Anthropic principal.

[Totoro]

The Anthropic Argument: Nature Is the Way It Is Because We Exist

According to every experiment, the constants of nature appear to be constant.

www.universetoday.com

Nicely written but short article.

At the core of it I agree, things are the way they are so we can be here.

What do you think.. How did this happen? Why did it happen or through what process? Do you think anyone specifically made everything if not, how do you think everything came to be?

In this forum we often talk about and debate why we're here, which we all more or less agree is to learn. But what about the above questions? I think they're equally important

 

[baro-san]

anthropic:
of or pertaining to mankind or humans, or the period of humanity's existence
from Ancient Greek ἄνθρωπικός (ánthrōpikós, “pertaining to human”)

 

[baro-san]

I believe that the only way to address such questions is to tap your inner source of knowledge and guidance while leaving aside all your beliefs and expectations.

A simple way of starting is imagining you're asking yourself the same question while you're dreaming. All those fine tuned constants will seem irrelevant.

 

[Cyrus]

The Anthropic Argument: Nature Is the Way It Is Because We Exist

According to every experiment, the constants of nature appear to be constant.

www.universetoday.com

Nicely written but short article.

At the core of it I agree, things are the way they are so we can be here.

What do you think.. How did this happen? Why did it happen or through what process? Do you think anyone specifically made everything if not, how do you think everything came to be?

In this forum we often talk about and debate why we're here, which we all more or less agree is to learn. But what about the above questions? I think they're equally important

When a universe is created (as a result of some kind of a Big Bang or in some other way), many of its parameters get established at hazard, accidentally. E,g,, there may well be universes where the nuclear forces are much weaker or much stronger than in ours, so in those universes neither stars nor galaxies can form (the nuclear fusion, that maintains the Solar radiation along billions of years is there impossible).
And so on.
The very position of Earth at approx. 150 million km from the Sun is a casualty (Venus and Mars have had much less luck in this).
And so on and so on.
It's all just casualty.
The Earth is suitable for our life on it not through somebody's design, but simply because if it were not, there would not be here us to state the fact.

Best regards.

 

[baro-san]

Chatgpt:

“The universe seems fine-tuned for life only because life is what tunes the universe into view.”

 

[Totoro]

When a universe is created (as a result of some kind of a Big Bang or in some other way), many of its parameters get established at hazard, accidentally. E,g,, there may well be universes where the nuclear forces are much weaker or much stronger than in ours, so in those universes neither stars nor galaxies can form (the nuclear fusion, that maintains the Solar radiation along billions of years is there impossible).
And so on.
The very position of Earth at approx. 150 million km from the Sun is a casualty (Venus and Mars have had much less luck in this).
And so on and so on.
It's all just casualty.
The Earth is suitable for our life on it not through somebody's design, but simply because if it were not, there would not be here us to state the fact.

Best regards.

Consider if you will the so-called axis of evil in the CMB that seemed to foretell the coming of our own solar system at the creation of the universe.

How would you explain that then?

 

[Totoro]

Chatgpt:

Point to consider, why would the universe need to observe itself?

 

[Cyrus]

Consider if you will the so-called axis of evil in the CMB that seemed to foretell the coming of our own solar system at the creation of the universe.

How would you explain that then?

I cannot take seriously any foretelling - it's like a witchcraft for me.
I'm pure materialist. The universe is created with lots of parameters which accidentally acquire some casual values,
Nobody's design here. It's all just pure chance.

Axis of evil (cosmology)

The "axis of evil" is a name given to a purported correlation between the plane of the Solar System and aspects of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Such a correlation would give the plane of the Solar System and hence the location of Earth a greater significance than might be expected by chance, a result which has been claimed to be evidence of a departure from the Copernican principle.[1] However, a 2016 study compared isotropic and anisotropic cosmological models against WMAP and Planck data and found no evidence for anisotropy.

 

[Totoro]

I wouldn't trust Wikipedia. I'm finding it, like AI, tend to skew towards safe, reductionist, definitely no answers when a simple "it's inconclusive" would do.

