The Anthropocentric Universe



anthropocentric_imageNumerous cosmic coincidences of the early special conditions in the life of our Universe did encourage several scientists and cosmologists to make from them certain anthropocentric deductions, and to formulate a claim that those coincidences of special conditions caused to pre-determine not only the development of our Universe itself, but also the appearance of conscious life on Earth. This theory was introduced to the scientific community as the Anthropic Principle. (A.P.)

It is anthropic, as it comes from the Greek word for human. The word of anthropic is an incorrect idiom, its users meant anthropological or anthropocentric. However, it cannot be called a principle either, because its conclusion is not verifiable by science; therefore, to many critiques it appears more like an imaginative theory.

The A.P. has been interpreted throughout the past decades as a free-standing and an incomplete proposition; therefore according to some cosmologists, it is worthy of suspicion and even rejection. It is true that it is a free-standing theory because it is isolated, science is unable to compare it with any other criterion for verification.

It is also true that it is an incomplete theory, because it emphasises only one idea, that is the precisely fine-tuned initial conditions in the Universe were the result of an apparently miraculous, unexplainable and yet natural act that enabled the natural development of life over a limited period of time.

Therefore, the argument that the A.P. is free-standing and incomplete would appear acceptable as legitimate only if the same argument could be applied equally to those theories that are objecting to it.

It is worth noting for comparison that the Darwinian ‘evolution’ of the biological life on Earth was thought also by many eminent biologists no less miraculous, despite the similarly natural processes in which it developed. However, singular events in the Universe, such as the claim made by the theory of A.P. lend themselves more to philosophical enquiries rather than belonging to the realm of science.

Not as if there was a gross ignorance on the part of those who formulated the A.P. in the first place; after they backed up all their claims with scientifically verified observations, which were based on the applications of the laws of causality as well as on calculations of the physical laws and the constants of cosmic events. Some cosmologists therefore admitted openly that because of these scientific bases of the A.P. is deemed to be at least an acceptable scientific theory, and it merits the same consideration for further verification just as any other scientific theory. This is the most the A.P. has achieved in the field of science and cosmology up until today. But it stirred up many adversaries, and understandably for different reasons.

The basis of controversy was that in the correct understanding by the adversaries of the A.P. these fortuitous accidents in nature had to happen the way they did, for reasons unknown to us, and will probably never be known; and for these accidents have been, (collectively taken), a single event in the history of our Universe. This aspect of single event was acceptable to them, but at the same time it raised justifiably grave doubts about the rightful authority to deal with it by the advocates for the A.P., as they could never scientifically verify the underlying causes nor can explain the metaphysical reasons for such a single cosmic event.

Consequently, while scientists and cosmologists may with the best of intentions, attempt to interpret a singular event in our Universe that deals with metaphysical ideas of causes, purpose and destiny, they can never produce a theory with scientific evidence-based certainty for or against the theory of A.P.


Our concept of the Universe is constantly challenged by new cosmological ideas and theories.
One such question is centered around the early development of the physical Universe with its quasi ‘purpose-driven’ suitability for further development of conscious life. This article will demonstrate the present-day scientific theories about the pertaining ideas of causative and the non-causative, random-chance processes.
The semi-scientific theories that are dealing with the above cosmological ideas will be described in the following two groups:-

  1. The basic anthropocentric theory, called the Anthropic Principle, (A.P.)
  2. The adversarial arguments against it, primarily the many or parallel-worlds theory, commonly referred to as the Multiverse.


  • Introduction and Status Quo.
  • The Aim and Extent of this Article.
  • Acknowledgements.


  1. Development of Our Universe
    • The Traditional View.
    • The Scientific View.
    • The Philosophical View.
  2. Anthropological Reasoning
    • The Basic Anthropological Theory.
    • The Weak Anthropic Principle.
    • The Strong Anthropic Principle.
    • The Fine-Tuned Universe.
    • The Multiverse Theory.
  3. Anthropological Numbers and Events
    • The Large Numbers.
    • The Physical Constants.
    • The Anthropological Coincidences.


Diagram: ‘History of the Universe’.


The following authors were helpful source for compiling this paper:-

  • M. Waldorp: Complexity. H. Pagel: The Cosmic Code.
  • P.W.Davies: The Accidental Universe.
  • J. Gribbin: The Omega Point.
  • J. Gribbin & Sir M. Rees: Cosmic Coincidences.
  • J.D.Barrow & F.J.Tipler: The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.
  • P.W.Davies & J. Gribbin: The Matter Myth.
  • W.Stoeger, S.J., Ellis & Kirchner: Multiverse & Physical Cosmology; (arXiv:astro-ph/0407329v1-16 Jul 2004).
  • R. Dawkins: Climbing Mount Improbable.


All our concepts have limits in order to understand them, which is the essence of definition. What is undefinable that to us is unknowable, because there is no word or idea to describe the limits of its meaning. Therefore, as the saying goes, the tighter the limits, the clearer the meaning. In addition, as Luc Ferry, the French philosopher remarks: “For a word to possess a meaning it has to be a sign with a double transcendence: on the one hand, the transcendence of what is signified, on the other, that of the intention of a subject, necessarily assumed in the background…. Anything that is not the effect of a will, even when unconscious, like a slip of the tongue, anything that is not in some way the manifestation of a subjectivity, has no meaning, “makes no sense”.

The safeguard for our understanding a definition is our conceptual knowledge of things that gives us a certain intellectual grasp of reality. The definitions of the first principles were taken from the Aristotelian Systematic Philosophy, which states that almost every issue in dispute that arises from a philosophy of thought can be traced back to the ambiguities of the philosophy of language and its definitions. Technical definitions comply with those of the Modern Physics and the Standard Cosmological Model; (SCM.)

Our physical Universe: (As opposed to: ‘Other Worlds, Parallel Universe or Multiverse’).
It is the totality of all material objects and events that exist in the physical space/time reality. This comprises all animate and inanimate beings, planets, stars, galaxies, clusters, super-clusters of galaxies and other physical entities and events. The contents of the Universe include all types of energy and matter. The Universe is governed by the laws, constants and the three forces of the physical nature throughout the microcosm and macrocosm.

Our Universe had a ‘beginning’ in time, at the moment of Big Bang, 13.75 billion years ago, and  inspace 13.75 billion light years away; therefore the Universe is expected that it also will have an end in time, and an end in space. Consequently, philosophy calls it being finite by nature in the physical reality. (Therefore it is a contradiction in logic to call it either infinite or eternal.) Its present expansion in space may go on indefinitely or it may recycle back to its origin in a Big Crunch; it depends on its material density, (called the Omega Factor), being, however, without any perceived conflict with either the concept of a metaphysical ‘creation’ or the verified discoveries and theories of the modern sciences.

Physical Reality: (As opposed to the make-believe and imaginative ‘other worlds’).
An objective, material reality is represented by the physically identifiable form configured with a material substance. The result of this configuration, as conceived and judged by the human mind, is called matter, which is the quintessence of truth of existence in reality. There is no material substance existing in reality, be it animate or inanimate, without its identifiable form, that is its attributes, by which it could be described. It is an Aristotelian axiom that “There is no entity without identity”.
Although an objective material reality may be the abstract product of the reasoning mind, nevertheless its realistic (as opposed to make-belief or illusory), basis for any reasoning process must lie in a scientifically provable evidence of existence for physical entities or events in space and time. (The reader may recognise that this same axiom applies also to the realistic basis for any true religious faith.) The reality of the physical world is characterised by constant change.

Objective reality, according to Einstein, does not depend for its existence on the conscious individual’s observation, as claimed in Quantum Mechanics. However, one should add that while reality does not depend on the observer, an observer’s mind is the only one that can judge and verify material reality by describing its attributes. He also adds: “What is incomprehensible is that the world should be comprehensible”. A subjective reality belongs to the realm of ‘idealism’, which has no verifiable base in the physical reality, and excluded from this article.

The Observer:
The most important role of an observer is to verify the properties of material reality in the Universe, on whose basis an idea and a scientific theory is built. One of the properties (and quasi-purpose) of our Universe is that it is intelligible to its inhabitants, without observers its understanding (and producing scientific theories) would be impossible. An observer must have an adequate and a conscious mind, with free-will to explore.

Paradoxically, the physical reality includes, as its inseparable part, the observer himself, and yet, the observer must at the same time, exercise its intellectual consciousness with an impartial objectivity. It seems from the above that while we observe the reality around us, such as when viewing the stars or experiment in laboratories, in a metaphysical sense, we are observing ourselves, that is we are searching for our very own identity.

Laws of Causality:
The following concepts are taken from the Aristotelian Systematic Philosophy, as there being the rock-bottom basis of the scientific reasoning and understanding of entities and events and of the formulation of their scientific theories. This law-like logic applies to all finite energy, matter, particles, laws and forces of physical nature in a finite Universe:-

  • Cause contributes to the being of a physical reality. (For the definition on “Reality” see an other Article).
  • Every Cause must end in an Effect; otherwise there is no Cause to speak of.
  • Every entity and event in the physical reality is the product of a finite Cause. Therefore every entity and event in the reality is an Effect, which could become later a Cause.
  • Cause cannot be an endless physical chain of events. (The reason being that there is no ‘infinite-regress’ in physical nature.) Furthermore, every chain of events must have its First Cause in the physical reality, which is equally finite, free-standing and a unique entity, depending on no other physical cause outside itself.
  • Cause can never be unpredictable, as every cause in the physical reality is a reason for existence with certitude of understanding it.
    Reason can never be a Cause, as reason can only explain the physical reality that may not be self-evident to the mind.

Effect: It is a finite event produced by the activity or operation of a cause in the physical reality.

Chance: It can never be a cause, as it is a circumstance, meaning that the effect it produces has a nature of unpredictability. (If all the reality of the Universe is a chance-effect, one may ask: What is the cause of all these effects?)

Reason: It can never be a cause, as reason can only explain the reality that is not self-evident to the mind.

Purpose: In the physical world, according to Aristotle, the principal agent in all events is the Laws of Causality. Every cause is an action of energy with reference to time, which results in a purpose; (Action = Energy x Time = Direction). There are four types of Causes, the Formal, Material, Efficient and Final cause; the Final cause is carried out only by animate beings, (such as plants/animals/humans), as its agents in the physical reality, because it points to an end, a purpose of a causative action, (such as in the growth of a tree).

a) General Metaphysics (or Ontology), deals with reality as viewed without or beyond material limitations. Therefore, the basic object of metaphysics is to analyse the meaning and the property of non-material real “being as such”, considered in itself and not as it exists in this nature or in any other nature. The general subject of metaphysics includes the nature, the properties and the classification of “Being”.

The basic concept of “Being” includes:

  • The logical order of knowledge.
  • The forming of abstract ideas.
  • Transcendental ideas.
  • The concepts of goodness and truth.

b) Special Metaphysics (or Cosmology) deals with:

i) The Physical Cosmology, which is considered a branch of Physics and Astronomy, whose single subject is the Universe, its history and the natural processes that govern it.

ii) The Philosophical Cosmology, i.e.: the Philosophy of Nature, whose general subject includes the fundamental questions of cause and effect, time and space, infinity, matter and form, change, contingency, the nature and properties of inanimate and animate beings.

Based on these terminologies, (which were gratefully acknowledged to W. Stoeger, S.J., Professor of Philosophy and Cosmology), thus he concludes with this note: “Metaphysics has no supernatural or religious connotations or any other strange meaning that is being commonly attributed to it for malice, mistake or ignorance”.

Fine-Tuning or Anthropological Numbers: There are certain, precisely tuned, fortuitous numbers andphysical events in our Universe, that are considered to be essential for the development of the Universe itself, as well as the development of life in it. These quantities are causally-based and althoughscientifically confirmed, they have eluded so far every scientific explanation.

These quantitative phenomena are set up in three general groups, referred to as:-

  1. The Large Numbers.
  2. Physical Constants.
  3. Anthropological Coincidences.
The Basic Anthropological Theory:

There are two major theories under this heading, namely:

The Weak A.P.: This theory is not a physical theory but only an anthropological explanation that is considered by the scientific community as harmless and unobjectionable. Although its central tenet is the much disputed ‘unnatural’ selection, that is everything was just right for life to develop in the Universe, still most cosmologists tolerate this theory because of its vagueness its proponents are able to explain with it almost anything.

The Strong A.P.: This theory is based on and the scientific development of the Weak A.P., which places restrictions on the explanations of laws of physics and of the physical constants of nature, resulting in that human life came into being in the Universe due to the fortuitous, law-like causal purpose in physical nature. It also asserts that the 13.75 Gy. age of the Universe was sufficiently long enough for life to develop through precise fine-tuning of all special conditions.
Science is antagonistic to this version of the A.P.

The Multiverse Theory: According to the adversaries of the Strong A.P., the available 13.75 Gy. was insufficient for life to develop in our Universe even when accepting the precise fine-tuning of all special conditions, but now not through causal purpose, but through blind-chances and accidents. Hence, the theory of many worlds or the Multiverse was introduced on the basis of the random-quantum fluctuation, which has an infinite number of universe-domains, with physical properties of infinite variations and combinations.

From here, life developed spontaneously from among the infinite number of blind choices available, and through the miraculous self-selection and co-ordination process enacted randomly by the material world. It is evident (theoretically) that our Universe is being the lucky one of these universe-domains. This theory then replaced the fine-tuning by causal purpose in our Universe with infinite number of random and blind-chances of infinite number of Worlds; motivated this by the quantum theory that posits: ‘everything will eventually happen because it can happen’, even within a limited time-span of 13.75 Gy.


The question of development of the physical Universe, and the history of conscious life in it, often presented through the popular media and even in some pseudo-scientific papers in a rather simplified form, without the many complex issues associated with it.
The following prevailing views may demonstrate this point:-

  1. The Traditional View: Based on historical data, gathered throughout the ages, which led to anthropologically-centered conclusions about certain cosmological objects and events.
  2. The Scientific View: Based on physical observations of laws and constants of nature, and made scientific deductions. From here on the cosmologists proceeded on two different ways. While one group reinforced the Traditional View, the other rejected it. Oddly enough both, the acceptance and rejection of the Traditional View was based on the same reasoning, which is the causality and its implications.
  3. The Philosophical View: Based on the above two Views, but with the additional analysis of their common physical criterion, the Laws of Causality. The human reasoning reaches in several cases the limits of physical reality, such are the concepts of infinity, the reality, origin of energy and matter, the nature of life, etc., and fails seemingly to find the ultimate answers.

1.1 The Traditional View.

Life evolved 3.5 billion years ago as an ever increasing order out of the pre-historic chaos. This emerging life later programmed itself randomly through mutations and variations, plus non-random cumulative natural selection of the species, (“and not through random chance as mistakenly thought by many”; R.Dawkins.) Nature reached a major epoch around 2.7 million years ago, when it produced conscious human beings, as if this time it created a greater ‘order out of chaos’.
The end result of this natural, yet enigmatic process seems to be two-fold, namely:

  1. What was there before, a pure physical matter with a random, blind process, in its blindness produced what is now not blind, but a self-conscious, reasoning human being, with freedom of mind and freedom of will.
  2. It appears, as if the blind process of nature handed over the role to the conscious mind to lead humanity out of chaos. The enigma is how a highly organised entity, such the life of a reasoning human being could have developed in a physical reality that tends through its law of entropy towards disorder.

Humanity’s long journey began by the conscious self and others, through the pre-historic cultural and tribal traditions. Their mental picture became slowly enriched by the images of the splendor of heavens, through their unscientific view, the first anthropocentric view. In their belief, everything existed for the sole benefit of human beings. Earth was the center of their reality, the center of the Solar system and of the Universe. It all changed by Copernicus in the year 1543, who published his revolutionary model of the Solar System, placing the Sun at the center instead of Earth.

1.2 The Scientific View

The gradual understanding of nature was based on scientific observation of celestial objects and events, the scientific analysis of natural laws, forces and the mathematically deducted universal constants. These investigations turned the attention to the approximate scale of cosmic dimensions that placed human beings at the center, between the two extreme opposites of nano- (10-9 m. of bio-molecules) and the giga-measures (109 m. of stars).

These observations and other similar facts confirmed many scientists’ opinion in that human beings may well have been, so to speak, endowed with fortuitously suitable conditions during the 13.75Gy. that were required for life to develop in the Universe. Then the theory of precise fine-tuning of special conditions together with the causal purpose in the development of life were formulated and to great anxiety of several scientists and biologists, published in the year 1903 by Wallace and Carter, called the Anthropic Principle, (A.P.). This A.P. was based on the Law of Causality, lending it a quasi-scientific legitimacy.

This theory was later developed further by Barrow and Tipler, et al., adding mainly their imaginative ideas about the future of human species elsewhere in our Universe, as well as waxing god-like about eternal life of our descendents, the quasi super-human beings. However, the A.P. created concern among many scientists, biologists and cosmologists for its precise interpretation, which led directly to the concept of action with a specifically abstract purpose, and at the same time it led them into conflict as well , mainly because of their adversarial view of a development of life by blind-chance.
From a purely anthropocentric point of view, however, scientists and cosmologists have made two controversial decisions in recent times:-

  1. They dismissed outright the A.P., oddly enough, on the one hand, because of its reliance on the scientifically observed certainty of ‘purpose’ in fine-tuning, while on the other hand, contradicted the above reason by dismissing it now because of it being incredibly vague; i.e. as they say:
    “you can if you want, explain with it almost anything”. So much so that a warning became fashionable among cosmologists, that even thinking about the A.P., “it could get you into deep trouble”.
  2. Because of the A.P.’s pointed reference to the certainty of ‘purpose’ in fine-tuning, its adversaries replaced it with a (hypothetical) uncertainty of the ‘many worlds’ theory, which achieved the same fine-tuning, but now through ‘blind-chance’. At the same time, this alternative solution instantly removed the need for fine-tuning of our Universe by any causal purpose, together with the disconcerting idea of a need for any supernatural being for its creation.

Those cosmologists who opposed the A.P. created a problem for themselves by adopting the theory of many worlds, which based on the uncertainty of the quantum theory and, which “began to grow and grow without limits to infinity”. This hypothetical theory proposes the same ‘fine-tuning’ in the infinite universes, but now  by ‘blind- chance,’ (instead of fine-tuning by certainty of a ‘purposeful’ process in the one only finite physical Universe.) In other words, if a single universe’s life- time of 13.75 Gy, as our Universe, wouldn’t have been sufficient for such a chance process to develop conscious life, then the many worlds’ theory hoped to solve the same problem through the ‘blind-chance‘ co-operation of itsinfinite many worlds.

Summary of the two major hypothetical theories that describe the many worlds:-

  1. The Multiverse: This purely speculative theory is based on quantum fluctuation, causally connected with the Big Bang of our Universe, which grew out of control and expanded exponentially. This Big Bang could have happened many times, creating an infinite number of similar quantum fluctuations. The result of all this is that every universe-domain, one of these being our Universe, could have evolved by chance, which is suitable for conscious life, without any fine-tuning. This theory was first proposed by a physics-doctorate student, Hugh Everett, USA, 1957.
  2. The Parallel Worlds: This speculative theory is vaguely similar to the Multiverse theory, but in this case there could be infinite number of distinctly separate and autonomous cosmic-domains, causally disconnected from our Universe and from one another.
    They may be either a universe in a universe, in a universe, ad infinitum or perfectly identical in individual size but differing only in quality. The possibilities are endless, and they only depend on one’s fertile imagination. These worlds may be called anything you like, because who knows what they would be like anyway, and besides, as some cosmologists say, they may not even exist in the reality. This theory was first published by Andrei Linde, in the Scientific American, in 1994.

From here on, for the sake of simplicity, and to avoid confusion, this article will consider only one type of the many possible worlds, that is the Multiverse, which term corresponds with the the quantum fluctuations type universe-domains, with ‘causal‘ connections with the Big Bang of our Universe.

1.3 The philosophical View

Paradoxically, scientists and cosmologists were the first to establish the observation-based causal effects of the so called “fine-tuning” of specific entities and events in physical nature, which provided the common bases for the special conditions of development of life in our Universe. The theory of A.P. was based on those very same causal effects. Now, however, the adversaries of the A.P. contradict themselves by saying that while their observations and mathematical calculations indicated originally an inexplicable certainty in fine-tuning of special conditions, and yet, now with a specific reference to theA.P.’s claim to “fine-tuning” the only interpretation that they can offer is that those events were the result of fortuitous accidents and a design by blind-chance, (which is anything but certainty). Furthermore, in the opinion of the adversaries, the A.P. had no authority to interpret scientifically a purely physical event of fine-tuning with metaphysical reasoning for a transcendental  purpose.

On the basis of the above legitimate argument alone, not even the acceptance by the adversaries of the Forces and Laws of nature, and the certainty of causality, were sufficient reason for them to endorse theA.P. as a scientifically verified fact. Therefore, in order to avoid the acceptance of the A.P.’s ‘fine-tuning’ of a single Universe, as it being an un-scientific concept, the modern-day adversaries came up with an alternative, yet similarly un-scientific theory of the Multiverse, but this time without the need for reliance on any metaphysical reasoning for a ‘purposeful fine-tuning’, together with its religious connotation. However, by the proposition of this purely speculative theory, modern-day physical cosmologists proceeded unexpectedly from the causal certainty (of A.P. theory), that is the one finitephysical Universe, into a “quantum uncertainty” of an infinite number of universe-domains.

General Comments:
Both theories, the A.P. and the Multiverse seem to share the following same problems:-

  • They are scientifically free-standing and incomplete propositions.
  • They have no testability to their ultimate claims.
  • They attempt to scientifically interpret a singular event in the history of our Universe, (which event belongs to the domain of philosophy).
  • They attempt to formulate a metaphysical proof on the basis of physical reality without any connecting comparison, or in reverse, (i.e.: leaving a gap in their reasoning, which is called the ‘Ontological Argument’.) These are:-
    1. a) The A.P. theory extrapolates from its scientific observations in the physical reality, to the hypothetically metaphysical realm of causal purpose of ‘fine-tuning’.
    2. b) The Multiverse theory on the other hand, extrapolates from the metaphysical realm of chance-development of life, to the hypothetically physical reality of ‘multiverse’

For these errors in their reasoning logic, neither of these two hypothetical concepts can be regarded as verifiable philosophical, physical or scientific theories.


2.1 The Basic Anthropological Theory

The recent theory of anthropological reasoning dates back to R. Dicke’s article of 1961 on “Dirac’s Cosmology and Mach’s Principle”, which contains in part how long the Universe has been expanding. In it Dicke proposes that the present value of the Hubble age is not a random choice from a wide range of possible values, but it is set within the very limited time span that was available for the biological requirements to be met for the development of life. The lower limit is the first requirement, that is the availability of elements heavier than hydrogen, such as carbon, which conforms to (the lower limit of the present value of Hubble age), the age of the shortest lived stars. The upper limit is the second requirement, that is the availability of sufficient thermal energy and light on a planet (like Earth), provided by its stars, which conforms to (the upper limit of the present value of Hubble age), the age of the longest lived stars.

Note: The very essence of the Basic Anthropological Theory is centered around this “limited time span”, within which time the so called coincidences of precise fine-tuning for all specific conditions that were required for life to develop had to take place. It must be said, that there was an announcement made lately by the proponents of the A.P. that they don’t claim the mystery of ‘Large Numbers’ and other coincidences being a miracle or having tried to prove by them any metaphysical connotations, but merely state that they should merit by cosmologists further investigation.

(E.g.: The age of the Universe = cca.14 Gy +/-3 Gy. A. Sandage, 1999) as derived from old stars, radioactive elements, etc., and not from Hubble constant. The Hubble constant = cca. 65 +/- 15 km/s.Mprc; consistent with ages from 7.5 to 22.5 Gy. The Hubble age is understood the age of the universe as based on the Hubble constant).

Considering the beyond the time limits of stars that were set as the conditions for development of life anywhere in the Universe, reveal that the present value of the Hubble age, (previously regarded by cosmologists as arbitrary), is now given an entirely new meaning and a basis for a new argument. Interestingly, when we reconsider the development of life in the light of the above information, previously biological conditions were explained in terms of physical values; now physical values are explained in terms of biological conditions.

In this way of reasoning, according to some cosmologists is neither causal nor deductive, in other words it is not a strictly scientific process, and yet, it may still be admissible as a scientific explanation. The basic anthropic theory became appreciated by the wider scientific community only after B. Carter developed it in his paper of 1974: “Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle”. In this paper Carter made the distinction between the week and strong anthropic principles for the first time.

2.2 The Weak Anthropic Principle

This A.P. states that our location in the Universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers. This principle then refers back to the two time limits in the Universe, all as described above. Carter makes a plausible claim that the weak anthropic principle vindicates Dicke’s deduction of the Hubble age.

Sir Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal, makes the following thought-provoking comments: ‘It is rather interesting that the most complicated thing in the Universe, namely human beings, are in a well-defined sense midway between atoms and stars. It would take about as many human bodies to make up the mass of the Sun as there are atoms in one human body…. The geometric mean of the mass of a proton and the mass of the Sun, is about 55 kilograms, not far of the mass of an average human body. It is not surprising that the most complicated things in nature are on this intermediate scale between cosmos and micro-world.’

2.3 The Strong Anthropic Principle

This A.P. provides the firm scientific basis as evidence for the claim made in the Weak A.P., that is the fortuitous arrangement of fine-tuning of the physical world confirms their belief in purpose that produced life in the Universe. This basis comprises scientific observations made in the microscopic and macroscopic nature, claiming that numerous physical and cosmological quantities of laws, constants and large numbers cannot be easily explained either for their apparent necessity in precision or as having any logical reason for existence in themselves.

2.4 The Fine-Tuned Universe

The firm basis of the Strong Anthropic Principle is the scientifically proven fine-tuning of the physical quantities in nature by the claimed causative act of a higher purpose. This concept was later on high jacked by the media and renamed it to ‘Intelligent Design’. These fine-tuned quantities of the Universe point to one common, principal feature that is: they are all precisely tuned through a very specific and unnatural selection, to hold together some vital element in nature, at the critically set strength, direction and distance, through the strong and weak nuclear forces, the electromagnetic and the gravitational forces.

Above all, this initial fine-tuning process had to be completed in the very early life of the Universe, (unlike the analogous Darwinian development of life on Earth), and not spread over the cca.13.75 Gy. life-span, in order that these fine-tuned entities could govern the subsequent phases of development in the physical nature and life in it. Could there be otherwise a gradual development in the speed of light or in the force of gravity in order to fulfill the above conditions?

The following items appear the ‘fine-tuned’ quantities: Particle Physics has more than 20 adjustable parameters, which are not determined by any known physical principles, but they are merely based on observations and mathematical calculations. These are considered the cosmic events or conditions of existence of the Universe. The Standard Cosmological Model has similar 15 parameters. The cosmologist’s problem is how these parameters are determined, and which ones are considered fundamental.

While many cosmologists refute the ‘causality‘ based fine-tuning in the Strong A.P., there are also some general uncertainties, contradictions and even unexplained failures among established cosmological theories, including the Standard Cosmological Model. Even the latest Super-String Theory is already doubted by several cosmologists, as these hypothetical theories appear mainly to shore up the adversarial views against the Strong A.P.

Scientists say also that some infinities in the SCM are embarrassing, and they will have to be eliminated. The Super String Theory may dissipate infinities, but it presents new challenges to pure mathematics. Thus, in a concerted effort, instead of approaching a simplified and united theory, more and more conflicting and imaginative theories are published, whereby the theoretical complexities and the cosmological confusion are on the increase.

In association with this item, B. Carr and Sir Martin Rees, 1979, in the “The Anthropic Principle and the Structure of the Physical World”, give ample evidence for the fundamental constants of physics that claims to determine the existence of life on Earth.The basic intent and meaning of the A.P. theory is the following: “The limited time span of 13.75 Gy. was sufficiently long for life to fully develop anywhere in the Universe, even when applying the scientifically based observations of the so called fine-tuning of the physical Universe.” (This statement implies only that it could have happened).

2.5 The Multiverse Theory

The theory of Multiverse has been proposed on the basis of ‘quantum-chance fluctuation‘ of many worlds, called the universe-domains, in order to avoid the causality-based fine-tuning that would be required to set up the anthropological conditions for our Universe and life in it to exist. Many scientists, (Dicke, Carter, Everett, Wheeler, Rees, Weinberg, Davies, Tegmark, Linde, Smolin,, assume that it is quite feasible to imagine carbon and water-based life form to exist not only in our Universe but also in many of the other worlds, such as claimed in the theory of the Multiverse.

But according to Hawking, it is also possible to imagine some sort of life composed of hydrogen and helium alone or life without stars and heavy elements, with special laws to exist somewhere in the many universe-domains. One may ask: But where is the limit before we go way beyond science fiction? The answer is: The quantum theory dictates that everything could happen in some universe-domains.

Our Universe is just one of the infinite number of such universe-domains. Furthermore, every universe-domain would have its unlimited number of subsidiary universe-domains of infinite varieties, meaning in effect that there are infinite numbers of universe-domains, all as per uncertainty of quantum theory. All universe-domains would have causal inter-connection with one another, they could act on one another, and they all still would have one common origin with our Universe in space and time. There may be some difficulties in explaining in the Multiverse the Darwinian theory of biological selection, which is “sublimely and quintessentially non-random” (R. Dawkins.)

There is one important word in the above explanation that warrants commenting on, that is the ‘Causal” inter-connection… It may be clear by now from the previous articles, that the use of the concept of ‘causation’ in its fullest, philosophical meaning, is very much limited by scientists in general. It is therefore disconcerting when physical  cosmologist use the same concept of causation that they trying to deny, for describing an important, yet purely hypothetical concept of Multiverse.

It is further stated that our Universe, as all other ‘universe-domains’ happened to develop through‘blind-chance’, (as opposed to the causal inter-connection),and during the same limited time-span of cca. 13.75 Gy., thus all or some of these ‘universe-domains’ have collectively contributed to the fine-tuning of our Universe. The problem with the Multiverse theory is that those collective ‘fine-tuning’ had to take place simultaneously, and causally co-ordinated precisely at the very beginning of the Universe, and not drawn out over the entire 13.75 Gy. period. So far, in any of the present Multiverse theories, there is silence about who did the ‘causal’ co-ordination of ‘fine-tuning’, and how this essentially ‘causal’ requirement was achieved by ‘blind-chance‘; Is not here a contradiction in terms?

The Dilemma of Uncertainty:
“Apart from the quantum-based nature of the Multiverse theory, oddly enough the anthropocentric aspect, from which the adversarial cosmologists wanted to extricate themselves in the first place, find themselves now in a more serious anthropocentric dilemma to explain, that is the working of the human mind itself in an ‘uncertain’ quantum environment.

“The following appears to be the reason: This intellect is endowed with certitude of logic attained by the use of the philosophical laws of critical thought. Therefore, this reasoning faculty of an observer by analysing and judging truth against falsity must apply in all possibilities, and at all times, even in the quantum uncertainties, which is the assumed basic nature of the Multiverse. If this is found to be a correct assumption, it should negate the very conclusion that the reasoning faculty of this human mind will have been able to achieve any knowledge with certitude in a quantum world”. (“Multiverse and Physical Cosmology”.)

Furthermore, in the absence of the law-like causality, one could imagine infinite number of chance-events that may contradict with one another within and among the infinite universe-domains, including our Universe, as opposed to a coordinated and precise fine-tuning of nature that is required in our Universe and elsewhere, where life is expected to develop.

“Almost all quantum field theories one can write down are simply nonsensical, for they assert that most (or all) observable quantities are infinite“. (Barrow & Tipler).


3.1 The Large Numbers

The following data were compiled from cosmological assays, and primarily from: The internet, and the “Big Numbers of Dirac” by: N.Kosinov. In opposition to the Strong Anthropic Principle, the theory ofMultiverse was proposed. The weakness in this theory is (among many other things), that it cannot find answers to the so called Large Numbers, which were published for the first time by P. Dirac. There are about nine apparently unconnected cases in our Universe, where the large numbers of cca. 1040 appear consistently. The mysterious occurrences of these large numbers have not yet been solved. A recent scientific and mathematical value analysis of super-constants and these large numbers was carried out on the basis of an updated and highly accurate one single big number of D0 = 4.16650385(15)x1042. All large numbers are compound and include the number D0.

The following are the five groups of universal super-constants: The fundamental quantum of action, The fundamental quantum length, The fundamental quantum of time, The fine structure constant and The number pi.

The following are the six cases and their quantities, in which the mysterious large numbers of cca.1040appear with relation to our Universe; (The following quantities are based on the above Big Number ofD0):

  • Ratio of photon-baryon density = D1/2
  • Ratio of typical star lifetime to Planck time = D3/2
  • Ratio of characteristic nuclear time to Planck time = D1/2
  • Ratio of Meta-galaxy action to elementary action = D3
  • Ratio of a square of a gravitational charge of the Universe to hc = D3
  • Quantity of the charged particles in the Universe = D2

Dirac’s three big numbers:

  • Ratio of electrical and gravitational forces in the hydrogen atom = 1039
  • The age of Meta-galaxy in nuclear time units = 1039
  • Ratio of Meta-galaxy mass to proton mass = 1039

The Physical Constants

Certain physical constants are universal, meaning they are assumed the same throughout the Universe and unchanged through all time.
There are many such constants in physics, which apparently may have no reference to anything else, until one considers just how a small change in any one of these constants would make a huge difference either to our Universe itself or to life on Earth.
There are several groupings for the Physical Constants in general; the following are the important four (4) groups:-

  • a) Fundamental Physical Constants: (
    In this schedule “All Constants” are included, a Total of 304 No. off; Excluding the Astronomical and the Mathematical Constants.
  • b) Universal Constants: (Included in a) above). These are:
    Speed of Light, Avogadro constant, Boltzmann const., Gas const., Ideal gas volume, Electronic charge, Rest mass of electron, Planck const., Gravitational const., Permittivity of free space, Radiation const., Vacuum permeability.
  • c) Mathematical Constants: (
    Pythagoras’ constant, Golden mean, Nat’l log. Base, Archimedes’ const., Euler const., Apery’s const., Catalan’s const., Feigenbaum const., Madelung’s const., Glaisher-Klinkelin const.,Brun’s const.,Wirtinger-Sobolev isoperimetric const., Wilbraham-Gibbs const.,Laplace limit const., Gauss’ lemniscate const., Geometric probability const.
  • d) Astronomical Constants: (The Physical Universe; by: Frank Shu)
    Astronomical Unit, (AU), Parsec, Year, Solar mass, Solar radius, Solar luminosity, Mass of Earth, Radius of Earth.

3.2 The Anthropological Coincidences:

a) (>collated from the works of cosmologists and physicists, like: Sir Martin Rees,
J. Gribbin, S. Hawking, J. Barrow and F. Tipler.
These events are also known as the Cosmological Coincidences.
These 15 coincidences have the most complex nature and were in existence well before life could develop on Earth, which being one of the arguments for the Strong Anthropic Principle. The full list and explanations of the individual events may be found on the above Webpage and in its Links.

b) (
This Webpage lists 8 events, which are mainly centered on the magic number of 1040, with explanations of their implications given by P. Davies.

c) (
The following 9 items of physical constants are considered being fine-tuned individually and in concert with one another; for full explanations see the above Webpage. These items are:
The force of gravity, Properties of water, The carbon cycle, The properties of neutrinos in supernovae, The strong nuclear force, The density of the Universe, The proton-neutron mass ratio, The matter-antimatter ratio, The three-dimensionality of the Universe.


Irrespective of whether the A.P. is scientifically true or false, this article produced diverse views about our Universe, through a variety of interpretations and theories of the Anthropic Principle. Multiverse, as a hypothetical theory of the many worlds was explored, which was shown to be causally interconnected with our Universe, thus forming a purportedly ‘infinite’ and complex cosmic entity. The quantum uncertainty of the Multiverse appears to have also many physical and philosophical problems, which would have to be resolved if Multiverse is ever to replace the Anthropic Principle, as a viable theory.

The Anthropic Principle, however, may never be a scientifically viable theory, because it uses ontological argument by inference to a metaphysical purpose in the physically ‘fine-tuned’   Universe. On this basis, both theories are un-scientific, because they use either philosophical assumptions, in order to prove or interpret a once-only physical event, and vice versa respectively. In other words, both are considered un-scientific, not because of their respective claims, but because of the way they have reached those claims.

On the other hand, the authors of the “Multiverse” hypothetical-theory oppose this interpretation equally in a philosophically unacceptable way, that the available time-span of 13.75Gy. was insufficient for the development of life.

Note: The attached Diagram shows a view of the “History of the Universe”, with specific reference to the natural order of the various developments within the available, maximum time-span of 13.75 Gy. of the age of our physical Universe.         The concept of the Diagram has been reproduced by courtesy of Professor Frank H. Shu of UCLA; from Page No. 545. of:   “A Physical Universe-An Introduction to Astronomy.” (From: K. Armbruster-@12/12/12: to ffk. Email:


I have come across lately on the internet, with a small extract from Dirac’s discussion with his colleagues about the ‘Large Numbers’, which may interest some of the readers.

Dirac: ‘The  following theory has an important consequence for the creation of matter:-

‘The amount of particles – elementary particles, protons, and neutrons – in the Universe is about 1078, this equals to the square of 13.75 x 109 years, (the present age of the Universe).  It seems again one should say that this is not a coincidence. There is some reason behind it, and therefore the number of particles in the universe will be increasing proportionally to the square of the age of the Universe. Thus new matter must be continually created.

‘Now, you might use some atomic unit of time instead of years, years is quite artificial, depending on our Solar system. Take an atomic unit of time, express the age of the universe in this atomic unit, and you again get a number of about 1039, roughly similar to the previous number.

‘You might say, this is a remarkable coincidence. But it is rather hard to believe that. One feels that there must be some connection between these very large numbers, a connection which we cannot explain at present but which we shall be able to explain in the future when we have a better knowledge both of atomic theory and of cosmology.

‘Let us assume that these two numbers are connected. Now one of these numbers is not a constant. The age of the Universe, of course, gets bigger and bigger as the universe gets older. So the other one must be increasing also in the same proportion. That means that the Electro-magnetic Force compared with the Gravitational Force is not a ‘constant’, but is increasing proportionally to the age of the Universe.’

page divider image

H-R Diagram