I appreciate your honesty and the depth of your question. This question deals with our deepest human and religious emotions, so it is important to not get caught up in these. The copernican principle does present a strong paradox, but I think the majority of the evidence and philosophical arguments support the principle in all sense of its definition. You state the lack of evidence of life existing beyond the Earth, however, I think the existence of life on Earth is evidence in itself that the universe is conductive to the development of life.

Start with the most abundant elements: C, H, O, N (or S, P, O, N, C, H) is it a coincidence that the most abundant elements that go on to form planets, are also the main building blocks for life itself? Here we see that peering into the smallest scales of the universe, that life is in our favor. I agree with you that we are special in our uniqueness and in our small corner of the galaxy. However, what removes this feeling is the sheer vastness of our universe. From what I understand about modern cosmology, and our place in the universe, is that the existence of life on Earth is so far the only reference frame we have to what consciousness and observation is, and that's where the dilemma lies.

You argue that our reference point is special, however, due to the vastness of the universe, this gives us a humble realization about our existence. There is no reason why we should think we are special, when it is expected that there are ∼10^10 Earth-sized planets that lie within the HZ of their stars in the Milky Way (Marcy et al. 2014; Winn & Fabrycky 2015). The elements that make up life on our planet are ubiquitous and commonplace throughout the universe. We even find essential amino acids in unexpected places (comets and asteroids, etc.). The only privileged aspect of the human experience is that our eyes and consciousness has seemingly evolved to make life observable on a terrestrial planet around a g-type star. Beings around other star systems would have a different view of the world, and may see in different wavelengths of light, and even have a different experience of time.

Lastly, the axis of evil viewpoint and argument is flawed because the accepted theory is that the universe started from a single infinitely small point, and therefore every part of the universe is its own center, and any relative observer anywhere in the universe would think the CMB is a sphere.

Now I pass the reigns to Carl Sagan, who put it so well:

“Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there-on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.”

as the earth is located right/ in the middle of everywhere/, mankind resides quite/ in the middle of there/, wherefrom/, no matter in which direction you look/ to the outer space/, you merely can see equidistant from earth to any place. as mankind resides right/ in the middle of nowhere oversize// the earth is situated in that light/, which comes to one’s eyes// from each direction of the outer space/ equidistant from the moving horizon far out to our place/, ergo: earth is the hub of the world, one central center of the visible space.

in an observable universe every()thing is in the middle, the sun, as the Earth, or a star... I`d claim that the earth is the most bizarre singularity one has ever seen.

Because the principle of mediocrity is perfectly combined with the anthropic principle (-;

Uniqueness of something is possible only in an unpredictable world, and in such a world there will be no laws of nature. Asymptotically no one will have choice other then to reconcile with the uniqueness of everything...

whereat the strong anthropic principle or the weak one is meant :))

“… however many millions of suns and earths may arise and pass away, however long it may last before the conditions for organic life develop, however innumerable the organic beings that have to arise and pass away before animals with a brain capable of thought are developed from their midst, and for a short span of time find conditions suitable for life, only to be exterminated later without mercy, we have the certainty that matter remains eternally the same in all its transformations, that none of its attributes can ever be lost, and therefore also, that with the same iron necessity that it will exterminate on the earth its highest creation, the thinking mind, it must somewhere else and at another time again produce it.” Frederick Engels, Dialectics of Nature.

http://www.theolencorp.biz/Portals/0/graphics/product/sand/Q17_p5_pga_mason_9531.JPG

Dear Cole C. Pazar,

Thank you for your input.

Firstly, I never meant by the term Special necessarily Unique although possible extremely rare even at a cosmological scale.

Your input is most valuable for me because it allows me to unfold my arguments and please don't take me wrong all the info you state is truly the accepted mainstream science today on this matter. So let me get the blame for being the heretic here, I can take it, although I never understood how someone can use this term in science which directly refers to dogma?

I quote: "You state the lack of evidence of life existing beyond the Earth, however, I think the existence of life on Earth is evidence in itself that the universe is conductive to the development of life."

That is not scientific evidence but merely a speculation.

" Start with the most abundant elements: C, H, O, N (or S, P, O, N, C, H) is it a coincidence that the most abundant elements that go on to form planets, are also the main building blocks for life itself? "

This is not correct, these are building blocks of matter not organic life. This is a nice story very widely spread mainly to the public but also among non immediate disciplines of science to biology and genetics through documentaries and other media almost like a cliche, that these are the building blocks of life, almost propaganda. No they are NOT!

The process where organic life is produced by inorganic matter has not been found yet, if it was, we would hear it from the Nobel committee.

" Lastly, the axis of evil viewpoint and argument is flawed because the accepted theory is that the universe started from a single infinitely small point, and therefore every part of the universe is its own center, and any relative observer anywhere in the universe would think the CMB is a sphere. "

How can evidence be flawed because it doesn't fit the "accepted theory" ? Sounds more like a doctrine to me than science.

You can not deny scientific evidence in favor of status quo or else you have no progress.

A study will reveal that the so called axis of evil as the call it is real and they had to launch two separate science satellites to confirm it, Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and Planck Space Telescope later on, both came with the same results. They call it an anomaly that does not fit their model and not willing to confront with these results and accepting that they might be wrong after all about the "accepted theory" however the evidence is valid and no official explanation has been given yet.

Reference :

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/CMB_Huterer.pdf

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/

quote from above reference

ODD ALIGNMENTS hide within the multipoles of the cosmic microwave background. In this combination of the quadrupole and octopole, a plane bisects the sphere between the largest warm and cool lobes. The ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit projected onto the celestial sphere — is aligned parallel to the plane between the lobes. In addition, the Sun’s direction of motion through the universe is only 10° from lying in the same plane.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Paul, strong, of course, but all the formulations (beginning with Carter) is unsatisfactory. Anthropic principle does not need a prefix, it is a legacy of quantum-mechanical reasoning.

I did not joke, combining these principles. It was just irony, Paul.

No one knows whether our location is something special, but no one found that it is. Since the earth moves and rotates it is not the absolute rest frame and if anything, it is 350 000 km/s away from it.

Geocentrism is coming back

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Principle

as well as exorcists are raising in numbers.

"No one knows whether our location is something special, but no one found that it is. "

Who says that?... this is not correct.

I disagree, all the real and NON SPECULATIVE evidence we have so far discovered says we ARE SPECIAL. You can not deny that. And this has nothing to do with geocentrisism or uniqueness, you could be at the rim of the universe and among 1 million same others, and still be special compared to the billions of trillions out there.

When you said, Copernican Principle I understood it Copernican Principle literally. I did not know this term was hijacked by cosmologists and assigned to something else remotely related. Copernican Principle was about relativity of motion in the classical sense and this is not pseudoscience. And the fact that we see something locally special, is not a proof . There are vast spaces in the universe that cannot be comprehended and the science is still not solid on these kind of things.

Dear Andrew Wutke ,

quote

"And the fact that we see something locally special, is not a proof . "

Well if you existing data evidence says, No (to the Copernican principle), it is frankly insane to say Yes! Against the evidence in hand.

It is more scientific correct to say, I don't know because my data set is too small relative to the sum.

But this is not the case with the Copernican principle, it absolutely states in a nutshell, and excuse me but i know my English, "we are not special in the universe" it does not say unique it says special. Special here means a few were unique means one and only. Of course we are not unique, nothing in nature is unique and probability and statistical science can prove that for our universe, unless we are the exception.

But absolutely stating that we are not special is a total different beast.

Even with today statistics saying there must be millions of the same worlds with us among the billions of trillions, this makes us still special, not unique but special yes.

For me the CP has no more ground in our days an obsolete anachronistic pseudoscience (not by the scientific method) speculative 500 years old limited data and lacking analysis statement implying directly and wrongly by the "not special" that there are many! In contrast to all the information we have today speaking against it namely all the physical information and statistical analysis, that there are might be relative compared to our vast universe a few millions intelligent Earths so that makes us still special and that we are located at the axis of evil that we now know exists, and we actually are in a special place on the CMB map.

I submit, so yes by all means. "We Are Privileged Observers of our Universe." according to today's evidence.

The funny thing is that at the same time of these modern science findings, science today still holds true the CP!... and as an axiom almost like a dogma. This is not science.

I wonder why?

... Copernican Principle... R.I.P.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Emmanouil.

Depends on your perspective, yes from our perspective we may be special.

But evolved from monkeys -is that special?

Compared to a highly advanced civilization - are we that special?

What's intersting is that in special relativity the corrolary is that the stationary body is the surface of any body in space, in stable orbit.

So everyone on a fixed point on Earth or indeed any graviational object is special.

" Compared to a highly advanced civilization - are we that special? "

What you mean Sir? Are you aware of such an more advanced civilization ? or any else apart of us?

EM: But this is not the case with the Copernican principle, it absolutely states in a nutshell, and excuse me but i know my English, "we are not special in the universe" it does not say unique it says special. Special here means a few were unique means one and only.

No, that I think is where the confusion lies. "Special" in this context means occupying a unique position in space, for example within the Milky Way being at the exact centre of the galaxy would be a special position (but we lie about 2/3 of the distance to the edge, not anywhere special).

The Copernican Principle in cosmology is applies at the level of superclusters and above. The Laniakea supercluster is not considered special in comparison to others.

Obviously within a supercluster, there are local flows as well illustrated by this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrMubFvV-VU

I would suggest the only "special" location within Laniakea would be the great Attractor. Nearer to us, the major groupings are the clusters shown on this map. Our "Local Group" is irrelevant compared to the Virgo, Fornax and Eridanus clusters for example.

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/virgo.html

You can look to it in this way, from all the desolate places in the universe, our corner permits and has the exact conditions for intelligent life to flourish therefore it can't be nothing else than Special . And as far as we know it is not just special but also unique.

EM: our corner permits and has the exact conditions for intelligent life to flourish

So does every other large galaxy in the universe, there is nothing unusual about the Milky Way. There are a hundred billion others just like it and that is just in the little bit we can observe.

Dear Emmanouil, if the Copernican principle R.I.P., you will no more be able to make hypotheses about the distant unexplored.

In the observable universe I do not know any examples where it does not work, regardless of the covered scope. Physics can not abandon what is used daily (not just by Newton extrapolating gravity from the scale of "apple" to the Moon distance).

With regard to the presence of us... Modern physics is at a complacent archaic level of understanding its position with respect to the observer. Any reasoning by physics and physicists about the observer, while physics does not contain at least one model of consciousness, is essentially speculative.

There is the lack of a sufficiently accurate model of the evolving universe, which will make it possible to see complete logic of Goldilocks zones sequences in time dynamics and, accordingly, estimate density function for the fractal structure of a certain level of complexity. This model of universe is impossible without constructing an essentially formalized model of consciousness. imo

Dear Professor Thierry De Mees ,

Sorry but experimental science is not concerned about lacks only proves.

And besides we are not discussing here QM or any other complicated physics matter just that the CP is not valid with the word "Special" in it and totally anachronistic.

For god sake these people were imagining that there must be a civilization on the moon at that time 500 years ago. It came naturally to them to say the word special implying that they are many, and not the "unique" in which case CP would hold true even for today.

I am talking from an experimental standpoint. So, I don't really am concerned about these status quo theoretical formalism rules.

Here is the only rule for experimental science: When there is sufficient prove against a theory and its hypothesis these must be on error.

The only sustainable arguement here is the word sufficient. I give you that.

A theory (how and why) supports an hypothesis (what), the must come in pair in order both to be valid. So where is the initial theory for supporting the CP hypothesis. For me this was not even an hypothesis 500 years ago just a bad statement made in a rush, narrow sighted just to emphasize that the sun is at the center of our solar system and never meant initially to be generalized at a universal scale. This was exploited later on and still used 500 years later although all evidence in hand says other wise.

I myself like to believe that there are other special places in the universe like ours but relative rare (this is also the general believe and statistical data) but please don't say that we are not special, this frankly offends my logic and degrades what human civilization has accomplished so far.

This is not a mediocracy principle but rather mediocrity.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

"if the Copernican principle R.I.P., you will no more be able to make hypotheses about the distant unexplored. "

Dear Vasyl Fedorovych Komarov ,

I fail to see how admitting that we are special but not unique will inhibit us from exploring other special places in the universe.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

dear Emmanouil, you are right: there is something very special HERE: WE! about others there are merely speculations. until proven otherwise the earth is a bizarre one singularity.

both (copernicus & torquemada) were not right: the earth is in one center of the cosmos, which is an unlimited infinite system.