Let’s continue our study of the Anthropic principle. It’s necessary for you to read Part one before continuing here in part two.
One observation as we look at this fancy, high brow, *overeducated, ( *in my opinion) philosophical conversation is the discussion of “God” being interjected in the formulations and postulations. So, some believe that God is a necessity, in the anthropic principle, some do not. Maybe we can find out how this principle deals with an intangible such ad faith. I speak of faith as it is usually in conflict with some scientists’ empirical systems.
Let’s look at the different formulations of the anthropic principle. What is called the ‘week anthropic principle’ ( WAP) as defined by Brandon Carter, states that the universe’s *ostensible (* seems true but isn’t ) fine-tuning is the result of selection bias, specifically survivorship bias.( Who or what is forming this bias?) Most such arguments draw upon the notion of the multiverse for there to be a statistical population of *( universes to select from. ) *( A universe can select stuff? What kind of hippie, dope smokin’ language is this? ) However a single vast universe is sufficient for most forms of the WAP that do not specifically deal with fine-tuning.
Carter distinguishes the weak anthropic principle from the strong anthropic principle ( SAP ), *( which considers the universe in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it.) ( PAUSE, QUESTION: This is the *overeducated, presumptious philosophical language I mentioned earlier– How is a universe in and of itself compelled to do anything, let alone conscious sapient life? Questioned posed by Frankie)
A form of the (SAP) known as the ‘participatory anthropic principle’ ( PAP ) as articulated by John Archibald Wheeler suggests that on the basis of quantum mechanics that the universe, as a condition of its existence, must be observed, so implying one or more observers. Stronger yet is the ‘final anthropic principle’ ( FAP ) proposed by John D Barrow and Frank Tippler, which views the universe’s structure as expressible by bits of information in such a way that information processing is inevitable and eternal. ( How do you make information processing inevitable and eternal? ie: God says that His word is inevitable and eternal, yet it is dismissed by the multitudes. Examine language closely, [ Lingustics], we must heighten our awareness, so we are not continually being duped by whatever may come along for us to look at in life. Frankie, Frankie The Earthman. Part three, soon.
Ok. Don’t let this fancy language get you down. I have already mentioned some of the presumptuous ideas put forth. I sometimes believe that many of these philosophers just like to hear themselves talk. I really think they believe they are so educated, that their expressions will go right over top of “the average person’s head.” So I will attempt mto bring this language ‘around and down’, for hopefully better comprehension.
Frankie The Earthman 