From: Eugen Leitl (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Apr 28 2002 - 02:07:13 MDT
On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
> Anthropic doesn't apply as a disqualifier! This is akin to saying their is
I'm afraid it does. A detector trying to detect itself will always produce
a detection signal. The nature of the detector is irrelevant, as long as
it's designed to detect its presence. It's like somebody saying "Cogito,
ergo sum" -- rocks don't do that (unless you're a rare instance of a
sentient rock from globular cluster M4). If you say "Cogito, ergo sum"
you're obviously not a rock (a trivial bit of information gained from the
measurement process), but this gives you zero information of how many
other rocks (or minds) are out there. Because probabilistic arguments
don't apply if your dice is 100% biased.
> only one good way to program a computer. If the insect-swarm minds of Proteus
> 2, in the gamma-hydra system develop a co-mingled consciousness some 120
> million years ago, that is THEIR path. The Anthropic Principle demands a
Yes, and the insect-swarm minds of Proteus 2, in the gamma-hydra system
are just in the same predilection, as long as they don't have a second (a
third one conveys far less information than the second) data point.
> self-aware observor, not a human, pre-human, non-human primate. If a primate
> fits the bill-so be it. If its a conscious insect swarm-bingo!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:38 MDT