Re: The Anthropic Principle Boundary Conditions

From: Jacques Mallah <>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 12:02:54 -0700 (PDT)

--- wrote:
> writes:
> > This is related to the wabbit question.
> > Given the above, is it possible to deduce whether
> > the world is rational based on observation?
> Very interesting. You want the converse. The
> original statement effectively states:
> "if the world is rational, then whenever an arbitray
> state is discovered, all other possible alternative
> states must also exist." Hence the Plenitude.
> The converse could be stated as follows:
> "If all possible states are also found to exist
> whenever an arbitrary state is discovered (i.e.,
> there are no unexplained phenomena, no wabbits) then
> the world is rational."
> Experiments in Quantum Theory seem to indicate, in
> the small scale, that this is the case.

    OK. The question is what do you mean by "seem to
indicate". I would like a precise mathematical
criterion for this. The problem, as I pointed out in
the thread about the AUH not being falsifiable, is
that using the minimum-complexity criterion for
Occam's razor, *ANY POSSIBLE* experimental facts will
still not lead one to say that the AUH had been
falsified. Hence I say

> > Perhaps the best thing to do is just to compare
> > the complexity of an observation with that of an
> > equal size, anthropically filtered but otherwise
> > random possible observation. The latter case
> > would have higher complexity.
> I don't understand your statement about complexity.

    Why not? Complexity = Kolmogorov complexity. I
am comparing two cases:
1) A typical observation (modelled as a bitstring)
drawn from, e.g., a UD with computationalism. Simple
"apparent laws of physics" are said to be favored by
2) A typical observation, as above, but drawn
instead from a set with equal weight for all
anthropically valid possible observations, of the same
size (same bitstring length) as above. This should be
more "wabbitty"; the question is how to define that.

> > > Yet another way of proving the Plenitude is to
> > > rely on Goedel consistency/completeness theorem.
> > That doesn't prove the plenitude.
> True. I stand corrected. It does not prove the
> physical Plenitude. However,it certainly expands the
> mathematical universe to infinity. Now if the
> correspondance between the physical Plenitude and
> the Mathematical Universe holds then my statement is
> still right.

    Surely if it held, one wouldn't need Godel to
declare the plenitude. That part is trivial.

> > > How do you draw the line around the set of
> > > creatures with the quality of observer? The
> > > simplest way is to draw it around yourself, and
> > > to adopt a relativistic philosophy, which I did.
> >
> > No, it's not simplest, and you still haven't
> > defined it or "yourself".
> >
> We went through that many times. I draw the line as
> tightly around myself.. my mind as I can. "I
> think,"this is my starting point. You don't have

    You still haven't defined "I", and the fact that
we've discussed it many times without me getting a
straight answer from you is not an excuse for you.
    As for my starting point, as I've said repeatedly,
it's my observer-moment.

- - - - - - -
               Jacques Mallah (
         Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
         My URL:

Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
Received on Fri May 26 2000 - 12:14:24 PDT

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