AG’s sneaky caption this time is “. . . we are the universe made manifest, trying to figure itself out. — Delenn or Carl Sagan.” It’s apparently a quote from Delenn who is apparently some scifi character who says portentous things. Carl Sagan was real; also said portentous things; and undoubtedly said something like that, probably in a book called The Pale Blue Dot when he talked about the anthropic principle.
I’m fond of the anthropic principle because I published my first feature on it. But it’s an Alice-in-Wonderland rabbit hole of an idea. In its simplest form, it says that of all the possible ways the universe could have evolved, it must have taken the path that ended in us. As astrophysicist, David Hogg, says, “No duh.” Theorists use it to understand how the universe began: the infant universe couldn’t have had, say, a gravitational force so small that we now wouldn’t stick to the earth.
Its more complex forms — even the ones that are more scientific than philosophical, let alone religious — just make my head hurt. I’m steadfastly avoiding the the websites of the Wonderland. I’m not even going to link to them. You can google them if you like, but I don’t recommend it. Ok, if you really have to, then here. But don’t come complaining to me afterward.
Crikey. I’d heard of the anthropic principle, but had put it down to angels dancing on pinheads, an argument based on a false premise – ‘Because we’re here, it must have been set up for us to be here’ – to legitimise intelligent design and all that claptrap. But having done a bit of looking things up this afternoon, all those physical constants and the way they mesh together do seem to stretch the laws of probability, no?
I just said right there, my Tim, that I would not go along with these researches. Yes, the physical constants do look like a line of pins balancing on their points. But do you really want to be using good brain power on how the theory of inflation allows for other universes with other sets of constants? or on how the many worlds interpretation of quantum theory does the same? I mean, jeez.
Erm, no. Not mine, anyway, I’ll stick with cryptic crosswords (only two dimensions rather than eleven or whatever). But, curiosity about stuff we’ll never know for sure is necessary, isn’t it? Isn’t it?
Of course you’re right about curiosity. I just get impatient and quarrelsome.
So if they’re going to come up with some kind of unified field theory of everything, they’ll have to factor impatience and quarrelsomeness into the equations as well, won’t they?
Sorry Ann, being facetious. This is a serious blog. But plug all that in to the cosmic joke – you have to laugh, don’t you?
Very interesting post. Yes, the physical constants do look like a line of pins balancing on their points. I agreed on it. I am curious to know it. Thanks…