> Chris Burford asks:
>
> >Does anyone know the anthropic principle in cosmology?
> >
> >Is that idealist?
>
> James Farmelant gives us no less than four "anthropic principles." All of
> them are perfectly empty tautologies, reducing to the formula that since we
> exist in the universe the universe cannot be such that it would be
> *impossible* for us to exist in it. Paul Henry Rosenberg goes on to claim
> that this tautology is not "idealist" because it "recognizes
> the....influence of empirical facts outside the universe." All this is
> neither "materialist" nor "idealist"--merely the "pouring from the empty
> into the void" typical of our cosmological "science of new formation."
What we have here is NOT empty tautologies -- though, of course they have the circular scent of tautology, but that's not the same thing. If it were mere tautology, there would be no difference between the 4 versions James elaborated on.
In fact, the anthropic principle is a refutation of the assumption that we the universe was specially created. It recognizes NO necessity that ANY universe need have been created (that would be idealist, which is why the anthropic principle is NOT idealist).
Instead it says that any universe that WAS created (by whatever process this happens) could only be observed if it LOOKED (to the unreflective eye) as if it were specially designed. In other words, it's demystifying the appearance of special intention.
BTW, there's no particular reason that other kinds of universes could exist, with more fundamental forces, for example, that would be much richer places for life and consciousness. Just because there are only narrow possibilities does not mean that all must be much like our own.
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"