David Albert - Fallacies of Fine-Tuning

preview_player
Показать описание

What mistakes are made in the fine-tuning debate? Whether errors of fact, opinion, logic, or extrapolation, where are the pitfalls in fine-tuning? Is there really fine-tuning in nature, from fundamental physics to cosmology, and if so, how to perceive and explain them without falling foul of the fallacies?

David Z Albert, PhD, is Frederick E. Woodbridge Professor of Philosophy and Director of the MA Program in The Philosophical Foundations of Physics at Columbia University in New York.

Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

Very interesting perspective. However I would question why assigning a probability of 1/3 to the marble being in bag number 2 is saying something from nothing. Surely knowing that there are only three bags is "some information", and not "no clue"? If we were told there were four bags, we would give a different answer.

paulpearson
Автор

It's the water claiming "this pothole is so perfect, fits me so perfectly, it had to be designed for me!

bjornyesterday
Автор

Isn't it amazing enough that life and human life and our lives exist on this planet in the immensely huge Universe? Our individual lives are unique, unrepeatable, fleeting and are remarkable.

ResmithSR
Автор

He is right. The phrase 'fine tuning' implies some kind of crisis or perplexity about some measurements of the physical world, like for instance the speed of light. The other thing it implies is that, say, the speed of light could have been faster than the measurement found. 'Gee, I wonder why the speed of light wasn't the number on my licences plate.' For me 'fine tuning' is a misnomer that is a fine basis for tuning up obscurantism.

arthurwieczorek
Автор

I have always felt this way about the supposed "fine tuning" argument. Glad to know that at least one philosopher agrees with me.

rumidude
Автор

It could be that the universe just “appears” to us to be fine-tuned. Perhaps, once we obtain sufficient knowledge from empirical evidence, we will know that the universe can only be one way - the way it is. Or we could learn from experimental proof that multiple universes exist accounting for the full range of apparent fine-tuned constants and laws. Finally, isn’t the very question “is the universe fine-tuned?” an anthropic question? Namely, we ask it from the self-centered perspective of the only emergent intelligent life. But it could be said that the universe is actually far more fine-tuned for the opposite of life - namely, non-life, which is the vast majority of everything observable. Or fine-tuned for dark energy. Or fine-tuned for increasing entropy disorder. Or fine-tuned for conservation of energy (positive & negative energy equals zero). Or fine-tuned for random chaotic quantum fluctuations. And so on.

garybala
Автор

many thousands of scholars and PhDs make their living off the constant fine tuning of probabilities. Good gig if you can get it. ;)

ottodetroit
Автор

The truth is bitter, ugly when processed, but the result is robust.

patientson
Автор

I strongly resonate with his take and it never sat well with me when flat out conjecture is supposed to pose for methodologically precise inquiry and experimental testing of a priori assumption, which I would separate semantically from mere conjecture, which is also just a concealed way of actually saying "I have no clue". He may have chosen to phrase this observation more cautiously, therefore more politely. But I see him making a strong point about this inconsistency in logic, which I go along with and which probably says more about resorting to such awkward ways of dodging their discomfort over not knowing than it says about the scientific process of discovery and how to get there or about calculating probabilities. In plain language: It must be o.k. not to have a clue. The imperative that then follows is "let's take a closer look and find out (by employing the methods that have been serving us very well so far)".

wesboundmusic
Автор

I do not see a big problem right there. The problem of explaining the values for constants and initial conditions is still a thing to answer.

profgamer
Автор

As a discerning marble, I always go for the handmade chestnut box, with custom black felt interior

samc
Автор

I believe if you jrop a block of steel in a bucket of nitrogen it will scattere like glass because all the electrons are reducing pressure that support the structure and mass of that steel block and due to the sudden change In the environment immediately that activated the kinetic energy field in two ways the first way was the drop motion the second way was when the block of steel immediately struck the bucket of nitrogen boosting the kinetic energy field inside the block of steel even at greater heights causing an explosion that scattered the block of steel outward like glass. My point is on the contraction of the universe and if I'am right about this it may be true to the fact, if the universe stops contracting everything would cool down and the cold vacuum pressure would in golf the entire universe back down to its starting point the plank level a place where the poor old electrons begin striking their matches to get the heat up and running again. Guys these are the God of the universes they deserve all the credit for their hard work because they can turn cold death into tingling sensations which is a whole new world of awareness straight out of pure consciousness. I believe it goes deeper than that. Seek and you shall find.

feltonhamilton
Автор

2:15 What if there's a marble in a box, but I haven't told you about if there is a marble in the other two, Box 1 or 3 also having a marble in each. There could be one in one box or one in each. Isn't that knowledge an important detail useful in fine-tuning a decision?

greggweber
Автор

Speaking of marbles, I hope no one after listening to this lost theirs.

ResmithSR
Автор

1:00 The principle of indifference visa vis, what? The principle of personal intuition. The principle

arthurwieczorek
Автор

2:34 Your guest is allowing himself to become snagged on what appears to me to be a fallacious premise.

You're not starting with "zero knowledge" of where the marble is located.

Rather, you know that the marble is in one and only one of the three containers.

So the starting point is not, "I have no idea where the marble is located".

The corre t starting point would look more like, "I have no idea which 9f these containers holds the marble. But I know that the marble is one of these three containers".

So you very well could and, dare I say say, "should", make the assumption that the marble has a one in three chance of being in any one of the containers, all else being equal.

Or am I missing something here (again...lol)?

Go Bluejays!!

jmanj
Автор

6:31 something is giving rise to structure and mechanics of the observable Universe... which in its or their absence could have been a total chaos instead... where do these constants originate from and what is their nature, precisely 🤔

rc
Автор

I always wondered why the electron has the charge that it does. Looks like I can keep on thinking that.

johnsgarage
Автор

Finally, someone talking sensibly about the overblown hysteria over fine tuning.

johnstjohn
Автор

The speed of light is one of the parameters that is supposed to be fine tuned. Am I right about that?

arthurwieczorek