Sunday, June 7, 2009
I feel that our universe does exist because of the habitation of intelligent life forms, however my first reaction to this question was that it didn't matter, the universe would be the same with or without intelligent life. But then I started to hink about it more and realized if the universe was created for some certain reason, it must have been created with the intent to support intelligent life. I don't think there is a wrong or right way to answer this question. A lot of someone's opionion could be due to religion. I think a religious person would be more prone to answer that the universe does exist because of intelligent life, because God made the universe (and earth) to support life. From a non-religious point of view one might argue that life just happened to "sprout" from our universe and there is no reason telling why. I personally think there is a reason for everything, and therefore believe the universe was created in order to, someday (evolution), maintain an environment to support life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that you are all missing the fact that you can't get an honest interpretation of the physics unless you study it for yourself, for the very reason that Brandon Carter formalized the principle.
ReplyDeleteThe physics concerns the unexpected carbon-life orientation of certain structure defining features of our universe that do not concur with the cosmological projections of modern physics. The pointed nature of the physics indicates the direction that one might look in for the as yet undefined dynamical structure mechanism that is normally expected to explain why the universe is configured the way that it is, rather than some other way. Brandon Carter called this "a line of reasoning that requires further development", but the face value of the physics is most apparently implicating a bio-oriented cosmological structure principle.
Contrary to modern and "variant interpretations" the Anthropic Principle was originally formalized by Carter as an ideological statement against the dogmatic non-scientific prejudices that scientists commonly harbor, that cause them to consciously deny anthropic relevance in the physics, so they instead tend to be willfully ignorant of just enough pertinent facts to maintain an irrational cosmological bias that leads to absurd, "Copernican-like" projections of mediocrity that contradict what is actually observed.
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/guest-post-rick-ryals-the-anthropic-principle/
I just wrote a piece about the anthropic principle on my blog at http://evolvingthought.wordpress.com - I am a Christian but have come to the conclusion that the anthropic principle is not a good argument for the existence of God. Check it out!
ReplyDelete