faustuz

Of all the arguments for the existence of God, the recourse to the Anthropic Principle is the only one I have ever found remotely convincing. The existence of a universe so ideally suited to the evolution of conscious life indeed seems to be a coincidence of mind boggling proportions. If this is the only universe then I find it difficult not to surmise that the universe was in some sense designed for conscious life. Now, before I go on let me say that I know some of the arguments against this. For one, if the universe is infinite then it can be understood that even astronomically improbable events will occur. However, it seems that for life to even be possible, in other words above a threshold of infinitely impossible, requires a rather improbable coincidence of variables. If certain cosmological constants, say the strength of gravity or the strong force, were not within a small range of values then such things as stars and atoms, respectively, might not form. We understand such things to be minimum requirements for the evolution of life.

There are a few other ways that proponents of non-purposeful design try to explain the anthropic principle (I won’t use the phrase intelligently designed because I don’t think that it is necessarily warranted to equate the existence of a purposefully designed universe with an intelligently designed universe, but that would be the subject of a different thread). Some surmise that other kinds of life might be possible, life that could evolve in a different universe with different constants. The fact that we find ourselves here, in this particular nearly infinitely improbable universe, is simply because we are the type of life that can evolve in that universe. If the universe were otherwise it would simply be other beings discussing the improbability of their existence. I find this argument to be entirely conjectural. We have so far found no examples of life in our universe that can evolve in any environment other than that found on earth, not to mention in other sets of cosmological constants. The evolution of life seems to be an extremely improbable event, even in this universe in which these constants at least allow for it. While I don’t discount that some form of life (not even to mention conscious life) might exist in other possible universes, I don’t think it is warranted to fall back on this conjecture as a way out of the argument from the Anthropic Principle. At best it might warrant being an agnostic with respect to purposeful design, with the doubt being a small glimmer indeed.

The other way out is to imagine a multiverse in which each of the individual universes have their own sets of natural laws, i.e. every combination of cosmological constants exist in some universe, so the fact that we conscious beings exist in this universe is merely a function of this universe being the universe in which we are likely to exist. I find this to be the most convincing and probable argument, although still conjectural. It seems that some modern cosmological theories indeed predict such a multiverse. However, these theories are not at this time well accepted by cosmologists. The jury is still out on this subject and therefore so too should be recourse to such a theory as a way out of the argument from the Anthropic Principle.

In conclusion, it seems that the most intellectually honest course is to remain agnostic with respect to the subject of purposeful design. There are some possible scenarios under which purposeful design might not be necessary to explain the observed universe, but these are conjectural. Now, I do not think that it is warranted to make the leap from purposeful design to an intelligent designer, i.e. God. Occam’s razor keeps me from making that leap, when the simpler solution is to say only that the universe itself is purposeful and leave it at that. However, there is a narrow gulf between purposeful design and intelligent design and some might not see the difference, or think that the difference is mere semantic nit picking. I’ll leave that for another thread.

Shadowy Man

Your underlying assumption is that this universe as it exists is somehow an improbable thing. But how can you possibly know this? Do you know the source distribution of possible values for various universal constants to know that the ones we have are highly improbable.

Even if the evolution of life is improbable, I believe that in an appropriate environment that life is inevitable, being a chemical process that should happen naturally given the laws of the universe and the correct conditions.
For me, the Anthropic Argument is one of the least convincing arguments for the existence of a god.

Silent Acorns

Count me in with the shadow on this one.

The problem with this is that we haven't even looked (unless you count our solar system as "our universe"). We have absolutely no idea how common earth-like conditions are in the universe. Personally, I have never found a rock in Australia, but since I've never been to Australia I would be foolish to conclude that there are no rocks in Australia.

faustuz

Good point. However, let’s assume that cosmologists determine that this universe is the only possible universe. To do so they would need to prove that the nature laws that govern this universe are the only set of natural laws that are mathematically consistent. That would mean that the universe is a tautology. Does assuming the universe to be a tautology give us an out from the argument from the Anthropic Principle? I don’t see how. I would still marvel that this only possible universe is the one that leads to the possibility (inevitability?) of conscious life. Why do these only sets of natural laws, this only possibly mathematically consistent universe, happen to work out so well for us? The question is truly boggling, I don’t even really know how to phrase it. If it turns out this way I might be inclined not only to call the universe purposeful, but intelligent. I guess that I might think that mathematics itself is purposeful, that mathematics itself is the intelligence that we call God. I’m going to stop now because I’m going way beyond the subject of this thread, and way too deep, and into ideas that are themselves mere conjectures.

To answer your question, though, I have absolutely no idea if this universe is improbable or, if it is, the probability distribution of universes. I don’t believe that even cosmologists N times smarter than me know this. However I don’t think that it really makes a difference with regards to the issue at hand.

I did address this. These chemical processes do obviously happen naturally in the universe with its given natural laws, at least here on Earth. The parameters in which these chemical processes can occur, however, seems to be very narrow even in this universe. It appears that they don’t occur in such places as the moon, Venus, Mars, the surface of the sun or any other places beyond Earth we have looked. Again, there is a lot of conjecture going on here. We haven’t looked, for instance, under the ice of the Jovian moons, or beyond our solar system. Based on the evidence we have now, though, making life appears difficult indeed.

I’m curious as to which ones you find more convincing. Personally, I don’t find any others I’ve heard even remotely convincing. As you may note from some of the other threads I’m active in, I particularly think that that favorite of most theists, the Cosmological Argument, is particularly bunk. This, of course, is off topic for this thread.

faustuz

Be careful not to mischaracterize what I’ve said. I’ve said that I think it’s best to be agnostic on this issue, not that one should acknowledge purposeful design. I’ve acknowledged, and even described, other options. Your point that we haven’t looked, and that we don’t know, is extremely well taken. Also note that I am not really debating whether or not life occurs elsewhere in the universe. I personally find it likely that it does, although I have no evidence for this. (Damn, conjecture again!) Nonetheless, just looking at our solar system tells us that the parameters are narrow, regardless of how many times life occurs in our extremely large universe.

gcomeau

In addition to the earlier observation that we really haven't looked all that much, I think we should keep in mind that "conditions here on earth" in which life evolved are a little more widely varied than most people tend to consider...

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPa...91092a0_r.html

http://www.resa.net/nasa/otherextreme.htm

etc...

Just something to take into account when considering what the likelyhood of life evolving in "non earthlike" conditions might be. The paramaters appear narrow... but maybe not quite so narrow as most people think.

-Grant

Biff the unclean

The Anthropic Principle is the same as saying that all the lottery winners should be arrested because the odds against winning are so great that they must have cheated. Some unseen magic force must have helped them.

wordsmyth

Ideally suited? The majority of our universe appears extremely unsuited to the evolution of conscious life.

faustuz

This analogy holds only if you assume the multiverse scenario. If only one person played the lotto, and he won, I would consider that to be a miracle. In fact, your example is an excellent illustration of my point. The Anthropic Principle is interesting only if we assume that this is the only universe, otherwise it’s a triviality.

Philosoft

Second wordsmyth's post and add:

Even without the multiverse, the Strong Anthropic Principle assumes, on the naturalistic side, a more-or-less random outcome of universal constants. Since this is a fact not in evidence, the SAP is still unconvincing without the multiverse.