Re: Sabine Hossenfleder reports on a study that finds that the universe is not fine tuned for life

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 C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov