AG-2026.04-1269·physics.hist-ph·cross-listed: hep-phphysics.data-an
It's all in your head -- fine-tuning arguments do not require aleatoric uncertainty
Authors
- Andrew Fowlie
Abstract
Prompted by misconceptions in the recent literature, we review the justifications for naturalness arguments and Occam's razor found in Bayesian statistics. We discuss the automatic Occam's razor that emerges in Bayesian formalism, bringing together points of view from diverse fields, including statistics, social sciences, physics and machine learning. In pedagogical calculations, we demonstrate that this automatic razor disfavors unnatural models in which predictions must be fine-tuned to agree with observation.
Submitted
20 April 20261 month ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2604.18656
Summary
Fine-tuning in physics doesn't require invoking randomness—Bayesian statistics automatically penalizes overly complicated models that require precise parameter adjustments to match data.
- The 'Occam's razor' principle that disfavors contrived explanations emerges naturally from Bayesian math, not from assumptions about randomness in nature.
- Models requiring delicate fine-tuning of parameters are automatically downweighted by Bayesian inference, even when the underlying physics is deterministic.
- This clarifies a conceptual confusion in recent physics discussions: naturalness arguments rest on statistical reasoning about model complexity, not on beliefs about whether the universe is fundamentally random.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.