On 10/20/2020 5:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Oct 2020, at 22:53, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
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.
You need to take all the histories, which we know exists in arithmetic,
I don't know what "exists in arithmetic" has to do with existence.
then consciousness will differentiate on those histories which seems
to be fine tuned. Like you say, we have to eliminate the selector,
except for consciousness.
Until Everett no one thought it necessary to suppose all the
counterfactuals happened "somewhere else”.
Well, there was Borgess of course, and the idea is present in the
whole neoplatonism, arguably. Then, for any one who believes that 777
is odd independently of him/herself, all computations are run
independently of anyone.
That's a non-sequitur. One can try dividing 777 by 2. One can't verify
all computations are independently or dependently of anyone.
Brent
--
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/00e4f907-fcf0-4e9e-83de-917558e673cf%40verizon.net.
