Before I begin this I have to make a confession. Even though I like to think I'm moderately well read, about the only thing profound concerning my knowledge is the breadth of my ignorance. Up until a few days prior to this writing I was unaware of the Anthropic Principle. It was only the delightful serendipity of my friend Mickie, in giving me feedback on previous tenets, providing me with an excerpt from a book by Madeline l’Engle (the "Sold Into Egypt" volume of her "Genesis Trilogy", p.454). Ms. L’Engle was describing how a new view of quantum physics, as espoused by not only the usual big names, but the physicist John Wheeler, provided ample reason to see the divine at work. That quantum physics might be broaching on the metaphysical wasn't anything new, but I was a bit taken back both by by the fact that I couldn't recall the name of John Wheeler, and that he was only one of several who promoted the idea of that we are a critical part of the creation of everything. This would prove to be cause for no small amount of chagrin once I did some investigation. As the more informed already know, Dr Wheeler was one of the big names in physics. Up there with Bohr, Einstein and Fermi. People like Richard Feynman, Kip Thorn and Hugh Everett were his graduate students. It was through that investigation, however, that I came across Dr. Wheeler's connection to the Anthropic Principle in the Wikipedia reference for him. Dr. Wheeler had coined the term "Participatory Anthropic Principle" as a variation of the "Strong Anthropic Principle." And he did this as a part of a radio interview (check it out here). I would urge all of you to give this bit of audio a listen as it is one of the most fascinating 40+ minutes of discussion I've ever encountered. Well, after I stopped kicking myself for yet another bit of ignorance, I began considering this concept called the Anthropic Principle. It became quickly apparent that Cosmolosophy was quite similar. At its simplest the Anthropic Principle tries to grapple with our connection to why the universe is the way it is. To quote the radio program: "The very fact that we are here places restrictions on what the universe can look like." And as the program points out there are twenty some numerical constants that are surprisingly in line with life such as ours. Things like the charge of an electron, the strong and weak nuclear forces. If they were but very small bits of percentage different stars would either burn out too quickly, or press together a bit before going cold, with no essential heavy elements in either case that would end up ejected into space (when a star goes nova). Elements like carbon wouldn't exist, or might exist but not be stable, decaying into something else; as in oxygen. And of course, without the heavier elements there would be few building blocks for there to start the process of simple molecules creating more complex molecules creating even more complex molecules. Even the size of the universe has an anthropic component to it when you consider that there had to be a certain amount of time involved for the process of heavy element creation, dispersion and molecular complexity to take place in. There has been controversy in this because of it's perceived bias towards carbon based life. That's all we know of in this reality so one can easily understand the basis for this bias. This controversy points to an important distinction that I will be making between Cosmolosophy and the Anthropic Principle a little later on. For the moment, though, I want to finish up with the Anthropic Principle as described in the ABC radio Science Show program. The principle has been broken up into 4 sub groups, or argument variations. They are the Weak Anthropic Principle. The Strong Anthropic Principle. The Participatory Anthropic Principle. And the Final Anthropic Principle. The Weak Principle is stated as "The idea that we are here should condition all of our predictions on the assumption that we are here to ask the questions." It is called weak because it doesn't really say anything that requires proof. The Strong principle is stated as: "Did the universe have to bring us into being?" It is referred to as strong as it makes a declarative statement that one could conceivably prove or disprove. The Participatory Principle is stated as: "We are participators not only in bringing into being the near and here, but the far away and long ago." This was stated in fact by none other than John Wheeler. He could make this statement based on his sense of the larger implications of actual observed phenomenon. He took the traditional experiment of light going through two narrow slits (to observe how it acts both as a wave and a unit of quanta) a bit further. To quote Wikipedia on this: Wheeler proposed a variation of the famous double-slit quantum physics experiment, one in which the method of detection can be changed after the photon passes the double slit, so as to delay the choice of whether to detect the path of the particle, or detect its interference with itself. Since the measurement itself seems to determine how the particle passes through the double slits, and thus its state as a wave or particle, Wheeler's thought experiment has been useful in trying to understand certain strange properties of quantum particles. An implementation of the experiment in 2007 showed that the act of observation ultimately decides whether the photon will behave as a particle or wave, verifying the unintuitive results of the thought experiment." And finally, the Final Principle is stated as: "At the end of time life will have spread throughout space, gained control of all matter and all forces and it will have acquired all of the knowledge that there is to know." Cosmolosophy and the Anthropic Principle are related precisely because both try to grapple with our connection with why things are the way they are in the universe. I of course, coming from the standpoint of a proposed philosophy, have the luxury of needing only to try to balance making sense generally, with making sense to the soul. A principle in physics is held to a much more rigorous empirical standard. As such, the Anthropic principle has no small amount of detractors now in the physics community. It was very interesting, though, in listening to the various theologians, and physicists who participated in the Science Show program, indicate both their fascination and their frustration with an anthropic approach to what is basic and fundamental about the makeup of the universe. I think, from a merely human aspect, no matter how rational you may be, there is something compelling about finding a link between us and all that surrounds us. And naturally, I think there is a reason for that. The problem, of course, for people grounded in empiricism is that not only must there be a final thing, it must be something that can be tested and verified. For them it is a unified model. An expression of numerical flow that would show how all of the amazing coincidental constants are what they are; how mass gets expressed and by what. How gravity effects space time and by what. As well as how all of the fundamental forces interact with each other. One wonders, however, if they would be satisfied with that. Would the question then become, how did this model come to be? Or, stated another way, though the model might explain how it all interacts, it still wouldn't explain why it is all here. And as the radio show pointed out, it wouldn't explain how it is that we can even begin to understand it in the first place. There are several issues here that I find immensely fascinating. The first is the notion of whether or not there can be something that we start with. And by this I mean a fundamental foundation to which you can say "it is, it was, and it will be." Certainly to a believer in deities, a god or gods can be said to fit this description. Not very helpful to a questioning mind however (as there is always the question of where the God came from and why). Most especially not very helpful to a mind grounded in cause and effect, and to which empiricism is the final judge of what is real. But even if we had the grand unified model in hand, would scientists be able to say "it is, it was, and it will be?" And more importantly, be satisfied with that? The other issue revolves around the controversy I mentioned earlier that would form an important distinction between Cosmolosophy and the Anthropic Principle. Carbon based life may turn out to be only one of many ways life can establish itself. But the real question here, in my opinion, ought not to be about life in general (carbon based or otherwise) but about sentient life in particular. The universe is the way it is because there are conscious entities in it. How that consciousness comes to be is certainly part of the picture, but the mere fact that it exists should be a fundamental to the universe. In the first tenet of Cosmolosophy I stated that space-time was not only the bridge of meaning, but the vector of association that stems from consciousness. I would like to expand on that now. I would like to propose that there is a master, or container dimension. Let's call it Meaning (or the potential for Meaning). It could also be called Question-Answer. It is the foundational element that is, was, and will be. Inside this master dimension are at least 4 other primary dimensions. Let's call them Mind (or Interaction-Connection), Embrace (or Attraction-Repulsion), Hold (or Matter-Antimatter), and Time. All of the primary dimensions comprise to form infinite boundaries within a finite process. Because of this it follows that, as meaning cannot exist without information, and that information cannot exist without there being bounded elements and gap, that meaning boundaries are the process of lesser dimensionalization that allows a vector of association to create a reality. I say lesser dimensionalization because the X, Y and Z axis dimensions of Cartesian space are in a sense both real and not real. The boundaries perceived in each reality are the artifice of the interaction of the primary dimensions with the vectors. It's all the same grand matrix, it's just associated along an endless array of different vectors. In all of this it is the angular momentum of the give and take of the primary dimensions with the association vectors, that keeps creating new vectors (one might think of this in terms of momentum as it is expressed in a reality, but it is not. It is simply the impetus of new angles that connection and choice, with all of the probabilities having to be realized, create in a sequence of association). And it is only the possibility of loving structure that this momentum provides that keeps the vectors going. What this entirety does is work to resolve a solution; a solution whose expression in extended form and property we will never be able to fully imagine. The thing is, the very resolution (the mind boggling intersection of which, rippling through the various lesser dimensions, hardly even begins to suggest the larger geometry) changes the thing that resolved it, forcing a new resolution (because an answer is always another question). It's kind of like the recursive equation that forms a Mandelbrot, only here its not just the quantities that change. It is a processor unlike any other. It uses an infinite array of association vectors; reality ray tracing you might say, to paint its never fully imagined extended form and property. This would be a culmination of angles, energies and interactions that not even God could fathom because, by definition, there is nothing that could encapsulate it. By the same token, beginning and end can have no application. There has always been the question-answer (or the potential for meaning) and there always will be; never static, always forming and reforming. It is, was and always will be its own purpose. That is existence. I was going to ask the question of whether any of us could even begin to understand all of the ramifications of this conceptual model, and then try to start the process with a few suggestions of my own, but, after having reread the last several paragraphs, I realized that this is not my place now. It is your place dear reader. Always remember that I am merely presenting an idea. How it flows out. What it may or may not import is up to you. My hope is that it is helpful as well as engaging.