> The WAP does *not* say that "the universe is as large as it is because we
> can only exist in a world which is large enough to evolve us", but that,
> if universes are of random sizes, we would be sure that we were in one of
> a size to support us.  It could be at either end of the probability
> distribution. It does not try to explain why it is the exact size that it
> is. 
> There are no 'backwards in time regions' - the entire universe is as much
> backward in time as it is forward in time.  You really need to read Huw
> Price.  And Deutsch, to understand that what we perceive as the flow of
> time is just one of many relationships between different universes.
> What could be more fundamental than 'everything exists'?
> James
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: 14 January 1999 15:59
> Subject:      RE: Amoeba croaks -
> Higgo, James, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, writes:
> > I explain why "the world presents the appearance of a time-evolving one"
> > using the weak anthropic principle: we can onle 'exist' in a world which
> > presents the appearance of a time-evolving one.  I deny categorically
> that
> > anything is more objective than anything else.  And I use Ockham's razor
> to
> > slash anyone who disagrees with me.
> This seems to suffer from the same problem as using the Anthropic
> Principle (AP) to explain why the universe is so large.
> According to the AP, the universe is as large as it is because we can only
> exist in a world which is large enough to evolve us.  But actually, the
> universe is apparently much larger than it needs to be for us to evolve.
> It could be many orders of magnitude smaller and we would not have found
> it out until the invention of astronomy.
> Similarly, the universe could have many backwards-time regions and
> it would not have affected our evolution.  Yet as we look deeper and
> deeper into the universe, we don't see backwards-time or no-time regions.
> Every time we extend our view and continue to see a universe whose laws of
> physics look the same as our own, an AP based argument has no explanation.
> There must be something more fundamental going on.
> Hal

Reply via email to