anthropic-principle.com
Reviewed • 7 reviews • philosophy • anthropic-principle.com
Nic Bostorm is one of the leading thinkers of anthropic principle (AP). AP has come into the spotlight for various reasons thanks to fine tuning arguments.
Is it a coincidence that the universe seems to "just happen" to be exactly right for life to exist (though this is not yet solidly established since we don't know what type of life can exist)? Crudely speaking AP supporters would say that the fine tuning we observe is nothing surprising, since if the conditions were not right for us, we would not be here to ask the question!
Obviously, this has big implications for the debate between theists and atheists.
In one sense AP is simply taking into account selection effects. Yet there is something very fishy about the argument (of which there are several versions), and lots of logical traps abound. Does AP really explain away this coincidence? When is it legitimate to invoke such explanations? Over-use of this principle would stop all scientific work. Why X? If not X we wouldn't be here to ask the question! How do we define "we" ? Does that include just humans? or intelligent life? This is the so called reference class problem.
AP arguments are also relevant for arguments about how rare life is based on just observing how life evolved on Earth, the doomsday argument (a tricky paradox that shows that whatever your prior probability of doomsday, taking into account AP, means the posterior probability is more likely taking into account your known birthrank)
His PHD thesis(available for download - his book is exactly the same except for the last 2 chapters) should be essential reading for anyone who wants the most sophisticated view currently available on this complicated subject.
Is it a coincidence that the universe seems to "just happen" to be exactly right for life to exist (though this is not yet solidly established since we don't know what type of life can exist)? Crudely speaking AP supporters would say that the fine tuning we observe is nothing surprising, since if the conditions were not right for us, we would not be here to ask the question!
Obviously, this has big implications for the debate between theists and atheists.
In one sense AP is simply taking into account selection effects. Yet there is something very fishy about the argument (of which there are several versions), and lots of logical traps abound. Does AP really explain away this coincidence? When is it legitimate to invoke such explanations? Over-use of this principle would stop all scientific work. Why X? If not X we wouldn't be here to ask the question! How do we define "we" ? Does that include just humans? or intelligent life? This is the so called reference class problem.
AP arguments are also relevant for arguments about how rare life is based on just observing how life evolved on Earth, the doomsday argument (a tricky paradox that shows that whatever your prior probability of doomsday, taking into account AP, means the posterior probability is more likely taking into account your known birthrank)
His PHD thesis(available for download - his book is exactly the same except for the last 2 chapters) should be essential reading for anyone who wants the most sophisticated view currently available on this complicated subject.
