Editing Anthropic principle (section)

== Metaphysical interpretations ==
Some of the metaphysical disputes and speculations include, for example, attempts to back [[Pierre Teilhard de Chardin]]'s earlier interpretation of the universe as being Christ centered (compare [[Omega Point]]), expressing a ''creatio evolutiva'' instead the elder notion of ''creatio continua''.<ref name=":3">Johann.&nbsp;Dorschner. und.&nbsp;Ralph.&nbsp;Neuhäuser.&nbsp;Evolution. des. Kosmos. und. der. Punkt. omega, in Nikolaus Knoepffler,&nbsp;H. James Birx, Teilhard de Chardin, V&R unipress GmbH, 2005, p. 109 ff</ref> From a strictly secular, humanist perspective, it allows as well to put human beings back in the center, an anthropogenic shift in cosmology.<ref name=":3" />  [[Karl W. Giberson]]<ref>Giberson, Karl. "Anthropic principle: A postmodern creation myth?". ''Journal of interdisciplinary studies''. 9.1/2 (1997): 63–90.</ref> has laconically stated that{{Blockquote|text=What emerges is the&nbsp;suggestion&nbsp;that cosmology may at last be in possession of some raw material for a&nbsp;[[postmodern]] creation myth.|sign=[[Karl W. Giberson]]|source=}}

William Sims Bainbridge disagreed with de Chardin's optimism about a future Omega point at the end of history, arguing that logically, humans are trapped at the Omicron point, in the middle of the Greek alphabet rather than advancing to the end, because the universe does not need to have any characteristics that would support our further technical progress, if the anthropic principle merely requires it to be suitable for our evolution to this point.<ref>Bainbridge, William Sims, 1997, "The Omicron point: Sociological application of the anthropic theory, in ''Chaos and complexity in sociology: Myths, models and theory'', Raymond E. Eve, Sara Horsfall, and Mary E. Lee, editors, pp. 91–101. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage publications. {{ISBN|0-7619-0890-0}}</ref>

=== ''The Anthropic Cosmological Principle'' ===
A thorough extant study of the anthropic principle is the book ''The Anthropic Cosmological Principle'' by [[John D. Barrow]], a [[cosmologist]], and [[Frank J. Tipler]], a cosmologist and [[mathematical physicist]]. This book sets out in detail the many known anthropic coincidences and constraints, including many found by its authors. While the book is primarily a work of theoretical [[astrophysics]], it also touches on [[quantum physics]], [[chemistry]], and [[earth science]]. An entire chapter argues that ''[[Homo sapiens]]'' is, with high probability, the only [[extraterrestrial intelligence|intelligent species]] in the [[Milky Way]].

The book begins with an extensive review of many topics in the [[history of ideas]] the authors deem relevant to the anthropic principle, because the authors believe that principle has important antecedents in the notions of [[teleology]] and [[intelligent design]]. They discuss the writings of [[Fichte]], [[Hegel]], [[Bergson]], and [[Alfred North Whitehead]], and the [[Omega Point]] cosmology of [[Teilhard de Chardin]]. Barrow and Tipler carefully distinguish [[teleology|teleological]] reasoning from [[eutaxiology|eutaxiological]] reasoning; the former asserts that order must have a consequent purpose; the latter asserts more modestly that order must have a planned cause. They attribute this important but nearly always overlooked distinction to an obscure 1883 book by L. E. Hicks.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Hicks |first=L. E. |year=1883 |title=A critique of design arguments |url=https://archive.org/details/critiqueofdesign00hick |location=New York |publisher=Scribner's }}</ref>

Seeing little sense in a principle requiring intelligent life to emerge while remaining indifferent to the possibility of its eventual extinction, Barrow and Tipler propose the [[final anthropic principle]] (FAP): Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out.<ref>Barrow and Tipler 1986: 23</ref>

Barrow and Tipler submit that the FAP is both a valid physical statement and "closely connected with moral values". FAP places strong constraints on the structure of the [[universe]], constraints developed further in Tipler's ''The Physics of Immortality''.<ref>{{Cite book |first=F. J. |last=Tipler |author-link=Frank Tipler |title=The physics of immortality |publisher=DoubleDay |year=1994 |isbn=978-0-385-46798-8 |url=https://archive.org/details/physicsofimmorta00fran }}</ref> One such constraint is that the universe must end in a [[Big Crunch]], which seems unlikely in view of the tentative conclusions drawn since 1998 about [[dark energy]], based on observations of very distant [[supernova]]s.

In his review<ref>[[Martin Gardner|Gardner, M.]], "WAP, SAP, PAP, and FAP", ''The New York review of books 23'', No. 8 (May 8, 1986): 22–25.</ref> of Barrow and Tipler, [[Martin Gardner]] ridiculed the FAP by quoting the last two sentences of their book as defining a completely ridiculous anthropic principle (CRAP):

{{Blockquote|At the instant the [[Omega Point]] is reached, life will have gained control of ''all'' matter and forces not only in a single universe, but in all universes whose existence is logically possible; life will have spread into ''all'' spatial regions in all universes which could logically exist, and will have stored an infinite amount of information, including ''all'' bits of knowledge that it is logically possible to know. And this is the end.<ref>Barrow and Tipler 1986: 677</ref>}}