- 1 -

Naturalistic Intelligent Design

(draft)
Martin G. Channon
2441 Guard Hill Rd., Middletown, VA 22645. mgc@projectcosmology.net
Abstract
The single most important and difficult problem in science concerns the ultimate
origin of the Universe. Nevertheless, some progress has been made; we have at least
developed a consensus as to the need to focus on explaining the values of the
fundamental constants. As for their apparent fine-tuning, the most widely discussed
scenarios are those which concern an accidental specification of values (e.g., the typical
multiverse theory). These are widely viewed as speculative and unverifiable. Such
scenarios would also be falsified, as a category, by an apparent pattern to physically
significant dimensionless ratios, as is discussed. In contrast, then, some cosmologists
(e.g., Fred Hoyle, Edward Harrison, Andrei Linde and John Gribbin) have discussed the
possibility that naturally occurring intelligent life in a previous universe may have been
somehow responsible. Some of these same theorists are also investigating the possibility
that existing intelligent life in this Universe may eventually produce descendant
universes, thus implying that intelligent life in general has this role (in some cyclic
fashion). Like the theories of accidental causality, these scenarios are also speculative and
seemingly unverifiable, although this is the result of the fact that the mechanics of the
process are left largely unspecified. We consider, then, a refinement of these theories, one
that specifies the mechanics in more detail, all the while avoiding implausible
assumptions and questionable science. Theorists agree that each such effort would
involve the production of a (very special) black hole, and in the refinement presented
here, these are formed in such a way as to involve mass accretion. This scenario, then,
predicts quasar-like phenomena within the Milky Way, which further implies numerous
observable consequences. For example, it implies that the number of these phenomena,
qso
, N
should equal the number of extraterrestrial civilizations,
civ
, N
formed up to a
cosmological time of
9
8.13 10 yr (as is discussed). Equations specifying the prevalence
of Earth-like planets imply
7
civ
2 10 N for this period. Suggestively, the generally
preferred quasar luminosity function indicates
7
qso
3.4 10 . N Therefore, civ qso
. N N

Had this previously unnoticed correlation been determined by observations pointedly
intended as a test, it would have constituted a successful prediction. In view of the fact
that the phenomena would be local, this explanation for the quasars avoids virtually all of
the many problems associated with the cosmological interpretation (e.g., superluminal
motions of ejected gas, observed proper motions and the inverse Compton catastrophe). It
is also theoretically robust in the sense that it has many additional observational
implications; it can be easily and inexpensively tested. The scenario presented here is
- 2 -
entirely consistent with the methodology and established principles of science. It has
several potential categories of supporting evidence, and it would serve to resolve
numerous outstanding problems in science (e.g., cosmological flatness, net baryon
number and fine-tuning in inflationary theory). It accounts for the fine tuned constants,
explaining the ultimate origin of the Universe. It specifies a defeat of the heat death,
without violating the Second Law, and attributes a role to intelligent life in the Universe.
The reader is, however, invited to regard this essay as an exercise in brainstorming.
Keywords: fine-tuned constants, fine-tuned universe, extraterrestrial intelligence,
quasars, active galactic nuclei, multiverse
1. Introduction
The physical constants are all consistent with the existence of intelligent life. This
is an obvious fact, but that does not obviate the need for an explanation. More
surprisingly, although less obvious, at least some of the constants are just barely
consistent with the existence of intelligent life.
13
Even small alterations to the values for
the speed of light, the charge of the electron or Plancks constant produce significant
changes in the structure of atoms and atomic nuclei. Most notably, atomic nuclei become
unstable, making life as we know it impossible. Likewise, minor changes in these, as well
as the gravitational constant and the masses of elementary particles, drastically alter the
evolution of stars. Such changes would produce universes in which there are stars that do
not radiate, stars that burn very quickly or no stars at all. In each case, life as we know it
becomes problematic. It is generally believed that intelligent life is dependent on long-
lived stars; it appears to take some
9
4.5 10
years for intelligent life to develop. The
constants would at least seem to have been fine-tuned for life in general and intelligent
life in particular.
Almost all of the work in this area is developed with an application of rigorous
physics, except for basic assumptions, which are highly questionable, and there is
virtually nothing in the way of real observational or experimental implication. In short, it
is all essentially speculation. An exception to this rule is the work of Victor Stenger
4
and
Fred Adams.
5
We all seem to agree that varying a single parameter, holding the others at
existing values, has drastic and unfavorable effects. These theorists, however, have
developed computer simulations that model variations in the parameters several at a time.
These simulations show that systematic (simultaneous) variations significantly increase
the number of universes conducive to long lived stars. Many parameter combinations,
then, might be conducive to intelligent life. Indeed, it would appear that if all the
constants are scaled up or down systematically, we maintain favorable conditions for
intelligent life, as we would have intuitively expected. These are not quite experimental
results, but they do get us at least a little bit past pure speculation.
Stenger and Adams are very much opposed to the notion of fine-tuning, and for
good reason; the hypothesis is vulnerable to many objections. Therefore, it might seem
that their results run entirely contrary to the notion. However, there is another way of
looking at the situation. If the Universe is indeed the result of deliberate fine-tuning, we
- 3 -
would still need to develop a complete theory of parameter variation, and therefore the
results of these theorists would be the first steps in this process. As we will see, the
notion of systematic parameter variation turns out to be critical in accounting for the
apparent fine-tuning. It is ironic but altogether understandable that rigorous efforts to
explore the weaknesses of the fine-tuning hypothesis would have the effect of greatly
strengthening it. Indeed, it leads directly to a very simple resolution of all of the related
problems,
1
one with various observational implications. The reason for this is not hard to
identify; if we were to develop observational implications, we would have to work out
the details of the theory using only reasonable assumptions and established principles.
That is what we will do here. Incidentally, we had a very similar situation in the first half
of the twentieth century. Observations of galactic redshifts strongly suggested a big
bang origin for the universe. We now recognize these redshifts to be physical evidence
in support of standard model cosmology, but, in the first half of the twentieth century,
there were legitimate, alternative interpretations (the steady state model and the tired
light hypothesis for redshifts). We had to methodically develop the physics in order to
find the prediction of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). We will do something
similar here as concerns the apparently fine-tuned constants vis--vis systematic
parameter variation.
Before proceeding, however, we should spend a moment devoted to the
clarification of basic terms. Following usual practice, the word, Universe, will refer to
everything physical. However, we do not know that the expanding aggregate of galaxy
clusters is everything physical, and so it might be improper to refer to it as the Universe
2
.
Indeed, there is an increasing amount of discussion relating to the so-called Multiverse
(multiple universes, an oxymoron). Hereinafter, the term Metacluster will be used in
reference to the aggregate of galaxy clusters. Also following standard usage, the term
universe(s) (not capitalized) refers to theoretical models of the Universe. (In some
cases, to remain true to the intent of certain theorists, there will be a deviation from the
strict application of these terms.)
2. Theoretical Alternatives
A wide variety of scenarios have been proposed in order to account for the values
of the constants. These come in two broad categories: accidental and intentional
(nonaccidental). We consider these in turn.
The theory most widely discussed is probably Charles Pantins
6
plurality of
universes, later taken up by Brandon Carter
3
more specifically to account for the
constants, and then referred to as a world ensemble. Each world (e.g., the Metacluster)
1
The effort to account for ultimate origins is a complex tangle of scientific and philosophic issues. Aside
from accounting for the values of the constants, there is also the first cause/infinite regress issue, something
which involves us in the notion of free will, among other things.
2
Historically, we have often made the mistake of believing that the universe is coterminous with the limits
of our observations. An important difference today is that the Metacluster is sometimes said to be our limit
in principle. However, this is quite possibly a mistake. If the present Metacluster is the result of preceding
conditions (which is quite reasonable to suppose), then it is physical, i.e., observable evidence of such prior
conditions. In any case, even if we are subject to the above limitation, it does not logically follow that the
Universe is limited to what we can observe. This would be an instance of anthropocentricism. This is not a
novel suggestion; the notion of the observable universe is motivated by such considerations.
- 4 -
is said to have accidentally specified values for the constants (and any other initial
conditions). Aside from the Pantin-Carter hypothesis, there are various others that invoke
the accidental specification of parameters. Edward Tryon
7
has proposed a theory of
spontaneous creation as the result of a quantum fluctuation borrowed from the
created Universe. Andrei Linde
8
has suggested an inflationary, false-vacuum Multiverse
that decays differently in different regions (to true vacuums), producing bubble
universes. Joe Rosen
9
has proposed a parent-offspring set of universes that create each
other. Yet another model is the ekpyrotic scenario of Khoury, et al.
10
According to this,
our universe was produced by the [accidental] collision of a brane in the bulk space with
a bounding orbifold plane. The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is
likewise sometimes recommended as an explanation for the values of the constants.
11,12
Note that any Anthropic argument
1,13
is also of the accidental category, since initial
conditions, even if later selected by life, were not deliberately specified. These scenarios
are highly speculative. They have, at least at present, no supporting evidence whatsoever,
and are sometimes said to be nonfalsifiable.
14
The claim relating to nonfalsifiability, however, may be entirely incorrect. The
constants of nature can be combined to form dimensionless ratios. For example, the ratio
of the electric and gravitational forces between the electron and proton is
2
39 40 E
G p e
2.3 10 10
F e
N
F Gm m

