RE: The Anthropic Principle Boundary Conditions

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 11:23:59 +0100

Just for completeness, note that the original idea (WAP explains cosmology)
was proposed by Brandon Carter in 1974 - not Barrow & Tipler. Carter's paper
is superb.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Chen [SMTP:flipsu5.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 May, 2000 7:49 AM
> To: Russell Standish
> Cc: GSLevy.domain.name.hidden; everything-list.domain.name.hidden.com
> Subject: Re: The Anthropic Principle Boundary Conditions
>
>
>
> > GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> > >
> > > The Anthropic principle has been discussed numerous times before.
> There are
> > > many versions going around. I just want to make a point which I think
> is
> > > crucial.
> > >
> > > First let me state some of these principles quoted from Barrow and
> Tipler
> > >
> > > Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP): The observed values of all physical
> and
> > > cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on
> values
> > > restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where
> carbon-based life
> > > can evolve and the requirement that Universe be old enough for it to
> have
> > > already done so.
> > > [Barrow and Tipler are not explicit, but this principle implies the
> requires
> > > the existence of conscious observers.]
> > >
> > > Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): The Universe must have those
> properties
> > > which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.
> > > [The emphasis here is on the world "must" which implies that the
> Universe is
> > > the way it is by design.. at least this is the way most people
> interpret
> > > this. This version implies the existence of a creator. Its religious
> > > connotations makes it unscientific]
>
> I agree with Russell that WAP is a statement of consistency of what we
> observe with
> our existence. The SAP addresses the apparent fine-tuning that seems to be
> needed
> to fit all the observations together.
>
> Russell Standish wrote:
>
> > It may be commonly interpreted this way, but I would disagree that it
> > should be. In my Occam paper I mention that the SAP implies either a
> > Divine creator, or a Plenitude (ensemble). I vaguely remember someone
> > raising a third possible implication, although for the life of me I
> > can't remember what.
> >
>
> A third possibility is that, despite the apparent fine-tuning, ours is the
> only
> universe, and it is a quantum fluke. The Plenitude or all-universes
> ensemble only
> helps if you have probabilities or measures involved to make the
> fine-tuning less
> obvious.
>
> George continues:
>
> > > Now to my point.
> > > The essence of the anthropic principle requires OBSERVERS. But it does
> not
> > > require LIFE. We can imagine a universe somewhere in the plenitude in
> which
> > > the conditions are suitable for the existence of at least one
> non-reproducing
> > > sentient being. To explain its existence, let's say that fundamental
> > > particles in this universe (atoms or maybe, more conveniently,
> naturally
> > > existing logical gates) got together by chance to form some kind of
> computer.
> > > (Very unlikely scenario but not impossible). This "computer" can think
> and
> > > can observe its world but is not "alive" in the sense that it cannot
> > > reproduce.
> > > How would such a creature state the Anthropic principle? Certainly not
> in
> > > terms of carbon life, not even in terms of life. Its version would
> simply
> > > state the reverse causal assertion:
> > > The world is the way it is, because I am what I am --- I am, therefore
> the
> > > world is.
>
> Yes, the observer is key. It would be interesting to learn this being's
> sense of
> fine-tuning. The last sentence seems a bit strong. It seems we are going
> full
> circle, backing away from the Copernican viewpoint, and coming dangerously
> close to
> the:
>
> > Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP): Observers are necessary to
> bring the
> > Universe into being. [ As I mentioned to Russell, this version supported
> by
> > Wheeler implies that observers, have some kind of magical ability to
> make
> > things happen... Who needs the MWI with this approach? You might as well
> > stick with the old fashion Copenhagen school!]
>
> We don't need to go that far; observers should only be necessary to
> observe.
>
> Fred


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential and may be privileged.
It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to
deliver it to the intended recipient, this message must not be copied or distributed to
any other person. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
by telephone (+44-20-7337-3500) and destroy the original message. The Gerrard Group reserves
the right to monitor all e-mail messages passing through its network.

This e-mail originates from the Gerrard Group unless otherwise stated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wed May 24 2000 - 03:26:16 PDT