The anthropic principle and the "strangeness" of the Bible Bashny.Net

The mystery of the origin of life and, consequently, human consciousness, scientific in their understanding in recent decades acquired new shades. The rapid, the rapid development of knowledge about the structure of our Universe led to the discovery of certain regularities, called the anthropocentric ("human", "man-centered") cosmological principle.



The essence of this principle is to ensure that if the structure of the world very little other life in our Universe and, consequently, the emergence of man would be impossible. All this became obvious to many scientists somewhere in the middle of the last century. But the most complete formulation of this principle in two ways — strong and weak — he gave in the early 70s, the American astrophysicist and cosmologist Brandon Carter. And in 1986 he published voluminous work (over 700 pages of very fine print text) American and British physicists John barrow and Frank j. Tipler "Anthropic cosmological principle", which analyzed a large number of fundamental parameters that directly affect the possibility of the emergence and existence of life in the Universe.





The cover of the book, barrow and Tipler

All these parameters belong to the so-called free parameters. That is why they are not any other at least to date, science is not known. These settings include gravitational constant, speed of light in vacuum, elementary (minimum) electric charge, electron mass, Planck constant and many more. It is a constant. According to modern concepts, they do not change with time and so they are called "global constant" (that they, unlike time and space are not relative). The properties of the known world is directly dependent on the ratio of these constants. In other words, these relations form its Foundation.

Let's start with the three-dimensionality of our space. In principle there are no restrictions on the number of spatial dimensions. By the way, one of the most fashionable and influential areas of modern theoretical physics, string theory, we'll talk about it later, implies for our world seven more spatial dimensions, but they are so compact that it does not affect the motion of matter in the Universe. But if the number of our perceived spatial dimensions would be less than three, then they would not be complex structures, hence, life. And if more than three, no planet could stay in orbit around stars, no electrons around the atomic nucleus.

If you remember, when describing the birth of the Universe we talked about the fact that the particles formed a little more than antiparticles. Why it happened is not known (more precisely, physicists say that the reason for this symmetry breaking, but why there is a violation, certainly, no one knows), but otherwise, the substance has proindividual would be antimatter, and, besides a large amount of energy in the Universe is nothing left. Yes that there a sin to conceal, why is it suddenly the energy began to generate particles, and where this energy came from, or, in the words of Stephen Hawking, "why does the universe go to all the trouble of existence" (Stephen Hawking. A brief history of time) — too nobody knows.





Next. Protein life, as we know, requires many different heavy elements, primarily carbon and oxygen, connected to hydrogen, there is water. Carbon is a chemical element that has 6 protons and 6 neutrons. Oxygen — 8 protons and 8 neutrons. All protons are positively charged, thus they should repel each other. And it would seem that they should not be no chance to unite. But to the rescue comes the so-called strong interaction (the same that, disentangling, gives the energy of a nuclear explosion or is used in reactors by the decay of nuclei). It combines together protons and stable nuclei of all elements heavier than hydrogen (a hydrogen atom is just one proton plus one electron) and make more neutrons which join with the protons. But the neutrons, in contrast to the stable protons, in a free form live in about 15 minutes, and if they during this time is not connected with the proton, the decay. Responsible for the disintegration of neutrons, the so-called weak interaction. The appearance of particles occurs at a very early stage of development of the Universe (her age was anywhere from one millionth to one hundred millionth of a second), but at this point the temperature was too high for the neutrons and protons combined. But the parameters of the weak interaction are such that the universe had a 15-minute life of a neutron to cool just enough so that the connection of the neutrons and protons had happened.

The difference in the masses of the proton and neutron is very small, just 0,0014 mass of the proton. But if she was at least three times more than 0,004 mass of the proton, the nucleosynthesis (the formation of nuclei of chemical elements heavier than hydrogen) in the Universe would not have been possible at all. The only matter there would be hydrogen.





Model of the atom

If the electron mass would be three to four times higher than its current value (it is about one-1836-th part of the mass of a proton), the life time of the neutral hydrogen atom would be estimated in just a few days, therefore, no substance in familiar to us today would not exist.

If the ratio between the gravitational energy and the energy of expansion of the Universe would be slightly different, with a more accelerated its expansion could not have formed, nor stars, no planets, no galaxies, and perhaps even substance. And with a slightly smaller expansion speed of the universe almost immediately imploded, and not born.

In the early Universe could appear only hydrogen atoms and a small amount of helium (2 protons + 2 neutrons). However, she continued to cool. And cooled the Universe nucleosynthesis impossible. It only occurs in stars that are "going" to gravity, and gravity effects by squeezing the substance, their own and warms up. And if the constant of the gravitational interaction was only 8-10% less, stars would not have formed until today, and for 8-10% more — would be born and die too fast, so that about any origin of life near stars and speech would not exist.

Not going to load you information about how many accidents must happen inside the first generation stars (believe me, a lot; or check on this subject plenty of popular science literature) that the mechanism of nucleosynthesis has been launched. But let's say everything went well, as it happened in our case, and some star has made the entire periodic table, from hydrogen and helium formed in the initial Universe. But all that stuff would still be inside of those stars if the world's constant was not set up so that these stars should explode. The explosion throws to the outside are turned the star stuff, but so that this substance formed a new star and some planets. Moreover, a newborn star should already have a few other properties, to be able to light and warm the surrounding space, including the newborn planet, billions of years. As you know, and she is the star and the planet is enriched with a huge amount of heavy elements, including oxygen and carbon.





The nucleosynthesis took place here

Protein life is possible only in a very narrow temperature range is approximately from minus 20 to plus 50 centigrade. If the Earth's orbit to change by only 10%, it would kill all life. If there were no moon, life on Earth likely could not arise. Without water in liquid form lives in our imagination to exist cannot. If the water point is not expanded (only one of all liquids), life would also be unlikely could exist. However, all that relates to the specific conditions of our existence on this planet, directly to the cosmological anthropic principle does not apply, but emphasizes that even this principle throughout the rest of the Universe does not guarantee the emergence of life automatically.

This list of "accidents" in the device of our Universe is quite long. Remember: the labor Dzh. Barrow and F. Tipler with their description takes more than 700 pages. I'll stop now. But I want to stress again that there are no scientific reasons that the universe works this way and not any other way to date is not known. We can only talk about a very long chain of almost incredible coincidences, which gave us the opportunity to ask the question: why are all arranged this way and not some other way?

Imagine that in a city vacant lot of different building organizations got into the habit of sneaking to take any construction debris. After some time it was discovered that all this rubbish himself by accident (he was thrown off the cars) was formed in a beautiful Palace. Themselves accidentally from scraps of tubes and wires ran communications, by themselves, by an incredible coincidence many of almost impossible coincidences, a water supply connected to city water, electricity — to the city mains, sewer to sewer. For some crazy mistake around the Palace put up a fence and posted guards. Someone in the Palace was imported furniture. Moreover, it is absolutely casual, by mistake, some sort of clerk designed this Palace and the surrounding area in your property. And again thanks to an amazing coincidence, quite by accident, to you, to your old place, gathered the leaders of "twenty" — twenty most developed countries of the world, and the President of Argentina gave you a certificate of ownership on samoistseleniya Palace and the surrounding area. In the meantime, under your Windows played by the London Symphony orchestra at full strength went on tour to Vancouver, but completely by accident, by sheer coincidence, ended up here, at your Windows in Mytishchi, Moscow region. And every musician of the orchestra at this moment desperately wanted to play Tchaikovsky's First piano Concerto, and the piano for two whole weeks was, by chance someone in here left, under your Windows and prevented travelling around the yard to transport. Moreover, again by chance, held yesterday by the Adjuster that piano tuned. So the musicians weren't disappointed.





And the piano since then, and has remained (you remember that, according to Everett, everything that can happen will happen: in one of the parallel worlds...)

So. The probability that I have described here, many orders of magnitude higher than the probability of random creation of the Universe with the "fine tuning" (as they say in physics), which allows the protein form of life in our Universe to exist. Roger Penrose (remember, he's one of the most famous mathematicians of today working in the field of cosmology) offhand estimates the probability of a random execution of the anthropic principle as 1 to 101060. What, however, much less his own assessment of the probability of the birth of the universe, where was carried out the second law of thermodynamics (1 to 1010123, remember?). But still legibly write this number in decimal on a sheet of paper created from all matter of the visible Universe, just will not work. In other words, the occasional "fine tuning" of the Universe on the protein life is practically impossible.

Hence the debate around the anthropic principle (let's call him AP). As I mentioned, there are two formulations of the AP. The weak anthropic principle States: "Our position in the Universe in need is privileged in the sense that it must be compatible with our existence as observers." Strong — "the universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such that it at some stage of evolution allowed the existence of observers" (SN: Carter B. the Coincidence of large numbers and the anthropological principle in cosmology).

In fact, weak AP means that once we have therefore we have, and this is the privilege of our position. It does not involve a serious reflection on the topic, why do we still have? With the AP in that it is weak, the formulation is ready to accept almost all scientists, because the fact is: the origin of the Universe as we know it is impossible, but it exists. Moreover, the weak AP is used by many as a free application to the theory of biological evolution. Once we have hence, we would not be able to be different in these conditions, so we've made natural selection. That's basically the whole philosophy of the weak AP.

Strong AP includes a much broader range of views. He himself should be divided into many grades, from "weak strong" up to "very hard strong" AP, and in the middle some "poloviny", "semi-rigid". And it's all in the framework of scientific knowledge, without invading the limits of supposedly alien to his philosophy. Although, hand on heart, we should recognize that modern science in General, and primarily physics and cosmology, is inextricably intertwined with philosophy and even theology, as directly connected with the human world.

"Weak strong" AP (for my graduation) still trying to explain possible causes of the fine-tuning of our Universe that we observe. The most common explanation is that our visible universe is one of many worlds (as an option, the area Magazinenow, most of which we don't see and can't see). And it randomly (with an infinite number of worlds, such an accident must necessarily happen, and since infinity is infinity, besides an infinite number of times) has developed the conditions that led to the emergence of creatures capable of asking the same question: why is the world exactly? This variant of the AP involves the inflationary model of the Universe advocated by Andrei Linde. Roughly the same explanation gives not-yet-existing, but, as I said, fashionable, and actively develop the theory of strings.





Magazinenow you can imagine, and so...

As you can see, the "weak strong" AP is ready to accept an infinite number of worlds, among which quite likely becomes the accidental appearance and our. But please do not confuse this megamerge with the "many-worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics. Everett was not the intention of many worlds, he talked about the only the world of quantum, where all probable state co-exist as a single unit and not scattered individually in a multidimensional space. Although I will note that in the framework of the same string theory there are attempts to create a model that unifies these two mnogoborya.

More rigid options are strong up in varying degrees, affirm the necessity of the observer in the course of evolution of the Universe. For this kind of approaches is the idea of the Universe participates of the same John Wheeler. The essence of this idea is that the universe as a quantum system evolves according to the quantum laws, is in a superposition and a linear development comes to the likelihood of intelligent beings — humans. Likely people are aware of its existence and thereby cause the existence of all possible Universes, coexisting the Universe that we know of, in which life emerged and by the right mutations there was a reasonable man. Is the collapse of the wave function of the Universe, in your reality we get a world where you live. So the person in its totality — all who lived, living and future people continually creates our reality, watching her, that is, participates in the birth of reality. No phenomenon, according to this concept, is not a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon. And by the way, many experts in the field of philosophy agree that the same thoughts naturally, without using concepts of quantum mechanics, expressed in his time, Immanuel Kant.

But the amazing thing is that quite a clear indication that the material world was manifested as a reality only when man was created, is contained in the Bible. The creation of the world described in the first two chapters of Genesis. In the first Chapter there is a description of a famous Hexaemeron — the six days of creation with a detailed listing of what is and what day God created. The second Chapter contains a paraphrase of what was described in the first, but the picture looks a little different. By itself, this fact has repeatedly caused all sorts of contention among theologians. For instance, Giordano Bruno in his theological researches came to the conclusion that God created two different Adams. And then on this basis developed his own theological concept, which ultimately was the reason for his charges of heresy (and not his scientific views, as is commonly believed, which, however, does not justify his executioners).

From my point of view, the most accurate (and modern) explanation for this bilateral description in the Bible of Divine creation gave archdeacon Andrei Kuraev. He noticed that here, probably for the first time in the history of mankind, applied cinematic technique: first — the General plan, and then major — specific details. In General terms, we see that God did in those six days, and close-up already shows how He did it. Everyone who is interested in this moment, highly recommend you read these two very small, one and a half pages of text, chapters of the old Testament given to him of such approach.





The first Chapter States that God commanded the earth to grow "grass, and herb yielding seed... and the fruit tree..." on the third day. "And it was so" (Gen. 1: 11). And man the crown of creation — created on the sixth day. But in the second Chapter we read:

"4. Here is the origin of heaven and earth when they were created, at a time when the Lord God made the earth and sky,

5. And every plant of the field was not yet on the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground,

6. but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the earth.

7. And the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground [emphasis D. O.], and breathed into his face the breath of life; and man became a living soul." From this passage it follows that despite the fact that the vegetation was already created by God, before humans had not yet sprouted, but it was covered with a vapor, a mist, a fog might be cloud.

Here, as in all other places, I quote the Bible by so-called king James translation, it is made from the original language, Hebrew, in the second half of the XIX century. In the Russian Orthodox Church also made use of the text of the old Testament in Church-Slavonic language, which, in turn, verified by the most authoritative in the Orthodox world, the Greek translation — the Septuagint ("translation of the 70" was made in the III–II centuries BC). In the Septuagint (and therefore the Bible in Church Slavonic language) in this passage the emphasis shifted a little, which somewhat obscures the meaning of the 5th verse of this passage. In addition, the phrase "a mist went up from the earth" inaccurately translated "source, coming from the earth." The problem of correlation between various Bible translations — the theme is very interesting, but extensive, so we are not going to touch her. But no one doubts that the text in the end we got it right, we need a linguistic analysis of the source text in Hebrew. And therefore refer to the Jewish tradition of interpretation of this place.

