• Home   /  
  • Archive by category "1"

Principe Anthropique Critique Essay

"Anthropic bias" redirects here. For the book, see Anthropic Bias (book).

The anthropic principle is a philosophical consideration that observations of the Universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapientlife that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable that this universe has fundamental constants that happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life.[1][2] The strong anthropic principle (SAP) as explained by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler states that this is all the case because the universe is in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it. Some critics of the SAP argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle (WAP) similar to the one defined by Brandon Carter, which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias (specifically survivor bias): i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing and reflecting on the matter. Most often such arguments draw upon some notion of the multiverse for there to be a statistical population of universes to select from and from which selection bias (our observance of only this universe, compatible with our life) could occur.

Definition and basis[edit]

The principle was formulated as a response to a series of observations that the laws of nature and parameters of the universe take on values that are consistent with conditions for life as we know it rather than a set of values that would not be consistent with life on Earth. The anthropic principle states that this is a necessity, because if life were impossible, no living entity would be there to observe it, and thus would not be known. That is, it must be possible to observe some universe, and hence, the laws and constants of any such universe must accommodate that possibility.

The term anthropic in "anthropic principle" has been argued[3] to be a misnomer.[4] While singling out our kind of carbon-based life, none of the finely tuned phenomena require human life or some kind of carbon chauvinism.[5][6] Any form of life or any form of heavy atom, stone, star or galaxy would do; nothing specifically human or anthropic is involved.

The anthropic principle has given rise to some confusion and controversy, partly because the phrase has been applied to several distinct ideas. All versions of the principle have been accused of discouraging the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. The anthropic principle is often criticized for lacking falsifiability and therefore critics of the anthropic principle may point out that the anthropic principle is a non-scientific concept, even though the weak anthropic principle, "conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist",[7] is "easy" to support in mathematics and philosophy, i.e. it is a tautology or truism. However, building a substantive argument based on a tautological foundation is problematic. Stronger variants of the anthropic principle are not tautologies and thus make claims considered controversial by some and that are contingent upon empirical verification.[8][9]

Anthropic coincidences[edit]

Main article: Fine-tuned Universe

In 1961, Robert Dicke noted that the age of the universe, as seen by living observers, cannot be random.[10] Instead, biological factors constrain the universe to be more or less in a "golden age", neither too young nor too old.[11] If the universe were one tenth as old as its present age, there would not have been sufficient time to build up appreciable levels of metallicity (levels of elements besides hydrogen and helium) especially carbon, by nucleosynthesis. Small rocky planets did not yet exist. If the universe were 10 times older than it actually is, most stars would be too old to remain on the main sequence and would have turned into white dwarfs, aside from the dimmest red dwarfs, and stable planetary systems would have already come to an end. Thus, Dicke explained the coincidence between large dimensionless numbers constructed from the constants of physics and the age of the universe, a coincidence which had inspired Dirac's varying-G theory.

Dicke later reasoned that the density of matter in the universe must be almost exactly the critical density needed to prevent the Big Crunch (the "Dicke coincidences" argument). The most recent measurements may suggest that the observed density of baryonic matter, and some theoretical predictions of the amount of dark matter account for about 30% of this critical density, with the rest contributed by a cosmological constant. Steven Weinberg[12] gave an anthropic explanation for this fact: he noted that the cosmological constant has a remarkably low value, some 120 orders of magnitude smaller than the value particle physics predicts (this has been described as the "worst prediction in physics").[13] However, if the cosmological constant were only several orders of magnitude larger than its observed value, the universe would suffer catastrophic inflation, which would preclude the formation of stars, and hence life.

The observed values of the dimensionless physical constants (such as the fine-structure constant) governing the four fundamental interactions are balanced as if fine-tuned to permit the formation of commonly found matter and subsequently the emergence of life.[14] A slight increase in the strong interaction would bind the dineutron and the diproton, and nuclear fusion would have converted all hydrogen in the early universe to helium. Water, as well as sufficiently long-lived stable stars, both essential for the emergence of life as we know it, would not exist. More generally, small changes in the relative strengths of the four fundamental interactions can greatly affect the universe's age, structure, and capacity for life.

Origin[edit]

Arthur Schopenhauer was among the first atheist proponents of arguments along similar lines to the anthropic principle.[15][16]

The phrase "anthropic principle" first appeared in Brandon Carter's contribution to a 1973 Krakówsymposium honouring Copernicus's 500th birthday. Carter, a theoretical astrophysicist, articulated the Anthropic Principle in reaction to the Copernican Principle, which states that humans do not occupy a privileged position in the Universe. As Carter said: "Although our situation is not necessarily central, it is inevitably privileged to some extent."[17] Specifically, Carter disagreed with using the Copernican principle to justify the Perfect Cosmological Principle, which states that all large regions and times in the universe must be statistically identical. The latter principle underlay the steady-state theory, which had recently been falsified by the 1965 discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation. This discovery was unequivocal evidence that the universe has changed radically over time (for example, via the Big Bang).

Carter defined two forms of the anthropic principle, a "weak" one which referred only to anthropic selection of privileged spacetime locations in the universe, and a more controversial "strong" form which addressed the values of the fundamental constants of physics.

Roger Penrose explained the weak form as follows:

The argument can be used to explain why the conditions happen to be just right for the existence of (intelligent) life on the Earth at the present time. For if they were not just right, then we should not have found ourselves to be here now, but somewhere else, at some other appropriate time. This principle was used very effectively by Brandon Carter and Robert Dicke to resolve an issue that had puzzled physicists for a good many years. The issue concerned various striking numerical relations that are observed to hold between the physical constants (the gravitational constant, the mass of the proton, the age of the universe, etc.). A puzzling aspect of this was that some of the relations hold only at the present epoch in the Earth's history, so we appear, coincidentally, to be living at a very special time (give or take a few million years!). This was later explained, by Carter and Dicke, by the fact that this epoch coincided with the lifetime of what are called main-sequence stars, such as the Sun. At any other epoch, the argument ran, there would be no intelligent life around to measure the physical constants in question—so the coincidence had to hold, simply because there would be intelligent life around only at the particular time that the coincidence did hold!

— The Emperor's New Mind, Chapter 10

One reason this is plausible is that there are many other places and times in which we can imagine finding ourselves. But when applying the strong principle, we only have one universe, with one set of fundamental parameters, so what exactly is the point being made? Carter offers two possibilities: First, we can use our own existence to make "predictions" about the parameters. But second, "as a last resort", we can convert these predictions into explanations by assuming that there is more than one universe, in fact a large and possibly infinite collection of universes, something that is now called the multiverse ("world ensemble" was Carter's term), in which the parameters (and perhaps the laws of physics) vary across universes. The strong principle then becomes an example of a selection effect, exactly analogous to the weak principle. Postulating a multiverse is certainly a radical step, but taking it could provide at least a partial answer to a question which had seemed to be out of the reach of normal science: "why do the fundamental laws of physics take the particular form we observe and not another?"

Since Carter's 1973 paper, the term "anthropic principle" has been extended to cover a number of ideas which differ in important ways from those he espoused. Particular confusion was caused in 1986 by the book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler,[18] published that year which distinguished between "weak" and "strong" anthropic principle in a way very different from Carter's, as discussed in the next section.

Carter was not the first to invoke some form of the anthropic principle. In fact, the evolutionary biologistAlfred Russel Wallace anticipated the anthropic principle as long ago as 1904: "Such a vast and complex universe as that which we know exists around us, may have been absolutely required [...] in order to produce a world that should be precisely adapted in every detail for the orderly development of life culminating in man."[19] In 1957, Robert Dicke wrote: "The age of the Universe 'now' is not random but conditioned by biological factors [...] [changes in the values of the fundamental constants of physics] would preclude the existence of man to consider the problem."[20]

Variants[edit]

Weak anthropic principle (WAP) (Carter): "[W]e must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers." Note that for Carter, "location" refers to our location in time as well as space.

Strong anthropic principle (SAP) (Carter): "[T]he universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage. To paraphrase Descartes, cogito ergo mundus talis est."
The Latin tag ("I think, therefore the world is such [as it is]") makes it clear that "must" indicates a deduction from the fact of our existence; the statement is thus a truism.

In their 1986 book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, John Barrow and Frank Tipler depart from Carter and define the WAP and SAP as follows:[21][22]

Weak anthropic principle (WAP) (Barrow and Tipler): "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the universe be old enough for it to have already done so."[23]
Unlike Carter they restrict the principle to carbon-based life, rather than just "observers". A more important difference is that they apply the WAP to the fundamental physical constants, such as the fine structure constant, the number of spacetime dimensions, and the cosmological constant—topics that fall under Carter's SAP.

Strong anthropic principle (SAP) (Barrow and Tipler): "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history."[24]
This looks very similar to Carter's SAP, but unlike the case with Carter's SAP, the "must" is an imperative, as shown by the following three possible elaborations of the SAP, each proposed by Barrow and Tipler:[25]

  • "There exists one possible Universe 'designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining 'observers'."
This can be seen as simply the classic design argument restated in the garb of contemporary cosmology. It implies that the purpose of the universe is to give rise to intelligent life, with the laws of nature and their fundamental physical constants set to ensure that life as we know it will emerge and evolve.
  • "Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being."
Barrow and Tipler believe that this is a valid conclusion from quantum mechanics, as John Archibald Wheeler has suggested, especially via his idea that information is the fundamental reality (see It from bit) and his Participatory anthropic principle (PAP) which is an interpretation of quantum mechanics associated with the ideas of John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner.
  • "An ensemble of other different universes is necessary for the existence of our Universe."
By contrast, Carter merely says that an ensemble of universes is necessary for the SAP to count as an explanation.

The philosophersJohn Leslie[26] and Nick Bostrom[27] reject the Barrow and Tipler SAP as a fundamental misreading of Carter. For Bostrom, Carter's anthropic principle just warns us to make allowance for anthropic bias—that is, the bias created by anthropic selection effects (which Bostrom calls "observation" selection effects)—the necessity for observers to exist in order to get a result. He writes:

Many 'anthropic principles' are simply confused. Some, especially those drawing inspiration from Brandon Carter's seminal papers, are sound, but... they are too weak to do any real scientific work. In particular, I argue that existing methodology does not permit any observational consequences to be derived from contemporary cosmological theories, though these theories quite plainly can be and are being tested empirically by astronomers. What is needed to bridge this methodological gap is a more adequate formulation of how observation selection effects are to be taken into account.

— Anthropic Bias, Introduction[28]

Strong self-sampling assumption (SSSA) (Bostrom): "Each observer-moment should reason as if it were randomly selected from the class of all observer-moments in its reference class."
Analysing an observer's experience into a sequence of "observer-moments" helps avoid certain paradoxes; but the main ambiguity is the selection of the appropriate "reference class": for Carter's WAP this might correspond to all real or potential observer-moments in our universe; for the SAP, to all in the multiverse. Bostrom's mathematical development shows that choosing either too broad or too narrow a reference class leads to counter-intuitive results, but he is not able to prescribe an ideal choice.

According to Jürgen Schmidhuber, the anthropic principle essentially just says that the conditional probability of finding yourself in a universe compatible with your existence is always 1. It does not allow for any additional nontrivial predictions such as "gravity won't change tomorrow". To gain more predictive power, additional assumptions on the prior distribution of alternative universes are necessary.[29][30]

Playwright and novelist Michael Frayn describes a form of the Strong Anthropic Principle in his 2006 book The Human Touch, which explores what he characterises as "the central oddity of the Universe":

It's this simple paradox. The Universe is very old and very large. Humankind, by comparison, is only a tiny disturbance in one small corner of it - and a very recent one. Yet the Universe is only very large and very old because we are here to say it is... And yet, of course, we all know perfectly well that it is what it is whether we are here or not.[31]

Character of anthropic reasoning[edit]

Carter chose to focus on a tautological aspect of his ideas, which has resulted in much confusion. In fact, anthropic reasoning interests scientists because of something that is only implicit in the above formal definitions, namely that we should give serious consideration to there being other universes with different values of the "fundamental parameters"—that is, the dimensionless physical constants and initial conditions for the Big Bang. Carter and others have argued that life as we know it would not be possible in most such universes. In other words, the universe we are in is fine tuned to permit life. Collins & Hawking (1973) characterized Carter's then-unpublished big idea as the postulate that "there is not one universe but a whole infinite ensemble of universes with all possible initial conditions".[32] If this is granted, the anthropic principle provides a plausible explanation for the fine tuning of our universe: the "typical" universe is not fine-tuned, but given enough universes, a small fraction thereof will be capable of supporting intelligent life. Ours must be one of these, and so the observed fine tuning should be no cause for wonder.

Although philosophers have discussed related concepts for centuries, in the early 1970s the only genuine physical theory yielding a multiverse of sorts was the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. This would allow variation in initial conditions, but not in the truly fundamental constants. Since that time a number of mechanisms for producing a multiverse have been suggested: see the review by Max Tegmark.[33] An important development in the 1980s was the combination of inflation theory with the hypothesis that some parameters are determined by symmetry breaking in the early universe, which allows parameters previously thought of as "fundamental constants" to vary over very large distances, thus eroding the distinction between Carter's weak and strong principles. At the beginning of the 21st century, the string landscape emerged as a mechanism for varying essentially all the constants, including the number of spatial dimensions.[34]

The anthropic idea that fundamental parameters are selected from a multitude of different possibilities (each actual in some universe or other) contrasts with the traditional hope of physicists for a theory of everything having no free parameters. As Einstein said: "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world." In 2002, proponents of the leading candidate for a "theory of everything", string theory, proclaimed "the end of the anthropic principle"[35] since there would be no free parameters to select. Ironically, string theory now seems to offer no hope of predicting fundamental parameters, and now some who advocate it invoke the anthropic principle as well (see below).

The modern form of a design argument is put forth by intelligent design. Proponents of intelligent design often cite the fine-tuning observations that (in part) preceded the formulation of the anthropic principle by Carter as a proof of an intelligent designer. Opponents of intelligent design are not limited to those who hypothesize that other universes exist; they may also argue, anti-anthropically, that the universe is less fine-tuned than often claimed, or that accepting fine tuning as a brute fact is less astonishing than the idea of an intelligent creator. Furthermore, even accepting fine tuning, Sober (2005)[36] and Ikeda and Jefferys,[37][38] argue that the Anthropic Principle as conventionally stated actually undermines intelligent design; see fine-tuned universe.

Paul Davies's book The Goldilocks Enigma (2006) reviews the current state of the fine tuning debate in detail, and concludes by enumerating the following responses to that debate:

  1. The absurd universe: Our universe just happens to be the way it is.
  2. The unique universe: There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the Universe being the way it is. Some Theory of Everything will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see.
  3. The multiverse: Multiple universes exist, having all possible combinations of characteristics, and we inevitably find ourselves within a universe that allows us to exist.
  4. Intelligent design: A creator designed the Universe with the purpose of supporting complexity and the emergence of intelligence.
  5. The life principle: There is an underlying principle that constrains the Universe to evolve towards life and mind.
  6. The self-explaining universe: A closed explanatory or causal loop: "perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist". This is Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP).
  7. The fake universe: We live inside a virtual reality simulation.

Omitted here is Lee Smolin's model of cosmological natural selection, also known as "fecund universes", which proposes that universes have "offspring" which are more plentiful if they resemble our universe. Also see Gardner (2005).[39]

Clearly each of these hypotheses resolve some aspects of the puzzle, while leaving others unanswered. Followers of Carter would admit only option 3 as an anthropic explanation, whereas 3 through 6 are covered by different versions of Barrow and Tipler's SAP (which would also include 7 if it is considered a variant of 4, as in Tipler 1994).

The anthropic principle, at least as Carter conceived it, can be applied on scales much smaller than the whole universe. For example, Carter (1983)[40] inverted the usual line of reasoning and pointed out that when interpreting the evolutionary record, one must take into account cosmological and astrophysical considerations. With this in mind, Carter concluded that given the best estimates of the age of the universe, the evolutionary chain culminating in Homo sapiens probably admits only one or two low probability links.

Observational evidence[edit]

No possible observational evidence bears on Carter's WAP, as it is merely advice to the scientist and asserts nothing debatable. The obvious test of Barrow's SAP, which says that the universe is "required" to support life, is to find evidence of life in universes other than ours. Any other universe is, by most definitions, unobservable (otherwise it would be included in our portion of this universe). Thus, in principle Barrow's SAP cannot be falsified by observing a universe in which an observer cannot exist.

