The Anthropic Principle

[watsup]

One of the heroes of our good friend Sherlock is George Ellis who is a prime proponent of “the Anthropic Principle”, which states that theories of the universe are constrained by the necessity to allow human experience.
In other words, this entire huge universe was “created” by whatever means for the primary purpose of ending up, after many billions of years, with one species of mammal on one small planet. This is, of course, accepting a belief and then trying to back science into it.
Again, I am not impressed.

 

[Chomsky]

One of the heroes of our good friend Sherlock is George Ellis who is a prime proponent of “the Anthropic Principle”, which states that theories of the universe are constrained by the necessity to allow human experience.
In other words, this entire huge universe was “created” by whatever means for the primary purpose of ending up, after many billions of years, with one species of mammal on one small planet. This is, of course, accepting a belief and then trying to back science into it.
Again, I am not impressed.

The bolded is a mis-characterization The principle only states that since we can observe the universe, it allows us to exist. Nothing less. Nothing more.

 

[watsup]

The bolded is a mis-characterization The principle only states that since we can observe the universe, it allows us to exist. Nothing less. Nothing more.

It says “the NECESSITY” to exist, not “allows” us to exist. Two different words with two different meanings. I stand by my interpretation.

 

[OrphanSlug]

The OP is presenting an awful interpretation, the “Anthropic Principle” started its life as an objection offered to the designer hypothesis vs. “fine tuning” theories from science debate but within a philosophical discussion.

The objection lead to a principle (actually several.)

The actual formed principle, for this conversation, is “Any conclusions about the universe we make is filtered by the fact that, in order for it to be observable in the first place, the universe must have been compatible with the emergence of our life in a manner where we can make such observations.”

All it means is what we know is confined by our existence, our capabilities, and our methods to observe.

The principle on its own neither proves or disproves the designer hypothesis or all scientific theories to date, it is simply an observation of our limits without any applied or inferred principle to what we cannot observe from this existence.

 

[watsup]

The OP is presenting an awful interpretation, the “Anthropic Principle” started its life as an objection offered to the designer hypothesis vs. “fine tuning” theories from science debate but within a philosophical discussion.

The objection lead to a principle (actually several.)

The actual formed principle, for this conversation, is “Any conclusions about the universe we make is filtered by the fact that, in order for it to be observable in the first place, the universe must have been compatible with the emergence of our life in a manner where we can make such observations.”

All it means is what we know is confined by our existence, our capabilities, and our methods to observe.

The principle on its own neither proves or disproves the designer hypothesis or all scientific theories to date, it is simply an observation of our limits without any applied or inferred principle to what we cannot observe from this existence.

Thank you for that explanation. That makes sense and I certainly agree with it. What was mixing me up is that in the George Ellis discussion of it, he then makes the observation that it leads to a “transcendental designer”. Your explanatiOn shows that clearly not to be the case.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Thank you for that explanation. That makes sense and I certainly agree with it. What was mixing me up is that in the George Ellis discussion of it, he then makes the observation that it leads to a “transcendental designer”. Your explanatiOn shows that clearly not to be the case.

Well, sort of.

What George Ellis is talking about with "transcendental designer" is a concept that mashes theological principles with scientific principles, or an extension of the "anthropic principle" away from the Weak AP and Strong AP questions.

Backing up just for a moment if we agree that the anthropic principle is "Any conclusions about the universe we make is filtered by the fact that, in order for it to be observable in the first place, the universe must have been compatible with the emergence of our life in a manner where we can make such observations." (from above) then we have weak and strong questions.

Weak AP, why do we exist at this time and place? (As in, within the confines of what we know right now.)

Strong AP, why does the universe as we know it permit such evolution to any time and place? (As in, within the confines of what we knew, know, or will know at any given time.) Think purpose, choice, and influence.

Those questions are where Ellis goes to the next step of suggesting with new questions a seek for a different answer, and Ellis was not the first one at a philosophical level to not just question existence but why that existence occurred at any point.

Some will lean towards a sort of "Christian anthropic principle" that suggests designer outright, the onus being that the designer came up with the concept of evolution (or said another way "fine tuning" or correction here and there.) Think the puppet theory of designer involvement. This is controversial on the face value alone of general monotheistic interpretation from bronze age text on these subjects.

Others will lean towards a sort of passive, or observation, based designer that is basically hands off. Ellis at one point went that route suggesting that this one universe we are in is not infinite (again, what we can observe questions that) using the concept "flat space of the consensus model is probably an abstraction that does not hold physically" (in 2004 with Guth and a few others.)

Even more hysterical is the collision of infinite and uniform.

If the present consensus model of a flat accelerating universe is taken to imply infinite cosmos, and if the universe is really infinite *and* uniform (principle collision,) then it could be argued that there will be an infinity of identical copies of all things (as in everything.) This is an application of quantum theory (Ellis holds PhDs in applied maths and theoretical physics.) That kills the "Christian anthropic principle" entirely, Ellis even suggested why.

If all of that holds then there would be an onus on God keeping track of not just every life in this universe across all of time, but God would have to keep track of an infinite number of copies of every life in every copy of this universe under a principle of quantum theory involving choice. It is far more complex than any argument between design vs. fine tuning in this universe, but a concept that any possible evolutionary path in this universe is replicated and perhaps to an alternate conclusion in some other universe. Most, if not all, lives would never exist in them all.

Said much shorter, infinite universes with copies of life but to an infinite number of conclusions (and by extension unpredictable conclusions.)

Cubed infinity, if not worse.

Not just have we killed the narrow minded "Christian anthropic principle," but we have treaded close to one possible conclusion that just as there are infinite copies of this universe there are infinite copies of the designer to each to some other but infinite number of possible conclusions. Ellis went there.

So much for monotheism, it would only apply to one universe at a time. And if infinite possibility holds true then some of those outcomes were not so good with others potentially being far better than our outcome so far.

What these guys gave us was a quagmire of anything but a bridge between religion and science. That is what you get when you take science and drop the system of process part.

 

[watsup]

Okay, again in-depth information. But I am still mixed up. Does or does not Ellis use that information to claim a “designer”. According to this book review, he does:

Ellis begins by distinguishing between the patterns of understanding in science and in theology. Still, both religion and science can be relevant when we consider the nature of the universe and its ultimate cause. Five approaches to such a cause are available: random chance, which is unsatisfactory unless one accepts reductionism; high probability as in chaotic cosmology, which is hard to quantify; necessity (only one kind of physics is consistent with the universe), but since the foundations of the sciences are debatable, an argument from the unity of the sciences is far from available; universality (all that is possible happens), but such Many Worlds arguments are controversial and probably untestable; and design of the laws of physics and the choice of boundary conditions. Design requires a transcendent Designer.

I may not be as smart as him, but I still find that last sentence to be nonsense, lipstick on a pig.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Okay, again in-depth information. But I am still mixed up. Does or does not Ellis use that information to claim a “designer”. According to this book review, he does:

Ellis begins by distinguishing between the patterns of understanding in science and in theology. Still, both religion and science can be relevant when we consider the nature of the universe and its ultimate cause. Five approaches to such a cause are available: random chance, which is unsatisfactory unless one accepts reductionism; high probability as in chaotic cosmology, which is hard to quantify; necessity (only one kind of physics is consistent with the universe), but since the foundations of the sciences are debatable, an argument from the unity of the sciences is far from available; universality (all that is possible happens), but such Many Worlds arguments are controversial and probably untestable; and design of the laws of physics and the choice of boundary conditions. Design requires a transcendent Designer.

I may not be as smart as him, but I still find that last sentence to be nonsense, lipstick on a pig.

It is not the designer that Christianity (or any other religion) suggests.

In that context designer can mean anything, and probably not an old and bored white haired guy sitting in the dark deciding to do something in a few days.

 

[watsup]

It is not the designer that Christianity (or any other religion) suggests.

In that context designer can mean anything, and probably not an old and bored white haired guy sitting in the dark deciding to do something in a few days.

Well, I still think that I disagree. What he really seems to be doing is repackaging Creationism/Intelligent Design with yet a third description that he calls top-down causation, and his "top" points to the same sort of Creator/God that Christians and other religions also use as theirs. He does so with an academic flair, but to me it is still lipstick on a pig.

 

[watsup]

It is not the designer that Christianity (or any other religion) suggests.

In that context designer can mean anything, and probably not an old and bored white haired guy sitting in the dark deciding to do something in a few days.

Oops. Didn't mean to reply quite that quickly.
He also uses the term transcendental which defines as:
tran·scend·ent

/ˌtran(t)ˈsend(ə)nt/

See definitions in:
religion

philosophy

adjective

-beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience.

•(of God) existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material universe.

Similar: supernatural

Again, sounds quite similar to what you'd get from a Christian in regards to the manner in which the universe came to be.


I also found a quote from him in which he claimed that neither agnosticism nor atheism have a basis for ethics. Again, sound like just your average run-of-the-mill militant anti-atheist. Nothing new in any of this, other than his ability to use his academic credentials as background.
Lipstick on the same old pig of Creationism and anti-atheism. Nothing more.

 

[TypicalRussian]

One of the heroes of our good friend Sherlock is George Ellis who is a prime proponent of “the Anthropic Principle”, which states that theories of the universe are constrained by the necessity to allow human experience.
In other words, this entire huge universe was “created” by whatever means for the primary purpose of ending up, after many billions of years, with one species of mammal on one small planet. This is, of course, accepting a belief and then trying to back science into it.
Again, I am not impressed.

i think thats basic knowledge, a universe that ultimately ended with a species will be explored through the filter of the fact that a species DID arrive on a planet

is this a argument used by theists?

 

[OrphanSlug]

Oops. Didn't mean to reply quite that quickly.
He also uses the term transcendental which defines as:
tran·scend·ent

/ˌtran(t)ˈsend(ə)nt/

See definitions in:
religion

philosophy

adjective

-beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience.

•(of God) existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material universe.

Similar: supernatural

Again, sounds quite similar to what you'd get from a Christian in regards to the manner in which the universe came to be.


I also found a quote from him in which he claimed that neither agnosticism nor atheism have a basis for ethics. Again, sound like just your average run-of-the-mill militant anti-atheist. Nothing new in any of this, other than his ability to use his academic credentials as background.
Lipstick on the same old pig of Creationism and anti-atheism. Nothing more.

All those quotes have context, but are relevant to the discussion of course. My assumption is that we may be seeing departures from what Ellis wrote in philosophical context and again with his own beliefs.

Regardless we do have plenty that suggests Ellis gave us nothing to bridge the gap between science and religion.

All of this still applies though to the difference between the "anthropic principle" (as a response to a debate) and the "Christian anthropic principle" (as a failed attempt to use science to justify religion.) But they are two different things. The good news for our discussion is Ellis is not original, even if his take on some of this lead to consequences that even he recognizes causes issues for what most believe.

 

[Rumpel]

One of the heroes of our good friend Sherlock

Which Sherlock?
Holmes?

 

[watsup]

The good news for our discussion is Ellis is not original, even if his take on some of this lead to consequences that even he recognizes causes issues for what most believe.


Agreed.