... Anthropic Princiles and MultiVerse Model continues

 

The other answer is called Weak Anthropic Principle. It states that for us being here, all of the complexity established during the history of the universe had to take place. If it didn't we wouldn't be here. Because it happened as it happened, we are here and can['nalogy, if we open the box few days later and see the cat either alive or dead (reduce superposition to one state), we also notice that the cat is either very hungry or we face an almost decomposed cat body. Our act of observation, not only changes the multiple and simultaneous states of reality to one state, it also create an appropriate history. In other words, not only we create objective reality but we also generate a suitable history for it.  Based on above, Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner proposed the following explanation.

   

 “We create the universe ………  The universe is hospitable to us because we could not create a universe in which we could not exist.”⁸²

 

None of the above answers offers a strong argument. Lee Smolin believes,

    "There is so-far-unknown mechanism that will both explain the bio-friendliness of our universe and make testable predictions by which it can be confirmed or falsified." ⁷⁴

In my opinion, we have to look for an answer within dualistic character of reality context.  If we confine ourselves to space-time and limit our physical understanding to it, many problems remain unsolved or we have to travel far to the outskirts of logic, in order to offer an explanation for them. Quantum physics as the most precise science that humans have access to, proposes a fundamental role for consciousness in forming the objective reality. However defining this consciousness remains a formidable task. Does it mean individual awareness? Does it point to collective consciousness of humans or living things? Does it mean a universal consciousness or field where our awareness originates from?

 

Do I propose to accept the intelligent creator of traditional faiths? Not necessarily. We have been dwelling within the old frames of spirituality for too long. Old definitions for spirituality challenge our wisdom and common sense.  A new definition and model for spirituality based on human being's current knowledge and understanding is long overdue.

 

It is understandable if scientists try to avoid theological approach to reality. That kind of approach is not scientific or logical. However, avoiding a big portion of reality, just because we are afraid that it may be interpreted as presence of God, is not acceptable either. I do not understand how developing theories, which include out of our space-time elements, can disprove science. Are we scared of unknown just like fifteenth century priests? Are we hiding in our caves? I believe, understanding the laws of entity beyond our space-time are attainable and we do not have to refer to the God of the Gaps to find a solution for our questions.
We have enough scientific means to explore the out of universe entity and build theories in the basis of dual nature of existence. It seems that we need to look for the answers in such a dualistic setting.

 

The arguments presented are open for debate. The reader is encouraged to email his/her inputs to correct, modify or develop the contents. Please visit The Feedback Page,  discuss and share your views.