Well I thought the whole point was to restrict the universe (that we're in) by the anthropic principle. But if the anthropic principle is to meant to include all intelligent beings, then some theory will be necessary to say in what respects the universe could differ and still produce intelligent beings.
Have you read Tegmark's paper, quant-ph/9907009v2 10 Nov 1999, which shows that entangled quantum probabilities are not necessary for consciousness - only ordinary randomness. Brent Meeker "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." -- Albert Einstein On 22-May-01, George Levy wrote: > > > jamikes wrote: > >> "George Levy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote >> Saturday, May 05, 2001 : >> >> (SNIP Jurgen's remark about "such a universe" whatever, my remark is >> not >> topical, rather principle:) >> >>> Such a universe would violate Bell' inequality theorem. Quantum >> randomness >>> cannot be simulated by hidden variables. We have to move beyond >>> realism......to get a model of objective reality we must first >> develop a >>> model of consciousness. >>> >>> George >> >> Can you restrict a universe according to its compliance with or >> violation of >> a theory, no matter how ingenious, or vice versa? Are WE the >> creators who >> has to perform according to some rules/circumstances of human logic >> or >> computability? >> John Mikes >>> > > I am not restricting anything. I am only saying that Juergens has to > choose between violating Bell's inequality theorem and all that this > implies, or not and all that this implies. My stand is that we > shouldn't. > > George > Regards