The literal Russian translation of the Torah (the five books of Moses and the first five books of the Christian old Testament) these lines are as follows:

4. These are the generations of heaven and earth when they were created, in the day of Genesis the Lord God of heaven and earth. 5. No shrub of the field was not yet on earth and no grass of the field before it grew, for the rain had sent the Lord God to the earth, and man was not to cultivate the land. 6. And steam rose from the ground and impregnated the entire surface of the earth. 7. And the Lord formed man dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils breath of life; and man became a living being. And here are the explanations for these lines the largest medieval commentator of the sacred Jewish texts, Rashi (1040-1105.):

 

Also this (verse) interprets: (no shrub of the field) was not yet on earth, when the completed creation on the sixth day before man was created. "And no grass of the field" — not yet grown. In the third (day), of whom it is written: "And took the land," (plants) did not germinate, and stood at the exit of earth until the sixth day." And again: "why did not send rain? Because "man was not to cultivate the land," there was no one who could understand [appropriation. me — D. O.] the beneficence of rain. When came (into the light) Adam and realized that they needed peace, he prayed about it, and walked (rain), and increased trees and greenery.



"The earth was without form and void..." (Gen. 1: 2)

Thus, we see a very clear old Testament indication of what the world has become visible and evident only after the appearance in this observer, the firstborn of Adam, that is, when interacting with his consciousness. The world was already created, but existed in a superposition ("plants stood in the way..."), in one pair, the fog, the cloud, in the sense that investing in physics the concept of the electron cloud that exists around the atomic nucleus. And how would you figurative language to Express a state of superposition? And here, by the way, us is very useful and the second variant of word translation pairs. It's not just steam, it really source is the only reality that can be perceived by the onlooker, in this case Adam. So the Septuagint here its quite accurate.

But if so, a deep sense becomes the scene of naming Adam names the animals. "The Lord God formed from the ground every beast of the field and every fowl of the air, and brought them to man to see what he would call them, and how shall man any living soul, that was her name. And Adam gave names to all cattle and to the birds of the air and every beast of the field..." (Gen. 2: 19-20). Traditionally, the theology of the highlights in this stage two main points: first, historically, the naming is a sign of domination over those who are given the name. In ancient times, when purchasing a slave, the new owner often gave him a new name, thereby demonstrating his power over this slave. And second, the naming is the comprehension of the entity to whom given name. In other words, this scene emphasizes that the whole animal world were given to man in the dominion, and at the same time reveals the wisdom, the firstborn of Adam, his ability to grasp the essence of things.





Naming Adam names the animals (fresco)

But in the context of our conversation, you should probably note that Adam is not just comprehends the essence of the animal world, it is to a certain extent at this point gives the animal nature (in the wonderful words of the priest and scientist Pavel Florensky, "name — the finest flesh, by which declares the spiritual essence" (P. Florensky. Names).

According to one of the great teachers of the Christian Church IV century, Ephraim the Syrian, thus God "made him [Adam] a participant in the work" (Ephrem the Syrian. Commentary on the first book, i.e. the book of Genesis). Again, what God has created as a potential reality animals find their identity only at the moment when they met Adam. God for them, and leads him "to see what he would call them." After that, they become real in our sense of the word. And only then, according to the Biblical narrative, it becomes apparent that "for Adam there was not found an help meet for him" (Gen. 2: 20). And God creates eve from Adam's rib. My wife, listening to my thoughts, he immediately joked: "Well, Yes, but woman was created by God, who had to watch the man." But who can say exactly what is "joke"?

But back to our sinful, mortal earth. Whatever it is actually, but rather an unexpected appearance on the scientific horizon of the anthropic principle really marred the triumph of the materialist worldview. Now his followers we need to find to infinity the many worlds (in which one can only believe), or assume that the birth of man was the result of a goal setting.

In the second case, it is quite simple to answer the question of why the universe goes to all the trouble of existence? — for their own observer or viewer. And it carries serious charge of hope. If the right believes in an infinite number of worlds, we are forced to recognize a particularly sophisticated meaninglessness of everything: in front of our eyes needs to be a picture Megavalanche scale— continuously causeless and aimless bubbling life, whenever initially doomed to death. published

P. S. And remember, only by changing their consumption — together we change the world! ©

Source: www.cablook.com/universe/ix-antropnii-printsip-i-strannosti-biblii/