"Borcis" wrote in message
...

Kevin A. Scaldeferri wrote:

At least in it's weak form, as I usually think of it, the anthropic
principle is tautologous. All it says it that there exists a data
point, which is that we exist, and that nature must be consistent with
this.

There are various stronger formulations, but they are all philosophy
or religion.

A point is that the "data point" is actually a rich piece of data
- arguably infinitely rich - and that whatever theory of nature we
want to constrain from it, selects a particular abstraction out of
it. Opportunistically using AP as a last resort for theories we don't
manage to complete to our liking without it, leads us to an uncontrolled
sample of such abstractions; -if- we admit it has a place (over the one
you point out, of an eg redundant tautology) for better balance shouldn't
we
try to contemplate for itself, the space of abstractions of the fact that
we
exist, that may plausibly constrain some (unbound variable) theory of
observable nature ?

It seems to me that if people use the AP for a placeholding crutch to tie
things somewhat together on an initial, provisional basis, and then, as you
say, "contemplate for itself, the space of abstractions of the fact that we
exist", then one thing that arises is the consideration that the abstract
notions, symbols and expressions undoubtedly are -- I guess the proper word
is -- contrived, secondary to the physical thing itself. That is, the
abstracted symbols and imagery, while introducing extra "store-hold-and
retrieve" morphisms during our shuttling and communication processes also
surely do emerge from the energized actions of the physical thing itself.
This leads to the question of whether a more synchronous, non-abstract
symbolism can be developed which conveys more understanding of nature faster
and better than ANY of the abstractly formulated approximations.

This view is NOT accessible except when the circle of knowledge is closed
in some way, if only in a crude and uncomely manner. AP may be messy and
in conflict with modern pharisaical rules and desires, but, lacking
alternatives, it does appear
to have one advantage: it works and people rely upon it while continuing
to look for an improvement.

Oddly enough, once seen, the alternate ~analog~ approach is reminiscent to
one of Bohr's long- sought complementary expressions, even if if it must be
scribbled out only in some alien, Faraday-like symbols.

Let me guess, though. Theorists who believe abstract math symbols and
expressions are primary are not warm to the notion of switching to any
different symbols and expressions.


--
Ralph Frost
Imagine a single internal analog language
made of ordered water...
and its variants.
http://flep.refrost.com