In the broadest sense, the question that interests scientists is: why is our Universe the way it is? What role does or should man play in the existence of this Universe? More strictly, this question is formulated differently: why do physical constants - gravitational, Planck, speed of light, electron and proton charge - have such and not other values, and what would happen to the Universe if these values turned out to be different? The validity of this question is determined by the fact that the numerical values of physical constants are in no way justified theoretically; they were obtained experimentally and independently of each other.
The uncertain situation with physical constants aroused the desire to check what the consequences of changing the values of individual physical constants or an entire group of them would be for the Universe. The analysis led to a stunning conclusion. It turned out that very small, within 10–30%, deviations of the values of the constants in one direction or another are enough, and our Universe will turn out to be such a simplified system that there can be no talk of any directional development of it. Basic stable states - nuclei, atoms, stars and galaxies - will not be able to exist.
For example, an increase in the Planck constant by more than 15% deprives a proton of the ability to combine with a neutron, that is, it makes it impossible for primary nucleosynthesis to occur. The same result will be obtained if the proton mass is increased by 30%. A downward change in the values of these physical constants would open up the possibility of the formation of a stable helium nucleus, which would result in the burning of all hydrogen in the early stages of the expansion of the Universe. Thus, we have to admit that there are very narrow “gates” of suitable values of physical constants, within which the existence of the Universe familiar to us is possible.
But the “random” coincidences don’t end there. Let us recall other accidents that we have already encountered above when talking about the evolution of the Universe:
· a small asymmetry between matter and antimatter allowed the formation of a baryonic Universe at an early stage, without which it would have degenerated into a photon-lepton desert;
· stopping of primary nucleosynthesis at the stage of formation of helium nuclei, due to which the hydrogen-helium Universe could arise;
· the presence of an excited electronic level in the carbon nucleus with an energy almost exactly equal to the total energy of three helium nuclei opened the possibility for stellar nucleosynthesis to occur. This process produced all the elements of the periodic table heavier than hydrogen and helium;
· the location of the energy levels of the oxygen nucleus again accidentally turned out to be such that it does not allow all carbon nuclei to be converted into oxygen in the processes of stellar nucleosynthesis, but carbon is the basis of organic chemistry and, therefore, life.
Thus, science is faced with a large group of facts, the separate consideration of which creates the impression of inexplicable random coincidences bordering on a miracle. The probability of each such coincidence is very small, and their joint existence is completely incredible. Then it seems quite reasonable to pose the question of the existence of as yet unknown patterns, the consequences of which we are faced with, capable of organizing the Universe in a certain way.
So, the presence of “fine tuning”, certain physical laws, properties of elements and the nature of interactions between them determine the structure of our Universe. In the course of its development, structural elements of increasing complexity appeared, and at one of the stages of development - an observer (a rational being, a person) capable of detecting the existence of a “fine adjustment” and thinking about the reasons that gave rise to it.
An observer who has our system of perception of the world and our logic will inevitably have a question: is the “fine tuning” of the Universe discovered by him random or is it predetermined by some global process of self-organization? And this means that an old problem that has worried humanity throughout its entire conscious history is emerging: do we occupy a special place in this world, or is this position the result of random development? Recognition of “fine tuning” as a natural natural phenomenon leads to the conclusion that from the very beginning the Universe potentially contains the appearance of an “observer” at a certain stage of its development. Accepting such a conclusion is tantamount to recognizing the existence of certain goals in nature. In other words, we are returning again to teleologism, which was the basis of the medieval worldview, and in modern times was discarded, as it seemed then, forever.
In such a situation, it was put forward and is currently widely discussed anthropic principle. In the 1970s, it was formulated in two versions (weak and strong) by the English scientist B. Carter. He built on the work of his predecessors and contemporaries.
So, back at the end of the 19th century. In the works of A. Wallace, the basic idea of the anthropic principle was formulated. He wrote that man is the crown of conscious organic life, which could develop on Earth only if there was a vast material Universe around him. A little later, our compatriot K. E. Tsiolkovsky reflected on the same topic. He believed that human existence is not accidental, but immanent in the cosmos, and the cosmos that we know cannot be different. Of course, the thoughts of Wallace and Tsiolkovsky are quite abstract compared to modern research, but they undoubtedly entered the modern scientific picture of the world, pushing the work of scientists in the mid-20th century.
In the 50–60s of the XX century. Russian scientists A.L. Zelmanov and G.M. Idlis studied these issues. In the course of their research, they identified those macroscopic properties of the Universe, without which the appearance of man in it would have been impossible. In Zelmanov's work it was said that the possibility of the existence of an observer studying the Universe is determined by the properties of the Universe itself. We are witnesses to processes of a certain type because processes of another type take place without witnesses.
