tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post7268488053648003756..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Guest Post: Phillip Helbig reviews “Lost in Math”Sabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger130125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-29137500307923864402018-12-07T22:25:48.249-05:002018-12-07T22:25:48.249-05:00@sean s.
The OP claimed that fine-tuning is physi...@sean s.<br /><br />The OP claimed that fine-tuning is physics. There is no evidence that it is anything but pure speculation. Someone else claimed that fine-tuning can never be empirically tested, but that's also speculation as physics is not a complete theory. That's what was being discussed, although even that was a tangent as "Lost in Math" was supposed to be the topic of Steven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-64810596716424430652018-12-07T09:39:02.209-05:002018-12-07T09:39:02.209-05:00Steven: “... a gene being selected has been shown ...Steven: “<i>... a gene being selected has been shown to be tautologous with a gene increasing chances of survival, that's all</i>”<br /><br />I think you’re using the word “tautologous” incorrectly here. Tautologies are propositional redundancies; your example is not redundant. Gene selection is caused when genes increase the chances of survival. It might seem redundant now, but only because sean s.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04190153587965701495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-41660048078169831582018-12-06T23:05:07.847-05:002018-12-06T23:05:07.847-05:00@ JeanTate @ sean s.
My point here, a completely o...@ JeanTate @ sean s.<br />My point here, a completely obvious one, was simply that fine-tuning is not physics, it's pure speculation. There is no evidence whatsoever that fine-tuning is physics. Discussion on whether fine-tuning will be empirically testable in the future will probably turn out to be fruitless at this juncture. I'm mistaken about the "self-explanatory" nature of Steven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-38166721558763216802018-12-06T09:35:28.220-05:002018-12-06T09:35:28.220-05:00Steven,
“By self-explanatory I mean that the idea...Steven,<br /><br />“<i>By self-explanatory I mean that the idea that genes which increase the chance of survival to reproduction becoming prevalent in a species explains itself. </i>”<br /><br />Imagine going back to 1850 and expressing that idea to a leading biologist; they would need a LOT of explanation, and not only about what some of the words mean (“<i>Gene?</i>” What is that?)<br /><br />sean s.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04190153587965701495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-42194177095114178072018-12-06T09:07:46.458-05:002018-12-06T09:07:46.458-05:00John Bahcall wrote a paper or two on an astrophysi...John Bahcall wrote a paper or two on an astrophysical test of the constancy of the fine structure constant (which may or may not be a fundamental constant, YMMV), for example here: https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301507<br /><br />There is, or was, at least one group doing something similar, using the “Many Mutiplet method”. Bahcall et al. found alpha to be constant, within the uncertainties; theJeanTatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08737430572613792118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-7092950520994633732018-12-06T05:55:16.247-05:002018-12-06T05:55:16.247-05:00@Sabine Hossenfelder
It wasn't me who started...@Sabine Hossenfelder<br /><br />It wasn't me who started that discussion, though. It was a philosopher claiming that fine-tuning can never be an empirically testable theory, who you agreed with. But it is simply not known whether it can be an empirically testable theory in the future or not. Is it?<br /><br />By self-explanatory I mean that the idea that genes which increase the chance of Steven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-56167577596670347022018-12-06T03:47:11.984-05:002018-12-06T03:47:11.984-05:00@sean s.
I mostly agree. Constraints of space led...@sean s.<br /><br />I mostly agree. Constraints of space led to sloppiness. I should have used the term "constants currently considered to be fundamental".<br /><br />I have simply pointed out here that there is no physical evidence currently of fine-tuning, despite what the op claimed. Because it is not known if it is physically possible for the Cosmological Constant, for example, to Steven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-46274101269872490142018-12-06T03:11:48.930-05:002018-12-06T03:11:48.930-05:00Stevens,
Needless to say, I speak in the context ...Stevens,<br /><br />Needless to say, I speak in the context of existing theories, not in the context of theories that may possibly one day exist because that's an entirely pointless discussion.<br /><br />No, natural selection is not self-explanatory. If you think it is, you don't understand it. Natural selection is an example of adaptation in a complex system. It works under certain Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-41420109424081017282018-12-06T02:57:02.676-05:002018-12-06T02:57:02.676-05:00@Sabine Hossenfelder
Fine-tuning is a speculation...@Sabine Hossenfelder<br /><br />Fine-tuning is a speculation. That's fine. The problem is people who don't understand it is pure speculation. Especially the trained physicists who don't understand that.<br /><br />It was another commenter who claimed fine-tuning can *never* be an empirical question and you supported him. But that's incorrect. Because we don't even know how theSteven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-16928835131646771342018-12-06T02:29:57.512-05:002018-12-06T02:29:57.512-05:00lukebarnes said...
