Anthropic Bias: Observation Selections Effects in Science and Philosophy (Studies in Philosophy) (book)

This book discusses selection effects as they affect reasoning on topics such as the Doomsday Argument, whether you will choose a lane of traffic that is slower than average, and whether we can get evidence for or against the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Along the way it poses some unusual thought experiments that at first glance seem to prove some absurd conclusions. It then points out the questionable assumptions about what constitute "similar observers" upon which the absurd conclusions depend, and in doing so it convinced me that the Doomsday Argument is weaker than I had previously thought.
It says some interesting things about the implications of a spatially infinite universe, and of the possibility that the number of humans will be infinite.
It is not easy to read, but there's little reason to expect a book on this subject could be both easy to read and correct.

Nick Bostrom's ideas are interesting and relevant where apparently chaotic scenarios are applicable, but the reader should bear in mind that 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.

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

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.

Why the universe is just so? The question has been posed by scientists and philosophers for millenia, but only very recently have we accumulated enough physical and astronomical knowledge to be able to discuss these issues in a serious and quantitative manner. And, lo and behold! what modern cosmologists began to explore in earnest is a sort of necessary link between our own existence as intelligent observers evolved from the simplest procaryote lifeforms over billions of years and the properties of universe (and other universes!) at large. This link is technically called an observational selection effect, and if from now on anybody wishes to seriously study these matters, "Anthropic Bias" is without question an excellent place to start.

Bostrom's book makes amusing, although at times quite exacting, reading. Early on, he gives a splendid overview of the entire field of anthropic reasoning, much used and abused in the last quarter of century. Then, almost imperceptibly, he passes on to several instances in which the nature of the anthropic selection effect becomes clearer and clearer. From quantum cosmology to annoying traffic jams, from quantum mechanics to Adam and Eve thought experiments, from freak observers created by black holes' evaporation radiation to the (in)famous Doomsday argument of Gott, Carter and Leslie (not to mention future totalitarian world government and paranormal causation), the book reads as an exciting detective novel, as you rapidly change settings following the same thread of evidence to the main culprit: the universal observational selection effect, explained in detail in the Chapter 10, arguably the culmination of the drama. Here, Bostrom develops a theory which promises a unifying treatment of observations, in particular in cosmology, explicating in detail the accompanying Bayesian methodology. The unity of the underlying analysis is emphasized in the final Chapter, where new theory is aplied in several fields of contemporary research.

Probably the worst thing one can say about this book is that it is too short. After finishing it, the reader is left with the impression that the very scope of the new theory is such that there is enough material for entirely another book, or at least reconsideration of many issues treated previously. The re-reading potential is thus very strong. The reader will also find some consolation for finishing the book in a detailed and cleverly composed bibliography. In any case, she or he will probably never think about the relationship of man and the universe in the same way as before.