Log in

View Full Version : Anthropic Principle


Viraljimmy
2005-01-14, 12:32
The Participatory Anthropic Principle http://www.geocities.com/scimah/anthropism.htm

It has often been remarked by physicists and chemists that the universe is very sensitively tuned to allow life to exist. If certain physical and chemical constants were just a fraction out from their observed values, life could never have arisen. There is, for example, an extraordinary series of coincidental physical conditions which led to the high cosmic abundance of the element carbon, the basis of all life.[Hoyle 1983]

Life does not seem to be an accidental occurrence but somehow is actually required by the universe.

According to some theories of cosmology, the universe began as a quantum fluctuation in the limitless Void (Hartle Hawking hypothesis). In the absence of an observer, the evolving universe remained as a 'multiverse' - a coherant quantum superposition of all logically possible states.

Throughout its early history the universe continued to develop as an immense superposition of probabilities. Not only was the structure of the universe superposed, but all logically possible states of matter, physical constants, properties and laws were simultaneously present and evolving into ever increasing diversity.

Collapse of the Multiverse

Quantum theory states that any physical system remains in a superposed state of all possibilities until it interacts with the mind of an observer. Both quantum theory and Buddhist teachings on sunyata suggest that as soon as an observer's mind makes contact with a superposed system, all the numerous possibilities collapse into one actuality. At some instant one of these possible alternative universes produced an observing lifeform - an animal with a nervous system which was sufficiently evolved to form a symbiotic association with a primordial mind. The first act of observation by this mind caused the entire superposed multiverse to collapse immediately into one of its numerous alternatives.

That one alternative version of the multiverse was not just the first configuration to be inhabitable by mind. The fact that it was the first configuration also guaranteed that it was the only configuration. All uninhabited alternative universes, ranging from the nearly-but-not-quite habitable few, to the anarchic and unstructured vast majority, were instantly excluded from potential existence. According to the participatory anthopic principle the evolving multiverse was thus always destined to resolve itself into a sufficiently ordered state to allow itself to be observed.

The early multiverse can perhaps be thought of as a massively parallel quantum computer which explored all of possibility-space until it was able to generate a living body, which became the habitation of an observing, sentient being. At that moment the multiverse collapsed into the actuality of that one alternative cosmology. This theory is known as the Participatory Anthropic Principle and was first put forward by the physicist John A.Wheeler in 1983.

But where did the observing mind come from? Buddhist philosophers claim that minds are primordial and exist before entering their physical environment. In the early stages of its evolution the universe was, of course, uninhabitable for animals and humans.

But according to B. Alan Wallace [Wallace 1996], highly advanced Buddhist and Hindu contemplatives speak of experiencing other realms, or dimensions of existence that transcend this gross sensual realm which they call kamadhatu. They report the existence of rupadhatu, a form realm that is unperturbed by many of the changes in the gross physical cosmos. And beyond this is the arupyadhatu, a formless realm that is completely unaffected by the stages of cosmic evolution. All three of these realms are said to be inhabited by sentient beings. When the gross physical dimension of a cosmos is uninhabitable, sentient beings reside in the rupadhatu and arupyadhatu or in other inhabitable cosmoses. Humans cannot dwell in the rupadhatu and arupyadhatu, though these realms are accessible to a human mind that has been highly refined through meditation.

The bottom line of the participatory anthropic principle is that minds can exist independently of matter, and they create their actual environments from the potentialities around them. But isn't this all just pure metaphysical speculation? Well maybe not. The participatory anthropic principle makes potentially verifiable statements about the early history of the universe, the speed of evolution and the occurrence of extremely unlikely evolutionary steps, including the first appearance of life itself.

Two-speed evolution

The series of events needed to make the universe habitable by sentient mind, up to and including the evolution of animals complex enough to support sentience, would have proceeded at the maximum possible rate and efficiency (almost by definition - because the myriad strands of the superposition were essentially racing against one another for 'winner takes all').

Because a myriad parallel universes were simultaneously evolving, the most highly improbable combinations of chemical and cellular building blocks needed to bring about living organisms would inevitably appear, even if the probability of them doing so in an 'ordinary' universe were infinitesimally small. This could explain the appearance of such extremely unlikely structures as Yockey's cytochrome c.

Viraljimmy
2005-01-14, 12:43
GOD

The Participatory Anthropic Principle is extended by the astronomer John Barrow and physicist Frank Tipler to what they call the Final Anthropic Principle (FAP): Intelligence must come into existence, and once it does it can never die out. They believe that life will spread beyond the earth to colonize all of space and to keep the universe from destroying itself and life. Using the terminology of the Roman Catholic paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin, Barrow and Tipler state, "At the instant the Omega Point is reached, life will have gained control of all matter and forces not only in a single universe but in all universes whose existence is logically possible; life will have spread into all spatial regions in all universes which could logically exist, and will have stored an infinite amount of information, including all bits of knowledge which it is logically possible to know. And this is the end."

In a note to this text, Barrow and Tipler state, "A modernday theologian might wish to say that the totality of life at the Omega Point is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient!"

