[exmarine]

The axioms are not faulty. They come from a book called the "Anthropic Principle" written by a bunch of scientists. It is further reinforced by Dr. Hugh Ross, Ph.D. of astrophysics. Visit www.reasons.org for more info.

[MHGinTN]

If I point out one of the offered assumptions and show that it is not necessarily a requirement, would the entire house of anthropic cards fall? Not likely, but the notion that our sun's energy is an absolute necessity for life is on very shaky grounds because tidal forces in the moons of Jupiter and Saturn will produce sufficient energy for the sustaining of life above a minimal temperature level. It is now thought that there are life forms here on earth that may never have been in sunlight, drawing their requisite energy for metabolism from the energy escaping through faults in the tectonic plates where heat escapes at the ocean floors and sulfur compounds are in abundance. But let's explore the anthropic principle because no less than Stephen Hawking is now in that speculative camp and I've had a moderate correspondence with him, indirectly (have to go through the Cambridge Library for faxing to him, and of course his aides), over that very issue. I'll cite a 'neutral' source, then perhaps we may take it from there. This should be fun!

Anthropic Principle: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/mar31/anthropic.html

Note that if some of the finely-balanced quantities were not finely-tuned then our Universe would have grossly different properties. The properties would in fact be so different that it is highly likely that life (as we know it) would not develop and be around to ask the question of why the Universe is special. That is, selection effects would say that it is only in universes where the conditions are right for life (thus pre-selecting certain universe) is it possible for the questions of specialness to be posed. This statement and variants of this statement are the gist of the Anthropic Principle. Note that the Anthropic Principle is probably true and says that there is nothing mysterious about why our Universe is special. However, it does not rule out the possibility that there is a deeper level to our understanding of the Universe which makes our Universe the most probable universe from the plethora of all possible universes. This still may be true but is not required philosophically or scientifically.

There are several vexing facts about the Universe:
· Horizon problem
· Flatness problem
· Matter/Anti-matter asymmetry
· Cosmological constant
· ....

It appears as though we live in a special universe. Some quantities seem to be highly improbable values, for example, the flatness of the Universe is disturbing. Several questions are:

· Are these special values simply the way our Universe is (that is, is it a coincidence that our Universe has these properties)?
· Is there a deeper level to the physical nature of the Universe which we do not understand (which makes our type of Universe the most probable type of Universe)?
· .....

*************

You cited several weak arguments for the antrhopic principle notion, such as the necessity of our sunlight in the origin and maintenance of life froms. I offered a simple refutation, but of course I have no proof that life yet exists on those moons of Jupiter and Saturn since none have been found, YET. Let's discuss the vagaries of the anthropic principle, hopefully with the aid of Physicist and Right Whale and radioastronomer and others, if they would like to join in. [Uh, by the by, can we leave off the macho chest thumping? I appreciate your service to this country ... without Marines there might not even now be a Unites States due to the rising sun and the bloody thumping you folks gave them to place them back on their islands. Let's enjoy a spirited discussion without the catcalls back and forth. ... That goes for anyone trying to tweak the jarhead, also!]