Thus, by the beginning of the 1960s, the foundation was created on which, thanks to the work of R. Dicke, B. Carter, A. Wheeler, S. Hawking and other physicists and cosmologists, the modern anthropic principle appeared, which is not a strict unambiguous statement, a represents a wide range of formulations, interpretations, attitudes and positions. However, the basic formulation of the anthropic principle is believed to be due to Carter.
His weak anthropic principle says: what we propose to observe in the Universe must satisfy the conditions necessary for the presence of a person as an observer. This principle is interpreted in such a way that during the evolution of the Universe, a variety of conditions could exist, but a human observer sees the world only at the stage at which the conditions necessary for its existence were realized. In particular, for the appearance of man, it was necessary for the Universe to go through all the stages mentioned above during the expansion of matter. It is clear that a person could not observe them, since the physical conditions then did not ensure his appearance. But, on the other hand, all these stages could only take place in a world where “fine tuning” existed. Therefore, the very fact of a person’s appearance already predetermines what he should see - both the modern Universe and the presence of “fine tuning” in it. In short, since a person exists, he will see a world structured in a very definite way, because he is not given anything else to see.
So, the weak anthropic principle claims to explain the privilege of the cosmological era in which we live (in which there are intelligent beings in the Universe). True, he assumes as a condition that the appearance of intelligent beings is in principle possible in a given era, that is, it does not contradict the laws of nature and the general nature of cosmological evolution.
More serious content lies in strong anthropic principle – The Universe must be such that an observer could exist in it at some stage of evolution. Essentially, it talks about the random or natural origin of the “fine tuning” of the Universe. Recognition of the natural structure of the Universe entails recognition of the principle that organizes it. If we consider the “fine tuning” to be random, then we have to postulate the multiple birth of universes, in each of which random values of physical constants, physical laws, etc. are randomly realized. In some of them, a “fine adjustment” will randomly arise, ensuring the appearance of an observer at a certain stage of development, and he will see a completely comfortable world, the random occurrence of which he will initially not suspect. In other words, in the ensemble of universes all logically conceivable types of physical structure are realized, which means that the existence of at least one world with a set of parameters favorable for the evolution of life and intelligence becomes quite trivial. Our appearance in any other world is simply impossible.
It is interesting to note that this interpretation of the strong anthropic principle resembles the weak anthropic principle. Indeed, in a weak principle there is a “selection” of an era and place in the Universe suitable for life. And in the strong case, a universe suitable for life is “selected” from the ensemble of worlds.
This interpretation of the strong anthropic principle looks very attractive, but it is based on the hypothesis of the plurality of worlds, which has not been confirmed by modern science. Thus, if this hypothesis is false, that is, there is only one Universe, then the strong anthropic principle will not work.
There is another interpretation of the strong anthropic principle, proposed by J. Wheeler and called “the principle of participation. It contrasts the real Universe and a possible ensemble of worlds. Only such a Universe is real in which the values of physical constants ensure the emergence of life and intelligence. All other possible worlds do not really exist. The role of the observer in the emergence of the Universe becomes comparable to the role of the Universe in the emergence of the observer.
If we recognize the “fine adjustment” initially inherent in the Universe, then the line of its subsequent development is predetermined, and the appearance of an observer at the appropriate stage is inevitable. It follows from this that in the newly born Universe its future was potentially laid down, and the development process takes on a purposeful character. The emergence of the mind is not only “planned” in advance, but also has a specific purpose, which will manifest itself in the subsequent process of development. This is a teleological interpretation of the strong anthropic principle, reviving old theological debates about divine design.
Exists finalist anthropic principle, proposed by F. Tipler: intelligent information processing must arise in the Universe, and, once it arises, it will never cease. This is a very unusual prediction for a physicist, based on the idea that nature is not indifferent to the fate of the mind. In this case, we can assume that there are certain natural mechanisms, still unknown to us, that ensure the successful passage of the Universe through all the key points of evolution up to the formation of Consciousness in it. This principle is even more stringent than the strong anthropic principle. Indeed, in accordance with it, the structure of the Universe must provide the necessary conditions not only for the emergence of life and intelligence, but also for their eternal existence. But we remember that all existing cosmological models speak of the inevitability of the death of life and intelligence either in the final singularity (closed model) or in the cold of almost empty space (open model).
We still know too little about the Universe, because earthly life is only a small part of a gigantic whole. But we have the right to make any guesses if they do not contradict the known laws of nature. And it is quite possible that if humanity continues to exist, solving modern global problems, if its ability to understand itself and the world around us remains intact, then one of the main tasks of future scientific research will be to understand its purpose in the Universe.
ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE– one of the fundamental principles of modern cosmology, which fixes the connection between the large-scale properties of our Universe (Metagalaxy) and the existence of a person, an observer, in it. The term “anthropic principle” was proposed by the English mathematician B. Carter (1973): “what we expect to observe must be limited by the conditions necessary for our existence as observers.” Along with the general formulation of the anthropic principle, its modifications are also known: “weak anthropic principle”, “strong anthropic principle”, “principle of participation” (“accomplice”) by J. Wheeler and “finalist anthropic principle” by F. Tipler. The formulation of the strong anthropic principle, according to Carter, states: “The Universe (and therefore the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such that at some stage of its evolution the existence of observers is allowed.” Paraphrasing Descartes (cogito ergo mundus talis est - I think, therefore the world is what it is), Wheeler aphoristically expressed the essence of the anthropic principle with the words: “Here is man; what should the universe be like? However, the anthropic principle has not yet received a generally accepted formulation. Among the formulations of the anthropic principle there are also clearly shocking, tautological ones (such as “The Universe in which we live is the Universe in which we live,” etc.).
The anthropic principle purports to answer the question: why is the Universe the way we observe it? The ideological urgency of this issue is due to the fact that the observable properties of the Universe are strictly related to the numerical values of a number of fundamental physical constants. If the values of these constants were even slightly different, then it would be impossible for the existence in the Universe of atoms, stars, galaxies, or the emergence of conditions that made it possible for the appearance of a person, an observer. As cosmologists put it, the Universe is “explosively unstable” to the numerical values of a certain set of fundamental constants, “fitted” to each other with extraordinary precision in such a way that highly organized structures, including humans, could arise in the Universe. In other words, a person could not have appeared in any Universe according to its properties. The corresponding conditions, identified by a set of fundamental constants, are limited within narrow limits.
In the development of the anthropic principle as a scientific principle, several stages can be distinguished: pre-relativistic, relativistic, quantum relativistic. Thus, the pre-relativistic stage covers the turn of the 19th–20th centuries. The English evolutionist A. Wallace made an attempt to rethink the Copernican understanding of man's place in the Universe on the basis of alternative ones, i.e. anti-Copernican ideas. This approach was also developed by Carter, who believes that, contrary to Copernicus, although man's position in the Universe is not central, it is inevitably in some sense privileged. In what sense exactly is a person, i.e. the earthly observer occupies a special position in the Universe, explain the modifications of the anthropic principle - the weak anthropic principle and the strong anthropic principle. According to the weak anthropic principle, the emergence of man in the expanding Universe must be associated with a certain era of evolution. The strong anthropic principle believes that man could only appear in the Universe with certain properties, i.e. our Universe is distinguished by the fact of our existence among other universes.
Usually the anthropic principle is discussed in terms of a dilemma: is it a physical principle or a philosophical one. This opposition is unfounded. What is usually meant by the anthropic principle, despite the simplicity and brevity of its formulation, actually has a heterogeneous structure. For example, in the structure of the strong anthropic principle, three levels can be distinguished: a) the level of the physical picture of the world (“The Universe is explosively unstable to changes in fundamental physical constants”); b) the level of the scientific picture of the world (“The Universe must be such that at some stage of evolution the appearance of man is allowed in it”); c) the level of philosophical and ideological interpretations, i.e. various types of explanations of the meaning of the anthropic principle, including theological explanations (“argument from design”), teleological explanations (man is the goal of the evolution of the Universe, given by a transcendental factor), explanations within the framework of the concepts of self-organization.
At the philosophical level, two types of interpretation of the anthropic principle oppose each other. It is understood, on the one hand, as follows: the objective properties of our Universe are such that at a certain stage of its evolution they led (or should have led) to the emergence of a cognizing subject; if the properties of the Universe were different, there would simply be no one to study them (A.L. Zelmanov, G.M. Idlis, I.L. Rosenthal, I.S. Shklovsky). On the other hand, when analyzing the meaning of the anthropic principle, the opposite emphasis can be placed: the objective properties of the Universe are such as we observe them because there is a cognizing subject, an observer (the principle of accomplice exclusively reduces the meaning of the anthropic principle to this).
The anthropic principle is a subject of debate in science and philosophy. Some authors believe that the anthropic principle contains an explanation of the structure of our Universe, the fine adjustment of physical constants and cosmological parameters. According to other authors, the anthropic principle does not contain any explanation in the proper sense of the word, and sometimes it is even considered an example of an erroneous scientific explanation. The heuristic role of the anthropic principle is sometimes considered by emphasizing only its physical content and depriving it of any sociocultural dimensions. The Universe, from this point of view, is an ordinary relativistic object, when studied, anthropic arguments look largely metaphorical. Another point of view is that the "human dimension" cannot be excluded from the anthropic principle.
Literature:
1. Barrow J.D., Tipler F.J. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxf., 1986;
2. Astronomy and the modern picture of the world. M., 1996.
V.V.Kazyutinsky
Anthropic principle- one of the fundamental principles of modern cosmology, which fixes the connection between the large-scale properties of our Universe (Metagalaxy) and the existence of a person, an observer, in it. The term “anthropic principle” was proposed by the English mathematician B. Carter (1973): “what we expect to observe must be limited by the conditions necessary for our existence as observers.” Along with the general formulation of the anthropic principle, its modifications are also known: “weak anthropic principle”, “strong anthropic principle”, “principle of participation” (“accomplice”) by J. Wheeler and “finalist anthropic principle” by F. Tipler. The formulation of the strong anthropic principle, according to Carter, states: “The Universe (and therefore the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such that at some stage of its evolution the existence of observers is allowed.” Paraphrasing Descartes (cogito ergo mundus talis est - I think, therefore the world is what it is), Wheeler aphoristically expressed the essence of the anthropic principle with the words: “Here is man; what should the universe be like? However, the anthropic principle has not yet received a generally accepted formulation. Among the formulations of the anthropic principle there are also clearly shocking, tautological ones (such as “The Universe in which we live is the Universe in which we live,” etc.).
The anthropic principle purports to answer the question: why is the Universe the way we observe it? The ideological urgency of this issue is due to the fact that the observable properties of the Universe are strictly related to the numerical values of a number of fundamental physical constants. If the values of these constants were even slightly different, then it would be impossible for the existence in the Universe of atoms, stars, galaxies, or the emergence of conditions that made it possible for the appearance of a person, an observer. As cosmologists put it, the Universe is “explosively unstable” to the numerical values of a certain set of fundamental constants, “fitted” to each other with extraordinary precision in such a way that highly organized structures, including humans, could arise in the Universe. In other words, a person could not have appeared in any Universe according to its properties. The corresponding conditions, identified by a set of fundamental constants, are limited within narrow limits.
In the development of the anthropic principle as a scientific principle, several stages can be distinguished: pre-relativistic, relativistic, quantum relativistic. Thus, the pre-relativistic stage covers the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. The English evolutionist A. Wallace made an attempt to rethink the Copernican understanding of man's place in the Universe on the basis of alternative, i.e., anti-Copernican, ideas. This approach was also developed by Carter, who believes that, contrary to Copernicus, although man's position in the Universe is not central, it is inevitably in some sense privileged. In what sense exactly does a person, i.e., an earthly observer, occupy a special position in the Universe, explain the modifications of the anthropic principle - the weak anthropic principle and the strong anthropic principle. According to the weak anthropic principle, the emergence of man in the expanding Universe must be associated with a certain era of evolution. The strong anthropic principle believes that a person could only appear in a Universe with certain properties, that is, our Universe is distinguished by the fact of our existence among other universes.
Usually the anthropic principle is discussed in terms of a dilemma: is it a physical principle or a philosophical one. This opposition is unfounded. What is usually meant by the anthropic principle, despite the simplicity and brevity of its formulation, actually has a heterogeneous structure. For example, in the structure of the strong anthropic principle, three levels can be distinguished: a) the level of the physical picture of the world (“The Universe is explosively unstable to changes in fundamental physical constants”), b) the level of the scientific picture of the world (“The Universe should be such that in it At some stage of evolution, the appearance of man was allowed"); c) the level of philosophical and ideological interpretations, i.e. various types of explanation of the meaning of the anthropic principle, including theological explanations (“argument from design”), teleological explanations (man is the goal of the evolution of the Universe, given by a transcendental factor), explanations within the framework of concepts self-organization.
At the philosophical level, two types of interpretation of the anthropic principle oppose each other. It is understood, on the one hand, as follows: the objective properties of our Universe are such that at a certain stage of its evolution they led (or should have led) to the emergence of a cognizing subject; if the properties of the Universe were different, there would simply be no one to study them (A. L. Zelmanov, G. M. Idlis, I. L. Rozental, I. S. Shklovsky). On the other hand, when analyzing the meaning of the anthropic principle, the opposite emphasis can be placed; the objective properties of the Universe are such as we observe them because there is a cognizing subject, an observer (the principle of participation exclusively reduces the meaning of the anthropic principle to this).
The anthropic principle is a subject of debate in science and philosophy. Some authors believe that the anthropic principle contains an explanation of the structure of our Universe, the fine adjustment of physical constants and cosmological parameters. According to other authors, the anthropic principle does not contain any explanation in the proper sense of the word, and sometimes it is even considered an example of an erroneous scientific explanation. The heuristic role of the anthropic principle is sometimes considered by emphasizing only its physical content and depriving it of any sociocultural dimensions. The Universe, from this point of view, is an ordinary relativistic object, when studied, anthropic arguments look largely metaphorical. Another point of view is that the "human dimension" cannot be excluded from the anthropic principle.
Lit.: Barrow J. O., Tipler f. J. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. xf., 1986; Astronomy and the modern picture of the world. M., 1996.
V. V. Kazyutinsky
New Philosophical Encyclopedia: In 4 vols. M.: Thought. Edited by V. S. Stepin. 2001.
Anthropic principle (Greek anthropos - man) - one of the principles of modern cosmology, which establishes the dependence of the existence of man as a complex system and cosmic being on the physical parameters of the Universe (in particular, on the fundamental physical constants - Planck’s constant, the speed of light, the mass of the proton and electron, etc. ). Physical calculations show that if at least one of the existing fundamental constants were to change (with other parameters remaining unchanged and all physical laws being preserved), then the existence of certain physical objects - nuclei, atoms, etc. - would become impossible (for example, if reduce the mass of the proton by only 30%, then in our physical world there would be no atoms except hydrogen atoms, and life would become impossible). Understanding these dependencies led to the advancement of A.P. in science and philosophy. There are various formulations of AP, but most often it is used in the form of two statements (weak and strong), put forward in 1973 by gravity theorist B. Carter. "Weak" A.P. states: “What we expect to observe must be limited by the conditions necessary for our existence as observers.” "Strong" A.P. says that “the Universe (and, therefore, the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such that at some stage of its evolution the existence of observers is allowed.” In other words, our world turned out to be “structured” so successfully that conditions arose in it under which a person could appear. It is obvious that in terms of worldview A.P. embodies the philosophical idea of the relationship between man and the Universe, put forward in antiquity and developed by a whole galaxy of philosophers and naturalists (Protagoras, Anaxagoras, Bruno, Tsiolkovsky, Vernadsky, Chizhevsky, Teilhard de Chardin, F. Crick, F. Dyson, F. Hoyle and others). A.P. allows for both religious and scientific interpretation. According to the first, the anthropic characteristics of the Universe look like “a confirmation of faith in a Creator who designed the world to meet exactly our requirements” (Hoyle). The scientific position is based on the thesis about the fundamental possibility of the natural existence of many worlds in which the most diverse combinations of physical parameters and laws are embodied. At the same time, in some worlds the simplest stationary physical states are realized, while in others the formation of complex physical systems is possible - including life in its diverse forms. The meaning of A.P. is increasing in our time, which is characterized by human cosmic activity and an increasingly serious turn of modern science towards humanistic issues.
The latest philosophical dictionary. - Minsk: Book House. A. A. Gritsanov. 1999.
| Comments: 0 |
Anthropocentrism (Greek anthropos - man, and Lat. centrum - center) is the view that man is the center and highest goal of the universe. In combination with theocentrism, which proclaims the existence of a supramundane goal-setting principle that creates a person and determines his place in the Universe.
For life to arise, a basis is required. Our Universe synthesized atomic nuclei at the initial stage of its history. The nuclei trap electrons to form atoms. Clusters of atoms formed galaxies, stars and planets. Finally, living things had a place to call home. We take it for granted that the laws of physics allow such structures to appear, but things could be different.
Lawrence Krauss
Over the last century, since the discovery of the expanding universe, science has begun to sketch the structure of all of outer space, attempting to describe a hundred billion galaxies and the beginning of space and time itself. It's amazing how quickly we have learned to understand the basics of everything from the formation of stars to the emergence of galaxies and the universe. And now, thanks to the predictive power of quantum physics, theoretical physicists are beginning to move even further - towards new universes and new physics, towards contradictions that were previously discussed exclusively within the framework of theology and philosophy.
Steven Weinberg
In his book, Steven Weinberg answers intriguing questions: "Why does every attempt to explain the laws of nature point to the need for a new, deeper analysis? Why are the best theories not only logical, but also beautiful? How will the final theory affect our philosophical worldview?"
According to the hypothesis, our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. That is, the physical world is mathematical in a certain sense. All mathematical structures that can be calculated exist. The hypothesis suggests that worlds corresponding to different sets of initial states, physical constants, or completely different equations can be considered equally real.
As you know, Galileo declared that the Universe is a “great book” written in the language of mathematics. Why does our Universe seem so mathematical to us? What does it mean? The universe is not only described by mathematics, but it itself is mathematics in the sense that we are all elements of a gigantic mathematical object, which, in turn, is part of a multiverse - so gigantic that in comparison with it the rest of the multiverses, oh which have been talked about in recent years look small.
Richard Dawkins
We do not see voids in atoms (as well as the atoms themselves), because this will not give us anything: after all, we are still not able to pass through the wall. It seems strange to us that in a vacuum a brick would fall at the same speed as a feather, because throughout the evolution of our brain we have experienced air resistance. Likewise, the water strider, says Dawkins, is not capable of perceiving volume, because its world is only a flat surface of water. Dawkins ends his lecture with a different question: is the human brain capable of studying the Universe? Can he overcome the limitations imposed by evolution?
Some scientists believe that our Universe is a giant computer simulation. Should we be worried about this? Are we real? What about me personally? Previously, only philosophers asked such questions. Scientists tried to understand what our world is like and explain its laws. But recent considerations regarding the structure of the Universe pose existential questions for science as well. Some physicists, cosmologists and artificial intelligence experts suspect that we are all living inside a giant computer simulation, mistaking the virtual world for reality.
