I’ve recently had my first philosophy paper published! It appears in the European Journal for Philosophy of Science, and is available online for free here (I think – tell me in the comments if it doesn’t work). [Edit: It doesn’t. Here’s the preprint.] Here’s the abstract:
Fine-tuning in physics and cosmology is often used as evidence that a theory is incomplete. For example, the parameters of the standard model of particle physics are “unnaturally” small (in various technical senses), which has driven much of the search for physics beyond the standard model. Of particular interest is the fine-tuning of the universe for life, which suggests that our universe’s ability to create physical life forms is improbable and in need of explanation, perhaps by a multiverse. This claim has been challenged on the grounds that the relevant probability measure cannot be justified because it cannot be normalized, and so small probabilities cannot be inferred. We show how fine-tuning can be formulated within the context of Bayesian theory testing (or model selection) in the physical sciences. The normalizability problem is seen to be a general problem for testing any theory with free parameters, and not a unique problem for fine-tuning. Physical theories in fact avoid such problems in one of two ways. Dimensional parameters are bounded by the Planck scale, avoiding troublesome infinities, and we are not compelled to assume that dimensionless parameters are distributed uniformly, which avoids non-normalizability.
Hi Luke. You say it’s “free”. I don’t think, following that link, that it is.
-Brett
Ah shucks. Here’s the preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.03965
Hey Luke
I just read on useofreasons’ blog an article “attacking” the Fine-tuning argument, called “The Fine-Tuning Argument and the Base Rate Fallacy”. As a complete simpleton when it comes to physics, I can not really comment on the gist of it, as I dont want to just sling around some questionable objections based on superficial knowledge. And now I’m here.
If it wouldnt take too much of your time, maybe you could respond to or at least comment on it? It may very well be the case that you already answered the objection in your book, but I haven’t gotten around to ordering it yet. I do really look forward to doing so however
All the best,
Jonas
Will your talk at the Royal Institution end up on YouTube? The audience there always seems pretty sharp and engaged so I’d imagine the Q&A was interesting.