What elements of fine-tuning of our universe (vs. the multiverse) would pass this test of science truth?

Given that we are said to live in a post-truth age, we ought to pay attention when an astrophysicist offers to explain what truth means to a scientist:

Even the most successful scientific theories imaginable will, by their very nature, have a limited range of validity. But we can theorize whatever we like, and when a new theory meets the following three criteria:

● it achieves all of the successes of the prevailing, pre-existing theory [in this case, no fine-tuning or a multiverse],

● it succeeds where the current theory is known to fail,

● and it makes novel predictions for hitherto unmeasured phenomena, distinct from the prior theory, that pass the critical observational or experimental tests,

It will supersede the current one as our best approximation of a scientific truth.

Ethan Siegel, “Ask Ethan: What Does ‘Truth’ Mean To A Scientist?” at Forbes

See also: Ethan Siegel 2014: The multiverse is not the answer

Ethan Siegel 2019 An Astrophysicist Makes Clear Why A Multiverse MUST Exist

How to talk yourself into believing in a multiverse Ethan Siegel edition, 2018

Logic vs. the multiverse: Gunter Bechly offers some insights

and

Ethan Siegel tackles fine-tuning at Forbes

Also: Is there life Post-Truth?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana