Customer Reviews

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Two respected physicists take a chance with their professional reputations by presenting a text that is simultaneously lucid, brilliant, mathematically sound, and honest (gasp!). This is a work in both physics and biology. It centers around the "Anthropic Principle"-roughly, that our existence necessarily puts some constraints on the evolution of the universe. Indeed, as Barrow and Tipler elucidate, these restrictions can be signifigant. As someone privileged to study under the latter physicist, I can personally attest to the convinction with which Tipler adheres to his beliefs, in the face of contemporary animadversion. Most importantly though, underlying this whole work are some very important concerns about philosophy of science (although maybe the authors might reel back at the notion of any sort of "philosophy" in their work). Perhaps this is for you, the future reader, to determine. My highest recommendation.

This book is a revolutionary treatise on cosmology and the fate of the human species. It is frankly the most breathtaking book I have ever read, more exhilarating than Penrose's "Road to Reality" or than related efforts by Victor Stengers, John Barrow writing alone, Lee Smolin, or Eric Chaisson. I agree with the reviewer who asserts that this book's breadth of erudition is astounding. While quite technical in parts, other parts are definitely within the grasp of anyone who learned high school science well and is comfortable with algebra. There is much here beyond physics: chemistry, earth science, and biology. The book also contains a superb and lengthy discussion of many fascinating topics in the history and philosophy of science. This discussion remains valuable regardless of the future evolution of our understanding of cosmology. This is the book John Wheeler would have liked to have written but did not.

Among the suprising topics included in this book are:

*A detailed discussion of the large number coincidences of Eddington and Dirac;

*An extensive discussion of the handful of dimensionless constants that ground modern physics: fine structure (137), ratio of the rest masses of the proton to that of the electron (1836), the coupling constant for gravitation (at most 10^-39), etc;

*An anthropic defense of the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics against the Copenhagen interpretation;

*The most extensive discussion I know of why why our universe has 4 dimensions, 3 of space and 1 of time;

*A chapter on biochemistry and the biosphere. In it, Barrow and Tipler agree that because photosynthesis has very gradually increased the fraction of the atmosphere made of oxygen, that fraction will, within a few hundred million years, reach a level such that vegetation will ignite spontaneously, making continued life on earth impossible;

*A chapter on why we are probably the only intelligent species in the Milky Way (Simon Conway Morris's "Life's Solution" concurs), and why it is our fate to colonise our home galaxy.

The above and more should have led to a cover story in Time or Newsweek. It did not, even though at the time of first publication, Tipler was nowhere near as controversial as he since became.

Barrow and Tipler incline to the Big Crunch. If Perlmutter et al are correct, so that it is the case that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and that there is not enough mass in the universe to reverse the process, then the Big Crunch is in trouble. Also, the other great visionary among modern physicists, Freeman Dyson, has been known to disagree with Tipler.

This book was written 20 years ago and has its share of typos. Would the authors please give us a thoroughly revised second edition?

There is a lot to say about this one: I first thought it was a sort of New Age hippie book, but it is not. This book, written by 2 scientist, mainly deals about the question whether the universe is as it is, exactly because we are here to observe it.
This book should be famous but it isnt, wrote one reviewer. I totally agree.

Every chapter you can read separately, therefore you dont have to be an Einstein to catch the full graps of all formula's presented, but each chapter adds more and more you could say evidence that maybe the theory that we are unique really is all too much of a coincidence NOT to be true: I started really sceptical, but in the end I almost had to agree that maybe the universe and us are really connected much more than we think. After all, science is so separated in disciplines now, e.g. we cannot explain biology with physical laws, so we are not really ready yet to fully understand whats going on in the universe, if we ever will. This book gives a nice objective! opinion, with load of interesting facts in all kinds of disciplines that allow you to make up your mind yourself about it. And a a reviewer also said, along the way you get a nice education about science, astronomy, chemistry and biology!
A very good book.

Although this is a very extensive book, covering the Anthropic Cosmological Principle (which in short focuses on the fact that so many aspects of the cosmos and nature are finely tuned to make life possible) in a historical perspective, within cosmology, quantum theory, chemistry and biology, it is definitely not a book for the Layman. It includes a lot of mathematics, which I think should have been included in the references at the end of each chapter. However, when you filter those passages out, and focus on the main points, this book is a must-have and a classic for everyone with an open mind and interest in our place in this universe.

Rob (The Netherlands)

I have been working my way through this for years. It's one of those books where I have to sit back and think after every half page. I'm in the last chapters and this is one of a few books which have caused me to deeply re-evaluate my philosophy. The first chapters on the history of philosophy and cosmology alone should be required reading for any one serious about philosophy and science. Talk about out-of-the-box, yet rigorous, thinking!! How is it that something so unbelievably improbable as us exists? What are the scientific and cosmological implications of the fact that we actually do exist? Why are most scientists uncomfortable with this book? It challenges their narrow world-view. Why are most engineers I've raised these issues with more open to them than the scientists? Because they, having built real systems, know how astonishing it is that this world exists and they aren't comfortable with the glib answers given by conventional scientific ideology.

This is _the_ classic on the Anthropic Principle, and is a massive elucidation on the diverse aspects of the subject plus a compendium of additional info of encyclopedic proportions. The Anthropic Principle is and remains controversial with a complex literature subsequent to this book, but whatever the current status of the issues this book remains solidly relevant. The footnotes alone are worth the price of the book, and are a useful source of study leads and information on everything from information theory to the teleomechanists of the nineteenth century. One of the side issues explored, for example, is the place of teleological principles in the history of science, and their careful consideration by many in the great generation of physicists in the wake of Newton. The ending of the book deals with the spectacular vistas of theories of the future of the universe and contains a nice treatment of Penrose's space-time diagram with its 'achieved infinity' of the Omega Point.

I studied engineering, so I understand a little logic, maths and physics, but this book was WAY over my head. Having said that, it was simply the best book Ive ever read. I don't mean "best" in the sense of the most exciting, or most interesting (and it was, very), or greatest read, as it was a very, very, hard read and took me over a month to plough through. I mean "best" in the sense that the authors deserve some kind of nobel or something for putting all that knowledge in the same space. I was just gobsmacked by the amount of information, backed by science and written in a relatively clear way, the authors managed to cram into this book. I am truly in awe of their knowledge and the massive amount of thought that went into organizing this book. What little I actually managed to grasp profoundly affected the way I think.

This is the kind of book that every human being interested in what the hell hes doing here should (try to) read, scientists and ID/creationists alike. To my laymans eye it seems to be an honest and unbiased book that doesnt push the God/no-God issue one way of the other. It's not a religion bashing book like Dawkins stuff, it just "tells it like it is", using observations made by science (maths, physics, biology) to put together a case in a clear, logical way. Its complete, well thought out, well presented and seems to cover every angle of the "life the universe and everything" debate. Like another post says, this book should be famous but isnt. It really should. It should be mandatory reading for every student of philosophy, theology and science in the world. Like I said, "gobsmacked" is about the only word that I can use to describe this book. It just left me with my mouth (and mind) open.

I have read a lot of science books dealing with cosmology, consciousness, experimental physics, and philosophy. To explore the possibilities of Anthropic Principle with these authors has been really fantastic. Great historical perspective gained with so many 'new' ideas. It's hard to believe it is some 14 years since written as there seems to be so many places to go with this nugget of balast - it all seems fresh and interesting.

I want to buy 2 more copies - but all outlets say 'out of stock'-
Hope it's available again soon!!

This book is a voluminous work on the theory that the universe is made for man. Among cosmologists an interest in a collection of ideas, known as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle has grown over the years. They offer a means of relating human mind and observership directly to the phenomena of a nature with man-fitting constants on a universal scale which is encompassing the world of the atoms and the world of galaxies as well. It reads as if this is what makes the cosmologists mostly occupied.

