But if that’s so, doesn’t it mean that you really attach a low prior to the anthropic principle? And that you don’t truly accept the anthropic principle?
Your link defines “the anthropic principle” as “the philosophical argument that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it.”
How do you unpack this statement (especially the modal “must”) so that it has any implications at all? That particular formulation looks tautological. It seems to say no more than that an observed universe contains observers.
People have tried to make anthropic intuitions precise in different ways. Insofar as these efforts succeed, they have different implications for how one ought to do Bayesian updating. Which one are you talking about?
Your link defines “the anthropic principle” as “the philosophical argument that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it.”
How do you unpack this statement (especially the modal “must”) so that it has any implications at all? That particular formulation looks tautological. It seems to say no more than that an observed universe contains observers.
People have tried to make anthropic intuitions precise in different ways. Insofar as these efforts succeed, they have different implications for how one ought to do Bayesian updating. Which one are you talking about?