Article <9f7f9e7c53a4f9c6f795e7a567255bd4@www.novabbs.com>

Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <9f7f9e7c53a4f9c6f795e7a567255bd4@www.novabbs.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano

<9f7f9e7c53a4f9c6f795e7a567255bd4@www.novabbs.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.szaf.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!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: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 10:28:10 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <9f7f9e7c53a4f9c6f795e7a567255bd4@www.novabbs.com>
References: <vhvl56$2aca9$1@dont-email.me> <nNadnY4J7NTAAN76nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.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="94692"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Bytes: 3218
Lines: 27

On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 21:40:45 +0000, 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 watched her video on my own prior to seeing this and my thought
was that she first complained about a rather dumb reworking of
the Anthropic Principle that leveraged a fine tuning argument,
then turned that on its head with a paper that argued the
Cosmological Constant is within a range of workable values
but apparently not the "optimal" value to somehow do something
like affirm the consequent to not only say this means we're
not fine tuned but that therefore the hypothesis of a multiverse
is false.

It's hard to unpack all the ways the argument was wrong.
The whole "fine tuned" bit isn't such a good claim to begin with
but "not fine tuned" because not optimal in a modeling exercise
is worse. The Multiverse thing isn't a workaround to the fine
tuning argument but a consequence of other things. And the Anthropic
Principle is being granted much more significance than a simple
definition of it seems to merit.