|
Author
|
Topic: The Participatory Anthropic Principle
|
Perduran
Member
Member # 1900
|
posted 04. March 2006 15:56
THe Participatory Anthropic Principle is basically the idea that the initial conditions of the universe and perhaps the origin of the universe were both brought into being through observation. This idea depends upon the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and a B-theoretic ontology. Both of these can be attacked(the B-theory and the Copenhagen interpretation),but I was thinking that the idea that the principle could by itself explain the origin of the universe could be challenged on the grounds that classical big bang cosmology involves an initial singularity. My idea is that Hawking's principle of ignorance rules out an observer-created origin because the principle states that no laws govern the initial singularity. It must be noted,of course, that this objection can be voided if the initial singularity is treated as a limit to a series instead of ontologically real because any state arbitrarily close to the singularity would be governed by the laws of physics if the singularity is never reached by a pat temporal regress. This a reason why I think that the partcipation of observers cannot by itself explain the origin of the universe.
IP: Logged
|
|
Robert_js
Member
Member # 1911
|
posted 19. March 2006 04:53
quote:
This (is the) reason why I think that the partcipation of observers cannot by itself explain the origin of the universe
Participation of the observers can not explain the origin of the universe for part of that universe is the observer. The observer can not explain the origin of the universe unless you can explain the origin of the observer.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 22. March 2006 20:04
What we may need to do is to assume that at the origin there are an observer and building blocks of matter. Our job then is to figure out by what law does the observer use to create matters and the universe. To know what is before the observer and the building blocks is pointless for us humans and is the job of the observer. If human could figure out what is the intention of the observer in creating human, they would automatically know what is their future and how to live the future. For humans, knowing how to live the future is all that really counts. Human only needs to know a portion of the past and a portion of the total mystry, just enough to figure out how to live the future. The point of knowing something is to be guided by it for future activities. Once we figured out the guiding law, we would have little use of the information about things prior to the observer. Existance cannot exist without its polar opposite non-existance. Knowing cannot exist without its polar opposite of not-knowing. Human needs to accept the reality that not-knowing something is essential for knowing something. Something will always remain unknown to humans, for the benefit of humans.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic