000 02191 a2200229 4500
001 11368
003 IN-BhIIT
005 20260216163803.0
008 260216b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
020 _a978-0415883948 (pbk.)
040 _aIN-BhIIT
041 _aeng
082 _a121.6
_bBOS/A
100 _aBostrom, Nick
_eAuthor
_920473
245 _aAnthropic bias :
_bobservation selection effects in science amd philosophy /
_c Nick Bostrom
260 _broutledge,
_c2010.
_aNew York :
300 _axiii, 224 p. :
_bill. ;
_c19 cm.
504 _aIncludes bibliographical references. and index.
520 _aAnthropic 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 & 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.
650 _aLimits of Knowledge
_927250
942 _cTRB
999 _c15285
_d15285