On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 6:44 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 15 Oct 2020, at 04:38, Jason Resch <[email protected]> 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. > > > > Fine-tuning + physical realism implies the many-things (many-worlds or > many-histories, or many indexical relative-state). > > But fine tuning is a bit like superdeterminisme, it is a not much a > theory, than something in need to be explained. > I agree, fine-tuning is something that calls for explanation, an apparent mystery, > > Fine-tuning + some hypothesis like existence and unicity of a “universe” > might be seen as an evidence for a designer, but it make it only consistent > or possible, which is far less than necessary. God or Universe ontological > commitment are, like super-determinisms more like tool to abandon the > research instead of digging on a problem, and discover perhaps something > new. Fine tuning is close to being tautological, and cannot be used in an > explanation, even if true. > I consider the appearance of fine-tuning as evidence for a reality that is much greater than the universe we can see. > > With Digital Mechanism, there I no matter of choice, adding anything > ontological to any universal machinery brings a contradiction, and the > “many-worlds” is reduced to the many-computations, which we know to be > emulated in the arithmetical reality (indeed the common part of arithmetic > already assumed by all scientists, consciously or not). Now, with digital > mechanism, the fine tuning is organised by the modes of self-reference, and > all universal machine have the same modes, and their fist person > perspective can be seen as self-fine tuner. (Even more so for []p & <>t and > even still more so the same with the “& p”). > > What do you mean by “infinite complete reality”? > By complete I mean that anything that is possible to exist does. I see your point though that "possible" depends on the model one assumes, which I did leave open. > Realities or models are complete by definition. Also, “reality” is always > ambiguous, as we don’t know if this refers to an arithmetical reality or a > physical realty, or a psychological reality, etc. > > That's a good point, and it does need clarification. I will be sure to make the assumed model clear when I write on the subject of "why does anything exist", for which arithmetic appears to be the simplest model compatible with our current observations. 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhQO2mF7zTDmA3mxXgcC_9DvP5HRvj225uyG-TMCC5UDA%40mail.gmail.com.
