On 10/20/2020 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Oct 2020, at 20:56, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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.
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.
I don’t think so. That is why Kolmogorov defines a measure space by
forbidding infinite intersection of events. In the finite case the
space of events is the complete boolean structure coming from the
subset of the set of the possible results. In the infinite domain, the
measure space os defined by a strict subset. I miss perhaps something,
but the axiomatic of Kolmogorov has been invented to solve that
“infinite number of value” problem.
That's a non-answer. I was just using infinite (as physicists do) to
mean bigger than anything we're thinking of. Kolmogorov just shaped his
definition to make the mathematics simpler. There's nothing in Jason's
analyses that defines the variables as finite. Jason just helps jimself
to an intuition that a value between 7.5 and 7.7 is "fine-tuned". He
didn't first justify the finite interval.
But I do agree that fine-tuning is not always well defined and
sometimes misused. Yet I agree that the choice is between a fine tuner
(but who is it, and how does it the selection. Even if real, a fine
tuner explains nothing without some explanation of where the fine
tuner comes from. In a multiverse or milti-computations (le the
sigma_1 arithmetic) consciousness is the fine tuner, and that one is
explained already by the (Löbianà universal machine.
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.
That depends on your OMEGA in the probability space, and the measure
you put on the set of events.
Exactly so.
Second, calling it "fine-tuning" implies some kind of process of
"tuning" or "selection". But that's gratuitous.
Yes. Ad Hoc, and it hides the problem by a bigger problem, instead of
solving it.
Absent supernatural miracles, we must find ourselves in a universe in
which we are nomologically possible.
That will be the relative histories with measure near one. Sort of
history-neighbourhoods.
By what measure?
And that is true whether there is one universe or infinitely many.
… or none.
So it cannot be evidence one way or the other for the number of
universes.
To count the universes, we should be able to be clearer on what such
term means.
Bruno
Brent
On 10/14/2020 7:38 PM, Jason Resch 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.
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiipTLGN%3DLGdhyUMKMLPRvpUhxJk77rwvmLvgyf252EjA%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiipTLGN%3DLGdhyUMKMLPRvpUhxJk77rwvmLvgyf252EjA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/39a9adbd-c687-634c-736a-3cfb940d6cd1%40verizon.net
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/39a9adbd-c687-634c-736a-3cfb940d6cd1%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/F57D6D8E-2602-4AD7-9178-F51CE121E207%40ulb.ac.be
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/F57D6D8E-2602-4AD7-9178-F51CE121E207%40ulb.ac.be?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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/474c3fb1-8cac-31c2-b1d8-bc1f92cffe0b%40verizon.net.
