THE ANTHROPIC COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE AND THE OMEGA POINT
Anton Hajduk, Astronomical Institute, Slovak Academy of Sciences, 84228 Bratislava,
Slovakia
l. INTRODUCTION
The anthropic cosmological principle (AP) in the last decades has become an important
topic in the dialogue between religion and science. As a consequence of the Big Bang
Theory of the origin of our universe with its resultant corollaries regarding the expansion of the universe, the natural laws, the universal constants and parameters of the universe, we have become persuaded that matter, including biology, has evolved. Knowing
that the physical conditions have changed over time as the universe evolves towards its
ultimate fate, the principal question has to do with the ultimate destiny of humanity in
the universe. And knowing (or at least supposing· or observing) the role of the AP in
evolution, the question which has generated the present article is the following: what
will be the role of AP in the future evolutionary processes?
The work being done in space technology in general and specifically on the project
of the colonisation of space shows that the spread of the humankind through space will
undoubtedly happen in the future. The perspective of this article will be similar in some
respects to that of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and his concept of the evolution of the
universe from the Alpha Point to the Omega Point. Had he lived in our own age and
been familiar with the Anthropic Principle, no doubt this great scientist and theologian
would have had much to say about it.
1.1 The Relationship between Science and Religion Today
There are many reasons why the authors of various scientific papers in physics, cosmology and other disciplines in natural science choose to address themselves toquestions formerly belonging to philosophy and theology. This work has, in turn, elicited a
positive response from the philosophers and theologians. Apart from the many and
basic scientific discoveries which have changed their former perspectives on many
26
https://utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/uram.25.1.26 – Sunday, December 17, 2023 3:48:07 PM – IP Address:76.86.213.8
questions, the central factor would seem to be a growing maturity in humanity. New
scientific theories backed up and confirmed by experiments and observations cannot be
ignored any longer by those working in the field of religious studies. In order to survive, each philosophy and theology must accept these scientific results and take cognisance of the related scientific theories.
However, this does not imply that science has vanquished philosophy or theology.
This is because contemporary science leads to questions which cannot be answered
without the assistance of philosophy and/or theology.
Astrophysics and cosmology provide good examples of this. They deal with questions such as the following: Did the universe have a beginning? Was the universe
designed? Are we alone? (Schewe and Stein 1999). Other questions would include:
Why were the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the Big Bang such as they
were? Why would minimum differences in these conditions (such as expansion rate,
masses of particles, and their particular charges) have led to a very different universe
than the one we have, one that excludes the phenomenon of life and of living beings?
1.2 The Anthropic Cosmological Principle
Questions such as these have led to the formulation of the Anthropic Cosmological
Principle (AP). Best known from the book by John Barrow and Frank Tipler (Barrow
and Tipler 1986), the AP leads to further questions not only about the distant past of our
universe but also about its future. The Final Anthropic Principle (FAP), also formulated
by Barrow and Tipler, has to do with the possible eternity of intelligence (Nesteruk
1994, pp. 224-31). Natural science can obviously contribute to our search for answers
to these questions. But it is not within the competence of science with the limited validity of natural laws and our observations of them to give completely satisfactory
responses. For that reason they also fall within the domain of philosophers and theologians. To answer these difficult questions we need all the help we can get.
- PRESENT VIEWS ON THE BEGINNING AND END OF THE UNIVERSE
2.1. The Beginning
The Big Bang as a beginning of the expansion of our Universe is so clearly supported
by the results of theoretical physics and astronomical observations that, apart from a
few details of process, most astrophysicists and cosmologists do not speak about it as a
theory, but as an established fact (Spitzer 2001, pp. 213- 32), which took place about 16
billion years ago. We make use of the Hubble constant as a measure of the expansion
rate of our universe from the observations of the red shifts of galaxies; we assess the
amount of helium in the Universe as a consequence of the Big Bang; and we observe
the background radiation in the universe based on their wavelengths predicted by the
Big Bang Theory 50 years before the first observations. There are thousands of scientific papers confirming the observed consequences of the Big Bang in astronomical,
astrophysical and other related journals. Among philosophers, The First Three Minutes
and Dreams of a Final Theory by Steven Weinberg (Weinberg 1977, 1994) are among
the best known books in this field. A series of book reviews of other authors dealing
27
https://utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/uram.25.1.26 – Sunday, December 17, 2023 3:48:07 PM – IP Address:76.86.213.8
with the topic of the relationship between science and God may be found in Heller
(1992).
