RE: Devil's advocate against Max Tegmark's hypothesis

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 12:02:56 +0100

        Let's be clear about the flying rabbit: we have chosen it as a proxy
for something very unusual. Otherwise we would have said 'flying bat' which
is unusual but not very unusual. So we are really asking, 'why is something
we have chosen to be very unusual, very unusual?'. I fail to see the
relevance of this piece of circular reasoning.

        All it amounts to is asking why there is any stability in our
observations, and I think you need nothing more than the weak anthropic
principle to explain stability.

        James
Received on Wed Jul 07 1999 - 04:03:38 PDT