Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:06 pm**

This is really cool. It's reasoning like this that makes me think that the universe is god-being-born. The universe is coming to life. And this isn't something entirely accidental, but built into the most fundamental properties of the universe. Quantum mechanics has shown us that observation collapses quantum waves of probabilities. One possible conclusion one could draw from this is that until conscious beings evolved, the universe existed in a superposition of possible states. A multiverse. Consciousness itself shaped this process by collapsing this superposition into one actuality. And the first possible combination of events which could have led to conscious beings would have been the actual path of this collapsing, because the later ones wouldn't have had a chance to express themselves (they'd remain possible, rather than actual).

Thus, the universe is a place that was "destined" to produce life. Given all the possibilities, the only one that would have made it into a place of singular actuality would be the path that arose to the conscious beings necessary to do so. This is the only way the collapsing could have happened. So no wonder our universe is so "fine-tuned" to produce life with a string of (apparently) exceedingly unlikely "coincidences." It's a snowball effect of order rapidly coalescing out of chaos, and rippling through the rest of reality. The universe is a place that had to come alive, based on our deepest understanding of physics.

If this catches your eye, check it out on its original page, where you can access the embedded hyperlinks to key issues and concepts.

home.btclick.com/scimah/anthropism.htm

The participatory anthropic principle.
home.btclick.com/scimah/

It has often been remarked by physicists and chemists that the universe is very sensitively tuned to allow life to exist. If certain physical and chemical constants were just a fraction out from their observed values, life could never have arisen. There is, for example, an extraordinary series of coincidental physical conditions which led to the high cosmic abundance of the element carbon, the basis of all life.[Hoyle 1983]

Life does not seem to be an accidental occurrence but somehow is actually required by the universe.

According to some cosmologists, the universe began as a quantum fluctuation in the limitless Void (Hartle Hawking cosmology). In the absence of an observer, the evolving universe remained as a 'multiverse' - a coherant quantum superposition of all logically possible states.

Throughout its early history the universe continued to develop as an immense superposition of probabilities. Not only was the structure of the universe superposed, but all logically possible states of matter, physical constants, properties and laws were simultaneously present and evolving into ever increasing diversity.

Collapse of the Multiverse
Quantum theory states that any physical system remains in a superposed state of all possibilities until it interacts with the mind of an observer. Both quantum theory and Buddhist teachings on sunyata suggest that as soon as an observer's mind makes contact with a superposed system, all the numerous possibilities collapse into one actuality. At some instant one of these possible alternative universes produced an observing lifeform - an animal with a nervous system which was sufficiently evolved to form a symbiotic association with a primordial mind. The first act of observation by this mind caused the entire superposed multiverse to collapse immediately into one of its numerous alternatives.

That one alternative version of the multiverse was not just the first configuration to be inhabitable by mind. The fact that it was the first configuration also guaranteed that it was the only configuration. All uninhabited alternative universes, ranging from the nearly-but-not-quite habitable few, to the anarchic and unstructured vast majority, were instantly excluded from potential existence. According to the participatory anthopic principle the evolving multiverse was thus always destined to resolve itself into a sufficiently ordered state to allow itself to be observed.

The early multiverse can perhaps be thought of as a massively parallel quantum computer which explored all of possibility-space until it was able to generate a living body, which became the habitation of an observing, sentient being. At that moment the multiverse collapsed into the actuality of that one alternative environment. This theory is known as the Participatory Anthropic Principle and was first put forward by the physicist John A.Wheeler in 1983.

But where did the observing mind come from? Buddhist philosophers claim that minds are primordial and exist before entering their physical environment. In the early stages of its evolution the universe was, of course, uninhabitable for animals and humans.

But according to B. Alan Wallace [Wallace 1996], highly advanced Buddist and Hindu contemplatives speak of experiencing other realms, or dimensions of existence that transcend this gross sensual realm which they call kamadhatu. They report the existence of rupadhatu, a form realm that is unperturbed by many of the changes in the gross physical cosmos. And beyond this is the arupyadhatu, a formless realm that is completely unaffected by the stages of cosmic evolution. All three of these realms are said to be inhabited by sentient beings. When the gross physical dimension of a cosmos is uninhabitable, sentient beings reside in the rupadhatu and arupyadhatu or in other inhabitable cosmoses. Humans cannot dwell in the rupadhatu and arupyadhatu, though these realms are accessible to a human mind that has been highly refined through meditation.

The bottom line of the participatory anthropic principle is that minds can exist independently of matter, and they create their actual environments from the potentialities around them. But isn't this all just pure metaphysical speculation? Well maybe not. The participatory anthropic principle makes potentially verifiable statements about the early history of the universe, the speed of evolution and the occurrence of extremely unlikely evolutionary steps, including the first appearance of life itself.

Two-speed evolution
The series of events needed to make the universe habitable by sentient mind, up to and including the evolution of animals complex enough to support sentience, would have proceeded at the maximum possible rate and efficiency (almost by definition - because the myriad strands of the superposition were essentially racing against one another for 'winner takes all').

Because a myriad parallel universes were simultaneously evolving, the most highly improbable combinations of chemical and cellular building blocks needed to bring about living organisms would inevitably appear, even if the probability of them doing so in an 'ordinary' universe were infinitesimally small. This could explain the appearance of such extremely unlikely structures as Yockey's cytochrome C.

- Sean Robsville

See also

Emptiness of mathematics
'.....in the final analysis the entire number system has been generated by the play of mind on emptiness, in the complete absence of the need to refer to any material thing, or things, which are being counted. Numbers do not exist by reference to physical reality, nor are they self-existent, abstract 'things in themselves'...'

Quantum emptiness
'...It is important to emphasise that the mathematical equations of quantum physics do not describe actual existence - they predict the potential for existence. Working out the equations of quantum mechanics for a system composed of fundamental particles produces a range of potential locations, values and attributes of the particles which evolve and change with time. But for any system only one of these potential states can become real, and - this is the revolutionary finding of quantum physics - what forces the range of the potentials to assume one value is the act of observation..'

The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in science and engineering
'So we are left with something of a mystery. According to the physicalist worldview, the mind (including mathematicians' minds) is an epiphenomenon of matter which has evolved solely to ensure the survival of the selfish genes which code for it. Why should this 'top-level' phenomenon have such intimate access to the 'bottom level' phenomena such as quantum physics? After all, the two levels are supposedly separated by less well-understood (in some cases) explanatory layers such as evolutionary psychology, neurology, cell biology, genetics, molecular biology, and chemistry.'

Sunyata - the emptiness of all things
'.......all things have no fixed identity ('inherent existence') and are are in a state of impermanence - change and flux - constantly becoming and decaying. Not only are all things constantly changing, but if we analyse any phenomenon in enough detail we come to the conclusion that it is ultimately unfindable, and exists purely by definitions in terms of other things - and one of those other things is always the mind which generates those definitions...'

God in Buddhism
Having described the Buddhist objections to the overspecified inherently-existent God, it should be pointed out that Buddhism is not purposely atheistic, and certainly does not deny the existence of a God in the sense of that in which 'we live and move and have our being' [ACTS 17, 28].

Arguments against Buddhism
In order to understand the strengths of a philosophy one should attempt to refute it.

Buddhist Teachings
on the mind, personal relationships, meditation and the spiritual path.

and ANTHROPIC COINCIDENCES

REFS

Hoyle, F (1983), The Intelligent Universe, Publ London: Michael Joseph

Wallace, B. A. (1996), Choosing Reality - a Buddhist View of Physics and the Mind.
Publ Ithaca N Y : Snow Lion ISBN 1-55939-063-8.

Wheeler J. A. (1983), Law without law. In Quantum Theory and Measurement (ed. J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek) Princeton University Press pp. 182 -213

HOME PAGE

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 7:31 pm**

Pantheistic Solipsism?

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:26 pm**

For give me, but the above theory seems to assume that the universe has "a destiny" that it is not a multiverse. Why would that be so? Could not the universe chug along happily forever as a multiverse without ever collapsing?

In other words: By the way things are defined, the ONLY way the universe could NOT be a multi-verse is if life forms within it. And if life forms in it, it is impossible to remain a multiverse. So "life forming" and "not being a multiverse" are identically the same, by definition.

So if you assume a priori that the universe is destined to not be a multiverse, it is merely a tautology to say that the universe is destined to have life. It's a trivial swapping of terms. It may be surprising, but it's not significant -- just semantic wordplay.

It WOULD BE significant if there is something that offers proof that the universe is destined to not be a multiverse. And the article above doesn't do that (did it?).

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:24 pm**

Wayfriend, I'm bothered by the word "destiny," too, which is why I put it in quotes. But I think it is inevitable that the universe must collapse from a multiverse into a single, actual universe simply because the multiverse contains all possible evolutions of matter and energy. And since the specific evolutions of matter and energy which produce life are part of those "all possible evolutions," then eventually it has to collapse. And it must do so by the shortest route possible, because the first possible route that produces life will start collapsing the multiverse along these lines, eliminating the competing possible routes.

So what do you call a universe that inevitably, unavoidably produces sentience, and does so by the shortest possible path? That sure looks like destiny to me. Yet, there's nothing supernatural or external (to the universe) about it.

Emotional Leper, it's definitely pantheistic . . . but solipsism? I don't think so. The universe is very much real. External reality is real, though it is always in flux and impermanent. Mind participates in collapsing the proxy waves of probability into actuality, thus shaping the universe, but it doesn't create it.

However, Buddhists do think that universal mind exists prior to and beyond the universe, and physical organisms develop neural systems which capture some of this mind. That's the one hokey part of this. However, I like that Buddhist metaphysics seeks confirmation in evolution and quantum mechanics, rather than trying to prove evolution and quantum mechanics (e.g. radiometric dating) wrong in order to preserve a conflicting metaphysics. To me, a belief system which can stand up to our best scientific scrutiny may actually be on to something. It's as if Buddhists discovered something so fundamental to reality, that science is just now starting to catch up with it, just starting to become sophisticated enough to provide a theoretical framework to support these metaphysical beliefs.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:48 pm**

Buddhists who engage in metaphysics are not Followers of the Buddha.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:10 pm**

Ah... I see... so if one possible universe ever gets life, this causes all of the other possible universes without life (yet) to go poof.

Hmmm... that seems to be stretching the theory a bit. To wit:

In the "usual" shroedinger's cat type scenario, the causal collapse encompasses a set of universes, but they ALL contain the same observer.

So this is sort of an edge case, where the observer only exists in one of the possible universes, because the existence of the observer is the chance event under discussion.

Still -- its stretching the theory. Can an observer affect a universe in the multi-verse where the observer doesn't exist?

If you look at it the other way, in the other universe, there is no observer, and so, by definition, it CANNOT collapse. So, you see, there's a contradiction created.

Here's a similar example. Take a typical shroedingers cat scenario. In one universe, it lives. In another it dies. The collapse happens when you open the box. But what about a third universe, in which the box never opens -- the observer died. Is the cat in that universe included in the causal collapse?

It may be completely valid to postulate that the observer only collapses the subset of the universes in which they observe. Then there's no contradictions. But it makes the theory above incorrect.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:49 pm**

I think the idea is that if there is no observer in that universe, that universe does not exist.

Or rather, that universe exists in a superimposed state of existance and non-existance, until it is observed.

In other words, for all intents in purposes, the universe that does not have observers does not exist (until observers arive in it.)

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 11:24 pm**

Emotional Leper wrote:Buddhists who engage in metaphysics are not Followers of the Buddha.

Hmm. . . please explain. I'm using "metaphysics" in a very general sense to mean: a particular description of reality. Buddhists are definitely presenting a view of being, a way it all fits together. But there is also the sense David Hume used: a level of thought divorced from reality.

David Hume wrote:If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

In other words, if it ain't math or science, then you're talking about myths. [Actually, "relations of ideas" and "matters of fact" are his terminology, but you get the idea.]

This particular Buddhist description is definitely talking about science. Admittedly, it does go beyond science in this "universal mind" concept. But that concept is being used to explain physical occurrences in need of an explanation--genuine scientific mysteries such as the nature of consciousness (cognitive science) as it relates to brains and complex organisms with brains. If you explore the hyperlinks at the original site, they will lead you through problems with evolution and minds, how a consciousness evolved which can contemplate the fundamental aspects of the universe when such consciousness was in no way necessary for our survival or reproduction. Why should the most abstract reasoning we do--math--be so vitally useful in explaining the bedrock of physical reality--physics?? Calculus and other unglimpsed systems of mathematics had nothing to do with our survival. So why did our mind develop such an affinity for understanding such abstract reasoning?

It turns out that our physical evolution depends entirely upon mental phenomena, so that our subjective experience shaped our physical being, not the other way around. Pleasure and pain are subjective, qualitative experiences which machines do not have. Qualia are nonalgorithmic, like the redness of red. They can't be captured or described with numbers or logical procedures. Our seeking pleasure (food, sex, comfort) and avoiding pain (physical harm, signs of injury) are survival advantages that automata (machines, computers) would not have. These qualitative "sensations" were crucial to our evolution; indeed, they guided it. Those actions which produced pleasure, we'd pursue. When that happened to coincide with a useful reproductive advantage, that physical quality or behavior got magnified through genetic reproduction.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 11:35 pm**

From what I remember, the Buddha never engaged in talks about metaphysics. He was only interested in what worked. Not in abstract discussion about gods and other realms of existance.

Just in the same way that those Buddhists who pray to the Buddha or any other power for help in their path to enlightenment are not followers of the Buddha. His last words were, after all, "Be Lamps Unto Yourselves. Work out your own Salvation with diligence."

Kevin's Watch

The Participatory Anthropic Principle

The Participatory Anthropic Principle