Although the idea of the big bang as the beginning of our universe is not questioned
any longer by scientists, the questions which remain include the following: What
caused the Big Bang? Is our universe the only one there is? These questions are agnostic as to the debate about God as the creator of the universe. But if God is behind both
physics and metaphysics, who would he be? What is his nature? Is he a designer
(Schewe and Stein 1999)?
Is it not the case that mathematical constructions of the creation of matter from quantum fluctuations of the vacuum in space-time sound less metaphysical than, in fact,
they are (Heller 1992)? This is bourne out by the great struggle of Marxist philosophers
against the idea of the expansion of the Universe, a theory derived from the red shifts of
galaxies as explained by the Doppler Effect. Some decades ago, their philosophy was
unable to accept the expansion because of the attendant conclusion that the universe
had a beginning in space and time. These Marxist scientists had supposed that the universe was infinite, and unsuccessfully tried to interpret the red shift data according to
their anti-metaphysics (Hajduk 1997, pp. 216-21). When it became clear that it was
impossible to ignore the data and observations confirming the expansion of the universe, these same scientists and philosophers then began to propose the idea of the
existence of other uni verses (Tursunov 1980; Blochincev 1979; Berezin 1994) in order
to raise doubts about the Big Bang theory. This theory of multiple universes does not
disprove the existence of a designer for the following reasons: first, the many universe
hypothesis is an artificial construction without any empirical or observational support;
second, the same questions raised by the AP about the origin of our universe or many
universes, remain.
2.2 The End
There are two different scenarios concerning the end of the universe which are both
plausible according to the present state of our knowledge: Either the expansion of the
universe will last forever and the background will cool towards zero Kelvin temperature, or the expansion will slow down and stop and be followed by a contraction process, ending with a big crunch of all matter. To decide between them is the problem of
astrophysics, not of philosophy. It depends on the observations and precise measurements of the expansion rate, expressed by the Hubble Constant, of the deceleration
parameter determining the change of the expansion over time, of the matter density of
the universe and of possible influences on these measurements.
However the key to this problem is not in measurements. In spite of complications
caused by dark matter in the universe, the main problem is in the fact that the rate of the
expansion lies in the vicinity of the parabolic limit. This means that it is close to the
mathematical limit between the hyperbolic expansion (with the universe expanding forever) and the elliptical universe, contracting back to its final crunch. This is a question,
rather, for philosophers as to why the initial conditions of the expansion velocity of the
universe were such that they were led to expand it (the universe) exactly to its parabolic
limit or to the maximum possible rate, but not to expand forever. In his 1961 Nature
28
https://utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/uram.25.1.26 – Sunday, December 17, 2023 3:48:07 PM – IP Address:76.86.213.8
article R.H. Dicke drew attention to this question, suggesting that this astrophysical
debate probably had something to do with our presence. The existence of living matter
requires carbon. But without the expansion velocity as started at the Big Bang the universe would not have produced carbon (Dicke 1961). Later S.W. Hawking’s (1974) calculations predicted a quick collapse (in 5 million years) of the universe if the shift of
the initial expansion velocity would differ in IO – 12 part of its real value. Hawking also
confirmed this calculation in his famous book, A Brief History of Time (Hawking
1988). Other articles show that the constants of nature and other parameters of the universe are also very sensitive in the same way. Almost a negligible change in them
would exclude the evolution of living structures. But, if so, then the living structures
and especially the presence of intelligent beings is not accidental. Rather, it has something to do with the initial conditions and initial parameters of the universe. If so, then
it is legitimate to ask whether the presence of intelligent beings could not also have
something to do with the fate of the universe. We can also ask about their role in the
evolution of the universe.
When can we expect the end of the universe? When will the conditions necessary for
the living structures in the universe cease? ‘For you know neither the day nor the hour’
(Matt. 25:13); but ‘from the fig tree learn its lesson … when you see all these things, you
know that he is near, at the very gates’ (Matt. 24:33). These texts from the Bible suggest that we can learn from the stars. And we may learn … from their decay times; and
we can learn from the galaxies … ; and we can learn from black holes and their radiation.
It is not only fig trees that indicate these significant things to us.
The recent article by Lawrence Krauss and Glenn Starkman (in Scientific American)
with the title ‘The fate of life in the Universe’ presents a scale of decay times of stars,
up to the evaporation galaxies of black holes, up to 1098 years from the Big Bang for the
open universe (Krauss and Starkman 1999). This means 1088 years from our own time.
There are, of course, differences in calculations by other authors. The highest, ever calculated time for ‘The possible ultimate fate of the Universe’ under this title was given
by Islam (1977) who counted 10 to the 10th power to the 77th
power number of years.
The end times are much less for a closed universe, with the deceleration of the expansion to zero followed by the big crunch, with the time span about ‘only’ 1011
years,
which means only about ten times more than the Universe spent from the Big Bang to
our own age (Sandage 1978). - THE FUTURE OF LIFE
Speculation on the future evolution of life and especially of humankind ranges from the
realistic to theories that resemble science fiction. Realistically, we must say that life,
now more than 3 billion years (3.109 y) old, should be considered as a cosmic phenomenon evolving in cosmic times and in cosmic dimensions.
3.1. Space Colonization
Within the realistic category of futurology, one fundamental assumption has to do with
space colonisation, or, in physical terms, the expansion of life, specifically of human
29
https://utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/uram.25.1.26 – Sunday, December 17, 2023 3:48:07 PM – IP Address:76.86.213.8
life, through the universe. In fact, space colonisation began in 1969 with the astronauts
of Apollo 11 landing on the Moon. In about 50 years from that date men and/or women
will land on Mars. Some authors have calculated the time of colonisation of outer
space, with some assumptions, concerning technical solutions for the spacecraft velocities. According to E.M. Jones (1976), the colonisation of our galaxy can be accomplished within 5 million years with the velocity of 0. lc where c is the velocity of light,
or ten times longer with the velocity c = 0.0lc. Later, Jones (1981) more precisely calculated the time it would take to colonise our galaxy to I 09 y (i.e., one billion years)
applying the velocity of the wave front of the expansion for space colonies with a value
of v = I .4 x 10- 5 pc· y-1 (expressed in parsecs per year (where !pc = 3.26 light years).
With higher expansion velocity and some assumptions for the population growth rates
he calculated that it would take 60 million years to fill our galaxy.
Newman and Sagan ( 1981) calculated the diffusion of civilization in the galaxy with
the diffusion coefficient D = 2 x 1 o-8 pc2 year-1
- Prescinding from their technical problems, these examples show the physical possibility of the colonisation of space in interstellar and also intergalactic dimensions. It also means that our civilisation can reach
the planets of other stars and spread through the galaxy in much less time than the lifetime of the sun (5 x I 09 y) with approximately the same flux of energy.
We have agreed that the universe expands. The question now arises as to whether the
intergalactic diffusion of civilisations (in that time they will be many of them, whether
they come from one source or from many) is able to overtake the expansion rate of the
universe, or not. Considering the time of hominization to be about 106 y (I million
years) and the distances to the Moon and to Mars, already realized in our time, we
obtain the expansion rates Hhomo = 4. 10-
3 m/year/m or H = 2 m/year/m (Hajduk 1980).
Comparing these values with the Hubble Constant for the expansion of the Universe
(H == 70 km/s/Mpc) we can see that the Hubble Constant for man/woman is at least
107 times higher than for the universe. Moreover this expansion rate has an acceleration
parameter instead of a decelerated one for the expansion of the universe. This means
that civilisations can leave the galaxy much before the collapse of the galaxies into
black holes at about 1030 years. In the case of an elliptic (closed) universe, the civilisations meet the whole contracting Universe much earlier. But what happens then?
3.2. The Fate of Life in the Universe
Living organisms based on the (organic) macromolecular structures of C-O-H-N have
a very limited time interval of existence, depending on the temperature and other connected parameters, at least in free natural conditions. Under artificial conditions this
interval of their life time can be broadened by using energy from their surroundings. It
is clear, however, that the conditions in the universe will change with time so drastically that this artificial process will not last up to its final stages. This was clear also for
Freeman Dyson in his famous article published in the Review of Modern Physics
(Dyson 1979, pp. 447-60) when he stated that ‘[i]t is conceivable that in another 1010
years life could evolve away from flesh and blood .. .’ He then considered the possibility
of evolution towards an interstellar black cloud or towards a sentient computer. Further
30
https://utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/uram.25.1.26 – Sunday, December 17, 2023 3:48:07 PM – IP Address:76.86.213.8
discussions have shown that such constructions are much closer to science fiction than
to reality, if we would not choose to leave the so-called complexity of life, as we understand it. Kraus and Starkman ( 1999) have shown quite convincingly that the dilution of
matter in an ever expanding universe prevents the support of energy for a communicating system, even when hibernation processes are included. Along with Dyson, they
have considered eternal life with a finite or ever-decreasing memory or as a closed
cycle to be highly unsatisfactory, resembling hell rather than a meaningful life. Their
hope for eternal life is highly unsatisfactory inasmuch as it makes use of the possibilities of quantum mechanics of gravity, which allow for the existence of stable wormholes, suggesting that ‘life_forms … might circumvent the barriers erected by the speed
of light, visit parts of the Universe that are otherwise inaccessible, and collect infinite
amounts of energy and information’. Or perhaps one could construct other universes,
according to the self_reproducing inflationary universes introduced by A. Linde
(1998). I see these speculations as closer to science fiction rather than to science. They
do not meet criteria for a satisfactory theory.
George Ellis (1999) from Cape Town University has recently published criteria for a
satisfactory theory, which I reproduce here in Table 1. And this concerns also the theory of other universes proposed by many authors.
Table I: Criteria for a satisfactory theory (Ellis 1999)
I. Satisfactory structure
(a) internal consistency
(b) simplicity
(c) aesthetic appeal (‘beauty’)
- Intrinsic explanatory power
(a) logical tightness
(b) scope
(c) probability - Relatedness
(a) connectedness to the rest of science
(b) extendability - Observational and experimental support
(a) testability
(b) confirmation
According to Ellis, ‘The idea of an ensemble of universes in which all that can occur
has occurred, is one approach that side_steps this problem (of a choice of theory), but
the penalty is the complete lack of verifiability .. ‘Such proposals are metaphysical
rather than scientific ones’, concludes Ellis (Ellis 1999, p.22). - THE PROBLEM OF MEANING
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1965, 1971) introduced a Christian view on the evolution
31
https://utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/uram.25.1.26 – Sunday, December 17, 2023 3:48:07 PM – IP Address:76.86.213.8
of the Universe in his writing, especially in The Phenomenon of Man and in Man’s
Place in Nature. He provided a meaning to the evolution of the whole creation from the
Alpha Point (the beginning of creation through the Word of God) through the axis of
evolution, identified with Christ towards the Omega Point as the final fulfillment in
God. The scientific issue of his theory is in his observation of the biological evolution
of life ‘towards more thought’, beginning with zero and ending with infinity. Christianity was not prepared for such a theory in his time; the Roman Catholic Church denied
the theory of evolution. Now, in a document of the Papal Biblical Commission published in 1993 and entitled ‘The Interpretation of Bible in the Church’, the theory of
evolution in nature is fully accepted and the older views presented in some previous
encyclicals are considered to be examples of a false biblical fundamentalism. This is a
great change of views with respect to science.
It is interesting to follow the reaction of atheistic philosophers and scientists who, for
a long time, have used evolution as a scientific argument against belief. They can speak
about the arrows of time, about the technical development of mankind towards the
increasing amount of information, but they refuse to speak about the arrow of evolution
moving towards an ever higher spirituality of men and women. They claim not to have
observed this. They also decline to speak about such questions as the meaning of the
universe and about the meaning of their own existence, in spite of the fact that many
great philosophers (Heidegger, Jaspers, Frankl) consider these questions as fundamental, and also, in spite of the fact that their own search in science has been a search for
meaning, are careful to insist that the universe functions by laws. But, as Frankl (1982)
states, this needs an ‘organ to find meaning’ (Sinn Organ), which, for him, is achieved
by conscience. However the experience shows, that meaning can only be accepted when
it has passed through the ‘needle’s eye of personal evidence’ (Uingle 1985; 1992).
Does the universe have meaning? It may have it for those for whom it has passed
through the ‘needle’s eye’. In this sense, the meaning of the universe cannot be considered as self-evident. But neither is the opposite possibility of non-meaning self-evident.
Meaning is not a physical category. The universe cannot have meaning without
human reflection. From this point of view, it makes no sense to consider the comprehension of the universe without human beings. The ideas of an ever-expanding universe, or of a universe without end needs some kind of immortality of human beings.
Frank Tipler in his controversial book The Physics of Immortality (1994), and some
other articles, constructed his Omega Point into a kind of big crunch of the closed, contracting Universe. The book is controversial, not only because of the way he conceives
of the survival of human beings – an immortality a mathematically constructed geometrical point, but also because God’s attributes given to this model take the form of infinite information. Heavy criticism of these ideas have come from Ellis (1994), and Ellis
and Stoeger as referred to by Jelinek (1998). Approaching immortality as a category of
theology by expressing it in physical terms leads Tipler to construct artificial expressions such as wave function (Wellenfunktion) for the Holy Spirit. This tends to destroy
the credibility of his other viewpoints. But what is significant is that, although open to
many questions, this book by such a distinguished scientist manifests the tendency to
bring theology into co-operation with the other branches of science when these have
32
https://utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/uram.25.1.26 – Sunday, December 17, 2023 3:48:07 PM – IP Address:76.86.213.8
reached the limits of their possibilities to find ultimate meaning in their observational
data.
A quite different approach to solving the final stages of an expanding universe, also
known as the problem of entropy, is offered by Professor Tibor Horvath (1993).
Observing the linear direction of entropy in the Universe, flowing from a maximum
level of entropy, i.e. the degradation of matter and energy in the universe to an final
state of uniformity, could be changed into the direction to a maximum level of energy,
elevating matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of active diversity. Professor Horvath asks this question: from where does this organising force come? His
theological answer is: from Christ’s body unified with those who live in it, if I understand him correctly. This sounds unacceptable to the ears of nonbelievers. However, the
sense intended by Horvath of this concept lies in the organising potential of humankind. If many philosophers are not prepared to accept space colonisation, expecting the
end of the world on earth to happen due to cosmic or other catastrophies, physicists by
and large are not prepared to accept the humanity’s potential as a physical force to
change the shape of nature in the large scale dimensions of the universe as well as in
the small scale dimension of the workplace. This reluctance overlooks the meaning of
the pronouncement by Neil Armstrong when he made his first step on the Moon: ‘one
small step for man; one giant leap for mankind’
The point is this: man has already changed the shape of the Earth considerably; we
have to accept the possibility that this power to change nature will increase in the largest scales and over the longest times. This organising force may be negligible now but
this insignificant energy may be compared with that of the first living structures on
earth three billion years ago. This suggest a plausible idea about how to extrapolate
from biological evolution to the evolution of the universe which does not contradict
any physical law. Is there any concrete concept that would realise this organising force
of humanity towards a possible eternity?
