Anthropic principle

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Anthropic Principle is a loosely structured set of ideas which attempts to explain why certain observable features of the universe are the way that they are, and in particular why the values of particular universal constants seem to have been 'calibrated' so as to maximise the possibility of intelligent life coming into existence (see also: Intelligent design). It is an idea that says the Universe in it’s entirety is an almost infinitely complex construct that is made up of several facets including but not limited to matter, energy, force, space, time, vacuums, laws of physics, constants of nature and laws of entropy. This complex brew of properties can help describe and quantify certain things but there’s a lot left to yet be explained and may never be able to be explained. Ultimately the Anthropic Principle is a view, which asks why the Universe in all its complexity seems almost designed to be exactly how it is. Let us take quarks for instance, quarks are difficult to understand, very complex and we know almost nothing about them. We do know that if any of the quantifiable constants of the quark were any different such as their electric charge, mass, color change, spin, generation, etc. the whole Universe would fall apart as we know it.

The Anthropic Principle asks why the Universe is full of virtually limitless examples of properties in physics that if they were even 0.01% different the laws of physics would stop working and everything that exists would be completely distorted and stop working together so pristinely in an absolute way. It suggests that there’s no apparent reason as to why protons, neutrons, electrons have such precise unchanging constants like Electric Charge, Mass, Volume, Spin, Baryon number, Magnetic Moment, lifetime, Lepton numbers, etc. If any of these values were slightly different, every facet of the Universe would unravel and not exist. Knowing this, scientists can only conclude a handful of theories as to why this is, and why we have what they call a “Goldilocks” Universe where everything works together so perfectly and allows for the existence of life. It’s obvious that such precise values didn’t come about by coincidence, there must be an explanation for a nearly infinite number of physical constants to be so precise that it all works together. There’s a reason why protons are 0.84 Femtometers in size (Uni. Of Bonn), why an electrons charge is -1.602 × 10^-19 coulombs,[1] why a neutrons lifetime is 880.2(1.0) seconds[1].

A select few of the going theories that try and explain this phenomena are: The Multiverse Theory, cosmological Natural Selection, Quantum Cosmology and the Landscape Multiverse, The principle of Mediocrity, and Intelligent Design.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati wrote:

Strong evidence for a Designer comes from the fine-tuning of the universal constants and the solar system, e.g.
  • The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. If it was smaller, fewer electrons could be held. If it was larger, electrons would be held too tightly to bond with other atoms.
  • Ratio of electron to proton mass (1:1836). Again, if this was larger or smaller, molecules could not form.
  • Carbon and oxygen nuclei have finely tuned energy levels.
  • Electromagnetic and gravitational forces are finely tuned, so the right kind of star can be stable.
  • Our sun is the right colour. If it was redder or bluer, photosynthetic response would be weaker.
  • Our sun is also the right mass. If it was larger, its brightness would change too quickly and there would be too much high energy radiation. If it was smaller, the range of planetary distances able to support life would be too narrow; the right distance would be so close to the star that tidal forces would disrupt the planet’s rotational period. UV radiation would also be inadequate for photosynthesis.
  • The earth’s distance from the sun is crucial for a stable water cycle. Too far away, and most water would freeze; too close and most water would boil.
  • The earth’s gravity, axial tilt, rotation period, magnetic field, crust thickness, oxygen/nitrogen ratio, carbon dioxide, water vapour and ozone levels are just right.

Former atheist Sir Fred Hoyle states, ‘commonsense interpretation of the facts is that a super-intelligence has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces in nature.’[2]

The nub of the argument is that these constants could, in principle, have had any value and are effectively random. The fact that we see them as having these values is simply because we are here to see them. If the constants were otherwise, we would not exist, and there would be no observer to observe the values, and no questioner to pose the question.

Although they were not the first to suggest the idea, three separate versions of the Anthropic Principle were proposed by Barrow & Tipler (1986); these versions come in Weak, Strong and Final forms.

The Weak Anthropic Principle

In this version of the principle, Barrow & Tipler [3] suggest that the values of physical and cosmological quantities may be random, but are not equally probable; The values that they can adopt are governed by two separate requirements:

  1. That in the Universe there are places where carbon-based life can evolve
  2. That the Universe is old enough for it to have already done so.

In essence this simply says that we are here, therefore there must have been some way to get us here. We should not be surprised to find that any universal constants we observe would be configured in such a way as to allow for our existence.

The Strong Anthropic Principle

In this version of the Principle, Barrow & Tipler suggest that regardless of whether or not we are here to observe the fact, the Universe must (by necessity) have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.

In other words, in this principle, it is no coincidence that we are here; the Universe is expressly configured so as to enable and encourage the prospects of our existence.

The Final Anthropic Principle

In the most extreme version of the principle, Barrow & Tipler suggest that intelligent life (or something akin to it) is a necessary feature of the universe, and once it is created it can never be become extinct. This version of the principle seems almost to imply that the sole purpose of the Universe is to create & sustain intelligent life; not only are the values of constants arranged to do this, but there seems almost to be some unseen force driving the Universe towards its goal.

Other theories that have been observed include

The Multiverse Theory:

This simply put is a theory that says we exist along side an infinite number of other Universes all of which have different values to every thing, the size of protons are different, the force of gravity is different, etc. So a vast majority of the other Universes wouldn’t be capable to support life and be able to have intelligent life as to be able to observe the Universe it lives in. There are many criticisms as to why this theory can’t be true, but one of the strongest arguments against this theory is that because this theory posits the idea of having infinite other universes, there would have to be an infinite amount of other universes that have intelligent life. Even life far more intelligent than us, that would be capable of traveling between Universes. We would then be subject to have an infinite number of inter-universal alien lifeforms that have figured out how to travel between different universes and could invade us, destroy us, or having an infinite amount of any sort of device sent to our Universe and completely filling our finite space and inevitably destroying our Universe.

Cosmological Natural Selection:

This theory riffs off of the multiverse theory except for there being infinite universes, universes are instead born through the creation of black holes. This theory simply put says that each time a black hole is created, a new universe is created on the other side of the singularity of that black hole, and with each time a new universe is created, it has slight variations to the physical constants of the parent universe. It posits this happens exponentially because each universe creates a new universe full of stars that create more black holes, that create more universes, and so on. It also states that only universes where the physical constants work together in such a pristine way as our universe does it creates a sort of “natural selection” for universes that can be born and reproduce. Why this theory comes with a very high intellectual price tag is because it hinges on the behaviour of singularities, naturally creating something new. According to the law of entropy this cannot occur because creation does not come from destruction, so when a star is destroyed, there’s no reason whatsoever to believe it creates anything new. Also this theory does not even attempt to explain where the first Universe came into existence and why it had properties capable of producing more black holes.

Quantum Cosmology and the Landscape Multiverse:

This theory simply put is in tune with the current string theory and suggests that there is a vast number of possible vacuums (over 10^500) within the landscape of the multiverse. This creates a scenario where there aren’t infinite universes all with different and same physical constants, but only a finite amount of universes with potentially different or same physical constants. It says that each universe has a little different of a physical constant and we just so happen to have a universe that has the physical constants that just so happen to support life. This theory although possible on paper, does not have much of an explanation in the way of why in this theory each of the other finite universes each physical constant is different, why the finite amount of universes aren’t all used up changing just one of the physical constants that have an infinite number of possibilities, and again doesn’t attempt to explain the creation of the universes thereof.

The Principle of Mediocrity (Copernican Principle):

This principle simply put says that the universe is not specifically fine tuned to support life, but life naturally would find a way to adapt to however the physical structure of the universe is made up. The problem with this theory in the fact that it is almost dismissive of the fact that we got one universe (that’s still yet to be explained how it was created to begin with), was created with physical constants that just so happen to work so well together that it has the capability to support not only the existence of matter, space, time, etc, but also something as fragile as life. There’s absolutely no reason whatsoever to think with all the infinite possibilities of how the universe could’ve been constructed, it would’ve randomly constructed itself in such a way that could not only allow the existence of anything let alone everything, tangible or otherwise. According to our observable law of entropy, if any one or multitude of the physical constants were changed, it would be far more likely that the universe wouldn’t be able to sustain any sort of creation in it whatsoever, let alone life which is extremely fragile by nature. According to the law of entropy, it’s unfathomably more likely that if the universes constants were “random” atoms, space, time, everything, wouldn’t be possible to even exist.

Intelligent Design:

This theory simply put says that the existence of the universe is evidence of an intelligent creator. Something that is capable of calculating every physical constant to be able to work together in such a pristine way that it’s capable of supporting the existence of everything we can see and not see. This theory, as far fetched as some may think, is the most likely and most capable theory we have. It explains why every physical constant is so perfectly in tune with all of the other constants and provides such an existence. Some critique this theory because of the lack of empirical evidence, it’s philosophical and theological nature, and the scientific proclivity that generally supports theories that are based on natural laws and observable phenomena. In contrast, this is the only theory that satisfies all of the observable and natural laws, including but not limited to the law of entropy and the unfathomably low probability of something like our universe to exist the way that it does.

Theistic Implications

The anthropic principle is commonly interpreted as evidence of an intelligent designer. Physicist Robin Collins said, "The extraordinary fine-tuning of the laws and constants of nature, their beauty, their discoverability, their intelligibility - all of this combines to make the God hypothesis the most reasonable choice we have. All other theories come short." [4] However, this is only evidence for ID if the strong/final versions of the anthropic principle are accepted, since the weak version makes sense without needing an intelligent designer.

Criticisms of the Anthropic Principle

In his web-page on The Anthropic Principle, the transhumanist philosopher Nick Bostrom suggests that the Anthropic principle is only one manifestation of a much larger theory concerning self-location and observation. Within this he argues that the stronger versions of anthropic principles are simply confused, and while the weaker versions might be sound, they are in fact too weak to be useful. He argues that the current formulations of the principles are not formulated in any way as to yield observational consequences.

See also

References

  1. Electron. Encyclopedia Britannica (February 1, 2024).
  2. The universe is finely tuned for life by Jonathan Sarfati
  3. John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler (1986). The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford Univ. Press, ISBN 0-19-282147-4.
  4. Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, Zondervan 2004