Talk:Fine-tuned universe/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Lacks core facts on fine tuning. Biased toward atheism

This article spends much more time arguing against fine-tuning than explaining its specifics. There should be detailed examples of fine-tuning and a detailed analysis of each constant and its "allowable" range. The number the author sites for the strong nuclear force of 2% is ridiculously generous. First of all, the range is the intersection of the set of "allowable" ranges relative to all other constants, since a violation of any of them would lead to disaster for life. So, the ratio of the strong nuclear force to the weak nuclear force, gravity, electromagnetism, and the mass of a proton, would all be affected if you changed the strong nuclear force independently of everything else. If any one of the ratios caused a problem, then we're toast.

There are many well established examples where constants need to be in balance that the article doesn't bother mentioning. For example, if the ratio between the electromagnetic force and gravity were different by 1 in 10^26th, then stars would be much smaller and die much more quickly, never allowing life to evolve on revolving planets (The God Hypothesis: 43).

I wonder what the reaction would be if a theist wrote a biased wikipedia entry on atheism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypergiant (talk • contribs) 04:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right that the article needs a far more extensive description of proposed fine tuning examples. However, whilst the article may be biased in terms of ratio of content, I don't agree that the content itself is biased. The fine tuning hypothesis is a controversial one, which by no means has the full support of the scientific community. Therefore, the NPOV policy requires that the article must have appropriate criticism.

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 14:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Hypergiant's statement that the article is biased in favor of atheism. The article is about a scientific question, and if it presents two sides of a scientific debate, referencing reliable scientific sources, then there is no issue of bias in terms of religion, because it's a scientific topic, not a religious one. It sounds like Hypergiant is under the mistaken impression that if fine-tuning exists, God must exist, or that if fine-tuning doesn't then God doesn't. I agree that the discussion of the specific constants could use a lot more detail. However, it's not as simple as just making a big table of constants and their allowable ranges. (1) We don't really know how many different independent constants there are in a hypothetical theory of everything; 26 is just how many there are in the standard model, which we know can't be the fundamental underlying description of the universe. (2) There's interplay between the constants, so they can't be considered independently. (3) Nobody really knows what values of the constants are consistent with the existence of life, so you will not find a consensus among reliable sources that you could just tabulate in the article.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The count of 26 dimensionless fundamental constants come from this John Baez article. 25 are from particle physics, one additional is the cosmological constant. That value (26) is, by no means, carved into stone. As Baez said, the number of fundamental constants will decrease as the state of science advances and the values of some of these constants are derived from the others. The number will increase as new phenomena and interactions are discovered and a quantitative measure describing such are made. The Fine-tuned Universe topic is more than a scientific topic. It is an epistemological topic. Physics and science are not the only disciplines of thought and knowledge out there. Lastly, while we do not know exactly what ranges of every one of the 26 constants must be to support life, we do know about ranges that some of the constants need to be for matter to hold together, for stars to form and to survive sufficiently long for rocky planets to possibly sustain life as we know, for the heavier elements to cook up in stars. The whole discussion is about what ranges to constants like the Fine-structure constant and others have to be for matter, as we understand it, to exist and for astronomical structures to exist as we understand them. It would have to be a totally different kind of life than what we understand it, if some of these numbers were far different (and that raises the issue of carbon chauvinism).

The concept of the FTU is not an answer to any particular philosophy about the existence of God. It's a bunch of questions. To say that those questions aren't really there (from a POV of science) is bias toward atheism. But a legitimate issue of debate is whether the Universe is fine tuned at all. That POV must also be included in the article, but must not set the tone for the whole article. 71.241.140.233 (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous over-prominence given to Stenger

This article mentions Stenger (at best a 3rd rate retired physicist) 11 times and the real authorities on this topic like Martin Rees only twice, in passing. This is ludicrous. For a balanced article Stenger should get about 1/3rd of the prominence of Rees, if that. NBeale (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Disputes on the existence of fine-tuning" section is incomplete

The "Disputes on the existence of fine-tuning" ignore several important objections:

• The constants may not be free to move, and thus the whole notion of "tuning" is meaningless. (e.g [1], or The God Delusion)
• The universe is far from optimal in the first place, and thus a "tuner" could have done a far better job. (This point is made elsewhere in the article, but not here where it really belongs.)
• The problem is stated the wrong way round, and that life is tuned to fit the universe, rather than vise versa. (This is touched upon in the discussion of alternative biochemistry, but is not stated explicitly.) I believe the following quote from Douglas Adams should be included:

...imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 14:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Laurence Krauss as an expert opinion on the nature of the universe?

Lawrence Krauss stated in a recent lecture on recent developments in cosmology that;

Everything we see, stars and galaxies and clusters, everything we see...If you get rid of it, the universe is essentially the same. We constitute a 1% bit of pollution in a universe that's 30% dark matter and 70% dark energy. We are completely irrelevant. Why such a universe in which we are so irrelevant would be made for us is beyond me.

the video can be seen here. While I do encourage you to watch the whole video because his asides are very relevant to this topic, the quote above is at 43:32. I'm not exactly sure how to format any of this material for the article's objections section. I think this argument or an argument like it should be under the objections. Any thoughts? StephenPCook (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge puddle thinking here?

Current discussion at anthropic principle has led to the suggestion of merging Puddle thinking here. Opinions? Paradoctor (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I agree. Or maybe to anthropic principle. Could go either way. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It would improve the article and it hardly deserves to be an autonomous entry.--U5K0 (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Merging to anthropic principle is strongly opposed by some editors, so that seems not an option. As it seems that the view here is favorable, I'll wait a few more days for other editors to add their comments. If there is no change of opinion, I'll merge in a week or so. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would be more appropriate here, as the whole point of the analogy is that the puddle thinks its universe is tuned precisely to fit it - not that there might be lots of universes and it just happens to be in the one it's in. Boing! said Zebedee 19:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Performed merge here per discussion here and at Talk:Anthropic principle#Merge of Puddle thinking and Talk:Puddle thinking. Paradoctor (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Thanx for doing this, Para. For the past 3 years, I've been scared off from doing anything effective in Wikipedia, so all I can do is cheer from the sidelines (and sneak in the occasional edit of substance). 72.92.135.195 (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What, they sent somebody to your house? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No, but Jimbo (who has come through in the past) did not help. A nasty admin declared a "community action". I won't say any more. 72.92.135.195 (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's too bad. Mentoring didn't work for you? Paradoctor (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Para, I can't be more specific (because if I am, bad things will happen). Let's just say that the "community" (and the admin) needed some mentoring from a university professor in philosophy about what it really means to be NPOV. There is clearly a politically-correct position in some articles here, and to challenge that political correctness with uncompromising neutrality can get one kicked out. There was some gross dishonesty involved, including with the admin. There was one ArbCom member that understood this, but the rest of ArbCom was too lazy (or busy) to look into it. 96.252.13.17 (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Paradoctor (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice merge, Paradoctor. Boing! said Zebedee 18:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"most of the universe is highly hostile to life"

This is in the article as a counter-argument to fine-tuning, but does it not require as a premise that it would be possible to create a Universe less hostile to life, and yet in which life arises? If the Universe was intentionally created to bring about life by itself -- without further intervention from its creator -- then life as we know it it would seem to require a very hostile field indeed, permitting stars to form and crunch out the heavier atoms of which all known life is constructed. Torquemama007 (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no firm scientific consensus that the fine-tuning hypothesis...

I am sort of confused about what this article is about. What is the "fine-tuning hypothesis"? An hypothesis is a statement that can be tested, so is the hypothesis: "Changing one or more physical constants, such as the strong nuclear force or the speed of light or pi, will result in a universe that is not conducive to life"? If so, then I don't see the controversy. One could go back to the origin of the universe change one of these constants and solve for how the universe behaves. I suspect that this would be an impossible task, but perhaps one could make a lot of assumptions and carry out some form of prediction and see how it matches up with the original hypothesis. This would be just straight science. You would have to go back to the origin of the universe, however. You could not conclude anything by taking the way things are now and try to figure out the effect of one of these changes. I suspect the real hypothesis that this article is talking about is: "Physical constants were fine-tuned by an intelligent designer to allow for life as we know it". This is an entirely different hypothesis than the first one. It would be easier for me to edit this article if I knew what the real hypothesis was. Thanks. Desoto10 (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that this article be deleted. We already have an article that describes Physical Constants and it even has a little section about fine tuning by an intelligent designer. Alternatively, it would be useful for the authors of the Multiverse section in this article to connect what they have written more tightly with fine tuning. Maybe I am just crabby today.Desoto10 (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I changed my mind. The meaning of Fine Tuned Universe is now clear to me. We are talking about my first hypothesis above, that small changes in certain physical constants might have resulted in a universe unfit for life. First we have the premise, or hypothesis, then a few arguments that it is true and some that it is not, followed by a few possible naturalistic explanations, including multiverses, etc. Then comes the religious explanations. I guess that is what threw me. I assumed that the only folks who assumed that the universe was fine tuned were the ID folks and other creationists. Sorry for all of the ramblings.Desoto10 (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the meanings of terms in this article. There IS a fairly firm consensus (in physics and cosmology at least) that the universe is "fine-tuned" for life. This is a scientific observation, not a philosophical claim. When Stenger speaks of "the fine-tuning argument" he seems to be speaking of a PHILOSOPHICAL argument based on the SCIENTIFIC observation of fine-tuning, i.e. he seems to be speaking of the "anthropic principle." There is a subtle but important difference between the "fine-tuned universe" and the "anthropic principle." It seems to me that much of the detail in this article really belongs in the "anthropic principle" article rather than here. This article should be much more science-based.Bertsche (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but I'm not sure that "broad consensus" of fine tuning can be claimed. "No firm consensus" does not mean "broad consensus to the contrary". It means that there is disagreement. I would think that it might be broadly considered remarkable that the fundamental constants fall on life-friendly values when we don't know what the physics is that forces them to. But that doesn't mean that most physicists do or don't consider that remarkable. 70.109.180.126 (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Critics of generally accepted views can always be found, certainly. But the claim of "no firm consensus" implies that there is not a generally accepted view, which is false. E.g., is there "no firm consensus" (among scientists) on global warming? There are many vocal critics (a few of whom are scientists), but there is still a "broad consensus" and a generally accepted view regarding global warming. Essentially no scientists dispute that "the fundamental constants fall on life-friendly values," and nearly all physicists DO consider this remarkable. There is "broad consensus" on this. This is the basic meaning of the "fine-tuned universe." But there is no scientific consensus on WHY "the fundamental constants fall on life-friendly values", which becomes a philosophical/theological question.Bertsche (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Guys, you could spare yourself lots of talking if you based your arguments about if, and what kind of, consensus exists if you simply cited it to reliable literature, instead of your own opinions. Just a friendly reminder. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Let's just defer to quotes from reliable literature, and refrain from stating that there IS or IS NOT consensus.Bertsche (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay Bertsche, I think I will undo that deletion, even though I am pre-disposed to agree with you about the issue fine-tuning. What I think you fail to acknowledge is that, strictly speaking, "consensus" means unanimity. At least "firm consensus" means something awful close to "everyone in the group agrees". The group is "scientists", more specifically physicists, and even more specifically astrophysicists and cosmologists. Supporting the notion of "firm consensus" is very difficult, all we need is one counter-example to blow that argument away. There is a lot of agreement about fine-tuning, but there is not "firm consensus". The dissenting physicists are cited. At least one is, but I know there are others. So you are deleting factual and cited information. That is a no-no. Personally, I think it's pretty damn obvious that the Universe is fine-tuned. And I think it's remarkable if this is the only one. But I recognize that there are physicists who do not. 70.109.180.126 (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not recommending that you delete any cited information! In fact, the article needs some better quotes and cites from those who disagree with the existence of "fine-tuning". You mention Stenger, but I don't see any quotes where he denies its existence.

Err, when I meant "citing", I meant citing sources that make statements about what kind of consensus exists or not. You have to do that, because you disagree on what "consensus" means. Ahh, WP:V, you just can't beat its versatility. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing the Davies quote (that fine-tuning is broadly accepted) and adding un-cited, un-verified claims that scientists dispute its existence! Davies is a pioneer in the study of fine-tuning, and the quote is from a scholarly journal. His expert opinion is weighty and should be visible. Whether you agree with him or not, don't try to suppress his opinion and stack the article in your own direction. Rather, provide well-cited evidence on the other side. Any claims that "scientists dispute the existence of fine-tuning" need to be better supported. Do we need to get an administrator to help resolve this??Bertsche (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I just cleaned up the "disputes on existence" section, but noticed that most of the arguments are disagreements as to its extent, not its existence. True arguments against existence are not well supported or well fleshed-out. BTW, I believe that there IS firm consensus among physicists and cosmologists. At the moment I'm perusing a conference proceeding on the Multiverse and notice that most of the leading multiverse advocates still speak of "fine-tuning." They view the multiverse as explaining "fine-tuning", not as explaining it away.Bertsche (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to insert opinions about fine-tuning as much as I am trying to be clear about what the words mean. Bertsche, this article is science-based, but touches on the broader ontological issues (hence the inclusion of how some religious people look at the issue). I think (my opinion) is that the article is fine as it is at present. Bertsche, the issue about physicists buying into the notion of fine-tuning is not solely that these fundamental constants fall on life-friendly values, but whether or not there are physical reasons (not yet discovered) that force those constants to take on the values that they do. If there are physical causes, then it is less remarkable that they have such values. You'll get broad scientific consensus (I think) that some of those values (like α) must lie within some range for matter for form, etc. But you won't get as broad of consensus that these values had any other choice (sorry for anthropomorphizing). Perhaps someday, there will be a totally naturalistic explanation that fully explains why those constants take on those values. And perhaps, even with those questions answered, even more questions about "remarkable" anthropic conditions will be uncovered. 70.109.180.126 (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There is much confusion in this article about what the "fine-tuned universe" means. At its most basic, it simply says that constants must be in a narrow range for life to be here, and this is broadly agreed and non-controversial.

There are all sorts of nice conditions that exist that are necessary for life (the size of our rocky planet, the elemental composition and diversity, the size and age of the sun, the liquid core and magnetic poles and radiation belt protecting the planet from solar wind, etc, etc. But the issue is if these physical conditions had any choice in happening. From a purely materialistic POV, they did not. All of these physical conditions had to come to pass, and we already know some of the reason (e.g. the great Iron catastrophe). They had no choice.

