On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 1:26 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 10/20/2020 5:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 15 Oct 2020, at 22:53, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > [email protected]> 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 < > [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. >> > > 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 [email protected]. 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.
