Talk:Anthropic bias

bias

pardon me but this seems a little biased towards humans

---

I have wikified and de-POV'ed the article, someone else should finish it. --Thorsen 15:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'd like to include the following with the existing stuff by Nick Bostrom, and I also do not want to destroy a lot of work that someone else has done, so what should I do?

The Anthropic Principle notes that Anthropic Bias, by definition, is the Natural Expression for universal scale favoritism toward humans.

Nick Bostrom's ideas are interesting and relevant where apparently chaotic scenarios are applicable, but he fails to take into account the fact that an anthropic explanation for the fine-tuning of the universal constants is supposed to be embedded into humans by the universal scale mechanism that enables or requires human existence. That justifies the selection effect, in this case, because anthropic bias is supposed to be an innate characteristic of the universe.

Nick seems to say that anthropic bias is unwarrented, because the interpretation of evidence is necessarily subjective, and it is subject to observational selection effects, but anthropic bias is perfectly necessary and justified if the mechanism behind anthropic prejudice can be identified and then independently supported by the most conservative representation our best cosmological theories.

The Anthropic Principle then becomes a very powerful reciprocating source of support for the validity of those theories, rather than a continual nagging thorn in their side.

Nick Bostrom tries to eliminate anthropic bias by way of relativism and random observation, but 'the coin ISN'T fair' if there is frame independent mechanism that acts in favor of intelligent life.

I disagree with his claim that, "existing methodology does not permit any observational consequences to be derived from contemporary cosmological theories"... and this is why:

He correctly notes that there can be areas of low entropy, (which are necessary to life), within the greater whole of our entropic, expanding universe, but he failed to equate the predominant entropic prejudice to the anthropic bias, as supported by conventional Big Bang Theory and The Standard Model of Particle Physics.

A valid natural design hypothesis can be derived from the anthropic bias of entropic favoritism toward intelligent life, where it is observationally proven that order increases with the potential for grand scale entropic efficiency.

Nick gives prejudicial credence to Big Bang Theory and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but he misses the fact that human intelligence enables a highly efficient mechanism for satisfying the second law of thermodynamics on a universal scale, and this was and still is, (since the big bang), the predominant inclination of every object in an expanding universe, ultimately. This tendency was instilled into every object at t=10^-43, so an entropic anthropic explanation is natural in context with conventional Big Bang theory and the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

There is no way to set yourself apart from this, because the underlying direction of all action in a big bang induced expanding universe is ultimately entropic, per conventional Big Bang Theory as supported by the latest confirmed observational evidence. Any occurrence within the system is, therefore, a result of the tuning of the constants that were set at t=10^-43. This includes humans in all their glory, and the weak entropic anthropic argument would support this via the fact that it is observationally proven that the human is comparitively one of nature's more preferred methods for satisfying the second law of thermodynamics... on a grand scale.

But humans also represent a very specific path of action toward the pure symmetry of the universe, having the capability to produce particles from the energy of the vacuum, (per quantum theory, as proven in the lab by way of the creation of Dirac's, antiparticle). There are only three known systems in nature that have the capability for this form of contribution to the effort toward idealistically pure symmetry; The Entropy of a Neutron Star in the formation of a Black Hole, Black Hole Entropy, via, "Hawking Radiation". Humans are the only other known system capable of isolating the release of enough energy to create real particle/antiparticle pairs.

According to conventional big bang theory, the need for human entropic efficiency has necessarily pre-existed in our universe since the forces decoupled and caused the event to occur over time, due to these less-than-perfect results that you get from inherent asymmetries. The principle of least action on a grand scale in an expanding entropic universe requires that "asymmetries" or imperfections in the energy at the moment of the Big Bang are the reason for every increase in the potential for entropy in our universe for the duration of the event, as supported by an entropic anthropic principle, which indicates that "imperfections" are convolved perpetually forth to higher orders of entropic efficiency, per human evolutionary theory.

The coin can never be fair as long as the universe expresses grand-scale entropic prejudice.

I'm sorry, but your essay, whatever its merits, is not encyclopedic in style. You would need to eliminate using first person pronouns and offering your opinions. You would also need to work on NPOV. You also need to set the context and provide some references. If someone comes across this page randomly, will they know what you're talking about.

I think your essay is fine on the talk page, but I'm removing it from the article itself. -Rholton 05:01, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've put up a POV-check for this article, and added it to WikiProject Philosophy's task box. The article seems to be an explication of Nick Bostrom's version of the anthropic bias rather than a general explaination of the concept. Bostrom should perhaps have a sub-section? It's also not very clearly written; with too many long technical quotes and insufficent context for the novice to understand them. Most of the tagged examples don't actually have articles written. AAMiller 09:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother with such nonsense anyway?

