Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    The ur-probability solution to the fine-tuning argument s... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The ur-probability solution to the fine-tuning argument successfully evades the anthropic objection

    Natural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The ur-probability approach treats our existence as evidence taken into account by Bayesian conditioning rather than as background knowledge
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The appropriate likelihood comparison under this approach is not Sober's OSE (which includes 'We exist' as background) but rather alternative likelihood ratios that do not presuppose our existence
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Both alternative likelihood formulations evade the anthropic objection
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sober's observation selection effect objection applies to any likelihood formulation that treats 'we exist' as confirmatory evidence, including ur-probability reformulations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kotzen and Strevens demonstrate that conditionalization on existence is formally equivalent to treating existence as background regardless of how the likelihood ratio is framed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the ur-probability reframing is a notational variant of the anthropic framework it claims to transcend, not a genuine evasion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The ur-probability approach requires assigning probabilities to hypotheses before any self-locating beliefs, but Elga and Lewis show self-location cannot be cleanly separated from ordinary belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If self-locating uncertainty is ineliminable from prior probability assignments, the ur-prior already smuggles in anthropic assumptions, making the claimed evasion circular.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Natural Theology

    Related

    Both alternative likelihood formulations evade the anthropic objectionIf self-locating uncertainty is ineliminable from prior probability assignments,...Kotzen and Strevens demonstrate that conditionalization on existence is formally...Sober's observation selection effect objection applies to any likelihood formula...
    +4 moreShow less
    The appropriate likelihood comparison under this approach is not Sober's OSE (wh...The ur-probability approach requires assigning probabilities to hypotheses befor...The ur-probability approach treats our existence as evidence taken into account ...Therefore the ur-probability reframing is a notational variant of the anthropic ...

    Similar

    The argument from fine-tuning for design is vindicated insofar as the ...84%Both alternative likelihood formulations evade the anthropic objection83%Applying Howson's ur-probability solution to the fine-tuning argument ...77%Howson's ur-probability solution addresses old evidence by assigning p...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: fine-tuning
    View source passageHide passage
    An advantage of approaching the argument from fine-tuning for design using the ur-probability solution is that it offers proponents of the argument a clear-cut rejection of the anthropic objection: as in Kotzen’s (2012) approach, the fact that we exist is treated not as background knowledge but as evidence taken into account by Bayesian conditioning. The appropriate comparison between likelihoods to consider is thus not Sober’s \(\eqref{ose}\)—at least not under Sober’s own interpretation of “OS
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit