3 - Anthropic Auspicious Coincidence
Science teaches us that the world is ruled by randomness. Life was created when some molecules randomly came together in a lightning strike or in geo-thermal vents. Random mutations in DNA were self-selected by survival leading to humankind. Humanity's history has been violent and ugly and meaningless. But what if history is not what it seems?
The fine-tuning of our universe for life has been much discussed. The same goes for Earth itself - freakishly favorable accidents, like a cataclysmic impact early in our history that created a strange, gigantic moon that stabilized our orbit and allowed complex life to flourish. The initial self-replicator for life remains one of science's great mysteries[1], while the human race has survived numerous evolutionary bottlenecks.
These miracles would be an entirely natural consequence of an anthropic multiverse.
This line of thinking becomes more unconventional as we get nearer the present moment. Close calls in our history books - what if Churchill had capitulated in the May 1940 meeting which would have led to Hitler taking over the world, or if Hitler had got the atomic bomb first? What about synchronicities in our own lives - could our future be determined not just by causes and conditions but also by the end-goal of our consciousness sustaining itself? Could the events of our life be an anthropic quantum computation?
I recall Max Tegmark saying that although extraordinary coincidences may have brought us here, there's no guarantee that we'll be sustained by them in the future. That's the crux of the mystery. Will we - by anthropic "auspicious" coincidence - end up in a favorable universe? We can only answer maybe and live our life as an experiment, knowing that such a thing has scientific basis. Be open to feedback and messages from your world - they could be guiding you towards a reality far vaster than you can imagine.
What else could the anthropic multiverse say about how to live our life?
Next: Quantum Ethics
1 - Life's first self-replicator could have been so incredibly unlikely that it only formed within a coherent or anthropic quantum process, thus making us truly alone in this particular universe and solving Fermi's paradox.
The fine-tuning of our universe for life has been much discussed. The same goes for Earth itself - freakishly favorable accidents, like a cataclysmic impact early in our history that created a strange, gigantic moon that stabilized our orbit and allowed complex life to flourish. The initial self-replicator for life remains one of science's great mysteries[1], while the human race has survived numerous evolutionary bottlenecks.
These miracles would be an entirely natural consequence of an anthropic multiverse.
This line of thinking becomes more unconventional as we get nearer the present moment. Close calls in our history books - what if Churchill had capitulated in the May 1940 meeting which would have led to Hitler taking over the world, or if Hitler had got the atomic bomb first? What about synchronicities in our own lives - could our future be determined not just by causes and conditions but also by the end-goal of our consciousness sustaining itself? Could the events of our life be an anthropic quantum computation?
I recall Max Tegmark saying that although extraordinary coincidences may have brought us here, there's no guarantee that we'll be sustained by them in the future. That's the crux of the mystery. Will we - by anthropic "auspicious" coincidence - end up in a favorable universe? We can only answer maybe and live our life as an experiment, knowing that such a thing has scientific basis. Be open to feedback and messages from your world - they could be guiding you towards a reality far vaster than you can imagine.
What else could the anthropic multiverse say about how to live our life?
Next: Quantum Ethics
1 - Life's first self-replicator could have been so incredibly unlikely that it only formed within a coherent or anthropic quantum process, thus making us truly alone in this particular universe and solving Fermi's paradox.
Comments
Post a Comment