Jerusalem
January, 2010
SACP v. Q4P
It is assumed that the reader has a nodding acquaintance with the Strong Anthropic Cosmological principle (SACP) (see the book by Barrow and Tipler or Wikipedia) and with Birnbaum’s Quest for Potential∞ (Q4P). Further, I assume that the reader is willing to accept both the SACP and Q4P at least as working hypotheses.
The SACP is an expression of Q4P restricted to a physical plane. {Meaning, SACP may be construed as a potential offshoot of Q4P, but we must understand that SACP is restricted to physicality, as opposed to spirituality, morality and other aspects of the potential gamut of life.)
One (not the only) way Q4P may potentially express itself is to create a universe in which the SACP is an operating principle/force/power.
The SACP explains many puzzling features of our universe and is a physical idea with predictive power. The alternative physical theories posit 10^500 universes (multiverse) (see book by Susskind or Wikipedia) to explain the same features, or simply ignore those features saying that question is ‘not a scientific one.’
The SACP becomes a powerful way to express/implement/develop Q4P, but only on a limited, physical battlefield. The SACP is thus only a physical expression of the Q4P, albeit a powerful one.
SACP does not at all extend to the moral/spiritual levels. It does not explain joy, tragedy, love, irony, pathos etc. In other words, it does not explain the gamut of the human psyche, including the emotional and the aesthetic, among other aspects.
Potential conceptual and logical weaknesses in SACP are well known. See encyclopedia articles.
But, the key issue, as juxtaposed against Q4P in particular, may be that SACP does not answer the quintessential big question, “WHY”:
Why there is anything at all?
SACP tries to explain why there is life, and our particular form of life, once you posit a universe. But, why is there a universe?
This same seeming insurmountable hurdle will be faced by proponents of multiple universe theory, when their “m–theory” is juxtaposed against Birnbaum’s more nimble and more all-embracing “potential” paradigm.
What is the origin of that which you posit to be bedrock/eternal/infinite?
This is not a side question; it is a core question.
Q4P addresses the ‘eternal origins’ question in its own core Unified Formulation (Summa Metaphysica, Volume I, Part II). Q4P frontally and comprehensively integrates carefully conceived responses to all of the issues noted above.
Q4P handles the gamut of emotional, spiritual, moral and aesthetic issues, as well. It develops an expository sampling of 120 Potentials, proffered as 120 Angels.
Q4P as a potential wrap-around SACP, indeed solves – and fills-in – a lot of problems/gaps for SACP. The converse is not true. SACP certainly does not add–to the intellectual rigor or spectrum of Q4P.
Note that like other pre-1988 attempts at unified paradigms, the conceptualizers of SACP (in 1986) did not have an option of reviewing Birnbaum’s Q4P (1988; 2008) before presenting their respective hypotheses. Indeed, as Q4P’s author operates well outside the scientific community, there is limited dissemination to-date of his paradigm, which is currently more disseminated within the metaphysics/philosophy community. Part of the issue is that Birnbaum positions his paradigm as an overarching solution to key issues across a panoply of fields, ranging from theology to the hard sciences.
Birnbaum has articulated consistently that the solution to key roadblocks in Cosmology and Physics will only be found in creative metaphysics, as per his own paradigm. And Birnbaum is confident that all roads ultimately lead to Summa.