The expulsion of man from his self-assumed position at the centre of nature owes much to the Copernican principle that we do not occupy a privileged position in the universe. Now this dogma is limited by the Anthropic Cosmological Principle to the effect that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observer. The basic features of the universe including such properties as its shape, size, age and laws of change, must be observed to be of a type that shows the evolution or existence of observers, for if intelligent life did not evolve/exist in an otherwise possible universe it is obvious that no one would be asking the reason for the observed shape, size, age and so forth.

The universe, scientist say, must be that large. No astronomer could exist in one that is significantly smaller. The universe needs to be as big as it is in order to give home to just a single carbon-based life form of the kind we are, a highly complex one.

One of the most important results of 20th century physics has been the gradual realization of the existence of invariant properties of the natural world and its elementary components which render the gross size and structure of virtually all its constituents quite inevitable. The sizes of stars and planets, and even people, are neither random nor the result of any Darwinian selection process from myriad of possibilities. This becomes very clear in the provided evidences. These and other gross features of the universe are the consequences of "necessity". It is a necessity of logic! They must be manifestations of the possible equilibrium states between competing forces of attraction and repulsion. The intrinsic strengths of these controlling forces of nature are determined by a mysterious collection of pure numbers that we call the constant of nature.

Scientists found that there exist a number of unlikely coincidences between numbers of enormous magnitude that are, superficially, completely independent. Moreover these coincidences appear essential to the existence of carbon-based observers of the universe. Apparently the universe must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage.

The authors always relate to the Weak Anthropic Principle and the Strong Anthropic Principle. The former is defined to observe values of all physical and cosmological quantities as not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve/exist and by the requirement that the universe be old enough for it to have already done so -or at least to give the appearance for it, to whom? To the observer!

The more speculative Strong Anthropic Principle provides a reason for our observation of large dimensionless ratios. It means that the universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history. The constants and laws of nature must be such that life can exist. The statement of the cosmologists go even further. They say: There exists one possible universe designed with the goal generating and sustaining observers. Why? Because the unlikely coincidences of the nature constants teach them so. Still they inconsistently claim to be evolutionists. And they also say: Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being. This has something to do with quantum mechanics and Schröders cat paradoxon. But there is no space to explain it here (and I doubt that I could do it efficiently).

This book is also outstanding in mentioning more than a thousand times that the evolution of man is "enormously improbable". So why, one can ask, not just skip the evolution theory? The authors have the clue, they say, because we are here, this is the proof that we must have come by evolution. They do not waste thoughts thinking otherwise, although the Anthropic arguments which are actually design arguments do not pave a way to evolution. The authors seem to be caged in their philosophic presumptions although they claim to be cosmologists. This is astonishing.

So many interpretations are right, but the final conclusion does not seem to fit them. Notwithstanding the authors come to the same conclusion as so many cosmologists: the universe and its contrivances are apparently made for man. This is the inevitable conclusion. Think for yourselves!

The books starts with a historical report about how philosophers detected the Anthropic principles long before the physicists discovered a corresponding force in nature. This section gives the reader a rough idea of the modern concepts by seeing parallels with the ideas of old. But the rest of the book is full with fairly sophisticated mathematics and require familiarity with the concepts of modern physics. Not all readers who are interested in reading about the Anthropic principle will possess all the requisite scientific background. Therefore I must warn the reader. Half of the book is calculating. Yet, it is becoming clear that the authors made thorough investigations in physics, cosmology, chemistry and biology. Take your time to honour them by reading it!

I would easily give five stars to this book, wouldn't it be a bit too dense to read.
The book is a mountain of erudition, and the knowledge it contains is impressive. In a certain way it can be regarded as an historical summum of all the human philosophical knowledge from the times of Socrates in Greece till today. For me, it was a difficult book to read, without stopping, from the first page till the last, but I found it better and easier to read as a consulting reference book, digesting slowly the different chapters. The work and research involved are immense, and you can see the size of it by the size of the references at the end of each chapter. A book to keep, and consult, when in need.