Re: The Anthropic Principle Boundary Conditions

From: Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 22:00:09 -0700

Hello GSLevy.domain.name.hidden

On 25-May-00, GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:
>> The WAP permits wabbits - the miracles some people see. One of the
>> interesting ideas deriving from the Plenitude is that by assigning some
>> measure to the universes that can exist one may be able to prove that
>> wabbits have vanishing probability. I haven't seen a way of assigning
>> this measure that seems completely convincing in detail, but the idea
>> seems right.
>
>
> The WAP filters what we can observe from the Plenitude. If you assume that WE
> ARE RATIONAL then OUR RATIONALITY CONSTRAINS the WAP filtering to rational
> observations. Hence no arbitrary events. All is explainable. No Wabbits. This
> may also be an answer to Jacques' post.
>
But it is just my point that assuming we are rational is too much too assume.
I'm not even sure "rational" is well defined. If you look in Robert Nozick's
book, "The Nature of Rationality" you find ideas about will and purpose - which
is very far from what is usually meant on this list. The rationality you would
have filter the Plenitude is rationality of scientific objectivity, the ability
to agree on observations. Even if "rational" in this sense is well defined, it
is obivous to me that many people are not rational - does that change the
world? Do they live in a different universe - I thought that was just a figure
of speech. That's why I find interesting the arguments that attempt to impose a
probability measure on the Plenitude and show that the world must (with
probability one) be predictable/rational.

Brent Meeker
Received on Thu May 25 2000 - 23:07:10 PDT