Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.killfile.org!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Sabine Hossenfleder reports on a study that finds that the universe is
 not fine tuned for life
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 03:55:24 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <43cfeee58c07363208bdb9b12319ea65@www.novabbs.com>
References: <vhvl56$2aca9$1@dont-email.me> <nNadnY4J7NTAAN76nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <vi1ks3$2nqt1$1@dont-email.me> <8d143f0cd27be8df9809bfea5fbd7969@www.novabbs.com> <a8120467-9e05-4b7d-9433-2df09da99492@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="19828"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Bytes: 3893
Lines: 39

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 15:54:42 +0000, erik simpson wrote:

> On 11/26/24 3:01 AM, LDagget wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:51:47 +0000, Ernest Major wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
> They probably won't buy you much more beer unless you come up with
> half-assed amusing things to say.

Sorry to disappoint. I blame the fact that I haven't had a beer
in months.