64
submitted 1 year ago by ragica@lemmy.ca to c/space@beehaw.org
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] interolivary@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I mean, your criticism here isn't all that far from many of the common criticisms of AP from scientists, and personally I think those are all very valid points. But at the same time, there's a lot of good arguments on the AP side too, so it's a bit of a ยฏ\_(ใƒ„)_/ยฏ It's not like it's a hypothesis that you can necessarily ever prove or disprove due to its nature, so it does veer more towards philosophy

[-] flora_explora@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

Hm, I would handle it like I handle religion. Sure we don't know everything, but why believe in something like a god when there is no strong reason to? I haven't seen these good arguments for AP though, maybe they could give a compelling argument? In the end it is probably not necessarily a philosophical but a personal question what you need for yourself as a meaning of life/everything. I'm very much fine with the universe not having a creator and it not having an intention. Many people seem to get distressed by that thought and apparently prefer to believe in something intentional though.

[-] interolivary@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But the anthropic principle doesn't imply an intention either, though. Much the opposite: it's all just dumb luck, but for us to be here right now observing it, some of that luck had to go a certain way (eg some physical constants had to get the values they have or matter wouldn't exist etc).

In some ways this really isn't even in question, an example being the apparent "fine-tuning" of physical constants so that there's stable matter than can form more complex compounds, and that stars can exist, etc. That "fine-tuning" itself is pretty clear, ie we can calculate that if this or that constant was 0.000004% off then everything would go to shit.

But it's only apparent tuning: it just boils down to the fact that those constants have to be the way they are, or we wouldn't be able to be here as observers: if even one thing was slightly different then eg hydrogen would be the most complex chemical in the universe or something like that. Ain't no observers emerging out of nearly perfectly homogenous hydrogen soup. Or a universe that collapsed into a singularity and disappeared into whatever the hell is on the other "end" of black holes a Planck time after the big bang, because instead of bonds being too hard to form they were too easy.

Now the AP just then takes that idea and runs off with it, with the strong principle ending up with the conclusion (and this is much simplified) that we're the only ones out here due to the amount of "fine tuning" required, and the weak being less, well, chauvinistic ๐Ÿ˜

Some people think that the "fine-tuning" of physical constants means the universe was made for us, when the truth is closer to the opposite of that, with us sort of being made for the universe. Again without intention or a Maker, but simply meaning that with these "universe settings / seed", something similar to our current universe is what you get

edit: this Douglas Adams quote on rationalwiki is a great distillation of the AP but in a humorous way:

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

[-] flora_explora@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

I still don't get what the appeal of this thought experiment is. In the Wikipedia article one cited common critique is the truism of AP, because it only tells us, well, how the world is and how unlikely it is that it is just this way. And even if we go so far to say that it would be so unlikely to find other life out there because of the fine tuning, what so we gain? We already know the chances are super low for life to emerge and we have our ways to figure out how likely that is. I still don't see how we can benefit from AP apart from being in awe of the cheer vastness of the world and how unlikely everything seems.

[-] interolivary@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

I don't think the hypothesis was supposed to have a benefit

[-] flora_explora@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

No? What is a hypothesis for then if not benefitting our understanding of the world?

[-] interolivary@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Ohhhh right, you meant in that way. In that way absolutey yeah. Well depending on one's position on the AP anyhow ๐Ÿ˜„ Partially it sort of is a truism (although I'd argue that the "fine tuning problem" trips up a lot of people and the AP doesn't seem to be obvious to everybody) and more of a philosophical thing than necessarily just straight-up physics, but I think there's interesting points there. I'm not very good at explaining the general principle so it might sound dumber than it is, and there's a lot of different versions of it as well

this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
64 points (100.0% liked)

Space

7242 readers
2 users here now

News and findings about our cosmos.


Subcommunity of Science


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS