3 ms·

I'm not sure I understand your point. There is such a thing as "large" and "small" in physics, but they're relative to the scale you're considering. For example

I'm not sure I understand your point. There is such a thing as "large" and "small" in physics, but they're relative to the scale you're considering. For example, if you're a million miles from the Earth, then from a gravitational perspective you may as well be infinitely far away (a ~ 10^-5 g). But if you were the same distance from the sun, gravity would be extremely relevant for you (a ~ 5 g). Moreover, I find it unfathomable that the scale 1/g64 would be relevant anywhere in physics – I certainly can't think of any examples!

simiones 5y ago
There is such a thing as "large" and "small" as related to measurement and impact. But a change in a base parameter of the laws of physics is different. If a change of 1/10% in the value of one parameter is detectable, than it is "a large change". If a change of 200% in the value of another parameter is not detectable, then it is "a small change". But the fine tuning argument relies on defining an absolute idea of "large" and "small". In the fine tuning problem definition, 1/10% is "small" and 200% is "large", and it's the parameters themselves that behave strangely, since one parameter produces visible results for "small" changes while another doesn't. Get rid of the absolute ideas of "small" and "large" numbers, and the fine tuning problem goes away entirely. > Moreover, I find it unfathomable that the scale 1/g64 would be relevant anywhere in physics – I certainly can't think of any examples! My point about 1/g64 was that, for all physical quantities, there is some scale at which they can vary without measurable differences. I took such a fantastically small number exactly to make sure I'm not risking a case where the factor I gave as an example would in fact cause detectable differences.

3 ms·

I'm not sure I understand your point. There is such a thing as "large" and "small" in physics, but they're relative to the scale you're considering. For example

by panda-giddiness 5y ago

simiones 5y ago
There is such a thing as "large" and "small" as related to measurement and impact. But a change in a base parameter of the laws of physics is different. If a change of 1/10% in the value of one parameter is detectable, than it is "a large change". If a change of 200% in the value of another parameter is not detectable, then it is "a small change". But the fine tuning argument relies on defining an absolute idea of "large" and "small". In the fine tuning problem definition, 1/10% is "small" and 200% is "large", and it's the parameters themselves that behave strangely, since one parameter produces visible results for "small" changes while another doesn't. Get rid of the absolute ideas of "small" and "large" numbers, and the fine tuning problem goes away entirely. > Moreover, I find it unfathomable that the scale 1/g64 would be relevant anywhere in physics – I certainly can't think of any examples! My point about 1/g64 was that, for all physical quantities, there is some scale at which they can vary without measurable differences. I took such a fantastically small number exactly to make sure I'm not risking a case where the factor I gave as an example would in fact cause detectable differences.