Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Science

Locut0s

(6,154 posts)

3. Does this really argue against the anthropic principle?...

Reply to n2doc (Original post)

Wed Dec 11, 2013, 09:16 AM

Dec 2013

Seems to me it just says early in the Universe's history the "habitable zone" around stars was much larger than it is today. Which means the cosmological constant didn't need to have been as fine tuned as we thought for life on these planets. But it doesn't change things for US now does it? Life on earth evolved long after this epoch of time. So aren't we back to the same question when looking at it from the point of view of life on earth?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Habitable Epoch of the Early Universe- 15 million years after the Big Bang [View all] n2doc Dec 2013 OP

The anthropic principle, another name for God. DetlefK Dec 2013 #1

"life" as we know it. Carbon based, adapted to specific conditions. idwiyo Dec 2013 #2

I don't like the "Anthropic principle", I feel it's a NON problem... Locut0s Dec 2013 #4

I can't see how it's anything else but. "Universe is the way it is so WE can exist" idwiyo Dec 2013 #5

Sort of... Locut0s Dec 2013 #6

or that the Universe is like Shankapotomus Dec 2013 #8

Does this really argue against the anthropic principle?... Locut0s Dec 2013 #3

Yep....and Venus and Mars could have been teaming with life had the formation of those... BlueJazz Dec 2013 #7