From: "Thomas Norback" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Precise Statement of Anthropic Principle
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 11:07:03 -0500
The Weak Automotive Principle
The 1957 Chevy must be a possible consequence of any correct theory of the
The Strong Automotive Principle
The 1957 Chevy must be an inevitable consequence of any correct theory of
Many theorists reject the Weak Automotive Principle as trivial and
unnecessary--that a theory will minimally conform to the possibility of
observed fact is implicit in what we mean by "theory".
The Strong Automotive Principle is often rejected as excessively strict.
Theories in which observed fact is inevitable are to be preferred, but only
ceteris paribus. Considering the compelling nature of the 1957 Chevrolet a
"Necessary Chevy" theory will always be welcome, but only provided it does
not lack generality vis a vis non-automotive phenomena and provided it does
not require ad hoc assumptions justified only by the Strong Automotive
email@example.com wrote in message <firstname.lastname@example.org>...
>Can someone please clarify which of the following statements is the
>"correct" statement of the anthropic principle?
>1. The values of the fundamental physical constants we observe are
>constrained by our (human beings) existence.
>2. The values of the fundamental physical constants we observe are
>constrained by the existence of intelligent beings (not necessarily
>I think there is an important distinction here and would like to see if
>there is a consensus as to which statement is correct.
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.