Anthropic Principle
not so fine tuning
We're here because we're here
When I first heard a version of the Fine Tuning argument (it was just religious types marvelling at how well god designed the universe for us), I immediately thought “Of course the universe suits us. We’re here aren’t we? If it didn’t allow our existence we wouldn’t have evolved”. I suppose this was a rudimentary version of the Anthropic Principle. I wasn’t distinguishing between evolution and abiogenesis and I wasn’t thinking of multiverses, neither cosmological nor quantum mechanical.
There are various versions of the Anthropic Principle. Sir Fred Hoyle (of Steady State and Panspermia fame) is said to have used an anthropic argument to accurately predict that the carbon-12 nucleus had undiscovered resonance aiding its synthesis in stellar interiors. I guess this one would have been a Vague Anthropic Principle like my childish musings on the conditions for creation and evolution of life.
According to Jürgen Schmidhuber, the anthropic principle essentially just says that the conditional probability of finding yourself in a universe compatible with your existence is always one. I like to say “Every observed universe had an observer”.
More developed versions of the AP seem to be broadly divided into weak (WAP) and strong (SAP) anthropic principles. The WAP is like my “Every observed universe had an observer” but stated from the position of “Since we’re here, the universe is necessarily compatible with our existence”. The SAP claims that the universe has a purpose, and that that purpose is the creation of life. But wouldn’t that imply that the concept of life existed before the universe was created? I find this one a bit hard to swallow but I’ll look into it in more detail. I’ve read that quantum mechanics lead John Archibald Wheeler and Eugene Wigner to take the SAP seriously and those guys were no dummies. Wheeler’s quantum information ideas and his delayed-choice experiment proposal are areas I need to find out more about.