DIALOGUE AND UNIVERSALISM No.

810/2002

Jlius Krempask

MODERN PHYSICS AND CULTURE

ABSTRACT

The relation of modern physics to culture is discussed, with the emphasis on concretizing their relation. Interaction between modern physics and culture consists not only in a simple fact that physics isas any other sciencea natural part of culture, but chiefly in the fact that through its outcomes it offers interesting stimuli for all other scientific disciplines and through its well worked-out formalisms it enables quantification of many phenomena in culture. From this perspective, there are three interesting paradigms of modern physics: the theory of relativity, quantum physics and the so-called chaotic dynamics. The influence of these paradigms is clearly observable not only in the disciplines close to physics, namely astrophysics, chemistry, biology, medicine and actually all technological disciplines, but also in the humanities, such as sociology, psychology, history, philosophy, and even theology. These outcomes will be concretized and convincingly documented in this paper. Key words: culture; humanities; paradigm; physics; quantification; universality.

1. INTRODUCTION

The title of the paper may seem not very logical to many readers: it is not clear what science, studying the inorganic world, and cultureas a phenomenon linked exclusively to the living, even exclusively human, worldcould have in common. Many people see physics, almost regardless of the level of their education, as a sort of inert scientific discipline based on factography that in principle has nothing to address people equipped with emotions, sense of beauty, art, philosophy or morals. The result is an aversion to physics observed all over the world and not much interest in studying it. Such an attitude to physics should be considered as obsolete because it, mainly with its modern outcomes, has overcome its narrow boundaries long ago, crossing literally its shadow and providing interesting and nontrivial information for related regions as well as for such seemingly distant disciplines like art, philosophy, morals,

142

Jlius Krempask

and theology. To this effect, physics begins to influence actively culture as a whole. What is culture? There are a variety of definitions in the works of experts. Probably the most universal of them is: Culture is everything that humans acquire or create through their activities. If we accept such a definition of culture, then every science, that means also physics, logically belongs to it because there is no doubt that physics is such a science. Its significance for culture is thus not exhausted so far. The importance of physics to culture will become more evident when we realize that it discovers certain rules and laws that have been proved not to restrain merely to the non-living world but to represent certain universalities characteristic of all the levels occurring in our world. What we have in mind are not only universalities taken for granted, such as laws of gravity and electromagnetic laws not distinguishing between living and non-living, primitive or intelligent, and determining events in the whole universe. It generally concerns the processes of organization and self-organization, evolution and selection, order and chaos, functioning of the living organs, including the brain, and also the processes observed in sociology, economy, art, morals, philosophy, and theology. Physics is able not only to qualify, but often also quantify these processes and this enables to transfer the exact quantitative methods of processing to the area where the verbal approach has dominated so far. We shall come to these points below.
2. PARADIGMS OF MODERN PHYSICS

In general, there are two well-known paradigms, which enriched knowledge and science, and thus also the culture of the twentieth century: these are the theory of relativity (special theory but in particular general as well), and quantum physics. The so-called chaotic dynamics is less known but not less important. We witnessed its intense development mainly in the second half of the last century. The special theory of relativity brought a new outlook on the basic concepts of every science, such as space, time, energy, etc., and the general relativity which is regarded as an intellectual creation of an intelligent observer; it made the concepts more precise, bringing also the first comprehensive and internally consistent theory of the universe as a whole, becoming, to that effect, the basis of the qualitative and quantitative cosmology. If the special theory of relativity persuaded us that time and spatial co-ordinates depend on the velocity of motion (with respect to the inertial system), the general theory of relativity added an argument to the knowledge that the time flow and spatial dimensions also depend on the masses of objects around which the dynamics investigated is realized. Accordingly, the time flows in each point of the universe at different velocity and there are even localities where time does not flow at all. Such a point might be e.g., the surrounding of black holes but also the standpoint linked with photon as a particle of light.

