NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/conscio/940

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-21 | 4.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!mucs!mshute
From: [e-mail] (Malcolm Shute)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: The Weak Anthropic Priniciple (was Re: Next?)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 93 12:03:41 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Dept Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K.
Lines: 78

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Douglas Graham) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Stafford) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>>(Douglas Graham) wrote:
>>> Did the universe
>>> have a meaning while the dinosaurs ruled the earth?
>>Ooops.  Stuck in 'meaning' after all, are we?  Are you grieving
>>from an existentialist trauma?
>Why are you ragging at me?  *I* didn't introduce the word "meaning."
No, but you were the one who started using it in this context.

Let me try and retrace what I think has gone wrong here:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Douglas Graham) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Malcolm Shute) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (pete) writes:
>>>>Consider, for example the anthropic principle. If you weren't
>>>>conscious you wouldn't know anything about the universe. Now
>>>>what is the nature of a universe that has noone in it to know it's
>>>>there? Can such a universe have any meaning? These are not questions
>>>>that can be dismissed as easily as they first appear.
Because Pete prefixes his, admittedly ambiguously phrased question,
with a reference to the 'anthropic principle', we see that he is asking
whether to consider universes other than this one is a meaningful
concept to contemplate.  Since the others can't exist (else, they wouldn't
be universes), then anything that we say about them must be pure speculation.

>>>Sure they can.  The universe has no meaning, whether there's anybody
>>>there to be conscious of it or not.
But contemplating the present universe *is* a meaningful thing to consider.

>>[Quoting from Barrow 1991]:
>>"For, although we are right to disregard the prejudice that our position in
>>the Universe is special in *every* way, we should not conclude from this
>>that our position cannot be special in *any* way."
>Perhaps I'm missing the point here.  The anthropic principle explains
>why it is that conscious life finds itself at this place and time
>in this universe.  I don't see how it grants any particular meaning
>to this universe,
I don't suppose it does.

I suppose if you really insist on this line of inquiry, looking for 'meanings'
in objects, you could consider the properties of the object to be at least
a part of its meaning.

What's the meaning of a table?
It's that piece of furniture which *is*, (just over there, perhaps under your
computer at the moment), with its particular properties of hardness, ability
to support things, colour, etc, etc.
What's the meaning of the universe?
It's that thing out there, beyond the night sky, and nearer too, which also *is*,
and has observable properties.
What's the meaning of any other hypothetical universe?
As Pete points out, this is a far harder question to answer, since such
universes *are* not (otherwise they wouldn't be universes, would they?)
(Notice, he didn't categorically say that you *couldn't* contemplate
alternative universes)

>unless you make the assumption that conscious life
>is somehow special.
Which it is, to us, of course.
And we're the only ones, to our current knowledge, contemplating this question.
The W.A.P. of course, allows that conscious life might/might-not be more
special to this universe than post-Galileo humans presently realise.

>>So, Douglas, if you are at odds with the stance of those with religious
>>beliefs, *and* those with scientific beliefs, just who *are* you believing?
>Myself.  There's too much bullshit floating around to trust anybody
>else.  I see no reason to put blind trust in either theologians
>*or* scientists.  That doesn't mean that I have all the answers --
>just that I will never believe something just because a lot of
>other people do.
Beware, on this one!
You're treading a very risky path, if you really mean what you say here!
--

Malcolm SHUTE.         (The AM Mollusc:   v_@_ )        Disclaimer: all