OUR UNIVERSE - TOTAL LIVING ENVIRONMENT FOR HUMANITY? I. THE BIGGEST OBSTACLE IN HUMANS: EGOCENTRISM (A to-think-about-article) Kees Deckers December 2011 The fundamental laws of nature are fixed, they are constants and they apply everywhere in our universe. At least, that is what narrowed  scientists claim, of among others the science branch: Physics. However, there appear regularly articles on the internet, that report  observations and theories based thereon, that seem to violate these fundamental laws of nature. Recently, for instance a short article  appeared on the website of the English Daily Mail: “Laws of physics 'are different' depending on where you are in the universe”  (internet  reference (16-11-11): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2056018/Laws-physics-change-depending-universe.html). And the  last month there was a lot of commotion about an experiment with neutrinos, which seemed to go faster than light (internet references  (24-11-11): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484 and: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/18/us-science-  neu-idUSTRE7AH0T720111118                                                                                                ). These experiments and their observations are not only a violation of the laws of nature, they are also violations of the absolute belief,  which the settled main stream scientists have in their “proofs”. To them the observations simply can not be true. Therefore, they need to  be rectified as soon as possible.  With the absolute belief in the infallibility of science and the resulting finality of the laws of nature, at the same time the belief and the  acceptance of intelligent life other than humans in our universe is kept as small as possible. And if there does prove to be another  intelligence, it is thanks to these fundamental laws and constants of nature completely impossible for them to reach Earth.  As a summary the article on the website of the Daily Mail therefore mentions in its heading the following three points:  1. Laws we know may be 'like local by-laws' say scientists 2. Hints universe is bigger than we think - possibly infinite  3. Other parts of the universe may be hostile to life  According to me, all these points, and particularly the last point, are also based on a fundamental law of nature. The fundamental law of  nature of human egocentrism. And their reasoning therefore is crooked. In the article it is stated for instance:  It also means that in other parts of the universe, the laws of physics might be hostile to life - whereas in our small part of it, they seem fine-tuned to supporting it.  And: Professor Webb said these new findings also offer a very natural explanation for a question that puzzled scientists for decades - why do the laws of physics seem  to be so finely-tuned for the existence of life?  'The answer may be that other regions of the Universe are not quite so favourable for life as we know it, and that the laws of physics we measure in our part of  the Universe are merely ‘local by-laws', in which case it is no particular surprise to find life here,' he said.  The anthropic principle  With the term “finely-tuned” is meant, in that part of physics that deals with our universe, that the universe and its so-called constants  seem to be especially tuned to make one specific lifeform possible: Human. The term mainly stems from the idea of the anthropic  principle. The English Wikipedia says, amongst other things, about this principle:  Definition and basis The principle was formulated as a response to a series of observations that the laws of nature and parameters of the Universe take on values that are consistent  with conditions for life as we know it rather than a set of values that would not be consistent with life as observed on Earth. The anthropic principle states that  this phenomenon is a necessity because living observers wouldn't be able to exist, and hence, observe the Universe, were these laws and constants not constituted  in this way. The term anthropic in "anthropic principle" has been argued to be a misnomer. While singling out our kind of carbon-based life, none of the finely tuned  phenomena require human life or some kind of carbon chauvinism. Any form of intelligent life would do; so, specifying carbon-based life, per se, is irrelevant.  The anthropic principle has given rise to some confusion and controversy, partly because the phrase has been applied to several distinct ideas. All versions of the  principle have been accused of discouraging the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. The anthropic principle is often criticized for lacking  falsifiability and therefore critics of the anthropic principle may point out that the anthropic principle is a non-scientific concept, even though the weak anthropic  principle, "conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist", is "easy" to support in mathematics and philosophy, i.e. it is a tautology  or truism. However, building a substantive argument based on a tautological foundation is problematic. Stronger variants of the anthropic principle are not  tautologies and thus make claims considered controversial by some and that are contingent upon empirical verification.   