Viraljimmy
2005-01-14, 12:53
Fine Tuning of the Universe

- from lifeway.com- a christian site

There are at least 26 universal constants that must be finely tuned for the universe to even be capable of supporting life.

Over time, as our understanding of the universe grows, the trend has been for more to be added to the list and for the degree of fine-tuning required to be narrowed.

1. Strong nuclear force constant if larger: no hydrogen.

if smaller: only hydrogen.



2. Weak nuclear force constant if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in the big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by burning stars, therefore no expulsion of heavy elements from stars.

if smaller: too little helium from big bang, hence too little heavy elements made from stars, no expulsion of heavy elements from stars

3. Gravitational force constant if larger: stars would be too hot and burn too quickly.

if smaller: stars would remain so cool nuclear fusion would never ignite.

4. Electromagnetic force constant if larger: insufficient chemical bonding. elements more massive than boron would be too unstable for fission.

if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding.

5. The ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short stellar life spans.

if smaller: no stars more than .8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production.

6. Ratio of electron to proton mass if larger or smaller: insufficient chemical bonding.

7. The ratio of the numbers of protons to electrons. if larger or smaller: electromagnetism would dominate gravity preventing galaxy, star and planet formation.

8. The expansion rate of the universe if larger: no galaxies would have formed.

if smaller: universe would have collapsed on itself prior to star formation.

9. The entropy level of the universe if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation.

if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies.

10. The mass density of the universe if larger: too much deuterium from the big bang, hence stars would burn too rapidly.

if smaller: insufficient helium from the big bang, hence too few elements forming.

11. Velocity of light if faster: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy.

if slower: stars would not be luminous enough.

12. The age of the universe if older: no solar-type stars would be left in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy.

if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed.

13. The initial uniformity of radiation if smoother: stars, star clusters, galaxies would not have formed.

if coarser: universe would by now be mostly black holes and empty space.

14. The fine structure constant (the number used to describe structure splitting of spectral lines). if larger: DNA would be unable to function and no stars more than .7 solar masses.

if smaller: DNA would also be unable to function, no stars less than 1.8 solar masses.

15. Average distance between galaxies if larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation of an adequate timespan.

if smaller: the sun's orbit would be too radically disturbed.

16. Average distance between stars if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form.

if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized.

17. The decay rate of the proton if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation.

if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life.

18. Carbon-12 to Oxygen-16 energy level ratio if larger: insufficient oxygen.

if smaller: insufficient carbon.

19. Ground state energy level for helium-4. if larger or smaller: insufficient carbon and oxygen.

20. Decay rate of beryllium-8. if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars.

if faster: no element production beyond beryllium so no life chemistry possible.

21. Ratio of masses of the neutron vs the proton. if greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the heavy elements essential for life.

if smaller: proton decay would cause all stars to collapse rapidly into neutron stars or black holes.

22. Initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons. if greater: too much radiation for planets to form.

if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form.

23. The polarity of the water molecule. if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist.

if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life's existence; liquid water would become too inferior a solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up.

24. Supernovae eruptions. if too close: radiation would exterminate life on earth.

if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.

if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated.

if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.

if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation.

if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes for rocky planet formation.

25. Formation of white dwarf binaries. too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry.

if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on earth would be exterminated.

if too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficient fluorine production.

if too late: fluorine made too late for incorporation into proto-planet.

26. The ratio of exotic to ordinary matter. if smaller: galaxies would not form,

if larger: universe would collapse before solar type stars could form.

These scientific facts are not really in debate within the scientific community. Of course, the conclusions drawn from them certainly are. The question is definitely not one of scientic facts, it's one of underlying philosophy.

deptstoremook
2005-01-14, 15:35
This is, honestly, one of the most interesting threads I've read on this board in a long time. Of course, the first doubt that comes to mind is the scientific one: it's using scientific theories, so it's kind of amoral to say "it can't be proven using science"

But away from that flaw...this is very interesting. I've always had a sort of interest in "the observer" idea, ever since I read a little thing on "Schrodinger's Cat" a few years ago.

I kind of want some clarification; supposedly, every single possible universe was formed until there existed an observer (let's just say humans, for the sake of argument) in one of them, and that one trumped by quantum theory.

So it stands, logically, that our universe is the best suited to sentient life because it produced sentient life first, and thus won the "race".

This is interesting as hell. Does quantum theory state that all the other "multiverses" collapsed when the first observer was born? If so, then what will happen when/if all the observers are gone? Will the other multiverses pop up again, or will the "race" start over again?

And the theological philosophy of eternalness (ie God, spirits) will be at odds with this one: if God has always existed, and God qualifies as an observer (being sentient, if nothing else), wasn't there always just one universe? Even if it was a crippled God, it would still count as an observer.

This theory is at odds with the God argument, because if God is a crippled observer, the odds of one universe developing life are inordinately small.

This is good stuff.

Viraljimmy
2005-01-15, 03:18
The universe needs us to be self-aware,

to exist at all.

There has to be a tangled hierarchy

to cause the collapse.

Did we evolve up to meet with "god"?

(evolved quantum mind machines to

connect with the transcendent conciousness)

Or did god start with conciousness,

and our reality collapsed backwards?

(the spirit in the void)

(anthropic principle)

I think both are true.

God, our transcendent conciousness,

is beyond our local timeline.

Viraljimmy
2005-01-15, 16:22
I'm curious what the christians have to say versus the materialists?

Monistic idealism (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/goswami.htm) is a meta-philosophy. It makes sense of the new science as well as our spiritual intuitions. It also backs up the anthropic principle.

chaski86
2005-01-17, 05:03
Very interesting thread. I'm buried in several webpages that help explain the concept. Schrodinger's Cat definitely helps illustrate this theory. It is hard to proove but well supported.

Eil
2005-01-17, 11:08
the paradox of this worldview is that if it is accurate, it means that the universe is vague. it is the resurrection of mystery, wonder, and ultimately, superstition. consciousness perceived is divorced from the perceiving, which is the true nature of consciousness.

understanding this, the anthropic principle is seen for what it is - another attempt to grasp the ineffable... no better nor more complete than the rest.

dyslexiclettuce
2005-01-18, 02:23
The existence of the universe is very unlikely by itself, and the existence of life even more unlikely, which means it's very likely that it was created by some higher power, but as to exactly what sort of entity created it (if it is in fact the Christian God or someone else) is still up for speculation. Thusfar nothing has particularly moved me to patronize any sort of religion.

Dark_Magneto
2005-01-18, 09:15
Calculating the probability of an event that already happened is an exercise in futility. The chance that someone could spontaneously combust could be one in a googol, but that's of little consolation when it happens.

And as far as the anthropic principle goes, it makes the fatal error of assuming that the universe is fine-tuned for life, when it is life that is fine-tuned for the universe.

But even then, there are a lot of things in the world that are unaccomodating to life. The entire ocean is undrinkable, disease, famine, genetic defects, et al.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 01-18-2005).]

Alf_Un_Original
2005-01-18, 22:09
There are flaws in this argument in that the multiverse consists of infinite universes, therefore there is an infinite chance of life existing. As we are alive this universe is one that supports life, however that doesnt mean that many do, just that out of the infinite ones in existence this one does.

The existence of the multiverse itself however is mere theory as it cannot be proved or disproved. :\

Uncus
2005-01-19, 22:41
quote:Originally posted by Alf_Un_Original:

There are flaws in this argument in that the multiverse consists of infinite universes, therefore there is an infinite chance of life existing.

If I get your meaning, what you are meaning to say is a certainty (or probability = 1) of life existing.

Viraljimmy
2005-01-19, 22:44
As for life evolving to the universe,

the universe is still fine-tuned to

allow a very slight chance for life

anywhere.

Nevermind, I'm tired of explaining this.

Viraljimmy
2005-01-21, 18:17
quote:Originally posted by Alf_Un_Original:

There are flaws in this argument in that the multiverse consists of infinite universes, therefore there is an infinite chance of life existing.

The multiverse in question here is a quantum superposition of probabilities, not unlike how quantum particles spread into waves.

All - alternative universes - were instantly excluded from potential existence. According to the participatory anthopic principle the evolving multiverse was thus always destined to resolve itself into a sufficiently ordered state to allow itself to be *observed.

*Self-concious, observe itself through the one transcendant conciousness.

[This message has been edited by Viraljimmy (edited 01-21-2005).]

Uncus
2005-01-22, 20:12
quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

Calculating the probability of an event that already happened is an exercise in futility.

Not at all. Knowing something, according to probability laws or to accepted dogma, shouldn't have happened, yet did happen, can tell us more about the universe. Indeed, this is a factor scientists take into account very much.

If you have a Petri dish with a culture of a certain bacteria, and after some days you notice they have died while they shouldn't have, well, as a scientist you are going to investigate it. This is a simple example where the probability of that outcome was known already, but it's the same principle.

quote:And as far as the anthropic principle goes, it makes the fatal error of assuming that the universe is fine-tuned for life, when it is life that is fine-tuned for the universe.

I don't think this is true.

Uncus
2005-01-22, 20:14
quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

As for life evolving to the universe,

the universe is still fine-tuned to

allow a very slight chance for life

anywhere.

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

The way it is fine-tuned even suggests the fine-tuning has been done deliberately.

In other words, intelligence has been at work.



[This message has been edited by Uncus (edited 01-22-2005).]

Viraljimmy
2005-01-22, 23:57
quote:Originally posted by Uncus:

In other words, intelligence has been at work.

That's one way to look at it.

Seemingly opposing arguments here

are all true, since the transcendant

realm lies beyond space and time.

It's up to us to decide what any

of it means.

Since a singular conciousness is

the ultimate original reality,

and it takes a tangled hierarchy

of self-reference to manifest in

the physical universe, man again

is in the center of creation.