Cosmologic philosophy: anthropic principle opinion (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, March 17, 2019, 18:09 (2078 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: There can be no doubt that the Universe is governed by laws, constants, and the initial conditions that gave rise to it. This very same Universe then, in turn, gave rise to us. But that does not necessitate the Universe was required to have the exact properties it does in order to admit our existence, nor does it imply that a Universe that was different in some fundamental way would be an impossibility for observers. Most importantly, we cannot use the Anthropic Principle to learn why the Universe is the way we see it, as opposed to any other way.

"The Anthropic Principle may be a remarkable starting point, allowing us to place constraints on the Universe's properties owing to the fact of our existence, but that is not a scientific solution in and of itself. Our goal in science, remember, is to understand how the Universe arrived at its current properties through natural processes. If we replace scientific inquiry with anthropic arguments, we'll never get there. The multiverse may be real, but the Anthropic Principle cannot scientifically explain why our Universe's properties are what they are." (dhw's bold)

DAVID: Exactly how I feel.

dhw: I’m amazed by your comment. The sections I have bolded are a complete rebuttal of your own arguments. First bold: the fact that we are here does not mean the universe was created for us (“in order to admit our existence”). Second bold: the fact that we are here does not offer any scientific proof that we are the reason for the universe being as it is. Third bold (which I find unacceptable) is that as a scientist Ethan Siegel clearly believes that his goal is to show that the universe is the result of natural processes, which is the very opposite of allowing for your God as the creator. However, I would argue that the goal of every scientist should be first and foremost to get as close as possible to objective truths rather than seek confirmation of their own beliefs (that everything can be explained by "natural processes"). His statement reeks of what you call confirmation bias. But I agree with him that the Anthropic Principle itself proves absolutely nothing about the origin and nature of the universe. (See also under “Big brain evolution.)

My very brief comment is as I meant, agreeing with his main point. I agree with the point that the Anthropic Principle explains nothing. Naturally I think his naturalistic approach is wrong, but his conclusion about its value is right on. My obvious belief system does not change. You take my writing much too literally and pounce every time I leave out the background explanation where the differences are. Just remember I'm not a waffler.