,

where e is the charge of the electron, G the gravitational constant, p
m
the mass of the
proton and
e
m
the mass of the electron. Another large, dimensionless ratio of physical
significance is the sum of nucleons in the observable universe, the oft-mentioned
Eddington number. For nucleons of mass
n
m
, this is
3
79 80 H
n n 0
4 10 10
2
M c
m m GH
,
where
H
M
is the Hubble mass,
0
H
the present value of the Hubble term and
c
the speed
of light. This is a conspicuous approximation to
2
N
. There is apparently some
relationship, but what is it? And there are yet more of these large, dimensionless ratios,
some of the form
a b
N
. For example, the number of nucleons in a typical star is
3 2
57 60 3/2
star
2
n

2 10 10
hc
N N
Gm
_



,
,
where h is Plancks constant. Furthermore, various dimensionless ratios have an
approximation to unity. An example of this is the fine structure constant:
- 5 -
2
2 1
137
e
hc

.
Edward Harrison
15,16
has argued that there are many of these physically significant
dimensionless ratios. He maintained that they cluster around values of the sequence:
2 3/2 1 1/2 0 1/2 1 3/2 2
... , , , , , , , , ... N N N N N N N N N

If the constants had been accidentally specified, their values would have been random, as
would be all physically significant dimensionless ratios. In this case, we would not have
expected any such pattern. This sequence, if real, would indicate that the constants were
not accidentally specified. This would serve to falsify all accidental scenarios.
17
As for theories of intelligent design, these also come in two broad categories:
theistic and naturalistic, which we now consider in turn. Various religious academics,
e.g., the astronomers Bernard Lovell
18
and Hugh Ross
19
as well as the philosopher
William Lane Craig
20
have argued that the apparent fine tuning is evidence of a divine
origin. Other theorists, perhaps most notably William A. Dembski
2123
and Michael
Behe
24
advocate a theistic model for all complexity in nature. This model would account
for the apparent fine-tuning, but it suffers from obvious issues relating to the
supernatural; any such hypothesis is highly speculative (to say the least) and, almost by
definition, beyond the reach of experimental or observational testing. The scientific
community has overwhelmingly rejected this approach.
If the accidental and theistic scenarios are indeed eliminated, then by logical
necessity, we are left with those of naturalistic intelligent design (NID). In modern times,
the development of this thesis arguably begins with Einstein; he often expressed support
for similar ideas.
25,26
Most memorably, he made reference to an amazement at the
harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared
with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant
reflection.
27
Nevertheless, it is probably more accurate to say that, as a scientific thesis,
NID begins with the astronomer, Fred Hoyle.
28,29
He suggested the possibility of a super-
calculating intellect in connection with accounting for the fortuitous properties of the
carbon atom. A little later, the cosmologists Edward Farhi and Alan Guth
30
discussed, in
some detail, the possibility that naturally occurring intelligence in this Metacluster might
someday have the scientific and technological sophistication to produce a new
metacluster, although these authors concluded that The requirement for an initial
singularity appears to be an insurmountable obstacle. This topic has also been
considered by M. Mitchell Waldrop.
31
(Waldrop seems to credit Guth for the idea.)
Subsequent development of the approach then takes off from, oddly enough, a scenario of
the accidental category proposed by physicist, Lee Smolin.
32
He suggested that
metaclusters are the result of a process of natural selection favoring the formation of
black holes, which, in turn, supposedly favor life. This inspired the cosmologist Edward
Harrison
33,34
to postulate a theory which identifies intelligent life as a critical component
in a process of natural selection that favors the formation of metaclusters suitable for
intelligent life. Similar notions have been championed by the mathematician Louis
Crane.
35
James N. Gardner
3638
has been perhaps the most noticeable proponent of this
model. He suggests that humans, aided by highly advanced computers, will one day have
- 6 -
the capacity to replicate the Metacluster. He also argues that his theory is potentially
falsifiable in various ways, but the experimental scenarios themselves are speculative and
we are apparently required to wait a very lengthy period before the opportunities arise.
More recently, the cosmologist, John Gribbin
39
has argued in favor of NID. Linde
40
has
suggested that a physicist hacker may have been responsible for creating the
Metacluster. Biologist, John E. Stewart
41
has discussed the possibility of naturally
occurring life that tunes the parameters of offspring universes. Various others have
commented on this thesis, sometimes negatively. These include the philosopher Clment
Vidal,
4244
the astrophysicists J. Richard Gott and Li-Xin Li
45
and the mathematician, John
Byl.
46
This approach is hardly problem-free. It is, for example, at least at present, highly
speculative. These theories also encounter resistance due to the fact that they are so
similar to the theistic models. They are thus sometimes assumed to be unscientific.
However, in explicitly eliminating any reference to the supernatural, they adequately
address this objection. The critical problem concerns the fact that no one has specified a
physically realistic scenario by which this replication is to be achieved, and therein lies
the potential for resolving problems relating to verification and falsification. If a scenario
were developed with sufficient detail to provide physical implications, we would have
this potential. The following discussion, then, can be viewed as an attempt to express the
implications of systematic parameter variation. As we will see, this leads directly to a
remarkably simple scenario in which naturally occurring intelligent life acts to specify the
parameters in a cyclic fashion, one with numerous observational implications.
Before proceeding, however, it would be helpful to consider briefly just what we
would realistically require of any successful scenario that explained the cosmos as
resulting from naturalistic intelligent design. Alternatively expressed, what would be the
demand of an ardent skeptic? We would be rightly dubious of any such theory, since it
would be reminiscent of ancient myths. In order to be truly comfortable, then, we would
hold it to the most stringent standards. Any such explanation would be so unexpected and
so far-reaching in its impact that we would require, above all else, several forms of
evidence. Indeed, this has been one of the important lessons from the history of standard
model cosmology; the systematic redshifts of distant galaxies, now recognized as
unequivocal evidence in support of the model, were not enough to be decisive, at least
not at first; corroborating evidence, the CMB, was required. But in the case of NID, even
multiple categories of evidence might be insufficient. We would certainly be much more
comfortable if the explanation were also epistemically ideal. In this regard, it would have
to be, most importantly, completely consistent with established science; if the theory
were to require a reexamination of any established principle, we would be rightly
dubious. Likewise, we would prefer that it be especially simple and straightforward; if
the theory involved any implausible assumptions, slippery logic, dubious method or
unexpectedly complex projections, we would be, again, less than satisfied. We would
expect it to be falsifiable, and almost immediately so; we would not want to wait a
million years to have this. We would also expect it to solve theoretical problems (e.g.,
questions relating to net baryon number), since this is a common characteristic of
important, successful theories. We would also want a simple, clear-cut resolution to the
various philosophic issues associated with the question of ultimate origins (e.g., first
cause vs. infinite regress). Moreover, we would want some clearly credible explanation
- 7 -
as to why creation myths would have been crudely accurate. More to the point, this
account would have to be entirely consistent with any of the established facts of
comparative mythology (the study of myths, a cross-disciplinary focus of anthropology,
linguistics, psychology, history and religious studies). Nevertheless, any such theory
would be, prima facie, so implausible, that we might still be uncomfortable if not for
something possibly quite new to science: self-fulfilling validity (if such a thing is
possible). This, then, is the ideal and a tall order it is. Some of us might be content with
less, but these criteria specify the comfort level of the die-hard skeptic. Let us see how
well we do.
There is another way to look at this. If the cosmos is the result of deliberate
specification, the intelligent agent, being clever enough to have produced the
Metacluster with its rightly skeptical conscious life, would have anticipated a scientific
societys reluctance to accept something so reminiscent of ancient myths. This agent
would have done everything possible to provide such things as unequivocal physical
evidence, epistemic perfection and self-fulfilling validity. If these considerations are
valid, then the hypothesis of NID necessarily implies the availability of this support. The
ideal character of the explanation itself would be part of the design. This is not to say that
this support would have always been available; an intelligent species would presumably
have to reach a certain level of sophistication before becoming aware of it.
As we will see, the scenario presented below involves only a few, reasonable,
indeed common, assumptions, and it appears to be entirely consistent with established
science. Furthermore, it has numerous, testable implications and multiple categories of
potentially supporting evidence, some of which is modestly developed and presented
below. This explanation addresses numerous outstanding problems in science and
philosophy, especially astrophysics, as is discussed, and it apparently does so without
producing a tangle of new problems. Furtherstill, the scenario entails, as alluded to,
something that might be characterized as self-fulfilling validity. Putting aside, for the
moment, questions relating to present conditions, the explanation presented here is such
that it would apply to future conditions if we were determined to make it so. Since these
future conditions would be indistinguishable from present conditions, as is made clear
below, the explanation would apply to both.
3. Basic Postulants
Let us start, then, by supposing that the Metacluster provides some mechanism by
which (a) reiteration is to occur and (b) in such a manner as to produce an otherwise
identical system that is scaled down at all levels of material organization. Alternatively
expressed, this would be a system that is scaled down in terms of all fundamental
parameters, most notably the masses of elementary particles. This would involve the
input of only a very modest mass, as compared, for example, to the total mass of the
Metacluster for the classical, oscillating model (or the creation of matter in other models
of Metacluster replication). Any intelligent life in such a scaled system would evaluate its
environment without reference to anything external, as we do in ours. They would find
their situation indistinguishable from that in which we find ourselves; reiteration would
have been achieved. This scenario, then, provides the desired end without invoking
- 8 -
speculative notions of mass-energy creation, supplemental spatial dimensions, bubbles
in spacetime, etc. The second-generation system, being essentially identical to its
predecessor, would also include the same mechanism for reiteration, and so on. Notice
that this would in fact circumvent the heat death and without violating the second law.
Postulate 1: The reiteration of cosmogony takes place based on a fractional
portion of the Hubble mass, producing a second-generation system that is scaled down in
terms of all fundamental parameters.
Hereafter, this fractional portion will be referred to as the bulk mass. (This term has no
connection to the concept of bulk space in M theory.)
Now, this process is significantly simplified by several considerations. First, the
bulk mass need only be reduced to conditions under which it would evolve essentially in
accordance with the standard model (proper scaling assumed). This is an almost obvious
fact, of course, but it does significantly simplify the process; there would be no need for
any further influence after such initial conditions have been specified. Indeed, it is
generally thought that any such influence would be impossible.
39
Postulate 2: The bulk mass is reduced to conditions under which it would evolve
essentially in accordance with the standard model (proper scaling assumed).
This reiterative process is greatly simplified in yet another respect. Suppose that the bulk
mass is reduced as described, with the exception of some small residual portion. Since the
reduced portion would have a density equivalent to that of the Metacluster at some early
moment
90 3
10 g cm , it would have far in excess of the density of a black hole and
would be capable of assimilating the residual mass via gravitational accretion. The
assimilation of additional matter would likely produce changes in the developmental
trajectory of the initially reduced portion; thus, initial specifications would have to be
such that after assimilating the additional mass, the aggregate would evolve essentially in
accordance with the standard model. Therefore, as long as initial specifications took this
accretion into consideration, any change caused by it would have the effect of adjusting
the process such that the total mass would evolve as required.
We can extend this logic to a scenario in which the initially reduced mass is much
less than the bulk mass, i.e., some very small portion might be initially reduced and then
situated such as to assimilate the now substantial, residual portion; a progenitive
modicum is initially produced and then situated within the bulk mass. The theory thus
reduces to the suggestion that the reiteration of cosmogony is dependant simply on the
production of a progenitive modicum of suitable properties. Presumably, this would be
some variation on the conditions that existed at a very early point in the origin of our
Metacluster, either a false vacuum state or a plasma of bosons and fermions (properly
scaled). If it is the false vacuum option, then there would be some energy imparted
during its formation. After inflation, the latent energy breaks free, reheats space, and
particle formation commences. Indeed this does seem the more likely choice, since
inflationary theory has been convincingly supported by WMAP observations.
47,48
There
are still problems with inflationary theory, most notably the requirement for an initial
- 9 -
fine-tuning,
49
but notice that this problem is immediately resolved if initial conditions are
deliberately contrived. As for other problems with inflationary theory, they may result
from the assumption that there would have been no mass accretion. In any case, that is
the essence of the theory: if such a modicum were produced, inevitable consequences
would spontaneously produce a descendant Metacluster.
Postulate 3: The reiteration of cosmogony depends simply on the synthesis of the
progenitive modicum (proper situation assumed).
Notice that this does not involve an initial singularity. Note also that this is the full extent
of speculation for the mechanics of the model proposed here. (Some additional
guesswork is discussed below, but it relates to verification rather than the mechanics of
the process.) It is perhaps also worth mentioning that theorists seem to agree that
deliberate metacluster formation is at least theoretically possible.
30,35,40

Now, the evaporation time for a black hole is given by
( )
2 3 4
ev 0
5120 t G M c h
,
where G is the gravitational constant M is the mass of the black hole, h is Plancks
constant and
c
is the speed of light. Therefore, a very small black hole simply explodes.
However, this equation assumes no mass accretion and no technological manipulation,
such as reflection due to force fields or confinement of some other sort. For the time
being, let us assume that the modicum either is initially too large to explode or is
technologically or situationally manipulated to prevent this. No attempt will be made here
to describe how this modicum is to be produced, although various authors, including
Stephen Hawking, have suggested that particle accelerators might be used to produce
black holes.
5053
This topic, however, would need to be developed at some point in time.
We can take at least a very modest first step toward putting this on a quantitative
basis by considering the scaling factor for mass in a second-generation system. If the
subsequent system is to be based on the mass of, say, a star (
30
10 kg ), and with the
Hubble mass as
55
10 kg then the scaling factor would be
25
10

. The mass of the

electron in a second-generation system would then be
25 31 55
m(g2)
10 9.11 10 kg 10 kg. e