Human beings do not know (yet) why the fundamental physical constants have taken on the values that they do, but I wouldn't rule out future discoveries that eliminated some of these constants from the list (they will be derived from others). This is essentially why some people disagree with the characterization that these are "fine-tuned". These dissenters are asserting that "they are what they are" and that something material caused them to take on such values.

I agree with both of the above statements. But these do not conflict with the concept of "fine-tuning" as used by most physicists and cosmologists.Bertsche (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't mean much more than this to most physicists and cosmologists.

"Firm consensus" means more than "most". 70.109.180.126 (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, '"firm consensus" means "nearly all, except for a few nuts and outliers." And this is what we have with "fine-tuning."Bertsche (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to add some better explanations from the scientific literature.Bertsche (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Based on what's in the article right now it's clear that at the very least there is some dispute on the extant of which the universe is fine tuned. While it's true that most agree on the existance of some physical constant's, there is far from agreement on the existence of all of them and the extant to which they need to be set at certain parameters in order to maintain life in the universe. There are at least 3 sources in the article that dispute the so called consensus. You have provided nothing to show that Stenger is in the minority other than Davies article and until you do it should be concluded that there is not a firm consensus. annoynmous 00:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is significant dispute on the EXTENT of fine-tuning. There is, in fact, no true scientific consensus on the extent of fine-tuning. (The three sources you allude to do not dispute a consensus on this, since there is none.) But I have yet to see evidence that there is significant scientific dispute about the EXISTENCE of fine-tuning. I'm not convinced that even Stenger disputes this. The existence of fine-tuning should not be controversial, and those who try to make it controversial do not understand what physicists and cosmologists mean by it. Thus, I believe the Davies quote is very important to show the thinking of the mainstream physics community. I don't think we should clutter up the article with arguments about the existence of fine-tuning, but if you think it would help, I may find time later this week to add more citations and/or quotes from leading cosmologists showing that they believe it exists.Bertsche (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Davies and Stenger disagree on what the term "fine-tuning" actually means. Davies is basically assuming that fine-tuning means that our universe is an island of life among the universes we can currently conceive of(while not ruling out that other such islands exist), while Stenger is arguing against fine-tuning in the meaning of "this is the only possible universe for harbouring life". So there is no opposition or exclusivity between Davies and Stenger at all, and the wording of the second paragraph should be changed to reflect this. In case you are not following my train of thought, the term island of stability refers to certain numbers of protons and neutrons making up stable elements, and I am suggesting in analogy that the term island of life would refer to a universe that would both be fine-tuned and not precluding the possibility of life in other universes.Highlander (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're correct, Highlander. But disagreement on what the term actually means is disagreement on the assertion that the universe is actually fine-tuned. As I've been trying to point out, even considering all of the other terrestrial variables that had to be "just right", would we also say that the Earth is fine-tuned for life or would we say that the life found on Earth is adapted to the Earth? We have a pretty good idea how the Earth had became what it is, and with billions of similar stars to our sun (just in the Milky Way), we can expect millions of other Earth-like planets, and perhaps thousands with life.

Also, I very much like both concepts, Island of stability and Island of life. If no one else has coined the term, I think it would be very cool if a similar map (maybe with α on one axis and α_G on the other axis, or their logarithms) with the "friendliness to life" as the vertical axis, showing islands of life. That would be intriguing data, at least to me. 70.109.180.126 (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Highlander makes a good point, but the "fine-tuned universe" has NEVER meant that "this is the only possible universe for harbouring life!" I'm still not sure that Stenger actually argues against the concept of "the Fine-Tuned Universe." His quote in the intro certainly does not argue against it. In Stenger's "God: The Failed Hypothesis" he argues against "the fine-tuning ARGUMENT;" by which he means an argument for the existence of God based on fine-tuning. I have yet to see Stenger actually deny the concept of the fine-tuned universe. (Don't confuse the "fine-tuned universe" with theistic arguments; the term as used in physics and cosmology has no theistic implications at all.)

If anyone can find some clear verification that any leading physicists or cosmologists actually disagree with the existence of the "fine-tuned universe" in the sense meant by its originators (Bernard Carr, Martin Rees, Paul Davies, John Barrow, Frank Tipler, Brandon Carter, etc.), please add it to the article!Bertsche (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

additional reference suggested

I, of course, was pleased that my paper "The Design Argument" is cited in this article. I think I've improved my treatment of the fine-tuning argument by giving a more general framework for thinking about observation selection effects, in the following article:

Elliott Sober, "Absence of Evidence and Evidence of Absence -- Evidential Transitivity in Connection with Fossils, Fishing, Fine-Tuning, and Firing Squads." Philosophical Studies, 2009, 143: 63-90.

Could this be cited too? 24.177.122.50 (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute over Premise section

I have formally disputed the neutrality of the Premise section. This premise seems to implicitly indicate that the Fine-Tuning argument is a widely-accepted academic and scientific hypothesis, for which there is much evidence. I am concerned over the tone of the writing style, which clearly indicates that the author is a proponent of the idea; a fact which is irrelevant, and explicitly biases the article.

There is also some indication of creationist quote-mining. Dr. Stephen Hawking is a self-asserted non-believer in a personal god, yet a quote from him deviously makes him out to be a supporter of the aforementioned hypothesis. The following is the quote:

(As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[4]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.235.122 (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is not and should not be about anyone's belief in a personal or any other god (even Spinoza's god). It should be about:

1. Whether or not there are initial conditions or current parameters of the physical Universe that are, in an objective sense, remarkable in any way. Parameters (or possible fundamental "constants") of the Universe that are "just right" but are derived from other constants are not fundamental and are only remarkable in the the constants they are derived from are, evidently, life-friendly.
2. If there are any such constants, plausible materialistic (or scientific) explanations as well as commonly espoused metaphysical explanations (properly identifying each as such).

If we do that, the article is sufficiently objective. 72.95.95.102 (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No comment on your primary complaint, but regarding the Hawking quote, I am going to assume that your chief objection to it is the word "remarkable". If that's the case, replace it with something from his co-authored book excerpt in the Wall Street Journal on Sept. 3, 2010. He says more or less the exact same thing, but does not suggest that it is remarkable. Problem solved.

And if the science crowd wants to keep this topic from becoming a never-ending war with the creationists, you gotta rename it. In English, "fine-tuned" implicitly connotes the active involvement of an external force, while the underlying scientific intent is to disprove that there is one. That's a problem.

67.252.52.125 (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

>"fine-tuned" implicitly connotes the active involvement of an external force

I disagree. If you say that a valley is bowl-shaped, that doesn't implicitly connote that an external force shaped the valley to resemble a bowl. You may interpret the phrase as such, but there is no such intent behind the phrase itself. The same principle applies here. -Jordgette (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I can't find any instance of the use of term "fine-tuned" that does not suggest a tuner. If someone could find such, it would be useful. All of the definitions that I find for the term suggest an active tuner. "Fine-tuned" implies that whatever is fine-tuned, is fine-tuned for a purpose by a tuner.Desoto10 (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The cosmological use of the term "fine-tuned" is sufficient. The only reason this phrase is used, in the cosmological context, is that there are presently no other terms to describe this condition (similar to "bowl-shaped"). Also, just because the phrase has not been used this way previously does not mean that it can't be used presently in this new context. If words and phrases were not routinely given new usages in new contexts, English would be a dead language. -Jordgette (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Consider one of them old transistor radios. It could be dropped and have the tuning capacitor just happen to land squarely on the frequency of some station that might be far away with a weak signal and would require fine tuning to optimally receive the signal. So would we say that radio was fine-tuned to the station? What if the very same state of the radio (being well tuned to that weak station) was resulting from it being deliberately tuned? In the latter case we would call it "fine tuned" and it is in the same state as the former case where the radio was just dropped. 70.109.185.151 (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

>would we say that radio was fine-tuned to the station?

Sure, why not? The radio is now tuned to the station (is it not?), and the precision of that tuning happens to be fine. Such a usage sounds unusual in this context, but only because there presently aren't any other terms to describe the condition of that radio at that point. But fine-tuning in the cosmological context doesn't sound unusual because it's been commonly used for years.

This debate is silly. We might as well argue whether we can talk about a helix-shaped nebula[2] without implying a designer. -Jordgette (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You and I don't disagree. I just wanted to refer to the original meaning of the metaphor fine tuned. If a radio can be fine-tuned to a station with or without someone being the fine-tuner, so can the Universe be fine-tuned for life somewhere (at least here on Earth) with or without a fine-tuner, be that an alien or God or someone else. 70.109.185.151 (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree (not with your example, but with the cosmological concept; I still believe that the most common usage of fine-tuned requires a tuner; nobody would say that your radio was "fine tuned", they would say that it was "accidentally tuned"). No matter--- I should stay out of articles that I don't know anything about! I did a little research and it seems that "fine-tuned universe" is a well-used phrase to describe a universe that has properties that are optimal for some purpose (life, planet formation, etc), with or without a tuner. My bad.Desoto10 (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

what other title do you propose? tune-fined universe?173.180.214.13 (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Minor correction; unfair to Dawkins

I really hate to write this here instead of correcting it myself, but the article is protected. I hope i'm not being too pedantic! Anyways, in the Alien design section is says:

"For instance, Richard Dawkins maintains that an alien designer or designers are more plausible than a supernatural designer or designers because there is a known mechanism to produce them. [...] Dawkins' claims, though, are criticized among philosophers [...] to just push back the problem further".

It's a bit unfair to Dawkins as he is well aware that this just starts a regression - and he agrees with the criticism as well. He almost certainly always argues that the ETs themselves must have come about by some process similar to natural selection. If Dawkins has to mention in the section, it should reflect his key points, and not belittle him as an inferior philosopher. While not quite in the context of the fine-tuning of the universe, he elaborates himself here.

Suggestion to solution; "Dawkins agrees with the criticism of his claim which among philosophers [...] just pushes back the problem further... " maybe also weave in "Dawkins points out, however, that design by god-like extra-terrestials are more plausible than design by god since they themselves have to have come about by some process similar to natural selection."--62.107.83.243 (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS for this? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The article does not cite any sources for what it says now! Anyways, there's plenty sources for his view. For example here. His explanation of his interview is here, as given above. His book 'The God Delusion' also comments on the problem.--62.107.83.243 (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(i) So I just tagged it as needing citation(s). (ii) Youtube is (almost) never a WP:RS. (iii) So cite The God Delusion (with page numbers). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for our information, since on-line cites are nice (because some people don't have or buy the book), (i) there is a column by Dawkins on the Huffington Post with the same title as the 3rd chapter of ...Delusion; Why There Almost Certainly Is No God. Perhaps some of this can be verified with that. It appears to me to be shorter than chapter 3 in the book, but I haven't done a word count.

Personally, (ii) whether it's Dawkins' "crane" or anyone else's "alien", they still have the problem of infinite regress. Theists have that problem too, regarding the origin of God, but cooking up scenarios of cranes or aliens does not solve the mystery. Maybe Michael Shermer was right when asked "why is there something instead of nothing?" to which he answered "perhaps something is a more stable state of reality than nothing." It's a good guess. As good as any other.

Still, (iii) in this article, the focus of discussion should be less of the mystery of origin and more so the mystery of fine tuning. And, of course, whether there really is fine tuning or not. Just as weaknesses of the theists' answer to that mystery should be subject to verified counter arguments (and there is a subsection for that), so also should the weaknesses of the "naturalistic explanations".

BTW, (iv) Dawkins is an ethologist and evolutionary biologist, by training and credential. He is not a philosopher except in the sense that we all are philosophers. Whether it seems unfair or not, when he ventures into territory outside his purview, he opens himself up to criticism by those already inhabiting that territory. (Not saying he is wrong to do so, just pointing out what one might expect as if William Lane Craig starts spouting off on biology or cosmology from the astrophysical perspective. I doubt that Craig knows diddley about the meaning of the fine-structure constant and what would be different if the value of α was different by 2%.) 71.169.180.100 (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(i) I'd recommend you cite both sources -- books tend to be more permanent than websites. (ii) Theists have no problem with an infinite God, but get terribly huffy about the idea of an infinite anything-else. (iii) Agree, this article is about the [[teleological argument], not the cosmological argument. (iv) Agree again, about being better to speak in your own field of expertise.

How does 'Dawkins explicitly acknowledges the problem posed by an infinite regression, and suggests that the aliens "must have evolved by gradual degrees from simpler beginnings."' sound? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I transferred your numbers to the corresponding issues I mentioned.

(ii) I dunno if I represent them correctly, but I think that the theists might not have a problem with infinite regress regarding the anything-else, but for in the olden daze the creation myths, and in the newen days widespread acceptance of the finite age of the Universe. If this universe (smallcase "u") of finite age was designed by aliens in some other environment (even if they had no environment, but at least they existed), there remains the question of what created/designed them or their universe. And of course, theist have the same problem regarding causation regarding a deity and most simply refuse to consider it and to simply assign the terminal node (or a terminal node, if they are polytheistic) of the regression to God, however they understand it/he/she.

(iii) Don't you mean that this article is (or should be) about the cosmological (from a scientific and secular philosophical pov) issues regarding fine-tuning with only a partial (limited) treatment of the teleological pov? The reality (or not, for those opposed to the whole premise) of fine-tuning is an astrophysical cosmological concept, no? What are those guys doing, like Alan Guth or Paul Davies (Dawkins is not on this list, either)? That is the principle topic, no? I surely don't want this article to become a detailed discussions of different designer-based theories or beliefs (but the significant ones should be mentioned). Am I misunderstanding you? Hope not. 71.169.180.100 (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Intelligent design template

I have removed the Intelligent design template, because it suggests that the topic of Fine tuned universe as described in this article, is completely part of the foundation of Intelligent design. This is not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.251.91 (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It suggests no such thing. But given how thin-skinned you are on the subject, I've moved the template to the 'Religious opinions' section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster. This subject matter is independent of intelligent design. In fact, prior to seeing this article, I'd never associated the two. I believe it is important to having a NPOV article that polarizing topics like intelligent design aren't overrepresented. It's one thing to have an intelligent design article reference fine-tuning, but having a highly-visible link in the opposite direction overstates the significance of intelligent design in fine-tuning. As I see it, the relation of intelligent design to this article is something of a non-sequitur. It's a category error akin to an article on helium prominently referencing nuclear engineering. Sure, the two *can* be related, but the necessity of the relation is dubious. More precisely, we understood helium as an idea long before appreciated its relevance to nuclear engineering. I believe the same applies here. FWIW, I also don't believe it is appropriate to make ad hominem remarks. 70.247.174.93 (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS evidence for any of this? The ID crowd have made quite a large issue out of this -- for example in The Privileged Planet. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed one of the ID templates. There definitely does not need to be two identical ID templates in this article. FTU is a legit scientific topic of inquiry. Just because the IDers like it, does not change that fact. But the religious explanations are definitely associated with ID, so the template should remain in that section. BTW, I am not User:71.143.3.36 (despite the similarity of IP) who made some pretty POV edits on Jan 5. 71.169.186.109 (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

