[MD] Value and the Anthropic Principle

[Squonkriff at aol.com]

Ham:
I don't understand the proposition "humans are value...galaxies are  value".
Value is a measure of worth or quality, and man is the measure of  all
things.  Aesthetic appreciation is the individual's response to  value, and
is always relative to some objective referent.  There is no  such thing as
unappreciated (unrealized) value.  I accept the idea of  Teleology as what
"pushes or pulls" the cosmos through evolution, but I  believe it's a mistake
to call this "value", whether or not human beings are  part of it.

The problem, as I see it, stems from Pirsig's refusal to  acknowledge a
primary metaphysical reality -- the uncreated Source.   Empirical reality is
divided so that a subject can sense value (e.g.,  goodness, quality, beauty,
freedom, etc.) from which to objectivize a  differentiated universe.
 
Mark 04:02-07: Hi Ham,
The primary empirical reality for Pirsig is DQ.
This reality does not contain any static differentiation's such as the  
subject or the object of experience.
But Leslie is a long way from Pirsig's position anyway, and it is Leslie i  
am talking about.
Leslie appeals to cosmology and current scientific theories to support his  
philosophy, which is a harmonising of western philosophical  traditions.

[Mark]:
> The principle of ethical requirement in  Leslie's Axiarcism
> is drawn from Plato.  Its application is  Neo-Spinozist
> so Leslie is advocating Pantheism, which boils down  to
> a form of Idealism the way he describes it.

Ham:
You see, I believe that morality and ethics are human inventions  designed to
preserve civilized cultures by establishing standards of  behavior.  It would
be difficult to apply such standards to lesser  creatures who behave
instinctively, or to natural processes that behave  according to physical
principles.  For example, can the laws of  thermo-dynamics, gravity,
relativity, or entropy  logically be  considered "good" or "bad"?
Efficacious, consistent, predictable, empirically  verifiable, perhaps -- but
not moral or ethical.  Such concepts apply  only to people.  As awe-inspiring
as the design of the universe may be,  its "rightness" or "goodness' can only
be determined relative to its ultimate  goal or purpose, and this is beyond
human measurement.
 
Mark 04:02-07:
I understand your position Ham.
Your position is not unusual.

[Mark]:
> 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.
 
Ham:
This sounds very much like the singularity principle operating in  chaos:
Given sufficient time, the dynamics of energy and matter will  eventually
produce a self-sustaining universe with intelligent life.   Extend the law of
probability to infinity, and a monkey sitting at a word  processor will
eventually come up with the complete works of  Shakespeare.  If your
description of Leslie's philosophy is correct,  he's apparently as averse as
Pirsig is to the idea of a transcendent primary  source.
 
Mark 04:02-07:
I think you may be conflating the probable with the ethically  required?
The problem as Leslie argues it with the probable is it generates allot of  
worthless rubbish.
But worthless is measured in terms of value, so he is suggesting values are  
prior to human invention and indeed ontologically primary as thoughts in an  
infinite number of divine minds.

Ham:
Also, you're begging the question when you say that Leslie's  willingness to
deal with an infinite number of universes "undercuts the  Anthropic
principle."  What if this is the only universe?  I'm  sorry, Mark, but I put
more value than you do on  human  sensibility.  The only cosmology that makes
sense to me is a universe  differentiated so that finite beings can realize
the value of their essential  source.  Accordingly, I remain on the side of
Anthropism in the good  company of John Witherall, Paul Davies, and
(probably) Nicholas  Rescher.
 
Mark 04:02-07:
Don't shoot the messenger Ham.
I'm reporting Leslie as well as i may within the limitations of a  post.
One of the interesting aspects of multiple universes may be that humans are  
not the best there is.
My arrogance does not prevent me from considering this a possibility.
 
All the best,
Mark


(If you learn anything more about Rescher, I'd appreciate the  information.)

Thanks, again, for your clarification.

Essentially  yours,
Ham