---
slug: oip-disconfirming-edge-4
title: Disconfirming Edge 4: Fine-Tuning vs Symmetry
canonical: https://miscsubjects.com/a/oip-disconfirming-edge-4
---

**C24** (Fine-Tuning) contradicts **C03** (Symmetry)

**Tension:** Symmetry (C03) implies conservation laws are fundamental and necessary. Fine-tuning (C24) implies the constants of these laws are contingent and improbable. If the constants are arbitrary, the symmetries are not fundamental — they are accidental. If the symmetries are fundamental, the constants should be derivable.

**Resolution status:** OPEN

**What would settle it:** A fundamental theory (e.g., string theory, loop quantum gravity) that derives all constants from first principles with no free parameters; OR empirical confirmation of a multiverse with varying constants, rendering fine-tuning a selection effect.

**Current state:** String theory has ~10^500 vacua (landscape problem) — it predicts variation, not uniqueness. Loop quantum gravity does not yet predict the constants. Neither resolves the tension.

**Honest assessment:** This is the deepest open problem in the catalogue. It asks: are the laws of physics necessary or contingent? The symmetry–conservation correspondence (T0) says necessary. The fine-tuning observation (T3) says contingent. Both cannot be fully right.

---

## Corpus map
- C24 (Fine-Tuning): [C24 in the Encyclopedia](/a/convergence-encyclopedia-c24) · [C24 in the Catalogue](/a/oip-node-c24-the-observer-fine-tuning)
- C03 (Symmetry): [C03 in the Encyclopedia](/a/convergence-encyclopedia-c03) · [C03 in the Catalogue](/a/oip-node-c03-symmetry-conservation)
- Disconfirming edges: [1](/a/oip-disconfirming-edge-1) · [2](/a/oip-disconfirming-edge-2) · [3](/a/oip-disconfirming-edge-3) · [4](/a/oip-disconfirming-edge-4) · [5](/a/oip-disconfirming-edge-5)
- Catalogue hub: [Convergence Catalogue — Public Article](/a/oip-convergence-public-article) · [The Schema](/a/oip-convergence-schema)
