Posted on 03/01/2004 7:40:32 PM PST by bondserv
Anthropic Principle Won’t Go Away 02/28/2004
The so-called “Anthropic Principle” is the observation that the universe, whether by accident or design, appears to have been fine-tuned for our existence. Dating back decades, if not centuries, the idea has been alternately criticized and seriously pondered by the world’s greatest cosmologists. During the 1990s the idea was ridiculed to the point that, if you mentioned the “a” word at an astronomy conference, you risked being pelted with eggs. Now, according to Dan Falk in the March 2004 issue of Sky and Telescope (pp. 42-47), it is undergoing a “surprising resurgence.” Several astronomers used the “a” word at a UC Davis conference in March 2003 and left with clean clothes and thoughtful hearers.
Falk lists some of the “cosmic coincidences” that seem designed for our benefit: (1) the strength of gravity, (2) the smoothness of the Big Bang, (3) The masses of subatomic particles, (4) the strength of the strong nuclear force, and (5) the magnitude of the cosmological constant. There are many other parameters, from atomic to planetary to cosmic, that have been cited in the debate. Some of the parameters Falk lists are recent additions, especially #5. He cites Linde claiming that the cosmological constant is just slightly above zero, yet 120 orders of magnitude smaller than expected. If it were much higher, stars and galaxies could not exist. Are the life-favoring values of these physical constants due to luck, or are they evidence for a benevolent Creator?
Falk quotes Paul Davies, Andrei Linde, and other advocates and naysayers. Some, like Stephen Weinberg, think it argues for a “multiverse” (the idea that our universe is the lucky one out of many, perhaps an infinite number of universes). Surprisingly, Falk gives this bizarre interpretation the best press, calling it “more or less established – as a viable scientific idea if not an immediately testable hypothesis.” Others, however, like David Spergel (Princeton) think the A.P. commits intellectual surrender.
Perhaps the most telling criticism of the A.P. is by David Gross, a string theorist (UCSB). Falk says that Gross considers it a “dangerous” explanation, because “it plays into the hands of ‘Intelligent Design’ supporters, who feel that the universe was custom-made for human beings by a benevolent God” (Falk’s paraphrase). In Gross’s words, “It smells of religion, and like religion, it can’t be disproved.” Spergel is similarly disdainful: “Some people invoke miracles to explain the underlying processes in evolution, and some people invoke the anthropic principle to explain the underlying processes of cosmology.” To him, this is intellectual surrender, claiming that things we don’t understand are things we will never understand.
Here we see the Elephant in the Living Room phenomenon. Design in nature is the elephant, and the cosmologists are the investigators explaining why the elephant is not really there. The elephant, however, continues to make its presence known, denials notwithstanding.
Find the contradiction in the statements above. Gross criticizes religion because it cannot be disproved, but can multiple universes be disproved? There is no way to observe or test the existence of multiple universes; the whole notion was invented to get around the obvious evidence for design in our universe. It is our universe that is subject to observation and testing, not some hypothetical multiverse. That makes the multiverse explanation essentially a religious notion.
And cannot a religion be disproved? Some can, if they make statements about the world or the universe that can be tested. If a religion teaches that the earth sits on top of a turtle or is held up by Atlas, you can check from a spacecraft. If Mormonism teaches that American Indians are descendants of Israelites, you can compare their DNA (see DNA vs. the Book of Mormon). Why doesn’t Gross get on Andre Linde’s case? He is a Hindu. Doesn’t an infinite series of multiple universes play into the hands of his religious beliefs?
Gross might reply that no amount of evidence will convince a believer. OK, let’s apply that standard to the Darwinians. No hypocrisy here; the Darwin Party always goes where the evidence leads (see 02/27/2004 headline, for example). If evidence for design is staring them in the face, they will go to the lengths of proposing hypothetical infinite universes, which can never be observed, to maintain their faith in Pope Darwin (see 02/13/2004 headline). Spergel seems to be thinking of theistic evolutionists when he says, “Some people invoke miracles to explain the underlying processes in evolution.” Yet that is exactly what fundamentalist Darwinians do, when they incessantly trust in the mythical powers of “emergence” (see 02/25/2003 commentary). This is intellectual surrender as much as any easy-believism in religion. On the contrary, the Design perspective has a track record as a driving force for discovery the history of science (see online book).
The Gross fear that the anthropic principle plays into the hands of Intelligent Design supporters betrays naked atheistic bias. He will not allow non-skeptics into the room to declare, “There is an elephant in here!” No, that is intellectual surrender. We must find a different explanation for this pain on my foot. Those are the rules. No elephants allowed. That is how science must be done. Keep looking.
Just kidding.
Yet more amusing projecting of themselves on to evolutionists by creationidiots.
Are there any theories being discussed among cosmologists that are promising or gaining adherents?
The Anthropic Principle is the reason you think MY PINGLIST is yours.
So9
Thanks for the ping.
The evidential atheistic apologetic seems to be getting stretched into ever further multiverses until it will eventually reach and connect with the nilhism of post-modernism. No surprise there.
Yes. Our most brilliant cosmologists, all secular, subscribe to the following theory:
"First there was nothing. Then it exploded."
Meaning, they can't explain it other than the fact there was once a true singularity of infinite mass and density -- an mathematically possible but realistically impossible situation.
"OK, so all these natural constants are precisely (not to say miraculously) tuned so that we can exist. And what do you know, we seem actually to exist.
Now, what if these constants were not tuned this way? Well, we'd all be sitting around pissing and moaning about the fact that we can't and therefore don't exist, right? Of course not! If the constants weren't exactly right, we wouldn't exist, and there would of course be no discussions on the subject.
So, to say that it's wonderful that all these eager-to-please constants are just right for our existence is scarce wonder. The mere fact that we exist proves that the constants are good-to-go for us to exist, but it says nothing about whether it might have been otherwise but for the intervention of some Creator, or might be otherwise in proposed parallel universes."
Ed, check me on this. Is this a statement of the "Strong Anthropic Principle?"
And then it organized itself into exceedingly intricate physical and biological systems, one of those biological entities endowed with the capacity for developing a fine sense of moral order -- all conceived and engineered strictly by impersonal forces of "natural law" and "algorithm," which (miraculously?) appeared from nowhere and contained infinitely more information (also coming from nowhere) than "natural law" and "algorithm" can encompass, even theoretically.
Now that< requires boundless religious faith. Singular indeed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.