Fine-tuned of necessity?

Page, Ben T.

Abstract

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.

Citation

Page, B. T. (2018). Fine-tuned of necessity?. Res Philosophica, 95(4), 663-692. https://doi.org/10.11612/resphil.1659

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Publication Date: Oct 31, 2018
• Deposit Date: Oct 16, 2018
• Publicly Available Date: Oct 16, 2018
• Journal: Res Philosophica
• Print ISSN: 2168-9105
• Electronic ISSN: 2168-9113
• Publisher: Philosophy Documentation Center
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 95
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 663-692
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.11612/resphil.1659
• Public URL: https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1699907