Path: ...!news.tomockey.net!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.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
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 07:41:56 -0500
Organization: What are you looking for?
Lines: 48
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <o0gbkj5sul79rfctfgk189sla0r4tphshk@4ax.com>
References: <vhvl56$2aca9$1@dont-email.me> <nNadnY4J7NTAAN76nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <vi1ks3$2nqt1$1@dont-email.me> <8d143f0cd27be8df9809bfea5fbd7969@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="97902"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Return-Path: <news-admin@admin.omicronmedia.com>
X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org
Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org
	id 87F61229788; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 07:42:04 -0500 (EST)
	by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43D48229765
	for <talk-origins@ediacara.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 07:42:02 -0500 (EST)
          by moderators.individual.net (Exim 4.98)
          for talk-origins@moderators.isc.org with esmtps (TLS1.3)
          tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
          (envelope-from <news-admin@admin.omicronmedia.com>)
          id 1tFutE-00000000RbH-1F2U; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 13:42:00 +0100
	by nntpmail01.iad.omicronmedia.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 009B0E0B31
	for <talk-origins@moderators.isc.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 12:41:58 +0000 (UTC)
	id 83B751C60217; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 12:41:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Path: fx03.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
X-Original-Complaints-To: abuse(at)newshosting.com
X-NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 12:41:56 UTC
Bytes: 4172

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 11:01:04 +0000, j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com
(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=3DIXzV7zdl4oU
>>>
>>> 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.


The Fermi Paradox has nothing to do with mutiverse has nothing to do
with fine tuning.  I realize discussions about "multiverse" can be
trivialized to a semantic labelling of what to name things which
extend beyond what can be observed, but doing so doesn't help to
identify what those things are.

--=20
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge