On 23-May-00, Russell Standish wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> The Anthropic principle has been discussed numerous times before. There are >> many versions going around. I just want to make a point which I think is >> crucial. >> >> First let me state some of these principles quoted from Barrow and Tipler >> >> Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP): The observed values of all physical and >> cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values >> restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life >> can evolve and the requirement that Universe be old enough for it to have >> already done so. >> [Barrow and Tipler are not explicit, but this principle implies the requires >> the existence of conscious observers.] >> >> Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): The Universe must have those properties >> which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history. [The >> emphasis here is on the world "must" which implies that the Universe is the >> way it is by design.. at least this is the way most people interpret this. >> This version implies the existence of a creator. Its religious connotations >> makes it unscientific] > > It may be commonly interpreted this way, but I would disagree that it > should be. In my Occam paper I mention that the SAP implies either a > Divine creator, or a Plenitude (ensemble). I vaguely remember someone > raising a third possible implication, although for the life of me I > can't remember what. > > The WAP is simply a consistency statement, that should be true > regardless of what you believe. I think it is quite true to say that > assuming an ensemble explanation (pick your favourite Plenitude here), > the SAP and the WAP are one and the same thing. Therefore I go on to > use the AP without qualification. > > As for the following two APs, I think you have adequately dealt them > enough damage in order for us to ignore them. > I completely agreed with what George wrote and I thought is a good summary. It seems to me that an ensemble theory implies that there must be a universe with "us" or "I" in it only if it is known that such a universe is possible. I don't think we know that such a universe is possible, except for the fact that we seem to be in one. This is another application of the WAP. So I don't think that ensemble theory, absent some argument for life from first principles, adds any more necessity to the universe than already provided by the WAP.
Brent Meeker