On 10/20/2020 1:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 1:26 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<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.
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,
How can you be so casual about leaping from "This statement is true."
to "The relation it expresses entails that the relata exist." "True"
and "exist" are even different words. "Watson is the companion of
Holmes" is true in many logics (just note that it's negation is false)
yet nobody thinks it makes Sherlock Holmes into a person who existed.
In mathematics, "exists" means has a value that satifies (makes true)
and expression. It says nothing about whether you can kick it and
whether it kicks back.
Brent
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]
<mailto:[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
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhQXt6v60%2Bdqw0e%2BjjwKZLJG%2BTR-%2BY-7w96r6kK%3DABZnw%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].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3614d16d-3478-95a5-0da9-b93c8fb40aa4%40verizon.net.
