Cosmolosophy and the Anthropic Principle

[Jeff Vale]

The Tenets of Cosmolosophy Continued:
Cosmolosophy and the Anthropic Principle

Before I begin this I have to make a confession. Even though I like to think I'm moderately well read, about the only thing profound concerning my knowledge is the breadth of my ignorance. Up until a few days prior to this writing I was unaware of the Anthropic Principle. It was only the delightful serendipity of my friend Mickie, in giving me feedback on previous tenets, providing me with an excerpt from a book by Madeline l’Engle (the “Sold Into Egypt” volume of her “Genesis Trilogy”, p.454). Ms. L'Engle was describing how a new view of quantum physics, as espoused by not only the usual big names, but the physicist John Wheeler, provided ample reason to see the divine at work. That quantum physics might be broaching on the metaphysical wasn't anything new, but I was a bit taken back both by by the fact that I couldn't recall the name of John Wheeler, and that he was only one of several who promoted the idea of that we are a critical part of the creation of everything. This would prove to be cause for no small amount of chagrin once I did some investigation. As the more informed already know, Dr Wheeler was one of the big names in physics. Up there with Bohr, Einstein and Fermi. People like Richard Feynman, Kip Thorn and Hugh Everett were his graduate students. It was through that investigation, however, that I came across Dr. Wheeler's connection to the Anthropic Principle in the Wikipedia reference for him. Dr. Wheeler had coined the term “Participatory Anthropic Principle” as a variation of the “Strong Anthropic Principle.” And he did this as a part of a radio interview (do a search at abc net). I would urge all of you to give this bit of audio a listen as it is one of the most fascinating 40+ minutes of discussion I've ever encountered.

Well, after I stopped kicking myself for yet another bit of ignorance, I began considering this concept called the Anthropic Principle. It became quickly apparent that Cosmolosophy was quite similar.

At its simplest the Anthropic Principle tries to grapple with our connection to why the universe is the way it is. To quote the radio program: “The very fact that we are here places restrictions on what the universe can look like.” And as the program points out there are twenty some numerical constants that are surprisingly in line with life such as ours. Things like the charge of an electron, the strong and weak nuclear forces. If they were but very small bits of percentage different stars would either burn out too quickly, or press together a bit before going cold, with no essential heavy elements in either case that would end up ejected into space (when a star goes nova). Elements like carbon wouldn't exist, or might exist but not be stable, decaying into something else; as in oxygen. And of course, without the heavier elements there would be few building blocks for there to start the process of simple molecules creating more complex molecules creating even more complex molecules. Even the size of the universe has an anthropic component to it when you consider that there had to be a certain amount of time involved for the process of heavy element creation, dispersion and molecular complexity to take place in.

There has been controversy in this because of it's perceived bias towards carbon based life. That's all we know of in this reality so one can easily understand the basis for this bias. This controversy points to a important distinction that I will be making between Cosmolosophy and the Anthropic Principle a little later on. For the moment, though, I want to finish up with the Anthropic Principle as described in the ABC radio Science Show program.

The principle has been broken up into 4 sub groups, or argument variations. They are the Weak Anthropic Principle. The Strong Anthropic Principle. The Participatory Anthropic Principle. And the Final Anthropic Principle. The Weak Principle is stated as “The idea that we are here should condition all of our predictions on the assumption that we are here to ask the questions.” It is called weak because it doesn't really say anything that requires proof. The Strong principle is stated as: “Did the universe have to bring us into being?” It is referred to as strong as it makes a declarative statement that one could conceivably prove or disprove. The Participatory Principle is stated as: “We are participators not only in bringing into being the near and here, but the far away and long ago.” This was stated in fact by none other than John Wheeler. He could make this statement based on his sense of the larger implications of actual observed phenomenon. He took the traditional experiment of light going through two narrow slits (to observe how it acts both as a wave and a unit of quanta) a bit further. To quote Wikipedia on this: “Wheeler proposed a variation of the famous double-slit experiment of quantum physics, one in which the method of detection can be changed after the photon passes the double slit, so as to delay the choice of whether to detect the path of the particle, or detect its interference with itself. Since the measurement itself seems to determine how the particle passes through the double slits, and thus its state as a wave or particle, Wheeler's thought experiment has been useful in trying to understand certain strange properties of quantum particles. An implementation of the experiment in 2007 showed that the act of observation ultimately decides whether the photon will behave as a particle or wave, verifying the unintuitive results of the thought experiment.” And finally, the Final Principle is stated as: “At the end of time life will have spread throughout space, gained control of all matter and all forces and it will have accuired all of the knowledge that there is to know.”

Cosmolosophy and the Anthropic Principle are related precisely because both try to grapple with our connection with why things are the way they are in the universe. I of course, coming from the standpoint of a proposed philosophy, have the luxury of needing only to try to balance making sense generally, with making sense to the soul. A principle in physics is held to a much more rigorous empirical standard. As such, the Anthropic principle has no small amount of detractors now in the physics community. It was very interesting, though, in listening to the various theologians, and physicists who participated in the Science Show program, indicate both their fascination and their fustration with an anthropic approach to what is basic and fundamental about the makeup of the universe. I think, from a merely human aspect, no matter how rational you may be, there is something compeling about finding a link between us and all that surrounds us. And naturally, I think there is a reason for that.

The problem, of course, for people grounded in empiricism is that not only must there be a final thing, it must be something that can be tested and verified. For them it is a unified model. An expression of numerical flow that would show how all of the amazing coincidental constants are what they are; how mass gets expressed and by what. How gravity effects space time and by what. As well as how all of the fundamental forces interact with each other. One wonders, however, if they would be satficfied with that. Would the question then become, how did this model come to be? Or, stated another way, though the model might explain how it all interacts, it still wouldn't explain why it is all here. And as the radio show pointed out, it wouldn't explain how it is that we can even begin to understand it in the first place.

There are several issues here that I find immensely fascinating. The first is the notion of whether or not there can be something that we start with. And by this I mean a fundamental foundation to which you can say “it is, it was, and it will be.” Certainly to a believer in deities, a god or gods can be said to fit this description. Not very helpful to a questioning mind however. Most especially not very helpful to a mind grounded in cause and effect, and to which empiricism is the final judge of what is real. But even if we had the grand unified model in hand, would scientists be able to say “it is, it was, and it will be?” And more importantly, be saticfied with that?

The other issue revolves around the controversy I mention earlier that would form an important distinction between Cosmolosophy and the Anthropic Principle. Carbon based life may turn out to be only one of many ways life can establish itself. But the real question here, in my opinion, ought not to be about life in general but about sentientcy. The universe is the way it is because there are concious entities in it. How that conciousness comes to be is certainly part of the picture, but the mere fact that it exists should be a fundamental to the universe.

In the first tenet of Cosmolosophy I stated that space-time was not only the bridge of meaning, but the vector of association that stems from consciousness. I would like to expand on that now. I would like to propose that there is a master, or container dimension. Let's call it Meaning. It could also be called Question-Answer. It is the foundational element that is, was, and will be. Inside this master dimension are at least 4 other primary dimentions. Let's call them Mind (or Interaction-Connection), Embrace (or Attraction-Repulsion), Hold (or Matter-Antimatter), and Time. All of the primary dimentions comprise to form infinite bounderies within a finite process. Because of this it follows that, as meaning cannot exist without information, and that information cannot exist without there being bounded elements and gap, that bounderies are the process of lesser dimentionalization that allows a vector of association to create a reality. I say lesser dimentionalization because the X, Y and Z axis dimentions of cartesian space are in a sense both real and not real. The bounderies perceived in each reality are the artifice of the interaction of the primary dimentions with the vectors. It's all the same grand matrix, it's just associated along an endless array of different vectors. In all of this it is the angular momentum of the give and take of the primary dimensions with the association vectors, that keeps creating new vectors (one might think of this in terms of momentum as it is expressed in a reality, but it is not. It is simply the impetus of new angles that connection and choice create in a sequence of association). And it is only the possibility of loving structure that this momentum provides that keeps the vectors going.

What this entirety does is work to resolve a solution; a solution whose expression in extended form and property we will never be able to fully imagine. The thing is, the very resolution (the mind boggling intersection of which, rippling through the various lesser dimensions, hardly even begins to suggest the larger geometry) changes the thing that resolved it, forcing a new resolution (because an answer is always another question). It's kind of like the recursive equation that forms a Mandelbrot, only here its not just the quantities that change. It is a processor unlike any other. It uses an infinite array of association vectors; reality ray tracing you might say, to paint its never fully imagined extended form and property. This would be a culmination of angles, energies and interactions that not even God could fathom because, by definition, there is nothing that could encapsulate it. By the same token, beginning and end can have no application. There has always been the question-answer and there always will be; never static, always forming and reforming. It is, was and always will be its own purpose. That is existence.

I was going to ask the question of whether any of us could even begin to understand all of the ramifications of this conceptual model, and then try to start the process with a few suggestions of my own, but, after having reread the last several paragraphs, I realized that this is not my place now. It is your place dear reader. Always remember that I am merely presenting an idea. How it flows out. What it may or may not import is up to you. My hope is that it is helpful as well as engaging.

[Meleagar]

Interesting read. Your "Meaning" as a way of describing the characteristics of a experiential vector-set within the whole seems to me to be the same as the ancient poetic understanding of "Theme", where existence was understood as the physical representation of various themes that ultimately were all encapsulated by a single great theme.

Lives were "stories" that played out according to themes, which could be understood and manipulated poetically by understanding the connection between poetic semantics and the vectors you describe. Those who abandoned themes were lost to chaos and confusion.

The abandonment of this thematic or mythic understanding of one's existence came about for several reasons, but mostly because of the technological intellect that attempted to understand existence not according to theme (top-down), but from a reductionist standpoint. Essentially, modern reductionist/materialist intellect is simply misapplied, instead of a mythic, thematic, or anthropic-holistic appreciation and understanding of the nature of existence, the modern materialist-reductionist intellect attempts to build meaning and value out of random material.

The theme, myth, direction, meaning, value of existence cannot be found by analyzing the letters in the story; they are not to be found in atoms and molecules. Meaning, value, reason can only be found in the symbolic understanding of what would be in your O.P. the meaningful arrangement of vectors - what our experience means, the story it tells, the story we are telling with our lives.

A comprehension that we are telling a story connects one with the mythic, symbolic, thematic vector-arrangements, and as John Wheeler would say, allows us to create our world by writing our story, including the back-story, the plot, and the goal.

Nice thought-provoking post there, Mr. Vale.

[Jeff Vale]

You draw a fascinating comparison. I had a feeling that what I was proposing was related to an appreciation of myth, but I would never have been able to articulate to the degree you achieve here.

Your paragraph:

"The theme, myth, direction, meaning, value of existence cannot be found by analyzing the letters in the story; they are not to be found in atoms and molecules. Meaning, value, reason can only be found in the symbolic understanding of what would be in ... the meaningful arrangement of vectors - what our experience means, the story it tells, the story we are telling with our lives."

is a beautiful re-statement. From this perspective, though, would you say Loving Structure is a "Theme?" Or is it something more akin to "Poetic Semenatics?"

[Meleagar]

I think loving structure (from your other post) is indeed one of the great poetic themes and I think the secret to the solution of "loving too much" and "letting go" can be found in a poetic or mythic approach.

IMO, proper love can always be dscribed in a literary sense as a profound form of "appreciation", while improper love can be described as an attempt to control (or possess). Generally, love moves from appreciation to control out of fear; a poetic appreciation of thematic tragedy and suffering help prevent one from allowing fear to contaminate their love, but rather just accept what pain may come as part of the greater storytelling.

Pain and suffering, in the poetic sense, are beautiful because they sanctify and purify when experienced in noble endeavor. Those who sacrifice and endure for love are actors in a very compelling story with mythic themes that resonate across time.

However, in modern times such noble, poetic pursuits are largely considered irrelevant because few believe there is any "reward" for it, and of course because they haven't been educated in any significant understanding of poetry or myth. When one does not understand the noble, poetic & mythic nature of a pure adoring appreciation (love), even unrequited, spurned or betrayed as it might be in any specific semantic (individual) version, then descent into an unchivalrous, selfish and ignoble attempt to control and possess is the inevitable end.

Ancient poets were once thought to wield immense power and poetry was a discipline few could master, and it bears virtually no resemblance to the modern notion of poetry. One might say that poets were the quantum physicists of the ancient world, manipulating and describing the fundamental features of the universe and human existence.

[Jeff Vale]

I must say I really like the parallel track you mine here. Tragedy has become banal soap opera and rhetoric merely dogma and propaganda. Is it any wonder that very few really believe in magic any more. I think you have given Cosmolosophy much needed luster with a wonderful new facet. I am in your debt sir.

[Platos stepchild]

As I see it, the Anthropic Principle basically asks what the borderlands between profundity, and banality, are really like. On the one hand, it acknowledges our profoundest mystery, which is that we exist, at all. Yet, on the other, all the "Principle" does is to restate our obvious existence (with a presumptuous, erudite profundity).

The Anthropic Principle comes in two "flavors": weak; and, strong. The "weak" version asserts that, unless certain physical parameters "conspire" to be conducible, to life, then life won't exist. Whereas, the "strong" version asserts that every physical parameter, must so conspire. Let's focus on the "weak version". Essentially, it says we're all "contingent". In retrospect, It does seem nearly miraculous, that any of us are here, at all, considering that, of the one scenario which leads to someone existing, none of it's many alternative scenarios do.

So, what the two "flavors" of the Anthropic Principle have, in common is they both ask just how special, we truly are. This question has deep implications for how we see the world. If "sound" is different from "soundwaves", then a fallen tree, in the forest only made a "sound", because the world "conspired" to make sounds meaningful. In fact, given a world where even the weak version, of the Anthropic Principle doesn't hold, nothing, in it would make sense.

Is our existence, then "profound", or "banal"? Well, the only way this question can make any sense, is for there to be someone around, to ask it. And, so we've come full-circle, back to a "bald" acknowledgement of our existence. Are we unique, merely because, without us "stimuli" is indistinguishable from the perception, of it? But, isn't this just a tacit supposition, an unjustifiable conceit? After all, didn't we discover the dark-side-of-the-moon to be different, from our expectations? We'll never know whether, or even how special we are. My point is, it should be remembered that, any attempt to evaluate the world, in terms of the Anthropic Principle, is asking an inherently unanswerable question, regarding our "uniqueness".