John Gribbin

Can anybody tell me why the views of John Gribbin are sufficiently prominent to be worth mentioning in this article. His own article certainly doesn't suggest any particular prominence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Gribbin believes extraterrestrials (humanoids) designed the universe, similar to the other theories in the list, he also believes in a fine tuned universe, all his ideas about fine tuning and the designer universe can be found in his 2010 book in the last couple of chapters, hes also co written books with Paul Davies another fine tuned proponent. Have a read here someone has summed up his theories 1Liveintheforests (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

None of that comes even close to answering my question -- which is about the prominence of Gribbin's views. Gribbin appears to have no particular prominence as either an astronomer nor as a fine-tuned advocate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

An editor added a new paragraph marked "criticism." I have removed it as its sourcing is inadequate. If the paragraph is to be in this article, we need to say explicitly who is making this opinion, in their words. One can't just argue against "fine tuning" in what appears to be their own words, and then reference a (literally) 240-page document without so much as a page reference. I also suggest that the quote go earlier in the article — not in its own section, as there is plenty of criticism/alternate viewpoints in this article as it stands.

More generally, many who come to this article incorrectly assume that "fine tuning" is some kind of religious position. In 2011 it is a legitimate issue of mainstream physics — not so much in the '90s, however, when the source for the paragraph in question was written. It is inaccurate to argue that modern physics/biology has a facile answer for the apparent "fine tuning" of the universe. It doesn't, and the fact that this issue exists is not due to some failure to understand physics or evolutionary biology. -Jordgette (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing has now become "adequate". I did not specify that evolution uses its surrounding because it is axiomatic.

If you're insinuating that I created it due to a rebuttal against religion, then you are incorrect. In your view it seems legitimate, but fine-tuning is invalid due to multiple reasons and is not taken earnestly in the scientific world.

I did not claim than in modern physics or biology that there was even an answer to the fine-tuning, never mind it being facile! But, there is. There are several.

I am going to add a NPOV tag to this section (wanted to explain why first). The issue I am seeing is that the tone is wholly inappropriate in tone, making argumentative assertions when it needs to be presented as a contrary view not as "this idea is stupid". Honestly I think the NPOV problem is so clear that I don't need to explain more than that. Also, this paragraph probably should be incorporated into the section "Disputes on the extent and existence of fine-tuning" as it would work better there; now it looks like an afterthought, falling below "In fiction and popular culture". I'm hoping someone better equipped than me can make the change. Also, I should maybe be clear that my adding the tag is not an indication that I think the information needs to go; just that the language/presentation needs to be reworked. --CAVincent (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think the material in question both over-states, and under-explains, its case. It certainly is far stronger in its assertions and far weaker on detailed critique than the cited TalkOrigins Archive piece is. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It surely seems to me that the issue of whether or not there is fine-tuning is a legitimate subject of physical inquiry. That almost goes without saying. Perhaps not all astrophysicists and cosmologists believe the Universe is fine-tuned. Any notable cite and quote should be mentioned in the article. Certainly it is not true that no one in the scientific world takes fine tuning seriously ("earnestly"?) as some important authorities are quoted. But even if they see it as fine-tuned, it does not mean they see such fine tuning to be remarkable in the sense that it could have turned out differently. That jury is still out on that. 71.169.178.122 (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This may be wandering off topic, but I think one of the larger issues (which I'm fairly sure has been raised in RSs somewhere) is whether the Universe is 'fine-tuned' for us or whether we're simply adapted (or 'fine-tuned') to the universe? In a different universe would life not exist, or would it simply be different (as it is necessarily differently adapted to that different universe)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not OT at all. And it appears to be touched upon in the article quoting Stenger: "We have no reason to believe that our kind of carbon-based life is all that is possible. Furthermore, modern cosmology indicates that multiple universes may exist with different constants and laws of physics. So, it is not surprising that we live in the one suited for us. The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe." (from Victor Stenger, Flew's Flawed Science).

Now, I believe that this is an important POV to include because Stenger is notable and this is well sourced. It surely seems to me that while Stenger is an outspoken atheist, this is more fundamentally about whether the Universe is fine-tuned at all (similarly to the point that you are making, Hrafn). Maybe the cite and quote should be moved to a different place in the article.

Despite objections made by some (that the article is somehow biased toward fine-tuning and even so by a intelligent or theistic source) I fully disagree that the scientific community has anywhere close to a consensus that there is no evidence of fine-tuning, in the last analysis. I'm pretty sure that most cosmologists that have commented on the issue are saying that there are several fundamental quantities (some are in the set of dimensionless fundamental constants) that are "remarkably" close to what they would have to be for there to be sufficient elemental diversity and time for any kind of complex life to evolve, not just carbon life. But they would not necessarily say it is because of any God or aliens or other intelligence. Many are satisfied with the multiverse (and AP) explanation. 71.169.178.122 (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above. People read too much into the word "tuned," that it seems to imply a tuner. I personally prefer the term "fine tuning"; it is unfortunate that this article is titled "fine-tuned universe." -Jordgette (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the section and am placing it below here for examination (without the POV tag):

The proposal that the universal laws of the cosmos are finely tuned (regarding intelligent life) fails as it is based on the assumption that present, complex life existed as a given. (The proposition is flawed as it applies to life as we know it, not life, strictly.) The claim is ignorant to the fact that life has evolved to suit the standards of the universe—or the "tuning" of the universe. A "finely tuned" universe is down to human judgment, thus reducing or omitting the proposal's objectivity.

User:Inswoon, all of this should be compared to the content in the section titled "Disputes regarding the existence and extent of fine-tuning". Anything substantively different should be integrated into that section and stuff that is redundant need be brought up once in that section. 70.109.179.173 (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

References

Victor Stenger

The Stenger quote ([3]) should read in part"..[we] cannot prove that some other form of life is not feasible even with a markedly different set of constants". Some of that is my own clarification but the bold word is definitely an omission and its absence makes nonsense of the point. Whether it was omitted by Stenger or by the person quoting him, I believe I have no way of knowing :) Harfarhs (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The original quote from Has science found God? is:

I do not dispute that life as we know it would not exist if any one of several of the constants of physics were just slightly different. Additionally, I cannot prove that some other form of life is feasible with a different set of constants. But anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory. [Emphasis original]

There isn't a "not" there, but the context of the final sentence indicates that he's meaning what you think he means. I'd suggest that we give the full, unadulterated quote. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a problem similar to that of the Wicked Bible. Should problems like these be "corrected" or not? 71.169.179.29 (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No, because the "not" was never there. It's a case of contextonomy, where loss of the context garbles the quote's meaning. It should be corrected, but the question is 'how?' My suggestion is to include the full unadulterated quote -- YMMV. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Stenger quote is interesting but fails to mention the fact the universe itself would not exist if not finely tuned. Surely a competent astrophysicist has addressed this. I know Brian Greene has. RonCram (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Premise

