Louis's Garden

Graph View

Rationally Speaking 8 - The Anthropic Principle

May 02, 20244 min read

Rationally Speaking #8 - The Anthropic Principle

Cover|200

Episode metadata

Show notes > The Anthropic Principle (AP), in its many forms, attempts to explain why our observations of the physical universe are compatible with the life observed in it. From the Weak AP (WAP), which in one form states that "conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist", to the Strong AP (SAP) which in one version states that: “The Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage,” they all try to answer the question of why there is life in the universe, or why the fundamental constants are the way they are. But, do any of these principles add anything to our understanding of the ultimate question of life and the universe?
> Perhaps the best answer is embedded in Martin Gardner’s sarcastic proposal of the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle (CRAP): “At the instant the Omega Point is reached, life will have gained control of all matter and forces not only in a single universe, but in all universes whose existence is logically possible; life will have spread into all spatial regions in all universes which could logically exist, and will have stored an infinite amount of information, including all bits of knowledge which it is logically possible to know. And this is the end.”

Episode AI notes

  1. Defining surprising outcomes depends on defining the relevant outcome ahead of time
  2. Without predetermining the outcome, even unlikely events may not be surprising
  3. Analogies like the firing squad and Richard Feynman’s license plate story illustrate the concept of surprising outcomes

Snips

[12:30] Analogies and Fallacies in Defining Surprising Outcomes

🎧 Play snip - 1min️ (11:48 - 13:13)

✨ Summary

Defining a surprising outcome depends on defining the relevant outcome ahead of time. If an event occurs without a predetermined outcome of interest, even if it is unlikely, it may not be considered surprising. The analogy of a firing squad, where one draws a target around the bullet hole after shooting, illustrates this concept. Similarly, the story of Richard Feynman noticing a rare license plate serves as an example that without predetermining the outcome, the occurrence, no matter how unlikely, may not be surprising.

📚 Transcript

Click to expand
Speaker 2

So about the firing squad example. It seems, i've heard this example before, this analogy, and it doesn't actually seem to be a very apt analogy to our universe taking the values that it did. Because if you're going to say that an outcome surprising, you have to sort of have defined ahead of time what the relevant outcome is that you're interested in um. And then if it's very unlikely and it happens, then you can be surprised. But if if something happens and you hadn't a head of time to find am, what outcome you were interested in, then no matter how unlikely the resulting outcome is, it's not necessarily surprising. So, am, that's right. Remember an anecdote that richard fineman am, he before giving a lecture one day, he said to the audience, ladies and gentlemen, you'll never believe what happened to me on my way over Here. I saw a car with the license plate, h g, three seven five seven. I mean, what are the chances of that? And his point, of course, was that every license played is incredibly rare. If he hadno before leaving his said, i wonder if i'll see a license plad with the, you know, h g, three seven, five seven. And then he did. That would be incredibly surprising. But hee didn't establish his outcome ahead of time. So this is sort of, is also called the sharpshooter fallacy, that youu fire a gun at a blank wall, and then you go up to the bullet hole, and you draw a target around it, t exand you like, amazing.

Speaker 1

So amazing. As i hit the target.

Backlinks

Graph View