From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Sat Apr 12 2003 - 16:00:56 EDT
Dick,
There are at least two formulations of the anthropic principle. One is the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP), which John Haught describes as follows: "the early universe looks the way it does to physics because otherwise we wouldn't be here to observe it." "In this weak version the principle has no explanatory value and therefore hardly desrves the name of 'principle'." The other is the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): again, in Haught's words: "...the physical character of the universe is the way it is _because_ of mind. It is the natural world's impetus toward evolving into beings with minds that has shaped the fundamental features of the universe from the beginning." Mind, then, "is an inherent part of nature and not just an evolutionary accident." (from _Science and Religion. From Conflict to Conversation_). As someone else wrote, "The universe 'seemed to know' we were coming." With SAP, some explanatory value is proffered.
I would not attach "hypothesis" to this notion, though it has been attractive to such theoretical scientists as Freeman Dyson. While SAP is not a scientific notion, I think it does challenge scientists to consider whether it is so evident, as some hold, that the universe is entirely accidental and purposeless. Those who hold to the latter tend to dismiss any form of the anthropic principle as meaningless. Here, the line between science and metaphysics, as is so often the case, is not all that clear.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Fischer
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2003 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: Benjamin Wiker on ID (fwd)..Fine Tuning
Bob Schneider wrote:
Each of the formulations for fine-tuning are labeled as a "Principle" (e.g., the Strong Anthropic Principle) and not as a "Theory." In much the same way,
Howard Van Till speaks of his "Robust Formational Economy Principle." Those in the scientific community have been careful in their language; they do not
think that this evidence leads to a formulation that qualifies as a scientific theory.
Point well taken. I don't think we are careful enough in applying correct terms, thus contributing to the fog of misunderstanding. Should it not be the Strong Anthropic Hypothesis? And what does "strong" have to do with it? Is there a corresponding "Weak Anthropic Principle"? Why not simply the "Anthropic Hypothesis"? There, now go and correct all the literature.
Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 12 2003 - 16:01:36 EDT