Skip to main content
Log in

Cogito ergo mundus talis est

On some metaphysical and epistemological aspects of the Anthropic Cosmological Principle

  • Published:
Acta Analytica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper deals with one of the basic philosophical questions in modern cosmology: can the so-called “Anthropic Principle”, considered as an alternative to the classical teleology of creation, be an adequate explanation of the evidence that our universe is “fine-tuned” for the emergence of life and consciousness. The main problem with this principle is not its presumed teleology, as it is sometimes wrongly supposed, but quite the contrary: its intention to avoid teleological explanations by including the existence of many universes (“multiverse”) into extended cosmological models. After having compared logical and cosmological many-worlds concepts, this paper reaches the conclusion that the ontological reality of the “multiverse” is an even more problematic presupposition than some properly revised version of teleological causality. This in itself does not imply the classical theistic explanation of creation, since it also yields a pantheistic explanation of the emergence of life and consciousness in our universe.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barrow, John D. & Tipler, Frank J.:The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, Brandon: “Large number coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology” (1974). in: John Leslie (ed.).Modern Cosmology & Philosophy. Prometheus Books, New York. 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, Paul: “Our Place in the Universe”, in: John Leslie (ed.).Modern Cosmology & Philosophy. Prometheus Books, New York, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, Edward:Cosmology. The Science of the Universe, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanitscheider, Bemulf:Kosmologie. Geschichte und Systematik in Philosophischer Perspektive, Reclam, Stuttgart, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kripke, Saul A.:Naming and Necessity. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leslie, John:Universes, Routledge, London, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, Michael P.:Pantheism. A non-theistie concept of deity, Routledge, London, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, David:On the Plurality of Worlds. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, Stephen:Thinking About Logic, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees, Martin:Before the Beginning. Our Universe and Others, Perseus Books, Reading, Massachusetts, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinburne, Richard: “Argument from the Fine-Tuning of the Universe”, in: John Leslie (ed.).Modern Cosmology & Philosophy. Prometheus Books, New York, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Uršič, M. Cogito ergo mundus talis est. Acta Analytica 17, 53 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03177507

Download citation

  • Received:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03177507

Keywords

Navigation