Replies

Thank you for your replies!

Point is, there are all kinds and always have been, but most of the big contributors are essentially done by age 30 and then they become humdrum establishment fit to manage the accounts.

I suspect the older scientists on the forum might have an opinion as to whether or not they were done by age 30.

It can be abductively proved. Maybe somebody should take the trouble to do so as a graduate thesis.

A declarative statement (such as above) which relies on an unknown future is a statement of faith per se.

Most everybody gets the anthropic principle backwards, and of course it doesn't actually do anything useful backwards.

How would you rephrase it? Sources?!

Here's mine: Wikipedia: Anthropic Principle

Might as well post it

Weak anthropic principle (WAP): "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so."

Strong anthropic principle (SAP): "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history."

Final anthropic principle (FAP): "Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out."

It came up here on FR a few years ago. We, or life, would naturally occur in places where we, or life, is possible. We would not naturally be where our existence is not possible.

they take on values restricted . That is backwards. They don't take on values. They are values.

As to the proof: It is not faith if the proof is possible, even if the philosophy prof marks up the paper so it bleeds.