Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ll-xn!husc6!seismo!mcvax!ukc!eagle!rjf
From: rjf@eagle.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Anthropic Principles (was Re: Just a test)
Message-ID: <3021@eagle.ukc.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 21-May-87 07:55:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: eagle.3021
Posted: Thu May 21 07:55:03 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 23-May-87 08:16:07 EDT
References: <7585@orchid.UUCP> <1199@super.upenn.edu.upenn.edu> <3011@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> <1181@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk>
Reply-To: rjf@ukc.ac.uk (R.J.Faichney)
Distribution: sci
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.
Lines: 24

Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:

In article <1181@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> cc_dgdc@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Clark) writes:
>
>You didnt really believe that Horizon BBC2 TV program about the
>Four Anthropic (if thats how you spell it) Principles did you?
>It said that the Universe was specially designed in order that
>little man could come along and observe it to make it all real.
>That we are the point of the Universe. Send for Nikolaus Copernicus
>please.
>

Wha' d'ya mean believe? Call yourself open minded? Who needs to believe when
they can get out of their ruts and *think about it*?

Actually, the point I was trying to make (saying that the Anthropic Principles
reduce to 'We observe, therefore we are, therefore we observe..[repeating]')
is that they may be true without being significant. We *would* think that we
were the point of the universe, wouldn't we? Even when being, in our own terms,
absolutely objective. Unless we had some kind of would-be scientific prejudice
to the contrary? Which may have been a very useful prejudice in its time, which
is now beginning to pass?

Just a thought.

Robin      rjf@ukc.ac.uk    ..!mcvax!ukc!rjf