Paper detail

The Anthropic Principle Is Testable And Appears Weak

The Anthropic Principle has been with us since the 1970s. This Principle is advanced to account for the "fine tuning" of the 25 constants of the Standard Model of Particle Physics. Were these constants very different, life could not exist. The Anthropic Principle conditions on the existence of life and concludes that the value of the 25 constants must be within a range that allows life. The most common further step is to postulate the existence of a vast multiverse with vastly many combinations of the values of the 25 constants. By conditioning on our own life, we must be in a universe whose values allow life. The Anthropic Principle is commonly held to be untestable because we cannot be in contact with other universes. I aim here to show the Anthropic Principle is testable and that its explanatory power is weak: The Principle seems to make testably false predictions about planet Earth and the life on it. The Anthropic Principle seems unable to predict the existence of 98 stable atoms, when only 19 small atoms are needed for life.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.