Talk:Fine-tuned universe/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

I/J Correspondence

I agree with am following the advice of Tznkai and taking this to email. Timurghlu, and Tom Walsh, please sign up as Wikipedians so that we can communicate by email. Send me email when you've done this and we can correspond without generating huge amounts of talk on this page. I've been concerned for some time that the conversation was veering out of control, and Tznkai's rebuke to all of us confirms my discomfort with the path that we've been following.

I will answer Timurghlu and Tom when they've signed up and sent email.

Ciao,Bill Jefferys 1 July 2005 11:44 (UTC)

I/J workshop

1. Is the Ikeda/Jefferys argument pertinent and notable?
2. Is the argument presented fairly and accurately?
3. Is there an obvious counter argument that does not count as orginal research?
4. Is there a notable counter argument?
5. Is that counter argument presented fairly?

Go ahead and leave brief pertinent thoughts here. The rest of the discussion pertaining to I/J has been archived, Wikipedia is not a message board.--Tznkai 1 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)

... Ok, as I'm the one who originally added the I/J argument to this page, here are my thoughts on it. Perhaps they're not very brief.

As mentioned in the article, the fine-tuning argument usually seen is of the form "if fine-tuning is rare in naturalistic universes, then a fine-tuned universe is unlikely to be naturalistic". (Actually, it might be clearer to be replace "fine-tuned" with "life-friendly" in that statement... perhaps the article should clarify the relation of "fine-tuned" to "life-friendly" in the I/J argument.)

However, this is clearly a common probabilistic fallacy (assuming that P(A|B) and P(B|A) have similar magnitudes), so the issue needs to be re-examined more carefully — and when you do so, the conclusions contradict the common wisdom. Others have independently reached similar (but not identical) conclusions as well, such as the philosopher Sober. Therefore I think the issue is both pertinent and notable.

I believe the argument is currently presented fairly and accurately, although past edits have not always done so.

As for counterarguments, IMHO the proof is mathematically sound, and has not been disproven by any of the counterarguments presented (which have been based on misunderstandings of the argument). However, it may be possible to avoid the conclusions of the proof by altering the assumptions.

Since I myself had concerns similar to the (flawed) counterarguments raised, until I saw Bill's responses, I think it's important to address in the article some of the possible objections and related points. Some of those points are:

1. Bill has said the inequality doesn't hold if you assume that the supernatural designer absolutely would not create a life-unfriendly universe with life in it. So you could get around it that way. What I haven't understood yet is why this does not constitute an additional assumption of the proof, since it influences whether the inequality holds. Presumably it's "irrelevant" (as Bill says) because it's not conditioned on L, but I suppose you could turn it around (with Bayes's theorem) into something that is conditioned on L — formally, how does that enter into the logic of the proof?
2. In (1), you can evade the proof if you're willing to make a certain assumption about the nature of the designer. But, as I said to Bill in e-mail, this doesn't really help ID proponents, and I think that should be noted (since ID proponents are traditionally the ones who use fine-tuning to bolster their position): "You can sabotage the inequality if you're willing to put zero prior weight on designers who may create life in life-unfriendly universes. However: if you are willing to say that you KNOW with certainty that such gods CANNOT exist, then you're making such an epistemologically strong claim about the nature of God, e.g., you KNOW that (your interpretation of) the Christian God is the only *possible* God, that there's no reason to bother with fine-tuning arguments to begin with! You've already made up your mind in the prior, before even applying considerations of fine-tuning. And you certainly cannot apply fine-tuning arguments to convince anyone who is not willing to make a similarly strong claim."
3. On the other hand, there is the "multiple gods" scenario, in which some gods might create life-unfriendly universes with life in them, and some won't. As long as you're willing to acknowledge the existence of the former, the I/J theorem will not favor supernaturalism as a whole — but what are the implications for a particular god of the latter type (e.g., someone's vision of the Christian god)? This is discussed in the original I/J FAQ, but I haven't read through it yet.
4. The article is a bit biased towards naturalism vs. supernatural designers. Perhaps the arguments should be modified to discuss the role of natural designers, e.g. superintelligent aliens working solely within natural law.
5. As mentioned before, the definitions of "fine-tuning" and "life-friendly" might need a little clarification. And as I mentioned to Bill in e-mail, some of the confusion people have with these points has to do with how one is defining "supernatural beings" and their powers.
6. I haven't made up my mind on the addition of the separate "K" assumption or whatever it was; I'll leave that for the others who are discussing it. It might be worth adding.

I think these issues are important to discuss in a fair treatment of the I/J theorem, since they address possible objections to it. (A "stealth creationist" IDer might counterargue that the designer doesn't have to be supernatural, a Christian might argue that his god wouldn't create universess unfriendly to life, etc.) But I'm a bit concerned whether they might make the I/J section of the article too long. If they can't be summarized concisely, then perhaps some additional discussion should go into the I/J FAQ (although they discuss some of this already, I just haven't understood the nuances), or maybe there should be a separate Wikipedia entry on the argument.

On a non-I/J related note should this entry be merged in some way with the fine-tuning article? That article is more physics-oriented; this one is more creationism-oriented. But they're really addressing aspects of the same thing, I think.--Nurban 1 July 2005 16:23 (UTC)

Huh. As I said, this isn't really the place for us to dicuss at lenght the truthfullness of I/J, just whether there is a notable cirticism of it. As for merger, the fine-tuned universe article is in a lot of ways a fork of the intelligent design article. We really need to harmonize them.--Tznkai 1 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)

I was attempting to list the criticisms of the I/J argument, as I see them, and why I think they should be included in the article. You can pare them down if you want. As for harmonizing with the ID article, in what ways do you feel the two are out of step? Nurban 1 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)

Hi all,

I will continue the discussion with Mr. Jeffries through Wikipedians, however I will add this addendum to the I-J section of the article so as to show both sides of the debate.

Sincerely, Timurghlu

These are the additions I will add tomorrow morning: -Links to several pro-design articles concerning fine-tuning (all approved by Bill Jeffries) -The following statement (which is, as Tznkai required, a notable criticism of I-J):

The I-J argument arrives at a different conclusion than a standard Cosmological Intelligent Design (CID) argument due to a differing assumption held by the two arguments concerning the nature of omnipotence.

In philosophical terms, omnipotence occurs over a system, and can occur in two different ways. 1) Control of the resultant system through causal control of the laws that operate the system. 2) Through direct control of the resultant system.

In #1, the Designer creates a system of laws that produce the resultant reality, and has the ability to change the resultant reality by creating new laws, operating through laws which the Designer has exclusive access to, or by changing the parameters of laws. In # 2, the Designer (outside of the bounds of human logic) can simply control a resultant system. (For example, a #1 Designer would create life by creating a system that resulted in life (a guided evolution) while a #2 Designer would simply create life without a system (Life simply appears even if the totality of designed laws say it cannot).). Note that a #1 Designer is not one which cannot intervene in the system but rather uses his causal control to generate the desired resultant reality (analogous to using a cheat code or a programming modification in a video game).

CID arguments assume #1 while I-J assumes #2. Thus CID assumes that the resultant reality of Life could only occur when the causal laws were set, randomly or with purpose, at F, while I-J argues that Life could occur without reason. If both CID and I-J follow #1, they arrive at mutually supporting conclusions.--Timurghlu

I don't think this is a "notable" criticism of the I/J argument. In fact, I don't think it has anything to do with the I/J argument, which does not make assumptions #1 or #2 or any other assumption about the particular way in which "control over a system" occurs. I don't recommend posting this text. Nurban 1 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)

Nurban can feel free to discuss this point with me (timurghlu@gmail.com), but simply because he does not agree with it is not a reason not to post it. I-J only works if one states that God makes life without following rules. The "notable exception" is the possiblity that he does indeed operate within a framework. Proponents of one side or the other can feel free to stick to their side of the debate, but both sides must be shown. I am intellectually honest enough to make further changes after discussion with Nurban. --Timurghlu

The reason not to post it is not my disagreement with it, but the fact that it has nothing to do with the I/J argument, which makes no assumptions about whether or not a Designer "follows rules": its assumptions are about probabilities of creating life-friendly or life-unfriendly universes, regardless of how this is done (by following "rules" or not). The full set of assumptions are right there for you to see, you know. As Bill has pointed out before, the "other side" to the argument that you have invented, which is not at all "notable", is merely a strawman.

We can discuss this in e-mail, but we should include Bill to be fair, since it's his (and Ikeda's) argument, after all. (Tom too, if he's willing.) It sounded like Bill wanted you to contact him through Wikipedia, but that doesn't appear to include the facilities to Cc: messages. If he's willing to communicate through his regular e-mail address (on his homepage), you can e-mail your argument to both of us (my address is nurban@psu.edu), and we can go from there. However, I should warn you that in a few days I'm departing on a two-week vacation, and will have little or no Internet access during that time. If you guys would like to continue the discussion when I'm gone, though, please Cc: me so I can read it when I get back.--Nurban 1 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)

Is the Ikeda/Jefferys (IJ) argument pertinent and notable? There is more than one IJ argument! The "prosecutor's fallacy" argument is sound. The interpretation of the fine-tuning theorem amounts to a word game, as I will attempt to show below. Is the argument presented fairly and accurately? No. Only the "naturalistic" side of the argument is presented. Please read further. Is there an obvious counter argument that does not count as orginal research? Yes. Suggest that after "The philosopher of science Elliott Sober makes a similar argument." the following text, or its equivalent, be added to present the other side:

Critics of the fine-tuning theorem don't see the irony since Ikeda-Jefferys assume that only a solely naturalistic universe can be "fine-tuned" or "life-friendly." In rejecting a solely naturalistic universe, supporters of intelligent design are forced also to reject a "fine-tuned" or "life-friendly" universe, but only because of the restriction which Ikeda and Jefferys have placed on the use of the two adjectives in the interpretation of their theorem.

Confirmation of my claim will be found in Bill Jefferys' last reply to me (which can be read in the Archive) where he wrote, in part: "My view is that... a universe would only be (sufficiently) fine-tuned for life if natural processes alone are sufficient for life to arise." --Tom Walsh

Hi Tom. Bill, Timurghlu, and I are currently discussing these issues in e-mail so we can reach a consensus on what the article should say. If you would like your position represented in the article, could you join the discussion? E-mail addresses above. (Incidentally, I-J do not assume that ONLY a naturalistic universe can be life-friendly; note the use of the word "sufficient", not "necessary".) Nurban 2 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)

I was going to post a longer discussion, but Nathan has it right. As Nathan points out, Tom is misreading what Ikeda and I wrote; It is certainly possible, in our view, that a "fine-tuned/life-friendly" universe could be designed. This has always been our intention. In fact, the argument depends on this assumption. The distinction between "necessary" and "sufficient" is crucial.

I will continue this in email, but not on the talk page. There are too many misreadings and misconceptions floating about, and we shouldn't pollute the talk page with them. Let's clear them up privately, and then we can contribute meaningfully to the main page.--Bill Jefferys

Sorry for continuing to "pollute" this Talk page, but I want to reach any "lurkers" who are still undecided. I also wish to create a public record which may help those who will attempt to re-edit the present Wikipedia article to give it balance.

Let's reconsider Bill Jefferys' statement (which I quoted earlier): "[J1] My view is that... a universe would only be (sufficiently) fine-tuned for life if natural processes alone are sufficient for life to arise." J1 is of the form: "X would only be Y if Z," which is equivalent to: "X would be Y only if Z" OR "~Z → ~(X would be Y)" OR, in English: "[J2] If natural processes alone are not sufficient for life to arise, then a universe would not be (sufficiently) fine-tuned for life." Let's further consider two possibilities: [1] that "(sufficiently)" contributes to the meaning of J2, and [2] that it does not.

[1] Following Bill's definition, a non-naturalistic universe (i.e., one which is not governed by "natural processes alone") can never be "(sufficiently) fine-tuned for life." An ID proponent (unfamiliar with Bill's work) would assert that our universe is non-naturalistic without realizing that (s)he was also claiming that our universe is "not (sufficiently) fine-tuned for life." Still, an ID proponent could agree, believing that some, but not all, of the necessary conditions for life are represented by fine-tuning. No irony here!

[2] But, does "(sufficiently)" add anything? "Our universe is not (sufficiently) fine-tuned for life" and "our universe is not fine-tuned for life" have the same practical effect: no life, if life depends upon the fine-tuning of our universe. Asserting that a non-naturalistic universe is "not (sufficiently) fine-tuned for life" has the same practical significance as asserting that a non-naturalistic universe is "not fine-tuned for life." So, "(sufficiently)" should be dropped because it adds nothing. Then, an ID proponent who believed in a fine-tuned non-naturalistic universe would be supporting a contradiction-in-terms, but only because of the definition which Bill has adopted. No irony here!

Since neither [1] nor [2] is a case of "irony," a non-POV Wikipedia should avoid reporting that Ikeda-Jefferys "argue ironically." Rather, Wikipedia should note that, while the derivation of the Ikeda-Jefferys Theorem is mathematically sound, varying interpretations of the symbols which express the Theorem can lead to conflicting opinions as to the Theorem's significance. --Tom Walsh

(I hate threading, but Tom has a point.) That's not bad. Although we should rework it into English, rather than Legal-ese. Let's see how the Straw Poll goes, and I may suggest we use this based on those results.--ghost 5 July 2005 14:30 (UTC)

Ghost's vote

1. Yes. Maybe. - This is scientifically peer reviewed & published. In light of Prof. Jefferys' enlighting me as to the Argument's status, it's inclusion becomes more questionable. (see my solution below)
2. TBD. - I think Bill can speak to that best, since it's his baby. However, it is currently rather arcane. Can we get a version that meets Bill needs, but my son in high-school can understand?
3. No. - Nor should there be. See Nurban's comments (above). The only real counter is to go after the a priori assumptions, but the math is flawless.
4. No. - Although we may want to see what the good folks at the Discovery Institute have to say. :-)
5. Errr. - Ok, in the interests in NPOV the Ikeda/Jefferys argument cannot be allowed to turn the article into a straw man. However, if it is clearly presented (and I think we're close) as a critique on ID in the Fine-tuned universe, I think it'll pass muster. Remember, we're here writing an article about Fine-tuned universe, not Ikeda/Jefferys. For now.

I support the idea of a split, but let's get the section and it's "high-schooler" explanation more *cough* fine-tuned first.--ghost 2 July 2005 05:16 (UTC)

The Ikeda/Jefferys article has not been peer reviewed. There was much discussion when it was first written, on talk.origins, which resulted in significant editing, but that's the extent of the review. I think that Nathan's presentation is a fair one; I'd like to see it written so that it can be understood by anyone, but I don't think I am the one to do it as I am so close to it that I wouldn't do what is needed.--Bill Jefferys 2 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot support original research, no matter how good it is. In light of a lack of a scientific peer review, we need to examine if the Argument meets Wikipedia criteria. If it does, its status as an item under review may mean it would be better as it's own article, which we'll address thru the straw poll.--ghost 2 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)

Let me point out, however (with regard to peer-review), that the Sober article that comes to much the same conclusions when assuming that "the designer will not create life outside of the avenues of chance" has passed peer review as it has been published in a standard reference, namely, The Blackwell Companion to the Philosophy of Religion. At the very least, this argument, which has been vetted, should be included. Since Timurghlu agrees (see below) that the Sober argument, which is also one of the arguments we have made (at least implicitly) is correct, and gives a result that both he and I agree on, it should be relatively uncontroversial to include at least that.

Bill Jefferys 2 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)

Alright. We need to do some investigation before we move on here. I'd like to know the exact state of the I/J argument. Has it been published anywhere? Even if I/J is not peer-reveiwed it may in fact be notable we need to get that settled before we continue.--Tznkai 3 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)

Mexican standoff

I've reverted to previous version, but left in the new external links.

The changes made this morning continue to misunderstand and misrepresent the I/J argument. Even if I/J were to make the same assumption as the CID argument [as presented by the writer], the observation of fine-tuning would at best not undermine design and would certainly not undermine "no design". See [Elliott Sober's article], which does not mention omnipotence and other issues and comes to this conclusion. Thus the assertion that I/J and CID would "arrive at mutually supporting conclusions" is false, since CID's conclusion is that design is supported and "no design" is undermined.

Such changes need to be discussed thoroughly in our email discussion before being made to the main page. As long as the changes misrepresent the arguments being discussed, they have no business being in the main page.--Bill Jefferys 2 July 2005 13:41 (UTC)

I have re-reverted to the original post. I-J will not work if one assumes that the Designer will not create life outside of the avenues available to chance. I will modify the post when this is refuted in email. Both sides should be presented in Wikipedia. Tznkai?-Timurghlu

Timurghlu is incorrect. I-J works even if one assumes that the Designer will not create life outside of the avenues available to chance, as proven by [Sober]. The only thing it cannot do if this assumption is made is to undermine design. But if we make Timurghlu's assumption, then "no design" is not undermined by observing fine-tuning either. It is a standoff. I have pointed this out to Timurghlu in email, and if he is honest, he will remove his claim. --Bill Jefferys 2 July 2005 14:45 (UTC)

Mr. Jeffrey's is correct. If we make the assumption, then I-J provides no new information (it does not provide additional support to CID nor does it remove support from CID). I will modify the post to state this. The rest of post will remain until mediation is finished.-Timurghlu

Sectfact tag

It's obvious that we're not in agreement at this time as to the status of the section. Since Timurghlu insists on including what he believes to be a rebuttal of the Argument, and Bill questions its reasoning, it's with great regret that I tagged the section. I will enforce the tag as long as the section is kept, and we continue debating the issues. I propose a Straw poll to resolve matters.--ghost 2 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

Timurghlu and Bill Jeffreys are seeking mediation through Tznkai.

Sincerely,

Timurghlu

Tznkai never identified his/herself as a Mediator, and invited me to review this page. If, infact Tznkai is a Wikipedia Mediator, I apologize and will withdraw my suggestions.--ghost 2 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)

I think that was an accident. I am not a Wikipedia Mediator, and never identified myself as one, I simply offered to help. I have no official abilities or powers here any more than any other wikipedian.--Tznkai 3 July 2005 01:33 (UTC)

When will the unresolved issues in this article be settled and the Sectfact tag be removed? -- Tom Walsh, 10 Aug 05

I'm not certain. By the way, I've written up a quick "criticisms of I-J" to place in the new I-J article. If Tom Walsh would like to contribute to it, please email me. Timurghlu@gmail.com --Timurghlu, 11 Aug 05

Timurghlu, please feel free to avail yourself of whatever I've written in Talk which you believe to be constructive criticism. As a matter of principle, I respectfully decline to engage in "backchannels" because IMHO discussion of I-J should take place in Talk where all interested parties can participate. Again IMHO Talk is not a sacred space which can be "polluted" by honest discussion. Suggest you post your proposed "criticisms of I-J" here for possible refinement. -- Tom Walsh, 11 Aug 05

Hi Tom,

Essentially, the two criticisms that I will place in the new article will be

1)Clarify the sheer speculative nature of assuming non-law universes 2)Clarify that purposelessness can sustain life in non-law universes just as much as purposefulness could.

I-J reaches its contrarian conclusion though its third assumption (Purposeful forces can create universes without underlying laws governing them, yet Purposeless forces cannot). If either side of this assumption goes then the argument is a wash (and note that both assumptions are based solely on complete speculation).

I'll post the actual text of the comments when the article is posted, but that's the jist (with one paragraph for each point).

Sincerely, Timurghlu

Hi, Timurghlu. I agree with you that a fair and balanced article about I-J should identify I-J's assumptions so that the casual reader can understand how I-J reached their "contrarian conclusion." How to do this without committing the sin of "original research" and thereby bringing down the wrath of Wikipedia's "expert editors" is, I confess, beyond me. Perhaps, we'll have to settle for the inclusion of a simple caveat to the effect that, given different assumptions, the I-J Theorem does not necessarily imply that fine-tuning and intelligent design are incompatible. Sincerely, Tom Walsh, 11 Aug 05

Hello Tom and Timurghlu,

I believe that there is a way to accomplish what Timurghlu has stated without committing the sin of "original research". I am working on such an article (which would be, per the vote we have had, a separate article on the I-J argument). Unfortunately, a "perfect storm" of events in my own life have conspired to put this on the back burner. They include my recent move halfway across the country, the problems moving in when the house wasn't quite finished, the death of a close relative and now my duty to act as executor of the estate, and my further duty to prepare to teach a class at the University of Vermont this fall.

So, I beg you to be patient. I want to write something that fairly treats Timurghlu's concerns, is accurate and NPOV. But it will take time.

As a technical matter, however, there is nothing "contrarian" about the I-J argument. It is implicit in all of the early writing on the anthropic argument beginning at least with Brandon Carter. It is the the Creationists and Intelligent Design movement who have misinterpreted Carter's anthropic principle, which never supported the notion that non-naturalistic principles had to be invoked to explain the universe. I state this simply as a matter of fact (being familiar with the literature), not as a point of argument.

BTW, Be wary of using the phrase "fair and balanced," which has gained some disrepute since the advent of Fox TV :-) Bill Jefferys 23:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello again Bill. My condolences for your loss of a close relative. In the grand scheme of things, Wikipedia is small potatoes.

Under the circumstances, I'm sure we can all wait. I'll take a vow of silence until then. I won't necessarily keep my peace thereafter! :-) -- Tom Walsh, signing off, 11 Aug 2005

Hey Bill. I'm sorry to hear about the passing of your relative. I hope everything works out with life/the move/teaching!

-Best wishes, Timurghlu

Welcome back, Bill! (as of 26 Sep 05) When may we expect to see the long-awaited "separate article on the I-J argument?" -- Tom Walsh, signing on, 27 Sep 05

Straw poll

In order to settle how, and if, we should handle the argument within this article, I propose a straw poll. I suggest the following questions be offered to the community, with voting to end the morning of July 6th (as this will give both the weekend and workweek editors time to respond). In order to reduce sock puppets, I ask that Anon users abstain. Please vote your preference under each choice, numbering which is your 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th. I forget the name of the talling system, but I'll use the same used on Wikipedia:Honorific names.--ghost 2 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)

There has been a continuation of the debate privately in e-mail. Should its content be posted here somewhere so that those who are voting can see where the matter currently stands? Nurban 2 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)

The straw poll concluded on 6 July and it is now 9 July. It appears clear that option (3) is ranked overall highest. Option (2) which includes both versions is ranked low; the other version is being judged original research and therefore not appropriate. I regard ghost and Tznkai as playing the role of referees. Question: Do they agree with this assessment? If so, should I split off the article into its own article, as suggested, and put appropriate links into the fine-tuning article? My eventual goal would be to rewrite the article in a more accessible, nonmathematical form; do the referees agree with this proposal? This will not happen immediately as I have two out-of-town meetings during the next two weeks. Bill Jefferys 9 July 2005 15:27 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this, I do hope however that Bill will send the newly re-written article out to the email list before posting it. Timughlu 23:32, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Solutions and votes

In order to resolve the dispute over the Ikeda/Jefferys Argument, we should:

1.) Keep Prof. Jefferys version. It's mathematicially factual, and POV neutral.

3 ghost 2 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)

1 Nurban 2 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)

1 Bill Jefferys 2 July 2005 18:19 (UTC)

4 Timurghlu 15:16, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)

2 --Tznkai 5 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)

2.) Keep both versions. In the interests of NPOV, we must present both sides of an argument.

5 ghost 2 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)

4 Nurban 2 July 2005 17:45 (UTC) (I should add that I think the criticisms/clarifications I outlined in my 6-point list above ought to be included — I don't know if that counts as "both sides of the argument" since I think Bill would agree with them too... I want to make sure especially my point (2) is addressed... and I should add that I don't think that User:Timurghlu's current criticisms have been correct)

3 Bill Jefferys 2 July 2005 18:19 (UTC) With the proviso that the opposing version accurately reflect the argument being criticized, and not be arguing against a strawman.

2 Timurghlu 15:16, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)

4 NPOV does not allow original research. Notable criticisms only.--Tznkai 5 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)

3.) Split off the Ikeda/Jefferys Argument as it's own article, leaving a brief summary and links. This article should be about Fine-tuned universe, not the Argument.

1 ghost 2 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)

2 Nurban 2 July 2005 17:45 (UTC) (this may be my first choice if the I-J section gets too long, but as it stands, I prefer it where it is... but splitting it off doesn't resolve the revert war, does it?)

2 Bill Jefferys 2 July 2005 18:19 (UTC) Sentiments much like Nurban's

1 Timurghlu 15:16, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)

1 Allows for natural growth and expansion. --Tznkai 5 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)

4.) Remove the Ikeda/Jefferys Argument altogether. Although elegant, it's Original research, and thus violates Wikipedia policy.

2 ghost 2 July 2005 17:16 (UTC) - I no longer support this vote

5 Nurban 2 July 2005 17:45 (UTC) (not sure I understand the Original Research policy though)

5 Bill Jefferys 2 July 2005 18:19 (UTC) The [Sober version] of the argument has survived peer-review and been published in a standard reference. This at least is not original research and deserves to be included. The Ikeda-Jefferys version isn't quite in this class, but it has been around for nearly a decade, and is based on the same basic mathematics as Sober's, but with slightly different assumptions allowed. One can, I think, present these assumptions and a counter-argument in a neutrally POV way; but whether this constitutes original research, I do not know.

5 Timurghlu 15:16, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)

5 As established, not original research--Tznkai 5 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)--Tznkai 5 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)

5.) Find another solution.

4 ghost 2 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)

3 Nurban 2 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)

4 Bill Jefferys 2 July 2005 18:19 (UTC)

3 Timurghlu 15:16, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)

3 Possibly use the Sober argument. --Tznkai 5 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)

Comments

Alright. We need to do some investigation before we move on here. I'd like to know the exact state of the I/J argument. Has it been published anywhere? Even if I/J is not peer-reveiwed it may in fact be notable we need to get that settled before we continue.--Tznkai 3 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)

I wrote a review of Gonzalez and Richards' book, [The Privileged Planet], a book that promotes an intelligent design argument. My [review] is available online and was printed in the most recent edition of NCSE Reports, which is published by the [National Center for Science Education], a leading organization defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools. This review includes an informal presentation of the Ikeda-Jefferys argument and cites the webpages for both [that article] and [Sober's article]. My review has attracted some [attention from the ID side]. So, given that it has been "noted" by its opponents, it has some claim to being "notable".

Bill Jefferys 3 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)

Quite notable! Now as to the original research question: If the original research was done outside of wiki as this was, what does the official policy say? If a notable wikipedian posts on his prior research or expands on it, is that dis-allowed as original research? -Vsmith 3 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)

I believe unpublished analysis is still Original Research. Technically, in this case I believe Prof. Jefferys, since his argument seems plenty notable, could publish things through his personal website. That would be a refrence, and thus outside of original research. All of what is said has to be clearly marked where it comes from obviously. Ghost, care to jump in here?--Tznkai 3 July 2005 03:56 (UTC)

Sure. My conclusions are based on Wikipedia:Original research. The I-J argument does not appear to be original research. (Thx for the links, Bill. They saved me a lot of hassle.) I agree that Prof. Jefferys' web-published material notable and verifiable, where it's web-published by independant (sorry, not your webpage, Bill) and credible sites. The NCSE & University of Texas articles meet this standard. Prior research that meets this standard is fine. To date, Bill's expansion is an attempt it inform and educate the reader, not rework his previous efforts into something original. Therefore, we can deal with I-J like we would any other published theory.

Wikipedia's policy on theorys states:

For theories:

1. state the key concepts;

2. state the known and popular ideas and identify general "consensus", making clear which is which, and bearing in mind that extreme-minority theories or views need not be included.

Items that are scientifically peer reviewed are the gold standard for Wikipedia. I-J doesn't reach that at this time. But it does meet every other requirement for inclusion.--ghost 3 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)

The following analysis is not original research. Rather, it's based on a close reading of the Ikeda and Jefferys [IJ] paper: "The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism." My goal is to explain how IJ offer intelligent design (ID) proponents a counterintuitive choice: either to deny that our universe is fine-tuned for life or to deny that our universe is intelligently designed.

To begin, please note that IJ treat both "fine-tuned for life" (usually shortened by IJ to "fine-tuned") and "life-friendly" as being interchangeable when used in predicates for F. IJ first define F as: "The conditions in the universe are 'life-friendly'..." Later, IJ write: "[T]he universe is F or is 'fine-tuned'...," which I take to be shorthand for: "The conditions in the universe are 'fine-tuned'..."

Next, please note that IJ set in opposition two possible candidates for our universe. IJ write: "[M]aking the argument that the universe is F... does not support supernaturalism; the argument that should be made is that the universe is ~F, ... refuting naturalism." The F candidate is a life-friendly, fine-tuned, solely naturalistic universe, one which excludes "some supernatural principle or entity" as the cause of life. The ~F candidate is a not life-friendly, not fine-tuned, not solely naturalistic universe, one wherein life's cause is "some supernatural principle or entity."

What's unclear is why a universe which is not solely naturalistic may not also be partially naturalistic (i.e., "life-friendly" or "fine-tuned for life" to a degree short of being sufficient to cause life). In such a supernatural universe, some, but not all, of the necessary conditions for life would be present in the form of scientifically-recognized physical laws, constants, etc. "Some supernatural principle or entity" would meet the remainder of life's necessary conditions through intelligent design.

In summary, ID proponents are faced with a false choice between intelligent design and fine-tuning for life only because IJ deny, arbitrarily, that a supernaturalistic universe can be partially fine-tuned/life-friendly.

CONCLUSION. Probably, Wikipedia should ignore the IJ Theorem whose obscurity seems to be well deserved. This theorem is noteworthy only if one accepts IJ's loaded definitions of "fine-tuned (for life)" and "life-friendly." As Bill Jefferys wrote in an Archived exchange (with me): "Why does the theorem matter? In my view, it is because ID enthusiasts... are of the opinion that observing our universe to be "fine-tuned for life" strengthens the case for ID. This is wrong..... [O]bserving that our universe is completely life-friendly in my sense not only does not support the case for design, it undermines it." (Italics mine.) But, why should anyone agree that "completely fine-tuned" or "completely life-friendly" must mean that all the necessary conditions for life are fulfilled by solely naturalistic, scientifically-recognized physical laws, constants, etc.? Nearly nine hundred years ago, St. Anselm tried to define God into existence -- and failed. Today, IJ strive to define an Intelligent Designer out of existence -- and fail -- for the same reason. --Tom Walsh

This is not a "response to ghost", it is another argument. It should be taking place on the email list. We need to avoid the proliferation of back-and-forth that plagued the earlier discussion. And IMO, the above is original research. The notion of "partially life-friendly" appears nowhere in I/J, nowhere in Sober, and seems to be original to Tom Walsh. It's relevance to I/J is not clear to me. That is all that I will say; if Tom wants to hash this out in email, I will be happy to do so, but not here

Tom had adequate opportunity to vote in the straw poll, but chose not to. That's his decision, but the voting has closed. Bill Jefferys 21:49, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Bill, Tom Walsh should vote in the poll and can join in on the email discussion (timurghlu@gmail.com, I will forward you onto the ongoing list).

Timughlu 23:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I havnt' been keeping up with you guys, been dealing with a major fight in the main ID article. Walsh, Wikipedia does not ignore anything that is not Notable. and yes, that is a breach of WP:NOR. At wikipedia we are not analysis experts, we are summary experts. As for the results of the straw poll, it seems we will likley split off I/J. Is there anyone who has a strong objection to that?--Tznkai 15:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Tznkai: Do you mean to say "Wikipedia does not ignore anything that is Notable"? Seems that there is one to many negations in the above. Bill Jefferys 12:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that--Tznkai 14:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Tznkai writes: "At wikipedia we are not analysis experts, we are summary experts." I can't believe that Wikipedia subscribes to a "raw garbage in, summarized garbage out" philosophy. Surely, garbage should be filtered out. Before that, some analysis must take place to justify the filtering. Isn't that one of the things that Talk is for? The problem with reporting on an obscure, published theory (which many would consider too trivial to rebut) is that there is no published refutation to summarize for balance. Giving such a theory space on Wikipedia in a POV-only article (especially one written by the theory's co-creator) misleads the casual reader into believing that the theory has some importance, when in reality it has none. Mindless adherence to this or that Wikipedia rule, if the result is to perpetrate a fraud on the casual reader, is to respect the letter (but not the spirit) of Wikipedia guidance. --Tom Walsh

Consider we have an article on holocaust denalists. So yes, we do in fact take garbage in and throw garbage out to the reader. WP:NPOV As I recall, Bill, didn't you say your argument has some responses from the ID community?--Tznkai 14:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Tom Walsh's analysis has a major, obvious flaw. Tom's objections are still IMO original research, besides being wrong. I will be happy to discuss the obvious flaws in Tom's analysis, and reasons why Tom's complaints are wrong IN THE EMAIL LIST, WHICH TOM HAS SO FAR IGNORED. I will NOT discuss them here, for reasons already stated.

I did not write the article as it stands. The article was written by Nathan Urban and one other contributor who paraphrased some email I wrote him. So much for Tom's complaint that it was "written by the co-creator". Bill Jefferys 03:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for not arguing here Bill.--Tznkai 14:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

No hair

What's wrong with no hair? The anon. removed it with take to talk, but he didn't. The idea seems to fit as one extreme, so include it. Vsmith 22:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

"No hair" is wrong for several reasons:

• The no hair theorem has many exceptions even classically, let alone in the murky quantum area of the black hole information paradox.
• More to the point, it's irrelevant to universe creation from black holes anyway, since it applies to what an observer outside the black hole sees, whereas universe creation is hidden entirely within an event horizon. (In other words, it merely says that an outside observer will not see evidence that a universe has formed inside the black hole; it doesn't say anything about the nature or "complexity" of the baby universe itself.)
• Finally, even if you ignore the no-hair theorem, there is little other basis to claim that a black-hole spawned universe has "too little complexity for life to emerge" (whatever that means) — since lacking a theory of quantum gravity which can describe such processes, we can't determine the physical properties of a black-hole spawned universe, or if it's even possible. Quantum cosmology still entertains the scenario that ordinary Friedmann universes may result from black hole collapse.

Nurban 19:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Design, omnipotence, and ID

I recently rewrote the intro for both accuracy and npov. It now accurately describes FTU's relationship with mainstream science (something missing in previous versions), accurately describes ID (in line with all neutral, significant definitions of the concept, including the WP article), and details that it is a matter of simple logic that design implies a designer, who in turn would by necessity need to be omnipotent to accomplish what ID and FTU entail. All points missing in the previous versions, which inaccurately described ID and FTU, and contained a number of equivocations and weasel words.

Before anyone rushes to revert or type a hasty refutation, I suggest they adjust the scope of their counter-argument to encompass the statements to the same effect of the leading ID proponents. If the reader does not know these statements, I suggest they reconsider typing. FeloniousMonk 01:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Once again I find myself having to revert Timurghlu's revert. Timurghlu's version being repeatedly reverted to [1] is deficient because it:

1. Equivocates. The Fine-tuned universe argument is not widely accepted within mainstream science, not just "more controversial." This point is left out in Timurghlu's version. Also, the Fine-tuned universe argument is largely promoted by creationists, and of those, largely ID proponents, not "advocates of teleology and denied by advocates of materialism." Creationism subsumes teleology, and when was the last time anyone met someone who self-identified as a "teleologist"? This is an error of fact as well.
2. Contains errors of omission. It is a fact that the Fine-tuned universe argument is not heavily debated science. In fact, it's essentially not debated at all. It is largely debated within the social and religious spheres thought. This distinction is missing in Timurghlu's version. Also, the official definition of intelligent design (according to the Discovery Institute) is that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection, not "There could be something that designed this universe to create life. A universe fine-tuned by necessity requires a deity or some form of intelligence capable of manipulating the basic physics that govern the universe.
3. Contains errors of logic. "Since such an ability surpasses widely understood and accepted physical laws, it implies that such an intelligence would be omnipotent or extremely powerful." Anything so "extremely powerful" as to be able change the physical constants is by definition omnipotent. In other words, omnipotent subsumes extremely powerful.

Aside from these points, I'll again point out that this article was deficient in both accuracy and npov. If someone has issues with my edits, they should make their case by presenting their evidence here, not by blanket reverts. Revert warring is not acceptable, nor is defending an article against new editors. FeloniousMonk 16:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

You say "it is a matter of simple logic that design implies a designer, who in turn would by necessity need to be omnipotent to accomplish what ID and FTU entail." Show the simple logic, if you please (but leave out ID - this is the FTU article we are discussing). Does the design of snowflakes require a designer? How can you use logic to rule out a creator of the universe with almost but not quite omnipotent powers? 4.250.27.167 18:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Consider your statement: "... a creator of the universe with almost but not quite omnipotent powers?" By definition any being sufficiently powerful to create the universe will be omnipotent by any common understanding of the term. A "creator of the universe with almost but not quite omnipotent powers" is a definition that is so attenuated and ill-defined that it ceases to be meaningful. ID and the fine-tuned universe argument are inextricably linked; the fine-tuned universe argument implies Design, and ID makes explicit and essential use of the fine-tuned universe argument. FeloniousMonk 19:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

WAS's arguments

1. I deny "something that creates" MUST be a "being".
2. I deny that the ability to affect the constants of the universe necessitates "omnipotence". Maybe the lack of ability to go back in time restricts this creator. Maybe the lack of ability to add or subtract a spacial dimension restricts this creative force. Maybe there exists only the ability to create other universes with slightly altered constants by universes such as ours will become in a trillion years of evolution. Genes make random changes that as a whole make incremental improvements in the ability of life. It is a failure of imagination to pretend only ommipotence can do the job. It is the god of the gaps in yet another guise.
3. A fine tune universe implies design no more than evolution implies design. Maybe universes are created in numbers like the squid and only universes that produce life can evolve themselves to the point where they have the technology to create other universes. The point is not that this happens, but that it is logically possible, thus "fine-tuned" does not REQUIRE omni-anything. WAS 4.250 05:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Please understand that I am not trying to belittle your beliefs when I say that you denying these things is insufficient justification for their inclusion in the article. Without the claims being anymore significant than your opinion or that of a small number of others (I've yet to see otherwise), they fall in the realm of original research. They would need to be presented as arguments by a significant number of credible participants in the debate beyond wikipedia's pages to qualify as not being original research and hence warrant their inclusion in the article.

That a being sufficiently powerful to create the universe will be omnipotent by definition is something you do not find compelling also is not sufficient justification for us to dismiss the common understanding of omnipotent. The same is true for Design implying a Designer. Since you are the one making the assertion, the burden is on you to demonstrate how a universe could be created/fine-tuned without an intelligent agent such as The Designer (formerly known as God), after which you'd still have to show it's not an uncommon position to make it into the article. Again, your idea of a "creator of the universe with almost but not quite omnipotent powers" is a definition that is so attenuated and ill-defined that it ceases to be meaningful. Logic dictates that creation requires a creator. FeloniousMonk 07:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

---

1. Please understand that I am not trying to belittle your beliefs when I say that you denying these things is insufficient justification for their inclusion in the article. You misunderstand. I do not wish to include any claim. I wish to REMOVE AN INVALID CLAIM MADE BY YOU.
2. Without the claims being anymore significant than your opinion or that of a small number of others (I've yet to see otherwise), they fall in the realm of original research. They would need to be presented as arguments by a significant number of credible participants in the debate beyond wikipedia's pages to qualify as not being original research and hence warrant their inclusion in the article."My point exactly: (1) Please delete your unsourced original research that states **"something that creates" MUST be a "being" by using the word "being". (2) Please delete your unsourced original research that states "omnipotence" is required. (3) Please delete your unsourced original research that states "designer" is required by "design".
3. That a being sufficiently powerful to create the universe will be omnipotent by definition is something you do not find compelling also is not sufficient justification for us to dismiss the common understanding of omnipotent. Sources please. If a claim were evidence we would not need sources.
4. Since you are the one making the assertion, the burden is on you Exactly. I wish to delete your unjustified claim, not to make a claim of my own in the article. WAS 4.250 16:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I noticed "being" and "designer" have already been removed. Since we are in agreement about unsourced original research, I figured our disagreement was a misundeerstanding, so I deleted the "omnipowerful" without further talk (we seem to agree). I also noticed from your arguments that perhaps there was an issue with what was meant by "universe" so I added a section dealing with that issue. As we don't source "water is wet" unless someone raises an objection, I did not provide sources for every point made in that section, but if you would be so kind as to raise any issues with what is in the universe section in the talk section, I would be more than willing to source any contended points. Naturally, spelling, details, further elaboration is not what I'm talking about when I say talk first - I am obviously refering to wholesale deletion. Wholesale deletion on spurious grounds by people OTHER than yourself has left a bad taste in my mouth. WAS 4.250 16:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the current state of the article, but I want to make clear that it is you who are making the assertion here: That creation does not necessarily require a creator/that Designer does not require a Designer. This assertion goes against all common understandings and definitions of create, creation, and design.

As such, it's a highly uncommon assertion in FTU discussions, nor is it given by a significant enough number of FTU proponents to warrant inclusion in the article.

By all common of understandings and definitions of the term, that something is "created" logically not only entails a creator, it requires one perforce. Webster's bears this out:

Create: verb 1) To cause to exist; bring into being. 2) To give rise to; produce: 3) To invest with an office or title; appoint. 4) To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role.

Design: verb 1) to sketch an outline for; plan 2) to contrive 3) to plan to do; intend 4) to make original plans.

Design: noun 1) a plan; scheme 2) purpose; aim 3) a working plan 4) pattern 5) arrangement of parts, form, color, etc 6) artistic invention

Even arguments for creation ex nihilo posit a creator. Provide credible, significant support for your claim that "creation does not require a creator" is a credible, significant component of the FTU debate or accept that it is in the realm of personal opinion and personal research. FeloniousMonk 16:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Your "creation does not require a creator" suggestion was most excellent. I provided just such a section. Please don't hestiate to ask for clarification. Anything you can't follow won't be understandable by many others as well, so we won't just be clarifying the issue for you but for many others as well. Physics isn't easy!!!! WAS 4.250 17:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

And I've removed your original research and added some content and links to actual research being performed regarding a naturalistic FTU. The work you cite did not support your assertions, and your characterizations of the implications of particle physics and vacuum state are over-reaching. Have you even read those articles? Your tone and behavior here is antithetical to aims of the project, I suggest you change it. FeloniousMonk 18:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Timurghlu's arguments

Hi all,

I'm sorry that I didn't notice the comments (I looked at the top of the discussion page), otherwise the revert wouldn't have occured. Having read it and the comments above, I suggest making the following changes for the following reasons (barring strong opposition, I'll post tomorrow?).

-Change "Though the concept of physical constants is widely accepted within mainstream science" to "Though the concept that physical constants in the universe have a small margin where they support known life is widely accepted within mainstream science".

• Everything I have read (pro and con on fine-tuning) has mostly focused on multiverse vs. design. I have not seen strong statements by "mainstream science" that the universe's margin of error to support known life is not small (the argument is over the conclusions drawn from those facts).

-Change "The assertion that the universe is fine-tuned is largely promoted by advocates of intelligent design whose adherents hold that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection, and proponents of other forms of creationism." to "The assertion that the universe is fine-tuned is mostly promoted by advocates of theism and teleology and mostly denied by advocates of materialism.

• This is not an ID-only question (many people who have disagreements with biological ID, such as myself, believe cosmological fine tuning is real). I see your point about teleology, so adding theism is acceptable for clarity. Also, if we state to proponents, we should state the opponents.

-Move the argument for a Designer down to the "Intelligent Design" section of the article.

• Why have it in such length in the introduction?

-Other issues: I don't see the tautology, could someone explain it?

I'm thinking to add a section that lists some of the fine-tuned constants and their margins of error under a section preceding "Explaining a Fine-Tuned Universe" called "Examples of Fine-Tuning." Any ideas/comments? Timurghlu

The fine-tuned universe argument boils down to the tautology "If things had been different, things would be different." It is fundamentally uninformative. In 1759 Voltaire was already ripping the logic of the tautology behind the fine-tuning argument:

"It is demonstrable," said he, "that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end. Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles. The legs are visibly designed for stockings, accordingly we wear stockings. Stones were made to be hewn and to construct castles, therefore My Lord has a magnificent castle; for the greatest baron in the province ought to be the best lodged. Swine were intended to be eaten, therefore we eat pork all the year round: and they, who assert that everything is right, do not express themselves correctly; they should say that everything is best."

In fact, Voltaire's quote is worthy of inclusion in the article.

On your specific points:

• "I have not seen strong statements by "mainstream science" that the universe's margin of error to support known life is not small (the argument is over the conclusions drawn from those facts)." This is a red herring. The mainstream scientific community does not comment on this because it is not a common line of scientific inquiry. In fact, it is exceedingly uncommon and largely pursued only by scientists with a religious agenda. Again, there is no debate in mainstream science over the fine-tuned universe argument/anthropic argument; both are arguments for creationism, and hence are matter of metaphysics, not physics.

• "This (fine-tuned universe argument) is not an ID-only question... ." Historically, the fine-tuned universe argument, in the form of the anthropic argument, has been made largely by theistic and deistic philosophers, those of note are Plato, then Aquinas and Paley. But at this time it's largely ID proponents who are making the argument. This fact is not that difficult verify.

• "Why have it (intelligent design) in such length in the introduction?" Again, because it is by-and-large ID proponents who are making the fine-tuned universe argument now. Also, the fine-tuned universe argument implies Design, and ID makes explicit and essential use of the fine-tuned universe argument.

I'd object to any version of the article that glosses-over the fine-tuned universe argument's relationship to intelligent design and other arguments for creationism and theistic/deistic philosophy, or any list of "Fine-Tuning Examples" that is not well-supported by credible, neutral sources. Additionally, for such a list to not be pov it would have to not draw conclusions, something the list you propose would appear to do. FeloniousMonk 22:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

--

Hey Felonious,

Looking over your prior contributions, I can see why you would want to include this in your area of focus. If you want to expand the subsection about ID and fine-tuning then I think this is fine, but you are casting a wide net (are you saying any evidence from science for the existence of God is to be called "Intelligent Design Theory"?) As far as I can tell the only prominent IDer who has talked about cosmological constants is Guillermo Gonzalez (and even he admits it's not central to the evolution/ID debate).

Again, this isn't the ID debate, the facts about the constants are well known and have been well known. That's why there is so much focus on the notion of the multiverse (it's the only other real alternative to explain the remarkable organization of natural laws). Here's an example of an explicitly anti-ID perspective that supports cosmological fine-tuning [[2]]. In popular culture, one example of a strong rationalist who is (at least in part) convinced of fine-tuning but not by ID is the prominent science fiction author Robert J. Sawyer.

On the three edits.

-There is little to no disagreement that the constants of the universe have extremely small margins of error to support life was we know it (and in some cases any recognizable form of life). If there is disagreement to this point, I haven't seen it. This isn't the ID debate. The facts here are clear, it is the interpretation (as you noted) that is at issue. "Though the concept that physical constants in the universe have a small margin where they support known life is widely accepted within mainstream science but the belief that this indicates purposeful fine-tuning is not." is totally valid.

-It looks like we are in agreement on this one: the people who have promoted the remarkable construction of cosmological constants have been theists. Those who have played it down have been materialists.

-There is an ID section inside the article, it is stated that ID proponents use the argument in the introduction, why do you want a full paragraph up there? Do you not trust readers to look at the entire article? You can even cite cases where IDers have used cosmological constants to back up their anti-Darwinian claims.

On the Voltaire quote, a Panglossian argument is not a tautology (a tautology would be something like "only God could have made a universe that could support life, thus the universe that is supportive life was made by God", fine-tuning doesn't say this, it's a probability statement not a deductive proof). Second, the I-J section deals with what you (and Voltaire) were talking about, which is in mathematical terms called a reversing of conditional probabilities (i.e. "the nose is made for glasses" instead of the accurate statement "the glasses were made for the nose"). We can go in a whole different argument why that doesn't hold for fine-tuning but in short, "the universe's constants that clearly support the creation of cars" is just as panglossian as "the universe's constants clearly support the formation of life". The question, again, is the nature of the probalities involved.

There's a reason why there has been so much focus on the multiverse option: it's the only other really attractive option in this case besides teleology. The majority of argument in this arena has been over the multiverse, not over ID. Again, the terms of the debate here are quite different from traditional ID arguments (that's why you don't see Dembski, Wells, Behe, Berlinksi, etc... talk about cosmological constants much except in passing or as part of larger statements (such as Meyer's "The Return of the God Hypothesis").

Here are the examples I will add. It's not comprehensive, and it's too wordy and cribbed as is . I'll whittle it down. I assume others will add to it with time:

• The nuclear strong force coupling constant holds together the particles in the nucleus of an atom. If the strong nuclear force is slightly weaker, multi-proton nuclei would not hold together. Hydrogen would be the only element in the universe. If this force were slightly stronger, hydrogen be rare in the universe and the life-essential elements heavier than iron (elements resulting from the fission of very heavy elements) would be nearly non-existant.
• . The nuclear weak force coupling constant affects the behavior of leptons (e.g. neutrinos, electrons, and photons) that do not participate in strong nuclear reactions including the beta decay reaction. If the nuclear weak force coupling constant were slightly larger, neutrons would decay more readily, and therefore would be less available. Hence, little or no helium would be produced from the big bang. Without the necessary helium, heavy elements sufficient for the constructing of life would not be made by the nuclear furnaces inside stars. If this constant were slightly smaller, the big bang would burn most or all of the hydrogen into helium, with a subsequent over-abundance of heavy elements made by stars, and again life would not be possible.
• The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. The characteristics of the orbits of electrons about atoms determines to what degree atoms will bond together to form molecules. If the electromagnetic coupling constant were slightly smaller, no electrons would be held in orbits about nuclei. If it were slightly larger, an atom could not "share" an electron orbit with other atoms. Either way, no molecules, and hence no life.
• The ratio of electron to proton mass also determines the characteristics of the orbits of electrons about nuclei. A proton is 1836 times more massive than an electron. if the electron to proton mass ratio were slightly larger or slightly smaller, again, molecules would not form, and life would be impossible.
• In order for molecules to form, the force of gravity must be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 40th power) times weaker than the force of electromagnetism. It's essential that the force of gravity be incredibly weak compared to the other three forces of physics.
• Though gravity cannot be the strongest force in the universe, the other forces must cancel each other out in order to leave gravity the prime active force. The numbers of the positively charged particles must be equivalent to the numbers of negatively charged particles or else electromagnetism will dominate gravity, and stars, galaxies and planets will never form. The numbers of electrons must equal the numbers of protons to better than one part of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 37 th power).
• The entropy level of the universe affects the condensation of massive systems. The universe contains 100,000,000 photons for every baryon. This makes the universe extremely entropic, i.e. a very efficient radiator and a very poor engine. If the entropy level for the universe were slightly larger, no galactic systems would form (and therefore no stars). If the entropy level were slightly smaller, the galactic systems that formed would effectively trap radiation and prevent any fragmentation of the Systems into stars Either way the universe would be devoid of stars and, thus, of life.

Sincerely,

Timurghlu

I've never said any evidence from science for the existence of God is "Intelligent Design Theory." I've said that the fine-tuned universe argument makes express use of the implication that the universe appears Designed; it is central to the argument's premise. And I've said that ID makes explicit and essential use of the fine-tuned universe argument and that furthermore, the vast majority of the those who are publishing and citing the fine-tuned universe arguments are intelligent design proponents. I'm limiting my edits to the article and their justifications to easily verified facts; this is one of them.

"the only prominent IDer who has talked about fine-tuned universe argument (cosmological constants) is Guillermo Gonzalez..." Are you kidding me? Nearly every significant work published by leading ID proponents makes essential use of the fine-tuned universe argument, either as a premise or as bolstering support.

William A. Dembski does explicitly: In his The Design Inference : Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory) where p 182 he writes "Anthropic principles that look to multiple universes bank on precisely this point: While the emergence of intelligent life in our universe is vastly improbable (at least by some accounts), when we factor in all the possible universes that might have given rise to us, the emergence of intelligent life is rendered a virtual certainty." Sound at all similar to your statement above? It Does to me. Or Dembski's more recent The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design: "The anthropic principle underlies much of the contemporary discussions about the design of the universe." (p 69), or "(human observers)...find themselves in a finely tuned universe. ...no design is required to explain human observers residing in a finely tuned universe." "...to successfully refute a design argument based on cosmological fine-tuning, one needs a vast ensemble of universes in which most universes are losers in the quest for human observers." (p 70). William A. Dembski, Michael Behe and Stephen C. Meyer together in Fruitful Interchange or Political Chitchat?, published in Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe cite the fine-tuned universe argument as compelling evidence, as they do together again in Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe. That's the three leading ID proponents, together. The Discovery Institute, where all three serve as officers, literally publishes dozens tracts invoking the fine-tuned argument: [3] and [4] Lesser ID proponents invoking the argument include Robin Collins The Fine-Tuning Design Argument: A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God[5], William Lane Craig in The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle and Benjamin D. Wiker in Does Science Point to God? The Intelligent Design Revolution [6], and so on... Even observers and critics of ID recognize the argument as central to ID: Francis J. Beckwith in Science and Religion Twenty Years after McLean V. Arkansas: Evolution, Public Education, and the New Challenge of Intelligent Design devotes a sub chapter of Chapter 4 The Application of Specified Complexity to Intelligent Design Theory to it: 4. b.: The Fine-Tuning of The Universe For The Existence of Human Life.

If you are genuinely that unaware of the wide use ID proponents make of the fine-tuned universe argument, I gently suggest you refrain from raising objections about ID's place in the article until better informed on the issue.

Lastly, I never said Voltaire quote was a tautology or proved the argument was a tautology; I presented the quote as evidence that the logic behind the fine-tuned universe argument is nothing new. The point remains that all essential fine-tuned universe arguments boil down to this statement: "If things had been different, things would be different." Which is indeed a tautology. Again, all examples you intend to add will need to be supported by cites from significant, credible, and neutral references to stand. And not draw conclusions for the reader, which yours do above. FeloniousMonk 04:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Felonious,

I agree that IDers use cosmological arguments to back up their argument. But they are not alone in that, in fact most theists do. Ken Miller, a vociferous and leading anti-IDer, believes in cosmological design and ontological arguments as one example. The Design argument has biological and cosmological proponents. The Discovery Institute scientists focus primarily of "BID". There are those not convinced by "BID" who are quite convinced by "CID". Perhaps the distinction should be incorporated into the ID section (a suggestion, but I don't know if it's necessary).

Fine-Tuning is not "if things had been diferent, things would be different" as much as Darwinism is. Using the car example to say "the physics of the universe support the creation of cars, if they hadn't cars wouldn't be here" would be a "tautology" in this sense. So would "The laws of nature allow for life to change over time, if they didn't then life couldn't". I think the point you are getting at is not tautology, but rather what Eliot Sober (links and I-J section) called the "Observational Selection Effect", where simply because you have an odd occurance is not evidence that the occurance has a specific cause (i.e. improper reversing of condition probabilities). The I-J section deals with this.

I will try to find links to each of the FTU points I will post. Quick question: what is enough of a link, a long pro-tuning scientific article? A cititation of a scientific paper (hard to get links to, but people with access to research engines could read them)?

Sincerely,

Timurghlu

Again, from the public's (our readers) perspective it is in the works of ID proponents where most FTU/anthropic references are now commonly found.

Whether FTU is less of a tautology as Darwinism is non sequitur here. Any FTU argument distills down to "If things had been different, things would be different" no matter how it is presented. Whether Darwinism does or not is outside the scope of this article.

As for references, use your own judgement or let WP:CITE and WP:V be your guides as to what constitutes a credible reference. FeloniousMonk 17:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Felonious,

As a compromise (since there are plenty of people who disagree with ID's biological position but who are convinced by cosmological design arguments), how about "The assertion that the universe is fine-tuned is largely promoted by advocates of theism and denied by advocates of materialism. In recent years, propenents of the theory of intelligent design and other forms of creationism have become (the?) chief advocates of fine-tuning."

Concerning the tautology comment in the article, is there a way we can get a unbiased 3rd party view on this? The FTU argument is not "if things had been different, things would be different" as much as Darwinism is (and while that might not be relevant to this article, it certainly would be to the Darwinism article). The FTU argument is more accurately distilled as "if things had been even slightly different, life would not have arisen" or "the probability of life arising by chance in the universe is infinitesimally small". Neither of these are tautologies. "If things had been different, things would be different" is not a distilled version of FTU: it leaves out what the difference in question is, and ignores the fact that FTU is a probability argument not a deductive proof (which is usually where tautologies can be a concern).

I'll post the "Fine Tuning Examples" list tomorrow. I'll place five or six links (too much?) at the top of the section, in number form.

Sincerely

Timurghlu

Proponents of creationism have historically been the only advocates of the fine-tuned universe argument, and intelligent design (in this form) only being a very recent development. Creationism's foil has always been philosophical naturalism, more so than materialism, and of course mainstream science also stands in opposition to a non-naturalistic origin of the universe. So a more accurate passage would be "The assertion that the universe is fine-tuned is largely promoted by advocates of creationism and denied by spectrum of opponents, including the mainstream scientific communtity, naturalists and materialists. In recent years, proponents of intelligent design have become significant advocates of fine-tuning."

"If things had been even slightly different, life would not have arisen" is just "If things had been different, things would be different" with a few hairs split and a shoe shine. They are equivalent for all intents and purposes. Fine-tuning and other anthropic arguments status as a tautology is well established and significant: [7], [8], [9] and [10] and the list goes on. It is even conceded by creationists: [11]. Google yields 749 hits for anthropic + tautology [12]. Even if only 25% are relevant and credible, and there's no reason to believe that the number is that low, that's still a significant enough number to support its inclusion here. FeloniousMonk 08:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

We know there are these fundamental physics constants. No one knows why they are what they are. These constants cause everything that physics can measure to be as it is - including life on Earth and A LACK OF LIFE EVERY WHERE ELSE WE HAVE LOOKED. (Some tuning. Tuned for death and pain too did he?) No one knows whether these constants can be or could have been different. No one knows if other types of life exist in this universe much less in universes where the physics are different. To look at this unknown thing (why are the constants what they are?) and see God in it is just the God of the gaps in another guise. For the constants to have been tuned, you not only must have life in this universe (such as it is), but a lack of life in other possible universes. And there is zero knowledge here. Here are three out of an INFINITE number of possibilities. (Possibility One) Maybe this is the only universe and the constants are not tunable. (Possibility Two) Maybe there is an infinite number of universes. (Possibility Three) Maybe there is only one universe AND its constants could be any value AND only one setting produces life AND the reason for that setting was something tuned the values of the constants just so. If possibility three is correct, then OK there is a "God". But why choose possibility three? Because it is useful in claiming there is a God? Because there exists a foundation run by a formerly unemployed guy who found a trick to get creationists to fund scientists? WAS 4.250 15:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

That the anthropic principle is an argument for a created universe is not in question — it is. That the fine tuning argument is a specifc argument within the antropic principle is not in question — it is. I'm not here to argue the variations, details or merits of the FTA. I'm here to write an accurate and complete article. These and others points are necessary to an accurate and complete Fine-tuned universe article. FeloniousMonk 17:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Google yields 749 hits for anthropic + tautology.

So what? An article saying that the anthropic princple is not a tautology would show up on that search. Also, you may want to include "-wikipeda" in future searches as about 100 of those hits were on the wikipedia. --goethean ॐ 16:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I was explicit in stating that some of the results may not be relevant or credible, and I was generous in number of those results I granted that may fall into that categoy. Regardless, the majority, itself a very significant number, still remain that support my point, that the anthropic is a tautology, a fact your objection fails to address. FeloniousMonk 17:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You have proved nothing except for your willingness to engage in complete sophistry. --goethean ॐ 17:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You need to cease with the ad hominems. FeloniousMonk 17:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what all the issues are here, but I noticed the dispute about the categories. For what it's worth, I'd say it's fair enough to put this in the creationism category, because this is certainly an issue for creationists. But I wouldn't put it in the pseudo-science category. I know little about this subject, but I remember attending a lecture about it given by Martin Rees, the next president of the British Royal Society, and he said nothing in that lecture to indicate that any aspect of fine-tuned universe theories were regarded as pseudo-science; quite the opposite, in fact. He made it clear that he doesn't favor any religous perspective, but he seemed also not to favor the tautology view, and spoke throughout of his wonder and how extraordinary a cooincidence it was. (I haven't read his Just Six Numbers, however.) Perhaps the categories dispute could be resolved by placing the article in creationism, but leaving it out of pseudo-science? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

That's a compromise. I don't particularly like compromises in regards to matters of accuracy. It belongs in "Creationism" in the philosophical sense of "things created", not the common usage of "crazy fundamentalists". So I still find it to be out of place in a category that includes Young Earth Creationism, Flood geology, etc. Besides, your comment seems to contradict FM's contention that FTU theories necessarily logically entail a creator deity, which is the definition of creationism. --goethean ॐ 19:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"Extraordinary coincidence" is hardly an endorsement of the FTA. Drawing a conclusion about what Rees believes from what SV wrote here would constitute personal research. Finding out what Rees actually believes on this specific topic is not so difficult: "People used to wonder: why is the earth in this rather special orbit around this rather special star, which allows water to exist or allows life to evolve? It looks somehow fine-tuned. We now perceive nothing remarkable in this, because we know that there are millions of stars with retinues of planets around them: among that huge number there are bound to be some that have the conditions right for life. We just happen to live on one of that small subset. So there's no mystery about the fine-tuned nature of the earth's orbit; it's just that life evolved on one of millions of planets where things were right." [13] FeloniousMonk 21:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Rees did make clear his sense of wonder. Look at this passage from the same link, talking about the multiverse idea:

What we've traditionally called 'our universe' is just a tiny part of something which is infinite, so allows for many replicas of us elsewhere (in our same space-time domain, but far beyond the horizon of our observations) ... One thing which struck me recently, and I found it a really disconcerting concept, was that once we accept all that, we get into a very deep set of questions about the nature of physical reality. That's because even in our universe, and certainly in some of the others, there'd be the potential for life to develop far beyond the level it's reached on earth today ... the most complex conceivable entities may not be organic life, but some sort of hyper-computers. But once you accept that our universe, or even other universes, may allow the emergence within them of immense complexity, far beyond our human brains, far beyond the kind of computers we can conceive, perhaps almost at the level of the limits that Seth Lloyd discusses for computers—then you get a rather extraordinary conclusion. These super or hyper-computers would have the capacity to simulate not just a simple part of reality, but a large fraction of an entire universe.

And then of course the question arises: if these simulations exist in far larger numbers than the universe themselves, could we be in one of them? ... All these multiverse ideas lead to a remarkable synthesis between cosmology and physics, giving substance to ideas that some of us had ten or 20 years ago. But they also lead to the extraordinary consequence that we may not be the deepest reality, we may be a simulation. The possibility that we are creations of some supreme, or super-being, blurs the boundary between physics and idealist philosophy, between the natural and the supernatural, and between the relation of mind and multiverse and the possibility that we're in the matrix rather than the physics itself.

Rees rules out nothing, and if he's to be called a pseudo-scientist, then so must they all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Nowhere in that article does Rees endorse the fine tuning argument. Nor does he in any of his other writing I've read, either. In fact, just the contrary. Read it again. When he states "People used to wonder: why is the earth in this rather special orbit around this rather special star, which allows water to exist or allows life to evolve? It looks somehow fine-tuned. We now perceive nothing remarkable in this, because we know that there are millions of stars with retinues of planets around them: among that huge number there are bound to be some that have the conditions right for life. We just happen to live on one of that small subset. So there's no mystery about the fine-tuned nature of the earth's orbit; it's just that life evolved on one of millions of planets where things were right." he's discounting the improbability premise of the fine tuning argument. He goes on to reaffirm this again when he says "What we've traditionally called 'our universe' is just a tiny part of something which is infinite, so allows for many replicas of us elsewhere (in our same space-time domain, but far beyond the horizon of our observations) ..." Having a sense of wonder of the nature of the universe is far different from saying it was made a certain way intentionally, which is the sum of all fine tuning arguments. Since he's not endorsing the FTA, no one here is saying he's practicing pseudoscience. FeloniousMonk 16:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I found a statement from Rees where he endorses the multiverse idea, so I've added it to new subsection with the quote presented above and some language around the FTA/naturalism interplay vis-a-vis mainstream science. Did I use 'vis-a-vis' here right...? FeloniousMonk 20:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Felonious,

I spent most of my "wikitime budget" for the day posting the new section. I will reply in a longer depth to your points tomorrow when I can give them the thought that they deserve (no sarcasm; I don't like giving replies that haven't been thought out).

Talk with you tomorrow.

Sincerely, Timurghlu

I think that it would be helpful to include a quotation by Rees in the article. Not as an FTU theorist, but as a scientist observing the idea. Or else I can dig up something by Tipler and Barrow. --goethean ॐ 15:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Deleted content

Creation without a creator

It is a fundamental part of quantum mechanics that particles pop into and out of existence all the time without a creator being any part of the physics equations (see creation and annihilation operators) that describe this and all other known particle behaviors.

The summary of Origin of the Universe as a quantum tunneling event in Phys. Rev. D 25, 2065–2073 (1982) says "We present a nonsingular model of cosmogenesis in which the Universe arises as a result of quantum-mechanical barrier penetration. The Universe is described throughout its evolution by a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric, and the matter distribution by a perfect fluid, whose equation of state is chosen so as to allow the tunneling to occur. Cosmic evolution proceeds in three stages; an initial static spacetime configuration tunnels into a "fireball" state in which particle creation occurs. As the fireball expands, particle creation ends, and the Universe enters the "post-big-bang" epoch of adiabatic expansion. We find that within the context of the FRW ansatz, only a spatially closed universe may originate in this manner. Implications of this creation scheme and possible generalizations are discussed. As a by-product of this investigation we find that the evolution of the Universe is described by a Gellmann-Low equation with the beta function specified by the equation of state." [14]

In a vacuum state, according to all known data, particles with any arbritrary energy above the vacuum may be created. These virtual particles are included in the definition of the vacuum. There is no evidence for or against a virtual particle with the mass of the universe popping into existence, but a fundamental law of particle behavior is that what can happen does happpen due to the wave nature of all things (see propagator).

In terms of virtual particles, the propagator at spacelike separation can be thought of as a means of calculating the amplitude for creating a virtual particle-antiparticle pair that eventually disappear into the vacuum, or for detecting a virtual pair emerging from the vacuum. In Feynman's language, such creation and annihilation processes are equivalent to a virtual particle wandering backward and forward through time, which can take it outside of the light cone. However, no causality violation is involved.

These facts have led some to postulate a many universes theory or multiverse theory. WAS 4.250 19:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

See also

"One thing is clear in our framing of questions such as `How did the Universe get started?' is that the Universe was self-creating. This is not a statement on a `cause' behind the origin of the Universe, nor is it a statement on a lack of purpose or destiny. It is simply a statement that the Universe was emergent, that the actual of the Universe probably derived from a indeterminate sea of potentiality that we call the quantum vacuum, whose properties may always remain beyond our current understanding." [15] WAS 4.250 19:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Please be careful if you include something like this. Although virtual particles do pop in and out from the vaccum, these particles do depend on certain facts of space and time: a potential for example. Virtual photons are created all the time, but they occur from potentials of other particles. If you draw any feynman diagram, you would never see any virtual photon coming from nowhere, it always comes from somehing. There isn't a way to mathmatically get something from nothing. If one does assume a "quanum vacuum" *then* one might evolve a universe from it. But postulating this preexisting vacuum would is also unjustified--a vacuum is different than "nothing". Even the paper cited above requires the universe to have "compact spacelike hypersurfaces" in addition to this vacuum. Just a warning. User:jabin1979

category

I noticed the category of pseudoscience has cloaked/decloaked recently. Obviously, the category "pseudoscience" must be applied from the point of view of whatever is considered "mainstream". I know of no pseudoscientific topic whose followers admit it is pseudoscientific. If a topic must be "undisputedly" aggreed to be pseudoscientific to apply the label/category, then the category, obviously, would never be applied. No one thinks their pet project is pseudoscience, so the label must be applied from the point of view of mainstream science. FuelWagon 18:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Known physical constants

I just wish to note that the section I retitled "Known physical constants" needs a great deal more work. I only took a rough first cut at it. I'm not saying I will work more on it. The pay here is low. And even tho I'm retired, that's a disincentive. Cheers. WAS 4.250 01:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Naturalism and the fine tuning argument

Deleted replacement for intro to section

"Life as we know it would not be possible if the physical constants of the universe were even slightly different from what they are. How many other settings of these constants would produce life as we don't know it is unknown. [16]" WAS 4.250 21:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Citations

Charles Townes' Nobel prize is not relevant and should not be mentioned in the External Links, any more we should mention the honors and awards that have been given to others in that section (and I know from personal knowledge that some of the other authors have received prestigious honors). If Townes' arguments in that article are good, then they stand on their own, regardless of prizes and honors that he has been awarded. If they are not good, prizes that he has been awarded will not make them any more correct.

For some reason, Creationists have this notion that their arguments will be strengthened by quoting eminent people and mentioning how eminent they are by listing their affiliations with prestigious institutions or their having been awarded prestigious honors. This is nothing but the fallacious appeal to authority. Real scientists simply give the names of the authors when they cite someone's work. They don't even list affiliations (e.g., the university at which they work).

The citations in WikiPedia should follow this general policy, observed throughout the scholarly world, of citing authors, but not their honors or affiliations. Bill Jefferys 11:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

But wikipedia is for a lay audience, not a group of specialists who can be expected to know others in their area by name. Tlogmer 14:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I've now had an opportunity to reread the article. I notice that it in fact is not "by" Charles Townes at all. The author is actually Bonnie Azab Powell, the UC Berkeley employee who interviewed him. And, the title is not "Fine Tuning and Design"; the article has no title, but at most a teaser line, "'Explore as much as we can': Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution, intelligent design, and the meaning of life". So if someone knows how this should be cited (if it should be cited at all), I hope they will fix this. In any case, the citation should not be as it is given...it inaccurately attributes the article to Townes and gives it a bogus title. Perhaps it should say something like "Interview with Charles Townes," by Bonnie Azab Powell.

I'm somewhat at a loss as to why this article is included at all; it is mostly ruminations by Townes about his personal approach to religion and science, basically a human interest piece written by his institution after he won the Templeton Prize. It's not a scholarly piece by Townes about the fields of his own expertise, namely quantum electronics and astrophysics. Townes may be an expert on these subjects, but he is not an expert on evolutionary biology, or on the meaning of life (any more than anyone is an expert on the that nebulous topic).Intelligent design not being a scientific theory at all, and unrelated to his fields of expertise in physics and astrophysics, it is difficult to give him special status as an expert on intelligent design, either.

The article says precious little about "Fine Tuned Universe," the subject of the Wiki article; in fact, Townes has some negative things to say about some aspects of the Intelligent Design movement, and is clearly supportive of the findings of evolutionary biology. What he does say about fine tuning isn't any more than already can be found in the Wiki article, basically, that the universe seems special, the laws seem to be such that if they were much different we wouldn't be here, and that one might explain this by a multiverse or by design, and evolution is consistent with intelligent design. This hardly seems sufficient to warrant an external URL.

So my bottom line conclusion is that the article was cited in an attempt to puff up the case for ID by someone who wanted to drop in the Nobel Prize connection, like, look, here's this really smart person, who won the Nobel, and he is favorable to the idea that the universe was designed, so you should be too (the fallacious appeal to authority).

My own feeling is that this article adds little if anything to the Wiki article and that the citation should be eliminated. If anyone can tell me how this article adds substantively to the Wiki article, they are free to try to convince me otherwise. Otherwise, I will eliminate the citation in the next few days. Bill Jefferys 13:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't read the article either -- I'd thought it was arguing for the opposite point, actually. But it does address the issue, if tangentally, so I think it should be included (maybe at the bottom of the list rather than the top). Tlogmer 14:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The issue is addressed so tangentially that it doesn't actually add anything to the discussion. There are much better cites that could be made. For example, Nobel laureate Steve Weinberg has an excellent article in the New York Review of Books, that actually addresses the whole intelligent design issue and discusses fine tuning extensively. Still, if cited, the "Nobel laureate" part is quite irrelevant, and no decent scholar would put this information as part of the citation.

Your latest edit mentions that Townes is the inventor of the maser. True, but how is this relevant to the fine tuning question? Should anyone be forming opinions about Townes' credibility on intelligent design because he invented the maser? I don't think so. And furthermore, would a scholar actually put in the citation list such a comment? I strongly doubt it.

Does Wiki have a policy regarding extraneous comments as part of citations? If it doesn't, it should. If it does, maybe some Wikipedian of greater depth of knowledge than I can address it. If Wiki is to be a truly scholarly source, IMO it ought to adhere to scholarly standards, including in citation lists.

Like you, I would like to avoid an edit war. Can we get some advice from someone more experienced? Bill Jefferys 18:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Putting it all together

There's some content in the fine tuning section of Intelligent design that should probably be integrated into this article, both to avoid duplication and to improve the quality of both the donor and receipient pages. Anyone volunteering to do this work?

The last two paragraphs of the introduction seem unconnected with the body of the article. The penultimate paragraph clearly belongs in the body, while the final paragraph is doubtful as it stands. As is stated in the body of the article, there is widespread consensus on the fact of fine-tuning; what is debateable is the explanation thereof. Who are these critics? Also, I note that the link to Carbon Chauvinism is wonky: that article has been renamed.

Symmetry Breaking

This article needs a section on symmetry breaking (I do not mean that it should merely be linked to the somewhat flawed WP article on symmetry breaking). Jim62sch 12:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fine-tuned universe/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I would think including the level of 'fine-tuning', i.e. the percent of maximum variance commonly accepted as allowable for each constant should be added for the reader to understand. Also, the max variance allowable is so small for many of these constant I'm not sure it is fair to refer in the article to them as 'signifigant'.

Last edited at 20:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)