V. Palonen | Searcharxiv

arXiv2016

A Bayesian baseline for belief in uncommon events

The plausibility of uncommon events and miracles based on testimony of such an event has been much discussed. When analyzing the probabilities involved, it has mostly been assumed that the common events can be taken as data in the calculations. However, we usually have only testimonies for the common events. While this difference does not have a significant effect on the inductive part of the inference, it has a large influence on how one should view the reliability of testimonies. In this work, a full Bayesian solution is given for the more realistic case, where one has a large number of testimonies for a common event and one testimony for an uncommon event. It is seen that, in order for there to be a large amount of testimonies for a common event, the testimonies will probably be quite reliable. For this reason, because the testimonies are quite reliable based on the testimonies for the common events, the probability for the uncommon event, given a testimony for it, is also higher. Hence, one should be more open-minded when considering the plausibility of uncommon events.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2009

Bayesian considerations on the multiverse explanation of cosmic fine-tuning

The fundamental laws and constants of our universe seem to be finely tuned for life. The various multiverse hypotheses are popular explanations for the fine tuning. This paper reviews the four main suggestions on inference in the presence of possible multiple universes and observer selection effects. Basic identities from probability theory and previously unnoticed conditional dependencies of the propositions involved are used to decide among the alternatives. In the case of cosmic fine-tuning, information about the observation is not independent of the hypothesis. It follows that the observation should be used as data when comparing hypotheses. Hence, approaches that use the observation only as background information are incorrect. It is also shown that in some cases the self-sampling assumption by Bostrom leads to probabilities greater than one, leaving the approach inconsistent. The "some universe" (SU) approach is found wanting. Several reasons are given on why the "this universe" (TU) approach seems to be correct. Lastly, the converse selection effect by White is clarified by showing formally that the converse condition leads to SU and its absence to TU. The overall result is that, because multiverse hypotheses do not predict the fine-tuning for this universe any better than a single universe hypothesis, the multiverse hypotheses fail as explanations for cosmic fine-tuning. Conversely, the fine-tuning data does not support the multiverse hypotheses.

physics.data-an↗