3 ms·
In other words, if you replace what I was discussing, and what I assumed the OP was as well, with something quite different, my original point no longer stands.
by DonaldFisk 10y ago
In other words, if you replace what I was discussing, and what I assumed the OP was as well, with something quite different, my original point no longer stands.
- roywiggins 10y agoI mean that you don't need Many-Worlds to generate the requisite multiverse to explain the apparent fine-tuning of the observed constants. Eternal inflation does the job nicely, and the argument that our universe isn't so unlikely applies exactly as well to a Many-Worlds multiverse as it does to an Inflationary one.
- DonaldFisk 10y agoEverett's many-worlds interpretation is nothing to do with fine-tuning, but as you point out, eternal inflation might be worth looking at. I found this paper, which looks interesting: https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0407213v3.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0407213v3.pdf My interest in the subject predates this - when actively researching the subject I developed a scalar-tensor theory consistent with Dirac's Large Number Hypothesis, and preferred the idea that there's only one possible set of physical laws. I was never happy with the Anthropic Principle.