Monday, October 22, 2012

"The reason I did not like the argument was that I did not like the conclusion."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/nov/08/what-can-you-really-know/?pagination=false


What Can You Really Know?

NOVEMBER 8, 2012

Freeman Dyson

Why Does the World Exist?: An Existential Detective Story
by Jim Holt
Liveright, 307 pp., $27.95         
"Leslie argued that the Copernican principle should apply to our position in time as well as to our position in space. As observers of the passage of time, we should not put ourselves into a privileged position at the beginning of the history of our species. As Copernican observers, we should expect to be in an average position in our history, rather than close to the beginning. Therefore, we should expect the future duration of our species to be not much longer than its past. Since we know that our species originated about a hundred thousand years ago, we should expect it to become extinct about a hundred thousand years from now.
When Leslie published this prognostication, I protested strongly against it, claiming that it was a technically wrong use of the theory of probability. In fact Leslie’s argument was technically correct. The reason I did not like the argument was that I did not like the conclusion. I thought that the universe had a purpose, and that our minds were a part of that purpose. Since the goodness of the universe was revealed in our existence as observers, we could rely on the goodness of the universe to allow us to continue to exist. I opposed Leslie’s argument because I was a better Platonist than he was."



No comments:

Post a Comment