RE: Isn't the fine tuning argument ad hoc?
July 26, 2013 at 4:15 pm
(This post was last modified: July 26, 2013 at 4:17 pm by Mister Agenda.)
At this point, I'd like to throw out three things: One, fine-tuning isn't a problem that needs to be answered. It's a speculation based on a mental exercise. We don't know which, if any of the constants could have been different than they are, or how much they could vary or what the probability of different values are. All there is to fine-tuning can be summed up as 'if all of these constants could vary by a high degree in a relatively even probabablistic range with the value of none of them being determined by the value of any of the others, it would be really unlikely for any universe with specific values for its constants to exist, including ours.' Until there's evidence that the above statement is true, it isn't justifiable to actually claim that our universe is 'fine-tuned'. Positing explanations for why it could be true if it is is just thought experiments.
Two: Multiple universes were proposed before fine-tuning was, it wasn't made up to answer fine-tuning. An already existing hypothesis was co-opted as a possible explanation for why the universe might appear to be fine-tuned if the above speculation turned out to be true.
Three: Given One, it just isn't valid to look at an event that has already happened and declare it was too unlikely to have happened by chance. The odds against any given hand of Bridge is billions to one; and you can deal out billions-to-one hands until your arms drop off. It's easy to do incredibly improbable things...as long as you don't specify the hand in advance. If you deal the exact hand in the exact order you pre-specified, THAT is surprising. What fine-tuners are doing is the equivalent of a first time Bridge-player looking at the first bridge hand they've ever been dealt, seeing that it's precisely the hand they needed to win, and concluding that the dealer must have cheated in their favor...when ANY hand they were dealt would be equally improbable. It ain't necessarily so. Under fine-tuning, no other pre-specified universe is more probable than ours is. Ours just has something in it capable of being surprised by how improbable their universe (given One being true).
Two: Multiple universes were proposed before fine-tuning was, it wasn't made up to answer fine-tuning. An already existing hypothesis was co-opted as a possible explanation for why the universe might appear to be fine-tuned if the above speculation turned out to be true.
Three: Given One, it just isn't valid to look at an event that has already happened and declare it was too unlikely to have happened by chance. The odds against any given hand of Bridge is billions to one; and you can deal out billions-to-one hands until your arms drop off. It's easy to do incredibly improbable things...as long as you don't specify the hand in advance. If you deal the exact hand in the exact order you pre-specified, THAT is surprising. What fine-tuners are doing is the equivalent of a first time Bridge-player looking at the first bridge hand they've ever been dealt, seeing that it's precisely the hand they needed to win, and concluding that the dealer must have cheated in their favor...when ANY hand they were dealt would be equally improbable. It ain't necessarily so. Under fine-tuning, no other pre-specified universe is more probable than ours is. Ours just has something in it capable of being surprised by how improbable their universe (given One being true).
