Naturalness, extra-empirical theory assessments, and the implications of skepticism

From MaRDI portal
Publication:2286552

DOI10.1007/S10701-018-0220-XzbMATH Open1431.81173arXiv1806.07289OpenAlexW3106326078WikidataQ129055283 ScholiaQ129055283MaRDI QIDQ2286552FDOQ2286552

James D. Wells

Publication date: 22 January 2020

Published in: Foundations of Physics (Search for Journal in Brave)

Abstract: Naturalness is an extra-empirical quality that aims to assess plausibility of a theory. Finetuning measures are often deputized to quantify the task. However, knowing statistical distributions on parameters appears necessary. Such meta-theories are not known yet. A critical discussion of these issues is presented, including their possible resolutions in fixed points. Both agreement to and skepticism of naturalness's utility remains credible, as is skepticism to any extra-empirical theory assessment (SEETA) that claims to identify "more correct" theories that are equally empirically adequate. The severe implications of SEETA are set forward in some detail. We conclude with a summary and discussion of the viability of three main viewpoints toward naturalness and fine-tuning, where the "moderate naturalness position" is suggested to be most appealing, not suffering from the disquietudes of the extreme pro- and anti-naturalness positions.


Full work available at URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.07289




Recommendations




Cites Work


Cited In (8)





This page was built for publication: Naturalness, extra-empirical theory assessments, and the implications of skepticism

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q2286552)