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

On 11/26/24 8:49 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 07:31:13 -0500, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
wrote:
 

On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 13:53:36 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 16:44:22 +0000, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXzV7zdl4oU

>
It's not so much that the physical constants are optimized, it's that
they're in the right range (which may or may not include the
"optimum").  Furthermore, the paper being cited focuses only on the
cosmological constant, not the many other constants that seem to make
it unlikely that there will be the right conditions for life to evolve
given one chance to do so.  I don't know why Sabine Hossenfelder hates
the multiverse, but she's doing the right by trying to falsify it
(which I would consider one of the weaknesses of the multiverse theory
--  that is, how to test it).

>
>
That depends on which multiverse you mean:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse>

 I mean the inflationary universe, and perhaps some of the string
multiverse as well. Definitely not the many-worlds interpretation of
quantum mechanics.  There still seems to be some controversy about
whether the gravitational effects of other universes should be or have
been detected.  Again, those who claim that those effects should be
but haven't been discovered are doing the right thing by trying to
generate testable predictions based on the physics of the multiverse.
 

Wiki has a detailed discussion of string theory and its supporters and detractors.  To say that string theory's situation is unsettled is strong understatement.  Its principle strength or weakness is the ~10^500 possibilities it offers.  It's either everything or nothing. "Nothing" is a preferred choice of some, but not all.