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: Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
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 07:54:53 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 74
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <e2obkjh7ljeptcq8b86mbjm4vvdj02a0b8@4ax.com>
References: <vhvl56$2aca9$1@dont-email.me> <nNadnY4J7NTAAN76nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <vi1ks3$2nqt1$1@dont-email.me> <0649kj56bhnjjoa485n4f9ps7k5eavn2ej@4ax.com> <6745941e$0$29745$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="1258"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.20.32.1218
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VUgflnj+jqV+1C7aGM1Cs4GYjPw=
Bytes: 5502

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 10:25:51 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

>Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:51:47 +0000, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>> 
>> >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.
>> >
>> Same here. But at bottom, this whole debate still seems to
>> me to be in the nature of "Look how perfectly that hole fits
>> the water in it!". 
>
>Yes, precisely.
>God made the grass green because that colour
>is the most pleasant on our eyes.
>
And set the constants so as to create a pleasantly blue sky.
>
>> And exactly what constitutes "finely
>> tuned"? If it means that we *know* what are the optimum
>> values for various constants (which I doubt), fine, but if
>> all it means, as it seems to, is "allows the universe and
>> life to exist in the form we observe" it seems like
>> navel-gazing; perhaps interesting in a late-night-with-beer
>> dorm discussion, but with no realistic expectation of
>> resolution.
>
>As long as we don't have the faintest idea
>of why those constants have the values they have
>we have also no idea if there is anything to 'tune',
>or even of what 'tuning' might mean.
>
>It is empty talk for IDiots with nothing better to do.
>
To be fair, many who aren't IDiots (or plain idiots) seem to
enjoy discussing it, too. It just seems a vaguely amusing
way to waste time to me.
>
>The constants are what they are observed to be,
>and that's it, for the time being,
>
Yep.
>
-- 

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov