Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<43cfeee58c07363208bdb9b12319ea65@www.novabbs.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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 Return-Path: <news@i2pn2.org> X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org id A2808229782; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 22:56:46 -0500 (EST) by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66DB3229765 for <talk-origins@ediacara.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 22:56:44 -0500 (EST) by moderators.individual.net (Exim 4.98) for talk-origins@moderators.isc.org with esmtp (envelope-from <news@i2pn2.org>) id 1tG9AQ-00000001XDM-03aI; Wed, 27 Nov 2024 04:56:42 +0100 id 00ECD59803B; Wed, 27 Nov 2024 03:56:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Injection-Info: ; posting-account="fegc7bsF1eMdQ+K4/V59MDLZ0W7qYnKpXoBXaiJNWpk"; X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$v0I5RF7lsvJkZN4P7wXONuM/3xBNWpGxsMCaRQ.OQAd1DIqWtzLdG X-Rslight-Posting-User: e316cd0a5543fde25fc288f0018b16e943af38c6 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.