An Explosive question— Would the universe exist without us?
Gunpowder smell
I — Gunpowder smell
If Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle[i], which assures us that we cannot determine the position and vector of an event at the same time, only its probabilities was not enough; wasn’t it enough for us to know that the “Here and now” doesn’t exist, only the past, and scenarios about the future; not enough that we do not know where our perceptions and memories are except through theories that cannot yet be proven by orthodox epistemology…
We are faced with the fragility and insecurity we have for the Effects of Selective Observation (Observational Selection Effects)!
The excellent and baffling book “Was the Universe made for us?” by Professor Nick Bostrom[1] and which you can read in full, here is its brief presentation:
“There seems to be a set of fundamental physical constants, which are such that, if they had been slightly different, the universe would have no intelligent life. It’s like we’re on a razor’s edge. Some philosophers and physicists take the “fine-tuning” of these constants as an “explanandum” (thing or fact to be explained) that calls for an “explanans” (a proposition that explains the “explanandum”), but this is the right way to think? The data we collect about the Universe is filtered, not only by the limitations of our instruments but also by the condition that someone is there to “get” the data generated by the instruments (and to build the instruments in the first place). This precondition causes the effects of observation selection — biases in our data that can call into question how to interpret evidence that the Universe is actually a result of “fine-tuning”.
In chapter one he summarizes the Anthropogenic Theory (http://www.anthropic-principle.com/?q=book/chapter_1#1b).
And about Anthropogenic Theories, there are many texts and discussions that are worth reading for possible disambiguation:
1. The one that I think is the more comprehensive: the University of San Francisco: http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwilliam/sota/anth/anthropic_principle_index.html2.
2. What links theory to DNA: Anthropic Principle and DNA — The three types of Anthropic Principles http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec19.html
3. A similar one: University of Colorado — Philosophy — The three principles: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/ant_encyc.pdf4.
4. Stephen Hawking Lectures on Controversial Theory — http://tech.mit.edu/V119/N48/47hawking.48n.html
II Explosion in my worms:
After so many antecedents, I think I can conclude that the most plausible theory is that of the “Very Strong Anthropic Theory”, that is, that there were and are as many universes (from “our”; I’m not even talking about the possible multiverses) as there have been and are beings with awareness of what they see around them.
III Would the universe exist without us?
We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.
If we are made of stardust systematically organized to form beings endowed with consciousness, then we can say that we are the universe thinking about itself. The approach is embedded in the conviction that we humans are not all that different from the physical reality that surrounds us, and that we interact with it constantly — in ways we are only just beginning to understand. In other words, you and the cosmos are intimately connected.
“The astronomer used to quote myths from our ancestors who conceived us as children of both heaven and earth.” Carl Sagan. What I see, feel, and guarantee to be the universe, is my reality — only mine — my me, my you, my family, my dear ones, my bystanders.
Under the same principles used in a previous post of mine — Can Memory be contained in the brain[1] — I think that we are infinite (or almost) intersecting universes that involve or touch each other, perhaps in connections between CP2 orthogonal circles, as Plaster and Pitkanen suggest, perhaps in negentropic (or not so!) contacts, with a high transference of information, sensitivity and affection.
Maybe as a way to accept our real and ineluctable loneliness.
I walk around and my universe intersects with others who just walk or are standing here or there, or squeezed into a crowded bus or subway, and perhaps not even realize that they have crossed paths with mine.
Suddenly I find another universe that wants to “talk” to mine, a loved one, the person at the supermarket checkout, one to whom I ask for information or to whom I give one…
Everyone and I, we believe we are talking about the same things, using “universal” forms of communication, seeing the same colours (without knowing what they are for each one), feeling the same smells (not knowing what each of its odours causes the same pleasure or disgust) …
My universe crosses the street and then a car passes over it that existed there, milliseconds ago, and I don’t get run over (or did I?).