Friday 2nd September, 2016
Fine-tuning seems surprising and calls out for explanation.
An analogy in favor of ﬁne-tuning. Suppose you had a machine that takes raw materials
as input and outputs some other processed product. Imagine this machine has diﬀerent
settings (there are three or four dials on it) Each dial has a million possible settings. What
settings we establish aﬀects how the machine works. It so happens that one particular setting
yields a very interesting output (mud →concious human beings/iphones). If we change the
setting even a little bit, although it still processes the material, it outputs something boring.
Is it just a coincidence that the settings yield an interesting output, or just a matter of
chance? Proponents of ﬁne-tuning think that this is what is going on with our universe.
We can ask (1) is it really true that some explanation is needed? What is the space of
Is life surprising? The anthropic answer: if the conditions had not been right for life, we
would not be around to ask the question.
Possible explanations of life
1. The God hypothesis
[god exists and chose to create a world withinitial conditions that would lead to
2. The Many Worlds Hypothesis
[Our world is one of many diﬀerent worlds that are equally as much a part of reality
as our world. The worlds have the same laws of nature as our world, but diﬀer in their
Distinction between Null Possibility and All Worlds Hypothesis [every possible ‘local’
way for the world to be in fact obtains].
Distinction between cosmic and localal possibility.
1. Cosmic possibility: a way for the whole of freality to be – covers absolutely everything
[e.g. there are exactly 2 worlds, there are exactly 37 worlds].
2. Local possibility: A way for a particular part of reality to be, which leaves open that
there may exist diﬀerent parts of reality that are some other way.