Re: The Anthropic Principle Boundary Conditions

From: <GSLevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 23:50:29 EDT

In a message dated 05/25/2000 11:07:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
meekerdb.domain.name.hidden writes:

> >
> > 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
>
Yes, I agree. Check the post by Russell. By rational I mean that we process
information in some kind of logical manner, say as a computer. Russell made
some relevent comment about this.

George
Received on Fri May 26 2000 - 20:52:57 PDT