4 The Anthropic Principle and Design in the Univer

The Anthropic Principle and Design in the Universe: 

The Anthropic Principle and Design in the Universe First Meeting Winter Quarter 2005 Stanford Transhumanism Association Michael Jin The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible - Albert Einstein

The Idea of Selection Effects (Bostrom, Anthropic Bias, 2002): 

The Idea of Selection Effects (Bostrom, Anthropic Bias, 2002) How long is the smallest fish in the pond? Depends on the size of the net. Who will win the national election? Depends on whom you ask. (1936: Literary Digest predicts easy win for Alf Langdon; Roosevelt wins by landslide. Literary Digest had used telephone directories and motor vehicle registries.) What yields better returns, stocks or bonds? Depends on what markets give returns.

An Observational Selection Effect: The Anthropic Principle(s): 

An Observational Selection Effect: The Anthropic Principle(s) What is the nature of the universe? Depends on intrinsic nature of observing, which implies existence, essence, location, and time. Weak anthropic principle (WAP): 'Physical parameters are not equally probable but take on values restricted by the requirement that sites exist where carbon-based life can evolve. Strong anthropic principle (SAP): 'The Universe must have properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.'

Spiral Galaxy ESO 269-57 – Evidence of Complex Design?: 

Spiral Galaxy ESO 269-57 – Evidence of Complex Design?

“Fine-tuning” in cosmology: Is the universe designed for life?: 

'Fine-tuning' in cosmology: Is the universe designed for life? Early expansion speed, ratio of electron mass to proton mass, magnitudes of force strengths, smoothness of early universe, neutron-proton mass difference seem fine-tuned to allow life in the universe (Tegmark 1997) Two major viewpoints: design hypothesis versus ensemble (multiverse) hypothesis

Lee Smolin: Non-Falsifiable versus Falsifiable Theories: 

Lee Smolin: Non-Falsifiable versus Falsifiable Theories Theory B: The distribution of parameters in M [multiverse] is random (in some measure) and the parameters that govern our universe are rare. Theory B’: It is possible nevertheless, to posit a mechanism, X by which the ensemble M was constructed, on the basis of which one can show that almost every universe in M has a property W, which has the following characteristics: 1. W does not follow from any known law of nature or observation; 2. There is a doable experiment that could show that W is not true in our universe.

Lee Smolin on Philosophy of Science: 

Lee Smolin on Philosophy of Science There is an ethical imperative to examine only hypotheses that lead to falsifiable theories…once a non-falsifiable theory is preferred to falsifiable alternatives, the process of science stops…we know more than people who espoused Ptolemaic astronomy, or Lysenko’s biology, or Mach and others who dismissed atoms as forever unobservable, because at least some scientists preferred to go on examining falsifiable theories (2004).

Red Blood Cells Under Attack – We Know the Mechanism Here: 

Red Blood Cells Under Attack – We Know the Mechanism Here

Lee Smolin Proposes Theory: Cosmological Natural Selection: 

Lee Smolin Proposes Theory: Cosmological Natural Selection Natural selection needs reproduction, heritable parameters, variation, and selection pressure. Method postulated for reproduction, creation of baby universes, is black hole bouncing No 'negative' selection pressure. Thus the fact we live in an incredibly special, 'fine-tuned' universe may be explained by the fact that the properties needed for life also promote the healthy production of baby universes

Cosmological Natural Selection via Black Hole Bouncing Falsifiable: 

Cosmological Natural Selection via Black Hole Bouncing Falsifiable A single heavy pulsar would refute it, as it would imply a higher mass value for strange quark. Critically, this mass value is not 'fine-tuned' for human life. For arcane theoretical reasons, this would refute cosmological natural selection. Other criteria for falsifiability exist.

Taking it Further: Selfish Biocosm Hypothesis (Gardner 2000): 

Taking it Further: Selfish Biocosm Hypothesis (Gardner 2000) If there is no God—no outside transcendent being who designed and created the cosmos and life—from whence did it all come and how are we to find meaning in an apparently meaningless universe?….In this creative consilience of cosmology, evolutionary biology, and complexity theory, James Gardner courageously speculates…Biocosm is breathtaking in its scope and its subject—the cosmos and everything in it—is far grander than the anthropocentric proscenium on which theistic world views play themselves out. — Michael Shermer

The Main Postulate of the Selfish Biocosm Hypothesis: 

The Main Postulate of the Selfish Biocosm Hypothesis The basic idea is that life and intelligence are the primary cosmic phenomena and that everything else—the constants of nature, the dimensionality of the universe, the origin of carbon and other elements in the hearts of giant supernovas, the pathway traced by biological evolution—is secondary and derivative. According to this theory, the emergence of life and intelligence are not meaningless accidents in a hostile, largely lifeless cosmos but at the very heart of the vast machinery of creation, cosmological evolution, and cosmic replication. – James Gardner, Biocosm.org

Illustration of Selfish Biocosm: 

Illustration of Selfish Biocosm

Very Speculative Speculation: Reconciliation with Theology?: 

Very Speculative Speculation: Reconciliation with Theology? The Physics of Immortality (1994) by Frank Tipler puts forth the Omega Point Theory, which suggests a Big Crunch but infinite subjective time and information processing; he equates OP with God Theology defended by Wolfhart Pannenberg. Critical passage in Exodus 3:14, where God says to Moses EHYEH ASHER EHYEH

Miguel Unamuno on Existential Purpose in Tragic Sense of Life: 

Miguel Unamuno on Existential Purpose in Tragic Sense of Life 'Why!' the reader will exclaim again, 'we are coming back to what the Catechism says: ‘Q. For whom did God create the world? A. For man.’' Well, why not?—so ought the man to reply. The ant, if it took account of these matters and were a person, would reply 'For the ant,' and it would reply right. The world was made for consciousness, for each consciousness.

Believability and Ethical Questions: A Discussion: 

Believability and Ethical Questions: A Discussion Role of man, humanity in the cosmos: Is man a means or an end? Is anthropocentric philosophies naive? Does the teleology of the Selfish Biocosm Hypothesis provide moral values? Does the theory, if true, affect our ethical obligations? Fermi Paradox and SETI. Is our universe 'genetically diseased'? Existential Risks and the Great Filter

Further Exploration: 

Further Exploration Nick Bostrom: http://www.nickbostrom.com/ Why do cars in the other lane go faster? Doomsday Argument Sleeping Beauty Problem edge.org: science popularization site with debates and articles from leading thinkers arXiv.org: e-prints in many science, including papers on anthropic reasoning