CC BY
109
Philosophical understanding of an anthropic cosmological principle — “No Man’s Land between science and theology?”
language which is unstable, and in which the researcher is dipped. Trueness establishment is an operation of translation by means of long-duration mutual adapting, propositions coordination in the process of their combination into complexes with other propositions or negations. Translation is not carried out on the basis of standard or criterion that is focused on non interpreted reality approaching from somewhere outside, or on conditions of the same metempirical approach, or else on truth achievement as some ideal endpoint of step-by-step approaches to cognizer cognition implemented by human cognitiveness. Cognizer, most likely, deals with interpretation performance based on principle of interpretativeness according to which the propositions pretending to expression of new cognition are compared with other propositions being immanent to current cognition. New proposition falling into already existing cognition complexcan rebuilt it by means increasing or decreasing truth set of propositions. Therefore, cognition complex is a certain “pulsing” totality, alternating widening or narrowing.
Thus, the ideas of impossibility of translation or its complete adequacy are two equivalent metaphysical myths caused by presupposition of non-interpreted reality existence that can be modeled by human. The only thing that we can do is to compare translation moving in truth horizon. This view does not lead to idealism of linguistic sense. On the contrary, exactly in linguistic idealism the idea of the world versions and conceptual schemes obstructing movement to this world is clearly seen. Just due to doctrine of conceptual schemes and world versions the cognizer was expelled from the world.
But nevertheless researcher can not avoid ontologic notions and therefore one should remember that ontology have the language character, namely conceptual tools themselves become subjects for study in logical semantics only in the result of definite conceptualization, that is conceptualizations through the prism of special categorical theoretic frame. In this case, particular theorized world is generated in which the conceptual tools under investigation (terms of various forms and categories, propositions, description of states, theories)
and operations carried out with these conceptual tools (reasoning, inferences, definitions, and etc.) become theoretical objects. And they, in themselves, are not already information carriers and become such essences that are subjected to be described and characterized someway.
Thus, the variety of ways of reality cognition is complemented not only with understanding of the fact of the realities variety in which human activities take place but researcher’s place change in relation to reality as well.
Cognition is implemented in people’s perception being in specific historical conditions in defined stage of cognition and practice development using the definite language, categorical apparatus. Truth acts as resultant of two vectors: proceeding from object and proceeding from subject. Since the truth is not an objective reality in empiristic meaning, as it is, regardless from human, namely this reality mastering by human, and relation with it is established in human language, thinking, notions and therefore it initially assumes decoding, interpretation, reality translation to the language easy-to-understand for person. Therefore, trueness relation here means the definite code selection established by people. Cognizer looks at reality from inside through prism of language, cognitions, certain picture of the world entering separate statements in their system. The reality in semantic truth theories examined is neither more nor less than model of the language under consideration consisting of obj ects, their features and relations. Structurally it is defined and depends on the way of cognizers relations setting.
Itself the possibility of cognition and reality relation is supported by reality conception generation that is carried out in the process of language formation and conceptual frame. Exactly in this case the truth becomes cognition that is in proportion and accessible to cognizers-researchers.
Therefore the modern semantic interpretation of truth considering it as feature of cognition under formation, change, connected with context, reflects tendencies of the modern cognitive process, in which proposition is not true by itself but proposition in some horizon of its certain use, definite set in relation to it.
References:
1. Рикер П. Конфликт интерпретаций. Очерки о герменевтике. - М., 1995.
2. Фейерабенд П. Избранные труды по методологии науки. - М.: Прогресс,1986.
3. Бергер П., Лукман Т. Социальное конструирование реальности: Трактат по социологии знания. - М.: Медиум, 1995.
Makuhin Petr Gennadyevich, Omsk State Technical University, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy and Social Communication, Omsk, Russia
E-mail: [email protected]
Philosophical understanding of an anthropic cosmological principle — “No Man’s Land between science and theology?”
(on the materials of modern Russian discussions)
Abstract: The article analyzes the circumstance that a considerable number of participants of modern Russian discussions in respect of an anthropic principle interpret it in the manner of theology, which, in turn, leads
91
Section 13. Philosophy
to theological explanation of the origin of both, a human being and the Universe with its incredibly consistent properties.
Keywords: anthropic principle and its interpretation, philosophy, science, religion, teleology, theology, the problem of a man’s origin.
The title of the article contains an apparent paraphrase of B. Russell’s words: «between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack by both sides; this No Man’s Land is philosophy» [1, 19] (like theology «it consists of speculations on matters to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable» [1, 19], at the same time, like science, philosophy «appeals to human reason rather than to authority» [1, 19]). Similarly, one of the reputed modern Russian philosophers A. A. Guseinov, director of the Institute of philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, writes in the article with an exemplary title «Philosophy: between science and religion» that this wording «also expresses the essence of the matter, which lies in the fact that philosophy has a dual-purpose nature: one part is related to science, the other part is related to religion» [2, 16-17]. Today, this peculiarity of philosophical knowledge is especially obvious on the example of a discussion of one of the central modern scientific ideas, namely, anthropic cosmological principle. Referring to modern philosophical encyclopedic literature, not to get confused among numerous contradictory, often mutually exclusive interpretations of it, we can see that it is interpreted as a fixation of a connection «between large-scale properties of our Universe (Mega-galaxy) and existence of a man, an observer in it» [3, 131], arising from the fact, that «the observed properties of the Universe» are rigidly connected with numerical values of some fundamental physical constants. If the values of the latter were different, «the existence of either atoms, stars or galaxies, or appearance of conditions that made the nascence of the man, the observer, wouldn’t be possible in the Universe» [3, 131]. Or, in another expression, anthropic principle establishes «the dependence of the man’s existence as a complex system and cosmic creature on the physical parameters of the Universe (particularly, on the fundamental physical constants — Planck’s constant, light speed, masses of proton and electron etc.)» [4, 59]. There are different definitions of it — «weak», «strong», «cooperation», «finalist» etc. — but all of them are viewed in modern Russian (and not only Russian, but the author is primarily familiar with it) literature «through the prism» of teleology. The latter is defined as follows: «philosophical teaching about the explanation of development in the world with the help of end, target-oriented reasons. In modern methodology it is viewed as a principle of explanation completing the traditional causality of reason-goals» [5, 854], or as «a teaching about the practicality as a characteristic of separate objects or processes and being in the whole» [6, 1025]. We are considering this idea of existence of some purpose of the Universe in detail because the analysis of Russian publications of the last decades shows that there is «one step» from the very teleology in the interpretation of anthropic principle
to its interpretation within theology (here we imply «theological studies, combination of religious doctrines about the essence and action of God built in the forms of idealistic contemplation on the basis of texts accepted as divine revelation» [7, 32]). This relation was especially emphasized in the Soviet philosophical literature where teleology was primarily characterized as «idealistic teaching about the purpose», according to which «ideally postulated purpose... has objective impact on the course of the process» [8, 673]. In other words, in all variants of teleological explanation of the world «the main thing is preserved... idealistic anthropomorphiza-tion of natural processes, attributing of the goal to the nature, giving it the ability of goal-setting» [8, 673]. This transition from teleology to theology at the attempt to understand the essence of the anthropic principle is noted by many modern Russian experts of the latter. For instance, L. A. Maksimenko writes that «due to the very teleological problem cosmology couldn’t be “a narrow specialization"; moreover, the indicated problem generated a dialogue about “the latter questions” between scientists, philosophers and theologists» [9, 47]. However, due to the teleological «filling», «anthropic principle suited well in the theological interpretation causing a real boom» [9, 82], because before the recognition of this principle as a science «the incompatibility of science and religion was contemplated with almost axiomatic authentic-ity» [9, 82]. Consequently, the recognition of anthropic principle as a science is interpreted by L. A. Maksimenko as «a gift to theologists», which «is significantly equipped with reanimation of the notion of goal» [9, 82]. The quoted author is a doctor of philosophical sciences, but it is also accepted by the representatives of natural science. For instance, doctor of physico-mathematical sciences, a member-correspondent of the Academy of sciences of the USSR at the Department of general physics and astronomy N. V. Karlov, stipulating the scientific «content» of anthropic principle, makes the following conclusion: «the complexity of the Universe, the precise matching of all its parts and interactions, the whole system of provision of a quite delicate balance in a very narrow, resonance diapason of conditions of homeostasis leads, voluntarily or involuntarily in this presentation of the question, to a thought about the existence of a wise Creator» [10, 16]. In other words, «theological nature of approach to the development of anthropic principle in the theory of knowledge is explicit; it almost doesn’t have a dis-guise» [10, 16]. In this respect, the following comparison is important: American mathematician, physical scientist and cosmologist F. Tipler, who together with John Barrow wrote a fundamental work «The anthropic cosmological principle» (1986) begins his other work (which also considers this principle) with an exemplary title «The Physics
92
Philosophical understanding of an anthropic cosmological principle — “No Man’s Land between science and theology?”
of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead» (1994) with the following words: «Currently... one can rarely find books proclaiming the unification of science and religion. It is almost impossible to find a book claiming as I do in the main part of this book that theology is a part of physics and that physicists can prove the existence of God with their calculations» [11]. If one analyzes Russian works considering the anthropic principle, then, on the contrary, we can see that many authors consider it as a modern example of «unification of science and religion», the illustrative example ofwhich are the following titles: «The anthropic principle in studying of a religious belief» (A. N. Volkova, 2011); «The phenomena: life after death» (1995) and «Oriental wisdom and advanced science» (V. S. Polykar-pov, 1995); «The anthropic principle — content and speculation» (Yu. V. Balashov, S. V. Illarionov, 1994) — it is also about religious speculations etc. Coming from the description of the situation to its evaluation, critical evaluation, let’s note an important moment: on the one hand, we generally agree with the thesis that the solution of the problem of survival and progressive development of the mankind requires close interaction of scientific and philosophical-religious thinking. As a basis for such interaction, let’s set forth a thought expressed by many authors, but most concisely by M. Veber in the following words: «empiric science cannot teach anyone something that one should do; it only indicates what one can do, and under known circumstance, what one wants to do» [12, 350]. In other words, science refers to the sphere of choice of these or those tools of achievement of a certain goal, but the choice of goals is the task of philosophy relying on the tradition, including the religious one. However, on the other side, it cannot be viewed as an argument in favor of a direct connection, mutual dissipation of these forms
of thinking — here we agree with F. Nietzsche that a developed culture «should give a man a double brain as if two brain chambers: firstly, to perceive science and, then, to perceive non-science; they should lay next to one another, be separable and closable and exclude any mixing; it is the requirement of health» [13, 373-374]. Attaching this thought that «if this requirement of the highest culture remains unsatisfied. the consequence of it will be the destruction of sciences, inverted plunge in the thievery» [13, 374] to the problem of anthropic principle, let’s make the following conclusion: if «one mixes» scientific and religious interpretation of this principle, then scientific and religious natures simply disappear turning into «science-like heresy». In this respect, let’s agree with already mentioned member of the Academy of sciences N. V. Karlov, who on the one hand admits that «the idea of one and wise Creator of all things played an important determining role in the establishment of scientific search, in the establishment of science itself. The development of the anthropic principle is a confirmation of it» [10, 17]. But, on the other hand, he indicates the following moment often ignored by the supporters of theological explanation of anthropic principle: «religious narrowing of the issue to deliberate role of the wise Creator of all things does not solve the problem as it sets forth a more difficult question about the nature of the Creator and his Will, incentive motivations of the act of creation, the time when it happened and what was before that» [10, 17]. Thus, we cannot agree with the fact that philosophical contemplation of the anthropic principle is «No Man’s Land between science and theology», i. e. we juxtapose the interpretation within so called «global evolutionism», the consideration and grounding of which is a goal of a separate research, to a common interpretation of the teleological interpretation of this principle.
References:
1. Russell B. A history ofwestern philosophy. 5th edition, standard. - Novosibirsk: Published by Sib. Univ., 2007. - 992 p.
2. Guseinov A. A. Philosophy: between science and religion.//Philosophy - a thought and a deed: articles, reports, lectures, interviews. - SPb.: SPbGUP, 2012. - P. 16-29.
3. Kazyutinsky V V Anthropic principle.//New philosophical encyclopedia: In 4 vols. - Vol. 1. - 2nd edition. - M.: Mysl, 2010. - P. 131-132.
4. Vyazovkin V. S. Anthropic principle.//World encyclopedia: Philosophy. - M.: AST; Minsk: Kharvest, 2001. - P. 59.
5. Ruzavin G. I. Teleology.//Philosophy: Encyclopedic dictionary. - M.: Gardariki, 2004. - 1072 p.
6. Mozheiko M. A. Teleology.//Advanced philosophical dictionary: 3rd edition, revised. - Minsk: Knizhny Dom, 2003. - P. 1025.
7. Theology.//New philosophical encyclopedia: In 4 vols. - Vol. 4. - 2nd edition. - M.: Mysl, 2010. - P. 32-37.
8. Frolov I. T. Teleology.//Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1983. - 840 p.
9. Maksimenko L. A. Homo cosmicus: experience of anthropologic cosmology. - Omsk: Published by OmGPU, 2011. - 390 p.
10. Karlov N. V. Path of knowledge or the road will be handled by the walker.//Questions of philosophy. - 1996. - № 5. - P. 3-21.
11. Tipler F. The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead.//[Electronic resource]. -Available from: http://www.everettica.org/article.php3?ind=74 (Date of access: 29.04.15).
12. Veber M. «Objectivity» ofsocio-scientific and socio-political knowledge.//Selected works. - M.: Progress, 1990. - P. 345-415.
13. Nietzsche F. Human, all too human.//Compositions: In 2 vols. - Vol. 1. - M.: Mysl, 1996. - P. 231-490.
93