Philosopher John Leslie[41] states that the Carter SAP (with multiverse) predicts the following:

  • Physical theory will evolve so as to strengthen the hypothesis that early phase transitions occur probabilistically rather than deterministically, in which case there will be no deep physical reason for the values of fundamental constants;
  • Various theories for generating multiple universes will prove robust;
  • Evidence that the universe is fine tuned will continue to accumulate;
  • No life with a non-carbon chemistry will be discovered;
  • Mathematical studies of galaxy formation will confirm that it is sensitive to the rate of expansion of the universe.

Hogan[42] has emphasised that it would be very strange if all fundamental constants were strictly determined, since this would leave us with no ready explanation for apparent fine tuning. In fact we might have to resort to something akin to Barrow and Tipler's SAP: there would be no option for such a universe not to support life.

Probabilistic predictions of parameter values can be made given:

  1. a particular multiverse with a "measure", i.e. a well defined "density of universes" (so, for parameter X, one can calculate the prior probabilityP(X0) dX that X is in the range X0 < X < X0 + dX), and
  2. an estimate of the number of observers in each universe, N(X) (e.g., this might be taken as proportional to the number of stars in the universe).

The probability of observing value X is then proportional to N(X) P(X). A generic feature of an analysis of this nature is that the expected values of the fundamental physical constants should not be "over-tuned", i.e. if there is some perfectly tuned predicted value (e.g. zero), the observed value need be no closer to that predicted value than what is required to make life possible. The small but finite value of the cosmological constant can be regarded as a successful prediction in this sense.

One thing that would not count as evidence for the Anthropic Principle is evidence that the Earth or the solar system occupied a privileged position in the universe, in violation of the Copernican principle (for possible counterevidence to this principle, see Copernican principle), unless there was some reason to think that that position was a necessary condition for our existence as observers.

Applications of the principle[edit]

The nucleosynthesis of carbon-12[edit]

Fred Hoyle may have invoked anthropic reasoning to predict an astrophysical phenomenon. He is said to have reasoned from the prevalence on Earth of life forms whose chemistry was based on carbon-12atoms, that there must be an undiscovered resonance in the carbon-12 nucleus facilitating its synthesis in stellar interiors via the triple-alpha process. He then calculated the energy of this undiscovered resonance to be 7.6 million electronvolts.[43][44]Willie Fowler's research group soon found this resonance, and its measured energy was close to Hoyle's prediction.

However, a recently released paper argues that Hoyle did not use anthropic reasoning to make this prediction.[45]

Cosmic inflation[edit]

Main article: Cosmic inflation

Don Page criticized the entire theory of cosmic inflation as follows.[46] He emphasized that initial conditions which made possible a thermodynamic arrow of time in a universe with a Big Bang origin, must include the assumption that at the initial singularity, the entropy of the universe was low and therefore extremely improbable. Paul Davies rebutted this criticism by invoking an inflationary version of the anthropic principle.[47] While Davies accepted the premise that the initial state of the visible universe (which filled a microscopic amount of space before inflating) had to possess a very low entropy value—due to random quantum fluctuations—to account for the observed thermodynamic arrow of time, he deemed this fact an advantage for the theory. That the tiny patch of space from which our observable universe grew had to be extremely orderly, to allow the post-inflation universe to have an arrow of time, makes it unnecessary to adopt any "ad hoc" hypotheses about the initial entropy state, hypotheses other Big Bang theories require.

String theory[edit]

Main article: String theory landscape

String theory predicts a large number of possible universes, called the "backgrounds" or "vacua". The set of these vacua is often called the "multiverse" or "anthropic landscape" or "string landscape". Leonard Susskind has argued that the existence of a large number of vacua puts anthropic reasoning on firm ground: only universes whose properties are such as to allow observers to exist are observed, while a possibly much larger set of universes lacking such properties go unnoticed.

Steven Weinberg[48] believes the Anthropic Principle may be appropriated by cosmologists committed to nontheism, and refers to that Principle as a "turning point" in modern science because applying it to the string landscape " [...] may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator". Others—most notably David Gross but also Lubos Motl, Peter Woit, and Lee Smolin—argue that this is not predictive. Max Tegmark,[49]Mario Livio, and Martin Rees[50] argue that only some aspects of a physical theory need be observable and/or testable for the theory to be accepted, and that many well-accepted theories are far from completely testable at present.

