The scientific status of the weak anthropic principle

Abstract

In this paper, I seek to determine whether or not the weak anthropic principle can be considered scientific by investigating various applications of the principle and evaluating each according to multiple criteria for what constitutes science. The applications I consider are William Paley's argument for the necessary form of the law of gravitation, Fred Hoyle's discovery of a resonance level necessary for carbon nucleosynthesis, Robert Dicke's explanation of some 'large number coincidences' in cosmology, and a debate between Leonard Susskind and Leo Smolin over the scientific status of the principle. The scientific criteria I develop and utilize are predictive power, explanatory power and heuristic power. I ultimately conclude that given the possibility that the universe is actually a 'multiverse,' the weak anthropic principle is scientific when the topics under consideration are physical constants and laws since 'anthropic selection' of these fundamental parameters provides a satisfactory explanation of their values and forms respectively.