On 10/23/2020 8:21 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 4:46 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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.
We've argued this countless times before, so I don't want to repeat it
again. The truth that 777 is odd implies the existence of an integer
X, which is 1 more than 777 divided by 2. Truth has ontological
implications and consequences when they relate to the existence or
non-existence of other entities.
"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.
What reality are you applying the word "exists" within? You never
specified it, which makes any answer regarding the existence or
non-existence of Watson ambiguous.
Exactly the problem. If I say "In the world of Conan Doyle's novels"
then it's true. In what world is 777 odd? In the world of arithmetic.
In this world...it depends. In most interpretations it's true in this
world. But it doesn't follow that all the other, infinitely many,
inferences true in arithmetic are likely true in this world.
Brent
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.
Kicking back occurs from the perspective of entities existing who live
within long computational histories which occur in platonically
existing computational threads, which exist if you assume arithmetical
truth.
But that's assuming the thing you're trying to argue, that the world is
nothing but computations in arithmetic and is all such computations.
Brent
--
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/d9fe2406-e71f-791b-5c90-becad55277de%40verizon.net.
