[MD] Value and the Anthropic Principle

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark, Platt --

[Mark]:
> Leslie invented the term 'Axiarcism' to suggest that value
> (axia) is the beginning (arche).  (The term is first introduced
> in his ‘The Theory that the World Exists Because It Should’,
> American Philosophical Quarterly Vol.7 No.4 (Oct.  1970)
> I've used this idea in my University of Liverpool
> Interdisciplinary Forum  presentation abstract to support
> the moq. The moq is a version of axiarcism i argue, and
> the best version in my opinion.  I've been corresponding
> with Leslie in Canada.
> [snip]
> The Anthropic principle is not required for axiarcism
> because it may be suggested there is bountiful empirical
> evidence to support the postulation that value pre-exists:
> 1. Existence.
> 2. Therefore, humans to aesthetically appreciate values
> because they are values.
> 3. Therefore humans are values resonating with other values.

[Platt]:
> Glad you brought up the name of the Canadian philosopher
> John Leslie. I first read about him in a book by Paul Davies,
> "The Mind of God" where Leslie is quoted, among other
> things, as writing, "The universe exists as a result of ethical
> requirement." I got in touch with Leslie by e-mail and asked
> if he had read any of Pirsig's books. He kindly wrote back
> saying he hadn't. I also bought a book by Leslie but found it
> so replete with philosophical jargon as to be almost
> incomprehensible to me. In  any case, Pirsig is not the only
> "values" philosopher out there, as evidenced by your post
> in case there were any doubters. Thanks for sharing.

It seems that both of you are conversant with Leslie who is new to me.  What
about Rescher and Novick who get equal billing in Witherall's analysis?

Mark, in your rejection of the Anthropic principle, you come up with two
conclusions that I don't see supported by "Existence": "Therefore,
humans...", and "Therefore humans are values...".  Is the absence of a
middle premise in your syllogism how Leslie's 'Axiarcism' is supposed to
work?   And what does "humans resonating with other values" mean?  I don't
understand this logic.  That is, I don't accept unrealized Value as a
meaningful term.

What attracted me to Witherall's essay was his reference to Paul Davies'
assertion that "the laws of physics must be such as to give rise to
conscious beings ...is clearly connected to the value thesis in some way,
since conscious beings are in some sense realizations of value."  It's clear
to me that feeling "awe or astonishment" (Witherall's terms) is realization
of value, and that without such realization existence is not only
meaningless but metaphysically unsupportable as "the primary empirical
reality".  I think this is Witherall's premise, as well as Pirsig's, and it
is also consistent with my anthropocentric cosmology.  Even if Value is a
universal principle, as suggested by the MoQ, it presupposes "realization"
(experience?).

In your discussions with Leslie, has he clarified his "self-validating"
position on unrealized value to your satisfaction?   Otherwise, Davies'
argument that "the laws of physics must be such as to give rise to conscious
beings", which is also Witherall's point, is the only ontogeny that makes
sense.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me.

Regards,
Ham