It's not supposed to be about how the universe came to be. It just points out that certain things aren't as unlikely as they might seem.
I just don't understand - and I'm not just being stubborn or backward here - why "humans only exist where humans can exist" must be elevated to a principle.
The argument for God's existence through the anthropic principle is simply "doing it wrong." The point of the anthropic argument is to remove the supposed necessity for an intelligent creator.
This is why I don't understand what's up with the anthropic principle: how do we know who is doing it wrong? It just tells us that humans must necessarily live in a human-friendly universe (which is just common sense), but nothing about how the universe came to be human-friendly...
This may be a dumb question, but what's the big news with this? If you just click to the right of the search bar in IE7, you can choose Google as your default search engine. You can even remove live.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not supposed to be about how the universe came to be. It just points out that certain things aren't as unlikely as they might seem.
I just don't understand - and I'm not just being stubborn or backward here - why "humans only exist where humans can exist" must be elevated to a principle.
The argument for God's existence through the anthropic principle is simply "doing it wrong." The point of the anthropic argument is to remove the supposed necessity for an intelligent creator.
This is why I don't understand what's up with the anthropic principle: how do we know who is doing it wrong? It just tells us that humans must necessarily live in a human-friendly universe (which is just common sense), but nothing about how the universe came to be human-friendly...
This may be a dumb question, but what's the big news with this? If you just click to the right of the search bar in IE7, you can choose Google as your default search engine. You can even remove live.