Internet reference (07-12-11): htt Although through time different sectarian clubs of scientists and believers split from this main idea, believing or in a “weak” or in a  “strong” anthropic principle, and although nowadays it is stated that the universe must be there for the existence of intelligent life, so not  necessarily only for the intelligent lifeform: Human, the underlying idea is still precisely that, that the universe is only there for the  “intelligent” lifeform: Human. It is not for nothing that the term still contains the word anthropos (= human). The universe is there  especially for human. All laws and constants of nature in the universe therefore are exactly fine-tuned to make the life of this one special  form possible, us. The tenor of the article on the website of the Daily Mail, as careful in its wording as it looks, still tries to prove that intelligent life other  than humans in the universe is improbable and even impossible.  Through almost all of the history of humankind, though, not all humans thought and believed this. This is evidenced amongst others, by  the ideas of the Jains, who believed more than 2,600 years ago already, that there exists life in other parts of the universe (see internet  reference (17-11-11): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism). In the same way, not all humans, through history, believed and reasoned that  the laws of our universe have to be necessarily the same everywhere, which is what the article on the website of the Daily Mail states  again also. Edgar Allan Poe already came to this thought around 1848 by intuitive reasoning. He states in his alas still almost unknown  work “Eureka” the following:  Have we, or have we not, an analogical right to the inference that this perceptible Universe -- that this cluster of clusters -- is but one of a series of clusters of  clusters, the rest of which are invisible through distance -- through the diffusion of their light being so excessive, ere it reaches us, as not to produce upon our  retinas a light-impression -- or from there being no such emanation as light at all, in these unspeakably distant worlds -- or, lastly, from the mere interval being so  vast, that the electric tidings of their presence in Space, have not yet -- through the lapsing myriads of years -- been enabled to traverse that interval?  Have we any right to inferences -- have we any ground whatever for visions such as these? If we have a right to them in any degree, we have a right to their  infinite extension.  The human brain has obviously a leaning to the "Infinite," and fondles the phantom of the idea. It seems to long with a passionate fervor for this impossible  conception, with the hope of intellectually believing it when conceived. What is general among the whole race of Man, of course no individual of that race can  be warranted in considering abnormal; nevertheless, there may be a class of superior intelligences, to whom the human bias alluded to may wear all the character  of monomania.  My question, however, remains unanswered: -- Have we any right to infer -- let us say, rather, to imagine -- an interminable succession of the "clusters of  clusters," or of "Universes" more or less similar? I reply that the "right," in a case such as this, depends absolutely upon the hardihood of that imagination which  ventures to claim the right. Let me declare, only, that, as an individual, I myself feel impelled to the fancy -- without daring to call it more -- that there does exist  a limitless succession of Universes, more or less similar to that of which we have cognizance -- to that of which we shall ever have cognizance -- at the very least  until the return of our own particular Universe into Unity. If such clusters of clusters exist, however -- and they do -- it is abundantly clear that, having had no  part in our origin, they have no portion in our laws. They neither attract us, nor we them. Their material -- their spirit is not ours -- is not that which obtains in  any part of our Universe. They could not impress our senses or our souls. Among them and us -- considering all, for the moment, collectively -- there are no  influences in common. Each exists, apart and independently, in the bosom of its proper and particular God.  Internet reference (17-11-11): http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/POE/eureka.html  Front page of the first edition of Edgar Allan Poe’s “Eureka” Internet reference (22-11-11): http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_(Edgar_Allan_Poe) Poe describes in his “prose poem”, as he calls it himself, not only the multiverse and he does not only speak about other intelligent life, he  also intuitively feels that other laws will apply in other universes. And that for intelligent beings from elsewhere, especially from other  universes with other laws, it is almost impossible to reach us or to influence us in other ways, because the matter overthere is different  from the matter in our universe. In his “Eureka” he is a human being, who is open to everything, and who does not regard humanity as  the only form of intelligent life. In short, he does not look at the universe from the anthropic principle and in that sense is not self-  centered  and egocentric.  Nowadays there are also scientists, who suppose that a multiverse exists, in which countless universes may exist, all with their own,  possibly different fundamental laws of nature.   Egocentrism  According to me, the anthropic principle emanates from the egocentrism of human beings. Human egocentrism is a fundamental law of  nature equivalent to the law of nature, which states that nothing can go faster than light. Indeed: The latter law of nature even proceeds  from and is based on the much more fundamental law of nature of human egocentrism. Egocentrism is a law of nature, which every now  and again is broken through by few humans, and is in itself again based on fear.  Almost all humans are egocentric. Most of them want no other intelligent life than themselves in the totality of the universe, whatever the  costs. After all, they, especially Western humans, are created in the image of their god, according to their “own say”, rammed into them by  hundreds of years of religious propaganda and school education. How this can be brought into accord with one of the ten commandments,  about not creating and praying to false gods, has never become clear to me. Because if there is anything next to this god, humans adore,  it is themselves. But okay.  This egocentrism manifests itself therefore in all kinds of ways in our humanity and the narrowed sciences. Words like anthropocentrism,  ethnocentrism, chronocentrism, geocentrism and heliocentrism all can be traced back to the human tendency to egocentrism. They are in  fact extensions of his egocentrism. Not only seeing oneself as the centre, midpoint of everything, but also as the most important.  It is understandable that a human being thinks egocentric. He can experience himself hardly any other way. He has a body, which at all  times seems to be the midpoint of literally everything, wherever he stands or goes. The rest, All-else, always surrounds him. He has to try  to be safe and to learn to feel himself safe in All-else. First of all, he has his own physical possibilities for this, like his senses. And  secondly, he has, unlike most other forms of life on Earth, the possibilities of tool use and tool making. With those last possibilities, from  the beginning he started to create his own, close-by, safe environment. Eventually it led to the industrialisation and the amazing  technology-based societies around him. What he discovered at the same time though, is, that however much he continues to refine his  tools and however much he continues to tinker with his own, close-by environment, to make it even more pleasurable and safe, ultimately  he will not find a complete answer. Worse even, his constant tinkering leads to destabilisation and imbalance of and in his close-by, own,  safe environment and far beyond. With that, hopefully, he starts to understand, that he is nevertheless dependent on All-else around him.  And that his egocentrism is not the most safe and wise road to follow. It is in this sense, that the narrowed sciences of physics has the anthropic principle, in which all laws of nature of the total universe are  especially fine-tuned to the human being. If that is not egocentrism, even almost egomania, then what is?  Egomania is an obsessive preoccupation with one's self and applies to someone who follows their own ungoverned impulses and is possessed by delusions of  personal greatness and feels a lack of appreciation. Someone suffering from this extreme egocentric focus is an egomaniac. The condition is psychologically  abnormal.  Internet reference (16-11-11): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egomania  All the same every now and again there are indications, that the universe is not everywhere fine-tuned to human life. Or better: The laws  of nature may not be the same everywhere in the universe. Still, most people contort this also to the one thing they want to prove. As  seen also in the article on the website of the Daily Mail. If the laws in the universe are not everywhere exactly fine-tuned to the intelligent  creature human, then at these other places they have to be hostile for life, and certainly to intelligent life, is suggested in the article. Only  once of five times is written: “life as we know it”, the other four times only the word “life” is written. On the one hand this can be  explained away with unnecessary repetition of words and saving of space, but on the other hand it gives the impression that with this “all  life” is meant, and that only in the fortuitous fine-tuning of our part of the universe life really is possible. Or, the fine-tuning of this part of  the universe is especially there for the existence of the intelligent lifeform: Human being. And nowhere else in the universe exists another  fine-tuning for possibly completely other intelligent life. Human beings still think, from their egocentrism, that they are the special ones,  for whom this entire universe has been created. And that if they can not live in other parts of the universe, then nothing and no-one else  can.  Up Next page http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2056018/Laws-physics-change-depending-universe.html  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle  http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/POE/eureka.html  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egomania  http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_(Edgar_Allan_Poe) http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/18/us-science-neutrinos-light-idUSTRE7AH0T720111118  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism