“Suppose the dealer secretly only lets you into the room if ze rolls a double six”
You seem to be proposing that we should have an alternate hypothesis:
“Our observations are filtered by the requirement of us being alive”
However, this isn’t an alternate hypothesis as in both the Normal universe and the Magical universe it holds.
To make it clearer, if I an examining two hypothesises:
1) “Barrack Obama is human and he is president of the United States”
2) “Barrack Obama is human and he is not president of the United States”
And if your alternate hypothesis is:
3) “Barrack Obama is human”
Then you haven’t actually created a new separate, hypothesis, just a hypothesis that is a superset of the other two.
Anyway, your post seems to just restate the anthropic argument. I explained in my post that this is can’t be applied here because it is necessary to be comparative between the hypothesis, while the way the anthropic argument is being used there only considers a single hypothesis.
Not sure why you’re thinking about these hypotheses as supersets and subsets of one another. If I wanted to get formal with it, I’d describe the hypotheses as programs. The design hypothesis would be an agent program that outputs our local universe by building our universe the hard way. The chance hypothesis would be a set of physical constants with rules determining the time evolution of reality that outputs our universe, and not an entire multiverse of which our universe is a small part. The ensemble hypothesis would be an even simpler and more fundamental set of rules than in the previous program, maybe with some constants as well, and it would output a multiverse, some parts of which are hospitable and even identical to the previous program’s output. It confuses me to think about these hypotheses as subsets of one another, because it makes me think of substrings. These programs would not be substrings of one another. Their output would be though, because they all output us observing our universe. We’re supposed to be talking about hypotheses, not output.
“Suppose the dealer secretly only lets you into the room if ze rolls a double six”
You seem to be proposing that we should have an alternate hypothesis:
“Our observations are filtered by the requirement of us being alive”
However, this isn’t an alternate hypothesis as in both the Normal universe and the Magical universe it holds.
To make it clearer, if I an examining two hypothesises:
1) “Barrack Obama is human and he is president of the United States” 2) “Barrack Obama is human and he is not president of the United States”
And if your alternate hypothesis is:
3) “Barrack Obama is human”
Then you haven’t actually created a new separate, hypothesis, just a hypothesis that is a superset of the other two.
Anyway, your post seems to just restate the anthropic argument. I explained in my post that this is can’t be applied here because it is necessary to be comparative between the hypothesis, while the way the anthropic argument is being used there only considers a single hypothesis.
Not sure why you’re thinking about these hypotheses as supersets and subsets of one another. If I wanted to get formal with it, I’d describe the hypotheses as programs. The design hypothesis would be an agent program that outputs our local universe by building our universe the hard way. The chance hypothesis would be a set of physical constants with rules determining the time evolution of reality that outputs our universe, and not an entire multiverse of which our universe is a small part. The ensemble hypothesis would be an even simpler and more fundamental set of rules than in the previous program, maybe with some constants as well, and it would output a multiverse, some parts of which are hospitable and even identical to the previous program’s output. It confuses me to think about these hypotheses as subsets of one another, because it makes me think of substrings. These programs would not be substrings of one another. Their output would be though, because they all output us observing our universe. We’re supposed to be talking about hypotheses, not output.
The single unbiased universe, multi-verse and biased universe are not subsets.
I was simply stating that the anthropic principle is a principle that applies to any of these models, not it is not its own separate model.