There's more evidence for than against, I think, in my opinion.. from what I've seen out there.

However that said, I would agree the answer is inconclusive, but it's something to definitely ponder.


---

What is the “Axis of Evil”

It refers to a number of large-angle anomalies in the CMB. In particular:

1. The quadrupole (ℓ = 2) and octopole (ℓ = 3) moments seem to have axes that are unusually aligned with one another.


2. These axes also appear to correlate (more than expected by chance) with the ecliptic — the plane of the Solar System — or with the motion of the Solar System / cosmic dipole direction.


3. There are other large-scale anomalies, such as lack of correlation on very large angular scales (> ~60 degrees), a “cold spot,” etc., which may be related.





---

Observational Evidence Supporting Non-Accidental Nature

Here are the observations / analyses that suggest the Axis of Evil is not just a chance fluctuation:

1. Multiple Data Sets
The features (quadrupole-octopole alignment, lack of angular correlation, etc.) have been seen in WMAP data and also in Planck data, which have different instruments and systematics. Having confirmation in independent experiments strengthens the case that it’s not just a measurement artifact.


2. Statistical Tests Showing Unusually Low Probability under Standard Model
Some studies have done Monte Carlo analyses (simulating many universes under the standard ΛCDM cosmology, assumed isotropic Gaussian fluctuations) and compared how often random skies would produce alignments as strong as what is observed. For example:

The 2007 paper Correlating anomalies of the microwave sky: The Good, the Evil and the Axis (Rakić & Schwarz et al.) finds that the joint likelihood of both the lack of large-angle correlation and the quadrupole-octopole alignment is incompatible with standard ΛCDM at more than 99.95% confidence level.

The alignment and signed-intensity anomaly analyses (e.g. Vielva et al.) find global significance levels around ~1% for certain features.



3. Analyses with Masking, Foreground Subtraction, Polarization
To guard against contamination from our Galaxy, or from other astrophysical foregrounds, or instrumental effects, some studies:

Use masks to exclude regions with strong foregrounds.

Use different full-sky reconstructions (e.g. LGMCA maps) intended to reduce foreground residuals.

Look at polarization data (part of the CMB signal that is independent in some sense from the temperature anisotropies) to see if the alignment shows up there too. For example, Frommert & Enßlin (2009) looked for alignment of quadrupole / octopole in uncorrelated polarization maps and found the quadrupole axis (but not octopole) roughly aligned, though with large measurement uncertainty.


These efforts help reduce the chance that what we see is just due to foregrounds, or uneven sky coverage, or instrument artifacts.


4. Checks on “Masking / Data Processing / Mask Biases”
Some of the anomaly significance depends on how you treat masking (i.e. removing or ignoring contaminated parts of the sky, e.g. parts near the Galactic plane) or how the map is processed. Studies have explored whether these methodological choices affect the anomaly, and they find that some anomalies (especially the quadrupole-octopole alignment) persist under a variety of masks and map reconstructions.

Correlating anomalies of the microwave sky: The Good, the Evil and the Axis

At the largest angular scales the presence of a number of unexpected features has been confirmed by the latest measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Among them are the anomalous alignment of the quadrupole and octopole with each other as well as the stubborn lack of angular...

arxiv.org

Alignment and signed-intensity anomalies in WMAP data

Significant alignment and signed-intensity anomalies of local features of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) are detected on the three-year WMAP data, through a decomposition of the signal with steerable wavelets on the sphere. Firstly, an alignment analysis identifies two mean preferred...

arxiv.org

Planck CMB Anomalies: Astrophysical and Cosmological Secondary Effects and the Curse of Masking

Large-scale anomalies have been reported in CMB data with both WMAP and Planck data. These could be due to foreground residuals and or systematic effects, though their confirmation with Planck data suggests they are not due to a problem in the WMAP or Planck pipelines. If these anomalies are in...

arxiv.org

Planck CMB Anomalies: Astrophysical and Cosmological Secondary Effects and the Curse of Masking

Large-scale anomalies have been reported in CMB data with both WMAP and Planck data. These could be due to foreground residuals and or systematic effects, though their confirmation with Planck data suggests they are not due to a problem in the WMAP or Planck pipelines. If these anomalies are in...

arxiv.org

 

[baro-san]

Point to consider, why would the universe need to observe itself?

That isn't what that quote means.

The quote doesn’t mean the universe needs to observe itself, as if it had a purpose or intent. It means something simpler: without observation, there is no universe to speak of.

When we talk about “constants,” “laws,” or “fine-tuning,” those are all patterns we extract from experience. If no experience occurs, then there are no patterns to measure and no constants to define. In that sense, what we call “the universe” is inseparable from the fact that it is observed.

So the point isn’t that the universe requires us, but that our very idea of a universe is already bound up with observation. Life doesn’t appear precariously in a preexisting universe; rather, what we call “universe” is the structured field of experience made possible by life/awareness.

“It’s not that the universe needs to observe itself, but that without observation there’s nothing to call a universe. The constants, laws, and ‘fine-tuning’ are patterns we extract from experience—no experience, no universe to describe.”

If that is your opinion, then I disagree: the universe doesn't observe itself.

There are two hypotheses with endless number of variations. One is that we are (each one of us is) on a path of evolvement; the other is that we are fully evolved (parts of a perfect oneness), we intentionally forgot it in order to follow a path of discovering what we are. The former is a school model; the latter is a game model. The former is a purposeful model; the latter is a purposeless model. Nothing is purposeless.

 

[baro-san]

This thread reminds of "The Three-Body Problem":

When the members of the Frontiers of Science discussed physics, they often used the abbreviation “SF.” They didn’t mean “science fiction,” but the two words “shooter” and “farmer.” This was a reference to two hypotheses, both involving the fundamental nature of the laws of the universe.

In the shooter hypothesis, a good marksman shoots at a target, creating a hole every ten centimeters. Now suppose the surface of the target is inhabited by intelligent, two-dimensional creatures. Their scientists, after observing the universe, discover a great law: “There exists a hole in the universe every ten centimeters.” They have mistaken the result of the marksman’s momentary whim for an unalterable law of the universe.

The farmer hypothesis, on the other hand, has the flavor of a horror story: Every morning on a turkey farm, the farmer comes to feed the turkeys. A scientist turkey, having observed this pattern to hold without change for almost a year, makes the following discovery: “Every morning at eleven, food arrives.” On the morning of Thanksgiving, the scientist announces this law to the other turkeys. But that morning at eleven, food doesn’t arrive; instead, the farmer comes and kills the entire flock.

 

[Totoro]

That isn't what that quote means.



If that is your opinion, then I disagree: the universe doesn't observe itself.

Generally, the saying goes "the universe gave rise to life, so that it could observe itself".

I agree that no, the universe doesn't or has no need to observe itself.

I do think thought the universe needs to be observed, as a fundamental, given the dual slit experiment. Waveforms can't collapse into matter if they aren't observed.

What do you think the quote means?

 

[Cyrus]

Waveforms ARE material, just like the particles (protons, electrons etc.) they represent.
Nobody really knows whether an electron is a particle or a wave.
In quantum mechanics it's described as a wave (with a corresponding wave-function), but when detected experimentally - it's a particle, a point, as its corresponding wave can only be detected as a whole, never only partially.
The "collapse" is just a form of saying. It's not at all like collapsing of a star, e.g.
Nothing really collapses.
Talking of waves is really talking about distributions of PROBABILITIES of detecting an electron (as a particle) in some concrete point of space, whether observed or not.
Therefore, no observer is needed at all.

Best regards.

 

[Totoro]

Without an observer, "it" exists in a state of super position, that is all possible states at once.

Collapsing just means when observed, as you said, we measure a particle.

In its unmeasured or unobserved state, it exists as pure energy or a "wave".

So here's a question... Nobody is currently observing far distant galaxies, the far side of the moon and so on.

But when we look, it's there and we can tell from observable evidence that it has been there before we observed it.

So given this sort of paradox, how can something exist and persist, without someone observing it?

 

[cloud potato]

I haven't looked too deeply into this thread, Totoro- so I hope you don't mind my interjection. Just an idea that springs up reading your post.

Nobody is currently observing far distant galaxies, the far side of the moon and so on.

But when we look, it's there and we can tell from observable evidence that it has been there before we observed it.

So given this sort of paradox, how can something exist and persist, without someone observing it?

How do we know nobody is observing far distant galaxies- and... "Witness" or "Observer" as consciousness- is this strictly a human experience?

 

[Totoro]

It was more a thought provoking question or thought experiment on my part. I was trying to stimulate some discussion.

But the idea of the question is, take object X out in space. Nobody (conscious beings of one kind or another within the universe) has ever seen it before.

Some space faring race of beings comes across object X for the first time ever. Before that, nobody had ever seen / observed it.

These space travelers realize object X has always existed, more or less. It has impact craters and other evidence that it has existed at least for some duration of time.

So if no conscious being in this universe observed object X, how could it it exist in an enduring state? Given the above dual slit experiment.

It's kind of like the old joke.. is the refrigerator light still on when you shut the door?

What I'm getting at is that object X stays steady in its state, despite being unobserved. In that the energy is discretely arranged into the atoms that make up the matter within it, rather than existing as pure energy or potential until observed.

It is a kind of paradox..

 

[cloud potato]

Mission accomplished. ^_^ Yes thought provoking, definitely. Lately I am wondering more about what constitutes a body. I am feeling more expanded than my physical body. I am so used to identifying solely through the physical medium, that it is hard to see aspects "outside" myself as "self" but it is an area or "space" I am interested in and am exploring.

 

[baro-san]

The double-slit experiment key point: It’s not the act of looking with human eyes that changes the outcome—it’s whether the experimental setup contains information about the path. If the apparatus makes the which-slit information available in principle, interference disappears, even if nobody actually checks the record.

What the double-slit suggests about the nature of facts is that they are not fundamental givens waiting to be uncovered—they are resolutions within a context.
So rather than asking what the particle is doing in isolation, the gestalt perspective says:

The pattern is a property of the whole configuration. Change any part of the whole, and the phenomenon itself is different.

It dissolves the puzzle of “why does observation change things?” by treating the experimental arrangement + outcome as a single inseparable figure-ground relationship. The particle is never just “itself”—it is always what it is within that gestalt context.

So:

• System = particle + two open slits + no detectors.
  • What it is: a whole where the two paths are indistinguishable.
  • What it does: generates interference.
• System = particle + slits + detectors providing path information.
  • What it is: a whole where paths are distinguishable.
  • What it does: produces a particle-like, no-interference pattern.

 

[Totoro]

What the double-slit suggests about the nature of facts is that they are not fundamental givens waiting to be uncovered—they are resolutions within a context.

Functionally there's very little difference between saying "consciously observed" and saying introducing a detector into the experiment always produces a particle, even if the results aren't reviewed. Because of course, at some point, someone looked at the results for confirmation and the basis of scientific inquiry is testable, repeatable results. So that whole idea initself is a contradiction.

However.. what has not been touched upon is the idea that the energy itself, almost seems to conform to expectation by producing a particle in the presence of a detector. Does that imply that the energy itself is intelligent and aware that it's being measured or observed?

Why does it not continue to produce an interference pattern in the presence of the detector as well, if it does not conform to expectation?

 

[Ocean]

It's probably preaching to the choir, but anyway...

The double slit experiment is much misunderstood by laymen and the general public. The confusion comes about because many people don’t understand what an “observation” (or “taking a measurement” or “collecting data”) means in the submicroscopic world of quantum particles: how it is done in order for us, macroscopic beings, to get and see the results, and what it does to the measured quantum particle as a consequence.

We are familiar with observation and taking a measurement in the macroscopic world as a passive process that doesn’t change the state or behavior of the observed/measured object. When you look at a piece of paper lying on the table, this doesn’t do anything to the paper. Light is scattered of of it and hits the retina in your eye, which in turn triggers a biochemical reaction. The paper is not affected by this process on a macroscopic level. When you measure the velocity of a car by taking the time between two defined points on the road when it passes by, this again doesn’t affect the car. It doesn’t change its velocity or direction, the car doesn’t look different, it doesn’t behave different because you measured it.

But when we deal with submicroscopic particles like electrons, measurement is not passive anymore. Because they are so small we can’t just see them. And because we live in a macroscopic world, we have to interact with the quantum particle somehow to be able to detect it with a macroscopic device (= to make a measurement). For example, this is done by hitting the electron with a photon (light particle), another submicroscopic particle. (For a piece of paper a photon is small and carries very small energy. But for an electron a single photon carries a significant amount of energy compared to itself. )This changes the energy level of the electron itself, it gets “illuminated”, and we can in the end detect this interaction (“illumination”) with our device. That’s how we know where the electron is located. But because of this interaction the electron has changed significantly in its nature and behavior. By detecting it with a macroscopic device its wave-nature was destroyed and it was forced to behave like a particle (by getting hit with a photon in this case). Every measurement we perform on submicroscopic particles will be a process of interacting on a submicroscopic level with these particles and with the quantum system as a whole, which in turn changes its behavior in comparison to when it is left alone and doesn’t interact with anything.

This doesn’t have anything to do with there being a conscious observer, with someone looking at the results or not, or with consciousness changing the outcome. It’s the measurement being an active process, an interaction with the system, that makes a change to it.

The following comparison isn’t perfect, but imagine shooting with rockets at a car racing by in order to detect where it is and how fast it goes. When the rocket hits the car, you then wonder why the car has changed its course and why it looks demolished now. You then conclude the car must have known it is observed and because of this it changed its behavior and appearance on its own.

All this doesn’t mean that we totally understand the wave-particle-duality and all the other seemingly paradox phenomena of the quantum world. We don’t. It also doesn’t mean that we know exactly where the quantum/submicroscopic world ends and where the macroscopic world begins, in which classical physical laws apply instead of quantum mechanic laws. We don’t know that either.

For those interested in the topic, Quantum-Field-Theory is the current best theory science has to offer to understand the quantum world and to explain many of its paradoxes.

So if no conscious being in this universe observed object X, how could it it exist in an enduring state? Given the above dual slit experiment.

The laws of quantum mechanics apply only to very small, subatomic particles. The Moon or any object in space is a macroscopic object. Quantum mechanic laws don’t apply to it. There is no paradox here. Not in physics. An observation of an object in space is a passive process that doesn’t bring about any significant change to it (unless you make it collide with another object for your observation). The object exists the same way independently from any observer and any observer will see the same. At least, that’s the understanding of physics and science and that’s what we experience in everyday life (i.e. in the macroscopic world).

In philosophy or spirituality, when thinking about the nature of reality and consciousness you may have different ideas and come to a different conclusion. But then the double-slit-experiment and physics have nothing to do with this.

 

[Ocean]

the energy itself, almost seems to conform to expectation by producing a particle in the presence of a detector

There is no passive presence of a detector for subatomic particles. When the detector takes a measurement it does that by an interaction with the measured electron which changes its nature and behavior.

Why does it not continue to produce an interference pattern in the presence of the detector as well

The detector by making a measurement interacts with it, (hits it with photons, makes it hit a screen and interact with the atoms in it, makes it interact with an electro-magnetic field, whatever… This forces the electrons to lose their wave-nature and behave like particles. Therefore they can‘t behave like a wave anymore and form no interference pattern.

Edit: See my next post

 

[baro-san]

When you think that objects are actually gestalts of (gestalts of, ...) particles ...

 

[Ocean]

Actually, I just learned that measurement at one of the slits changes the experiment from a double slit to a single slit. While an electron gets detected going through one slit like it was a particle, it still behaves like a wave, interferes with itself and forms a different interference pattern: the pattern that is known for waves from a single-slit-experiment. This example of wave-particle-duality is even more amazing.