Re: The Anthropic Principle Boundary Conditions

From: Fred Chen <flipsu5.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 00:28:11 -0700

> >
> > Brent says:
> >> >> The question is, "Can observers exist in a wabbity world?".
> >
> > If the world was wabbity
> > then some elements of the world would exist with absolutely no reason at all.
> > Furthermore the world would be irrational and inconsistent. Inconsistency of
> > the world would make the drive for completeness irrelevent. There could be a
> > wall around the world with absolutely no justification for this wall (back to
> > the Middle Ages before Copernicus). My earlier post deriving the existence of
> > the Plenitude using the rationality of the world as a starting point would be
> > irrelevent and therefore irrationality would preclude the need for the
> > Plenitude. The Copenhagen school would actually advocate the simplest
> > approach to QM. Observers brains would be governed by wabbity physical
> > processes and would therefore be partially or totally incoherent. All you MWI
> > groupies would be nuts (which actually may be the case already for some of
> > you) and would better disband.
> >
> > George
>
> Of course at some level of arbitrariness observers (at least observers like us)
> could not exist. What I was wondering is what level of arbitrariness is
> consistent with the WAP. Note that many people believe they have seen ghosts
> or witnessed miracles or other paranormal phenomena - maybe the world is just
> that little bit wabbity. Of course all these paranormal experiences are
> purported to have causes - the causes just aren't consistent with science;
> they're consistent with some religious or spritual world view.

The WAP is a necessary observation for observers who are vulnerable - that is the
definition. The WAP should be observed 100% of the time. Wabbity phenomena which do
not violate the WAP are allowed. The expectation is that within the plenitude, or
universe ensemble, the relative occurrence of these wabbity universes is very
small.

>
>
> An alternative to the mathematics=existence multiverse is that everything
> exists and we have evolved so as to only perceive a rational subset of this
> everything - but evolution isn't perfect; so we sort of perceive wabbits that
> are close to the boundary of being consistent. Sort of like QM virtual
> particles that can only exist for small space-time intervals; these wabbits
> could only occur to an observer in a very limited way.
>

Interesting. What would be the need driving our ability to perceive these wabbits?

> Brent Meeker
Received on Thu Jun 01 2000 - 00:53:27 PDT