Re: Natural selection (spinoff from "History-less observer moments")

From: <>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 00:18:19 EDT

In a message dated 05/21/2000 7:59:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time, writes:


>The necessity comes from the requirements of the anthropic principle,
however >when a particular aspect of the universe is not constrained by the
AP, its value >must be decided by chance (according to the SSA) the first
time it is ``measured'' >by self-aware beings.

I may have misunderstood you Russell, but the above statement from your paper
reminded me a lot of Wheeler's participatory universe with which I strongly
disagree. You are saying here that a parameter not constrained by the AP will
take a value as soon as it is observed by observers. Your use of plural in
"Self Aware Beings" is confusing. Does it take observations from several
beings to collapse that parameter? What do beings observe, who have not been
instrumental in this collapse?

> Whoa up there! At no point do I admit an absolute objective world in
> this paper. If you peruse my postings on this list, you will find I
> believe the opposite. I consider the Multiverse to be an objective
> object, however it is not in my opinion a "world" in the usual sense
> of the word.
> Secondly, the collapse happens not "magically to all observers", but
> rather just to that subset of observers sharing the history including
> that "collapse".
OK, point well taken. I suggest you clarify your post at I think that it definitely
conveys (to me) an unintended message. Maybe do a cut and paste into your
site of your second paragraph: "Secondly .... "collapse.""

Otherwise we agree a lot on the evolution process of the universe. In general
your whole site looks terrific. Great job!

Received on Sun May 21 2000 - 21:22:02 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST