3 ms·

The range doesn’t have anything to do with “numbers” directly because yes you can always say there is an infinity between any two numbers no matter how close th

The range doesn’t have anything to do with “numbers” directly because yes you can always say there is an infinity between any two numbers no matter how close they are to each other. The very limited range is actually captured in physical quantities. Back to the original analogy Pi is always exactly Pi not because we count it as 3.14~… but because of the relationship between the various innate properties of a circle. So fine tuning isn’t that oh gosh we got very oddly specific values here is that we have problems such as https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_problem that are only solvable through fine tuning. So back to the circle it’s really a case of use not understanding the relationship between the circumference and the radius and just brute forcing the value of Pi which is really what fine tuning is.

tsimionescu 5y ago
Sure, but none of this must have a fundamental explanation. It could just be the way the universe is, nothing in maths requires this 'problem' to have a solution. Conversely, things like the measurement problem, quantum gravity, dark matter, dark energy, the mass of neutrinos and others must have some answer - they are facts we can see that just don't mesh with current theories. So why study a problem that there is no reason to believe will have an ultimate answer, when you can study problems that must have such an answer?
- dogma1138 5y ago
  Ok let me try to maybe make it simpler. Back to the circle… take a string and pin trace a circle with it, take another piece of string and trace it. Cut the traced string in half each half would not have the value Pi (granted the original string you had used to draw the circle has a value of one). That relationship is fundamental and the answer we are trying to find is exactly is this fundamental relationship that would explain why the constants have the values they have. As in there needs to be a certain mechanism that defined those values in relationship to each other in a manner that does not require “fine tuning” because that would require either an infinite number of other universes which can have different values regardless of the fate of those universes or a cycle of death and rebirth in which these values somehow can be randomized (which opens a whole other question how does that happen?).
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    The circle is a nice example where there is a simple analytical relationship between the radius and the circumference (1:2pi). Other basic shapes, like the ellipse, have no such simple relationship, even in pure maths. And when performing the experiment you mentioned, the strings are very unlikely to be in 1:2pi ratio, they will be within some range of that ratio. The universe has some set of independent initial parameters. Whether they are the ones we know or there are some other, more fundamental ones, ultimately some parameters are there. Even with a single fundamental parameter, that parameter will have some range within which variations in value don't affect the universe at all (like the 1/g64 example), and some range where changes in them would lead to a very different universe, potentially one that can't sustain life. This idea of "probability" of the observed values of these parameters is then meaningless. What is the probability distribution of the "universes"? To say that the "fine tuned" universe is "unlikely" you have to posit a probability distribution, but there is no empirical data to then verify if this distribution is correct, and, crucially, there can never be such empirical data. You might as well ask yourself why the universe is four-dimensional (or 11-dimensional) and not 2-dimensional.
    - dogma1138 5y ago
      > You might as well ask yourself why the universe is four-dimensional (or 11-dimensional) and not 2-dimensional. We do ask ourselves that the number of degrees of freedom is tied to the laws of physics, so it’s now really a question of why X but what are the physical laws that give us X. And if we continue with the circle and parabola analogy then what we are tying to figure out is whether our universe is a circle or a parabola.. that’s a pretty worthy question to ask in my book. We are thing to answer if the the values are actually random and thus have to be fine tuned to produce the universe we live in today or are they not random and if such what is the relationship governing them that makes them take the values they have.

tsimionescu 5y ago

Sure, but none of this must have a fundamental explanation. It could just be the way the universe is, nothing in maths requires this 'problem' to have a solution. Conversely, things like the measurement problem, quantum gravity, dark matter, dark energy, the mass of neutrinos and others must have some answer - they are facts we can see that just don't mesh with current theories. So why study a problem that there is no reason to believe will have an ultimate answer, when you can study problems that must have such an answer?

dogma1138 5y ago
Ok let me try to maybe make it simpler. Back to the circle… take a string and pin trace a circle with it, take another piece of string and trace it. Cut the traced string in half each half would not have the value Pi (granted the original string you had used to draw the circle has a value of one). That relationship is fundamental and the answer we are trying to find is exactly is this fundamental relationship that would explain why the constants have the values they have. As in there needs to be a certain mechanism that defined those values in relationship to each other in a manner that does not require “fine tuning” because that would require either an infinite number of other universes which can have different values regardless of the fate of those universes or a cycle of death and rebirth in which these values somehow can be randomized (which opens a whole other question how does that happen?).
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  The circle is a nice example where there is a simple analytical relationship between the radius and the circumference (1:2pi). Other basic shapes, like the ellipse, have no such simple relationship, even in pure maths. And when performing the experiment you mentioned, the strings are very unlikely to be in 1:2pi ratio, they will be within some range of that ratio. The universe has some set of independent initial parameters. Whether they are the ones we know or there are some other, more fundamental ones, ultimately some parameters are there. Even with a single fundamental parameter, that parameter will have some range within which variations in value don't affect the universe at all (like the 1/g64 example), and some range where changes in them would lead to a very different universe, potentially one that can't sustain life. This idea of "probability" of the observed values of these parameters is then meaningless. What is the probability distribution of the "universes"? To say that the "fine tuned" universe is "unlikely" you have to posit a probability distribution, but there is no empirical data to then verify if this distribution is correct, and, crucially, there can never be such empirical data. You might as well ask yourself why the universe is four-dimensional (or 11-dimensional) and not 2-dimensional.
  - dogma1138 5y ago
    > You might as well ask yourself why the universe is four-dimensional (or 11-dimensional) and not 2-dimensional. We do ask ourselves that the number of degrees of freedom is tied to the laws of physics, so it’s now really a question of why X but what are the physical laws that give us X. And if we continue with the circle and parabola analogy then what we are tying to figure out is whether our universe is a circle or a parabola.. that’s a pretty worthy question to ask in my book. We are thing to answer if the the values are actually random and thus have to be fine tuned to produce the universe we live in today or are they not random and if such what is the relationship governing them that makes them take the values they have.