Reciprocal Preceptorial Cosmology Summary
The Anthropic Principle, chaired by Heath Dube
Summary by Caius Davicus Bellorum, author earthdate 9512.09
The Anthropic Principles:
Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP):
Because there are observers in our universe, the universe must possess properties of which the existence of these observers are included. -R. Dicke
Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) :
The structure and particles of the universe's construction are essentially fixed by the conditions that at some point, it inevitably produces an observer. -Brandon Carter
Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP):
No universe can exist unless it contains conscious observers. -Wheeler
Final Anthropic Principle (FAP):
Once intelligence emerges, it will never perish. -Barrow-Tipler
Our discussion began with a reading over of the various principles, a few cursory investigations to familiarize ourselves with the four contentions, such as remarking that the WAP is an obvious statement, and then dug into the PAP and FAP. Evidently the most controversial statement, the final anthropic principle caught the most attention first. The explanation proposed for this idea was that once human intelligence is evolutionarily aroused, it shall overcome infinitely. If the earth becomes unsuitable for our life, human intelligence will discover a way to continue. Likewise with the possible heat death of the universe, we will by then be able to maintain an energy differentiation in the universe, ensuring an energy transfer from which we can draw. A digression ensued over the example of the _Foundation_ science fiction books, which dealt with the construction of robots and a scientific system to predict future events. Objections to the essence of this reasoning flow from the precedence of extinction on the planet and the uncertainty of prediction lent by quantum mechanics.
Further debate centered around the context in which the principles were stated. The terms themselves of PAP and FAP are seated in space\time. The question of Newtonian local versus quantum non-localphysics was raised. What is the definition of intelligence in FAP, and is it necessarily human intelligence? At this juncture, the discussion switched focus to the prior two principles. SAP seems to be a sophisticated design theory rewording. Is there a designer, or chance? Evolutionary theory was brought to bear as a combination of chance and selection. Are there conditions such that a change would prohibit an observer?
Electromagnetic field example: would a relative field strength change produce an observer conducive to those parameters?There seems to be an anthropocentric bias of and ignorance towards the fourth dimension and towards a specific E-M field strength (and the relative strength of the other forces as well). Can something exist outside of our understanding? (that is a question for the _what is reality?_ discussion)? Our experiences and thoughts carry the biases and misconceptions of the terms from classical Newtonian physics. Needed is a ubiquitous redefinition in quantum terms.Principles seem to say that humans and the universe are separate.
As perhaps everyone knows, the essences of our discussions are at times difficult to capture in notes. I hope enough key material is provided to spark your memories (after all, education is recollection. hurmmph).Consider the weak anthropic principle. Since we as observers exist, our system must provide that we do exist. Now imagine the negation, that we came to be independently of the universe. That seems an argument of design to me, and demonstrates the schism between the view points of science and religion. The strong anthropic principle, I believe, is deconstructed by a point made in the outline, that quantum uncertainty, that is, not uncertainty of the quantum but of uncertainty in occurrence caused by the quantum, defeats any reductionalist argument like SAP. However, there could have been a definitive time that the existence of observers was made available to the universe, but not necessary. Whether that point of time was at the Big Bang, or sometime later is a subject for space/time thought. The PAP jumps into the realm of reality. Is it rational, empiricist, ontological, quantitative, or a slew of other terms? For me, this contention obviously indicates human intelligence as the conscious observer, and therefore is arrogant. Is the final anthropic principle wishful thinking and more arrogance? Or is the system of conscious beings always evolving through eternity? Even though it is not the intention, perhaps this could string together the four principles. Once intelligent life emerges, it is then established that the universe contains the properties to produce life. Hence, throughout the universe's lifespan, life never perishes even if at a given time no life exists. Our universe generates space/time, and eternity will only last as long as the universe.
Frankly, that appears circular, and I'd love some input on how to escape it.ta ta,d.