Anthropic Principle is useful in generating questions.

And many of those questions are really profound.


Seems like creationism isn't set up to generate (or tolerate) questions much. I know any creationite I have quizzed on the topic has found it annoying.

---

Interesting factoid that came up in a similar thread at a science forum:

All electrons in our universe are perfectly identical. I don't recall how they figured that one out, but it is profound for those of us who worried a few might not be.

[DaFinchi]

My problem with the weak anthropic principle is that it doesn't address the issue of potentially varying universal constants.

It is, of course, possible that somewhere down the line we'll figure out why everything has to stack up exactly as it does and why no other possible configurations can exist, but at present (and this doesn't necessarily mean much) cosmologists are drawing a blank.

The strong principle - or rather, the variant of it that calls on multiverses - seems to be the only one that addresses a regular theist argument - i.e. that the chances of the physical constants of the universe happening to exist in a configuration capable of supporting life are infinitessimal.

(That's not to say that other forms of life are impossible with other configurations, but as I understand it, even the tiniest variation would cause atoms to fail to cohere, stars to fail to form, the universe to crunch, etc).

[Mudhammam]

My problem with the weak anthropic principle is that it doesn't address the issue of potentially varying universal constants.

It is, of course, possible that somewhere down the line we'll figure out why everything has to stack up exactly as it does and why no other possible configurations can exist, but at present (and this doesn't necessarily mean much) cosmologists are drawing a blank.

Sure, it doesn't answer WHY but if a sensible answer to that even exists we're probably still a long ways off--and creationism offers no solution to that basic question either.

The strong principle - or rather, the variant of it that calls on multiverses - seems to be the only one that addresses a regular theist argument - i.e. that the chances of the physical constants of the universe happening to exist in a configuration capable of supporting life are infinitessimal.

I thought this was the weak version; basically that our existence is simply one result of many possible configurations, while the strong held that intelligence in the Universe was compelled or in some sense integral to the fundamental constants. Have I got it wrong?

[ShaMan]

[ignoramus]

Can I ask some silly back to basics questions?
We know the effect of gravity. We know mass has gravity.
Is part of the paradox that we don't know how matter will be in another universe?
Eg, no electrons, nucleus? Etc. I find this concept a little weird but that probably proves I don't know much about subatomic physics! If they are the same, then gravity must also be the same (for a given mass).

Who here believes that our periodic table may be different in another universe.
I don't mean a universe which never cooled enough for matter to form or even a universe that "fizzed" (if that's even possible)

[FreeTony]

Just so we are using the same terms, according to wikipedia:

Strong anthropic principle (SAP) as explained by Barrow and Tipler states that this is all the case because the Universe is compelled, in some sense, for conscious life to eventually emerge. (Tipler is a Theist btw and has come up with some real nonsense).

Weak anthropic principle (WAP) which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld.

The WAP is the Anthropic principle as I remember it being briefly mentioned at university. You don't need multiverses to support either. In fact I'd go as far as to say that the idea of multiverses is neat to a physicist as it provides a sort of symmetry often seen in nature. But it remains at the hypothesis stage for now.

If the universe is fine tuned for humans, then whatever did it didn't do a brilliant job.

Agnostic Atheism is the default position. You don't need to now anything about fine tuning, multiverses, even any physics at all to be an Agnostic Atheist.

[Losty]

Hiii I'm Losty. I don't know what you're talking about but I just wanted to say, welcome to AF. Have some welcome cookies and I hope you enjoy your time here

[Esquilax]

My problem with the weak anthropic principle is that it doesn't address the issue of potentially varying universal constants.

For that to even be an issue, you'd need to first establish that a universe without this specific set of constants would be a "failure" state. Without the establishment of this universe as the goal for the origins of the universe, your contention doesn't even make sense. You might as well be saying that a hand of cards, randomly drawn, couldn't have been randomly drawn because you could have drawn a different hand. It's a non-sequitur in a universe without a god: yes, things could have been different and the universe could have been devoid of life. Who'd notice?

It is, of course, possible that somewhere down the line we'll figure out why everything has to stack up exactly as it does and why no other possible configurations can exist, but at present (and this doesn't necessarily mean much) cosmologists are drawing a blank.

Even if there were no other possible configurations that doesn't require a multiverse or a god: it could just be that the cascading series of consequences that led to the current state of our universe could only turn out the one way. No need to complicate things further until we find out more.

The strong principle - or rather, the variant of it that calls on multiverses - seems to be the only one that addresses a regular theist argument - i.e. that the chances of the physical constants of the universe happening to exist in a configuration capable of supporting life are infinitessimal.

Which is, again, a nonsensical complaint without the establishment of life as a necessity of goal. To go back to a deck of cards for a moment, the chances of drawing all the aces in a row is quite low in a shuffled deck, but it's also the same chances of drawing any other series of cards. Without the additional symbolic import we give to the four aces, probability does not care.

(That's not to say that other forms of life are impossible with other configurations, but as I understand it, even the tiniest variation would cause atoms to fail to cohere, stars to fail to form, the universe to crunch, etc).

And if all that were to happen and the universe falls to nought... who would be around to give a shit?