The current Premise is very short and does not cover the topic: Fine-tuned Universe There is much more "Disputes" text than the premise, this very unbalanced. Each year, more fine tuned parameters are discovered. The knowledge in cosmology expands as new discoveries are found, with the help of more sensitive and powerful instruments, like, telescopes and satellites. With these new discoveries more fine-tuning is found each year, not less. In testing a theory-model one looks to see if there is more support for a theory-model each year or less. A fine-tuned Universe theory has more support each year. Looking for a better write up on the "Premise." Telecine Guy 04:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC) One major outcomes of our fine-tuned Universe are the parameters that control nuclear fusion. The is no text in the "fine-tuned Universe" in relationship to nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion makes the the heavier chemical elements of the Universe, elements needed for life to be any where in the Universe. This this very unbalancedTelecine Guy 05:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The Elegant Universe

Brian Greene wrote the book[3] and, I believe, also hosted a show on Nova of the same title - The Elegant Universe. [4] The Nova show portrayed the finely tuned universe with about 20 dials. Greene did not appear to believe in Intelligent Design but he obviously believed in the proposition that the universe would collapse if the physics were different by very small amount. I cannot remember all of the different physical quantities Greene discussed, but I would like to be able to review the discussion here. Can anyone help? RonCram (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible improvements to the article

I recently removed a large chunk of the article on the basis that it was about religious conflicts with science generally, not about the issue of the fine-tuned universe. This section did mention a book which appeared to have relevance to anthropomorhpic fine-tuning, but did not reference that book precisely, nor did the content I removed actually say anything about this book said. Instead, it simply mentioned that a particular philosopher might have views on the issue, which, to my mind, does not improve the article at all. If someone wants to properly reference and cite that work, then I would welcome it.

One reference that I did remove was to a series of books called "A Scientific Theology". Not only was this improperly referenced, but a google search of the available preview of these books returned no results at all for "fine-tuned", indicating that these books are indeed not relevant to the topic at hand but are to do with religion and science in general.

So, I stand my by removal of this section.

What I was actually trying to do when removing this section was to find a way to combine the section on "alien theories" and "religious viewpoints". From a scientific perspective, these contrary views are probably equivalent and should probably be lumped together under a single heading "non-naturalistic viewpoints" or something. But "non-naturalistic" seemed to be clumsy language and I could not think of an alternative antonym for "naturalistic" which encompassed both of the species of "conscious fine-tuning". If someone else can think of a way to merge these separate sections into one, I think it would be an overall improvement to the article. GDallimore (Talk) 03:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why this doesn't seem to be naked POV to at least two editors. Polkinghorne, Gingerich, and Dyson are not known as philosophers (although Plantinga is). They're physicists and astronomers. With some pretty heavy credentials as well.

About combining "alien theories" and "religious viewpoints" is also a POV edit. I don't know if I would call the alien fine-tuning argument materialistic or non-materialistic. The religious POV is clearly non-materialistic, and that is its point. But, I think that a large component of both popular thought and scholarly thought (within the religious POV) would consider the association with alien theories to be a non-neutral and negative change. It's like associating a serious and scholarly religious POV with flying spaghetti monster or Russell's teapot or invisible pink unicorn. To group a position alongside with a parody of it, as if they are in the same category, is to degrade the position. Clearly a non-neutral edit.

There is a sorta PC slant in Wikipedia toward materialism and physicalism. While the purely material and physical POV of the fine-tuned Universe should be clearly and well represented, Wikipedia is not Sciencepedia. It should include fairly all significant point-of-view and present them impartially.

This is a significant change to the direction of the article (from inclusive of positions to less inclusive). GDallimore and David J Johnson insist that the default be the change they want to make to the article. It doesn't have wp:consensus in the article (not from me) but they appear to define it as the new consensus when that fact is not yet determined. 70.109.177.105 (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the only point I was making that the deleted section said nothing (and certainly nothing that was adequately referenced) about fine-tuning. If you want to talk about consensus, how about the wikipedia-wide consensus that additions should be properly sourced and should stay on the topic of the article?

And of course it's POV. Everything is POV. What matters is whether the POV is appropriate given the sources and the proper scope of the article. It's POV to say wikipedia is materialist (note, I never used that term, but the term "naturalistic", which is a very different beast), and it's as POV to suggest that religion and the flying-spaghetti monster are in the same category as it is to suggest that they are not. From a scientific perspective, and I think this should be a scientific article, religion and aliens and flying spaghetti monsters definitely are in the same category since they all imply a conscious (ie, not naturalistic) influence on the current state of the universe. Furthermore, that influence appears to be entirely invisible to us, except in the assertion of the resultant "fine-tuning". This is a position totally anathema to the scientific method and should be treated as such in an scientific article. GDallimore (Talk) 11:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I can do no better than agree totally with GDallimore's contribution above. It should be remembered that this is a scientific article and should be treated as such. David J Johnson (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I largely agree with GDallimore's contribution above, with some reservations. I don't think to say something is the result of "conscious influence" is necessarily the same as "not naturalistic". A universe created in some laboratory of the future as per Alan Guth would still be a naturalistic universe. It seems to me only the case where the "fine tuner" is thought to be a supernatural or immaterial entity (i.e. a personal creator god) would this be the case. As for bias, I think the article is well balanced but the editing history clearly indicates an editorial bias in favor of those opposed to the notion of fine tuning. This is most evident in the repeated attempts to dismiss and remove references to Luke Barnes' critique of Victor Stenger's arguments against fine tuning. I am not sure I agree with the statement that Wikipedia is or should be "naturalistic". I don't think an encyclopedia should be "naturalistic" or "supernaturalistic" per se, it should state facts, including commonly held beliefs when relevant to the subject. The question of "fine tuning" is a scientific question, albeit one notable primarily due to its possible implications for religious belief, so it's not as strictly a "scientific article" as an article on say, cosmic inflation would be. My own position by the way, relevant only to the extent we are discussing bias, is that there really isn't at present a satisfactory explanation for the so-called "fine tuning" of the universe, though I think it unlikely to be the result of "conscious influence". CannotFindAName (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Is blogger Luke Barnes a reliable source?

There are a number of arguments in this article which reference a certain "Luke Barnes" who is one of several bloggers on a blog that is named "Letters to Nature". If you click on these links you will notice that these references are NOT letters to the editor of the journal Nature. They are simply the blog posts of a blogger named "Luke Barnes". Is this a reliable source with sufficient notability to be included in this article? I am of the opinion that it is not a reliable source, and that these parts of the article should be removed, or replaced with arguments that reference a source that is more reliable and/or notable. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. It looks like Luke Barnes is a postdoctorate researcher in cosmology, however he and his ideas appear to be non-notable. His blog posts are not a reliable source nor are they peer-reviewed. The article should be scrubbed of ideas that are sourced with his blog posts. -Jordgette [talk] 20:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Barnes has since published a review of the scientific literature on fine-tuning in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This reference and a short discussion has been added to the relevant section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbar6937 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This is dubious (1) without a clear link to a paper-published journal article (such as SpringerLink), considering that the journal in question open-publishes papers by non-members for a substantial fee. (2) It appears we have a conflict of interest edit here as well given the editor's username. (3) Luke Barnes appears not to be a notable scientist. Considering (1), (2), and (3), I recommend cutting the section. -Jordgette [talk] 01:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Jordgette, I agree with you, Luke Barnes is not a notable scientist - in fact the whole section appears to be self-advertising and the section should be cut. Best regards, David. David J Johnson (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Because of concerns expressed above about notability of Barnes and the lack of further contributions, I have deleted the para.

