Fine tuning, necessity response · Inspiring Philosophy Academy

Oct '24 • General

Fine tuning, necessity response

Here’s an idea that I’ve came to on my own… wondering what everyone’s thoughts are.

A common response to fine tuning arguments is that the constants are necessary. The way I’ve always dealt with it is to point out that nomological necessity isn’t really the important question. In a sense, every aspect of nature is nomologically necessary as it’s simply describing nature. If it were different, it wouldn’t be the same nature at hand. So, the more important question is whether it’s metaphysically (or even epistemologically) possible. There’s no reason to say that there can be a contradiction drawn from saying that a different universe with different properties could have existed in the place of our universe from the beginning. So even if there is physical necessity, it doesn’t change the heart of the argument the constants COULD have been different both in as far as the limits of our knowledge is concerned and what i (and I’d suggest you) should believe about the nature of reality. A different universe with different constants could have existed. There’s no reason to say that any particular value change in the constants contradict how reality itself operates. So, I argue, the necessity response is a non-starter or a cleverly disguise red herring.

(Maybe this is obvious and I’ve just been oblivious to other’s making this case 🤷‍♂️)

If you have any disagreements or input… conversation is welcome

2 comments