The anthropic principle does not work in a single universe situation, because the probability of such a 'privileged universe' coming into existence as the only universe is mind blowingly small.
When you can put an upper bound on this probability through actual calculations, let me know. 'Til then, for all you know the probability could be mindblowingly huge. There's nothing privileged about our universe until you establish that no form of intelligent life could arise with virtually any other choice of physical constants. You admit you can't do so and call my alternatives speculation, so your assertions to the contrary are equally speculative.
Statement from Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
"The observed values of the dimensionless physical constants (such as the fine-structure constant) governing the four fundamental interactions are balanced as if fine-tuned to permit the formation of commonly found matter and subsequently the emergence of life. A slight increase in the strong nuclear force would bind the dineutron and the diproton, and nuclear fusion would have converted all hydrogen in the early universe to helium. Water and the long-lived stable stars essential for the emergence of life would not exist. More generally, small changes in the relative strengths of the four fundamental interactions can greatly affect the universe's age, structure, and capacity for life."
In other words, most values for various physical constants would lead to universes without life.
It says water and long-lived stable stars wouldn't exist. Firstly, you admit water isn't the only way life might come into existence (we've only looked at part of 1 planet in any real detail), and in other universes there can be other chemicals doing the job equally well. Secondly, this paragraph doesn't contain any references, and the whole point of referencing is to avoid dependence on the opinions of the users who read and edit the articles. On the other hand, the source you quoted last time said stable, long-lived stars will most often form in abundance and last a billion years or more, despite a wide range of random variations in the various physical constants.
This time around, the
Wikipedia article you referred to also contains the following:
The anthropic principle has given rise to some confusion and controversy, partly because the phrase has been applied to several distinct ideas. All versions of the principle have been accused of discouraging the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. Those attempting to explain the anthropic principle often invoke ideas of multiple universes or an intelligent designer,[5] both controversial and criticized for being untestable and therefore critics of the anthropic principle may point out that the anthropic principle is more of a philosophical concept, not a scientific one. One way to bypass the controversy is to emphasize the weak anthropic principle: "...conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist.".[6] In mathematics and philosophy, the weak form of a statement is one which is "easier" to support, e.g. it makes fewer claims of substance. Even critics of the weak anthropic principle recognize that it is a tautology or truism, - which means a true statement, albeit a "vacuously true" statement.[7] However, building up other substantive arguments based on a tautological foundation is problematic. Stronger variants of the anthropic principle are not tautologies and make substantive claims which may be considered controversial by some.
The article also contains a link to
another Wikipedia article. That article in turn contains the following statement:
Computer simulations suggest that not all of the purportedly "fine-tuned" parameters may be as fine-tuned as has been claimed. Victor Stenger has simulated different universes in which four fundamental parameters are varied (electromagnetic interaction, strong nuclear interaction, electron mass, and proton mass; tuning of other parameters such as the cosmological constant was not considered). He found that long-lived stars could exist over a wide parameter range, and concluded that "... a wide variation of constants of physics leads to universes that are long-lived enough for life to evolve, although human life need not exist in such universes".[7] Fred Adams has done a similar study, investigating the structure of stars in universes with different values of the gravitational constant G, the fine-structure constant α, and a nuclear reaction rate parameter C. His study suggests that roughly 25% of this parameter space allows stars to exist, but not necessarily to form--star formation was "beyond the scope" of his investigation. His "relatively modest" goals also did not extend to variations of other fundamental constants or to considerations of habitability.[8] Harnik, Kribs and Perez have argued for the viability of a universe with no weak interaction at all. However, they noted that their analysis does not extend to the extreme fine tuning of the cosmological constant, and concluded that "the fine-tuning problems associated with the electroweak breaking scale and the cosmological constant appear to be qualitatively different from the perspective of obtaining a habitable universe."
Your claims are not substantive by any means, unless you restrict your discussion to life operating on the same chemical mechanisms as humans. I strongly advise that you edit the OP and make the distinction more clear.
I find your insistence on exotic atoms and non nucleic acid based life too speculative. There is no data suggesting that these can exist at all, in any universe. This makes reference to them a bit like talking about fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Talk about our universe as being "privileged" for life, i.e. life in any shape or form of any sort, is a lot closer to talk about fairies. At least exotic chemistry has some mathematical and experimental basis to it, however limited at present. You haven't explored a single other planet or universe, and our limited computing power makes absolutely
no definite conclusions about complex molecules and life forms in this universe or any other.
However, the 'privileged universe' concept is real. The values of physical constants are known and clear cut. The consequence of varying those values is easily calculable.
It's not real, it's total speculation. Once again, I respectfully ask that you edit the OP to admit there are scientifically valid alternatives to multiverses and supernatural creators. You admit you can't rule out my claims (or still other scientific alternatives such as a universe where the constants can vary over time), so then stop calling the "privileged universe" an absolute fact. Change the OP to reflect that you're only discussing life based on DNA and RNA, or that there are other alternatives to the ones you wish to discuss. As long as your arguments continue to serve as a backdoor for ID proponents to make false claims about science, I have plenty of grounds for challenging your claims.
