Fine-tuned of necessity?
This paper seeks to explicate and analyze an alternative response to fine-tuning arguments from those that are typically given—namely, design or brute contingency. The response I explore is based on necessity, the necessitarian response. After showing how necessity blocks the argument, I explicate t...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Res Philosophica
2018
|
| _version_ | 1797060721618452480 |
|---|---|
| author | Page, BT |
| author_facet | Page, BT |
| author_sort | Page, BT |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | This paper seeks to explicate and analyze an alternative response to fine-tuning arguments from those that are typically given—namely, design or brute contingency. The response I explore is based on necessity, the necessitarian response. After showing how necessity blocks the argument, I explicate the reply I claim necessitarians can give and suggest how its three requirements can be met: firstly, that laws are metaphysically necessary; secondly, that constants are metaphysically necessary; and thirdly, that the fundamental properties that determine the laws and constants are necessary. After discussing each in turn, I end the paper by assessing how the response fares when running the fine-tuning argument in two ways, as an inference to best explanation and as a Bayesian argument. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T20:21:08Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:2dd2f57e-9c26-4f73-aa1c-3a270e4215dc |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T20:21:08Z |
| publishDate | 2018 |
| publisher | Res Philosophica |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:2dd2f57e-9c26-4f73-aa1c-3a270e4215dc2022-03-26T12:45:24ZFine-tuned of necessity?Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:2dd2f57e-9c26-4f73-aa1c-3a270e4215dcEnglishSymplectic ElementsRes Philosophica2018Page, BTThis paper seeks to explicate and analyze an alternative response to fine-tuning arguments from those that are typically given—namely, design or brute contingency. The response I explore is based on necessity, the necessitarian response. After showing how necessity blocks the argument, I explicate the reply I claim necessitarians can give and suggest how its three requirements can be met: firstly, that laws are metaphysically necessary; secondly, that constants are metaphysically necessary; and thirdly, that the fundamental properties that determine the laws and constants are necessary. After discussing each in turn, I end the paper by assessing how the response fares when running the fine-tuning argument in two ways, as an inference to best explanation and as a Bayesian argument. |
| spellingShingle | Page, BT Fine-tuned of necessity? |
| title | Fine-tuned of necessity? |
| title_full | Fine-tuned of necessity? |
| title_fullStr | Fine-tuned of necessity? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Fine-tuned of necessity? |
| title_short | Fine-tuned of necessity? |
| title_sort | fine tuned of necessity |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT pagebt finetunedofnecessity |