Modern Physics and Culture

143

We know that photons move at a maximum possible velocity, the so-called dilatation of time being for them infinitely large and the length contraction infinitely small. If an observer on the Earth detects that photon flew toward us from distant galaxy e.g., five billion years, the observer located directly on itwhich is of course only a thought experimentwould state that between its emission from galaxy and the arrival on the Earth there did not elapse a split second. J. Gribbin, the well-known propagator of physics, considers this idea as a basis for better understanding of several mysteries of modern physics. It is described in more detail elsewhere.1 Many conclusions following from the theory of relativity are interesting for both cosmology and theology. The reader can learn more about it in the well-founded and competent contributions published in a voluminous collection titled Physics, Philosophy and Theology2 as well as in a series of other popularization publications.3 Also the paradigm of quantum physics strongly influenced the human thought. It was not only shown that it could contribute significantly to the better understanding of the functioning of the brain4 but it also provided us with incontrovertible proofs of the existence of a certain holistic interdependence in the whole micro-world (perturbation of the so-called Bells inequalities5 and famous Aspects measurements6), and literally burdened the human knowledge with a sort of indeterminism (expressed by the wellknown Heisenbergs uncertainty principle) conditioned by the mysterious chaotic dynamics, the genesis of which is unknown to us. As we shall see later, this has far-reaching consequences for philosophy and theology because it is allied e.g., with the problems of understanding Gods omnipotence and omniscience.7 The message of quantum physics to the general chaos that has bearing on the processes of the micro-world was actually the extension of our knowledge of chaos, namely the chaos present in systems caused by a large number of the socalled degrees of freedom of the system. Gases as well as e.g., electrons in metals and semi-conductors can serve as example. This kind of chaos is registered in everyday life and its synonym is the word disorder. It seemed that the chaos (its technical name being stochastic chaos), together with the men
J. Gribbin. Schroedingers Kittens, London: Weindfeld and Nicolson, 1995. Physics, Philosophy and Theology, ed. by R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, 1988. 3 See e.g., The New Physics, ed. by P. C. W. Davies. Cambridge University Press 1989; J. Polkinghorn, The Faith of a Physicist. Princeton University Press, 1994; J. Gribbin. In Search of Schroedinger Cat. New York: Bantam; London: Black Swan, 1984. 4 See e.g., R. Penrose. The Large, the Small and the Human Mind. University of Cambridge Press, 1997; H. P. Stap. Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1993; R. Penrose, The Emperors New Mind. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. 5 J. S. Bell. Physics 1 (1964): 195. 6 A. Aspect, P. Grangier and G. Roger. Phys. Rev. Lett. 48 (1982): 91. 7 See e.g., J. Polkinghorn, Belief in God in an Age of Science. New York: York University Press, 1998; A. R. Peacocke, D. Edwards, papers published in Physics, Philosophy and Theology, ed. by R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, 1988.
2 1

144

Jlius Krempask

tioned quantum or vacuum chaos represent all that is observable in our universe from the perspective of chaotic dynamics. All the other events were regarded as determined by Pierre Laplace.8 It took therefore physicists and other scientists by surprise when, in connection with solving of the problem of longterm weather forecast, a new kind of chaos emerged: the so-called deterministic chaos.9 Its specific feature is that it also appears in the systems with a small number of degrees of freedom (but not less than three), and its genesis lies in the enormous sensitivity to small stimuli (fluctuation). In ordinary speech, this phenomenon is often mentioned as the butterfly effect: the flap of a butterflys wings above the ocean is enough to change the weather all over Europe.10 A certain negative property of the chaotically working systems is unpredictability of their development; on the other hand, this phenomenon has a series of positive aspects thanks to which chaos starts to be understood as entity equally important for our world as harmony. It has also impact on the humanities, for instance philosophy, and isaccording to some authorsa direct challenge to theology.11
3. QUANTIFICATION OF HUMAN PROCESSES AND PHENOMENA

It is logically indubitable that quantification has its place only where there hold deterministic laws, which clearly define the relation between cause and effect. It would seem that in the field of social phenomena, which Homo sapiens enters with free will, no attempt at quantification could be successful. Such a situation arises only when we are interested in the activities of each individual. If we concentrate on the social dynamics bound to activities of particular groups whose actions are determined by ideological doctrine, then there is a real hope of formation of quantitative sociology. The pioneering work in this direction was that of W. Weidlich and G. Haag titled Concepts and Models of a Quantitative Sociology12 and the amended extensive work by W. Weidlich.13 These works contain the formulation of the basic master equation for social processes and the quantitative evaluation of various interesting processes in sociology. It is proved that activities in the social sphere literally

This statement rests on the known thesis by Laplace that on the basis of deterministic equations under the given initial conditions one can exactly calculate in what state the system will be at any time in the future. 9 E. N. Lorenz, Atmosph. Sci. 20 (1963): 130. 10 The formulation is ascribed to the discoverer of deterministic chaos E. Lorenz. He stimulated it by his lecture at the conference on climatology entitled Does the Flap of a Butterflys wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas? 11 See e.g., R. J. Russell, paper published in Physics, Philosophy and Theology, ed. by R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, 1988. 12 W. Weidlich, and G. Haag. Concepts and Models of a Quantitative Sociology. Berlin: Springer Verlag 13 W. Weidlich, Physic Reports 204 (1991): 1.
8

Modern Physics and Culture

145

copy the activities in the inorganic world also with regard to the possibility of the formation of the regime of deterministic chaos. This is also a proof that there really exist universalities in our world at all levels that can be expressed formally by the same equations. This claim is valid not only for the description of the particular processes but also for the area of management.14 A remarkable expansion in the field of the quantification in the humanities has longer been observable in economy.15 The third paradigm provides interesting and non-trivial information also for the field of medicine. It has been shown that some diseases, e.g., leukaemia and AIDS take place in the regime of deterministic chaos16 and this gives an explanation for many interesting observations as well asto general surpriseit has been shown that the chaotic regime of activities of some important organs, e.g., heart, is a more favorable indicator of health than the too monotonous and rigid 18 regime.17 Attempts to apply quantitative methods in psychiatry and the brain functioning as a whole19are also interesting. Although all facts mentioned so far belong, according to the definition, to culture, still the more natural part of culture is politics, art, philosophy, morals, theology, etc.; therefore, we shall speak about these disciplines in the following text.
4. UNIVERSALITIES IN CULTURE

The culture of a nation is usually judged according to the level achieved in such indicators as politics, art, material well-being, accommodation, clothing, etc. Looking back at the history, we find out that these aspects of human culture have their history of development, in which certain general features can be uncovered. The individual phases of this development appear as a more or less random product of human intelligence. Surprisingly, we meet similar features in the inorganic nature where these phases are not a random but a logical result of the functioning of universal natural laws. This stimulates an idea that in our world there operate certain universalities that are not generated by any subjec
14 See e.g., H. Ulrich and G. J. B. Probst, Self-Organisation and Management of Social Systems. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1984; J. Krempasky, and R. Kveton, Acta Phys. Slov. 33 (1983): 115. 15 See e.g., R. H. Day and Ding Chen, ed. Nonlinear Dynamics and Evolutionary Economics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993; E. Mosekilde, R. E. Larsen, J. D. Sterman and J. S. Thomsen, Annals of Operations Research 37 (1992): 185; D. Levy, Strategic Management Journal 15 (1994): 167. 16 O. Lund, E. Mosekilde and J. Hansen, FUROSIM92: Simulation Congress. Elsevier Scientific, 1993. 17 A. L. Goldberger, D. R. Rigney and B. J. West, Scientific American, February 1990. 18 Ibid. 19 E. Basar, H. Flohr, H. Haken, and A. J. Mandell, ed. Synergistics of the Brain. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1986.

146

Jlius Krempask

tive actions of individuals. To make it certain, we shall familiarize ourselves with interesting technical equipment that is sometimes regarded as a universal model of evolution processes. It is called laser (which is an acronym for light amplification by stimulated electromagnetic radiation). The majority of population of our planet perceive laser as something that can be used for liquidating weapons, boring the armor, in medicine for eye operations, for launching nuclear reactions, etc. This also is a use of laser but its uniqueness consists in something entirely different. With a gradual increase in performance, a properly constructed laser changes the quality of its work, demonstrating thus a certain developmental line, which is easily observable in almost all branches of human activities and in nature itself. At a very low input, laser generates chaotic light, which means it behaves like an ordinary electric bulb. After passing the so-called bifurcation point, laser becomes a generator of the coherent electromagnetic wave, with which one can practice such magic like e.g., holography. After a further critical point, the interior of the laser becomes more organized and begins to emit pulses in a very strict time consequence. Laser finally changes into the source of chaotic pulses. However, this chaos is not identical with the initial chaos that has been enforced from the outside (as a result of vacuum fluctuations). It produces itself on the basis of deterministic laws; that is why it is called, although not very logically, deterministic chaos. A number of publications and scientific works on laser have already been published.20 Interestingly, analogous phases of the development are also observed in various regions of human activities, into which the spiritual side also enters, e.g., in art, politics, fashion, etc. If we look deeper into, say, music, we see that there was an absolute chaos at first (in the form of different non-melodic expressions), then a melody emerged as an arrangement of tones, and laterat the higher level of the development of human societythere emerged organized formations, like symphonies, sonatas, etc., and, ultimately, the so-called musical modernism which evokes the feeling of chaos in humans. An analogous development can also be observed in politics. There was chaos at the beginning, then certain organized constitutions began to emerge, and later growing into totalitarian systems with everything strictly prescribed and, at last everything turned into chaos, whereat least it appears soeach country has its own forms of organization. In so doing, it is not important that the length of the particular phases in various places is not the same; it lasted several centuries in some countries (e.g., in ancient Greece), and, in some other places, it took thousands of years.

