From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Sun Apr 13 2003 - 17:36:55 EDT
From: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
> There are at least two formulations of the anthropic principle. One is
> the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP), which John Haught describes as follows:
> "the early universe looks the way it does to physics because otherwise we
> wouldn't be here to observe it." "In this weak version the principle has no
> explanatory value and therefore hardly deserves the name of 'principle'."
If I were to put the WAP in my RFEP language, here's what it might look
like:
If we humans, along with the rest of carbon-based life, are the outcome of
natural formational processes in a universe consistent with the RFEP, then
numerous features of the universe are constrained to have the particular
nature that they in fact exhibit.
The WAP is basically a requirement of consistency. The nature of the
universe must be consistent with our presence as outcomes of its formational
economy. Only a very specific kind of universe could have produced us.
That leaves open the question of why any universe should have that
capability. Perhaps that's what the Strong Anthropic Principle attempts to
answer.
> The other is the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): again, in Haught's
> words: "...the physical character of the universe is the way it is
> _because_ of mind. It is the natural world's impetus toward evolving into
> beings with minds that has shaped the fundamental features of the universe
> from the beginning." Mind, then, "is an inherent part of nature and not
> just an evolutionary accident." (from _Science and Religion. From Conflict
> to Conversation_). As someone else wrote, "The universe 'seemed to know'
> we were coming." With SAP, some explanatory value is proffered.
The SAP in RFEP language: The formational economy of the universe MUST be
such as to produce creatures with minds.
But that leaves open the question of why universes should so value mind.
Perhaps because of Mind? Perhaps because the ultimate nature of reality is
interrelationship of Mind and matter, the Sacred and the World? Oops, I do
believe I just lapsed into a bit of process theology. Sorry about that....
Slippery slope and all that....
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 13 2003 - 18:05:44 EDT