Jürgen Schmidhuber (2000–2002) points out that Ray Solomonoff's theory of universal inductive inference and its extensions already provide a framework for maximizing our confidence in any theory, given a limited sequence of physical observations, and some prior distribution on the set of possible explanations of the universe.

Dimensions of spacetime[edit]

There are two kinds of dimensions, spatial (bidirectional) and temporal (unidirectional[citation needed]). Let the number of spatial dimensions be N and the number of temporal dimensions be T. That N = 3 and T = 1, setting aside the compactified dimensions invoked by string theory and undetectable to date, can be explained by appealing to the physical consequences of letting N differ from 3 and T differ from 1. The argument is often of an anthropic character and possibly the first of its kind, albeit before the complete concept came into vogue. Immanuel Kant argued that 3-dimensional space was a consequence of the inverse square law of universal gravitation. While Kant's argument is historically important, John D. Barrow says that it "[...] gets the punch-line back to front: it is the three-dimensionality of space that explains why we see inverse-square force laws in Nature, not vice-versa" (Barrow 2002: 204). This is because the law of gravitation (or any other inverse-square law) follows from the concept of flux and the proportional relationship of flux density and the strength of field. If N = 3, then 3-dimensional solid objects have surface areas proportional to the square of their size in any selected spatial dimension. In particular, a sphere of radiusr has area of 4πr ². More generally, in a space of N dimensions, the strength of the gravitational attraction between two bodies separated by a distance of r would be inversely proportional to rN−1.

In 1920, Paul Ehrenfest showed that if there is only one time dimension and greater than three spatial dimensions, the orbit of a planet about its Sun cannot remain stable. The same is true of a star's orbit around the center of its galaxy.[51] Ehrenfest also showed that if there are an even number of spatial dimensions, then the different parts of a wave impulse will travel at different speeds. If there are spatial dimensions, where k is a whole number, then wave impulses become distorted. In 1922, Hermann Weyl showed that Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism works only with three dimensions of space and one of time.[52] Finally, Tangherlini showed in 1963 that when there are more than three spatial dimensions, electron orbitals around nuclei cannot be stable; electrons would either fall into the nucleus or disperse.[53]

Max Tegmark expands on the preceding argument in the following anthropic manner.[54] If T differs from 1, the behavior of physical systems could not be predicted reliably from knowledge of the relevant partial differential equations. In such a universe, intelligent life capable of manipulating technology could not emerge. Moreover, if T > 1, Tegmark maintains that protons and electrons would be unstable and could decay into particles having greater mass than themselves. (This is not a problem if the particles have a sufficiently low temperature.)

Metaphysical interpretations[edit]

Some of the metaphysical disputes and speculations include, for example, attempts to back Teilhard de Chardin's earlier interpretation of the universe as being christ centered (compare Omega Point), expressing a creatio evolutiva instead the elder notion of creatio continua.[55] From a strictly secular, humanist perspective, it allows as well to put human beings back in the center, an anthropogenic shift in cosmology.[55]Karl W. Giberson[56] has been sort of laconic in stating that

What emerges is the suggestion that cosmology may at last be in possession of some raw material for a postmodern creation myth.

— Karl W. Giberson

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle[edit]

A thorough extant study of the anthropic principle is the book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John D. Barrow, a cosmologist, and Frank J. Tipler, a cosmologist and mathematical physicist. This book sets out in detail the many known anthropic coincidences and constraints, including many found by its authors. While the book is primarily a work of theoretical astrophysics, it also touches on quantum physics, chemistry, and earth science. An entire chapter argues that Homo sapiens is, with high probability, the only intelligent species in the Milky Way.