A supplemental significance to this concerns
falsification. If it is ever shown that such scaled particles are impossible, this theory
would be falsified. Similarly, we would be able to determine values for the other
fundamental parameters. This is another critical topic that needs to be developed in detail.
The obvious question is this: Does the Metacluster provide some mechanism for
the formation of such a modicum? Bear in mind that this would be characterized by very
delicate specifications. In fact, this modicum would have such special properties that,
almost certainly, it would not be the result of unguided processes. Furthermore, we would
not be satisfied with anything other than the verified observation of some natural
phenomenon that has the potential of producing this modicum. The answer to the
question, however, is yes. Such a naturally occurring structure has been verifiably
observed, at least at one location: a scientifically sophisticated and technologically adept
species is conceivably capable of producing the progenitive modicum. Whether or not it
is possible to cause the reiteration of cosmogony seems to reduce to a question regarding
the scientific and technological sophistication of an intelligent species; it is almost
obviously a theoretical possibility (in the sense that the idea does not appear to violate
any established scientific law).
- 10 -
Postulate 4: A civilized species is the natural mechanism for the reiteration of
cosmogony.
Notice that Postulate 4 implies that we are not the accidental result of chance
occurrences. This postulate requires that civilizations are a deterministically produced,
natural aspect of the Metacluster. Notice also that evolutionary theory tells us about the
development of particular species; it does not tell us about the overall development of the
biosphere. We have simply been assuming that the development of species in general is
some aimless diversification. We do not know that. Indeed, the widely accepted
ecological constraints hypothesis would appear to require that there are various
ecological limits on species diversity.
e.g., 54
In any case, the Gaia hypothesis, according to
which the biosphere is at least organism-like, further suggests that it is a type of natural
kind, presumably including civilization as some integral component. The Gaia
hypothesis is apparently well supported by evidence.
55,56
Furthermore, our experiences
with natural systems of all kinds (hadrons, atoms, galaxies individual organisms
languages, communities) indicate that systems develop in some genetic (i.e., patterned)
fashion. This is the apparent rule. This also indicates that the biosphere is a type of
natural kind and normally includes a civilization. Finally in this connection, we should
note that this conclusion is supported by the so-called principle of mediocrity. As pointed
out by Guillermo A. Lemarchand,
57
this principle is, in the Lakatosian
58
sense, very much
within the hard core of astrobiology. That is, it is one of the principles that
astrobiologists consider as valid (even if it has yet to be proven). The principle of
mediocrity has, indeed, been subject to criticism,
59,60
but so has the opposing principle,
the rare earth hypothesis. Most notably, this concerns an inconsistency with the
constantly increasing number of observed exoplanets. (See, for example, Jean
Schneiders Exoplanet.eu, CNRS/LUTH - Paris Observatory.) The principle of
mediocrity is partly motivated by the well-established Copernican principle. In any case,
it is intuitively more sensible to assume that we are not special, rather than otherwise.
Furthermore, while we have no experience with life elsewhere, we have had plenty of
experience in analyzing a wide diversity of phenomena (atoms, stars, etc.); our intuition
is well informed. Another principle commonly cited in this connection is Nick
Bostroms
61
self-sampling assumption, according to which we should think of
ourselves as random observers from a suitable reference class.
The Milky Way will have some number of civilizations,
civ
N
. To get the total
number of civilizations in the Metacluster, we would multiply by the number of spiral
galaxies,
10
10
. Theoretically, each metacluster would have this same large number of
civilizations,
10
civ MC
10 N N . Each of these would produce descendant systems with
the same number, and so on. The proliferation of metaclusters would then be represented
by the simple geometric sequence
2 3
MC MC MC
, , N N N
Postulate 5: The Universe is the eternal and exponentially augmented proliferation of
metaclusters.
- 11 -
It would be astounding to know that within a few generations, metacluster mass would be
the equivalent of an elementary particle, but this is where the logic takes us; there is no
obvious impossibility to it. At each generation, an intelligent species would find itself in
precisely the same situation that we find ourselves. No matter how long the process goes
on, this would still be a fact.
4. Supporting Evidence: the Quasars
Now, if this is to be anything more than entertaining speculation, we would
expect evidence that a civilized species has such a capacity. Fortunately, this evidence
seems to be available and in massive redundancy. To develop this point, we consider
several additional postulates, the first of which is now a commonplace in astrobiology:
Postulate 6: A civilized species normally develops on an Earth-like planet.
Here an Earth-like planet is a terrestrial-mass planet within the circumstellar habitable
zone of a Sun-like star. Implied here is that planetary systems develop in a predictable
fashion, producing for each Sun-like star a system that ordinarily includes an Earth-like
planet. Also implied is that many civilized species will have already come and gone on
planets in orbit around prior generations of Sun-like stars.
Now, the greater the bulk mass, the less the descendant system would have to be
scaled down, and, therefore, the less difficult the process would be. Thus, an intelligent
species would want to use the greatest mass readily available. The most obvious option
would be the Sun-like star itself.
Postulate 7: The bulk mass is a Sun-like star
( ) 1M
.
Von Bloh et al.
62
have shown that the habitable zone around a Sun-like star shrinks such
that the inner boundary reaches the Earth-like planet distance
9
6 10
years after the star
first forms. It is reasonable to assume, then, that the reiteration process would be initiated
at this time, since the biosphere would cease to exist. It would also be delayed until this
time, since reiteration would inevitably destroy the star.
Postulate 8: Reiteration is initiated when the Earth-like planet is no longer habitable.
Let us now consider, then, in qualitative fashion, the physical implications. With
the progenitive modicum properly installed, the consequences, while at first undetectable,
would eventually produce obvious and distinctive deviations from the normal evolution
of otherwise similar stars. We would expect to see indications of a small black hole
BH
( ) M M <
e
assimilating what remains of a Sun-like star. Most notably, we would expect
to see the continuum features indicative of mass accretion (variable, nonthermal,
synchrotron radiation). We would also expect to see the secondary emission features that
would result from the impact of this continuum on a residual stellar envelope. These
emissions would involve the signatures of heavy elements, along with a gravitational
redshift. More pointedly, this would have to be an interior Schwarzchild solution. This
- 12 -
region seems likely to involve high turbulence, hence a significant Doppler broadening.
These phenomena, then, would display a broadline region. (Note that since the black
hole is formed artificially for a low mass star, we do not encounter problems relating to
the Hayashi limit.)
We might likewise expect to see the impact of the continuum and secondary
(thermal) emissions on more distant portions of the residual stellar envelope. These
would involve a more modest redshift, and a lesser Doppler broadening (a narrow-line
region). The density would be lower; hence a greater broadening of forbidden lines. The
density would also decrease with radial distance from the nucleus, since this is a
distended stellar envelope; we would expect to find small differences in the widths of
forbidden lines.
Furthermore, we would expect to see absorption features due to the distended
stellar envelope and interstellar gas and dust along our line of sight (even less redshift).
Further still, we would expect to see various kinds of these phenomena, corresponding to
different stages in the assimilation process and/or differing orientations of the objects
relative to our line of sight. Since redshift, in this case, is not related to distance, we
would expect a scatter plot, rather than a redshift-luminosity relation.
In short, we would expect to see what we currently refer to as quasars. Notice that
this model is a close variation on the active galactic nuclei model; in both cases, a black
hole is thought to be at the center. The difference is the size of the hole (and the distance
between object and observer).
Postulate 9: A quasar is the externally observable manifestation of the reiteration of
cosmogony.
For this interpretation there is no need to explain galactic luminosities for star-
sized objects, a difference of as much as
11
10 L

; those objects that are detectable would

be primarily within the Milky Way (and otherwise in proximity to nearby galaxies).
Likewise, there would be no need to explain away the apparent superluminal motions of
ejected gas, proper motion for objects supposedly at cosmological distances, the absence
of bright objects at low z, absorption line inconsistencies, redshift periodicities and the
inverse Compton catastrophe (along with any other problems associated with the
cosmological interpretation). The quasars have not been adequately explained in terms of
galactic nuclei. This interpretation is, in fact, extremely problematic.
6365
Furthermore,
whenever any hypothesis is shown to be inconsistent with established science (e.g.
superluminal motion), it is not rescued simply by showing that some modification to the
model (e.g., relativistic beaming) would remedy the problem in theory. One must show
that the remedy applies in fact, i.e., in situ. Until this is shown, the inconsistency with
established science remains. In the present case, there are several such fatal
inconsistencies with established science. One is reminded here of the similarly desperate
efforts to retain the geocentric model of the solar system. Something such as gravitational
lensing is an apparent parallel of the epicycles for the planets in the Ptolemaic system. In
closing comments to their text, Quasars and Active Galactic Nuclei, two of the leading
personalities in astrophysics, Ajit K. Kembhavi and Jayant V. Narlikar expressed the
following warning as to the cosmological interpretation: From the early days of the
geocentric theory to the colliding galaxies hypothesis of radio sources, astronomy also
- 13 -
has a history in which a majority have enthusiastically subscribed to a mistaken
paradigm.
66
Various others, perhaps most notably Halton Arp, have had similar things to
say. In view of the numerous problems with the cosmological interpretation, it seems
very likely that it will soon be viewed as one of the classic cases of paradigm paralysis.
The strong consensus in favor of the cosmological interpretation is the result of
two recommendations. The first is that there have been no credible alternative
explanations. This situation, however, is now changed. Furthermore, as we can now see,
the lack of an acceptable alternative is arguably the result of, as is so often the case, an
unnoticed and clearly erroneous assumption: the expectation that all celestial phenomena
represent purely natural processes. Little, if any, thought was given to the possibility
that extraterrestrial civilizations may have altered their astronomical environments for
some special purpose. Likewise, this cosmological interpretation was based on theoretical
considerations indicating no natural process for producing solar-mass black holes; little
thought has been given to the possibility that these might be produced artificially. The
second recommendation concerns the fact that the cosmological interpretation is
(problematically) consistent with theoretical models of mass accretion by supermassive
black holes. However, we now see that only a rather minor correction is required; the
mass of the hole need only be reduced. In this case, the difficulties evaporate.
Once this model for the quasars is developed in detail, it would provide the
opportunity for various additional observational tests. In general, we should see all of the
expected effects of mass accretion by a black hole of
1M

situated within a Sun-like

star and its planetary system. In particular, the nuclei of these phenomena should be
observed to expand at a rate consistent with this mass accretion, perhaps as modified by
the cosmological expansion called for in standard model cosmology (as further modified
for scaled parameters). As another example, we should see a wobble of the nucleus
due to the influence of orbiting gas giants. This wobbling should be of the sort that we
would find for the Sun. The proper motion of the objects should be consistent with that of
a Sun-like star.
Let us consider one such observational prediction in minor detail. The typical
quasar has a redshift of 2 z . In the present scenario, 2 z corresponds to a nearly
completed mass accretion. (Hence the sudden drop in number just after this peak.) The
mass of the hole in this case is
1M

and the corresponding Schwarzchild radius would

be
2 3
2 2.96 10 m
s
R GM c

. The gravitational redshift

( )
2
1
1 2 1
z
GM Rc

then implies emission at
3
3.28 10 m. R
The continuum emission, then, is coming from
just outside of the Schwarzchild radius. Far from being a galaxy, a quasar would be about
the size of a large building. In this case, for a quasar seen edge-on, the transits of planets
in that system would produce noticeable occultations. Aside from any periodic
fluctuations due to the accretion process, this would appear as an occasional blinking.
Assuming that such planetary systems are similar to ours, these occultations would
produce a characteristic effect. If we assume that the system has a Mercury-like planet,
- 14 -
for example, there would be an occultation approximately every eighty-eight days.
Superimposed on this would be the occultations of a Venus-like planet, approximately
every 225 days, and so on for additional planets. The duration of an occultation for the
Mercury-like planet would be approximately 100 seconds. For a Venus-like planet, it
would be approximately346seconds. To establish a pattern, we would want to observe at
least three occultations. For the Mercury-like pattern, this would require approximately
one year of observations. (To the same level of rigor, occultations for the three inner
planet would require about three years of observations.) With some
7
10
objects to choose
from, we should be able to find at least a few with sufficiently precise alignment for this
test. (All of this assumes that the edge-on view is not excessively obscured by dust in the
plane of the planetary system.) The existing observational data is already suggestively
consistent with these expectations. The typical quasar variability is on the order of a few
months, just what we would expect for the most noticeable occultations, those of a
Mercury-like planet.
67
Furthermore, as indicated above, the reduction in luminosity
should be brief (about a minute) followed by sustained, months-long outbursts. This is,
apparently, the typically observed condition.
66

Thus, a careful reexamination of the quasars provides the best opportunity to
develop evidence in support of these postulates. This could conceivably be accomplished
in as little as a few months. It is mostly a matter of working out the details of the model;
the observational data is largely in place.
Meanwhile, for purposes of illustrating the potential, it would certainly be helpful
to develop this evidence to some small degree. For this purpose, we will calculate the
number of civilizations that would have reached the reiterative phase during that
cosmological epoch which would correspond to the incidence of quasars at this time. We
will then compare this to the know number of quasars, qso
. N
If the above postulates are
correct, we would have the verifying condition:
civ qso
. N N

The first step in this calculation requires an estimation of the relevant number of
civilizations, and to determine this, we need to know the time frame over which to make
the count. This period can be parameterized as beginning at
10
p civ qso
1.37 10 yr t t t
and ending at
10
p civ
1.37 10 yr t t where
10
1.37 10
is the present age of the
Metacluster, p
t
is the time for a civilization to first appear on an Earth-like planet,
civ
t
is
the lifetime of a civilization and qso
t
is the luminous period of a quasar. Quasars formed
earlier than
10
p civ qso
1.37 10 yr t t t would now be black holes and therefore
invisible, and no quasars would have been formed yet for the period subsequent to
10
p civ
1.37 10 yr t t .
- 15 -
Now, as is well known, p
4.57 Gyr t
.
68
As for
civ
, t
many authors have offered
essentially speculative estimates, with values ranging from a few hundred years
69
to
virtual infinity
1
. However, the most rigorous estimate comes from von Bloh et al.
62
These
theorists have developed an integrated Earth system analysis that takes into
consideration stellar luminosity variations and geodynamic factors such as silicate rock
weathering and the global energy balance. This analysis appears to be widely respected
and gives a value of
8
civ
5 10 yr. t As we will see, the calculations offered below
constitute a test of this value. Note, then, that:
10 9
p civ
1.37 10 8.63 10 t t
Finally in this connection, we consider qso
. t
The lifetime of a quasar, per the
above postulates, would correspond to the accretion time for a small black hole
assimilating a Sun-like star. Observations of the quasars indicate that this is an accretion
disc process, and most such models presume a stationary and axially symmetric disc. In
this case, we would use the Eddington accretion rate, ( )
17
Edd solar
1.5 10 g sec M M M
&

where
M

is the mass of the Sun and M is the mass of the hole when the quasar is first
visible. Accurately estimating M is unnecessary for present purposes. However, we
crudely recognize that some substantial portion of the star would have to be consumed
before the accretion would be visible through the stellar envelope. Even if this portion
were as small as
0.1M

,
11
qso
10 . t yr This would be two orders of magnitude greater
than the entire prior period indicated by equation . We can conclude, then that our lower
bound is effectively the time 0 t and the upper bound is given by equation. More
accurately, Earth-like planets do not even begin to form until
2.5Gyr
.
70
In the integral
below, we will use the limits
9
2.5 10
and
9
8.63 10 yr.
Historically, a count for the number of civilizations would have been pursued
within the context of an abbreviated form of the Drake equation. This, however, is an
approach that has fallen out of favor with astrobiologists. A more rigorous approach can
be based on the work of Charles Lineweaver,
70
and von Bloh et al.
62
This involves a
convolution of probabilities relating to metallicity and the prevalence of hot Jupiters to
calculate the number of Earth-like planets over cosmic time. If we further assume that
each such planet harbors a civilization (per considerations following Postulate 4), this
approach will provide a count of civilizations.
According to this approach, the number of civilizations in the Milky Way over a
period t would be given by:
( ) ( )
2
1
civ hab
t
t
N PFR t p t dt

where ( ) PFR t
is the Earth-like planet formation rate:
- 16 -
( ) ( )
( )
( )
HE
2
1
exp
2 2
t
PFR t A SFR t P d



1

1
]

and ( )
hab
p t
is the probability that an Earth-like planet is within the habitable zone of a
Sun-like star:
( )
( )
( ) outer ,
inner ,
1.2
2.5 1
hab
0.8
1
.
M t
M t
R
M
M R
p t M R dRdM
C

Here 0.05 A is the fraction of stars that form Sun-like stars,

is the metallicity 0.3
is the dispersion, M is stellar mass, ( )
HE
P
is the probability that a star may harbor an
Earth-like planet,
1.5
1.57 C M

is a normalization factor,
inner
R
and
outer
R
are the inner
and outer boundaries of the circumstellar habitable zone and ( ) SFR t
is the star formation
rate.
Putting all of this together with the above-indicated limits of integration, we get:
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
9
9
outer ,
inner ,
8.63 10
civ HE
2
2.5 10
1.2
2.5 1
0.8
0.05 1
exp
2 2

M t
M t
R
M
M R
t
N SFR t P
C
M R dRdMd dt

1

1
]




As we see, this is somewhat more involved than the outdated Drake equation. The
solution is
7
civ
1.95 10 N .
The current estimate for the number of quasars is given by the generally preferred
quasar luminosity function of Hopkins et al.
71

( )
( ) ( )
1 2
b b
log
d
L
d L
L L L L

+


where

is a normalization,
b
L
is the break luminosity and
1

and
2

are the faint- and

bright-end slopes respectively. This implies a count of about
7
3.4 10
for the entire sky.
This is, as projected, very nearly the number of civilizations estimated above and, thus,
- 17 -
satisfies the verifying condition . This result tends to confirm the above postulates.
Specifically, it provides the first piece of real evidence that civilizations are common in
the cosmos. It would also confirm that equation is the proper replacement for the Drake
equation (although it is not intended to estimate the number of civilizations willing and
able to communicate with us). It also supports the estimate of
8
5 10 yr for the longevity
of human civilization,
62
disproving short-term doomsday scenarios such as nuclear
winter.
5. Additional Evidence and Support
The redshifts of distant galaxies gave us our first indication that the Metacluster is
expanding. This was then confirmed by the discovery of the CMB. However, the
observed redshift now constitutes a secondary form of physical evidence in support of the
standard model. The subsequently discovered anisotropies for the CMB constitute a third
category of evidence. Likewise, the above explanation for the quasars, when more
adequately developed and tested, would be the primary confirmation that the above
postulates are valid. But the fine-tuned constants would then serve as a secondary form of
physical evidence. A third form of evidence concerns the above-mentioned clustering of
dimensionless ratios. If this clustering is a genuine effect, it would serve to prove that the
Metacluster is not an accident, indirectly supporting these postulates. If our experiences
with standard model cosmology are any guide, we should expect to find further
experimental evidence in the future.
One such category was anticipated by the cosmologist Andre Linde.
40
In a paper
that explored the physics of deliberate metacluster formation, Linde discussed the
possibility that an intelligent agent might have arranged for a communiqu encrypted into
the properties of the Metacluster, a message to intelligent life herein. Linde seemed to
have in mind a kind of physical note imparted to the fabric of space. An option with
greater potential would be a symbolism suffused throughout all phenomena: space, time,
particle phenomena, life and civilization, but one that becomes apparent only when all of
this is conceptualized, something mental, rather than physical. With this in mind, the first
thing to do would involve organizing the concepts of science. A plausible first step, then,
would be to graphically render all of science, this being accomplished by a unification of
the standard scientific schematics. The seemingly obvious approach would be to set up a
three-dimensional coordinate system with time on the vertical axis and compressed space
on the other two. We would then plot the schematics in the order in which the
corresponding phenomena have developed. The result would be a schematic for the
cosmos. We would then inspect it for any such symbolism. Such a unified schematic has
been developed, in a crude first draft, at the web site www.projectcosmology.net. The
corresponding discussion is pending publication.
72
Figure 1 is a screen shot. Due to
budgetary constraints, the graph has been only coarsely developed, although this is
sufficient for present purposes. In any case, it is clearly not the jumble of diagrams that
one might have expected. What emerges is a complex, highly detailed symbolism, the
clich for a work of art (a flower in a vase, on a pedestal, all within a frame, with lettering
title and signature). This is something that would serve as evidence that the cosmos is
- 18 -
designed; we might attribute orderliness to purely natural processes, but symbolism is
entirely another matter.
Figure 1. Figure 2. This Unified Schematic results from plotting the standard schematics for natural
phenomena in a 3D coordinate system, time on the vertical axis and space on the other two. Positions along
the vertical axis correspond to typical formation times over the course of cosmological evolution. The
frame-like structure is the coordinate system, the standard schematic for space and time. (Dimensional
units, meters and years, are mouse-over effects at the web site; Figure 2 is a screen shot.) The lowest
schematic, the embedding diagram, is the standard schematic for the gravitational field. Above this, we plot
the standard, disc-like, cross-sectional schematics for particle phenomena (e.g., the cross-section of the
Earth). In the upper section, we plot a 3D version of the phylogenetic tree or cladogram , and within that, a
suggested schematic for civilization. These phenomena are accordingly labeled along the right, providing a
comprehensive list of all known phenomena (an all-inclusive entity classification). Along the left, we label
the corresponding disciplines (providing a one-to-one aspect classification). At the web site, on-click events
for the list of phenomena load classification tables to a second (right side) frame. Individual schematics,
e.g., for the hydrogen atom, are called out using links in the classification tables. On-click events for the list
of corresponding disciplines will eventually load 3D concept maps to the right frame. These will lead to
summations of concepts. Additionally, several standard tables and graphs are found to fit well as panels to
- 19 -
the coordinate system, e.g., the geologic time scale (left side panel) [Time log (yr since) (LF)]. The system
can apparently accommodate any level of detail, encompassing the entire body of science concepts.
We would also need to revisit the classical argument from design. Historically,
the observation of complex systems in nature was viewed as compelling evidence of
design. Today, there are various objections to this argument, but the most important of
these concerns the fact that natural processes can account for complex systems. Thus,
natural selection and supplemental means (e.g., gene transfer) have been viewed as
adequate to account for biological systems. However, if the above account of the quasars
is borne out, then these natural processes were part of the intended design. In this case,
there would be no purely natural processes. Therefore, the most critical objection to the
argument collapses. Historically, the argument from design was presented with reference
to a supernatural deity. This has been another basis for objection, at least in modern
times. Within the context of NID, however, this objection is moot. In the absence of a
sensible model for NID and true physical evidence derived properly from prediction and
observation, complexity in nature is anything but decisive as concerns intelligent design.
However, if the above account of the quasars provides such evidence, orderliness in
