Re: The anthropic principle (Score 1)

From the article:

Hitherto, the only explanation that science has provided is the anthropic argument: we experience configurations of the Universe that seem to have a history because only these configurations have the characteristics to produce beings who can experience anything. I believe that timeless quantum cosmology provides a far more satisfying explanation

ie. The anthropic principles states that the universe is the way it is because if it wasn't there wouldn't be anything in it (ie. us) able to ask the question: "Why is the universe the way it is?" But the author of the article has apparently not noticed that his solution to the problem amounts simply to a modified anthropic principle which could be stated thus "Time doesn't exist. To explain why we perceive time (that is the passage of time in a particular direction)we must formulate the hypothesis that the universe exists in such a way as to allow beings (ie us) to perceive it as passing in a particular direction." Grant that the question of the direction of the arrow of time is a sub-question of the question "Why is the universe the way it is?" then generalize suitably and the authors arguments amount to a reformulation of the anthropic principle!

Personally I think the idea (not the authors formulation, but the idea itself) has merit,if only because it is supported by Wheeler and DeWitt and by Stephen Hawking (Anybody ever read A Brief History of Time?)

But then what do I know? I never did complete that Physics degree (the possession of which, as one respondent has pointed out, is usually a good indicator that a person has some idea of what they are talking about). And my logic may be faulty (nope, no Philosophy, Mathematics or Computer Science degree either.)Actually, if you believe in the non existence of time, can you, in so far as you adhere to that belief, be said to think "logically" at all? Both logic and our perception of time are ways of making sense of the universe; further, logic is of necessity a linear process, one thing following "logically" from another; so is our perception of time. But time ( or our perception of it) is seemingly more basic than logic, and couldn't it be said that the linearity of logical processes is a product of the linearity of our perception of time? A syllogism could be set up as follows:

Logical processes are modelled on the linearity of time.(ie one event leads to another corresponds to one proposition leads to another)
Time doesn't exist or the linearity of time is an illusion.
Therefore logic isn't valid.

Given that (if you are still with me. Ahem!)then if you believe conscientiously that time is an illusion you can't, in good conscience, say that you think logically or even allow yourself to think logically!
Well it's something to think about anyway....