| 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 |
||