Journal article
Fine-tuned of necessity?
- 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.
- Publication status:
- Published
- Peer review status:
- Peer reviewed
Actions
Access Document
- Files:
-
-
(Preview, Accepted manuscript, 359.8KB, Terms of use)
-
- Publisher copy:
- 10.11612/resphil.1659
Authors
- Publisher:
- Res Philosophica
- Journal:
- Res Philosophica More from this journal
- Volume:
- 95
- Issue:
- 4
- Pages:
- 663-692
- Publication date:
- 2018-08-31
- Acceptance date:
- 2018-02-20
- DOI:
- EISSN:
-
2168-9113
- ISSN:
-
2168-9105
- Language:
-
English
- Keywords:
- Pubs id:
-
1204170
- Local pid:
-
pubs:1204170
- Deposit date:
-
2021-10-19
Terms of use
- Copyright holder:
- Ben Page and Res Philosophica.
- Copyright date:
- 2018
- Rights statement:
- © 2018 Ben Page • © 2018 Res Philosophica
- Notes:
- This is the accepted manuscript version of the article. The final version is available online from Res Philosophica at: https://doi.org/10.11612/resphil.1659
If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record