That is the weak anthropic principle (WAP) you have given.

The problem with the WAP is that it says that the universe must support life, it does not say why the universe supports life:

[1] By random coincident we got lucky and a billion to 1 shot came off
[2] Universe was fine tuned to support life

[2] is much more likely than [1]. So IMO the WAP does not put a dent in the fine tuning argument. Neither does the strong anthropic principle (SAP).

I agree that the WAP alone doesn't help us understand the fine tuning of the universe. However, if we add something to the WAP, it does make sense of the fine tuning problem. For instance we take into consideration the multiverse with the WAP, I believe it can explain away any fine tuning.

A side note: I personally don't believe in the multiverse theory. I believe that the universe naturally fine tunes itself into a stable condition, and stable conditions (big surprise) happen to support life. (But hey, what do I know.)

A side note: I personally don't believe in the multiverse theory. I believe that the universe naturally fine tunes itself into a stable condition, and stable conditions (big surprise) happen to support life. (But hey, what do I know.) — Purple Pond

In the book "a brief history of time" Stephen Hawking attests to this. If you roll a billion sided piece of dice one billion times there is a very high chance you'll roll a specific number. When you factor in that the universe we currently experience is possibly the umpteenth (1st or 1000th iteration) version of a universe that has simliarities but might not be exactly the same as previous versions, there is a chance sustainable life may be a product of chance. I do believe in a God but that could be a product of the dna i got by chance and not the product of rationality.

I'm not a musician. I like music but am not a musician. However, if I were to sit in front of a piano and press the keys at random long enough I'm sure I could play some sections of Beethoven or Motzart. In other words the supposed order, ergo the anthropic principle, is just a phase in the chaos that is the true nature of the universe. What I mean is there is no order, therefore no fine-tuning. We've all seen order/patterns in random numbers I believe.

A side note: I personally don't believe in the multiverse theory. I believe that the universe naturally fine tunes itself into a stable condition, and stable conditions (big surprise) happen to support life. (But hey, what do I know.) — Purple Pond

There has to be some mechanism by which the very constants/laws of nature change - the standard model has to 'evolve' some how for example. The mechanism usually touted to do this is multi-universes and the SAP. I don't see how the WAP alone can account for this; the laws of nature appear to have been fixed since the Big Bang. The SAP can't account for it either IMO.

I'm not a musician. I like music but am not a musician. However, if I were to sit in front of a piano and press the keys at random long enough I'm sure I could play some sections of Beethoven or Motzart. In other words the supposed order, ergo the anthropic principle, is just a phase in the chaos that is the true nature of the universe. What I mean is there is no order, therefore no fine-tuning. We've all seen order/patterns in random numbers I believe. — TheMadFool

Suppose you where watching a random stream of characters on a computer screen. Its all random jumble then you see the string 'I know you are watching me!' come up. The chances of that happening are 1/128^27 (assuming 128 possible characters). Would you assume you 'just got lucky' or would you assume a computer programmer was having a joke with you? Which is the more likely explanation?

Suppose you where watching a random stream of characters on a computer screen. Its all random jumble then you see the string 'I know you are watching me!' come up. The chances of that happening are 1/128^27 (assuming 128 possible characters). Would you assume you 'just got lucky' or would you assume a computer programmer was having a joke with you? Which is the more likely explanation? — Devans99

If the time involved was 13.8 billion years (current estimated age of the universe) I'd be very cautious about inferring a better chance for it being a joke over just plain simple luck.

If the time involved was 13.8 billion years (current estimated age of the universe) I'd be very cautious about inferring a better chance for it being a joke over just plain simple luck. — TheMadFool

But it looks like the laws of physics and the standard model have been constant since the singularity. The Big Bang theory predicts things back to a few fractions of a second before the singularity. It is supported by the evidence of the CMB radiation.

We can still observe photons emitted 400,000 years after the Big Bang as the CMB radiation. These photons are the same photons as we see today, same properties, nothing seems to have changed with the standard model.

I'm not sure either of you understand probability at all.

If I shuffle a deck of cards, you pick one at random, I shuffle the deck again. What is the probability that the top one is your card, and what sample space do you use to determine the likelihood?

1/52 I imagine.

I forgot to tell you that I am a stage magician, doing a trick, and you are a member of the audience.

Still think the sample space is 1:52?

Well then I suppose it is 1/52 * 1/(audience size) ?

Obviously not, no stage magician would ever be able to make a living out of the probabilities such a sample space would generate using your frequentist methodology (probability=event/sample space). The probability that the top card is your card must somehow be virtually 100%, otherwise the magician would not be able to make a living would they?

So, try again. What's sample space, using frequentist probability, would lead to the almost 100% probability we know must be the case that the top card is yours?

Either there is no trick involved, in which case I gave the answer above or it is fixed in which case the sample space is 1 and the probability is 1

Devans99
1.7k
That is the weak anthropic principle (WAP) you have given.

