Metaphysics and Cosmology

In the process of filming and editing "The Principle", I have tried to present the two great world views which Christendom and the post-Enlightenment world have presented us, concerning cosmology and cosmogony.

The first is the world view of antiquity, of Plato and Aristotle, and, also, of Genesis.

The second is the world view of consensus cosmology, the "Big Bang" in its present form (so-called "lambda cold dark matter" or "LCDM").

The first places Earth at a very special position in the cosmos- indeed, according to Genesis, Earth is the first object created, and the cosmos is "stretched out" from Earth.

The second places Earth in an insignificant position, as in Carl Sagan's famous quote:

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.

For a very long time, the scientific model of reality has gone from strength to strength, from triumph to triumph, on the basis of reported confirmations of the so-called "Copernican/cosmological Principle".

But a deeper investigation of these triumphs reveals a very interesting- even disturbing!- fact.

The Copernican Principle is a philosophical/metaphysical, not a scientific concept.

Please, click on the supplied definition link above, and soak in the implications:

In later years with Freud, man lost his Godlike mind; with Darwin his exalted place among the creatures of the Earth; with Copernicus man had lost his privileged position in the Universe.
The lesson learned by future scientists is that if a theory requires a special origin or viewpoint, then it is not plausible

These are not scientific assertions. Not a one of them.

These are metaphysical assertions.

Man "lost his Godlike mind"?

No.

Man's mind did not change in any way at all.

Our metaphysical view concerning that mind changed.

Man lost his exalted place among the creatures of the Earth?

No.

Man's place among the creatures of the Earth did not change in any way at all.

Our metaphysical view concerning that place changed.

Man lost his privileged position in the cosmos?

Well.

Therein lies a tale, and a very powerful and important one.

Of course whatever position we had in the universe before Copernicus, is exactly the same position we had in the universe after Copernicus.

The question is: is it a privileged position?

According to the remarkable observations obtained by our most recent, large-scale surveys of the universe, it apparently is.

But there is one final assertion above, which represents the truly disturbing aspects of the Copernican metaphysical world view, as it has come to be expressed in consensus, Big Bang, LCDM cosmology:

"The lesson learned by future scientists is that if a theory requires a special origin or viewpoint, then it is not plausible."

Now stop and think about that one for a moment, if you please.

What we have here is a metaphysical assumption about reality, imposing itself upon all attempts to explain scientific observations.

The metaphysical assumption is:

"We're nothing special".

The imposition consists in the frank and brutal warning to all the young scientists who might be wondering about this question:

"if a theory requires a special origin or viewpoint, then it is not plausible."

In other words, we are told that any theory which might be able to account for observations, but which would result in a violation of the Copernican Principle, will be dismissed, a priori, as "not plausible".

So.

Are we better oriented toward truth, by the assumption that we are special, privileged observers of this magnificent universe?

Or are we better oriented toward truth, by the assumption that we're insignificant in comparison to this magnificent universe?

"The Principle" is the most important movie you will see this year.

Look for it in theaters this autumn.