What's your view of the Anthropic Principle as a cosmological theory of the Universe?

Question

Seems like circular reasoning to me (tautologic) and there seems intuitively wrong.

Answer 1

Seems the same to me, yet there is a strangely compelling logic. Those who disagree are forced to prove something that defies proof, like an unreal hypothetical or a negative, just as in arguments on religion and the supernatural. If we didn't exist, who's to say there would still be a universe?

Answer 2

IMO, no, there are no logical fallacies interior the uncomplicated anthropic concept. start up by asking the question: What could we are waiting for to computer screen if the universe* replaced into created by an intelligence? * by universe I recommend the universe as an entire each and every of how right down to our place in it - the earth. If the universe have been created we could constantly assume to work out super tuning and layout - which we do in many a number of levels and places in maximum exacting words. it quite is a consistent line of concept and the top (that it replaced into intelligently designed) isn't unreasonable. The skeptic could say that if it weren't so then we does not be here to computer screen them. it truly is, of direction, real. besides the indisputable fact that it does not negate the observations or relegate the belief derived from them to fallacy. they might or would no longer be finally suited, however the observations and conclusions are something yet improper. actually, by asserting the theist in basic terms includes those conclusions because of the fact they are theist is to devote the genetic fallacy. it is exciting to me that the reaction to the anthropic standards of our universe are to postulate that our universe is however the "fortunate one" of a limiteless form of universes with the required homes for existence. Invoking a limiteless is an advert hoc reaction that enables something, yet explains no longer something. So, I have not any concept how possible see a straw-guy fallacy interior the anthropic concept. Nor /affirming the ensuing/ because of the fact the observations and end extra wholesome the question handy. the line could be moist, besides the indisputable fact that it is moist for a reason. what's spoke of and what's the main suitable clarification?

Answer 3

In its simplest form, the Anthropic Principle states: If the various physical constants were not 'just right' to support life, no one would be around to know. It does not state, but it supports the argument that the universe was designed to support life. Some forms of the Anthropic Principle argues that reality requires an observer to exist. This is naturally impossible to prove true or false. If reality exists without an observer, than by definition, no one knows.

Answer 4

It is an interesting view and does have some truth, if physical constants were not as they are, we would not be here. The real question is did this happen by chance or by design. Science cannot answer this question. If this happens to be the one and only universe, you almost have to say design, but if this is one of trillions upon trillions of universes, than by chance one could be like ours. I don't have the answer to this question and I don't think anybody really does. I personally just think it is amazing to know how everything has to work out just right to produce a universe like our, whether by chance or design.