jeudi 20 septembre 2007

anthropic principle

"There are either many different universes or many different regions of a single universe, each with its own initial configuration and, perhaps, with its own set of laws of science. In most of these universes the conditions would not be right for the development of complicated organisms; only in the few universes that are like ours would intelligent beings develop and ask the question: "Why is the universe the way we see it?" The answer is then simple: If it had been different, we would not be here!"

- Stephen Hawkings on the anthropic principle (though he is not the one who derived the anthropic principle)

In short, the anthropic principle endeavours to explain the meaning of life and the universe as "We're here because we just are, so there!" For the time being, this explanation satisfies me(probably because the word 'anthropic' sounds sexy and important). Though, you don't have to think too deeply to realise that it's just distracting you from the original question of "but why??".

The cleverer we become, the more insecure we are about everything we 'know'. To me, the world began to end the moment homo sapiens set foot on earth. I don't believe that the human race evolved directly from apes, there was definitely a missing link. And let's just label the missing link as 'the devil'; that niche in time and nature, and what we should direct all worldly problems onto, so that we don't feel as bad. It is sad, but somehow, evolution does not seem to benefit humans. The more we know and the more complex our cognition becomes, the deeper our problems are perceived to be. As human emotions expand and intertwine, the more difficult it is to see the solution. So what do we do? Rely on geniuses such as Stephen Hawkings to ease our minds, or is it people like that who broaden the scope of how much we don't know? By this stage of questioning, the anthropic principle looks to be very refreshing.

I did this today with charcoal and acrylic and I call it "Talk Shit About a Pretty Sunset".

2 commentaires:

Anonyme a dit…

Humans are so busy concentrating on anthro-centrism that they have the arrogance to call the meaning of the universe "the anthropic principle", and are not concentrating on whether or not there is an answer to the question we ask, i.e., is there a meaning to life? We always focus on semantics, so as to procrastinate. We don't really want to find the answer, we just want to say we have the answer so we can be held in high esteem.

"The more we learn, the more we are aware of just how ignorant we are."

People will always rely on those they think are more intelligent than they to explain things. It used to be "religion is the opiate of the masses", but slowly we are moving further and further away from a god-ruled society and universe (compare antiquity beliefs to post-modern beliefs).
Simply said, the way the human mind works is that it gathers a multitude of sources, and from those picks out the best parts of each idealogy, or at least the perceived best parts, and then projects that as its view. Hence we can never have anything new in regards to ideals, only variations on that which has already been suggested.

The anthropic principle could easily be seen as the same sort of thing as "suffer in this life and you will be rewarded in the next", it lets people stop thinking for themselves and instead mutilate the thoughts of others and then reproduce that.

There are always more questions out there, we just haven't thought of them yet. The more time we exist, the more questions we find, the more confused we become. If the fate of humans is not to be wiped out by a) meteorite or some sort of natural disaster, b) nuclear disaster etc, then I think that we will be so cooped up within our own minds, asking unanswerable questions, that we will be wiped out by some race that just comes along as says "We don't know, and we understand that...wee, genocide!"

"The most important questions are those that are unanswerable."

The ever egotistic and obfuscated Anonymous I.

sunni muchacha a dit…

"Simply said, the way the human mind works is that it gathers a multitude of sources, and from those picks out the best parts of each idealogy, or at least the perceived best parts, and then projects that as its view."

exactly. and you spelled idealogy wrong, it's ideOlogy.

"The most important questions are those that are unanswerable."

false, not knowing the meaning of life will not really affect me during this lifetime at all. whichever caveman first thought of "what is this life and universe about?" was a dickhead who has condemned his spawn forever more. if only we could remove that philosophical part of our brain which serves absolutely no purpose.

you know how humans only use something like 5% of their brains? maybe the answer to EVERYTHING is in that other 95%. maybe one day it'll be activated and a whole new form of thinking would be born and the meaning of life would be answered like that *snaps fingers*. and we could all go on living happy lives, though maybe 'life' would not be a concrete idea by then since we would be so advanced...

and i am all for anthro-centrism. since humans are capable of destroying every life form accessible to them(including themselves), they more or less have the world as we know it at their disposal. if that 95% of our brain doesn't activate soon, some one should seriously just wipe the entire world with a nice juicy atomic bomb. i am so curious to know what happens after i die anyway.