Talk:Anthropic principle

This article Sucks, So I asked chat.openai.com to write a better one and it is good.
The Anthropic principle is a principle that states that the fact that we observe the universe to be capable of supporting life is strong evidence that the universe is fine-tuned for life. This principle can be used to argue that the universe and its properties are such that life is bound to emerge and exist in some form. The principle has been used in several versions, Weak Anthropic Principle, Strong Anthropic Principle, Final Anthropic Principle.

The Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) states that the observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on the values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so. The Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) states that the Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history. The Final Anthropic Principle (FAP) states that intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out.

The Anthropic principle was first discussed by physicist Brandon Carter in 1974 and later developed by other scientists and philosophers such as John Barrow and Frank Tipler. It has been applied to a variety of areas in physics and cosmology, including the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of the universe and the likelihood of the existence of life in other universes.

Critics of the Anthropic principle argue that it is not a scientific principle, as it is not testable or falsifiable, and that it relies on the subjective judgment of what constitutes "life" and "observable conditions." Despite this, the Anthropic principle remains an important concept in both science and philosophy, providing a framework for understanding the relationship between the universe and life, and for considering the likelihood of the existence of life in the context of the universe's properties.

References: Carter, B. (1974). Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology. In Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data, ed. by M. S. Longair, pp. 291-298. Dordrecht: Reidel. Barrow, J. D. & Tipler, F. J. (1986). The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford University Press. Leslie, J. (1989). The End of the World: The Science and Ethics of Human Extinction. Routledge. Carr, B. (2007). Universe or Multiverse? Cambridge University Press. 78.79.242.34 (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah that is better. The lead of the article as written now, only makes sense if you already know what the AP is. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @78.79.242.34 "This article Sucks..."? Well, it would say that, wouldn't it? 2A00:23C6:9035:BA01:C54E:CA48:77FE:B713 (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding the definitions of the three variants is good, but the AI botches the rest, talking about "the" principle after introducing three of them, not clarifying which one it is talking about. Also, its definition of the weak one is not very clear.
 * The references seem not to be invented out of whole cloth (which is a risk one takes with AI) but I don't think Barrow and Tipler is very high-quality. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The Lead Needs Work
Right now the lead is clear as mud. ChatGPT did a better job in the previous post. Here is Amanda Gefter's definition. ""Anthropic principle The seemingly tautological statement that features of our universe must be compatible with our biological existence. Why? Perhaps we live in a multiverse in which features vary from one universe to the next, and we find ourselves, unsurprisingly living in the one we can live in. Or perhaps, as John Wheeler suggests, observers play a role in crating the universe that created them."

She is an accomplished science writer and thus counts as SECONDARY. I propose we rewrite the lead to be as succinct and plainly explained as this.DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Surface area of sphere
I'm feeling afraid to edit it personally because English is not my native language and I'm not an expert on the subject (I actually don't even understand the basics) but I believe that in this edit (line 145) the correct is " " instead of (or rather than) " ". I'm one of the translators of this article at ptwiki. I'm trying to keep the version there in line and up to date with this version. Can anyone confirm that my view about this point is correct? Thanks in advance for the understanding and I'm sorry if any mistake. Nishimoto, Gilberto Kiyoshi (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Gould's Quote
On the lower section regarding criticism and reception of the anthropic principle, it is claimed that Gould said "the claim that the universe was made for the benefit of our kind of life is the same as saying the sausage was made so that they could fit into the modern hotdog bun..."

There is no source for this, and I have scoured the internet and have found no such source. The closest idea I have to its origin is either (a) misinformation or (b) in Gould's book "Rocks of Ages". I do not own a copy myself and as such cannot look, I may buy a copy in the near future but until then the dilemma remains.

All instances of the quote have followed on from the date of the wikipedia entry and/or directly quoted the wikipedia entry.

I hope this quote is not misinformation as it is rather delightful; if anybody knows the origin of the quote, could they please reply to this thread and add the reference to the article.

Thank you. Wiki4arthur (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View in Question
I will try and update when I have the time, but the neutrality of the article is suspect and the overall writing quality feels low. 136.62.145.176 (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Origins
According to Sean Carroll the correct anthropic criterion had been proposed by Eddington as early as in 1931: A universe containing mathematical physicists  will at any assigned date be in the state of maximum disorganization which is not inconsistent with the existence of such creatures. More authoritative sources about this? --Popop (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)