The study of cosmology functions to help develop our philosophical world view. While there are many philosophical world views stemming from our understanding of cosmology, one in particular gained prominence in early 20th century. This view is now known as the anthropic principle. Its origins can be traced back to the study of numerology in the 1920's (1). By 1974 the anthropic principle evolved from numerology and formed its own branch of study. Brandon Carter elucidates two versions of the anthropic principle, a weak and a strong. He argues that the weak can be defined in the following fashion: "what we can expect to observe must be restricted by the conditions necessary for our presence as observers", while the strong can be defined simply as: "the universe must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage"(2). Although, both principles face harsh criticism, specifically, for their inability to provide an explanation for why things occur and to predict the future, among other reasons, the weak anthropic principle does, however, provide us with a valid rule of inference or indirect reasoning, which we can use to explain phenomena. One implication the weak anthropic principle may have, is that humans are limited to observing a universe orderly enough to maintain human life and only an overarching theory can provide can provide an explanation for the order (4). Surprisingly enough, this same mode of reasoning can be traced back to classical mythology. In this reading, I will argue that the weak anthropic principle pre-dates early 20th century numerology and can well be found in Hesiod's creation myth, Theogony.

      The Greek word for myth means "word", "story" or "speech". Within this literal meaning of myth, there is no indication of "fact" or "truth", and so often times, when a story is told and not believed, it is derided down to a simple myth. Therefore, a distinction between a story that is perceived as true and one that is not has to be made. One distinction that has been well received by the classics community is provided by Kowlakowski (5). He states: "Myth is a many-faceted personal and cultural phenomenon created to provide a reality and a unity to what is transitory and fragmented in the world that we experience...".Kowlakowski's definition of myth along with an understanding of the weak anthropic principle will lead one to believe that because humans are limited to observing a universe orderly enough to maintain human life, there must be a means of providing a cohesive explanation. The myth serves as that explanation. Kowlakowski also goes on to state: "Myth provides us absolutes in the place of ephemeral values and with a comforting perception of the world that is necessary to make the insecurity and terror of existence bearable"(5). He does not mention, however, from where one obtains the "absolutes". One can infer that these absolutes may stem from science. As we well know today, scientific facts change as more information is revealed - at one point in time science proved the earth to be the center point, around which all other planets revolved. This tells us that scientific, factual knowledge or "absolutes" are transitory. Stories or myths that may contain eternal values and what may be imagined to be "absolutes" may in fact be perceived as scientific the time the myth was created, thereby making the myth more believable at one point. It may be this principle upon which Hesiod gathered information for Theogony. Hesiod now has the task of situating his audience (humans) in a world, which is perceived to be orderly enough to maintain life and explain how and why that is. He uses facts of his or phenomena that can be readily observed by his audience as facts of the time to explain the origins of the world and why humans are situated in it as is.

      Let's take for example Hesiod's notion of what was present at the very beginning of life. Hesiod claims that the Muses tell him: "Chaos came first and after it came Gaia" (6). The question then becomes, what is Chaos and why does Chaos come first? The Greek word Chaos means a "yawning void" (6). Chaos is, therefore, neither a deity nor anything for that matter. It is the absence of everything. Similar to the vacuum energy put forth by proponents of the anthropic principle. Hesiod simply starts out with an assumption that there must have existed something in the beginning that allows him to exist. It sounds very close to Carter's classic formulation of the weak anthropic principle: "that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers"(2). Carter fails to provide what the universe is and why it exists in the first place. Nonetheless, we as audience members will agree that there must have been a beginning, this is as much we may ever get from science, likewise this is as much Hesiod's audience might have received from science as well. It is one explanation which provides a universe orderly enough to maintain human life.

      Hesiod then continues to detail the creation of the world. I would like to compare his details to cosmic coincidences and fine tuning. The weak anthropic principle relies heavily on post hoc evidence to provide cosmological explanations. The post hoc evidence presented by supporters of the weak anthropic principle will site one event that has occurred as the cause of a later event, simply by virtue of that event occurring first. To help elucidate this we can turn to Gribbin & Rees (7), who shares the example of the proton and electron. They argue that if the proton and electron were of different absolute value charges, the planet would not exist. They provide other examples, which appear to be mere coincidences. However the more these coincidences are discovered the more they are used as post hoc evidence for support of the weak anthropic principle, i.e., the universe is orderly enough to maintain human life. This line of reasoning proves to be problematic, because events may be coincidental and not caused by one another. As Hesiod unravels the modern day issues faced by mortals, he lists a series of instances that coincides with our understanding of the world. The names he uses for the deities, for example, all coincided with our worldly, "scientific" concept. Some of these names include: Night, Dawn, Eros, Sleep among others. He uses these names to create coincidences of events that support our "scientific" understanding of each phenomenon associated with each name. This is fine tuning his story to appear more truthful. Another instance of his use of coincidence can be found when he discusses Pandora, who coincidentally is a female, who brings trouble to the world. This notion coincides well with events that might have taken place during his marriage and what he observed amongst other married men. Hesiod therefore put forth an event that led to the troubling events he might have experienced with his wife (8). These examples demonstrate Hesiod's attempt at explaining the world view of the audience at the time, a world view, in which they can only see the world orderly enough to maintain life. The coincidences of varying phenomena connected to the function of each deity serves to explain "scientifically", why the world view may be justified.

      Lastly, Theogony, like the anthropic principle does not provide the audience with the ability to predict the future. This shortcoming is along with what I have previously mention provides proof that although modern day cosmologists agree that the anthropic principle may have its origins in the early 1920's. A closer look at classic mythology will prove otherwise. It will show that the philosophical questions and views put forth by the study of cosmology has already been addressed with the same shortcomings of today using similar principles.

1. Barrow, John 1990. The mysterious lore of large numbers. In Bertoti, Babinot, Bergia & Messina 1990, p. 67-93.
2. Carter, Brandon 1974. Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology. In Longair (1974), p. 291-298.
3. Mosterin, Jesus. Anthropic Explanations in Cosmology.
4. Ian Hacking 1987. The Inverse Gambler’s Fallacy: The Argument from Design. The Anthropic Principle Applied to Wheeler Universe. In Mind 1987, p. 331-340.
5. Kolakowski, Leszek 1972, The presence of myth. 1972, p 25.
6. Hesiod. Theogony, Works and Days, Shield (2nd Edition). Translated by Apostolos Athanassakis. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press 2004. Line 116.
7. Gribben, John & Martin Rees. 1989. Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic Cosmology. New York: Bantam Books.
8. Lenardon, Robert 2007. Classical Mythology. Oxford Press 2007, p. 56.

-O. James

© Orin James 2014