> On 20 Oct 2020, at 20:22, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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.
That deserves certainly more analyses. The idea is to run the laws in theory, or in a simulation of a computer, and if we see that, say, life cannot happens when the value of some constant is out of small interval, like (7, 8), say, and that the known constant is 7.3, we can say that there is some”fine tuning” (being neutral if that comes from a designer or from a many-worlds). Now, “small” is not a precise term, but it can be made more precise in diverse ways. We can talk of r-fine Turing, with r measuring some degree of “smallness”. What I mean is that although “fine Tuning” is informal and not precise, the idea can have some merit. According to some astophysicists, without Jupiter, it is unclear if life could have evolved. It is unlikely also, for some, that lofe would have evolved without the previous extinctions, inlacing one due to a supernova, those due to asteroids impact, and there is a sense to say (from our first person plural perspective) that the solar system, and its history, was “fine Tuned” for life to happen and evolved to human consciousness, and that might be a beginning of the solution of Fermi paradox, but of course, it only means that our “history” is a rare sequence of events… > >> >> 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. OK. So I think we mainly agree on all this. I think Jason agrees implicitly that finding the “OMEGA” for the physical constants (assuming that exists) is a difficult task. The proof that this is impossible is rather difficult too. > >> >> >> >>> >>> 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? The measure is given by the relevant semantics of the (first person) material modes, and for the case of ([]p & p) and ([]p & <>t & p), I have discovered recently that the measure is given by a Lebesgue measure on the set sigma_1 = union on a of all sigma_1(a) (the union of what is sigma_1 computable in the oracle a, for all oracle). That gives nice borelian with a sigma-additive measure). That comes directly from the first person indeterminacy on all program + all oracles. Such a measure can be shown to exist in some reasonable extension of ZFC. (ZFC + projective determinacy). Of course, we know empirically that such measure exists (very plausibly), and with Mechanism, the fact that we get a quantum-like Lebesgue measure is a confirmation (not a proof of course) of digital mechanism. Bruno > >> >> >> >>> 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/ >>>> <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] > <mailto:[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 > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/474c3fb1-8cac-31c2-b1d8-bc1f92cffe0b%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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/D003934D-F84F-451A-83D4-E8E94C7C95AC%40ulb.ac.be.
