You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Nisan comments on Stupid Questions Open Thread - Less Wrong Discussion

42 Post author: Costanza 29 December 2011 11:23PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (265)

Comments (265)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Dan_Moore 30 December 2011 03:21:24PM 3 points [-]

From the Wikipedia fined-tuned universe page

Mathematician Michael Ikeda and astronomer William H. Jefferys have argued that [, upon pre-supposing MWI,] the anthropic principle resolves the entire issue of fine-tuning, as does philosopher of science Elliott Sober. Philosopher and theologian Richard Swinburne reaches the opposite conclusion using Bayesian probability.

(Ikeda & Jeffrey are linked at note 21.)

In a nutshell, MWI provides a mechanism whereby a spectrum of universes are produced, some life-friendly and some life-unfriendly. Consistent with the weak anthropic principle, life can only exist in the life-friendly (hence fine-tuned) universes. So, MWI provides an explanation of observed fine-tuning, whereas the standard QM interpretation does not.

Comment author: Nisan 04 January 2012 08:50:01PM 0 points [-]

I glanced at Ikeda & Jefferys, and they seem to explicitly not presuppose MWI:

our argument is not dependent on the notion that there are many other universes.

At first glance, they seem to render the fine-tuning phenomenon unsurprising using only an anthropic argument, without appealing to multiverses or a simulator. I am satisfied that someone has written this down.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit