RE: The Anthropic Principle Boundary Conditions

From: Higgo James <>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 08:43:22 +0100

If you will stop jumping from 'observation' to 'observer' then you will find
that this problem does not exist. As nobody here (bar Jacques) is prepared
to do this, I'm logging off from this boring and pointless debate about

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brent Meeker []
> Sent: Thursday, 01 June, 2000 6:01 AM
> To: everything-list
> Subject: Re: The Anthropic Principle Boundary Conditions
> >
> > 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.
> 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.
> Brent Meeker

The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential and may be privileged.
It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to
deliver it to the intended recipient, this message must not be copied or distributed to
any other person. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
by telephone (+44-20-7337-3500) and destroy the original message. The Gerrard Group reserves
the right to monitor all e-mail messages passing through its network.

This e-mail originates from the Gerrard Group unless otherwise stated.
Received on Thu Jun 01 2000 - 00:57:01 PDT

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