<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<mods xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" version="3.1" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-1.xsd">
  <titleInfo>
    <title>Anthropic bias</title>
    <subTitle>observation selection effects in science amd philosophy</subTitle>
  </titleInfo>
  <name type="personal">
    <namePart>Bostrom, Nick</namePart>
    <role>
      <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">creator</roleTerm>
    </role>
    <role>
      <roleTerm type="text">Author</roleTerm>
    </role>
  </name>
  <typeOfResource/>
  <originInfo>
    <place>
      <placeTerm type="text">New York</placeTerm>
    </place>
    <publisher>routledge</publisher>
    <dateIssued>2010</dateIssued>
    <issuance/>
  </originInfo>
  <language>
    <languageTerm authority="iso639-2b" type="code">eng</languageTerm>
  </language>
  <physicalDescription>
    <extent>xiii, 224 p. :  ill. ; 19 cm.</extent>
  </physicalDescription>
  <abstract>Anthropic Bias explores how to reason when you suspect that your evidence is biased by "observation selection effects"--that is, evidence that has been filtered by the precondition that there be some suitably positioned observer to "have" the evidence. This conundrum--sometimes alluded to as "the anthropic principle," "self-locating belief," or "indexical information"--turns out to be a surprisingly perplexing and intellectually stimulating challenge, one abounding with important implications for many areas in science and philosophy.
There are the philosophical thought experiments and paradoxes: the Doomsday Argument; Sleeping Beauty; the Presumptuous Philosopher; Adam &amp; Eve; the Absent-Minded Driver; the Shooting Room.

And there are the applications in contemporary science: cosmology ("How many universes are there?", "Why does the universe appear fine-tuned for life?"); evolutionary theory ("How improbable was the evolution of intelligent life on our planet?"); the problem of time's arrow ("Can it be given a thermodynamic explanation?"); quantum physics ("How can the many-worlds theory be tested?"); game-theory problems with imperfect recall ("How to model them?"); even traffic analysis ("Why is the 'next lane' faster?").
Anthropic Bias argues that the same principles are at work across all these domains. And it offers a synthesis: a mathematically explicit theory of observation selection effects that attempts to meet scientific needs while steering clear of philosophical paradox.</abstract>
  <note type="statement of responsibility"> Nick Bostrom</note>
  <note>Includes bibliographical references. and index.</note>
  <subject>
    <topic>Limits of Knowledge</topic>
  </subject>
  <classification authority="ddc">121.6 BOS/A</classification>
  <identifier type="isbn">978-0415883948  (pbk.)</identifier>
  <recordInfo>
    <recordContentSource authority="marcorg">IN-BhIIT</recordContentSource>
    <recordCreationDate encoding="marc">260216</recordCreationDate>
    <recordChangeDate encoding="iso8601">20260216163803.0</recordChangeDate>
    <recordIdentifier source="IN-BhIIT">11368</recordIdentifier>
  </recordInfo>
</mods>
