Anthropic Principle

 T
he anthropic principle bypasses several hundred years of integrated scientific observations (more accurately, it ignores them) then proceeds to state that everything is as it is because, if otherwise, we should not be here to observe it.

If any reader has had the experience of trying to "invent" a machine that violates a conservation law or design any "scheme" wherein logic is made to "chase it's tail", you have the knowledge of the perfect integration of such laws. If you have done the foregoing, you came to a point where you had to say, "In order for this NOT to work, the following must be the law of nature in this particular instance.". And if you were honest with yourself, you made a calculation, then looked up the answer in some reputable textbook, and found EXACTLY the statement/equation that verified your deduction.

I have done this myself several times (long past).

I recall once having designed an apparatus wherein a suspended magnet went round & round and, repelled by another, was supposed to go round endlessly generating power.

I set up the 'experiment' in my living room.
A magnet on the end of a yardstick, suspended from the ceiling by a thread repelled by another magnet attached to a wall. The "Muguffy" (A.Hitchcock) here was impulse.

### It worked ... that is ... it didn't stop.

I watched it for about a half hour before I was able to figure out my mistake. The thread was unravelling thus dropping the apparatus through a gradient supplying the necessary energy. To test this, I doubled the thread to cancel the handed 'wind' and the rotation stopped as per the appropriate conservation laws.

 Note for interested amateurs: Never spend more than \$10 on a "scientific" experiment. Better yet, figure it out in your head and gain valuable experience and confidence in the conservation laws.

I then roughly figured out the mathematical relationship required to apply those laws to this case and was gratified to find exactly that in a library textbook.

The reason for the foregoing is (and it must be clear to any experienced scientist) that the conservation laws are perfectly integrated and if any one of them were to fail (except in the most extraordinary circumstances, eg. at Planck distances) the entire universe would fall apart (be logically inconsistent).

### The quality of these laws is accepted as absolutely necessary.

Not so with their quantities.

Apparently the numbers associated with the forces operating in the universe are expected to be "picked out of a hat" like a rabbit ... at random. And we just happen to be in a universe where the set of quantities is amenable to life (as we know it), thus chucking out all the foregoing "quality integration" as though it was disassociated from the related quantities.

Why one would throw out rational integration in favor of "chaos" (absolute chance) can only be attributed to those scientists who have "waxed". (As in waxed philosophic ... It is well known that once a scientist waxes philosophic he will never do any further seminal work in physics. It is the sign that he has given up.)

Thus, when the intellectual going gets tough ... give up and attribute everything to blind chance.

I agree that we should give up and accept chance as the designer of existence ... after at least 10,000 years of desperate trial and failure. (But it won't come to that)

```

```
```
```