You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

pragmatist comments on Fragile Universe Hypothesis and the Continual Anthropic Principle - How crazy am I? - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: PeterCoin 18 August 2015 12:53AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (32)
Tags: principle anthropic

Comments (32)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: pragmatist 18 August 2015 03:11:41AM 1 point [-]

How is this:

What we may think are fundamental laws of our universe, are merely descriptions of the nature of possible futures consistent with our continued existence.

compatible with this:

Everett Many Worlds is either correct or at least on the right track

Is quantum mechanics an exception to the claim that our conception of the fundamental laws is based on an observation selection effect? Why would it be one?

Comment author: PeterCoin 18 August 2015 05:48:57AM 0 points [-]

Quantum mechanics is definitely not immune, that's where we should see the manifestation of the bias I'm proposing. When I refer to Everett many words I'm referring specifically to the property of it where an observer "branches" into multiple successor observers (which I extend to include branches where there are no successor observers).

But which laws would be affected and which would not, I'm not at all certain. It could be some, or all (or, of course, none, if I'm wrong). My proposal is to use this sort of reasoning to develop "deeper" fundamental laws.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit