[MD] Value and the Anthropic Principle

[ian glendinning]

Ham, Mark, interesting thread.

Ham you said
"The only cosmology that makes sense to me is a universe
differentiated so that finite beings can realize the value of their
essential source."

Which is of course one reason why Anthropism is so "appealing" to so
many, but hardly a strong argument?

All I can add, after corresponding with others in this space is that
it remains highly contentious, with advocates of Anthropism claiming
that so much based on quantum mechanics interpretations, like
observer-based collapse of wave functions, like the multiverse, like
schroedinger's cat etc, is misguided and based on fundamental
(mathematical) errors, of the kind Einstein famously rejected. From
the scientific perspective (as opposed to metaphysical) it seems very
hard to get into this debate without a reasonable understanding of the
math involved. (But as Max Born pointed out; "Theoretical physics is
actual metaphysics".)

Personally, I don't need more than a single vast incompletey
understood universe to believe, like Mark, that humans are just a
"local maximum" in evolutionary capability; So the jury is out for me,
even though I currently find Anthropism quite unnecessary.

Good luck with the IDF stuff Mark.

Ian

On 2/4/07, Squonkriff at aol.com <Squonkriff at aol.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>