4 ms·

Isn't this the distinction between the Strong Anthropic Principle and the Weak Anthropic Principle? WAP: we're going to see selection bias in our universe beca

Isn't this the distinction between the Strong Anthropic Principle and the Weak Anthropic Principle? WAP: we're going to see selection bias in our universe because the preconditions for life must have been satisfied for us to exist within it. SAP: all universes must satisfy the preconditions for life because cogito ergo sum -- the definition of existence requires life to perceive it. I've probably sold SAP short because my own model of existence doesn't require perception, but clearly by this point we're well within the realm of philosophy.

skissane 7y ago
> SAP: all universes must satisfy the preconditions for life because cogito ergo sum -- the definition of existence requires life to perceive it. Rather than cogito ergo sum, I think esse est percipi is the more appropriate phrase to use here.
- TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
  I had to look that one up: esse est percipi: to be is to be perceived
  - quotemstr 7y ago
    I love how terse Latin is
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      That’s mostly because the “to be” gets a folded into the verb.
      - quotemstr 7y ago
        No, that's not right. Latin has a separate copula --- sum, est, and so on. What gives Latin its terseness is that it supports dropping words implied by context (like the copula in many contexts) and that it's highly inflected, allowing single words to communicate grammatical information that we need word spam to spell out in English.
        saagarjha 7y ago
        Uh, yeah, what you said. I'm not a linguistic expert so my experience with this is just "that's what it does" rather than "you can drop copulas" ;) Another one of the nice ones is that you can drop pronouns from context too–compared to English the Romance languages are pretty cool.
dumbfoundded 7y ago
Yeah, for the most part. The Weak Anthropic Principle from my understanding is simply that intelligent observers are possible. There's no implied likelihood or selection bias. Simply it's possible in our universe. I'd agree with this framing. As for the SAP, I personally find it somewhat meaningless. If that's how you define existence, then you're correct by definition. If you believe a whole universe's existence requires perception to say it exists, I find that somewhat ridiculous. The universe came first and then came life. Do things just pop into existence as we perceive them? And as we perceive more, does more stuff just pop into existence like all of the recently discovered lifeless exoplanets? Did those not exist until we spotted them? I strongly believe trees fall in the forest and make sounds whether or not someone is there to hear. If you define a sound as having to be heard, then you're only correct through your own definition.
- imtringued 7y ago
  Well, I offer dwarf fortress as a potential model. When you start a new world in dwarf fortress it will automatically generate a history for that world. There are a lot of games that pretend to be multiplayer but in reality are just filled with bots. Maybe our world is like that and everyone gets their own world.

skissane 7y ago

> SAP: all universes must satisfy the preconditions for life because cogito ergo sum -- the definition of existence requires life to perceive it. Rather than cogito ergo sum, I think esse est percipi is the more appropriate phrase to use here.

TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
I had to look that one up: esse est percipi: to be is to be perceived
- quotemstr 7y ago
  I love how terse Latin is
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    That’s mostly because the “to be” gets a folded into the verb.
    - quotemstr 7y ago
      No, that's not right. Latin has a separate copula --- sum, est, and so on. What gives Latin its terseness is that it supports dropping words implied by context (like the copula in many contexts) and that it's highly inflected, allowing single words to communicate grammatical information that we need word spam to spell out in English.
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        Uh, yeah, what you said. I'm not a linguistic expert so my experience with this is just "that's what it does" rather than "you can drop copulas" ;) Another one of the nice ones is that you can drop pronouns from context too–compared to English the Romance languages are pretty cool.

dumbfoundded 7y ago

Yeah, for the most part. The Weak Anthropic Principle from my understanding is simply that intelligent observers are possible. There's no implied likelihood or selection bias. Simply it's possible in our universe. I'd agree with this framing. As for the SAP, I personally find it somewhat meaningless. If that's how you define existence, then you're correct by definition. If you believe a whole universe's existence requires perception to say it exists, I find that somewhat ridiculous. The universe came first and then came life. Do things just pop into existence as we perceive them? And as we perceive more, does more stuff just pop into existence like all of the recently discovered lifeless exoplanets? Did those not exist until we spotted them? I strongly believe trees fall in the forest and make sounds whether or not someone is there to hear. If you define a sound as having to be heard, then you're only correct through your own definition.

imtringued 7y ago
Well, I offer dwarf fortress as a potential model. When you start a new world in dwarf fortress it will automatically generate a history for that world. There are a lot of games that pretend to be multiplayer but in reality are just filled with bots. Maybe our world is like that and everyone gets their own world.