nature would provide supplemental support.
Finally, let us revisit our comments relating to self-fulfilling validity. Notice
that we are free to pursue the goal of cosmological reiteration regardless of whether or
not the above postulates describe the origin of our Metacluster. The reiteration of
cosmogony is not obviously impossible. If we can succeed at this, then intelligent species
in the second-generation system, finding themselves with precisely the same issues that
we now face, would correctly characterize their surroundings in terms of intelligent
design. Since our situation would be identical to theirs, we would be entitled to the same
inference. The theory entails self-fulfilling validity because it becomes true if we decide
to make it so, as we surely would (if we conclude that it would work); the only alternative
would be to mindlessly accept the heat death. We will not do that. These postulates
become valid partly by virtue of simply being articulated.
6. Philosophic Issues
Now, one might wonder as to how we would account for the beginning of this
hypothetical proliferation of metaclusters. This very question, however, is ill posed. It
reflects one of the most common misconceptions relating to ultimate origins, the
supposed requirement for a first cause. This is a complicated topic, one best developed at
length. However, for present purposes, we can only summarize the main points. First,
note that theorists who have pointedly focused on the first-cause/infinite-regress issue
have an almost unanimous consensus in favor of the latter.
7376
Thus one of the more
prominent theorists associated with this issue, the philosopher Adolf Grunbaum,
74
writes:
There is nothing at all in the concept of causality as such which warrants the claim that
all causal chains must ultimately originate in the finite past from a cause that is itself
uncaused causality as such is wholly compatible logically with physical causal chains
which extend infinitely into the past The law of causality, in fact, only requires that
each condition and each change in a condition is the result of preceding conditions. The
- 20 -
supposed requirement for a first cause is illusory. Indeed, any supposed first cause would
be, by definition, an uncaused condition. This would be the violation of causality. Nor
does quantum uncertainty imply some violation of causality. More likely, this applies to
gaps in our knowledge; as every student of the subject quickly learns, this is a science that
is still incompletely developed at a fundamental level. Free will would imply a violation
of causality, but both philosophers and scientists now have an emerging consensus
opposed to this notion.
7783
Likewise, a sometimes-supposed state of primordial or
alternative nothingness seems to some to require a first cause. However, this can be
named, but is otherwise impossible to conceptualize, imagine or even discuss in an
intelligible way. It appears to be completely without merit.
84
The source of the supposed
requirement for a first cause is apparently our everyday experiences with conceptually
circumscribed causal sequences (e.g., the appearance of organic molecules as marking the
beginnings of life). In fact, each such first event is preceded by additional causal
conditions. Furthermore, it is possible to rigorously prove in a simple way the feasibility
of an infinite causal regress. Consider, then, the hypothetical proliferation of metaclusters
described above. This might be physically impossible for some unknown reason, but it is
entirely consistent with causal principles. To a descendant observer infinitely remote,
therefore, we would represent an infinite past. For that observer, there would have been
no beginning to the Universe. Finally, note that an infinite regress is precisely the option
used in chaotic inflation,
85
as it was earlier in C-field cosmology.
86
Postulate 10: The Universe has had no beginning.
Retrogressively, these postulates require that we trace our origins to ever more
inclusive, although progressively more enervated metaclusters. They imply an infinite
volume of space.
Let us now consider the status of creation myths. Why would these have been
even crudely accurate? Within the context of the above postulates, knowledge, as a
feature of the Metacluster, would be part of the grand design. In this case, its
development would follow a developmental process. Embryonic forms mature; they are
not replaced or sloughed off. In this view, myths were in some way the precursors to
modern science. This notion was, in fact, very common amongst the 19
th
century, first
generation, scholarly mythologists, e.g., Sir Edward Burnett Tylor.
87
Subsequent thought
has, instead, focused more on the idea of myths as reflections of such things as Jungian
archetypes, innate symbols.
88,89
These modern theories, however, are not necessarily
inconsistent with their 19
th
Century precursors; if the world is the result of deliberate
design, the human brain is intended to develop models and explanations of the Universe;
its development has not been simply a process of adaptation to a natural (undesigned)
environment. Its structure would be, therefore, conducive to the acceptance of accurate
concepts. In some manner or sense, it might well include receptors for ideas (analogs to
sensory and biochemical receptors). This would partially explain Jungian archetypes.
Prior to the development of rational methodology, this receptiveness would have simply
been accommodated by whatever feels right. In this case, a creation myth at least feels
like the sort of rational theories to later come from philosophy and science. Therefore, we
can account for the crude validity of myths in a manner that is consistent with
comparative mythology.
- 21 -
7. Conclusion
We see, then, that the postulates outlined above would account for the fine-tuned
constants and the origin of the cosmos. They do this without invoking the hypothetical
singularity and the breakdown of physics at very early moments (especially the violation
of conservation laws). They also describe the long-term destiny of the cosmos, one that
circumvents the heat death. These postulates address the issues of cosmological flatness,
net baryon number and fine-tuning in inflationary theory; these would all be accounted
for as resulting from deliberate specification. They account for the quasars, and thereby
verify the existence, elsewhere in the cosmos, of life in general and intelligent life in
particular. In drawing a distinction between galaxies and quasars, they also simplify our
efforts to understand the formation of large-scale structure, galaxies in particular (another
of the major issues in contemporary cosmology). Since inflationary theory addresses the
issues of isotropy and homogeneity, this would account for almost all of the major issues
in contemporary cosmology. These postulates give us, after so many misidentifications
down through the ages, a definitive model of the Universe (aggregate of metaclusters).
They affect our understanding of evolutionary ecology, implying that the development of
life on this planet is something other than an aimless diversification. They likewise affect
civil science, requiring that we now model civilization within a cosmological context. In
defining civilization as a natural phenomenon, an integral component of the biosphere,
we unify the civil sciences with biology and physics. This would complete the centuries-
long effort to unify the various scientific disciplines. These ideas also require that we
rethink the development of the human brain; this would reflect deliberate processes,
rather than the simple adaptation to an accidental environment. But these are only a
sampling of the problems solved; at the risk of speaking immodestly, we should expect
these ideas, if confirmed by the potential evidence discussed above, to have pervasive
consequences throughout the various intellectual disciplines.
3

Perhaps most importantly, these postulates attribute a role to intelligent life in the
Universe, a ubiquitous intuition (myth) down through the ages. Notice further that this
process is no longer defined as the pointless accident so eloquently bemoaned by authors
such as Stephen Wienberg
90
and Bertrand Russell;
91
as at least a first level of significance,
our capacity to appreciate the awesomeness and beauty of nature (including each other
and civilization as a whole) provides, as intended, some justification for the perpetuation
of the process. However, it would be naive to expect that these comments constitute even
a full outline as to this justification; we should expect surprising future discoveries in this
respect also. Einstein famously said that The most incomprehensible thing about the
Universe is that it is comprehensible. We would now, finally, be able to explain why.
In summation, there are several categories of potential evidence: the quasars, the
fortuitous values of the constants, an apparent pattern to dimensionless ratios, complex
order in nature, and the apparent symbolism inherent to the unification of scientific
3
The social consequences are yet another matter. We need to think through the potential psychological
consequences of this for various categories of people. Psychological consequences have social
consequences. This topic will be developed in subsequent publications.
- 22 -
schematics; the evidence is potentially overwhelming, just as we would have expected.
Additionally, the scenario presented above is epistemically ideal with respect to its
simplicity, its consistency with established science and its capacity to resolve problems in
science and philosophy. Furthermore, we see that it would entail self-fulfilling validity.
The critical category of evidence would relate to the quasars. We need to develop this.
Given the fact that the existing theory for the quasars is extremely problematic, and given
further that the above explanation is apparently consistent with the entire body of
observational data, it is realistic to anticipate a favorable result.
Acknowledgement
In preparing this paper, I have had some assistance from Adam Myers, University of
Wyoming and Christopher Rogers, ITT Geospatial Systems.
References
1
J. Barrow and F. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford University
Press, USA, 1986).
2
B.J. Carr and M.J. Rees, Published Online: 12 April 1979; | Doi:10.1038/278605a0 278,
605 (1979).
3
B. Carter, in Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data (1974),
pp. 291298.
4
V.J. Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us
(Prometheus Books, 2011).
5
F.C. Adams, J. Cosmol. Astropart. P. 2008, 010 (2008).
6
C.F.A. Pantin, in Biology and Personality, edited by I.T. Ramsey (Basil Blackwell,
1965).
7
E.P. Tryon, Nature 246, 396 (1973).
8
A. Linde, Phys. Lett. B. 175, 395 (1986).
9
J. Rosen, Found.Phys. 21, 977 (1991).
10
J. Khoury, B.A. Ovrut, P.J. Steinhardt, and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D 64, 123522 (2001).
11
M. Tegmark, arXiv:quant-ph/9709032 (1997).
12
M. Tegmark, Parallel universes (Scientific American, New York, NY, 2003).
13
S.W. Hawking and T. Hertog, Phys. Rev. D 73, 123527 (2006).
14
G.D. Starkman and R. Trotta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 201301 (2006).
15
E. Harrison, Phys. Today (1972).
16
E. Harrison, Cosmology: The Science of the Universe, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University
Press, 2000).
17
M. Channon, Phys. Essays 24, 117 (2011).
18
B. Lovell, The Individual and the Universe. (New American Library, New York, NY,
1959).
19
H. Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the
Century Reveal God, 2nd ed. (Navpress, 1995).
- 23 -
20
W.L. Craig, in The Logic of Rational Theism: Exploratory Essays, edited by M.S.
McLeod (Edwin Mellen Pr, Lewiston, N.Y., 1990), pp. 127153.
21
W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small
Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998).
22
W.A. Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology
(InterVarsity Press, 2002).
23
W.A. Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased
Without Intelligence (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007).
24
M.J. Behe, Darwins Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Simon and
Schuster, 2001).
25
D. Brian, Einstein: A Life, 1st ed. (Wiley, 1997).
26
R.W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times (Avon, 2001).
27
A. Einstein, The World As I See It (Lane, 1941).
28
F. Hoyle, Eng. Sci. 8 (1981).
29
F. Hoyle, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astr. 20, 1 (1982).
30
E. Farhi and A.H. Guth, Phys. Lett. B. 183, 149 (1987).
31
M.M. Waldrop, Science 235, 845 (1987).
32
L. Smolin, Classical Quant. Grav. 9, 173 (1992).
33
E. Harrison, Q. J. Roy. Astron. Soc. 36, 193 (1995).
34
E. Harrison, Astron. Geophys. 39, 27 (1998).
35
L. Crane, arXiv:hep-th/9402104 (1994).
36
J.N. Gardner, Complexity 5, 34 (2000).
37
J.N. Gardner, Complexity 10, 14 (2005).
38
J.N. Gardner, Intelligent Universe: AI, ET, and the Emerging Mind of the Cosmos
(Career Press, 2007).
39
J. Gribbin, In Search of the Multiverse: Parallel Worlds, Hidden Dimensions, and the
Ultimate Quest for the Frontiers of Reality (John Wiley & Sons, 2010).
40
A. Linde, arXiv:hep-th/9110037 (1991).
41
J. Stewart, Found. Sci. 15, 395 (2010).
42
C. Vidal, arXiv:0803.1087 (2008).
43
C. Vidal, Found. Sci. 15, 375 (2010).
44
C. Vidal, Found. Sci. 17, 13 (2012).
45
J.R. Gott and L.-X. Li, Phys. Rev. D 58, 023501 (1998).
46
J. Byl, Q. J. Roy. Astron. Soc. 37, 369 (1996).
47
G. Hinshaw, D. Larson, E. Komatsu, D.N. Spergel, C.L. Bennett, J. Dunkley, M.R.
Nolta, M. Halpern, R.S. Hill, N. Odegard, L. Page, K.M. Smith, J.L. Weiland, B. Gold,
N. Jarosik, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S.S. Meyer, G.S. Tucker, E. Wollack, and E.L. Wright,
arXiv:1212.5226 (2012).
48
M. Tegmark, D. Eisenstein, M. Strauss, D. Weinberg, M. Blanton, J. Frieman, M.
Fukugita, J. Gunn, A. Hamilton, G. Knapp, R. Nichol, J. Ostriker, N. Padmanabhan, W.
Percival, D. Schlegel, D. Schneider, R. Scoccimarro, U. Seljak, H. Seo, M. Swanson, A.
Szalay, M. Vogeley, J. Yoo, I. Zehavi, K. Abazajian, S. Anderson, J. Annis, N. Bahcall,
B. Bassett, A. Berlind, J. Brinkmann, T. Budavari, F. Castander, A. Connolly, I. Csabai,
M. Doi, D. Finkbeiner, B. Gillespie, K. Glazebrook, G. Hennessy, D. Hogg, Z. Ivezic, B.
Jain, D. Johnston, S. Kent, D. Lamb, B. Lee, H. Lin, J. Loveday, R. Lupton, J. Munn, K.
Pan, C. Park, J. Peoples, J. Pier, A. Pope, M. Richmond, C. Rockosi, R. Scranton, R.
- 24 -
Sheth, A. Stebbins, C. Stoughton, I. Szapudi, D. Tucker, D.V. Berk, B. Yanny, and D.
York, arXiv:astro-ph/0608632 (2006).
49
R. Penrose, Ann. Ny. Acad. Sci. 571, 249 (1989).
50
S.W. Hawking, Communications in Mathematical Physics 43, 199 (1975).
51
S. Dimopoulos and G. Landsberg, arXiv:hep-ph/0106295 (2001).
52
S.B. Giddings and S. Thomas, Physical Review D 65, 56010 (2002).
53
M.W. Choptuik and F. Pretorius, arXiv:0908.1780 (2009).
54
B.J. Hatchwell and J. Komdeur, Anim. Behav. 59, 1079 (2000).
55
J. Lovelock, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth (Oxford University Press, USA, 2000).
56
J.E. Lovelock and L. Margulis, Tellus 26, 2 (1974).
57
G.A. Lemarchand, in The Future of Life and the Future of Our Civilization, edited by
V. Burdyuzha (Springer, 2006), pp. 457467.
58
I. Lakatos, in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the
International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, Vol. 4, edited by I.
Lakatos and A. Musgrave, First Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1970).
59
D. Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World (Viking
Adult, 2011).
60
A. Kukla, Extraterrestrials: A Philosophical Perspective (Rowman & Littlefield,
2010).
61
N. Bostrom, Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy
(Psychology Press, 2002).
62
W. von Bloh, S. Franck, C. Bounama, and H.-J. Schellnhuber, in Earth-like Planets
and Moons (2002), pp. 289292.
63
H.C. Arp, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (Cambridge University Press, 1988).
64
M. Lopez-Corredoira, arXiv:0910.4297 (2009).
65
H. Ratcliffe, J. Cosmol. 4, 693 (2010).
66
A.K. Kembhavi and J.V. Narlikar, Quasars and Active Galactic Nuclei: An
Introduction (Cambridge University Press, 1999).
67
B.M. Peterson, An Introduction to Active Galactic Nuclei (Cambridge University Press,
1997).
68
A. Bonanno, H. Schlattl, and L. Patern, Astronomy and Astrophysics 390, 1115
(2002).
69
M. Shermer, Sci. Am. 287, 33 (2002).
70
C.H. Lineweaver, Icarus 151, 307 (2001).
71
P.F. Hopkins, G.T. Richards, and L. Hernquist, The Astrophysical Journal 654, 731
(2007).
72
M. Channon, Knowl. Organ. (2012).
73
P. Brown, Philos. Rev. 75, 510 (1966).
74
A. Grnbaum, Philos. Sci. 56, 373 (1989).
75
B. Reichenbach, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2010).
76
Q. Smith, Philpapers (2008).
77
B. Libet, C.A. Gleason, E.W. Wright, and D.K. Pearl, Brain 106, 623 (1983).
78
B. Libet, Behav. Brain Sci. 8, 529 (1985).
79
D.M. Wegner, Behav. Brain Sci. 27, 649 (2004).
80
T. OConnor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2011).
81
G. Strawson, Freedom and Belief (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986).
- 25 -
82
D. Pereboom, Living Without Free Will (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
2001).
83
S. Smilansky, Free Will and Illusion (Oxford University Press, USA, Oxford, 2002).
84
P.L. Heath, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy 5, 524 (1967).
85
A.H. Guth, J. Phys. A-Math. Theor. 40, 6811 (2007).
86
F. Hoyle, J.V. narlikar, P.A.M. Dirac, H. Bondi, R. Schegal, W. Davidson, and J.L.
Synge, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 270, 334 (1962).
87
S.E.B. Tylor, Primitive Culture: Researches Into the Development of Mythology,
Philosophy, Religion, Art, and Custom (J. Murray, 1871).
88
C.G. Jung and W. McGuire, The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, Vol. 9, Part 1: The
Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, 2nd ed. (Princeton University Press, 1969).
89
C. Levi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology, 1ST ed. (Basic Books, 1963).
90
S. Weinberg, The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe.
(Basic Books, 1978).
91
B. Russell, Mysticism and Logic, and Other Essays (University of California Libraries,
1918).