On 11/24/24 8:44 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXzV7zdl4oU
Interesting paper, but I find her delivery annoying. It seems that we're supposed to like a scientific result to the extent that it argues
against a theory she dislikes for unexplained reasons. And why does a
lack of fine-tuning argue against a multiverse anyway?
On 24/11/2024 21:40, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/24/24 8:44 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXzV7zdl4oU
Interesting paper, but I find her delivery annoying. It seems that we're
supposed to like a scientific result to the extent that it argues
against a theory she dislikes for unexplained reasons. And why does a
lack of fine-tuning argue against a multiverse anyway?
I think that the argument is that in a multiverse the majority of
observers exist in universes that are "fine tuned" for the existence of >observers, and therefore if you pick an observer at random it is
unlikely that it will be in a universe which is not fine tuned. That we
find ourselves in a universe that it not fine tuned (at least according
to the reviewed paper) is contrary to the expectations of a theory >incorporating multiverses. But I saw no quantification of how unlikely
this observation is, and regardless I'm cautious of drawing statistical >conclusions from samples of one.
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:51:47 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
On 24/11/2024 21:40, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/24/24 8:44 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXzV7zdl4oU
Interesting paper, but I find her delivery annoying. It seems that we're >> supposed to like a scientific result to the extent that it argues
against a theory she dislikes for unexplained reasons. And why does a
lack of fine-tuning argue against a multiverse anyway?
I think that the argument is that in a multiverse the majority of
observers exist in universes that are "fine tuned" for the existence of >observers, and therefore if you pick an observer at random it is
unlikely that it will be in a universe which is not fine tuned. That we >find ourselves in a universe that it not fine tuned (at least according
to the reviewed paper) is contrary to the expectations of a theory >incorporating multiverses. But I saw no quantification of how unlikely
this observation is, and regardless I'm cautious of drawing statistical >conclusions from samples of one.
Same here. But at bottom, this whole debate still seems to
me to be in the nature of "Look how perfectly that hole fits
the water in it!".
And exactly what constitutes "finely
tuned"? If it means that we *know* what are the optimum
values for various constants (which I doubt), fine, but if
all it means, as it seems to, is "allows the universe and
life to exist in the form we observe" it seems like
navel-gazing; perhaps interesting in a late-night-with-beer
dorm discussion, but with no realistic expectation of
resolution.
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:51:47 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
On 24/11/2024 21:40, John Harshman wrote:Same here. But at bottom, this whole debate still seems to
On 11/24/24 8:44 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXzV7zdl4oU
Interesting paper, but I find her delivery annoying. It seems that we're >> >> supposed to like a scientific result to the extent that it argues
against a theory she dislikes for unexplained reasons. And why does a
lack of fine-tuning argue against a multiverse anyway?
I think that the argument is that in a multiverse the majority of
observers exist in universes that are "fine tuned" for the existence of
observers, and therefore if you pick an observer at random it is
unlikely that it will be in a universe which is not fine tuned. That we
find ourselves in a universe that it not fine tuned (at least according
to the reviewed paper) is contrary to the expectations of a theory
incorporating multiverses. But I saw no quantification of how unlikely
this observation is, and regardless I'm cautious of drawing statistical
conclusions from samples of one.
me to be in the nature of "Look how perfectly that hole fits
the water in it!".
Yes, precisely.
God made the grass green because that colour
is the most pleasant on our eyes.
And exactly what constitutes "finely
tuned"? If it means that we *know* what are the optimum
values for various constants (which I doubt), fine, but if
all it means, as it seems to, is "allows the universe and
life to exist in the form we observe" it seems like
navel-gazing; perhaps interesting in a late-night-with-beer
dorm discussion, but with no realistic expectation of
resolution.
As long as we don't have the faintest idea
of why those constants have the values they have
we have also no idea if there is anything to 'tune',
or even of what 'tuning' might mean.
It is empty talk for IDiots with nothing better to do.
The constants are what they are observed to be,
and that's it, for the time being,
On 11/26/24 7:55 PM, LDagget wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 15:54:42 +0000, erik simpson wrote:That's easily remedied: I recommend Ichtyosaur pale ale.
On 11/26/24 3:01 AM, LDagget wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:51:47 +0000, Ernest Major wrote:They probably won't buy you much more beer unless you come up with
On 24/11/2024 21:40, John Harshman wrote:
On 11/24/24 8:44 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXzV7zdl4oU
Interesting paper, but I find her delivery annoying. It seems that >>>>>> we're
supposed to like a scientific result to the extent that it argues
against a theory she dislikes for unexplained reasons. And why does a >>>>>> lack of fine-tuning argue against a multiverse anyway?
I think that the argument is that in a multiverse the majority of
observers exist in universes that are "fine tuned" for the existence of >>>>> observers, and therefore if you pick an observer at random it is
unlikely that it will be in a universe which is not fine tuned. That we >>>>> find ourselves in a universe that it not fine tuned (at least according >>>>> to the reviewed paper) is contrary to the expectations of a theory
incorporating multiverses. But I saw no quantification of how unlikely >>>>> this observation is, and regardless I'm cautious of drawing statistical >>>>> conclusions from samples of one.
One could incorporate the Fermi Paradox and suggest that we are in
a universe which is only marginally favorable to the rise of life
capable of interstellar travel (or signaling), and wave away all
the uncertainties about those contingent probabilities.
These don't seem to be speculations worthy of more than perhaps
a good friend buying you another beer that they were probably
going to buy you anyway.
half-assed amusing things to say.
Sorry to disappoint. I blame the fact that I haven't had a beer
in months.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 376 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 26:20:04 |
| Calls: | 8,036 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 13,034 |
| Messages: | 5,829,398 |