Jim Holt's recently
published Why Does the World Exist?
attempts to answer (or at least ponder) what William James called the
“darkest question in all philosophy” - to wit, “Why is there
something rather than nothing?” Holt explores philosophical,
theological, and scientific attempts to answer the question. In the
process, he interviews several modern day thinkers on the subject.
Reading a review of Holt's book started me thinking. I recalled
reading some years ago about the “anthropic
principle", a relatively recent development in cosmology.
That
this universe exists at all is indeed a particularly awesome and
wondrous fact. Consider that, if any one of numerous fundamental
physical constants were off by the smallest fraction, the universe as
we know it would not exist. For example, if the strong nuclear force
were not exactly what it is, elements would not be able to form. Or,
if protons were not exactly 1836 times the size of an electron,
elements would not be able to combine into molecules. Two other
important examples are the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the
gravitational force (this keeps stars from immediately collapsing)
and the excited energy level of the carbon atom (without this exact
level of 7.65 million electron-volts, insufficient carbon would be
formed in stars to form the basis for life). And there are many,
many more.
Many
physicists and cosmologists who have considered these facts subscribe
to one version or another of the anthropic principle. The phrase
“anthropic principle” was coined by astrophysicist Brandon Carter
at a 1973 symposium in Krakow that marked the 500th
anniversary of Copernicus' birth. Copernicus, as you recall, was the
Renaissance astronomer who first formulated a cosmology wherein the
earth was not at the center of the universe but rather revolved
around the Sun. Carter created the phrase in reaction to a recent
extension and generalization of Copernican Principle - i.e., not only
is the Earth not at the center of the universe but humans are not
even privileged observers of the universe. Carter, examining the
remarkable coincidences similar to those noted above, disagreed. As
he stated: “Although our situation is not necessarily central, it
is inevitably privileged to some extent.”
The
anthropic principle comes in several flavors. The most basic
distinction is between the “Weak” and “Strong” anthropic
principles. Beyond these two versions, there are the more
scientifically speculative “Participatory” and “Final”
Anthropic Principles. Here is a short description of each for your
consideration.
Let's
start with the Weak Anthropic Principle and work our way up. The
Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) basically states that all the possible
values for the physical and cosmological constants are not equally
probable. Some are more probable than others. Specifically the
values of these constants are restricted to what is compatible with
the observable facts: namely, that there are sites where carbon-based
life can evolve and that the Universe has existed long enough for
carbon-based life to have done so.
Now
let's up the ante a bit and consider the Strong Anthropic Principle
(SAP). Simply stated: the Universe must
have those properties which allow life to develop at some stage in
its history.
One interpretation of the SAP is that the Universe requires observers and is designed with the goal of generating and sustaining these observers. Humanity (or some other intelligent, information-gathering life form) is thus necessary to the Universe's existence. This is sometimes referred to as the Participatory Anthropic Principle. It is derived from the concepts of quantum mechanics - i.e., it takes an intelligent observer to collapse the Universe's probability waves into relatively concrete reality.
Last
and most speculative is the Final Anthropic Principle. In this
version, intelligent
information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and,
once it comes into existence, it will never die out.
The
Anthropic Principle has its scientific supporters and detractors, as
does each of its various interpretations. Theologians favor the
Anthropic Principle because it appears to give a glimpse of a
Creative God. I'm not sure what philosophers think of it or if it
answers Jim Holt's question to his satisfaction but it sure gives us
something to think about. The Universe is wondrous and contingent.
The Anthropic Principle is one plausible attempt to explain it.
Miscellany
Today, September 29th, is the 58th anniversary of "The Catch" - Willie Mays' astounding catch and throw in the 1954 World Series, the greatest fielding play in baseball history. In an application of the Participatory Anthropic Principle, I have no doubt that one of the reasons I exist at this time is to have observed The Catch. ;-)
Here are links to a great video and some neat still shots.
Miscellany
Today, September 29th, is the 58th anniversary of "The Catch" - Willie Mays' astounding catch and throw in the 1954 World Series, the greatest fielding play in baseball history. In an application of the Participatory Anthropic Principle, I have no doubt that one of the reasons I exist at this time is to have observed The Catch. ;-)
Here are links to a great video and some neat still shots.
Readings/references
The
basic text on this subject (the Anthropic Principle not The Catch) is The Cosmological Anthropic
Principle by John D. Barrow, Frank J. Tipler, and John A.
Wheeler.
Wikipedia
J. Redmane's “The
Anthropic Principle” website
RE: It is derived from the concepts of quantum mechanics - i.e., it takes an intelligent observer to collapse the Universe's probability waves into relatively concrete reality.
ReplyDeleteIn spiritual practice esp in the east there is a lot of consideration about consciousness and energy traditionally. (and consciousness is primary and not the a chemical reaction in the brain - just a quick check: have we ever experienced anything other than in consciousness, ever? The sublte is senior to the gross material) And then there is the whole koan if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it happen, or something like that! I think the sources you quote are all hinting at the fundamental source of all as consciousness or consciousness/energy as one "thing" or reality itself that once it become self-conscious...ie, splits from itself and regards energy (and forms, gross, subtle, etc) as separate from itself then we have a whole cosmos of I, other and maybe God or at least I, other and world. A sort of illusory creation or modification of consciousness-energy. Or Radiant Light or Conscious Light to put it in capital letters to denote it as primary, as one and not a function of the gross, material objectification. No one observes consciousness-energy in its fullness as it is. No separate one. The prior unity is the case, creation is a myth of others, I and God devised to explain this mystery because it is stark starring into the universe as an "I" and fear-full. Once the "i" sense dissolves there is no fear or separation, only Reality of Conscious-Light. That is already the case but we are believing otherwise out of this fear contraction and separation of consciousness from its own radiance (all there is is radiant consciousness which because it is One, Indivisible, Love-Bliss Being Itself can be called God if you like or maybe Real God. All this is really that except we cover it up with fear and contraction of the radiance into objects. So in a sense the separate observer makes or is the reason for this thingness (out of all probability) you could say as in the quote from your article. But we "know" better.