Talk:Fine-tuned Universe/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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 The rest of the discussion pertaining to I/J has been archived, Wikipedia is not a message board.--Tznkai 1 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)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

Multiverse edits

After reading the link contained in the criticism of Multiverse theory, I relocated the item to the 'possible arguments' section. The other two items did not contain criticisms, therefore the item statement needed relocation. Also, the article did not make the statement as a factual refutation of a Multiverse theory. Rather, as a probability argument. 10k monkeys vs. Shakespere, etc.--ghost 20:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


Merge?

It's been suggested that Fine-tuning should be merged into this article. The articles look like duplicates to me, but I don't know the subject well. What do you think? Kerowyn 03:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that they should be merged. The Fine-tuning article is about a more general subject than the fine-tuned universe. Bubba73 (talk), 03:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
right. fine-tuning is a way of doing something, fine-tuned universe is a (IMHO non-scientific) theory dealing with the origin of life -- calvinchong

Fine-tuning seems to be a seperate subject altogther, the somewhat controversial process of adding small "fixes" to a physical model to account for observed effects out of sync with the model. The strereotypical example being the cosmological constant, which, when it was first created, had no explaination other than to reconcile the model with what was believed at the time to be reality.

Whether or not it's scientific, it bears at least partial mention and representation in its own article, being that it's not the same as fine tuning]]Alexnye 04:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I/J Redux and Counterargument

Does it bother anyone that the I/J argument isn't peer reviewed? I'm worried that the referee would of had a field day with the science. If it is in a journal somewhere, it would be nice to see a citation. I only mention this because Richard Swinburne reaches the exact opposite conclusion (also via Baysian) in his book "The existence of God."

Bradley, M.C. “The Fine-Tuning Argument: the Bayesian Version.” Religious Studies 38 (2002) 375-404.

The basic argument has been peer-reviewed. This is the version by Sober, cited in the article. The I-J article is to be published in a book, The Improbability of God, by Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier, which is scheduled to appear in February. When I am able I will add a citation. Bill Jefferys 18:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
A book does not mean it's peer reviewed. Is there a site to a journal anywhere? I just think we should site the orignal journal. But surly you'll grant the single sentence that I added for the couterargument. Richard Swinburn's newest edition to his book "The Existence of God" (which postdates this pdf file that was written), reaches the exact opposite conclusion. At least that deserves a small mention.
Our article in the book The Improbability of God (which is now in print, and I've added a citation to the main article) is peer-reviewed to the extent that it was selected by the editors without being submitted by us. The article by Sober is fully peer-reviewed; it gives the same basic argument that we do, which is to show that fine-tuning does not support supernaturalism (or in Sober's terminology, design.) Bill Jefferys 22:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


I would also like a link added to Richard Swinburn's book, for balance, or at least a summary of why he reaches the opposite conclusion. As it stands, the Wikipedia article goes into detail on the I/J argument, but basically glosses over any counter-argument. I for one would like to see and evaluate the arguments/counterarguments for myself. Robert Preisser


Regarding the Swinburne reference, I'm looking at the summary Bayesian inference on p189 of The Existence of God (search Google Books to see this). There is no mention of conditioning on L, and as such, his argument does not address one of the main points of I-J: that for a Bayesian inference to be justified, evidence and hypotheses must be conditioned on *all* background knowledge. For this reason, I don't agree with mentioning Swinburne's writing as representative of the counter-argument to I-J. By all means cite someone else, but I haven't come across any pro-FT arguments that attempt to address this rather important point. Such is the cutting-edge of the FT argument...

I'm not going to change the article text at this stage (mainly because I only have an old edition of Swinburne in paper form), but this really wants clearing up by someone who can confirm the above. CC.

I've tried to clean up this I/J stuff. a. The section is not just about I/J but about Bayesean argumnets in general so I've re-titled it accordingly. b. The argument has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal (and IMHO is bogus, but this is not the place to discsuss this). So it certainly can't be called a "theorem" - they have a "proposition". c. Whoever summarised it confused F which in their notation means life-friendly with being fine-tuned (in their notation P(F|N)) d. A paper which has been published in a partisan propagandist book and on the author's website really doesn't deserve such prominence in the article. I don't like removing other Editors' work so I have kept most of the text in the footnote. NBeale 09:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting definition of the word "theorem" you're using there. Nurban 23:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Nature of the Constants section bit hard to read.

