Re: The Anthropic Principle Boundary Conditions

From: Alastair Malcolm <amalcolm.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:56:34 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: <GSLevy.domain.name.hidden>
> .
> .
> Note the vicious circle. Starting with Psychology (first person) we derive
> Physics (Third person). Then moving our frame of reference to Physics
(third
> person), we derive Psychology (First Person). And so on.

I don't see this as a vicious circle. We use perceptual-empirical evidence
to infer both physics (via the *form* of perception) and mind (or
observer-moment if you prefer) (via the *existence* of perception and
thought). Physics, together with its extensions in the form of cosmology,
biology and so on, in principle predicts the possibility of intelligent life
and mind, but isn't *necessary* to establish mind - we always have the
evidence of our thoughts. This is just consistency, not a vicious circle.

The same general comments apply in a (physics-involving) plenitude context.

Note also that core physics (ie the mathematical models) do not arise from
'psychology' in the sense that a different kind of mind (say that of an
alien) in the same environment should be able (in principle) to derive the
same (or logically equivalent) equations of physics describing that
environment. (The two sets of physics may not be fully co-extensive, but the
parts that are should be equivalent, if the physics is correct.)

Alastair
Received on Wed Jun 07 2000 - 07:04:31 PDT