On 10/15/2020 12:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:


On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 1:56 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

    You should have read Vic Stenger's "The Fallacy of Fine Tuning". 
    Vic points out how many examples of  fine tuning are
    mis-conceived...including Hoyle's prediction of an excited state
    of carbon.  Vic also points out the fallacy of just considering
    one parameter when the parameter space is high dimensional.


Hi Brent,

Thanks for the suggestions. I did read Barnes's critique of TFOFT ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4647 ) and I just now read Stenger's reply: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4359.pdf

I think they both make some valid points. It may be that many parameters we believe are fine tuned will turn out to have other explanations. But I also think in domains where we do have understandings, such as in computational models (such as algorithmic information thery: what is the shortest program that produces X), or in the set of all possible cellular automata that only consider the states of adjacent cells, the number that are interesting (neither too simple nor too chaotic) is a small fraction of the total. So there is probably fine tuning, but it is, as you mention, extremely hard to quantify.


    But my general criticism of fine-tuning is two-fold. First, the
    concept is not well defined.  There is no apriori probability
    distribution over possible values.  If the possible values are
    infinite, then any realized value is improbable.  Fine tuning is
    all in the intuition. Charts are drawn showing little "we are
    here" zones to prove the fine tuning.  But the scales are
    sometimes linear, sometimes logarithmic.  And why those parameters
    and not the square?...or the square root?  Bayesian inference is
    not invariant under change of parameters.


At least for the cosmological constant, there seems to be some understanding of its probability distribution, and it is relatively independent of the other parameters in that it is unrelated to nucleosynthesis, chemistry, etc. Therefore it is our best candidate to consider in isolation from the other parameters in the high-dimensional space.


    Second, calling it "fine-tuning" implies some kind of process of
    "tuning" or "selection".  But that's gratuitous.  Absent
    supernatural miracles, we must find ourselves in a universe in
    which we are nomologically possible.  And that is true whether
    there is one universe or infinitely many.  So it cannot be
    evidence one way or the other for the number of universes.


Let's say we did have an understanding of the distribution of possible universes and the fraction of which supported conscious life. If we discover the fraction to be 1 in 1,000,000 would this not motivate a belief in there being more than one universe?

No, because it is equally evidence that one universe (this one) was realized out of the ensemble.  You are relying on an intuition that it is easier to explain why all 1,000,000 exist than to explain why this one exists.  But that's an intuition about explaining things, not about any objective probability.  Every day things happen that are more improbable than a million-to-one.  Until Everett no one thought it necessary to suppose all the counterfactuals happened "somewhere else".

Brent


Jason


    Brent

    On 10/14/2020 7:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
    I just finished an article on all the science behind fine-tuning,
    and how the evidence suggests an infinite, and possibly complete
    reality. I thought others on this list might appreciate it:
    https://alwaysasking.com/was-the-universe-made-for-life/

    I welcome any discussion, feedback, or corrections.

    Jason
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
    Google Groups "Everything List" group.
    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
    send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
    <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
    To view this discussion on the web visit
    
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiipTLGN%3DLGdhyUMKMLPRvpUhxJk77rwvmLvgyf252EjA%40mail.gmail.com
    
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiipTLGN%3DLGdhyUMKMLPRvpUhxJk77rwvmLvgyf252EjA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
    Groups "Everything List" group.
    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
    send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
    <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
    To view this discussion on the web visit
    
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/39a9adbd-c687-634c-736a-3cfb940d6cd1%40verizon.net
    
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/39a9adbd-c687-634c-736a-3cfb940d6cd1%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiDSFtDjH%2BVN0j-6q%2BTUNq0N9c-25hd-cZJJowjciOSsg%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiDSFtDjH%2BVN0j-6q%2BTUNq0N9c-25hd-cZJJowjciOSsg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f12bc1d6-9aeb-d1ec-33b5-c640b8bdfa76%40verizon.net.

Reply via email to