I think I could improve some of the writing in the Nature of the Constants section in this article to make it more readable and on-topic and less sprawling. I'm going to make some edits to this, so please feel free to critique my edits. Twelvethirteen 18:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't change the wording of the pragmatic vs ontological nature of reductionism, though I think this could be more clear too. I just don't want to alter the meaning of it accidentally. cheerz Twelvethirteen 19:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The appearance of fine-tuning is an artifact of the reductionist method. The point of "(meaning our group behavior is due to individual behavior which is due to the parts of the individual which are made of atoms which are made of particles whose behavior is specified by laws of physics that contain within them a few fundamental constants that can be measured to varying degrees of precision)" was to explain "the precise interplay of physical constants being necessary for known life" in that the reductionist method results in the direct known connection between the constants and the nature of everything including the existence of life as we know it. There is no surprise or anything tricky or any big deal that reductionism necessitates that the fundamental rules believed to naturally be 100% of the cause of all behavior in the observed universe would include life among "all behavior". It is only the misunderstanding of science and the belief in the supernatural that produces the "wow, so scientists admit life is caused by carefully chosen parameters" effect. WAS 4.250 10:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's also an issue of confusing special condition with precise condition. Just because the constants are precise doesn't mean they were chosen specially. It is tautology to say that if the universe had different conditions the universe would be different. It is anthropocentrically arrogant to conclude that because the universe we inhabit has these conditions this is the "best of all possible" universes or that there is no possibility for other kinds of structures in universes that have a different set of constants. Our universe may be precisely determined, but it need not be special. In fact, if one believes the Copernican principle, there's nothing special about it. --ScienceApologist 15:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. ScienceApologist, please try your hand at improving the "hard to read" subsection in question. I would, but it was my writing that made it hard to read in the first place. Concerning "nothing special about it", I find it especially absurd that people claim the universe is designed for life when to the best of our knowledge life is about the smallest known part of it. Which indicates to me that a more likely guess is that this universe just by chance (of the quantum mechanics kind) has one possible set of laws that just barely allow for intelligent life to evolve (and as far as I'm concerned intelligent life has yet to evolve on Earth - when we finally create it the first thing we'll learn from it as a species is how utterly self deceived we are as a species). WAS 4.250 16:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Just Six Numbers

I have removed a recent external link to a book advert; the data for adding the link as a reference is: Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe, by Martin J. Rees, ISBN 0465036732. I post this here for discussion on whether the book should be added to the article. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

For a few years, I have been familiar with this book, and I decided that it would likely interest readers of the article "Fine-tuned universe", so I did a Google search for "just six numbers". The link which I selected for this article was not the first on Google's list, but it conveniently had (a) a brief summary of the six numbers and (b) further links for ordering the book.
I am not affiliated with either the author or anyone involved in its distribution, so I was surprised to see my editing associated with spam. I did some research on Wikipedia about spam and some related topics. I followed some links from the ISBN link above, and it seems to me that the data which you have posted are better than what I had posted. I am in favor of adding your data as a reference. Wavelength 19:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Martin Rees who wrote Just Six Numbers is President of the Royal Society and the most eminent scientist to have written a book on the subject. We should certainly be following his basic classifications unless we have very strong and well-supported reasons, properly cited, otherwise. NBeale 11:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't know that Rees would say the book is "about" fine-tuning, though he certainly touches on the subject. --ScienceApologist 12:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I do know that he would. See eg his paper Other Universes, a scientific perspective in God and Design. It's arguably a POV that Just Six Numbers is the pre-eminent book, but that is not what I said: I claimed that he was "the pre-eminent scientist who had written a book on the subject." Your suggested alternative being?? (hint s/he'd better be President of the RS or the NAS and have a Nobel or a Craaford. NBeale
Fred Hoyle is arguably the only person to use fine-tuning anthropic arguments to make any scientific predictions. He certainly disagreed with any theistic implications for his work. --ScienceApologist 17:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
With great respect to the late Fred, he's (a) not as eminent as Rees and (b) didn't write a book on fine-tuning. In addition Rees is an Atheist who does not accept that providence is the correct explanation and prefers a multiverse view. It would be best not to supress pre-eminent scientsts to impose an un-sourced PoV classification, however eminent the handful of wikipedians who thought it OK were. I'll adjust the section again to address the concern you raised, but please don't just revert, this is not constuctive. NBeale 18:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Writing a popular-level book on "just six numbers" does not make one the eminent scholar on fine-tuning. Fred Hoyle actually published a prediction for a nuclear resonance based on the anthropic principle. This makes his work of more scientific importance than Rees' layman's jaunt through basic cosmological speculation. --ScienceApologist 18:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

reverted "non-neutral" language.

Felonious, i don't think you made your case that the edits i put in are POV. i am taking no position on intelligent design other than that what these guys are usually trying to do is to push non-science into the science classroom. this whole concept of fine-tuned universe exists solely because some scientists plausibly believe that it is quite odd or, at least, remarkable that the constants of nature such as the fine-structure constant happen to take on the values that they have and that the existence of the universe, as we observe it, depends on those constants taking on very nearly the value that they have. the word "remarkable" is simply what it is. if it wasn't remarkable, no one would be talking about this "fine-tuning" and there would be no WP article on it. the rest of the changes have to do with what the fundamental physical constants really are and everything that i wrote that focuses that set to the dimensionless constants is in keeping perfectly with the present state of physics as expressed by John Baez, Frank Wilczek, John D. Barrow, Michael Duff, Gabriele Veneziano, and practically any other physicist that you will get on moderated newsgroups such as sci.physics.research and their various blogs. r b-j 00:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


My only issue was your use of 'remarkable' and its cognates in the intro that was non-neutral. "...physical constants relating to one another in remarkedly exactly the fashion..." and "While the concept of the remarkable precise interplay of physical constants..." editorialize. Please see WP:WTA#Ironically.2C_amusingly.2C_unfortunately.2C_interestingly.2C_etc_.5BWords_which_editorialize.5D. FeloniousMonk 02:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Believe it or not, rbj, most physicists/cosmologists reject anthropic principles (which is all FTU is). The assumption that life as we know it could not exist if the constants were changed may or may not be true (it's unfalsifiable though, so not science, just philosophy), but any assumption that life would not exist period, or that life as we know it on earth represents the only possible biological paradigm is asinine. •Jim62sch• 22:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

that the "Fine-tuned universe" concept exists, at all, is a viewpoint.

this whole Fine-tuned universe concept that is the topic of this article is a viewpoint. people can certainly and have taken the POV that the universe is not necessarily fine-tuned at all. if it wasn't "remarkable" in the minds of phyicists (such as Barrow) and other people that have simply brought up the subject that the parameters of the universe seem to oddly take on values that allow for the creation of matter and of the elemental diversity (some additional physics in novae had to happen for elements heavier than iron to be created), of structures such as galaxies, stars, planets, so that beings that are like humans can sit around and think about all of this, from the POV of anyone who would bring this subject up, it is remarkable. it's a simple word. it's not making a big POV claim. it's essentially a tautology. tautologies don't say much, using them to "prove" other assertions is a logical fallacy, but disputing them (if you accept their premises) is also logically flawed. what is your problem with it, Felonious?

the whole idea of a fine-tuned universe concept is that it ostensibly is remarkable. if it isn't remarkable the article has no reason to exist. r b-j 02:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's by definition a view point. It's certainly not a given. FeloniousMonk 02:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
you missed the point. r b-j 02:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe not. The point is, per guideline, "remarkable" is a word that editorializes and is to be avoided. It's fundamentally unencyclopedic language you're insisting on. FeloniousMonk 02:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
and that point is wrong. it does not editorialize. asserting that the universe is fine-tuned as if it is simply an undisputed fact is editorializing. but when describing what people mean when they talk about the fine-tuned universe, or even advocate for the concept, there is no point to the topic at all if it is not remarkable. that is the reason that naturalists have used the concept of the multiverse along with the weak anthropic principle to explain such a remarkable fine-tuning that is asserted by those who advocate fine-tuning. if it wasn't "remarkable" there would be no topic of fine-tuned universe in the first place.
you point about the WP guideline also fails. "remarkable" is not on the list. it does not, in and of itself, insert POV. if we were writing about something uncommon like octuplets or something like that, saying "remarkable" is not POV. octuplets aren't born all the time. when a batch of octuplets happen to be born once in known history, it is not POV to say that such an event is remarkable. it simply is.
i am not saying that the universe has to be fine-tuned. i am only saying that if such a concept of fine-tuning is either accepted per se, or even provisionally for argument, that it is simply "remarkable". there is no such thing as an unremarkable fine-tuned universe. that's the whole point of the topic to exist in the first place. r b-j 02:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Remarkable is a point of view, it is non-encyclopedic, it fails WP:NPOV and does not belong in the article. This is pretty basic. If you find the antropic principle, or it coopted version, FTU to be remarlkable, put it in a blog. •Jim62sch• 10:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The artilcle is not saying that FTU is remarkable. That is strawman argument. The article says that some observed properties of the universe are remarkable and identifies the language of FTU to address that. Fine-Tuned is also a point of view, yet there is an encyclopedia article about it. Perhaps there is no fine-tuning. Then how can such a point of view be represented in Wikipedia? It is because Wikipedia has articles on controversial topics. Just because a topic is controversial does not mean it cannot be represented in Wikipedia. The Fine-Tuned Universe is a topic of some controversy, but as such, if it is to be described or expounded upon, the point of view of the topic (topics have POV, too) gets to be represented. Not as if it were undisputed science, but if the topic of the Fine-Tuned Universe is about what is considered by some to be "remarkable" or "exceedingly unlikely" properties observed in the universe, it is certainly not POV to include such words in the description of the topic. It is also not POV, and is even necessary, to include the fact that it is not, in any manner, settled science. But some scientists use such a term and description for what they believe to be "remarkable" or "exceedingly unlikely" properties observed in the universe. There is no harm in the article reflecting that as long as it is not given undue weight. 76.19.168.52