"Your objection is ans...lukebarnes said...<br /><br /> "Your objection is answered on pages 278 to 282 of the book, under the subsection "Whence the Possibilities?""<br /><br />More like, whence the $322,745? Fine-tuning is a possibility, yes, but it is pure speculation and there is currently no physical information to determine the probability that it is valid. Speculating what a universe would beSteven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-5584665441181401672018-12-06T02:27:25.336-05:002018-12-06T02:27:25.336-05:00Steven,
I find the discussion about what may be c...Steven,<br /><br />I find the discussion about what may be conceivably possible terribly uninteresting because strictly speaking you can never rule out anything. I am concerned with the current debate about fine-tuning, in which the existence of universes with other values of fundamental constants is both an unprovable and a useless postulate, hence it has no place in science.<br /><br />Natural Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-73224670862802234612018-12-06T02:04:50.740-05:002018-12-06T02:04:50.740-05:00@Sabine Hossenfelder
"a situation in which ...@Sabine Hossenfelder <br /><br />"a situation in which you change the value of constants in our universe is not the case anyone is talking about when it comes to fine-tuning."<br />Nor am I. We are talking about whether it is physically possible for the Cosmological Constant, for example, to be (have been) other values than the observed one (whether in this universe, a different bounce Steven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-87996846906166271762018-12-06T00:37:36.401-05:002018-12-06T00:37:36.401-05:00Stevens,
No physical theory will ever be self-exp...Stevens,<br /><br />No physical theory will ever be self-explanatory. Look, a situation in which you change the value of constants in our universe is not the case anyone is talking about when it comes to fine-tuning. And, sorry, but if it isn't empirically possible to confirm then it's not science. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-38220898325855030132018-12-05T21:42:21.504-05:002018-12-05T21:42:21.504-05:00People who try to claim certain limits on empirica...People who try to claim certain limits on empirical science which they can't prove tend to be either trying to rescue a role for philosophy in natural science (that's largely dead - you're not going to come up with quantum mechanics by staring at a table and thinking) or they seem to think if natural science isn't or can't be complete then it immediately follows that Jesus in Steven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-74017997272232161762018-12-05T17:52:19.539-05:002018-12-05T17:52:19.539-05:00Steven Evans: Your objection is answered on pages ...Steven Evans: Your objection is answered on pages 278 to 282 of the book, under the subsection "Whence the Possibilities?"lukebarneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03245704613008522157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-28347129551779786612018-12-05T16:41:18.441-05:002018-12-05T16:41:18.441-05:00I get the sense that some refer to “fundamental va...I get the sense that some refer to “fundamental values” without considering what “fundamental” means. If one does, then this matter sorts itself out.<br /><br /><b>Steven:</b> “<i>It may be possible to observe the early universe to find out information about inflation, say, which will provide information about how the value of these fundamental constants come about and what the possible values sean s.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04190153587965701495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-43425131046108484502018-12-05T12:34:49.711-05:002018-12-05T12:34:49.711-05:00@ Sabine Hossenfelder
No way is currently known,...@ Sabine Hossenfelder <br /><br />No way is currently known, but that may not always remain the case.<br />The fundamental constants may not ultimately turn out to be fundamental - it might be that they can be derived from a self-explanatory TOE. Also, it may be possible to make observations of the early universe which confirm a process of inflation or some universe-generating process which Steven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-91668555756612939572018-12-05T11:37:59.890-05:002018-12-05T11:37:59.890-05:00It's not possible to measure values of the fun...It's not possible to measure values of the fundamental constants different from the values they happen to have in our universe and it's not possible to obtain any statistics of the likelihood of those other values. That's not speculation that's qua definition of what we mean by fundamental constants and our universe. Of course you can find empirical evidence that tells you the Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-29619674015714096242018-12-05T11:08:24.436-05:002018-12-05T11:08:24.436-05:00Sabine Hossenfelder said...
"It's no...Sabine Hossenfelder said...<br /><br /> "It's not possible. That's his point. "<br /><br />It's perfectly conceivable that empirical data might be found from which it can be understood what the physically possible values of the fundamental constants are. To claim it's not possible is pure speculation.Steven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-20010743386821170882018-12-05T11:00:19.837-05:002018-12-05T11:00:19.837-05:00@Rob van Son (Not a physicist, just an amateur) sa...@Rob van Son (Not a physicist, just an amateur) said...<br /><br /> "The question is whether it is physically possible for the fundamental constants to be different values than those that have been observed."<br /><br /> "That is not an empirical question. So, how should we be able to know this. What experiment can decide this question?"<br /><br />Again, you state Steven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-57319415516870486952018-12-05T10:49:48.202-05:002018-12-05T10:49:48.202-05:00@JeanTate "For HPS (History and Philosophy...@JeanTate "For HPS (History and Philosophy of Science), I prefer Lakatos to Popper, e.g. Proofs and Refutations"<br /><br />Well, on here we've just spent 100 comments trying and failing to understand the difference between "theory A may not be true" and "theory A is not true". <br />And without a shred of evidence people are happy to claim "theory A is Steven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-9896435523876660972018-12-05T10:34:17.586-05:002018-12-05T10:34:17.586-05:00It's not possible. That's his point.It's not possible. That's his point. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-52452763509325521332018-12-05T10:31:09.048-05:002018-12-05T10:31:09.048-05:00@Rob van Son (Not a physicist, just an amateur) sa...@Rob van Son (Not a physicist, just an amateur) said...<br /><br />"Actually, you ask for the impossible. See my previous comment."<br /><br />Do you know what is going on here?<br />There is no physical evidence currently that fundamental constants can take on other values. I am asking them for evidence rhetorically - I know they don't have any, because currently there isn't Steven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-88178425552171872592018-12-05T10:26:00.044-05:002018-12-05T10:26:00.044-05:00"The question is whether it is physically pos..."The question is whether it is physically possible for the fundamental constants to be different values than those that have been observed."<br /><br />That is not an empirical question. So, how should we be able to know this. What experiment can decide this question?<br /><br />And if it is not empirical, what aspects of our current theories in physics allow us to judge between these Rob van Son (Not a physicist, just an amateur)https://www.blogger.com/profile/12611755507524401026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-36336564120055907652018-12-05T10:12:01.338-05:002018-12-05T10:12:01.338-05:00"This is not difficult. You are both being ex..."This is not difficult. You are both being extremely thick. "<br /><br />Actually, you ask for the impossible. See my previous comment.Rob van Son (Not a physicist, just an amateur)https://www.blogger.com/profile/12611755507524401026noreply@blogger.com