From: helbig@asclothestro.multivax.de   
      
   In article ,   
   rockbrentwood@gmail.com writes:   
      
   > "Our laws of nature and our cosmos appear to be delicately fine-tuned   
   > for life to emerge, in a way that seems hard to attribute to chance. In   
   > view of this, some have taken the opportunity to revive the scholastic   
   > Argument from Design, whereas others have felt the need to explain this   
   > apparent fine-tuning of the clockwork of the Universe by proposing the   
   > existence of a `Multiverse'. We analyze this issue from a sober   
   > perspective."   
      
   In general, one can discuss the question whether the universe is   
   fine-tuned for life independently of whether one has an explanation for   
   it.  For example, Darwin correctly postulated the theory of evolution,   
   but the mechanism (based on genetics) was unknown to him.  By the same   
   token, ruling out a possible explanation for fine-tuning does not rule   
   out fine-tuning itself.  Also, fine-tuning does not necessarily mean   
   unlikely; it could be that the universe is fine-tuned for life, in the   
   sense that slight changes to the parameters would render life   
   impossible, yet the observed parameters might be very likely, or even   
   the only possible ones.  Much confusion stems from mixing these issues.   
      
   > "Having reviewed the literature and having added several observations of   
   > our own, we conclude that cosmic fine-tuning supports neither Design nor   
   > a Multiverse, since both of these fail at an explanatory level as well   
   > as in a more quantitative context of Bayesian confirmation theory   
   > (although there might be other reasons to believe in these ideas, to be   
   > found in religion and in inflation and/or string theory, respectively).   
   > In fact, fine-tuning and Design even seem to be at odds with each other,   
   > whereas the inference from fine-tuning to a Multiverse only works if the   
   > latter is underwritten by an additional metaphysical hypothesis we   
   > consider unwarranted."   
   >   
   > i.e. the calling out of the hidden hypotheses that are routinely sneaked   
   > in by sloppy hand-waving reasoning that pass for arguments in physics   
   > journals. The decoherence camp has the same problem, I might add.   
      
   While this might be true in some cases, many argue the case for   
   fine-tuning without sloppy arguments.   
      
   > "Instead, we suggest that fine-tuning requires no special explanation at   
   > all, since it is not the Universe that is fine-tuned for life, but life   
   > that has been fine-tuned to the Universe."   
   >   
   > You see? That's the real issue right there.   
      
   Not really.  Organisms are fine-tuned to their environment via   
   evolution, but this is not an explanation of the sort of fine-tuning   
   discussed in a cosmological context.   
      
   > The only important matter is that there be complexity, sufficient to   
   > house sentience.   
      
   Yes.  Many who argue the case for fine-tuning make the point that   
   fine-tuning for sentience is the point, not life, or humans, or   
   whatever.   
      
   > Also, there is the recent work by Tegmark who originally came from the   
   > multiverse camp;   
      
   He is still there, as far as I know.   
      
   > So what we call "life" (by which we really mean sentience) can be a lot   
   > more than what backers of teleological ideas (a la the Anthropic   
   > Principle) want to advance.   
      
   You are attacking a straw man here, or at least not all of the men who   
   argue the case for fine-tuning are made of straw.   
      
   > And that too needs to be taken into account,   
   > if trying to push the "things are as they are because life is here to   
   > see them" silliness.   
      
   You seem to be caricaturing the anthropic principle, or misunderstanding   
   it.  Yes, there is some bad stuff out there under this banner (Frank   
   Tipler comes to mind, the stuff he wrote AFTER his book with Barrow),   
   but this is a minority opinion and not representative.   
      
   For those interested in matters of fine-tuning, I recommend:   
      
   @BOOK         { GLewisLBarnes17a ,   
                  AUTHOR       = "Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes",   
                  TITLE        = "A Fortunate Universe",   
                  PUBLISHER    = Cambridge University Press,   
                  YEAR         = "2017",   
                    ADDRESS      = "Cambridge (UK)",   
                 }   
      
   You can also read my review of it:   
      
      http://www.astro.multivax.de:8000/helbig/research/publication   
   /info/fortunate_universe.html   
      
   This is not a simple matter, and usenet or the blogosphere probably not   
   the best place to debate it.  Lewis and Barnes devote an entire chapter   
   to rebutting common arguments against fine-tuning, some of which have   
   been mentioned by the original poster.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)