# Re: on simply being an SAS

Russell Standish wrote:

>> No fine tuning means that any value of \alpha is allowed (at least
>> physically consistent values). So the above range you quote is
>> extremely fine-tuned. In reality, the level of fine-tuning is likely
>> to considerably less (I'm not sure what Tegmark quoted, but I thought
>> the allowable range was a few percent of \alpha - which is still
fine-tuned).
>

Fred Chen answered:

>Since I believe this to be subjective, I respect your definition of
>"fine-tuning,"
>even your choice of  adverb "extremely." But this also leads to an
>interesting
>conclusion: any SAS will perceive fine-tuning (as per your definition). So
>we can call
>this generalization of SAP/WAP the SAS-centric principle, or something
>like that.

I agree. But then you should try to make SAS precise. As most people know,
I have proposed here the choice of self-referentially correct universal
turing machines.

Bruno