Neil Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Richard Gott
This is the fourteenth annual Isaac Asimov Scientific Conference. This time, its host, Neil deGrasse Tyson, is leading a lively discussion about the “Existence of Nothingness” with a group of physicists, philosophers and journalists. The concept of "Nothing" is as old as "Zero" itself, and this debate will cover everything humanity knows about it. They will pave the way from the ancient Greeks, the equation "God created the world from Nothing", inherited from Christian metaphysics to modern research in the field of quantum gravity.
David Deutsch
The book by the famous American specialist in quantum theory and quantum computing, D. Deutsch, actually presents a new comprehensive point of view on the world, which is based on the four most profound scientific theories: quantum physics and its interpretation from the point of view of the plurality of worlds, Darwin's evolutionary theory, the theory of computation (in including quantum), theories of knowledge.
Idea V.I. Vernadsky’s idea of the direct dependence of civilization on the transformation of the biosphere into the sphere of Reason takes on a new meaning in connection with the anthropic principle, widely discussed in physics. And although more than a decade has passed since the “rediscovery” of the anthropic principle in physics, this problem not only has not lost its significance, but, on the contrary, the period of obvious rejection of it by physicists has been replaced by attempts to integrate the “anthropic principle” into all cosmological models of evolution currently being developed Universe.
Almost all philosophical and religious traditions, for which the question of the place and role of man in the world was of paramount importance, raised problems that are addressed by the anthropic principle. As is known, the ancient Greek culture had a special influence on the development of modern science, in whose bosom various cosmogonic versions of the structure of the Universe arose. The variety of models proposed by the thinkers of Ancient Greece is a consequence of the foundations of their teachings, meanwhile, they all had an essential similarity in considering Man as an element of the cosmos. In the Christian tradition, there is a rethinking of the place of Man in the world order: Man is now not just an element of the cosmos, but the master of nature, therefore, the planet on which Man lives is certainly the center of the Universe. The teachings of Copernicus lay the foundation for a new approach, according to which the Earth is deprived of its distinguished position and is considered as the most ordinary astronomical object. The Christian Church's rejection of the heliocentric model of the world proposed by Copernicus is connected precisely with the defense of man's special privileged place in the Universe.
Attention to the “anthropic” problem arose in connection with the report “Coincidences of large numbers and the anthropological principle in cosmology” by the famous astrophysicist Brandon Carter, made in 1973 in Krakow at the International Symposium dedicated to the 500th anniversary of the birth of Nicolaus Copernicus. B. Carter draws special attention to the fact that by denying the distinguished position of the Earth in cosmic dynamics, Copernicus laid the foundation for a tradition that influenced scientific thought for four centuries. Meanwhile, the presence of fine tuning of numbers in the Universe indicates, at least, the atypicality of our position in it.
Shortly before B. Carter's speech, Robert Dicke showed that a necessary prerequisite for our existence are the factors that created favorable conditions for the existence of life in our Universe (temperature, the chemical composition of the environment, the age of the Universe, its local heterogeneity, etc.). The arguments put forward by Dicke have been interpreted in the scientific literature as a version of the weak anthropic principle.
Carter focuses on the exceptional consistency of physical constants, small deviations in the values of which would lead to completely different consequences. The structural units of matter that are important for our existence owe their properties to coincidences of numbers that are built from fundamental constants that describe all known physical interactions. The exact “adjustment” of the initial parameters of the expansion of the Universe, which predetermined the specific properties of our Universe and, ultimately, led to the emergence of Life, is also surprising. If the sequence of physical constants and values of certain quantities were different, then there would be no one to ask why the world is this way and not another. These coincidences of large numbers served as the basis for Carter’s introduction of the strong anthropic principle. The question arises, what kind of coincidence of large numbers are we talking about? To get acquainted with it in detail, we refer the interested reader to works that provide a detailed analysis of this problem. The strong anthropic principle, which in Carter's formulation reads as follows: “The Universe must be such that at some stage of evolution the existence of an observer is allowed in it,” essentially states that the Universe is obviously adapted for the existence of life.
From the point of view of philosophical justification, the weak anthropic principle is in principle not new. Essentially, this poses the problem of studying the prerequisites for the emergence of the Universe of our type from the point of view of the existence of life in it. This approach distinguished many domestic scientists - A.L. Zelmanova, G.I. Naana, G.M. Idlisa, I.S. Shklovsky and others, expressing ideas that lie in the same vein as the weak anthropic principle. The version of the strong anthropic principle includes a goal-setting aspect. pre-establishing the direction of evolution towards the main goal - the emergence of Man. No doubt this immediately brought the strong version of the anthropic principle under the most severe criticism. V.V. Kazyutinsky, pointing out the extravagance of the strong version, notes that “the reference to a person in the structure of a cosmological explanation has always seemed to be something beyond the boundaries of accepted scientific standards... The modality of obligation is by no means characteristic of scientific principles - unlike, for example, ethical principles.” The requirement of a strong anthropic principle can easily be used as evidence of the "argument from design", that is, it allows for theological explanation through transcendental forces. Such argumentation can only be countered by an explanation from the point of view of self-development, self-organization of the world, which lies in the same tone with the content of Vernadsky’s teaching on the noosphere.
The development of science over the past thirty years shows that the strong anthropic principle not only does not go beyond the scope of scientific explanation, but, on the contrary, expands the boundaries of physical interpretation in connection with the study of such an object as the cosmological vacuum, which differs from other structural units of matter in its ability to undergo gravitational repulsion. In the scientific literature, it is the vacuum that is considered as the progenitor of the entire diversity of the physical world during the evolution of the Universe. At the modern stage of knowledge of the world, three vacuum subsystems are distinguished, considered as different manifestations of a single universal vacuum structure: electromagnetic and weak, combined into a single electroweak subsystem, described using the concept of the existence of a Higgs vacuum condensate (H-bosons); quark-gluon vacuum condensate (chromodynamic vacuum); a subsystem introduced by Dirac, representing zero-point oscillations of various fields. The authors' work shows that the specific values of the masses of elementary particles and the values of the constants of fundamental interactions, which make up the fine tuning of the Universe with the Man inhabiting it, are formed by the properties of the vacuum. Thus, the electron mass arises due to the interaction of the electron-positron field with the Higgs vacuum condensate. As a result of this interaction, the electron acquires such a “suitable” (from possible others) mass value that ensures the existence of a universe suitable for life. The “necessary” masses of protons and neutrons are formed according to a different principle: due to the non-zero masses of quarks and the energy of the rearranged intranucleon quark-gluon condensate. As for the constants of fundamental interactions, the intensity of strong interactions, on which the formation and properties of nuclei more complex than the hydrogen nucleus depend, is determined by the specific restructuring of the vacuum state outside the nucleons. In other words, the quantitative characteristics of the quark-gluon condensate are also adjusted in a unique way to ensure the possibility of the existence of life. The intensity of weak and electromagnetic interactions is determined by the degree of polarization of vacuum zero-point oscillations. The rate of cosmological expansion of the Universe is formed by all vacuum subsystems.
Analyzing the available knowledge about the properties of matter on micro- and macroscales, obtained experimentally at accelerators and from astrophysical and astronomical observations, taking into account the theoretical interpretation of these facts within the framework of a modern quantum field research program, the authors conclude that in the mechanism of implementation of the anthropic principle all the subsystems of the physical vacuum known in theory are involved, which, in turn, indicates that “vacuum is a hierarchical and complex structure with many connections between its elements. This can be considered a completely established scientific understanding of the structure of the vacuum. Modern science has also established that complex systems with a large number of functional connections have the property of self-organization. Therefore, it seems quite natural to assume that vacuum also has this property.” At the present time, there is no theory within the framework of which a complete explanation of the anthropic principle would be given. Meanwhile, in science, the point of view expressed by Andrei Linde is increasingly asserting itself that “you cannot fully understand what the Universe is without first understanding what life is.” It is clear that such a theory must combine the self-organizing regime of vacuum evolution, which determines both the global properties of the Universe and the local characteristics of the structural units of matter, and such mutual consistency of these properties that they act as necessary grounds for the existence of Life and Mind. If we talk about the self-organization of the world, then the rigid opposition between matter and consciousness existing in the modern philosophical tradition excludes the possibility of solving the problem and clearly narrows the search area. The work makes an attempt to methodologically substantiate the anthropic principle based on the ideas expressed by E.V. Ilyenkov, about matter as a substance, the necessary development processes of which “at some stage give birth to a thinking brain as an attribute.” In this case, Spinoza's understanding of the attribute is used as a form of movement of matter, which is an absolutely necessary product of its existence.
The above reasoning again leads us to Vernadsky’s idea about the cosmic nature of the mind, about the noosphere. The term “noosphere” in the philosophy of V.I. Vernadsky is considered as a purely spiritual phenomenon, as a “thinking layer”, in connection with which he puts forward a hypothesis about the immortality of the soul: “Recognition of the immortality of the soul is possible even with atheism. It is more necessary for a person than the recognition of the existence of God,” “In essence, for the complete satisfaction of a person, one question is important - the question not about deity, but about the immortality of the individual.” The question of the immortality of the soul, the immortality of human thought, human consciousness is embodied in the approaches expressed by modern physicists. Thus, Linde notes: “The study of the Universe and the study of consciousness are inextricably linked with each other, and final progress in one area is impossible without progress in the other. After creating a unified geometric description of all types of interactions, wouldn’t the next important stage be the development of a unified approach to our entire world, including the inner world of man?” So the conviction of V.I. Vernadsky that “life is not a random phenomenon in world evolution, but a closely related consequence of it”, in the light of the latest development of natural science, is refracted into a problem of a moral and ethical nature about the world-historical meaning of Human activity, which perhaps fulfills an attributive mission in the processes of self-organization of the system of the entire world cycle. And the issue of the formation of correlative interaction between people, the formation of noospheric thinking is put on the agenda.
