On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 1:26 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> > > 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> 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> 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. > If you accept the independent truth of the equation "Y = 2X+1" in the case of "Y=777" and an integer X, then you should likewise also accept the existence of all computations, as a consequence of the equation defined here: ftp://ftp.math.ethz.ch/hg/EMIS/journals/AMI/2003/jones.pdf 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhQXt6v60%2Bdqw0e%2BjjwKZLJG%2BTR-%2BY-7w96r6kK%3DABZnw%40mail.gmail.com.