The problem with the WAP is that it says that the universe must support life, it does not say why the universe supports life:

[1] By random coincident we got lucky and a billion to 1 shot came off
[2] Universe was fine tuned to support life

[2] is much more likely than [1]. So IMO the WAP does not put a dent in the fine tuning argument. Neither does the strong anthropic principle (SAP). — Devans99

You have no idea if [2] is more likely than [1]. You are merely expressing a personal prejudice. If the odds were a gazillion to 1...and it happened, here we would be. And you would be claiming the odds against it were too large for it to have happened.

Yes I do; there are about 20 constants in physics that all have to be about where they are now for life to exist. The chances of that happening by chance are astronomically small.

I not saying that the universe is definitely fine tuned for life; merely it is incredibly likely that the universe is fine tuned for life.

Either there is no trick involved, in which case I gave the answer above or it is fixed in which case the sample space is 1 and the probability is 1 — Devans99

Right. So one salient piece of information can not just alter the probability space, but make it entirely redundant. In the case of a card trick, we do not simply adjust our 1/52 to take account of new information, we abandon it altogether. It makes no difference at all to your new estimate whether the deck is of 52 cards or a million cards, we've realised the number of cards was irrelevant.

You're committing the same fallacy with fine-tuning. You're presuming that the sample space for the event {the universe being fine-tuned for life} must be {all the values you can imagine these variables could have}. Just like at first glance you presume that the sample space for the event {the top card is mine} was all the cards it could be.

But one piece of data showed you, in the card example, that the number of cards it could be was irrelevant. 52,100, a million, it didn't matter at all because those turned out not to be the variables. The skill of the magician was the relevant variable. The correct sample space would be something like how many card tricks have you ever seen that have gone right/wrong.

So with the universe. How are you justifying you selection of the sample space {all the values I can imagine these variables having}?

Devans99
1.7k
↪Frank Apisa
Yes I do; there are about 20 constants in physics that all have to be about where they are now for life to exist. The chances of that happening by chance are astronomically small.

I not saying that the universe is definitely fine tuned for life; merely it is incredibly likely that the universe is fine tuned for life. — Devans99

And I am NOT saying that the universe is fine tuned for life...rather than simply a manifestation of what is.

I AM saying that there is no way to calculate the odds either way.

And that even if the odds were 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to one against it being mere chance....

...if it happened that way, you would be here saying the odds are too great.

Put another way...a more truthful way...

...there may be gods involved in existence or there may be no gods involved.

You're committing the same fallacy with fine-tuning. You're presuming that the sample space for the event {the universe being fine-tuned for life} must be {all the values you can imagine these variables could have}. Just like at first glance you presume that the sample space for the event {the top card is mine} was all the cards it could be. — Isaac

Lets take an example; the universe's expansion rate is set such that matter can still cluster into stars and planets yet it is expanding fast enough that the whole thing does not collapse back into one big black hole. The expansion rate could be set at any conceivable value - it is not derived from some underlying determinant- so it contributes to the large sample space of possible/feasible universes.

So with the universe. How are you justifying you selection of the sample space {all the values I can imagine these variables having}? — Isaac

There are 20 or so constants that appear to have been fine tuned. If any of these constants turn out to be derivable from underlying processes, then I would argue that it is the underlying processes that have been fined tuned.

The expansion rate could be set at any conceivable value - it is not derived from some underlying determinant- so it contributes to the large sample space of possible/feasible universes. — Devans99

The card could be any one of 52 cards, so this contributes to the sample space of possible cards. Only it turns out, it doesn't,because you were looking at the wrong variables all along.

I'm not sure either of you understand probability at all.

If I shuffle a deck of cards, you pick one at random, I shuffle the deck again. What is the probability that the top one is your card, and what sample space do you use to determine the likelihood? — Isaac

1/52 I believe. If wrong please correct. Thanks.

But it looks like the laws of physics and the standard model have been constant since the singularity. The Big Bang theory predicts things back to a few fractions of a second before the singularity. It is supported by the evidence of the CMB radiation.

We can still observe photons emitted 400,000 years after the Big Bang as the CMB radiation. These photons are the same photons as we see today, same properties, nothing seems to have changed with the standard model. — Devans99

Yes I understand. A particular phase in the chaos could last billions of years. Just think of it in terms of human history. There are periods of peace (order) but actually these are just intervals between war (chaos) which I'm suggesting as the true nature of reality.

Yes I understand. A particular phase in the chaos could last billions of years. Just think of it in terms of human history. There are periods of peace (order) but actually these are just intervals between war (chaos) which I'm suggesting as the true nature of reality. — TheMadFool

So we imagine countless billions of years throughout which the physical laws and constants are evolving. Eventually, by sheer luck, they hit a configuration that supports life. What mechanism then 'fixes' the universe in that life supporting configuration? Surely something would change to produce a non-life supporting universe again?

So we imagine countless billions of years throughout which the physical laws and constants are evolving. Eventually, by sheer luck, they hit a configuration that supports life. What mechanism then 'fixes' the universe in that life supporting configuration? Surely something would change to produce a non-life supporting universe again? — Devans99

Another billion years may be required or, god forbid, the physics that support life may break down in the next instant. I don't know. All I'm saying is that it's possible to find order in chaos just as it's possible to find chaos in order. We're just in an ordered state at the moment. Think of life. It begins by ordering matter but only for a limited time and then the order is destroyed and we die.

How could anyone think that this universe is "fine tuned" for humans when 99.9999% of the universe is hostile to humans? We could end up being extinct, and in such a universe humans can exist but the universe isnt fine tuned for them. We could just as well say that the universe is fine-tuned for cockroaches and sharks. I can imagine a universe that is fine tuned for humans and it would be something akin to "heaven" as described by Christians.

1/52 I believe. If wrong please correct. Thanks. — TheMadFool

Please see my reply to Devans99 above, to save me having to write it out again. Basically, one cannot simply presume the sample space, it's context dependant and so requires no less justification than the statistical technique applied to it. I've yet to read any justification in the Fine-Tuning arguments for selecting {all the values I can imagine this variable having} as the correct sample space from which to extrapolate the probability of a variable having some particular value. To take Devans' examples.

the universe's expansion rate is set such that matter can still cluster into stars and planets yet it is expanding fast enough that the whole thing does not collapse back into one big black hole. The expansion rate could be set at any conceivable value — Devans99

We have no reason at his stage to think that {the number of conceivable values} is the sample space from which to extraplote the probability of it being the value it is.

Like with the cards example. It turns out it was a magic trick, the number of cards in the deck was not the correct sample space from which to extrapolate the probability of my card being on top. The number of cards in the deck turned out to be entirely irrelevant.

Like with the cards example. It turns out it was a magic trick, the number of cards in the deck was not the correct sample space from which to extrapolate the probability of my card being on top — Isaac

You have given no justification as to why this card trick analogy applies; the universe is not tricking use; it could very easily have come out different.

You have given no justification as to why this card trick analogy applies; the universe is not tricking use; it could very easily have come out different. — Devans99

Basically, one cannot simply presume the sample space, it's context dependant and so requires no less justification than the statistical technique applied to it. — Isaac

You have not given a context where my assumption of a large sample space for possible physical constants etc... does not apply

You have not given a context where my assumption of a large sample space for possible physical constants etc... does not apply — Devans99

It doesn't apply right here. There's no reason at all to think that the correct sample space is the number of possible values you can think of. Why would it be? Why would it have anything at all to do with what you're capable of thinking of?

How do you know that it is possible for the expansion rate to be any other value? Certainly it's not because the laws of physics allow it, they obviously don't. It's not because maths allows it, maths allows it to be an infinite amount of values, which would mean any value is infinitesimally unlikely, which, by your own definition of infinity, is the same as undefined. So what is your reason for choosing some very large number (but not actually infinity) for the sample space of all the possible values the expansion rate could have?

It doesn't apply right here. There's no reason at all to think that the correct sample space is the number of possible values you can think of. Why would it be? Why would it have anything at all to do with what you're capable of thinking of? — Isaac

So for example the strength gravity has to be strong enough for stars and planets to form, but not so strong that we get too fast nuclear fusion or too much black hole formation. It could however be any conceivable value from 0 to ∞ and we would still have a universe; just without life.

How do you know that it is possible for the expansion rate to be any other value? Certainly it's not because the laws of physics allow it, they obviously don't. It's not because maths allows it, maths allows it to be an infinite amount of values, which would mean any value is infinitesimally unlikely, which, by your own definition of infinity, is the same as undefined. So what is your reason for choosing some very large number (but not actually infinity) for the sample space of all the possible values the expansion rate could have? — Isaac

Actual infinity exists only in our minds, but it is still a useful concept sometimes. The expansion rate of the universe is a mystery; we know of no laws that govern it.

The expansion rate of the universe has varied greatly in the past. During the inflationary epoch, the universe expanded to several light years in size in the first few fractions of a second. So we know the expansion rate can take on a large range of values. So a large sample space seems appropriate.

There are two possible universes: Those where there are intelligent creatures who ask questions about the universe, and those where there are no such creatures. — Purple Pond

Does that make any sense to you? Am I missing or misunderstanding anything? — Purple Pond

Simplicity. Our earth is conducive to both intelligent creatures who ask questions about the universe and also maintains where there are no such creatures. Couldn't there also be just one universe with multiple capacities and potentialities?


Also, I don't believe in randomness/chance because I believe reality works in intelligent mechanisms. For me, intelligence is definite and therefore negates randomness/chance. Also, if this were a random universe, it would lack the constancy of the laws of nature.