III. Ecosmos: A Revolutionary Fertile, Habitable, Solar-Bioplanet Lifescape
G. Anthropic, Biotropic, Earthropic Principles
Buchanan, Mark. Anthropic Attitudes. Nature Physics. 11/7, 2015. A commentary on The Fine-Tuning Argument by the Radford University mathematician Klaas Landsman, posted at arXiv:1505.05359, which sees five options: Designed, Multiverse, Blind chance, Pure necessity, or Misunderstood. But these are each summarily dismissed, so as to finish with Our Universe has not been fine-tuned for life: life has been fine-tuned to our Universe. This preconclusion has been challenged by later responses such as The Exoplanets Analogy to the Multiverse by the University of Sao Paulo physicist Osame Kinouchi at arXiv:1506.08060, whose Abstract is after Landsman.
Our laws of nature and our cosmos appear to be delicately fine-tuned for life to emerge, in a way that seems hard to attribute to chance. In view of this, some have taken the opportunity to revive the scholastic Argument from Design, whereas others have felt the need to explain this apparent fine-tuning of the clockwork of the Universe by proposing the existence of a `Multiverse'. We analyze this issue from a sober perspective. Having reviewed the literature and having added several observations of our own, we conclude that cosmic fine-tuning supports neither Design nor a Multiverse, since both of these fail at an explanatory level as well as in a more quantitative context of Bayesian confirmation theory (although there might be other reasons to believe in these ideas, to be found in religion and in inflation and/or string theory, respectively). In fact, fine-tuning and Design even seem to be at odds with each other, whereas the inference from fine-tuning to a Multiverse only works if the latter is underwritten by an additional metaphysical hypothesis we consider unwarranted. Instead, we suggest that fine-tuning requires no special explanation at all, since it is not the Universe that is fine-tuned for life, but life that has been fine-tuned to the Universe. (Landsman Abstract)
Burov, Alexey and Lev Burov. Genesis of a Pythagorean Universe. arXiv:1411.7304. We report this posting from a Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory physicist and a Scientific Humanities, San Francisco, imagineer because it offers a unique perspective on the breadth and depth of cosmic reality. After noting the fine-tuned Anthropic Principle fades into a multiverse chaosogenesis, it is proposed that nature’s most awesome aspect ought to be our very human ability to learn and describe everything from bosons to universes. This vista then grants phenomenal people an intentional, central role as Cosmic Observers.
Carr, Bernard and Martin Rees. Fine-Tuning in Living Systems. International Journal of Astrobiology. 2/2, 2003. A current, authoritative update and review of anthropic concepts.
Carter, Brandon. Classical Anthropic Everett Model: Indeterminacy in a Preordained Multiverse. arXiv:1203.0952. In a paper also in the online Journal of Cosmology, June 2011, the CNRS Paris Observatory theorist, a conceiver in the 1970s of the anthropic principle, provides his latest notable ruminations. As a gloss, human-like beings seem intentionally written into the long course of bubbling, self-activating multiple universes. That is, such sentient existence can be extrapolated all the way back to the deepest quantum cosmological essences. See also Carter 2011 in Organic Universe.
Abstract. Although ultimately motivated by quantum theoretical considerations, Everett’s many-world idea remains valid, as an approximation, in the classical limit. However to be applicable it must in any case be applied in conjunction with an appropriate anthropic principle, whose precise formulation involves an anthropic quotient that can be normalised to unity for adult humans but that would be lower for infants and other animals. The outcome is a deterministic multiverse in which the only function of chance is the specification of one’s particular identity.
Carter, Brandon. Hominid Evolution: Genetics versus Memetics. International Journal of Astrobiology. 11/1, 2012. Reviewed in Organic Universe, the CNRS Paris Observatory theorist, a prime conceiver of the Anthropic Principle, offers another angle on how human beings might be considered as cosmically meant to be.
Carter, Brandon. Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology. Longair, Malcolm, ed.. Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data. Dordrecht: Reidel, 2002. Another current survey.
Cirkovic, Milan and Jelana Dimitrijevic. Putting the Cart Before the Horse: Co-evolution of the Universe and Observers as an Explanatory Hypothesis. Foundations of Science. 23/3, 2018. As the Abstract cites, Astronomical Observatory of Belgrade and University of Belgrade scholars find current mechanistic models for our fine-tuned anthropic presence to be inadequate. Their contribution then builds a strong endorsement of John A. Wheeler’s participatory universe theory whence a developmental cosmos requires and avails an on-going self-witness. An “endosymbiotic” essence is also alluded to, all of which the authors say is a work-in-progress. In some regard, see Woodpeckers and Diamonds: Some Aspects of Evolutionary Convergence in Astrobiology by MC in Astrobiology for May 2018.
The answer to the fine-tuning problem of the universe has been traditionally sought in terms of either design or multiverse. In philosophy circles, this is sometimes expanded by adding the option of explanatory nihilism—the claim that there is no explanation for statements of that high level of generality: fine-tunings are brute facts. In this paper, we consider the fourth option which, at least in principle, is available to us: co-evolution of the universe and observers. Although conceptual roots of this approach could be found already in ancient stoicism, it is still the least investigated explanatory option for resolving the problem of empirical fine tunings. We offer two preliminary models along which the co-evolution hypothesis could be developed further. (Abstract)
Conway Morris, Simon.
What is Written into Creation?
Burrell, David, et al, eds.
Creation and the God of Abraham.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
With many citations on this site, the Cambridge paleontologist here takes a biotropic view that not only is carbon important, but across the periodic table each element seems to be uniquely suited for life’s evolution and emergence. For example, phosphorous and zinc bring indispensible properties at each cellular stage. As a result “a deep structure to our universe” is revealed, along with persistent evolutionary convergences upon similar anatomical and cerebral solutions.
Davies, Paul. Multiverse. Science and Theology News. January, 2005. An extended section on the favorable anthropic properties of the cosmos in which we find ourselves, within the current theory of a vast number of universes with parameters that may or may not be conducive to life and intelligence. A good survey at the frontiers of physics with Leonard Susskind, Lee Smolin, Martin Rees and company, along with a website and text bibliography. The journal can be accessed at www.stnews.org.
Recent versions of inflationary theory assert that instead of being an expanding ball of fire, the universe is a huge, growing fractal. Andrei Linde (35)
Denton, Michael. Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe. New York: Free Press, 1998. A full review is posted in An Organic Universe. Whereas references in this section concern physical parameters that seem uncannily tuned so that human-like beings appear, this volume extends the perception onto a “biotropic” principle, for so many biological properties of nature are similarly suitable to arrive at a phenomenal human.
Denton, Michael. Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe. New York: Free Press, 1998. This well-written, unique work by the University of Otago, New Zealand, biochemist achieves a rarest perspective on the appearance and rise of life akin to Yale biologist G. Evelyn Hutchinson (1903-1991). A large first step is the admission of a greater evolutionary creation with its own drive and developmental course, a view now banished and scorned. But rather than an “anthropic principle” teased out of cosmic parameters, a “biotropic” version can robustly arise from the myriad, constellated properties of energy and matter as they serve to spawn proteins and people. By any measure, the 100 elements of the Periodic Table are ideally suited for regnant life and mind to occur. The water molecule, carbon compounds, gas properties, the DNA helix, cellular organisms, and so on are all special beyond any coincidence. Darwinian descent is quite insufficient, and sans Divine intervention, these innate lawful propensities beg to be seen and appreciated as made for human-like beings to appear. See also his 2016 entry Evolution: still a Theory in Crisis, not whether it happened, but about its interpretation.
Drabrowski, Mariusz. Anthropic Selection of Physical Constants, Quantum Entanglement, and the Multiverse Falsifiability.. arXiv:1910.09073. The Director of the University of Szczecin Cosmology Group provides a latest, insightful survey of many ways this dawning perception seems to be coming to fruition.
This paper evaluates some important aspects of the multiverse concept. Firstly, the most realistic opportunity for it which is the spacetime variability of the physical constants and may deliver worlds with different physics, hopefully fulfilling the conditions of the anthropic principles. Then, more esoteric versions of the multiverse being the realisation of some abstract mathematics or even logic. Finally, it evaluates the big challenge of getting any signal from "other universes" using recent achievements of the quantum theory. (Abstract)