Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.xs3.de!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
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 05:22:24 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <d83c78e8f77bb9f840e37bc933bac68e@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> <43cfeee58c07363208bdb9b12319ea65@www.novabbs.com> <c743e697-1dbb-4aeb-a72b-845951f30c02@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="22735"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Bytes: 4266
Lines: 47

On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 4:43:44 +0000, erik simpson wrote:

> On 11/26/24 7:55 PM, LDagget wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> That's easily remedied:  I recommend Ichtyosaur pale ale.

ewwww, that's Icky