Is there an anthropic basis for the universe?

Is there an anthropic basis for the universe?

Since I'm not a particle physicist nor a cosmologist (not sure which would be concerned about such a question, or perhaps it is curious to both fields), I posited this question to AI, to see what it would tell me, and it is thus:



The question of whether there is an anthropic basis for the universe delves into both cosmological and philosophical realms. The anthropic principle in cosmology posits that any scientific theory or observation of the universe is inevitably influenced by the fact that humans are here to observe it. This principle comes in various forms:

1. Weak Anthropic Principle: It simply states that the universe (or multiverse) must have properties that allow life to develop at some stage within it, since we are here to observe it.
2. Strong Anthropic Principle: This goes a step further, suggesting that the universe is in some way compelled to eventually give rise to conscious life.
3. Participatory Anthropic Principle: Proposed by John Wheeler, it posits that observers are necessary to bring the universe into being.

The anthropic principle is often used in discussions about the fine-tuning of physical constants and the conditions necessary for life. For example, certain fundamental constants in physics seem finely tuned to allow for the existence of stars, planets, and ultimately life. The anthropic principle suggests that this is not a coincidence; if these constants were different, conscious beings would not be here to observe such a universe.

However, the anthropic principle is controversial. Critics argue that it is more of a philosophical tautology than a scientific explanation. [Yes, I wasn't sure if this forum, or the philosophy forum would be the more appropriate, but I reasoned it would be the science forum] It doesn't provide a mechanism or reason for why the universe should have the properties it does, only asserting that if things were different, we wouldn't be here to notice them.

In conclusion, the anthropic principle provides a way to think about the apparent fine-tuning of the universe for life but does not offer a concrete scientific explanation for why the universe is the way it is. It bridges science and philosophy, providing much room for debate and interpretation.


But, of course, we must establish what we mean by the term, 'anthropic'. I knew it had something to do with 'human' as the word's root is 'anthropos', greek for human, which gives us the term 'anthropology'. Without looking it up I assumed it meant 'the thing only exists because it is observed', which, I think, though it sounds like it, it probably isn't the full meaning of the term, so I put the question to AI: This is what it told me:

The term "anthropic" is derived from the Greek word "anthropos," meaning "human." In a broad sense, "anthropic" relates to human beings or humanity. This term is often used in various contexts to describe things that are connected to, influenced by, or pertaining to humans. For example:

1. Anthropic Principle: In cosmology and philosophy, the "anthropic principle" refers to the idea that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. In other words, the universe appears to be fine-tuned for the existence of life, particularly human life.
2. Anthropic Effects: In environmental science, "anthropic effects" might refer to changes in nature or the environment that are a result of human activities, like pollution or deforestation.
3. Anthropic Landscapes: In geography, an "anthropic landscape" would be a landscape that has been significantly altered or influenced by human activities, as opposed to natural or untouched landscapes.

The term emphasizes the role or impact of humans, whether it's in the context of philosophical theories, environmental impacts, or other areas where human influence is significant.

Interestingly enough, the answer to both questions, what does it mean, and is there an anthropic basis to the universe produced verisimilar results.


So, what I want to know are two things:

1. How would you answer the first question given above?

2. How did AI do in it's answer (of the first question) compared to your own knowledge and thinking?

Let's discuss:

 

Here's a start.
10 things you didn’t know about the Anthropic Principle

". . . Below the most important facts about the anthropic principle, where I am referring to the definition from Ananthaswamy’s quote “Our universe has the properties it does because if it were any different we wouldn’t be here to comment on it.”

1. The anthropic principle doesn’t necessarily have something to do with the multiverse.
   
   The anthropic principle is correct regardless of whether there is a multiverse or not and regardless of what is the underlying explanation for the values of parameters in our theories, if there is one. The reason it is often brought up by multiverse proponents is that they claim the anthropic principle is the only explanation, and there is no other selection principle for the parameters that we observe. One then needs to show though that the value of parameters we observe is indeed the only one (or at least a very probable one) if one requires that life is possible. This is however highly controversial, see 2. . . . "

 

This question reminds me of the old 'if a tree fell in the forest, and no one was there to observe it, would it make a sound?'.

Well, the answer has to be yes. Am I right?

But, I have a more religious (pantheistic) belief about it. I "believe" as there is dark energy in the ether we have yet invented the tools to observe or extract, there is a life force, of some kind, call it 'soul', call it anything you like, but the ultimate basis to life, and the universe, is spiritual in nature. That being said, as a pantheist, I do not believe in the "ID", or 'personal god" or big daddy watching over us and if we are too naughty, he sends us to hell (we just do that to ourselves). kind of 'god' or religious philosophy. I.,e, I am not a 'Christian' (nor do I believe Jesus was, either). Pantheist see the universe, in it's entity, as a singular spiritual entity. What I'm saying is, though life occurs in a sea of randomity, there is an orderly chaos about it, not to mention that out of randomity life emerges, finds a way, wherever the conditions are right, and I think that this is true, is due to this pantheistic principle. one might assert, and I'm not the first one to say it, that 'god is welling up everywhere and permeates all things'. But, yes, it's possible, too, that there is physics underlying it all, this is what a scientist would probably think, before they accept pantheism. Pantheism, though not as woo-ish as christianity, is still too much woo for science to even begin to question in such a framework.

 

Myself, I'm agnostic. The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius are dear to me precisely because they are woo-free.

The anthropic principle cannot explain the values of all parameters in our theories.

The typical claim that the anthropic principle explains the value of parameters in the multiverse goes like this: If parameter x was just a little larger or smaller we wouldn’t exist. The problem with this argument is that small variations in one out of two dozen parameters do not consider the bulk of possible combinations. You’d really have to consider independent modifications of all parameters to be able to conclude there is only one combination supportive of life. This however is not a presently feasible calculation.

Though we cannot presently scan the whole parameter space to find out which combinations might be supportive for life, we can do a little better than one and try at least a few. This has been done and thus we know that the claim that there is really only one combination of parameters that will create a universe hospitable to life is on very shaky ground.

In their 2006 paper “A Universe Without Weak Interactions”, published in PRD, Harnik, Kribs, and Perez paper put forward a universe that seems capable of creating life and yet is entirely different from our own [arXiv:hep-ph/0604027]. Don Page argues that the universe would be more hospitable for life if the cosmological constant was smaller than the observed value [arxiv:1101.2444], and recently it was claimed that life might have been possible already in the early universe [arxiv:1312.0613. All these arguments show that a chemistry complex enough to support life can arise under circumstances that, while still special, are not anything like the ones we experience today.

 

Is history a form of observation? Assuming so, then an observer doesnt necessarily need to exist, as long as it exists eventually, and has methods for studying the past.

 

The thing about this is, that my view, the pantheistic view, is formulated in such a way that no scientific discovery, or theory will conflict with it. Though it isn't falsifiable, it isn't controvertible through science, either. That is THE reason I'm a pantheist. I have a sense there is a divine basis to life, that rings positive to my personal sensibilities, that the nature of this divinity is a collective, as opposed to individual, force, not an 'intelligent designer" (which, to me, does not make sense) that we are, in essence, something beyond mud and cells, but I don't want to believe in anything that science can say to me, 'see, you're an idiot'. Pantheism is the perfect religious solution. In a sense, it's incontrovertible woo, so it's harmless.

Pantheism (or my personal brand of it) for me, is the sweet spot between atheism (which is depressing as hell) and religious' nuttery (so, I'm going to hell because I don't believe in HIM? What a cruel MFer! )..

 

“Meditate upon what you ought to be in body and soul when death overtakes you; meditate upon the brevity of life, and the measureless gulfs of eternity behind it and before, and upon the frailty of everything material.”
― Marcus Aurelius

“Pass on your way, then, with a smiling face, under the smile of him who bids you go.”
— Marcus Aurelius

 

He was the quintessential stoic.

 

Personally I... believe that Chaim Henry Tejman M. D. has written the most insightful articles on this subject....

http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/fund/fund1.htm

http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/fund/fund3.htm

http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/gender/g1.htm

http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/book/life1.htm

On the other hand....
near death experiencer Christian Andreason also addressed this question rather brilliantly.


http://www.allaboutchristian.com/spirituality/index.html

 

https://www.worldhistory.org/article/61/protagoras-of-abdera-of-all-things-man-is-the-meas/

 

Interesting

 

Ah yes, "man is the measure of all things", and then the aliens landed........

 

Your phrasing of the question seems a bit odd to me, if we look at the A.I. definition of "anthropic." Note that the stress is more upon the anthropic thing being impacted by humans, rather than on its impact upon them:

So, your phrasing about an anthropic basis, is predisposed to apply most truly to only the Participatory Anthropic Principle, in which it is in the conscious apprehension of something, that it becomes real.* This does seem a bit more of a philosophical question, at least pragmatically-- based on our current science, and so the lack of much data for any to cite, in this science forum, on the nature of CONSCIOUSNESS. That would be the "force" through which, we would consider your question, as one of cosmology. In my own brand of pantheism, I do believe that consciousness permeates the universe but, as I'd said, I don't think there's much scientific research I can cite, to back that up. The one well known truth, hinting at this, though, is that the observer affects the thing, being observed.

As to the Weak Anthropic Principle, its truth is a given. I would only differ from it in my thinking that, if universal conditions were different from what they are, it would only, or could, only mean that the nature of the consciousness which would have developed to apprehend it, would have also differed.

In the Strong Anthropic Principle, we are looking at an idea which might be more accurately expressed as an Anthrogenic universe, being disposed toward creating humanity-- as a pathogenic organism has the potential to create illness, or the way androgens, like testosterone, transform a boy (or a girl) into something more resembling of a man.

 

PostScript: I suppose I should just add that, in the case of the universe containing the seeds, or the "basis" of mankind, we would be talking about not just the physical being, but also the evolution of our particular type of consciousness.

Speaking of consciousness, since I'd neglected your question about what we repliers had thought of the answer given by the so-called A.I.: that depends on what one was looking for. I think it provided a good basic answer, as one might expect to get in an encyclopedia's abbreviated treatment of the topic (though less than what would be in an expanded entry).

 

I think that the NDE has a lot to do with how each of us are made up. Drop acid, and I assure you everyone has a completely different trip, though there will be some commonality.

 

The Participatory Anthropic Principle fits my way of thinking, as a pantheist.

 

The philosophical exchanges are interesting, but IMHO the answer to the OP question is: No. The Universe is indifferent to us.

 

Science is incredibly curious about black matter, and has been since it was discovered.

I do think we have to be slow to name each new thing we find to be a god even before we know what it is.

Is dark matter more of a god than dark energy?

What question would you want science to answer about dark matter?

 

Actually......
The Anthropic Principle sets the stage even for The Cyclic Model of the Universe / Multiverse and former Atheist and near death experiencer
Mellen Benedict just so happens to have done a BRILLIANT job of explaining the Cyclic Model of the universe after his 1982 brush with death.

https://near-death.com/mellen-thomas-benedict/

Near death experiencer Mellen Benedict :

Hey Patricio... do you remember @AboveAlpha from the forum a few years ago????

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...iversal-models.400055/page-13#post-1065341007

 

@AboveAlpha does a brilliant job of explaining Multiverse Theory......


http://www.politicalforum.com/index...iversal-models.400055/page-13#post-1065359411

The Philosophical implications of Multiverse Theory?


http://www.politicalforum.com/index...cal-implications-of-multiverse-theory.424926/

 

A couple of things

1. NDE's are going to be tailored to how each of us are made up. A Buddhist, for example, will not likely have a Christian styled NDE, and my belief is there is no common truth. There is an 'ultimate Truth' which is beyond these typical NDE's and only a few fortunate few will get those. These personalized NDE's are a graduated step towards the ultimate.

2. The Multiverse, for me, has to be real given the principle that, in the universe, there is no singular number of items in any category. There is no one dog, nor one cat, nor one caterpillar nor one type of rock, nor one planet, therefore nor one planet with intelligent life, nore one galaxie, and therefore, nor one universe.

 

A pantheist believes there is a spiritual basis to life, and everything in it something devine permeates it. No energy is excluded, dark or bright. It's not an "ID' or a 'being', it's a force, the ultimate source of things, like a river mysteriously emerging down from a mountain (not a perfect analogy, because that's not mysterious, so you have to think of the analogy on a poetic level). The autotropic principle is compatible as this 'force' is 'you'. All of our collective 'yous' combined are driving this thing. Each 'you' is like a tentacle on the octopus of god. the analogies/metaphors are endless, It can't be perfectly described, only hinted at, like dancing around a circle pointing to the center,, which is invisible.

Science should stay out of the business of philosophy or anything that is not falsifiable, of course, though it's aims seem to seek answers that I personally, don't think it will be able to find, though they will be able to find out a lot. What I don't think they will ever find is the answer to the question of infinity, whether there is infinity or an infinite loop, and I'm philosophically inclined to believe life is one huge circle, or a loop, and I only say that because infinity is impossible to comprehend, but a grand loop is, and maybe that is the only reason I feel that way. What I mean by 'loop' is that if you headed out in a straight line towards infinity, and could live long enough, you'd eventually return to your spot from the opposite direction, The universe is a loop. Maybe a mobius loop, or some kind of loop, or a mere circle, that, to me, is comprehendible. But what are the odds that the human mind, compared to the infinite universe the mind of which is infinitesimally small compared to it, can get it right? The odds aren't very good, I'm afraid. Fun to ponder, though.

 

Well said.....
and on that note I am going to quote your post here......

over into another discussion.......

and basically run with the ball as fast as I can in a manner that fits with the BIAS that I plead guilty to having developed since 1972 when I was a teenager.




http://www.politicalforum.com/index...native-universe.610709/page-2#post-1074554712

 

I don't see an advantage in limiting science. Plus, philosophy is important to science, too. We divide disciplines for highly suspect reasons, such as forming departments in universities which then hire only philosophers or only physicists.

Perhaps you shouldn't have to eliminate models on the grounds that they are hard to understand. I am curious about how one would make these decisions on loops, infinity, etc., if science is excluded - that is, what the criteria are.

On the other end of the spectrum, it could be that a model chosen by an individual might help that individual.

 

If I remember correctly.....
Dr. Albert Einstein termed himself "A Pantheist after the order of Spinoza!"


A near death experiencer reports meeting Dr. Einstein during his brush with death.....
and Dr. Einstein taught this particular near death experiencer at least one Yiddish word that he did not know before his brush with death.


http://www.allaboutchristian.com/spirituality/index.html