What Does the Anthropic Principle Have To Do With Science?

​A "groundbreaking" new study is claiming to have found evidence for the anthropic principle. ​As presented in the journal Science Bulletin, said evidence consists of simulations in which the fundamental constants of astrophysics—the mass of quarks, the constituent particles of neutrons and protons, for example—are slightly tweaked, demonstrating how the tiniest variations might have resulted in a universe unfit for (human, advanced) life. So: concrete proof of an abstract principle?

First of all, the anthropic principle is not a very satisfying or even comfortable thought-space. It's not even really scientific. More so, it's an interpretation of science.

The gist is this. The universe is built of numbers. Constant values pervade physical law all over, including the speed of light in a vacuum (c), the strength of the gravitational force (big G), the ​fine structure constant (α), elementary charge (e), and more.

These numbers guide the development of the universe, nothing less. If one or more of these numbers were sufficiently different, life (especially life capable of observing and commenting on the universe) could not have arisen. If the strength of gravity were a bit weaker, galaxies and planets may not have formed, for example.

We're left looking awfully lucky from this perspective. It'd be like if I dumped a whole bucket of dice out onto the floor and every single one of them showed a 1.

The author behind the new paper, German nuclear physicist Ulf-G Meißner, argues that the anthropic principle is testable; that is, it can be supported by evidence. "This can be done with the help of high performance computers that allow us to simulate worlds in which the fundamental parameters underlying nuclear physics take values different from the ones in Nature," he explains in a statement.

Which is what Meißner did. The physicist was concerned about the mass constant of light quark particles and how that mass determines whether or not crucial compounds like oxygen and carbon can be formed. These should only be possible within a range.

"From the observed element abundances and the fact that the free neutron decays in about 882 seconds and the surviving neutrons are mostly captured in 4He," Meißner writes, "one finds a stringent bound on the light quark mass variations … under the reasonable assumption that the masses of all quarks and leptons appearing in neutron β-decay scale with the Higgs vacuum expectation value."

This Meißner takes as evidence for the anthropic principle, and here we have a problem. The anthropic principle isn't a theory or prediction so much as a philosophical observation. How nice it is that all of these numbers allow intelligent observers.

It's obviously not a falsifiable concept: If things were different, we wouldn't be here to talk about things. Indeed, it's an observation, an uninteresting one at that. What about the Michael Byrne principle, in which the landscape of Colorado Springs, Colorado was just the tiniest bit different circa 1980 for my parents to have not known each other? Think of all of the things that had to occur for that outcome. I am as improbable as anyone else, and therefore, the world was made for me.

That's the logic of a sociopath, cult leader, and/or serial killer. Yet otherwise serious astrophysicists let something pretty similar fly as top serious business.

Creepiness aside, the anthropic principle is also a tautology. That is, the statement I observe, therefore the universe is suitable for observers has no content. Demonstrating how easily things could have been different doesn't change that.