On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 07:18:16PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
> I think "fine-tuning" is problematic in another way which Stenger
> didn't discuss: in general there's no measure for the parameters
> alleged to be fine-tuned.  If I showed that X, which is observed to
> be18, must be between 19 and 20 for life-as-we-know-it  to exist, is
> X fine-tuned?  Suppose it can be between 10 and 30?  Is that
> fine-tuned - after all the interval [10, 30] is of measure zero on
> the real line.  Any finite range of values is of measure zero - so
> everything is "fine-tuned" - which is the same as saying nothing is.

That certainly seems to be the elephant in the room. I faced exactly
this issue when trying to compute the ecosystem complexity of a
generalised Lotka-Volterra ecology (see my 2002 paper "Diversity
Evolution"), which failed for precisely the reason you mention.

Interestingly, I came up with a successful approach last year (see
"Complexity of Networks (reprise)") which is currently under peer
review. It successfully extracts a network structure from something
with continuous weights, and gives a quite non-arbitrary complexity
measure (which is essentially the logarithm of inverse probability).

I wonder if such an approach could be applied to the fine-tuning problem?


Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to