Talk:Anthropic principle

This article Sucks, So I asked chat.openai.com to write a better one and it is good.

The Anthropic principle is a principle that states that the fact that we observe the universe to be capable of supporting life is strong evidence that the universe is fine-tuned for life. This principle can be used to argue that the universe and its properties are such that life is bound to emerge and exist in some form. The principle has been used in several versions, Weak Anthropic Principle, Strong Anthropic Principle, Final Anthropic Principle.

The Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) states that the observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on the values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so. The Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) states that the Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history. The Final Anthropic Principle (FAP) states that intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out.

The Anthropic principle was first discussed by physicist Brandon Carter in 1974 and later developed by other scientists and philosophers such as John Barrow and Frank Tipler. It has been applied to a variety of areas in physics and cosmology, including the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of the universe and the likelihood of the existence of life in other universes.

Critics of the Anthropic principle argue that it is not a scientific principle, as it is not testable or falsifiable, and that it relies on the subjective judgment of what constitutes "life" and "observable conditions." Despite this, the Anthropic principle remains an important concept in both science and philosophy, providing a framework for understanding the relationship between the universe and life, and for considering the likelihood of the existence of life in the context of the universe's properties.

References: Carter, B. (1974). Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology. In Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data, ed. by M. S. Longair, pp. 291-298. Dordrecht: Reidel. Barrow, J. D. & Tipler, F. J. (1986). The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford University Press. Leslie, J. (1989). The End of the World: The Science and Ethics of Human Extinction. Routledge. Carr, B. (2007). Universe or Multiverse? Cambridge University Press. 78.79.242.34 (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that is better. The lead of the article as written now, only makes sense if you already know what the AP is. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@78.79.242.34 "This article Sucks..."? Well, it would say that, wouldn't it? 2A00:23C6:9035:BA01:C54E:CA48:77FE:B713 (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding the definitions of the three variants is good, but the AI botches the rest, talking about "the" principle after introducing three of them, not clarifying which one it is talking about. Also, its definition of the weak one is not very clear.

The references seem not to be invented out of whole cloth (which is a risk one takes with AI) but I don't think Barrow and Tipler is very high-quality. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Gould's Quote

On the lower section regarding criticism and reception of the anthropic principle, it is claimed that Gould said "the claim that the universe was made for the benefit of our kind of life is the same as saying the sausage was made so that they could fit into the modern hotdog bun..."

There is no source for this, and I have scoured the internet and have found no such source. The closest idea I have to its origin is either (a) misinformation or (b) in Gould's book "Rocks of Ages". I do not own a copy myself and as such cannot look, I may buy a copy in the near future but until then the dilemma remains.

All instances of the quote have followed on from the date of the wikipedia entry and/or directly quoted the wikipedia entry.

I hope this quote is not misinformation as it is rather delightful; if anybody knows the origin of the quote, could they please reply to this thread and add the reference to the article.

Thank you. Wiki4arthur (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View in Question

I will try and update when I have the time, but the neutrality of the article is suspect and the overall writing quality feels low. 136.62.145.176 (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Origins

According to Sean Carroll [1] the correct anthropic criterion had been proposed by Eddington as early as in 1931: A universe containing mathematical physicists will at any assigned date be in the state of maximum disorganization which is not inconsistent with the existence of such creatures. More authoritative sources about this? --Popop (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible new introduction

I disliked the unneeded complexity of the current introduction, so I tried modifying it to be made more understandable. The purpose of an introduction should be to introduce you to the topic, not needing to already understand the topic to read it. But I could also understand the argument as to why it needs to remain the same, so this is my suggestion for the introduction:

The anthropic principle, also known as the observation selection effect, is a hypothesis, first imagined in 1957 by Robert Dicke. Brandon Carter often credited with further expanding the idea, agreed with Copernicus that we should not think as humans as central to the universe, but it would be misleading to assume we are not privileged in any way. He argued that there are too many coincidences that happened for life to occur. His core idea can be simplified to the following: Since we observe the universe to be capable of supporting life, it is evidence that the universe is made to support life. As Steven Weinberg puts it: "Where else could we be, except on a planet that can sustain life?"

Supporters of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why the universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate life, since if either had been different, no one would have been around to make observations. This reasoning is often used to deal with the idea that the universe seems to be finely tuned for the existence of life.

There are many different interpretations of the anthropic principle. Philosopher Nick Bostrom counts them at thirty, but the underlying principles can be divided into "weak" and "strong" forms, depending on the types of cosmological claims they entail.

• The weak anthropic principle (WAP), states that the universe seems finely tuned for the existence of life is the result of survivorship bias. We only perceive it is finely tuned because we exist. Most arguments include some variation of the multiverse for there to be a number of universes from which to select. However a single vast universe is enough for most forms of WAP that do not specifically deal with fine tuning.
• Carter distinguished the WAP from the strong anthropic principle (SAP), which considers the universe in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it.
• A form of the latter known as the participatory anthropic principle, articulated by John Archibald Wheeler, suggests on the basis of quantum mechanics that the universe, as a condition of its existence, must be observed, thus implying one or more observers.
• The final anthropic principle (FAP), proposed by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler, which views the universe's structure as expressible by bits of information in such a way that information processing is inevitable and eternal.

MaskedLynx (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the lead needs some work, but I'm not seeing your proposed new version as an improvement. Your lead focuses on the history of the idea and it picks a preferred version of that. The article is about the principle not the history of the idea, per se. So, I don't think Copernicus or Carter or probably even Dicke should get any mention in the lead at all.

I would use your version as a template for a "history" sub heading.

My preferred version would be much simpler. Something like:

"The AP is the idea that when we are trying to figure out how likely or unlikely our various observations of the world are, we have to first take into considerations that there could be no observations at all unless the world was hospitable to observers to start with."

A lot of editors think plain language like "we" and "us" is too informal, but if you want the article to be accessible to average readers, you need to do away with the jargon. "Observer" and "likely" are already pushing the jargon envelope. This is such a counterintuitive idea that it's always going to be hard to grasp at first. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

How about this?

The anthropic principle hypothesizes that the properties of the universe are constrained by the fact that this universe, out of many possible universes, must be one capable of developing intelligent life. This principle would explain the apparent "fine tuning" of the universe's physical properties, since if its properties had been incompatible with the development of conscious life, no one would be around to wonder about this apparent fine tuning.

Everything from "The weak anthropic principle (WAP)" onwards should be pushed to the next section (Definition and basis). Likewise, the historical references, quotations etc. that I chopped out of the current lead go into this next section.

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

That is indeed much better than the previous version, but assumes the existence of multiple universes, which is a step too far for the lead. It also doesn't without reference to another article tell the reader what is meant by "fine tuning". The lead has been improved again since you made the above suggestion, and as of the time of writing I think it's now pretty good. I have moved alternative formulations into a section of its own, though, as I agree that that is too complex and detailed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The lead section should summarize the main text. Rather rewriting the current lead, summarize the newest version of the main text as a start. This is likely to produce a lead that is more coherent and useful to Wikipedia's audience. The current lead has too much detail about the four differing versions. In fact, the only necessary elements are the Bostrom paragraph, the Dicke sentence Dicke, and a simplified and shorter version of the two Carter sentences. Let the weeds grow in the fields that follow. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 16:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC) —

I like the idea of pushing the second paragraph below the lead. Do you want to go ahead and do that now?

I prefer my version, because 1) it's in plain accesable language, and 2) I think fine tuning is not the only reason or context in which anthropic reasoning is used. The question is how likely is any observation, not just observations of fine tuning.

To me the pivotal every day notion is WE, not consciousness not sentience, but us humans since that is the only empirical and actual context we have for any of this discussion, WANT TO KNOW HOW LIKELY OR UNLIKELY THINGS WE OBSERVE ARE, then comes the AP which says, THE RANGE OF POSSIBLE OBSERVATIONS IS LIMITED BY THE PRECONDITION OF OBSERVERS BEING POSSIBLE. DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The current version of the lead contains an inaccuracy. In 1931, Eddington stated

A universe containing mathematical physicists will at any assigned date be in the state of maximum disorganization which is not inconsistent with the existence of such creatures.

While not precisely what is currently understood as the anthropic principle, Eddington's statement is a very close precursor. Clarification of who said what first, however, does not belong in the lead. So I would push any talk of "Eddington said this versus Dicke said that" to a subsequent section.

MOS:LEADCITE states, "Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." Very little of the lead as it stands is controversial or challengeable. Except for the quotation (which I would personally consider as not belonging in the lead), I do not consider most of the citations to be necessary. Where necessary (for instance as source for the alternative term "observation selection effect"), I would rewrite the body so as to make the citations unnecessary.

However, despite my minor misgivings, the lead in its current state (except for the misattribution to Dicke) is "good enough" such that I personally do not feel any need to tweak it. A successful consensus, after all, should never leave anybody completely happy, including me. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you on rewriting so as to make cites in the lead unnecessary. In the body, at least one of the block quotes is excessively long for an encyclopedia article; adding a few numbers and formulae or relationships could help our readers. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 03:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC) —

I have made my suggested cuts to the lead. Now comes the hard part—how to summarize the text body which uses no numbers or formulae at all! — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 23:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC) —

The current state of the lead (and bless you all who don't write "lede") is pretty good to my eye. No links and nobody grabbing historical credit at the cost of readability. I still prefer my use of "we" as I think talk of abstract observers and non human intelligence primes the pump for mystical crap. Nonetheless it's looking better than it has in a while to me. DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

References
References