SSA and SIA are definitely framed as needing a physicalist view-from-nowhere, but I don’t think it’s necessary for anthropics or even the best way to go about it. Treat the self as fixed and the outside universe as uncertain, and you get anthropic reasoning in a much more natural (imo) way.
Exactly this. The problem with the current anthropic schools of thought is using this view-from-nowhere while simultaneously using the concept of “self” as a meaningful way of specifying a particular observer. It effectively jumps back and forth between the god’s eye and first-person views with arbitrary assumptions to facilitate such transitions (e.g. treating the self as the random sample of a certain process carried out from the god’s eye view). Treating the self as a given starting point and then reasoning about the world would be the way to dispel anthropic controversies.
SSA and SIA are definitely framed as needing a physicalist view-from-nowhere, but I don’t think it’s necessary for anthropics or even the best way to go about it. Treat the self as fixed and the outside universe as uncertain, and you get anthropic reasoning in a much more natural (imo) way.
Exactly this. The problem with the current anthropic schools of thought is using this view-from-nowhere while simultaneously using the concept of “self” as a meaningful way of specifying a particular observer. It effectively jumps back and forth between the god’s eye and first-person views with arbitrary assumptions to facilitate such transitions (e.g. treating the self as the random sample of a certain process carried out from the god’s eye view). Treating the self as a given starting point and then reasoning about the world would be the way to dispel anthropic controversies.