What is the Anthropic Principle? I can't seem to wrap my brain around this concept.
What is the Anthropic Principle? I can't seem to wrap my brain around this concept
Brayden Foster
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Elijah Lopez
I'd wrap my brain around her concepts, if you know what I'm sayin'
Andrew Rodriguez
If you've got 40 minutes, my boy Lenny discusses it in one of his lectures.
youtube.com
Juan Parker
>I cain't seem to wrap muh brane aroun'this
Wiki is your friend:
en.wikipedia.org
Jonathan Mitchell
A lot of questions in Physics are essentially the question "why is the universe like it is?"
The in a lot of cases, the anthropic principle gives a sort of answer. The universe MUST be like it is, otherwise it would not support life, and we would not be here asking the question. The fact that we are asking the question, means that the only way the universe can be, is a way in which it supports life.
Make up your own mind about the validity of this argument. People differ. Have a think for a while though.
Ayden Collins
>she's wearing garbage bags
You're dangerously close to fucking a literal pile of trash.
Chase Carter
>A lot of questions in Physics are essentially the question "why is the universe like it is?"
>
>The in a lot of cases, the anthropic principle gives a sort of answer. The universe MUST be like it is, otherwise it would not support life, and we would not be here asking the question. The fact that we are asking the question, means that the only way the universe can be, is a way in which it supports life.
This is true given some assumptions about the kind of theory you're talking about. Usually people apply it to the values of the fundamental dimensionless constants. So if you look at theories like GR/cosmology/QFT/etc where everything is the same *except* the values of those constants, then for most values of the constants you get a boring universe where complex life-like systems aren't possible.
This is valid but it doesn't really give a deeper understanding of this particular issue, IMO, and it also doesn't predict anything new about the universe. So the question is, why would you even invoke the anthropic principle in the first place? Understanding things and making predictions are the whole point of science. But IIRC Lee Smolin has used it to make predictions about the size of neutron stars, which is pretty cool.
Robert Wood
It's kind of a self-evident funny logical statement.
It doesn't answer anything; it's just something quite fun to say.
Ayden Wilson
The "anthropic principle" is tautological bullshit used in fallacies by creationists. The trivial observation that "conscious life can only arise in a universe which allows for it to arise" is abused to argue that the universe must have been "fine tuned" by a creator.
Carter Jenkins
It can be used to explain away Fermi paradox.
Here's an interesting read on it:
www.anthropic-principle.com/sites/anthropic-principle.com/files/pdfs/extraterrestrial.pdf
Tyler Morales
Except the "Fermi paradox" is not even a paradox and doesn't need an explanation because it relies on false assumptions.
Evan Jenkins
that's only the weak anthropic principle, which is so non-informative for theoretical inference that nobody regards it as anything more than a silly tautology
the interesting stuff happens with the strong anthropic principle, which takes it a step farther and presupposes that that was some kind of guiding force or design to nature that stacks the deck for sentient/sapient life.
Asher Morales
>The "anthropic principle" is tautological bullshit
It's not. It's a smart way of showing that people who are wondering in amazement how seemingly perfect everything in this universe has been arranged for our existence are putting emphasis on the wrong things. It's like wondering why a cat has holes in its fur exactly at those places where its eyes are.
Grayson Green
>It's like wondering why a cat has holes in its fur exactly at those places where its eyes are.
Because evolution killed those cats whose fur had holes in the wrong places?
Austin Russell
Boobies, user!
Robert Jackson
No, because it's a stupid question to begin with. Just like the question how it came to pass that everything in this universe seems to be perfectly arranged to make our existence possible. Well duh! If it were different there wouldn't be anyone who could ask that question. That's the anthropic principle!
Blake Reyes
>>she's wearing garbage bags
dat mylar dress doe
Nathan Jones
that may not necessarily be bullshit... but that is unquestionably tautological
Adam Ross
>Because evolution killed those cats whose fur had holes in the wrong places
>no
Actually yes, user.
If inflation turns out to be true, then it would imply multiple universes.
Therefore, you would have a sort of natural selection of universes.
Those with the right conditions would produce life and those without would not.
Juan Martinez
its basically that the physical constants are such that they all favor a universe where life exists to ASK such questions. QED
For example, if the inverse square law governing gravitation was even slightly different, planets wouldn't orbit stars for long periods, long enough for intelligent life to occur
Ayden Jones
>Actually yes, user.
Show your fossil records then.
I'm not sure if I should call you liar or dumbass. Both seems fitting
Grayson Morris
nope