The term eternity sounds rather theological. However, physics recognises relativistic
times with a limit at the velocity of light. There is no satisfactory way at present to
describe the behavior of such relativistic biological systems as they approach this speed
limit. We probably will not be able to answer this question until we recognise the limits
of such biosystems with respect, not only to the change in time when approaching the
velocity of light, but also with regard to the corresponding changes in mass and dimension. Some believers have named those involved in this concept of eternal life as the
‘sons of light’. In terms of science, it is important to stress that the notion of relativistic
biosystems does not contradict any law of nature. Further details of it have been presented by me earlier (Hajduk 1980). - CONCLUSION
When the Anthropic Principle is confirmed, then the behavior of mankind with respect
to eternity will appear as a meaningful activity favoring those kinds of action which are
in accordance with the Anthropic Principle and eliminating those which contradict it.
33
https://utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/uram.25.1.26 – Sunday, December 17, 2023 3:48:07 PM – IP Address:76.86.213.8
REFERENCES
Barrow, J.D. and Tipler, F.J .. 1986. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford: Oxford
Univ.Press.
Berezin, A.A .. 1994. The problem of ultimate reality and meaning in the context of informational
self-organization and isotopic diversity. Ultimate Reality and Meaning 17: 295-310.
Blochincev, D.I .. 1979. Yselennaja kak gaz fridmonov. Doklady Akademii nauk SSSR, 246,
828-9 (Universe as a gas of fridmons).
Dicke, R.H. 1961. Dirac’s Cosmology and Mach’s Principle. Nature 192: 440-1.
Dyson, F.J. 1979. Time without end: Physics and biology in an open Universe. Rev. Modern
Physics 51: 447-80.
Ellis, G.F.R. 1994. Modern Cosmology and the Resurrection of the dead by Frank J. Tipler.
Nature 371: 115. http://www.virtual.lovely.net/www.middx.org.uk/gordo/ellis2.htm1
Ellis, G.F.R. and Stoeger, W.R. 1995. A response to Tipler’s mega-point theory;
http ://www. virtual. love! y.met/www.middx.org.uk/gordo/el lis3. htm I
Ellis, G.F.R. 1999. The different nature of Cosmology. Astronomy and Geophysics 40: 22
Frankl, V. 1982. Arztliche Seelsorge. Wien: Deuticke. In Llingle 1992.
Hajduk, A. 1980, Casopriestorove dimenzie biosystemov v Mategalaxii (Space-time dimension of biosystems in the Universe). In: Filozofia a metodologicke problemy prfrodnych
vied – Hmota a pohyb z hl’adiska filozafie pr[rodnych. vied. Proc. Symp. Praha, pp.
163-75.
- Science as a Battlefield: Methodological and historical considerations on the misuse of
science by totalitarian regimes of central Europe. Ultimate Reality and Meaning. Central
European Studies 20: 216-221
Hart, M.H .. 1975. Space colonization. Quart. J. Roy. Astron. Soc. I 6: 128.
Hawking, S.W. 1974. The Anisotropy of the Universe at Large Times, International Astronomical Union Symposium, JAU Symposium, Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with
Observational Data, Ed. M.S. Longair, D.Reidel: Dordrech-Holland, 63: 283-6.
Hawking, S. W.1988. A Brief History of Time. New York: Bantam Books.
Heller, M .. 1992. Nowafizika i nowa teologia. Tamow: Biblos.
Horvath, T. 1993. Eternity and Eternal Life. Speculative Theology and Science in Discourse.
Waterloo, Ont. Canada: Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press.
Islam, J.N. 1977. The possible ultimate fate of the Universe. Quarterly J. Roy Astron. Soc.18: 3
Jelinek, 0. 1998. K ‘Fyzice nesmrtelnosti’ (To the Physics of Immortality). Leto: Universum.
Revue prirodovedecke a technicke sekce Ceske krestanske akademie (Revue of the Czech
Christian Academy) 29: 4 1-6.
Jones, E.M .. 1976. Colonization of Galaxy. Icarus 28: 421-2.
Leave a Reply