Man and the Cosmos (2)

The Third System: The Anthropic Principle

            Until this point we have viewed two different approaches to the question of man's place in the universe.  However, in the middle ages and the modern era, three positions have battled for prominence.  The first sees man as the center of the universe, the second transforms him into an insignificant grain of dust, and the third tries to emphasize his importance despite the fact that he does not constitute the geometrical or the astronomical center of the world.

 

            Where do we stand today?  In order to approach an understanding of this query, we must return to the critical question which we posed in our intellectual chess game with the proponent of the theory of evolution.  Is what took place, if it did take place, the result of chance?

 

            What would be our opponent's answer?  He would of course respond that this is indeed the case, and indeed there is enough time for any probability, even the smallest one, to materialize.  In nature we are not playing chess but rather dice.  The players are order and chaos.  "Order" is a simple player, generally as unsuccessful as I.  I see him constantly losing.  Yet oddly enough, in the game against chaos, he acquires a "lucky streak," and his dice show sixes, time after time.

 

            Let us assume that such is the nature of things; in any case our proponent of chance is faced with a much more severe problem.  And this problem has already been raised, in principle, by the Rambam in his discussion of creation.  His approach to the problem constitutes, in his view, a most important proof, bearing witness to creation.  Despite the danger of imprecision, I will try to simplify the problem.

 

            In physics we study equations, however we also study a significant number of givens, such as gravity, the charge of electrons or the mass of neutrons, the age of the world according to the theory of the big bang, the mass of the world, etc.  These are basic numbers which do not stem from the theory; they are in effect arbitrary numbers that enter into the theory. 

 

            Let me give you an example.  When we study mathematics, we learn the equation ax+by+cz=0.  However, a specific equation will be written as 5x+2y+7=0.  These numbers are arbitrary numbers.  And here we come upon a very strange phenomenon.  Were we to multiply these measurements by ten, by one hundred, by one thousand, a modest multiplication which from a mathematical perspective does not change a thing, we would make an interesting discovery: the world as we know it, which permits life and consciousness, could not exist.  In other words, everything takes place only, so to speak, in theory.  Certain givens were planted in the original design of the laws of physics, which allow the existence of a particular chemistry, in order to allow for the consequent appearance of biology.  These givens are seemingly planted in the world from the start, in order to make the existence of man possible.  This is an anthropic, or human, principle, which is hidden in the cosmic creation.  Incidentally, I refer here not to one world but to all the worlds, which depend on these same physics and organic chemistry.  Of course I could amuse myself by saying that perhaps other chemical systems could exist, which could also make the existence of life possible.  But this is a speculation.  Happy is the believer.

 

The Cosmos and the Human Observer

 

            Modern physics has presented us with some very strange phenomena.  The conclusions which stem from some of these well-based experiments teach us that our observation of occurrences actually alters reality, even retroactively.

 

            There are a number of experiments which have been proven more conclusively than any physical theory, yet they are particularly paradoxical.  There are, for example, phenomena which will occur differently if observed.  Not only that, but if you were to observe the phenomena tomorrow, things will occur in it today, that are different from those that would occur if you did not look at it tomorrow.  In other words, to borrow a talmudic concept, in physics we rule that "yesh brera" (lit., there is specification) from an experimental point of view, or in other words, there is a "retroactive addition."  This can be compared to a man who wears pajamas in his house if there are no visitors.  In our interpretation, the electron then appears in the form of a wave.  If we look at it, it will put on more representative clothing; the electron will appear in the form of a particle.  However, let us conduct a simple mental experiment.  The hour is late, and someone knocks on the door with no advance warning in order to catch the man wearing pajamas.  Thus the scientist discovers to his astonishment that the particle is always ready.  Even if the time elapsed from the moment of knocking at the door until the moment the door is opened is smaller than the time needed for the man to go to the closet and change clothes, nevertheless, this man, who goes about all day long in pajamas, is always ready.  There is something very peculiar about particles, something related to time.

 

            Today we know that quantum theory contains a mysterious principle, which was first mentioned by the Rambam.  We had become used to hearing explanations and theories which claim that psychology is based on biology, biology on biochemistry, chemistry on physics, etc.  But in the wake of the recent experiments in physics, it seems that at the basis of physics lies ... a sort of psychology.  Quantum phenomena are dependent on the fact that there be an observer.  In other words, the physics of the world is built as a sort of movie with sensors, which is shown in a movie theater.  The moment there are spectators, the film begins.  This means that if quantum physics is correct, it expects the presence of a spectator.  We can only draw one conclusion from this - it creates a doubt regarding the anthropic principle.  The anthropic principle assumes that the world seemingly "expects" the appearance of man.  It expects man not only in the area of biology, but even in the area of cosmology, before the development of chemistry.  Earlier we saw the world functioning "in theory;" its existence was dependent upon the existence of a spectator.  The rules are created in such a way that allows for the existence of a spectator, yet on the other hand, only if there is a spectator can the world exist.  These two extremes meld in our reality.  On the one hand, there is a starting point, a world that has rules and an initial state.  And on the other hand, we reach the final point, where man, the spectator on the world, appears on the scene.  And behold, "the end is included in the beginning."  In other words, this end is not coincidental.  This approach is completely opposed to the principles of evolution.

 

            Rabbi Nachman of Breslov writes a story about the heart of the world and the spring.  The heart of the world is based upon the wondrous concept that psychology preceded physics.

 

(This lecture was translated by Gila Weinberg.)

 

Copyright (c)1997 Prof.  Shalom Rosenberg, Yeshivat Har Etzion.  All rights reserved.