>As a footnote let me add that my use of fine-tuning may be a bit
>confusing at first since, unfortunately, fine-tuning has been tied
>to the argument from improbability in many popularizations. For
>example, if one says that a certain parameter is finely tuned to
>one part in 10^50 then it's natural to take this a step further
>and say that the probability of getting that particular parameter
>is 10^-50. Natural, but also incorrect, since if there is a
>fundamental law which gaurantees that that particular value of
>that particular parameter must arise, then the probability of
>getting it is one. Nevertheless, the parameter is still finely
>tuned.
>
It is my understanding that the current candidates for GUT [Grand
Unification Theories] have quite a number of arbitrary constants. So if a
particular GUT, with particular arbitrary set of constants is able to
explain why the mass of the electron is as it is and other physical
constants are as they are, there is still the question of why the
arbitrary GUT constants take on the values they do. There would have to be
some logically prior theory in order to explain those constants. Even if
you get the whole system back to one constant with a value of, say 42
(which would prove the Hitchiker), one must still explain why that single
constant took that value.
All in all, it looks like a set of Russian Dolls to me.
Is there any comment from either David Bowman or Stan Szygmunt?
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm
Free at last, free at last, just got rid of that nasty old cast!