On 10/23/2020 8:15 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 4:37 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 10/20/2020 1:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 1:23 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything
List <[email protected]
<mailto:[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.
I admit as much in the article. For most parameters, we don't
understand the range or probability distribution for the constants.
Then how can you assert there is fine tuning. Is a value of
20_+_1 qualify? Does it matter whether the possible range was
(0,100) or (19,21)?
However, see my explanation for the cosmological constant, a
value for which the theory can account for the expected range and
probability distribution.
That's right, there is a theory that tells us something about a
range and probability distribution. But it's far from an accepted
theory, and might well be wrong.
It comes out of QFT, perhaps our most strongly tested theory in
science, at least one that offers the most accurate verified
prediction in physics.
That "comes out of" is very misleading, since it's applying QFT to
general relativity which is not even a quantum theory. The first
application of QFT to the problem gave the wrong answer by 120 orders of
magnitude. I don't know what prediction you're referring to, there have
been several. Can you cite the paper?
Brent
It might well be wrong, but that would be more surprising to me than
the idea of an anthropic selection process operating in a multiverse.
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%2BBCJUiJ5c3kakLGC73zuRGX-6gafk0W7NGhuJJn9VOQEtzriA%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiJ5c3kakLGC73zuRGX-6gafk0W7NGhuJJn9VOQEtzriA%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/a3039f54-142f-9558-984d-cfa5f65d56a0%40verizon.net.