20 For the popular account of the phenomenon of chaos, see J. Gleick. Chaos. London: Cardinal, 1988, and for the scientific approach to the issue of laser, see H. Haken. SynergisticsAn Introduction. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1978.

Modern Physics and Culture

147

While we have put the stress on the fact that physics enables us to transfer certain quantitative approaches to human activities, the examples of music and politics can, surprisingly, demonstrate it. Physics also knows a quantitative measure of arrangement. It is called entropy. The lower its value, the more organized and thus the higher the quality of the particular system. It was therefore logical to expect that, in the case of the mentioned fourth regime of laser activity when chaos re-emerges, entropy would increase. However, much to their surprise, physicists found out that entropy of the system working in the regime of deterministic chaos (e.g., in the regime of turbulent liquid flow) was lower than in the previous apparently better organized regime (e.g., in the so-called laminar flow). This resulted in a surprising piece of information that systems working in the regime of deterministic chaos cannot be looked on as being of lower quality than the foregoing organized regimes. In the field of music or politics, it is seen that modernism of music cannot be viewed as being of lower quality compared to the apparently perfect classical music and the contemporary chaotic political regimes as being less perfect than the earlier totalitarian regimes. However, a question arises: How to justify this conclusion? Physics can also be helpful in answering this question. Physics, with a remarkable support of mathematics, proved that there are different types of chaos. This deterministic chaos is chaotic because of its unpredictability but it often is unbelievably beautiful in view of its own structure. In spite of being chaos, it has its inner structure. If a picture of the chaotically working system in the socalled phase (fictitious) space is formed, an unexpected interesting property the so-called self-similaritybecomes visible. The particular figures are called fractals. Mathematicians once thought that because of their splendor, fractals were the image of harmony, whereas physicists persuaded them at the end of the last century that it is just the other way round: that they represent chaos, namely deterministic chaos. It was found after recording the so-called trajectories showing the development of the deterministically operating system and their intersections with a properly placed level surface, the particular sequence of points generated the famous Cantors set, the prototype of the self-similar structures. What is fine with deterministic chaos is the fact that it contains an idea often a very simple onewhich will later be reflected in the fractal structure of the particular illustration. Contemporary European political systems are really chaotic but they are being built on the generous idea of democracy. Even the totally chaotically sounding modern music may often be generated by a simple, literally elegant mathematical formulation, and such music has then a fractal structure. An incontrovertible fact is that in principle every true art is produced in the regime of deterministic chaos. The author captures an inspiration or motivation, which represents the above often-mentioned fluctuation and then works it up in a way determined by his personality, orientation and experience into the final work. That is why although every product of a true artist is different, all bear

148

Jlius Krempask

signs of its author. (From the apple seeds there will always grow apple trees, never, say pears, but each apple tree differs in details. This is the undeniable sign of the regime of deterministic chaos.) The way of peoples dressing also shows similar characteristics and phases as in the model laser. At the lowest level of development people dressed chaoticallythey used anything offered by accident. Then there emerged a sort of orderliness, e.g., mens trousers, and womens skirts. In some spheres and regions there emerged uniforms as an analogue to the super-organized status in the third laser phase. Then the chaos in dressing began: e.g., the unusually varied dressing of Olympic sportsmen show the signs of chaos, but a central idea, namely the joy of motion, is evident. Deterministic chaos confirms that in the system that produces it there governs an idea, even a sort of order. The evidence of an aesthetic experience from fractal structures can be found in the mentioned book by J. Gleick Chaos.21
5. QUANTIFICATION IN ART AND ARCHITECTURE

We have already said that one can come upon the fractal structure chiefly in modern arts, e.g., in music. It is remarkable that mathematicians taught fractal structures to us, that means also deterministic chaos as well as quantitative evaluation. They introduced the so-called fractal dimension whose peculiarity is the fact that it gives the integer value for common (not too zigzag) structures (1 for the lines, 2 for surfaces, and 3 for volumes), but the characteristics for the self-similar structures have the form of non-integers. This possibility of a certain quantification of the products of human intellect leads us to further interesting outcome of modern physics, to an apparently very remote discipline, namely to architecture. We can ask a very logical and natural question why the pyramids fit in the flat Egyptian deserts and the curly pagodas in the jungles of Southeast Asia. It is the feeling that dictates architects and builders but physics has a more qualified answer to this justification: If a building placed in a particular setting should not be an eyesore, its fractal dimension has to be put in harmony with the fractal dimension of the surroundings. Only then the human eye will enjoy aesthetic experience; otherwise it would register it as a disturbing phenomenon. The fractal dimension of the terrain, with the pyramids built-in, is really just like in pyramids and the non-integer dimension of pagodas is approximately equal to this dimension of the rampant jungle where they are placed. The same is true of the probably most admired building on the whole (the famous Taj Mahal). However, in how many cases one cannot speak about the harmony of fractal dimensions at all! It appears that a contractor will not have to give a lengthy description of the locality where he would like to erect the building, but a brief

21

M. Field and M. Golubitsky. Symmetry in Chaos. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Modern Physics and Culture

149

value of the fractal dimension of the terrain will do and the architect will be able to decide what type of building would fit in there. The mentioned quantification of the products of human intellect in culture is currently used in practice. If, say, an author of a TV program wants a profiled terrain in the background, he gives the particular (line) dimension around 1.1 1.2; if he would like to have some steeper hills in the background the size of the dimension has to be increased to 1.21.3; if he wants to generate the Himalayas, the value must be still higher. Modern physics can thus be applied in the creation of landscapes. An analogous approach can also be used in the simulation of a variety of other products, which we observe in the real world. They will not be their strict copy, but their image will be indistinguishable from them.
6. MODERN PHYSICSA CHALLENGE TO THEOLOGY

It is almost unbelievable that the issue of chaotic dynamics, which is now intensely studied by current physics, can lead us up to theology. Many renowned thinkers alert that the theory of chaos is a challenge to theology.22 There are two levels of the use of this theory that we bear in mind. Firstly, it is the challenge to a sort of rehabilitation of the chaos, and secondly, the challenge to make use of it in elucidating some basic categories of theology, such as prayer, good, evil, etc. If a modern theologian ponders over the means God used and uses for creating life and human being, he necessarily comes to the conclusion that God created not only the harmony but He necessarily had created also conditions for the existence of chaotic dynamics. Otherwise, the world would not be so colorful as it is; living creatures would be identical animals within the particular species and humans would not be individualities characterized by thinking and free will. To this effect, chaos is not a devils product as Jean Effel drew it but an integral attribute of divine technology. Paradoxically enough, we can say that the more chaotic the brain functions, the clearer is the individuality it represents. Chaotic dynamics lies in the fact that at a certain level of the development of systems, their behavior becomes a function even of a negligible fluctuation. (Here we can again call to mind the butterfly effect cited above). It is qualified by experts as enormous sensitivity to initial conditions. Just this knowledge provides theologians with hope of finding the secondary causes which, according to them, God uses in communicating with humans. Those enable Him to listen to human pleas without having to violate fundamental laws, which He Himself established for the world. This is the basis for possible explanations of a great part of miracles; their realization does not consist in the fact that they would break natural law but in the fact that a small impetus emerges (even only at an information level) that will guide the development of the macro-system in the required direction. To this effect can the article by the Nobel Prize winner

22

H. Ulrich and G. J. B. Probst, ibid.

150

Jlius Krempask

Sir Nevill Mott Christianity without Miracles? published in the collection of papers Can Scientist Believe? be understood.23 The essential problem of moralsthe problem of good and evilbelongs to the category of the most complicated theological problems. Evil is objectively present in the world. If, however, everything comes from God, then God had to create also evil. But how could the infinitely good God create evil? Trying to explain this problem, many theologians help themselves by saying that it is a great secrecy. Physics is naturally not able to puzzle out this problem but it can offer a different and much more acceptable approach. By establishing the basic parameters determining all the events in the universe at the beginning, God introduced a certain universal technology into his work. It is based on the fact that the processes taking place deterministically become, at a certain level of their development, sensitive to small stimuli, which can radically change the trends and consequences of the development. This holds not only for inorganic and biological world but also for the human world. If we now use the metaphoric literary speech, we could say that according to the direction of the flap of a butterflys wings above the ocean, the rain wave could transfer to the places where there is enough water, or to the places affected by drought. In the first case humans evaluate it as good, in the second case as evil. We clearly see that the deterministic process is neither good nor bad. It is a negligible fluctuation that decides whether in the process of emerging something will show up as good or as evil. An analogous situation is in the case of the moral good or evil doing; it will ultimately be decided by the fact whether the rational animal will take into account this or that brain stimulus. Thus God did not create evil directly; it is just a sort of by-product of the basic creative technology. This is how the famous theologian and palaeontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin sees the problem. He wrote: If there is the only way for our reason to how God can create, that means the evolutionary one, then evil is a necessary by-product.24 If God had wanted to avoid the mechanism of evil creation, he would have had to do away with the fundamental mechanism of emerging, and thus would have actually hindered doing good. (In this connection we may recall the new-testament similarity about the wheat and weeds: in his reply to the servants question whether they should gather the wheat, he says: Let both grow together not to, by gathering the weeds, root up the wheat along with them)
7. MODERN PHYSICSCHALLENGE TO PHILOSOPHY

Modern physics is a challenge to philosophy, similarly as it is a challenge to theology. It claims that it has to accept all irreversible achievements of natural

Christianity without Miracles?, in: Sir Newill Mott, ed. Can Scientist Believe? London: James and James, 1991. 24 Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Comment je crois. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1969; translated as How I Believe. London: Collins, 1969.
23

Modern Physics and Culture

151

science. Physics prepared, by means of the three main paradigms mentioned at the beginning, several complicated problems for philosophy to cope with. We have already mentioned some outcomes of philosophy following from the chaotic dynamics. More details can be found in the work written by W. J. Wesley and R. J. Russell Chaosa Mathematical Introduction with Philosophical Reflections.25 Let us call to mind the problems prepared for philosophy by the first two of the mentioned paradigms. One of them is the fact that the universe has its beginning. So far, there are at least three phenomena that corroborate this claim: Edwin Hubbles discovery of the expansion of the universe, the so-called remnant radiation and percentage occurrence of the chemical elements in the universe discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert W. Wilson. This fact provokes philosophy by two questions: When the universe had not been here a long time ago, why was it created? Being already created, why was it formed the way it had been formed and not another? It is known that in the other universe there would have been no life or humans. A quest for the answer to the first question has been the subject of many scientific, technical, and popular publications. Just to mention two of them: Creation of the Universe by the Chinese authors Fang Li Zhian and Li Shu Xien,26 and Barrows publication.27 A search for the answer to the second question resulted in the conception of the so-called anthropic principle described in detail in the monograph by J. D. Barrow and F. J. Tipler The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.28 Its quintessence is the idea that the whole universe is designed so as to make the existence of an intelligent observer possible. Accordingly, the meaning of the existence of the universe is the existence of human being. Although the anthropic principle itself is not any fundamental physical principle, from which quantitative results might be deduced, it has to be qualified as a momentous part of culture that was acquired by a relatively large part of human population.

D. Beak and M. Frame, Chaos under Control: The Art and Science of Complexity. New York: W. H. Freeman, 1994. 26 Fang Li Zhi and Li Shu Xian, Creation of the Universe. Singapore: World Scientific, 1989. 27 J. D. Barrow, The Origins of the Universe. New York: Basic Books, 1994. 28 J. D. Barrow and F. J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford University Press, 1986.
25

152

Jlius Krempask

CONCLUSION

The arguments given above seem to be sufficient to begin considering physics as a scientific discipline, which, in a way, creates foundations for a broad conception of culture. It should therefore be viewed as a subject of general education and to be taught at all educational institutions. It would definitely contribute to the growth of culture as a whole.