This was a good article about the Anthropic Principle, particularly if you are of a bent to not accept certain suggested conclusions of it 
I thought it could lead to some discussion.
Is this a cherry-picking fest? Cafeteria christianity? If so, I’ll take a side of Sagan and a big dollop of Nick Bostrom.
I can no more stomach intelligent design than i can chance. I’ll stick to the absurd
Incidentally (by chance?), I think the two of you look nice side by side. It’s like Maude is a reincarnation of Eve. 
1 Like
I read it for 2 minutes. I have an over-reaching conclusion based on my extensive research. Why is the universe so exactly primed at the deepest of levels to give rise to life? Because there is a universe of universes. And our universe is that one special universe where, like a good souffle, all the conditions are just right to rise.
This stuff’s too easy.
1 Like
It seems this deserves a bit more thought/reflection than most are willing to give it (in this thread, at least, since many great scientists and philosophers have struggled with this question over the years.)
In my opinion, the best arguments against the anthropic principle are multiverse theory (if there is a large number of universe, perhaps an infinite number, then of course one would have hit the jackpot, the argument seems to go), and something along the lines of what Einstein was thinking (does 1+1=2 always, necessarily, regardless of whether there is a universe or not- I think it does). From the article:
The anthropic assertion, whether in its weak, strong or final version, has generated some more serious, and interesting, responses. One is contained within Einstein’s remark: ‘What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.’ Posing whether ‘God had any choice’ was Einstein’s way of asking if the manifold characteristics of the physical Universe, such as the speed of light, the charge of the electron and the proton, etc, are fixed or susceptible to alternatives. If fixed, they might appear to have been organised with carbon-based life in mind, but were actually not ‘free parameters’ in the first place. Note that Einstein was asking if the deep laws of physics might have in fact fixed the various physical constants of the Universe as the only values that they could possibly have, given the nature of reality, rather than having been ordained for some ultimate end – notably, us. At present, we simply don’t know whether the way the world works is the only way it could; in short, whether currently identified laws and physical constants are somehow bound together, according to physical law, irrespective of whether human beings – or anything else – eventuated.
It’s been some years since I’ve thought of these questions. I’m not sure I can remember everything I used to believe. Once upon a time I used to like debating these things. I think I prefer cycling and swimming and drinking and talking to the wife and playing with my kids more now that I’m a bit older!
1 Like
My wife’s not really into talking about the anthropic principle either 
1 Like