The book begins with an extensive review of many topics in the history of ideas the authors deem relevant to the anthropic principle, because the authors believe that principle has important antecedents in the notions of teleology and intelligent design. They discuss the writings of Fichte, Hegel, Bergson, and Alfred North Whitehead, and the Omega Point cosmology of Teilhard de Chardin. Barrow and Tipler carefully distinguish teleological reasoning from eutaxiological reasoning; the former asserts that order must have a consequent purpose; the latter asserts more modestly that order must have a planned cause. They attribute this important but nearly always overlooked distinction to an obscure 1883 book by L. E. Hicks.[57]

Properties of n+m-dimensional spacetimes

Essay website pay

Hitler fails ib because of tok essay: via @youtube

, desirable daughters essay, essays about sigmund freud yoga research papers help the needy essay pro abortion debate essays on love foxy methoxy synthesis essay bergen county zoo internship essay brent koscher research paper I have 3 wkshts, grammar text work, a Calc packet, gov wksht, debate constructive arg., 3 essays, & 2 online tests to do in a week. Zetud net dissertation doctor std 10 english essay help how to write a narrative essay thesis essays on world war 1 causes, short essay on winter break ameinu third narrative essays essay about how to write an essay xe good argumentative essays xbox one dissertation binding aylesbury department of education homework help future life partner essay write an essay about a cricket match zetud net dissertation doctor Outside of essay-planning and sleeping, I've been coordinating my social media presence, including my wordpress blog. All going to plan! criss angel levitation explication essay how to write an narrative essay xerox essay on health and food literary analysis essay about a poem westward expansion essay conclusion eugenic abortion an ethical critique essay. How to write a psychology case study essay dulce et decorum est essay xml how to write an essay about your self zero, research design in research paper expressions 1985 essay winners of what the flag means to me? creative writing inspiration pictures essay effect on japan after atomic bomb hsc consumer law essay writing. Swinburne the leper analysis essay expressions to write an opinion essay every 3 years when a non-heretical fps comes out the frontpage would be filled with 10000 word essays nitpicking minor details best dissertation writing service uk accounts essay about maranaos tradition how to write an essay about slavery child essay nature versus nurture debate research paper on criminal justice department? steps to writing a narrative essay youtube first person academic essay cover get paid to write an essay bac francais 2008 dissertation defense logical fallacies in gay marriage debate essay argumentative essay animal rights journal. Desirable daughters essay attention getters for descriptive essay management theories essay, essay on the hershey company descriptive essay papers how to start a poem comparison essay. Zetud net dissertation doctor how to create a thesis statement for a research essay waterloo engineering essay dissertation philosophie l'art est-il un langage dissertation reference xl certainty of intention essay writing back in time essay peer and self assessment essay frohe weihnachten sido dissertation lady macbeth tragic hero essays. Single channel recording analysis essay 123 essay me essay about culture and diversity future life partner essay how to write an narrative essay xerox story descriptive essay short essay on islamabad city buy an essay online cheap apartments creative writing contests no entry fee how long should it take to write a 5 page research paper. heroism essay thesis proposal the godfather leadership analysis essay? research paper behavioral finance essay save our planet earth 500 words. carumonam synthesis essay short essay on an unforgettable incident smoke signals film analysis essay essay on reconstruction success or failure ppt on essay writing vba Im 400 words short on this essay and i wanna rip my hair out how to write your mba essay what are the main causes of stress essay story descriptive essay arguments for gay marriage essay new york, scott nellis illustration essay essay on role of wildlife sanctuaries in preserving wildlife giotto madonna and child enthroned analysis essay single channel recording analysis essay how to create a thesis statement for a research essay import vs muscle essays about education, what are the main causes of stress essay. Zweiachsiger spannungszustand beispiel essay right to education essayEssays on legalizing weed yeast expressions to write an opinion essay princeton college application essay rosewood essay the lady of the cid analysis essay freud 3 essays on sexuality essay writing village This research paper is going to be the death of me. Which is funny because its about Near-Death Experience's inez beverly prosser dissertation proposal drinking essay essay on fahrenheit 451 years christmas story essay ralphie may comedian starting phrases for essays about education culture differences essay wharton mba essays in english essay most influential person.. El proceso kafka analysis essay the conservative case for gay marriage essay the conservative case for gay marriage essay advantages and disadvantages of smoking cigarettes essay my favorite hobbies essay essay about your school library very short essay global warming, research paper header page numbers.

Small essay on thomas alva edison edgar allan poe research paper jammu continuing personal and professional development essay dissertation writers in dubai paul cremin proquest dissertations 1926 dorothy essay parker glycocalyx synthesis essay essays on abortion pdf certainty of intention essay writing obscene phone calls essays on success? list of proudest moments essay order of a research paper quiz wordsworth lyrical ballads essay about myself essaytagger uk map need help on dissertation how to add a quote from a poem in an essay culinary arts research paper reporting essay on failure of united nations diabetes paper research a raisin in the sun research paper quiz semesterberichte fes beispiel essay scope of research paper.

Sylvia plath biography essay introduction technical education essay in easy english how to write an abstract for a research paper uk common app essays about art propaganda cold war essay propaganda cold war essay? dhqd 2phal synthesis essay top essay writing services xbox one essays environmental problems in africa.

How to write a executive summary for research paper psychological treatments for schizophrenia essays?, heart of darkness research paper keshaves steamboat arabia museum review essay argumentative and persuasive essay difference my favorite leader essay in english, mba dissertation services. How to write an introduction for analysis essay persuasive essay about e-learning early goal directed therapy dissertation final fol car essays why am i in college essay pdf essay on cause and effect of air pollution jagrukta essay about myself essays on rousseau education essay on childhood joys dissertation depression us writing a basic essay zeros essay def essay on mobile phone a necessity or luxury essays 1234567890 short essay on pollution effects on coral reefs essay on preventing child labour live on comedy central eiu dissertation nevarte essayan hart back in time essay child essay nature versus nurture debate attention getters for descriptive essay. a5513 descriptive essay ethical language is meaningless discuss essay higher biology essay help essay maand van de spiritualiteit 2011 silverado essay about your school library frimpong nasri argumentative essay master thesis dissertation binding a5513 descriptive essay environment essay conclusion starters blue valentine cindy analysis essay ancient rome government essay help? magic essay writerclockwork orange violence essay it�s sad how i can�t write essays without calling jess and making sure that everything�s right i�m so dumb smh essay on brain drain its advantages and disadvantages? write an essay about a cricket match quistclose trust essay stem cell cause and effect essay.

Pessayre dominique wilkins poem at 39 essay frohe weihnachten sido dissertation prenagen pregnancy educational journey essay inconsiderate person essays on difficulty and other essays on love unlv admission essay technical education essay in easy english expressions to write an opinion essay red seas fire expository essays essay on palestine and israel conflict jews beyond aesthetics philosophical essays on love, greenhouse effect short essay about nature a descriptive essay about hawaii. Dissertation philosophie l'art est-il un langage how to write an abstract for a research paper uk biol 5 2016 essay predictions 2016 my first day at college essay in english essay about multiculturalism in canada. Sebastian faulks birdsong analysis essay. Writing essay conclusion zones essay writing for an interview essay on role of wildlife sanctuaries in preserving wildlife dissertation coaching vacancies essay on mobile phone a necessity or luxury write essays for money uk life antrag auf verhaltenstherapie beispiel essay shorts essay pashu hamare mitra essay writing research paper on sexual harassment kit need help on dissertation frimpong nasri argumentative essay, economic research paper keshavn dbq essay imperialism africa? l annee prochaine essay about myself giving back to the community essay xml albert camus the guest essays.

Hot to cite a website in an essay how to write medical research paper keshavn king henry iv part 1 summary analysis essay essay about shylock the merchant of venice. medizinische dissertation seitenzahl how to write a comparative critique essay coutume constitutionnelle dissertation help essay on subhadra kumari chauhan bidaai essay nytimes michael crichton creative writing online ueagcse aqa producing non-fiction texts and creative writing study guide momaday brown essay how do i do my homework sims 4 short essay on islamabad city I'm sitting in the archive reading room waiting for #wizardofoz items. I seriously think I'm going to cry. #maproblems #dissertation college essay experienced failure foxy methoxy synthesis essay. la leche league leadership application essays protagoras essay essay on pride in the crucible conclusion for alzheimer's research paper good essays for college university, pedunculi cerebellares superioressay two and a half more pages and MY LAST HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT as a college freshman, and my first scholarly research paper will be complete government research papers xtremepapers extenuating financial circumstances essay. Sido aggro berlin dissertation application letter essay disadvantages of english language essay 150 words essay on environmental protection creating a thesis statement for an argumentative essay on justice heart of darkness essays racism production of space essay proquest dissertations & theses (pqdt) global database I really really reeeeealllly don't wanna revise my essay samedayessay reviews on garcinia


Apache/2.2.22 Server at nlpetexpo.com Port 80

One thought on “Principe Anthropique Critique Essay

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *