Does the Anthropic Principle Explain Anything?

[Robert Arvay]

The short answer is, no. The essence of the anthropic argument is that, if no universe could support life, then there would be no one attempting to explain life. That seems to make perfect sense, at first, but upon closer examination, it contains fatal flaws. It reminds one of the scurrilous accusation that, the police would not be arresting you if you were innocent.

Granted, that analogy is not perfect, but it demonstrates that our way of thinking can be circular. The anthropic argument is a trap resulting from circular thinking. In a way, it says that, the very fact that anyone proposes intentional creation of the universe, is invalidated by the fact that he exists. Therefore, the more detailed, and more nuanced arguments for intentional creation can be immediately dismissed without further thought on the matter.

One of the counter-arguments against “happenstance” design of the universe, that is to say, a universe of entirely probabilistic coincidences, is one that I have not yet seen invoked by anyone except myself, so here is my claim to fifteen seconds of fame: chance cannot operate except within designed parameters. I do not have a clever or catchy name for that principle, so for now, I will call it, The Principle of Rigged Probability. Please offer a better term, but for now, let’s just explain what it means.

The simplest example (and perhaps most familiar) is that of a coin flip. If one flips a coin, it will land either heads or tails. Those are (for the sake of this discussion) the only two possibilities. Either one could occur, and unless we have “rigged” the game, the outcome is determined entirely by chance (a priori, at least). Without convincing evidence of intent, there is no need to ascribe the outcome to anything other than the laws of probability. Case closed. Or, is it?

The coin has two sides, but only because it is designed that way. If that is not a satisfactory proof of the Principle of Rigged Probability, then let’s up the ante to another common example, the roll of dice.

Using only one die of the pair of dice, let us ask, what is the likelihood of a die roll landing a six? One might immediately say, the odds are one in six, but that is wrong, because it assumes that the die has six sides. If the die does have six sides, then it was designed that way, but it might have as few as four sides, or any number greater than four. In other words, before calculating the probability of something happening, one must first specify the parameters in which chance operates in each case. (If the parameters were infinite, then the chance of anything would be X in infinity, effectively zero.)

Every instance of chance works this way. It is absurd to say something like, the chance is three. We can say, one in three, or three in some other number, but regardless, we must specify the parameters.

This is the fatal flaw in the anthropic principle. It is an argument from stubbornness, a rejection of reasoned analysis.

The argument for intentional creation, on the other hand, is based in solid evidence, empiric observation, and disciplined reason. It argues that, the parameters are intentionally designed. If it were not a valid argument, your chances of being here to refute it would be zero.

[Jim Cross]

I agree it doesn't explain anything but neither does intentional creation because you still need to explain the creator. If you think you can bypass doing that, then the same bypass could be done with anthropic principle, that is we could assume it is uncaused.

[Martin_]

Where does this assumption - that there are only 2 options; "random" or "apriori intentionally created" - come from?

[Robert Arvay]

Jim wrote:
I agree it [anthropic principle] doesn't explain anything but neither does intentional creation because you still need to explain the creator. If you think you can bypass doing that, then the same bypass could be done with anthropic principle, that is we could assume it is uncaused.

This is to compare apples to oranges.
The Creator is not created.
Principles are.
-
-

[Robert Arvay]

Martin asked:
Where does this assumption - that there are only 2 options; "random" or "apriori intentionally created" - come from?

I suppose that there could be more, but as a basis for discussion, if one is to suggest intentional design of the universe, then the usual counter-argument has to do with the anthropic principle, quickly followed by random design. I have therefore focused on discrediting the anthropic principle argument by demonstrating its fallacies. I had hoped for a more systematic analysis by those who disagree with me.

In this, and in other threads, I seem to be met not by such expository arguments, but rather, by quips. These, I propose, add nothing to the discussion.

Maybe I am too dense to understand their profundity.
Maybe not.

-

[Jim Cross]

Jim wrote:
I agree it [anthropic principle] doesn't explain anything but neither does intentional creation because you still need to explain the creator. If you think you can bypass doing that, then the same bypass could be done with anthropic principle, that is we could assume it is uncaused.

This is to compare apples to oranges.
The Creator is not created.
Principles are.
-
-

Principles can just exist. Nothing requires them to be created. They can be uncaused.

[AshvinP]

The short answer is, no. The essence of the anthropic argument is that, if no universe could support life, then there would be no one attempting to explain life. That seems to make perfect sense, at first, but upon closer examination, it contains fatal flaws. It reminds one of the scurrilous accusation that, the police would not be arresting you if you were innocent.

The 'anthropic principle' is actually very profound when viewed from the proper spiritual perspective. In short, it reveals that the phenomenal world can only exist if we (the unified spiritual "we") observe-contemplate it. In other words, it is simply a natural law of idealism (of the Western variety that emphasizes importance of Thinking). By themselves, these 'principles' are not very helpful for explaining anything. They are very low resolution and trivial observations about the essence of Reality. They must be connected within an ideal framework of many other principles, laws, archetypes, etc. to start shedding real light on noumenal relations. The melodies of abstract logical thought must be raised up by the harmonies of imagination, inspiration, and intuition. That is when we begin penetrating into the real essence of our eternal symbols.

[Robert Arvay]

Jim wrote:
I agree it [anthropic principle] doesn't explain anything but neither does intentional creation because you still need to explain the creator. If you think you can bypass doing that, then the same bypass could be done with anthropic principle, that is we could assume it is uncaused.

This is to compare apples to oranges.
The Creator is not created.
Principles are.

Principles can just exist. Nothing requires them to be created. They can be uncaused.

To say that ANYTHING in nature can "just exist" is to close off the metaphysical question.
It is to disclaim any sense of reason or purpose.

To seek purpose and reason (not just to contrive them) is inherent in the human spirit.
The idea of a divine creator leads us in that direction.
The idea of, oh well, it just is, is futile.

Of course I could be wrong.
-

[Squidgers]

Is your principle at all similar to Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)?

There would, by it's own criteria, need to be a sufficient reason why this principle exists in nature.

But in this way it is circular.

Its perhaps important to note that facts cannot explain themselves, but principles of explanation and explanatory systems must explain themselves. To mix facts with the systems those facts are grounded in and defined by is a surefire way to find absurdity where there is none.

To use the PSR to explain how atoms organize into a brain capable of conceiving the PSR is not circularity, but a closure of the chain of explanations.

Münchausen’s trilemma is faulty because it assumes that every form of logical development in an explanatory theory requires justification before we even consider how justification fits into an explanatory theory. Of course, axioms and infinite regress can’t be considered because they’re in need of explanation.

With circularity, it’s not as if every fact is going to explain every other fact. Not every fact will lead to the logical principle underlying said fact, and yet every fact will need to be explained by a logical principle. Thus, there’s a divergence between facts and principles that must be accounted for.

Kant asked the following:
‘How is it possible in general to cognize a priori the necessary conformity to law of things as objects of experience, or: How is it possible in general to cognize a priori the necessary conformity to law of experience itself with regard to all of its objects?’

In other words, how can we know independent of experience the manner in which our experience conforms to precise, general laws? Concerning objective validity, Kant says further that,
‘Objective validity and necessary universal validity (for everyone) are therefore interchangeable concepts, and although we do not know the object in itself, nonetheless if we regard a judgment as universally valid and hence necessary, objective validity is understood to be included.’

In other words, if we knew something as logically necessary, we would know that it is also going to be objectively valid for everyone. If we knew the laws of nature by some way of necessity, we would be able to know that the laws of nature are valid for everyone. Anything that we know by way of necessity would have this property.

[Jim Cross]

To say that ANYTHING in nature can "just exist" is to close off the metaphysical question.

Yep. It's ridiculous so now you should see why the idea of God or Designer is even more ridiculous since it is outside of nature and closes off all questions.