The work was carried out with financial support from the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation (project No. 10-03-00015a).
Carter B. Coincidences of large numbers and the anthropological principle in cosmology / Cosmology: Theories and Observations. - M., 1978. - P.369-379.
Dicke R. Gravitation and the Universe. - M., 1972.
Davis P. Random Universe. - M., 1985; Zhdanov Yu.A., Minasyan L.A. The anthropic principle and “Cosmology of the spirit” // Scientific thought of the Caucasus. - T. 4. - 2000. - P. 3-22.
Carter B. Coincidences of large numbers and the anthropological principle in cosmology / Cosmology: Theories and Observations. - M., 1978. - P. 373.
Kazyutinsky V.V. The anthropic principle in the scientific picture of the world // Astronomy and the modern picture of the world. - M., 1996. - P. 165.
Latypov N.N., Beilin V.A., Vereshkov G.M. Vacuum, elementary particles and the Universe. - M., 2001.
Latypov N.N., Beilin V.A., Vereshkov G.M. Vacuum, elementary particles and the Universe. - M., 2001. - P. 155.
Linde A.D. Particle physics and inflationary cosmology. - M., 1990. - P. 246.
Zhdanov Yu.A., Minasyan L.A. The anthropic principle and “Cosmology of the spirit” // Scientific thought of the Caucasus. - T.4. - 2000. - P. 3-22.
Ilyenkov E.V. Philosophy and culture. - M., 1991. - P. 431.
Vernadsky V.I. The basis of life is the search for truth // New World. - 1988. - No. 3. - P. 208.
Vernadsky V.I. The basis of life is the search for truth // New World. - 1988. - No. 3. - P. 214.
Linde A.D. Particle physics and inflationary cosmology. - M., 1990. - P. 248.
Vernadsky V.I. Living matter. - M.: Nauka, 1978. - P. 37.
Bibliographic link
Minasyan L.A. THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE AND THE FORMATION OF NOOSPHERIC THINKING // Advances in modern natural science. – 2011. – No. 1. – P. 118-120;URL: http://natural-sciences.ru/ru/article/view?id=15716 (access date: 09/10/2019). We bring to your attention magazines published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural Sciences"
Carter identified two different formulations: weak AP and strong AP. He formulated weak AP in this way: “our position in the Universe is necessarily privileged in the sense that it must be compatible with our existence in the Universe.” A strong AP says: “The Universe (and, therefore, the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such that at some stage of evolution it allows the existence of observers.” The difference between a weak and a strong AP is as follows. Weak AP applies to parameters that depend on the current age of the Universe. Strong AP applies to parameters that do not depend on age. When using weak AP, we are talking about the person’s position in the time scale. An example is the prediction of the relationship between Ho and atomic constants (section 4.3). As we have seen, in this case the AP leads to the relation
where To is the current age of the Universe.
The age of the Universe T is not its constant characteristic; it changes over time, it can be more or less. If the age is T Є Ts, the Universe remains lifeless; if T є T, life in the Universe is also impossible. This means that the observer can exist only during the period of time when the age of the Universe is To ~ Ts. This places a limitation on the observer's position in the time scale - a limitation that is a consequence of the natural laws of nature. There is no privilege for the observer here. It’s just that it can appear only when the necessary conditions are ripe, and exists as long as the conditions allow its existence. Outside of this context, the formulation stating that our position is privileged (and even necessarily privileged) gives reason to perceive it as a kind of tribute to anthropocentrism.
Since strong AP is applied to parameters that do not depend on the age of the Universe, it imposes a limitation not on the position of a person in time, but on the parameters inherent in the Universe itself. In this sense, the restrictions are stronger, hence the name: strong AP. Since there is life and an observer in the Universe, conditions must allow its existence, regardless of when and how it arises. After all, if they do not allow this, then the observer can never arise. For example, if the dimension of physical space is N - 3, a person will not be able to exist in such a Universe, regardless of its age. In order for a person to appear in the Universe at some stage, it is necessary that N = 3. This is exactly what a strong AP asserts.
Of course, if we take the above statements literally, then we must admit that here the cause and effect have changed places. In reality, the Universe is not like this because a person exists in it, but a person exists in the Universe because exactly those conditions from the set of possible ones were realized in it, which turned out to be permissible for the existence of life (and the observer) in it. But since this has already happened, and we exist, then the observed properties of the Universe cannot be other than those that are required for life in it to become possible. Of course, one can judge the cause by the effect. But at the same time, one should not pass off the effect as the cause.
It is possible to formulate two extreme assumptions that justify the AP: 1) intelligence in our Metagalaxy is an absolutely random phenomenon, which became possible only thanks to the unlikely, but realized coincidence of many independent physical parameters; 2) the presence of biological and social forms of movement is a natural consequence of the development of the Universe, and all its physical characteristics are interconnected and interdependent in such a way that they necessarily cause the emergence of intelligence.