I have been fascinated by the Anthropic principle for a very long time. It also took me a while to understand it, and while I can’t claim to grasp its implications fully, I have reached a point where I see this principle around me all the time and it’s giving me a warm feeling of appreciation for the world that surrounds me.
The Anthropic Principle is also the ultimate weapon against the obscurantism pushed forth by proponents of creationism or intelligent design.
I’ve been thinking of an easy way to explain the Anthropic Principle so I thought I’d start by offering it here. I’m not quite sure where this story came from, if I read it somewhere (probably) and even if somebody ever connected it to the Anthropic Principle, so feel free to comment at will.
Story time.
One day, someone named Steve sends you an email in which he predicts that tomorrow, team A will win against team B. You don’t think much of that email and you delete it. The next day, you learn that indeed, team A won. A few days later, you receive another email from Steve which, again, makes a prediction for the result of an upcoming game. And again, the prediction turns out to be correct.
After a while, you have received ten emails from Steve, each of which accurately predicted a game outcome. You start being quite shocked and excited. What are the odds that this person would randomly guess correctly ten matches? 1 over 2^10 (1024), about 0.1%. That’s quite remarkable.
In his next email, Steve says “I hope that by now, I convinced you that I can guess the future. Here is the deal: send me $10,000, I’ll bet them on the next match and we’ll split the profits”.
Do you send the money?
Surprisingly, a lot of people fall for this kind of scam on a daily basis. If you think about this a little bit, you can probably see how the scammer did it: he started by sending a prediction that A will win to 512 recipients and one where B will win to the other 512. After the game is finished, he repeats the process with the 512 that received the right result. Every time a new match result comes in, the number of recipients is divided by two, but the remaining recipients have all received 100% accurate predictions so far.
By the time we reach the 10th match, there is only one recipient left — you. And to you, the sender of this email has proven that he has an uncanny ability to guess the future while all he did is walk through an entire solution space until he had reached a point where he can carry out his scam.
How does this short story relate to the Anthropic Principle?
Proponents of creationism and intelligent design usually make claims along the lines of observing the amazing complexity that lies around us and ascribe these observations to the existence of a god. This is very similar to yourself learning about this person who seems to be able to guess the future. Surely, only the existence of a supreme being can explain for such amazing feats, right?
Here are other similar claims:
- “The eye is such a complex organ that it couldn’t have evolved to become what it is, it must have been created by someone”.
- “If the atmosphere mix of the Earth had been off by just a few percents, human life would not be possible”.
- “Our cosmos would not exist if the constants that underlie it were off by just a tiny fraction of a decimal”.
Are all these numbers so remarkable that the only way to explain them is by the existence of a supreme being?
Of course not. There are millions of universes that are similar to ours, and which have all these microscopic variations in their constants. And if you’re not convinced, it’s easy: just go ask the people who live in these universes. Except that… you can’t, of course. Because life never emerged in these universes.
What happened is that you got lucky: you were born in one of these few universes where life was possible. Unlucky people never realized that they were unlucky since they were never born, and as such, they were never able to ponder these questions.
This realization is the very definition of the anthropic principle: all these magic values that surround us and that make life possible are actually unremarkable, because they, and you, are the product of a statistical event. There is nothing so magical about our eyes that can only be explained by the existence of a supreme being. The simple truth is that if the eye was not the complex organ that it is today, you wouldn’t be around to ask questions about it.
Interestingly, the Anthropic Principle is not mutually exclusive with the existence of a deity (actually, nothing really is, which is part of the problem). You can still believe that some god decided that you would be part of the lucky experiment, but the Anthropic Principle is certainly strongly supporting evidence for the mechanism of evolution and also the proof that a lot of the seemingly magical properties that permeate the world around us can be very simply explained by high school level probability concepts.
#1 by John Watson on August 17, 2010 - 8:00 pm
Preach on, brother! (/irony)
#2 by Brian on August 17, 2010 - 8:29 pm
I first heard it called the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy (the bit prior to your getting to cosmology):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy
(Which, now looking at that page, mentions the Anthropic principle.)
#3 by Lawrence Kesteloot on August 17, 2010 - 8:48 pm
Here’s how I think about it: There are 100 phone booths, numbered 1 to 100. In each phone booth there’s a person, each holding a bomb. Each bomb is identical and is programmed to blow up if it’s not in booth 47. The bombs go off and 99 people blow up. The person in booth 47, unaware of the other booths but aware of his own booth number, inspects the bomb and deduces that someone must have built the bomb specifically so that it wouldn’t blow up.
#4 by Guillaume Laurent on August 17, 2010 - 9:26 pm
Regarding the underlying constants of the Cosmos, advances in String Theory show that they are “inevitable” in that they stem from a more basic principle beneath, so no “miraculous adjustment” here. (just finishing “The Elegant Universe” which explains that a bit).
#5 by Neil Bartlett on August 17, 2010 - 11:58 pm
Mostly agree, except for this statement: “There are millions of universes that are similar to ours”
That’s not something we can know, and it doesn’t necessarily follow from the Anthropic Principle.
*Maybe* there are millions of other universes concurrent with ours — actually it would be more like googols of them, and the vast majority would be very unlike ours — or maybe universes arise one at a time. Heck, maybe universes themselves “evolve” in some way.
Then again, maybe there has only been and only ever will be exactly one universe, and by an astounding stroke of luck it is one in which we can live. This would also not be a proof of God, it is enough to observe that if the universe had not turned out this way, then we would not exist to observe it.
#6 by Neil Bartlett on August 18, 2010 - 12:05 am
Incidentally, the ID argument about the eye tends to be that the intermediate states between “not having eyes” and having the complex eyes we have now are not useful to the organism, and therefore could not have arisen through natural selection.
Darwin himself anticipated and countered this argument in The Origin of Species. He described a series of plausible intermediate steps to the evolution of the eye, starting with a simple light/dark sensor, which is then covered with a bubble of fluid that vaguely focuses light, and so on.
#7 by Sony Mathew on August 18, 2010 - 8:58 am
Nice !
Agree for the most part except for “millions of universes” as Neil pointed out.
I’m fascinated by the concept of Emergence -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
#8 by Bill K on August 18, 2010 - 5:12 pm
Lately I’ve been using a different approach in arguing with Christians (or most other fundamentalist religions). You don’t have to prove the existence or non-existence of a God, simply open their bible to any page and point out how it’s wrong or prove one of their fundamental principles wrong. Since they generally disavow any other Gods or religions you’ve proven (in their domain, anyway) that there is no God.
As a good example, have them explain how it’s physically possible for an all-knowing being to create another being AND for the created being to have free will. This alone is a pretty good show-stopper once you force them to actually think it through.
They may not change their belief, but at least you are taking the argument out of their completely un-arguable realm and putting it on semi-solid grounds.
#9 by Dana on August 18, 2010 - 9:31 pm
The idea of thinking inside of a box, about what is outside the box, implies that we have cognitive ability to define the box, when in fact, we believe that we have such cognitive ability to define the box, but in reality, we are only presuming that it is a box at all? When in fact, as we now realize, it is, as is everything, a collection of nuclear anomalies which we are just beginning to grasp the enormity of. Behind the which, is in fact; God, who is in fact the creator of it all. Try as we might we shall never comprehend God, else, what’s God for? Try as we might, our explanations of our box will be useful to us, can even extend the amount of time in which we have the box, but when we have stated, by God, what He, who is creating this, has determined what is to be the outcome, not when, but what, and that is significant- then what we ought to pay attention to, it seems to my paltry human psyche is, the betterment of how to survive in the box we are all in? Rather than angrily expressing to the source of all life, the creator, God, that we’re not pleased at what we’ve done with what resources He left here for us to work with? Now please expressly understand, there is absolutely no ill will toward any person in any expression here, whatsoever; merely a sort of saddened bemusement that we have such majestic possibility that we choose to limit by our own decisions and choices based upon something which is not going to be defined, that being the soul, faith, etc., and in that choice we somehow think we’ve a better and more ethically sound and morale set of circumstances to the future? That’s a hard one for me to grasp.
#10 by Joe on August 19, 2010 - 2:39 am
As science has progressed, the realized complexity of the universe and its parts have increased significantly. The story of Steve spamming enough people to convince one he’s predicted 10 straight games might have been apt a couple hundred years ago. Today the story should have Steve spamming enough people to “predict,” say, 10^80 straight games.
Of course, if you believe there’s an infinite pool of people to spam and that Steve lives eternally then maybe he will one day predict 10^80 straight games. But that belief takes as much faith, if not more, than a belief in an Intelligent Designer, in my opinion.
#11 by Aleksandr on August 19, 2010 - 6:46 am
TO Dana:
I don’t understand your argument, if I follow it properly you break it yourself later in the post. For example: “…we believe that we have such cognitive ability to define the box, but in reality, we are only presuming that it is a box at all”. Then in the next sentence: “When in fact, as we now realize, it is, as is everything…” Where did this “realize” come from? From what I understand it came from trying to “define the box” and think “outside” the said box. “Behind the which, is in fact; God, who is in fact the creator of it all.” Where does god come in? There is no logical connection between what you’ve said and god. You simply claim god created everything, yet give no basis for that statement.
#12 by Ruslan on August 19, 2010 - 8:51 am
Wiki’s explanation: “…the anthropic principle is the philosophical argument that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it.”
That means, if the physical Universe is NOT compatible with the conscious life that observes it….it will not exist for that conscious life…e.g. conscious life will not be able observe that universe and therefore consider it doesn’t exist….
But, it also means that if there is some other conscious life that is compatible with that physical Universe…they can observe it…therefore that Universe exists…
Now, imagine that these two different conscious groups have some subset of common properties that allow them to observe each other…yet one conscious life will NOT recognize existence of the Universe that cannot be observed by them…and will be contradicted by another conscious life that can observe it….
What does it mean? … if someone telling you about some existence of a place (Universe) that you cannot observe… should you believe that conscious life because they have extra properties that allow them to observe it?
#13 by Ruslan on August 19, 2010 - 8:58 am
To Dana:
“…Try as we might we shall never comprehend God, else, whats God for?…”
Exactly!
From pure philosophical standpoint…God is perfect…meaning that everything else is imperfect. That means in order to comprehend God one has to be perfect as well…BUT we can’t have multiple perfect entities…only one is possible. Therefore, no one can comprehend God.
What does it mean? I’d say all the historical teachings and religions are wrong by definition….none of them can provide understanding/comprehension of the God. Don’t you agree?
#14 by Andran on August 19, 2010 - 1:12 pm
To Joe:
“Of course, if you believe theres an infinite pool of people to spam and that Steve lives eternally then maybe he will one day predict 10^80 straight games. But that belief takes as much faith, if not more, than a belief in an Intelligent Designer, in my opinion.”
I don’t think you must necessarily think that there were many “universe dice rolls” until this one occurred, as the Steve metaphor would seem to imply; just that this particular roll occurred (a priori a given roll has a low chance; a posteriori its probability is 1, since it *has* occurred!).
I also disagree that this requires more faith. That life has adapted to the universe as it currently exists is the most obvious and direct observation. The requirement for an Intelligent Designer, on the contrary, is an indirect observation (and in my opinion unsupported, and merely an ad hoc hypothesis for people who wished this Designer existed in the first place).
#15 by Ankur on August 20, 2010 - 5:40 am
In eastern philosphies for ex. Hinudism there is principle called as Advaita which says that
The literal translation:
That is infinite, this is infinite;
From That infinite this infinite comes.
From That infinite, this infinite removed or added;
Infinite remains infinite.
I am trying to understand these verses as well
http://www.gita-society.com/bhagavad-gita-section2/2_purna.htm
#16 by Kelley Glenn on August 21, 2010 - 11:34 am
Just as it’s amazing that life exists, it’s amazing that I exist.
Think of the number of people my parents could have married and had children with, yet they chose each other. Think of the number (trillions?) of permutations of DNA that can be created from my parents, yet precisely one of those was chosen to create me. Try to consider the environmental factors that influenced my development in utero, then all of the subsequent influences that shaped me into the man I am today (for better or worse).
Multiply this by the 6.8 billion people alive on Earth who each uniquely exist despite extraordinary odds.
Do such astronomical figures imply design and intent, or does it just prove that exactly one outcome exists – the reality in which we live?
#17 by Guillaume Chazarain on August 21, 2010 - 1:19 pm
FYI your story reminds me of http://www.arachnoid.com/randomness#Miracle_Man.
#18 by karran on August 21, 2010 - 3:18 pm
At the fundamental level, as physicists explore to the minutest detail, they find nothing .. we are all made up of nothing.. most of what you perceive as being “solid” have nothing observable. In fact … everything that you can see, feel or touch is made up of the same building blocks. Let’s take the atom as an example – electron, neutron and proton. Neutrons and protons are made up of an “up” quark and a “down” quark. The fourth (apart from the electron, the 2 quarks which make up neutrons and protons) is postulated to be a “graviton”, which has never been found. The rest is nothing but space.
What does it all mean? It means that we, humankind, know nothing yet and all of our knowledge cannot figure out life. Life is a mystery and will continue to be so, as long as humans think and feel. I don’t think there is something like a “creator” (especially one in human form or resembling human form).
Humans tend to think of everything in terms of a mirror and expect intelligent aliens, as an example, to be similar to us – in that they have a brain, eyes and senses and possibly, even arms and legs with a nervous system to boot. We also have a need to perceive ourselves as being similar to our creator – in other words, we need to humanize everything as otherwise we cannot comprehend it.
Of course, a few have thought boldly about other forms of life or intelligence (that may be beyond human understanding or perception because such intelligence lacks anything which a human might relate to).
For example, in the movie “Solaris” (I’m referring to Russian one), on the planet Solaris is a strange substance, which flows like an ocean and appears to be intelligent as it reacts to the presence of a spaceship exploring the planet. Is the entire planet alive and is the moving ocean a “brain”? Or, is the ocean itself “alive” or “intelligent”? How we can we even begin to understand such an intelligence if there is no human quality or feature that we can adequately describe?
Life is not only a mystery; it is one which does not demand a solution. I think Descartes expressed it best – “I think, therefore I am”. As you long as you can think, you exist and the world exists. Once you die (or cease to think), everything dies with you, maybe the entire universe. For you, you exist along with the universe and when you die, your “universe” dies with you. Your “soul” per the Vedic theory transcends this universe and finds another (entering a different womb). This is, of course, unproven and pure speculation as we may all have past lives (which we don’t remember) or we may not.
Who knows ? The ultimate point is – make use of the life you have and accept things for what they are and move on with your life. That we can comprehend and grasp and that’s what I think a creator (if he or she or it did exist – hypothetical) would intend.
My 2 c…
#19 by Ruslan on August 23, 2010 - 3:44 am
To karran:
“That we can comprehend and grasp and thats what I think a creator (if he or she or it did exist hypothetical) would intend.”
While I tend to like your guess of the creator intentions…its a pure speculation… As I stated earlier, one can never comprehend the creator because of one’s imperfection.
#20 by Wouter Lievens on August 23, 2010 - 4:17 am
The “millions of universes” bit may be incorrect or unproven or whatever, but Cedric is (IMHO) using is a metaphor rather than scientific fact here, and that works just fine.
#21 by Jeffrey Guterman on August 24, 2010 - 4:35 am
I agree with #16, Kelley, that it’s amazing that life exists and that I exist. I have tried to articulate the latter to others, my astonishment that I exist, but it is difficult. Francis crick, in his book, The Astonishing Hypothesis, answered my nagging question quite well when he wrote: “You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules”
#22 by Michael McLawhorn on October 13, 2010 - 8:39 am
Cedric’s argument overlooks the more brilliant argument against design:
Design flaws that illustrate historical events. Stephen J Gould wrote extensively ( The Panda’s Thumb) showing ways in which life’s amazingly well adapted features are in fact show sometimes hilarious levels of biological improvisation. Via comparison of species, organs and structures that serve one function in one species are repurposed, despite their total inadequacy as a ‘best fit’ solution in another similar species. In short, it’s direct evidence of species heredity.
Karran – Your rhetoric is fairly devoid of rational argumentation. A series of misstatements of scientific models, ignorance of the reasons those models have emerged, bald assertions about the limitations of human knowledge unsupported by any evidence, irrelevant pop culture citations, and concluding with moral assertions unrelated in large part to the scattered contents.
I saw this not to be offensive to you as a person. Rather, I’m trying to refute misinformation. And I actually am bothered when sophists attempt to arbitrarily assert what is and isn’t knowable by scientific endeavor while demonstrating a failure to understand its contents or its process.