This just appears to be a blogger attempting to get their ideas into a article. David J Johnson (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

To editor Lbar6937 (and with apologies if you are Luke Barnes): The consensus here is that this addition is non-notable. Unlike Victor Stenger and Fred Adams, Luke Barnes is not a notable scientist. There are thousands and thousands of articles in peer-reviewed journals, but the mere existence of one does not indicate notability of the idea presented there. If the idea has been reported on by a 3rd party, such as a notable scientist writing a review article in Nature, then it would be notable. Please refrain from unilaterally undoing edits that were made by consensus. -Jordgette [talk] 23:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

From Lbar6937: If the title of the section is "Disputes regarding the existence and extent of fine-tuning", it seems strange to only present criticisms and not the replies. The most comprehensive response to the arguments of Stenger and Adams that I am aware of, and the most up-to-date peer-reviewed overview of the scientific literature on fine-tuning (correct me if I'm wrong) is the article of Barnes (http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/AS12015.htm). Robin Collins (mentioned in the article and has his own Wikipedia page) has criticised Stenger's conclusions (here: http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/Stenger-fallacy.pdf). Is he notable enough? His article endorses Barnes' "review of the fine-tuning physics literature, and an extensive and devastating critique of Stenger’s physics". Stenger's "computer simulations" aren't exactly mainstream - they've never been peer-reviewed and never been cited in a scientific journal. This should be noted in a section about "disputes". Would a reference to Collins be acceptable?

Two other points. Firstly, point (2) above, "the journal in question open-publishes papers by non-members for a substantial fee" is not evidence of a suspect journal. All papers published by PASA go through peer review. No author "buys their way in". Either the reader pays or the author pays. Open access publishing is not the sign of a dodgy journal - MNRAS (the UK's premier astronomy journal) has the same policy.

Secondly, how are you - the wikipedia gurus - judging notability? You say "there are thousands and thousands of articles in peer-reviewed journals", and yet you will not find Stenger's work on fine-tuning in any of them, nor cited in any of them. (Wouldn't this suggest that, while his other work as a physicist is notable, his work on fine-tuning is not?). Is notability judged by public profile, google hits, books and popular articles, age, record of scientific publishing, scientific credentials? And what makes you think that a layman (or group thereof) can make such a subjective judgement as "this article/scientist is not notable enough"? You say "consensus", but who are you? Why not defer to the editors and professional referees of respectable scientific journals? I notice that the article by Harnik, Kribs and Perez has also disappeared - which is strange, given that it has its own wikipedia page Weakless Universe. It's based on one peer reviewed article. Are they notable enough? Is the response to their work by Clavelli and White (referenced on the wikipedia page) notable enough? Don't misunderstand me - I think the Harnik et al. work is notable and should be mentioned. But if them, why not Barnes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbar6937 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This is getting somewhat silly. Jordgette has explained the reasons for the deletions, which I agree with and still appear, to me, to be a self-advertisement. The latest contribution above was not even given the courtesy of signing, but does appear to be the person who is trying to advertise his own personal views - which is against Wikipedia policy. If this behavior carries-on, then I suggest that Jordgette applies for page protection and a block - which I would suppport. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is if a scientist doesn't have his/her own Wikipedia article, then he/she isn't notable. This makes sense, since a person has to be notable to have a Wikipedia article, meaning they are influential enough that third parties write about them as important thinkers. The same is true of ideas — just because an idea is published doesn't necessarily make it notable. However, if an idea is published in Nature or Science, it will invariably be seen as more notable than one published in a minor journal read by a much smaller audience. Regarding Harnik et al, it's borderline. At least in that case there is one third party writing about their paper (albeit in ArXiv). I personally don't think it ranks for this article — others may disagree — but for Barnes I see little or no notability for either the person or the proposal. -Jordgette [talk] 19:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What follows is probably moot because it seems the references to Barnes' critique of Stenger has been restored, which is appropriate in my estimation. If the article were about Barnes these questions about his "noteworthiness" would be relevant, but what matters here is not how well known Barnes is but whether he is qualified to critique Stenger's argument and whether his critique of Stenger's argument itself is well known and hence noteworthy. The fact is, Barnes is qualified to critique Stenger and his criticism of Stenger's fine tine tuning arguments are well known and widely considered to be a devastating refutation of Stenger. Stenger himself publicly responded to Barnes' arguments more than once, indicating that he himself certainly takes Barnes quite seriously. The suggestion that having a Wikipedia page entry is a good indication of notability is dubious to say the least. There are scores of vanity entries on Wikipedia that get by the editors, ironically in part because the people, places or things are so unknown. It's worth pointing out that this very article cites an argument by William H. Jefferys and Michael Ikeda, neither of whom are noteworthy and and only one of whom has a stub Wikipedia entry of dubious encyclopedic value (it's essentially just a C.V.). It seems to me that Barnes is no more or less noteworthy than Jefferys and Ikeda; all three are notable only for what they have to say about fine tuning. Given the fact that Barnes' critique of Stenger's fine tuning argument is widely regarded as both highly effective and inadequately answered by Stenger, the attempts to remove reference to it create the impression of a bias in favor of those opposed to the notion of fine tuning.CannotFindAName (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

"His criticism of Stenger's fine tine tuning arguments are well known and widely considered to be a devastating refutation of Stenger...Barnes' critique of Stenger's fine tuning argument is widely regarded as both highly effective and inadequately answered by Stenger" -- Is this true? If so, there should be plenty of references to back up Barnes. So let's add them. If not, the "inadequately answered" claim may simply result from Stenger being too unknown or even fringe to be on Stenger's radar. So, how do we know this argument is well regarded? -Jordgette [talk] 18:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

"If not, the 'inadequately answered' claim may simply result from Stenger being too unknown or even fringe to be on Stenger's radar." Surely you meant to say "the 'inadequately answered' claim may simply result from BARNES being too unknown or even fringe to be on Stenger's radar. In any event, Barnes is neither fringe or unknown to Stenger; Stenger's interaction with Barnes was quite public and is readily available online. Barnes himself by the way does not advocate the idea of a conscious "fine tuner", he just objects to Stenger's claim that there is nothing about the constants of physics that seem "fine tuned". Barnes is comparable to Jefferys and Ikeda in notability, both of whom are also "known" primarily for their contribution to the fine tuning argument. As for your suggestion of adding references to Barnes' argument, I agree wholeheartedly. There are many and they ought to be added.

CannotFindAName (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The History of the Concept.

Hello, people. I have a suggestion.

I was having a discussion with someone about whether the concept of a fine-tuned universe was first invented by scientists or by religionists. Obviously we came to Wiki for information on the question... but there is none.

The article describes the concept, but never says who it came from, or when.

Wouldn't that be useful information to be included?

Unfortunately, I don't know the answers. Do any of you?

(I have got books by Davies and Rees on the subject, so I'll check them out. But maybe someone knows off-hand?)

Gnu Ordure (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the general idea of fine-tuning comes from religion -- the assumption that creation is perfect, or close to perfect. The questioning of "why these laws?" in science seems to be a fairly new, 20th-century concept; before that, it was "the laws are here, so let's just find out what they are." The invocation of the scientific version of fine-tuning by religious scholars is, I believe, newer still. But I don't know of any sources spelling this out that would warrant an addition to the article. If anyone else does, I agree, it would be a valuable addition. -Jordgette [talk] 23:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I am thankful to User:GreenUniverse for adding this section and to User:Jordgette for refinement. I would say that before the 20th century, there was not enough known (pre-Hubble, pre-Dicke) to even come up with a scientific and materialistic model of creation. So the only model offered was a religious model. But the FTU as it presently is, is a very scientific concept. It is not the same as Intelligent design which has many proponents that are coming to the concept with preconceived religious notions and are seeking scientific support. the FTU and AP is about observation (the fact that there are parameters, not just the fundamental physical constants, but initial conditions of the big bang, that for any open-minded observer, would seem to be remarkable or curiously fortuitous for we observers to be observing). I hope that the zealots that own and control the ID article do not return here to rewrite this as some sort of creation of the Discovery Institute. The topic is not such a creation. 70.109.176.87 (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I would be interested in hearing what specifically Jordgettel has in mind when he or she says that "the general idea of fine tuning comes from religion." I am aware of no religious version of fine tuning predating 20th century scientific discoveries of just how improbable our universe is. It seems to me quite a stretch to say that religious notions of a "perfect" or "close to perfect" creation amount to a religious version of fine tuning. I think fine tuning is a very recent concept that could only come about after the scientific discoveries of the last 100 years or so, and has no clear religious antecedent.

While I can understand why a religious person might be excited by any suggestion that the universe was consciously tweaked to produce humans, it seems to me that a "supreme being" of the sort described by religion would not have had to "fine tune" parameters, in a sense be required to wrestle with its own creation in order to force an extremely unlikely outcome (i.e. to allow for life as we know it to eventually exist, albeit for a tiny fraction of the lifespan of the universe). That the fine tuning problem would be spun religiously by some is to be expected but on further thought a bit perplexing; why should the discovery that the laws of nature are such that a universe (briefly) hospitable for life as we know it is extraordinarily improbable weigh in favor of theism rather than against it? The fine tuning problem really isn't particularly compelling evidence for either a god or universe designing aliens, but of the two, the latter would seem far more likely inasmuch as at the former seems suspiciously inept and inefficient for a supposed omnipotent being.CannotFindAName (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

I suggest changing the title to "Arguments Against Fine Tuning" which will get us to a NPOV faster than trying to revise the content of the article. Honestly, I love Wikipedia, but the bias in articles like this one make it more or less useless on some topics. Most of the article is made up of bricks, bricks, bricks--large bricks tied to the topic to try to sink it forever at the bottom of the sea. You see it for a moment when the article opens and after that it's submerged: you just watch it's shape shrinking, distorted as it sinks out of view.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.242.251 (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I dunno. Doesn't seem so biased against fine tuning to me. It begins with the Paul Davies quote. The Victor Stenger opposition has to be cited because there isn't complete agreement that the notion of fine-tuning is correct at all. I thought the edits from the 81.129.136.144 IP were a little biased but not the inclusion of Stenger's position. 70.109.188.245 (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Please confine your edits to specific proposals for improving the article. This is not a forum for general discussion.--Charles (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I read through the main article on the multiverse and the article on the invisible pink unicorn to get a sense of weighting and proportion. My suggestion is that, like other articles on Wikipedia, the bulk of this article be spent on the definition, exposition and explanation of its topic. I do not mean that the bulk of it be spent on advocacy for the idea but rather on the exposition of the idea: that the universe is 'fine tuned'. Who advocates it? On what basis? What was the genesis of the idea. Spend most of the time here. The lion's share of the article simply cannot be given to repudiate the scant space the development of the idea has been allowed. On the previous 2 articles sited we are looking at something like an 80:20 split (exposition:opposition)--here we see something more like a 20:80 split with the 'religious argument' being given the unique honor of having a headed counter-argument immediately following (not to mention the Alien theory which I believe has already been criticized for its strategic placement).

Regarding the opening, I think a smart way to introduce the topic is to refer to the 'appearance of fine tuning' which neither repudiates nor concludes that this appearance constitutes the real situation.

Again, I stand by the content of my previous comment. Were the article titled "The Not Fine-Tuned Universe" I would find the content very balanced. Just enough dissent with the bulk of the article providing a detailed introduction to the individuals and ideas of those who think there is good reason to believe that the Universe is not fine tuned and why--in detail. Sorry, it's backwards. 5.67.242.251 (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to edit the article and include additional exposition and explanation, including who advocates for the idea, what they said, what exactly they mean or imply (e.g. Davies support for fine-tuning is not religious, at all) and what parameters appear fine-tuned and what would be different if the parameters were different. I would agree that too much space is spent on Stenger and, long ago, when cited counter arguments to naturalistic explanations or the idiotic explanations like Alien Design, those counter arguments were deleted, yet the counter arguments to religious explanations (essentially teleological) remain.

Wikipedia has changed from neutral POV to a POV that favors science. Some of that is okay, but, if you think this article lacks neutrality in the POV, you should check out Intelligent design.

As it is, I think that this article and Anthropic principle are doing pretty well regarding POV. Certainly better than the ID article, which is blatantly biased, simply because the editors defending it insist that the Discovery Institute solely define what ID is, even though the term has existed decades before the DI or any of their founders or members ever existed. I wouldn't recommend trying to correct the bias at the ID article. Some of those editors are nasty and they have admins as friends. 70.109.188.117 (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

or life as it is understood

"Life as it is understood" is a completely vacuous phrase until it's been introduced and defined by some stated criteria.

When I hear physicists or biologists using this phrase, I often wonder if they mean "a universe where Captain Kirk could conceivably score some green nookie". We're so implicitly anthropocentric.

We look at the landscape of 10^500 vacuum states and somehow decide that few of these contain life "as we know it" without worrying our pretty heads about how many of these lifeless-as-we-know-it universes contain xeno-physics physicists who--if the concept of 'who' even translates--are peering over the multiverse partition and viewing our particular configuration as contrary to life as they know it.

Nicely done, now we're all special--not that we could conduct an experiment to demonstrate this xeno-physics communication gap either way, because where it concerns the Universe, "as we know it" is explicitly N=1 pseudo-science.

Whenever did we prove that the existence of chemistry in a universe (and the stars and planets and biology as we know it) is a prerequisite to natural selection?

"Natural selection without the magic of the carbon atom just couldn't work. Q.E.D." So it's written in the stars.

Sheesh, we can't even figure out if our own physics is conducive to life as we know it, so I wouldn't be rushing to conclude we've achieved much separation between "life as we know it" and "life as it is understood" with that clever little introduction of the passive voice.

The fine-tuning argument hinges on initial assumptions about the general nature of life every bit as much as our periodic table hinges on precise mass ratios of subatomic particles. For the purposes of the fine-tuning argument, one's definition of life must certainly include every universe capable of posing the fine-tuning question, whether they grok carbon or not, or you've finessed your census severely (i.e. all sentient universes overestimate their precious uniqueness). — MaxEnt 03:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)