The anthropic principle is a controversial cosmological principle which states that the fact that the observable universe must be compatible with our powers of observation constrains the physical laws that are possible within that universe. -- WikiPedia:AnthropicPrinciple

I think it unfair to say that it implies all the constants of the universe are fine tuned so that life can exist although we are in a position and perspective where that must be true -- JimScarver

The anthropic principle has both valid and invalid interpretations. The universe does include observers like us and that does say something about its nature.

Certainly our participatory existence requires participants. Participants include ourselves, but are not limited to ourselves.

Two dimensional domains lack sufficient complexity for participants to emerge and 4 dimensional domains are too complex to be comprehended by being like ourselves. I think the anthropic principle reasonably accounts for our three dimensional perspective on the universe.

There are many possible dimensions of organization in the universe. Those relevant to humans are those we participate in (can measure).

Existence must have created all countable logical systems up to some number of states, N, randomly. The energy of the big bang suggests N is quite large. Like monkeys and typewriters all conceivable universes have been created. Those that remain, are those that conserve information (energy). Those that are observed include observers. The one we observe includes us.

So, "The" world is not the way it is because we are here, but "Our" world is. In the final analysis "our" world is "the" only one Science can describe. We can only speculate on other worlds, unless we can communicate with them which makes them part of our world.

There is no causal link however. Human existence doesn't cause the universe to be the way it is. Using the anthropic principle to elevate human importance or that assume that nature adjusts herself to suit us is unjustified.

This sounds like a complete and total load of crap. We are the way we are because that is what we are. We have been shaped to a great extent by the universe, yes, but we have also shaped ourselves.

And just because we cannot observe or even conceive of something, does not mean that it doesn't exist. We didn't understand that each point of light in the sky was another star with other worlds until recently, but that doesn't mean that the universe suddenly changed over to that when we "decided" it was that way. And not everyone in the world knows that, for that matter====

==

There is, on this world, many different observers of the universe. To discount our fellow sentients, who view existance differently from us, is to say that we are the only thing that is important in the universe. That is certainly not true.

I am the most important thing in 'My Universe', but I understand that I am an insignificant speck in those other close universes that I know of, and that me and my universe are completely unknown to most others that exist or have existed.

This AntrhopicPrinciple is garbage, and seems like pure ego-stroking by those that are upset that the world is not flat, and that they are not the center of everything else in the universe.

---StarPilot

That's exactly the thing Jim's saying. Most people thing the universe revolves around them, for the needs of humans. But, in reality, are we just another organism that in the next age will change? Maybe in 10000 years the living things on earth will change and become "Qeople". There are so many catalysts to affect the beings on earth, the changing of time, nuclear destruction.... Only time will tell. --KenSchry

Indeed, you are preaching to the chior, Star. The main problem with the anthropic principle is that if you apply it you risk putting yourself in the same catagory people who apply the concepts in a bogus manner. Most arguments I read, that use the anthropic principle, try to turn causality topsey turvey, we are as we are because of the way he universe is, not the other way around. The proof is in the pudding. Until fairly recently the universe was mostly hydrodgen. It lacked the chemical richness required to support life as we know it. It is only now that life in emerging. The anthropic principle can give insight why we are here now, rather than then, but it says nothing about what was or what will be.