The anthropic principle is just nonsense. Think about itfor just a nanosecond: why hasn't anyone formulated the piscatory principle, the reptilian principle, or the bacteriophagic principle? Becasue these beings don't sit around all day meditating on their own spectaculr self-importance. The very existence of the anthropic prninciple is POV. Wikipedia would do well do provide equal time fot the views of the bililions of other species of organism that inhabit this planet. The whole idea of anthropic bias is anthropically biased. Refuting the anthropic bias is anthropically biased. --Lacatosias 14:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the actual merits of the theory, it does seem to justify its place in a broader encyclopedia. If this was SEP, I would probably go along with you, and not recommend an article on the subject. The progenitor of the theory, Nick Bostrom, is however rather active on his own websites, and it is natural to think that some people will turn to wikipedia for information with a NPOV. All the more reason why this article should be wikified, and supplemented with a paragraph of possible objections (including your criticism about it not being refutable and hence (in Popperian terms at least), unscientific) and published criticisms (if there are any). --Thorsen 05:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I love about books that attempt to explain everything

Take a look at the list of stubs and potential stubs on this one:

This philosophy-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
This science article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
This psychology-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
This cosmology-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
This mathematics-related article is a stub.
This traffic-congestion related stub...

Good heavens, Nick!!--Lacatosias 15:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

The second part of the criticism section (about it being self-referentially inconsistent) isn't very clear. Even if bias hinders the ability of humas to form objective theories, it doesn't follow that all human theories are false. Isn't it possible that Nick Bostrom managed to avoid anthropic bias and come up with an objective theory despite being human and lacking divine inspiration? The "beta" option also doesn't make sense - shouldn't 'bias' be attributed only to people, and not to theories (which are not biased, but rather true or false). Maybe it should be reformulated to state that the theory was formed in the presence of anthropic bias. If this rewording is acceptable, isn't this a satisfactory alternative? AAMiller 02:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will o the wisp

The part about the theory becoming a "will o the wisp" seems inconsistent with the information given on the will-o-the-wisp page.

Anthropic bias vs. anthropic principle

I have quite a few problems with this article:

Bostrom's book Anthropic Bias is mainly about what is usually called the anthropic principle, although he extends this line of reasoning in unusual directions (e.g. traffic analysis!). As I read it (the on-line bits, anyway) he likes to avoid the word principle except in discussion of previous work, because its usage has become so muddled (and anyway seems a bit pretentious).
The section Background seems to contravene WP:NOR in the sense that Bostrom doesn't refer at all to Wigner or Lakoff & Nunez, nor do the reviews of his book posted at his web site. It is not at all clear that his "anthropic bias" is related to the cognitive bias discussed in these references. Also, the report of Wigner's contribution seems to be based on the following footnote, relating to a discussion of whether we are smart enough to understand the ultimate theory:

"This passage was written after a great deal of hesitation. The writer is convinced that it is useful, in epistemological discussions, to abandon the idealization that the level of human intelligence has a singular position on an absolute scale. In some cases it may even be useful to consider the attainment which is possible at the level of the intelligence of some other species. However, the writer also realizes that his thinking along the lines indicated in the text was too brief and not subject to sufficient critical appraisal to be reliable."

...which is vastly more tentative than what the article claims Wigner said.

The section Criticism seems to be more OR by editors, who don't seem to have read Bostrom's book. There is of course a large scientific literature on the anthropic principle which is mainly concerned with recognising various anthropic biases, e.g. that there would be no observers like us in a universe without carbon, without stars, without stable orbits, or which lasted for only 10^-43 seconds. These at least are perfectly recognisable. Bostrom's book is about how such constraints should be treated in a proper statistical way, and various related ideas (e.g. the Doomsday argument).

Given the case for removing these sections in toto, should what remains of this article just be merged with the one on the anthropic principle, which already has a brief discussion of Bostrom's approach? PaddyLeahy 18:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justification for re-direct

As per the previous comment, I have deleted this article and replaced it with a re-direct to Anthropic principle. Of the three references cited on the original page, the Bostrom one is cited at the target and the other two, as argued above, have nothing to do with Anthropic bias as defined by Bostrom. Certainly Wigner does not use the term Anthropic bias; if Lakoff does, this page should be a disambiguation link instead of a redirect. There was no suggestion in the deleted article that Lakoff uses this term though, just the incorrect assertion that anthropic bias is an example of Lakoff's cognitive bias. PaddyLeahy 20:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]