[MD] Value and the Anthropic Principle

[Squonkriff at aol.com]

Ham:
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: Hi Ham,
I have no knowledge of Rescher or Novick.
Thanks for bringing them to my attention though - i shall read the article  
and give it some thought.

Ham:
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.
 
Mark:
...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.

Axiarcism places value before existence. That anything exists  at all is due 
to a principle of ethical requirement.
In other words, existence IS value.
Humans are part of that which exists, so humans ARE value also.
When humans observe that which may be distinguished from them (like a far  
galaxy for example), and as galaxies are also value (because they too exist due  
to the principle of ethical requirement), humans resonate with other  value.
I didn't intend for this to be a syllogism. Apologies for presenting it so  
it looks that way Ham.
The principle of ethical requirement in Leslie's Axiarcism is drawn from  
Plato.
It's application is Neo-Spinozist so Leslie is advocating Pantheism, which  
boils down to a form of Idealism the way he describes it.
 
Leslie is happy to deal with a multiplicity of Universes of which ours is  as 
we experience it.
This undercuts the Anthropic principle because if there are an infinite  
number of Universes it should come as no surprise that one was like ours -  finely 
tuned to be as we experience it.
 
God, on Leslie's terms, is what i shall call a scientific God and not one  
theologians would entertain too easily.
He appeals to phenomenology for the unity of experience over abstracted  
structures. When he does this he flirts very closely to an  
unconditioned/conditioned ontology perhaps?
What's more, the conditioned is rather arbitrary but conforms to a value of  
unity.
Again, there are appeals to experiments in quantum entanglement and  
coherence to support this.
The basic stuff of existence is conscious, and this is the only thing of  
value for Leslie, but the principle of ethical requirement precedes  
consciousness.
 
I'm still thinking about Leslie's position.
 
Best wishes,
Mark