4 ms·
You just stated it as the contrapositive: "NOT Universe can support intelligent life -> NOT Universe can be oberved" ... rather than ... "Universe can be obs
by SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
You just stated it as the contrapositive:
"NOT Universe can support intelligent life -> NOT Universe can be oberved"
... rather than ...
"Universe can be observed -> Universe can support intelligent life (-> Universe has values which can support life)"
I'm not sure either is more useful than the other.
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoRight. But the way it was stated in the article makes it easy to think of it as the universe requiring rather than the observer requiring. The other versions explicitly get into that kind of nonsense; I wanted to state the weak version in a way that made it clear that it didn't go there. (I suspect that this page states the weak version in that way in order to make the other versions seem more similar.)
- SomeStupidPoint 10y agoFair point.
- jwatte 10y agoAn /observed/ universe requires conditions to cause observers to evolve. I don't but that an "intelligent" observer is needed to collapse the waveform, BTW. That uses a very non-physical interpretation of "observer." Any particle that can absorb information, can be said to be "observing." As simple as a reaction that depends on temperature would do it.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]