Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Sabine Hossenfleder reports on a study that finds that the
 universe is not fine tuned for life
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:51:47 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 23
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <vi1ks3$2nqt1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vhvl56$2aca9$1@dont-email.me>
 <nNadnY4J7NTAAN76nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Reply-To: {$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="58217"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4PhbKiYPOj6WRlg9x53szLsLCfU=
Return-Path: <news@eternal-september.org>
X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org
Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org
	id 95D47229782; Mon, 25 Nov 2024 05:51:57 -0500 (EST)
	by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65E71229765
	for <talk-origins@ediacara.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2024 05:51:55 -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@eternal-september.org>)
          id 1tFWh7-00000002lfh-2HmB; Mon, 25 Nov 2024 11:51:53 +0100
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.eternal-september.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 630915F8CF
	for <talk-origins@moderators.isc.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:51:48 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: name/630915F8CF; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=meden.demon.co.uk
	id D4373DC01A9; Mon, 25 Nov 2024 11:51:47 +0100 (CET)
X-Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2024 11:51:47 +0100 (CET)
X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX18EWPXyVeba7mGUrNMkwu3Vi2LbLeOQLXaZgXgASALXefXIUpNL8Bs3r9FnDk3ItP/7omNb3PiEWg==
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <nNadnY4J7NTAAN76nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,
	RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED,
	SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_WELCOMELIST,USER_IN_WHITELIST
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
	smtp.eternal-september.org
Bytes: 3794

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.

-- 
alias Ernest Major