> 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----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 14 January 1999 15:59 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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
