I read about it but i really don’t get it.
In: 1
I don’t think there are really universally agreed definitions – different authors have used these terms to mean slightly different things.
The anthropic principle is generally the idea that we shouldn’t be surprised if conditions in the universe – or at least our corner of it – seem especially suited for life, because if they weren’t suited for life then we wouldn’t be here to observe them.
The “strongest” versions of this argument say that universal physical constants were somehow constrained to take on certain values in order to make our existence possible. The “weakest” versions just say that we’re more likely to be in a part of the universe that is especially suited to life than one that is especially hostile to life.
Most people would agree with some weak form of the argument, but the stronger forms are more controversial. There are certain properties of the universe that seem like they are in a sweet spot that allows for complex structures (solar systems, chemicals, etc.) to develop, allowing for life. But it’s a bit hard to be completely sure what would have happened if the universe was a bit different, and we also have no way of knowing whether it *could* have been different or if there is some fundamental reason why it has to be the way it is.
Latest Answers