Just last night I was flipping through channels and the local "Christian" channel had an infomercial/debate with this guy (http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design.shtml) using the "anthropic principle" to talk about how the universe was designed for life, and of course using that to hypothesize a Christian God.
I thought he had the anthropic principle wrong or otherwise backwards, but turned out I was thinking of the "weak" anthropic principle (ie: observation is a selection mechanism in itself, as we must find ourselves in some epoch and location that fulfills the constraints of our existence) while he was emphasizing the "strong" anthropic principle (ie: what are the odds that the physical constants for various key forces are what they are in the universe? It must have been designed for life/us) Found that difference this morning, by reading the wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle Where halfway down it gives several possibilities for our universe: A - The absurd universe - It just happens to be that way. B - The unique universe - There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the universe being this way. Some 'Theory of Everything' will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see. C - The multiverse - Multiple Universes exist which have all possible combinations of characteristics, and we naturally find ourselves within the one that supports our existence. D - Intelligent Design - An intelligent Creator designed the Universe specifically to support complexity and the emergence of Intelligence. E - The life principle - There is an underlying principle that constrains the universe to evolve towards life and mind. F - The self-explaining universe - A closed explanatory or causal loop: 'perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist'. G - The fake universe - We are living in a virtual reality simulation. So anyway, note entry G. What are the odds I would be reading that this morning? Did I just generate a warning message in the simulation? ;) -jimG > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Stephen Guerin > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:18 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [FRIAM] NYT: We're living in a PostHuman Simulation > > > "it is almost a mathematical certainty that we are living in > someone else's > computer simulation." - Nick Bostrom, Oxford > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html?ex=118775520 0&en=258a5f406 ca9d607&ei=5070&emc=eta1 Damn, them Posthumans! They're not allocating me sufficient CPU and memory! -S --- -. . ..-. .. ... .... - .-- --- ..-. .. ... .... [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.Redfish.com 624 Agua Fria Street, Santa Fe, NM 87501 mobile: (505)577-5828 office: Santa Fe, NM (505)995-0206 / London, UK +44 (0) 20 7993 4769 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
