Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
350,920
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Anthropic principle (view source)
Revision as of 19:41, December 26, 2015
, 19:41, December 26, 2015no edit summary
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. 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.
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.
Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote:
{{cquote|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.’<ref>[http://creation.com/the-universe-is-finely-tuned-for-life The universe is finely tuned for life] by Jonathan Sarfati</ref>}}
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.
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.