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

From: Alastair Malcolm <amalcolm.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 20:07:53 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: <GSLevy.domain.name.hidden>
> The reason we don't see any flying rabbit is simple. Such an event would
> violates the "ultimate" anthropic principle which I explain in my book.
This
> version of the anthropic principle deviates from the traditionally
accepted
> ones. It assumes the SELF to be the ultimate frame of reference. (There
are
> many versions of the anthropic principle. Barrow and Tippler describe
> the"first" as the need for life to explain the coincidences of the word.
They
> describe the "second" as the need for intelligence, i.e. generally
> distributed through the Universe.) The ultimate anthropic principle is
> relative... or relativistic with respect to the observer and pushes the
> anthropic concept to its ultimate conclusion: The Self. The perspective
that
> the self has of the MW is constrained by this principle. The only events
that
> can be observed are those that do not or cannot prevent the self from
being
> aware. A flying rabbit implies rules of physics incompatible with the
> awareness of the self by the self. Therefore such an event is impossible
to
> observe. This is not saying that they are impossible in the MW, simply
that
> given the parameters defining the SELF (our Selves) we cannot PERCEIVE a
> world where flying rabbits are possible.

I don't really understand this. To help clarify, perhaps you could state
which of the following events are impossible under your scheme:

a) A child sees a flying rabbit and never in her life realises it is a
physically impossible event (ie impossible under the assumed laws of physics
at the time, but permitted under our contrived universe scenario).
b) A child sees a flying rabbit and 10 years later considers that it *might*
have been physically impossible.
c) A child sees a flying rabbit and 10 years later considers that it was
almost certainly physically impossible (say with 99% certainty).
d) A child sees a flying rabbit and 10 years later considers that it was
certainly physically impossible.
e) A rabbit flies in another room that is never seen by anyone and
(miraculously - but that is permitted in a contrived universe - ) has no
effect on its environment.
f) A rabbit flies in another room that is never seen by anyone, but has
minor effects on its environment (say a small mark is left on the ceiling).

Thanks,

Alastair
Received on Wed Jul 07 1999 - 12:30:07 PDT