I have to agree with RBJ. This is exactly the context in which the word "remarkable" is used objectively; it is hard to see why someone would think it is a point of view, just because it was on a list of words to be avoided. Is there an alternative point of view, that the precise relationships of physical constants that allow the conditions for life is NOT remarkable? I don't think so. Dicklyon 04:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice that you do, however, you too are incorrect. Remarkable does not belong in an encyclopedic entry as it is clearly used to give weight to a POV. Obviously, you support the anthropic principle (in its FTU version) no matter that it's scientic hogwash, yes, that's my opinion, but that'll never be in the article either because the purpose of Wiki is not to support POV's. In any case, I reverted your entry. If you restore it, it will be reverted again (just as I would revert any entry saying FTU is outright poppycock). If you go 3RR you will be blocked. You see, Wiki has remarkable tools in place for dealing with such nonsense. •Jim62sch• 10:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Whether something is 'remarkable' or not is an opinion, not an objective fact. And it's completely subjective. What one man finds remarkable another may find mundane. Meaning to say whether something "remarkable" is to state a viewpoint. Without an attribution saying the basis for the FTU is "remarkable" is to editorialize. It simply not neutral language. FeloniousMonk 05:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I hear you, but I don't agree. And I really don't get your check-in comment: that the "Fine-tuned universe" concept exists, at all, is a viewpoint. How can there be any question that the concept exists? Are you going meta on us? I'd like to hear what others think, too, since your position is clear. Dicklyon 06:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Although I'm not so sure that this was where FM was going, let me state that both FTU and the anthropic principles are opinions (or if you prefer "philosophical constructs" or "gedenkenexperiments") -- there is nothing in science to back them up. In fact, these concepts are not falsifiable (or won't be unless we can reach a neighboring/parallel universe in which the physical laws are different), thus they are not science. Pretty simple, really. •Jim62sch• 10:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Some editors here have a logical or semantic disconnect with the words they choose to include and the words they insist on deleting. To quote, on one hand, an author who says: "the chance that any initially random set of constants would correspond to the set of values that we find in our universe is very small and the universe is exceedingly unlikely to be the result of mindless chance. Rather, an intelligent, purposeful, Creator must have arranged the constants to support life." and to understand that such a quote is NPOV (in the context of explaining this concept) and then to insist that discussion of the Fine-Tuned Universe is cannot be about the remarkably low probability of such an outcome, clearly demonstrates the bias of the editors. "Exceedingly unliklely" is okay yet "remarkable" is not? The other edits removed were also just as incorrect. If I were to pick nits, I would disagree with Rbj that "there is no such thing as an unremarkable fine-tuned universe." Whether the universe is fine-tuned or not is a physical issue that has nothing to do with whether or not people remark about it. But the word is still correct in this context because the article is not just about the physical nature of the universe but is about an explanation that people use when observing it. But science, as a discipline, is not only about nature, it is also about how people understand and describe nature. Whether or not the universe is actually fine-tuned because of some known or unknown phenomena is a matter of science. Whether or not observers judge such fine-tuning as "exceedingly unlikely" or the less strong "remarkable" is also a matter of science, a human discipline. But, to quote Rbj in another context, nature doesn't give a "rat's ass." Rbj is correct, but not entirely for the right reasons.
The case that FelniousMonk makes is self-contradictory. This editor clearly is unaware of the POV of his own edits yet is completely intolerant of the edits of others that are actually less POV. 76.19.168.52
I forgot to include that Jim is completely correct about the scientific nature of both the Fine-Tuned Universe and the Anthropic Principle, but that still does not mean that when one describes or explains either, it cannot be about what is judged to be "exceedingly unliklely" or "remarkable" observations by humans. It is exactly that, for some people when they think about such observations, such properties of the universe are hard to explain that such explanations such as the AP come up. The FTU is not really such an explanation, though, it is really just a term, a semantic, that we apply to an observation. The observation is, to some, "remarkable" which is really the root meaning of the term Fine-Tuned. That's why deleting the adjective is incorrect.76.19.168.52
Couldn't this easily be settled by finding a verifiable reliable source that refers to a fine-tuned universe as remarkable? Giving a citation of one of the academics involved in the argument could end this disagreement quickly I would think.Bagginator 11:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. How about Larry Abbot, "The Mystery of the Cosmological Constant," Scientific American, vol. 3, no. 1 (1991): 78, quoted here: [17].Dicklyon 18:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
As to whether it's science or not, I have no opinion; but I don't think that's the issue. It seems to me, empirically, however, that some scientists do recognize the FTU idea as something worth considering. And I don't think we'd have any article on it if it weren't something worth considering. Here, the thing the makes it worth considering is the very narrow range of values for which standard models predict a universe remotely like what we know. It is that very narrow range that makes the values worth remarking on. Where is the opinion in that? Dicklyon 18:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
(ri) Again, anthropic principles are philosophy, not science. Second, "remarkable" is subjective. Third, I find it remarkable that you can't see the flaw in your own reasoning when you state, "the thing the makes it worth considering is the very narrow range of values for which standard models predict a universe remotely like what we know." •Jim62sch• 22:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It is acceptable for it to be subjective as long as there is a verifiable reliable source that supports the subjective opinion. All opinions are subjective and Wikipedia allows the use of opinions with proper citations.Bagginator 01:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but neither policy nor guideline provide for presenting even well-supported subjective opinion as objective fact, which is what your addition of the cite to the article did. Again, that's it's remarkable is merely the opinion of the person you cite, not a fact, and one not widely accepted in the scientific community. I've properly attributed the view and noted that it is not widely accepted as a given, with a proper supporting source. FeloniousMonk 02:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Barbarra Forrest's well supported subjective opinion of what a "Leading proponent" is your addition to the Intelligent Design article. Yet somehow you think it appropriate to put her subjective opinion in that article, well supported or not, and you refuse the same thing in this article. Let's please be consistent.Bagginator 05:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Barbara Forrest testified as an expert, thus the court accepted her "opinion" as objective. Capisce?
BTW, whoever quote-mined "remarkably precise" presented it out of context. I have fixed that problem. •Jim62sch• 22:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"fine-tuned" as POV adjective

Perhaps the biggest problem in POV issues here is the title. The expression "fine-tuned" involves the past participle of the verb "to tune," which is something an agent does to a system. I'm not really familiar with this field or its terminology, but this one sounds like a name that was "designed" to bias the discussion of the concept. Are there other terms used for it? Dicklyon 18:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If you don't know the answer to this question, why are you editing the article? Editing talk, fine, but the article? •Jim62sch• 22:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Long story. Various things draw me into various articles. Is it OK if an outsider comes in and takes a position on an issue that he sees? Or is this turf taken? Oh, and what is the answer to the question? Or do you also not know? Dicklyon 23:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The term "fine-tuned" is what appears in the discussions. Both groups who are proponents of a "fine-tuned" universe and opponents both use the term. The connotations are deliberate in that (as the article discusses) people who say that the universe is fine-tuned are generally using it as part of an argument for the existence of a creator deity. JoshuaZ 23:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
That does explain the sensitivity around the topic. To me, it's a purely physics/cosmology question, with no involvement of theology. From a physical viewpoint, it is remarkable that the parameters seem to not work if changed even slightly. This is probably telling us something about the nature of the universe, or that the parameters are not really independent, or that our standard model is missing some key concepts, or that the "constants" are not really constant. I'll do my best to not lend support to a theological POV, but withholding the word "remarkable" for that purpose seems to be going overboard. Dicklyon 03:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Physicists as a group are remarkably poorly paid and welcome any attention that brings money in their general direction. "Big bang" was originated as an insulting characterization but survives as it has reached popular consciousness and thus is useful in the popularisation of otherwise hard to understand physics equations. "Fine-tuned universe" is likewise a term invented to mischaracterize the facts yet brings money to those who involve themselves in its use so it thrives as a term. WAS 4.250 00:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I see. So is it your contention that some scientist believe the "tuning" is not so precise as to deserve remark? Can you show me? Dicklyon 03:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Uh, we would know this how? "...it is remarkable that the parameters seem to not work if changed even slightly". Besides, define "work". •Jim62sch• 22:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"remarkably precise" refs

It now says:

Some argue, like Michael A Corey, that the arrangement of the physical constant is "remarkably precise."[1], though this position and its implication is not widely accepted within the scientific community.[2]

So I got ref 2 to see what it says. I haven't read the whole thing, but it doesn't seem to be getting to the point of contradicting the position that the physical constants have "remarkably precise" tuning. Rather, it is all about refuting a theological connection. The current sentence seems to be implying that the "implication" of "remarkably precise" is a theological connection. This is stupid.

Please tell me if I got it wrong. Does the reference apply if I take out "and its implications", which is itself a loaded POV phrase? Dicklyon 05:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've updated that part to better reflect reality (both in terms of what Corey really said and in terms of who Corey "is"). •Jim62sch• 22:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
BTW, Larry Abbot appears to be a nobody...at least as a physicist. Their is a Larry Abbot(t) at Brandeis who is a neuroscientist (PhD biology), but it seems to me a dead chicken is being waved here. •Jim62sch• 23:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of comments

Felonious, please don't remove talk comments, even if you suspect they were put in by a sock puppet, which seems not to be the case. Dicklyon 15:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence shows that 76.19.168.52 is Rbj. Edits added by someone circumventing a block should be removed can be removed by anyone. FeloniousMonk 15:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
"Checkuser" says no such thing. it says something about the use of IPs. and you, Felonious, in your arrogant certainty, expect people to accept your secret evidence without presenting it, is the same bullshit that Bush is trying to do [18] (but at least i was not on trial for my life, i'll grant that). it is indicative of arrogance, entitlement ("i can say whatever the hell i want and i expect you to believe it without presenting any evidence for public scutiny."). in both cases, it's a moral failure. r b-j 03:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
He says he's a friend of Rbj. Makes no difference to me. I hereby re-insert the comments as my own, but keeping the original signature so that the conversation makes sense, which it does not when pieces are elided. Dicklyon 17:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
What he says is irrelevant. What checkuser shows is relevant. •Jim62sch• 22:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It's "she". 76.19.168.52
OK, I can understand you wanting to defend your POV in the article, and even your wanting to censor Rbj's comments from the discussion after getting him blocked. But if his friend uses the same computer or same ISP or something, you want to censor him, too? Even if I, who am not censored (yet) re-insert the comments as my own, they have to be censored? This is nonsense. Why not leave the discussion alone so that it can proceed to try to understand the article content issues? Dicklyon 22:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Because block evaders should not profit from flouting the rules. Nor should they be assisted by sympathetic friends. FeloniousMonk 22:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah. So there is a god. Dicklyon 22:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Robert (Rbj) has asked me to hold off commenting while his ban is in effect lest it be extended even again. I resent the restriction because of a penalty applied to him, but have agreed to it this time. In principle, I should have no restriction applied to me however Rbj is enjoined. As best as I can tell, the ban is over now.
It's interesting that in the article about Intelligent Design, it prominently says that "An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific, as pseudoscience or as junk science." While I think it is completely true, the adjective "overwhelming" is editorializing in a greater degree that "remarkable" has been claimed to be here. Observation of the history of the article shows that some of the very same editors, particularly as Felonious Monk, edit that article often yet they apparently have no problem with that editorializing since it is prominent in the article and no one has bothered to remove it. "Overwelming" is a quantitative description (that can be debated) while "remarkable" is more qualitative. How much of a majority is "overwelming" is not well defined, but all that is needed is one or two persons to remark about something for it to be "remarkable". Little mundane things like how fast kids grow, or seem to, are "remarkable" because people remark about them. "Remarkable" is really not about the facts regarding science or art or social phenomena, it's about how people react to these facts. If people remark about them, they are remarkable.
Could it be that "overwelming" in the ID article is editorializing that agrees with the POV of these editors while "remarkable" in this article is simply not consistent with their personal POV?
The actions that Felonious Monk (and threats) to reverse many things Dick Lyon wrote in the article (and of restoring my comments to this talk page and standing by them), despite the citations he brought are evidence of intellectual dishonesty. He just does not want the same standards of debate and reason applied to his words as he demands of others. BTW, thank you, Dick. Rbj mentioned he had an edit conflict with you on some article in the past and was appreciative as well. 76.19.168.52
Did you (or rbj, or both of you, or the biunity) bother to read the llloooonnnngggg archives on the overwhelming debate? Bottom line is, 99.4% was, in the end, rightfully considered to qualify as "overwhelming".
I did not. I had no indication before now that it would be useful to look there. What is it is that you are saying is overwhelming, or 99.4%? Your sentence seems to be fragmentary. Dicklyon 19:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Remarkable/remarkably, aside from the linguistic faux pas of trying to intensify an absolute, is very much a relativistic subjective judgment call much in the same way as introducing adjectives such as beautiful, ugly, simple, difficult, etc., would be -- these words are based on personal perceptions with nothing tangible to recommend their usage. •Jim62sch• 18:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The point was to make it clear that the word was NOT an absolute, but a relative. Nothing about intensifying, which it does not do in this context. I think you guys are either paranoid, or semantically challenged. Dicklyon 19:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
And I think you need to read the OED -- hell, I gave a reference. You can argue your point however you want, but it'll still be wrong. Precise, like unique, is a bloody absolute. Again, 3. Exact; neither more nor less than; perfect, complete: opposed to approximate. Is this really that difficult? •Jim62sch• 00:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't happen to have an OED or a subscription to it, so you'll kindly quote the other definitions, perhaps I'll be able to tell you which one is more appropriate to the context. The definitions I'm thinking of are the ones that lend themselves to the tens of thousands of web pages with each of "insufficiently precise", "remarkably precise", "relatively precise", "more precise", "ultra-precise", "absolutely precise", etc., or the hundreds of thousands of "highly precise". Dicklyon 17:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Corey – Larry Abbott confusion

The quote and reference that I added about Larry Abbott saying "remarkably precise" has been re-attributed in recent edits to Michael Corey (just because he quoted it in his book), and has been dragged into a theological argument. This is really lame. Can you guys who screwed it up please take another look and try to unwind it into something more sensible, leaving theology out of it? Dicklyon 22:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've put it back to something that is at least "less screwed up", and changed the ref to make it more clear that the quote is from a guy who writes for scientific american, not a guy that writes about God. Dicklyon 23:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Larry Abbot appears to be a nobody...at least as a physicist. There is a Larry Abbot(t) at Brandeis who is a neuroscientist (PhD biology), but it seems to me a dead chicken is being waved here. Can you find a reference to the "real" Larry Abbot? Is he in any way notable? Is his opinion worth a plugged nickle? If not, and if you insist on the quote staying, it's going to be reworded yet again with an attribution to the theologist as an apocryphal quote from "a Larry Abbot who is claimed to be..." •Jim62sch• 23:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks like the book that quoted him had the spelling wrong. Needs two t's after all. This seems to be the guy and his phys pubs: [19]. I have no idea what opinions he might have; I was just responding to a suggestion to find a "verifiable" reference. Dicklyon 00:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed the missing t. However, he's been a biologist[20] for some years now (at Columbia), so he seems to be misrepresented as well. Curiouser and curiouser. •Jim62sch• 00:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems he got a lot of physics published in the era we're talking about. I don't see why the "dead chicken" label. Andn is there something controversial about what he said? Are there in fact physicists who do not think these things are "remarkable"? Show me. Dicklyon 01:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't make the first assertion (that it was remarkable), thus I have nothing to prove. If Larry Abbott is the only source that could be found, that doesn't speak volumes for the validity of the statement. Memento, ei incumbit probatio qui affirmat, non qui negat.
In the period in question? His last published physics paper was 3 years before the quote in question. Moving from physics to biology requires a substantial paradigm shift, and his way of looking at the world may have shifted as well. •Jim62sch• 01:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
What I'm trying to understand here is why the use of an adjective phrase like "remarkably precise" is being interpreted as an assertion of some opinion. If you can tell me that some physicists don't see a phenomenon of "fine tuning", or think that it's not true that small changes in physical constants would imply a very different universe, then I'd get the point. But instead of discussing this substantive issue, all I get back is word play. Dicklyon 02:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Some physicists don't see a phenomenon of "fine tuning". I assume you now get the point. WAS 4.250 13:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
That's part of it. The other part is that a stroll through the dictionary until one gets to "remarkable" (stop there and read), mightn't be a bad idea. For example, from the OED, "Worthy of remark, notice or observation; hence, extraordinary, unusual, singular" Note the weight the word adds to whatever it is modifying. Of course, given that "precise" is an absolute (OED, Exact; neither more nor less than; perfect, complete: opposed to approximate), the use of the adjective is superfluous, much in the same way as saying that something is the "most unique x you've ever seen". Thus, you are advocating the intensification of something that needs no such intensification simply for reasons of trying to create the illusion of added weight. •Jim62sch• 13:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the problem is that I'm an engineer. To engineers, "precise" is a relative term. There are degrees of precision. If the "fine-tuned universe" is a topic, then it must be because the precision involved is remarkable. It's not about adding extra weight; it's about making the otherwise vacuous term "precise" into a reason for being notable. By the way, I did read the dictionary (sorry, not the OED), before my first edit involving remarkable, because I wanted to be sure it had the meaning I intended. Dicklyon 15:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
What might be true linguistically in one discipline falls under the category of jargon -- to wit the non-absolute use of precise you mention. In plain English (non-techie), precise has a precise meaning, and that meaning is an absolute. It strikes me as being rather curious that you would say that precise is "vacuous" as the word is anything but. •Jim62sch• 16:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
But that absolute interpretation of "precise" makes no sense in this context. That's why it becomes meaningless. Dicklyon 19:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Your being an engineer possibly explains your misconception that "If the "fine-tuned universe" is a topic, then it must be because the precision involved is remarkable". It is "a topic" for psychological reasons. WAS 4.250 16:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, more progress. Can you explain that more? Where did the concept or the term come from? Was it discussed scientifically before it was perverted into a theological ploy, or was it really made up by the god squad? Why isn't the history of the concept discussed in the article. It seems to me that knowing where it has come from would be central to understand the concept and current issues around it. Dicklyon 19:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Fine. Let's make progress. Read Full text of Judge Jones' ruling, dated December 20, 2005 about Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and ask further questions after that. WAS 4.250 22:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I took a quick look, and since it doesn't seem to contain terms like fine-tuned or anthropic, I decided not to play that game. If you're trying to tell me that the god squad are trying to use the concept of the fine-tuned universe to support their intelligent design agenda, I'm not surprised. But it seems a bit of a tangent to worry about that at this point; what I want to know about is the intellectual history of this concept, not how it is currrently being abused. Dicklyon 00:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
It's essentially a rewording of the strong anthropic principle with teleological arguments thrown in. Asking for an "intellectual" history of FTU is like asking for an intellectual history of the flat-earth society's claims -- it's nought but pseudo-intellectualism. Basically, FTU derives from the need to make ID appear to work in the context of cosmology -- if an intelligent designer (i.e., God) designed life on earth, and if that life is irreducibly complex, then the same must hold true for the universe. •Jim62sch• 01:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I really just want to know about the scientific basis behind things like the phrase "these views are accepted within mainstream science," without the preaching to the choir. Dicklyon 03:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Near as I can tell you [21] wrote that, so you explain. I'll be fixing it presently. •Jim62sch• 00:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess that depends on what you mean by "it". I've done a bit of re-wording. You seemed to agree with it, when you added the exception for "unknown physics" here et seq. Before that, long before I ever saw this article, the statement "the concept of the precise interplay of physical constants being necessary for known life is widely accepted within mainstream science" seems to have been a stable part of this article. Is it now in dispute? If so, please say so here. Or if this mainstream acceptance has now been misattributed to a wrong concept, say that. You seem to be keeping your actual knowledge and opinion hidden while playing with the text for unknown purposes. Just tell us what you think and how you think the article ought to be fixed, and we can discuss it. If there are references to support either that these positions are accepted or not accepted, we should cite those, and cite the opposite only if corresponding other refs are found. OK? Dicklyon 02:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

History of the anthropic principle

Since the current topic is so closely related to the anthropic principle concept, it would be good to know the history of that, too. That article refers back to Barrow and Tipler 1986, but not much older. Quick GBS shows John Wheeler may have originated the idea [22]. Does anyone have more info on this topic? Dicklyon 20:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the AP goes back to the 19th century, although who developed it first is unclear. Basically, it functions as creationism-lite, with the prime-mover being redirected from a deity to the universe itself, and with the assumption of a "purpose" for the universe. It's all hogwash, of course, driven by the human need to be "special", although it could develop as part of any civilisation that requires validation and that is "goal-oriented". •Jim62sch• 01:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
it would be good to find dated citations with the words "anthropic principle". i can only say, for me, that the earliest that i have read the term was with Stephen Hawking A Brief History of Time in which the anthropic principle was cited and appealed to as a response to the observation of apparent fine-tuning by persons asking how could such an ostensibly unlikely combination of events be expected to coincide to which the theists (such as Richard Swinburne) would say the best answer is divine creation (of some sort, as far as i know not all theists accept the crap of the Discovery Institute or certainly the Young earth creationism). the first reference to the AP (that i've been able to track down) was essentially what is now called the weak anthropic principle (here in WP and in the Barrows/Tippler book), which is pretty much accepted as a tautology, a vacuous truth, but true nonetheless. in the Hawking book, i do not recall any reference to branes or multiverse association, which if combined with the WAP, offers a naturalistic explanation if you accept the multiverse premise (seems eternally unfalsifiable to me, but what do i know?). without the multiverse premise, i cannot see how the WAP offers any explanation (being a tautology) and then i was left pretty unsatisfied with Hawking's explanation. he asked the right question (“Why does the universe bother to exist at all? Why should there be something rather than nothing?") but i saw no purely natural answer to the question, although Hawking was claiming the (W)AP answered it.
it wasn't until i first heard of the Discovery Institute and their appeal the the AP (apparently the "strong" or "final" anthropic principle, which was rightly lampooned as the completely ridiculous anthropic principle or CRAP) as evidence of divine creation and it sure seemed odd that both the theists and atheists were appealing to a concept having ostensibly the same name to both "prove", on one hand, or "disprove", on the other, a sorta ontological need for the existence of divine action in creation. i really couldn't figure out how the theists were appealing to the AP for support since, at the time, the only AP i read about was the WAP. so i would also like to see what form of AP was originally meant when the term was coined. what is a good earlier or initial reference to the actual term "anthropic principle"? i'd also be interested in knowing.
regarding fine-tuned universe, while i agree with Dick that there is a close relationship to AP, i fully disagree with Jim that the are essentially the same thing as the AP and that it is "driven by the human need to be 'special', although it could develop as part of any civilisation that requires validation and that is 'goal-oriented'." the concept of the fine-tuned universe has nothing to do with that, except in the minds of some theists who seem to have an agenda in co-opting science into their religious world-view.
at the outset, the "fine-tuned universe" concept was not an answer or explanation of anything. it was a term applied to the actual observation that physicists made regarding a bunch of universal physical constants (what values they happen to be and what values they would have to be for matter, elements, stars, etc. to be anything like what we observe and expect to need to live as carbon-based biological beings) and of initial clumping about 10000 years after the Big Bang (so that galaxies, stars, and planets could eventually be formed). physicists look at that and say (paraphrased) "gee, if these 26 dimensionless universal constants weren't very nearly what they are measured to be, and if that clumping apparent in the cosmic background radition wasn't there, nothing would be like it is and we wouldn't be here." they also recognize that (outside of the SAP and FAP which i think is appropriately labeled CRAP which seem to reverse cause and effect) they wouldn't have to be that way. we are here because of this fine-tuning not the other way around (which the WAP tautologically "affirms"). but it is considered by many physicists that all of those constants being what they are is remarkable. indeed Richard Feynman said regarding the most visible of those constants (the fine-structure constant about why it is (137.035999)-1):
Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!
we do not know why it takes on the value that it does. none of us do, not the physicists, not the materialists, and not the deists. but the physicists tell us it better the hell be close to that value otherwise matter would not be at all what it is and we could not exist in any form like we do. there is no known causal reason why it would have to take on that value. nearly any physicists (as well as many other people) consider that remarkable because they remark about it. and sometimes they use that word (as cited by Dick). if Feynman says " It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man", it is not editorializing to say that it is remarkable that it takes on the value that it does. now raise that degree of remarkability to the 26th power and you have something even more remarkable.
thanks, Dick, for keeping the "word players" at bay. their latest word-play regarding the meaning of "precise" is just that. "precise" and "precision" have multiple definitions in the dictionary and what they imply is the "engineering definition" (but we know it is far broader than engineering) is one of those definitions. "remarkably precise" is meaningful and not redundant in the manner that "very unique" is.r b-j 03:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

i think there is a substantive content difference, besides usage, between the last two versions

while i actually agree more with Dick, i don't think we should try to sweep under the rug that there is a real difference between Dick's and FeloniousMonk's version and not just a difference in usage. one says that this observation of fine-tuning is, for the most part, accepted, and the other says it is not accepted within "mainstream science". while, i think that everybody here agrees that ID is not accepted within mainstream science, there is a bona fide dispute here whether fine-tuning is. i don't even think there is agreement among editors what, precisely, fine-tuned universe is referring to. there are some editors equating the notion of fine-tuning to ID and others (e.g. me) who clearly do not. i continue to maintain that Fine-tuned universe means the observation that the universal constants take on these particular numerical values such that: 1. no physicist knows why (causal) these dimensionless quantities take on the values that they do and 2. if they were not very nearly those particular values, matter, the universe, and life would not exist as we know it. the observation of these two facts are well accepted (as far as i can tell) in the physics community and these observations are "notable" or "remarkable" enough that they are given the name as of this article. fine-tuned universe is about the observation (and is widely accepted) while ID is an explanation for this observation which is not widely accepted within the science community. the multiverse hypothesis combined with weak anthropic principle is another explanation. i think this is a content disagreement that needs to be hammered out without Felonious simply reverting resorting to wordplay or relying on his opinion that the other version is "better". from the very beginning he has not justified that and has relied his admin status and the ability to silence opposing view to define the article and the meaning of terms. r b-j 15:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. FM pretty much inverts the meaning. The only way we are going to resolve the substantive difference, however, is to find some sources, so that we can get an idea to what extent the scientific community agrees that the universe would be a very different place if the relationships between physical constants was changed even a little. I'm no expert on this topic, but I thought that concept was pretty much accepted, and the article said so in a sentence that nobody argued with for a long time, so I thought it was accepted here, too. I don't understand the recent addition of the awkward misplaced "not"; my impression is that maybe he didn't mean to invert the meaning, but just had a hard time writing what he intended. It's hard to tell, which is why I keep asking other editors to please disclose what they are thinking instead of just playing word games. Dicklyon 16:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A reference

Here's a cosmology book that might be considered credible, which says:

"Why is the universe so favorable in numerous ways to the existence of life? Throughout history, mythology and theology have urged the idea of a universe designed for the benefit of life. In the twentieth century an increasing number of contributions from science have made persuasive the case for cosmic design at a fundamental level. The design of the universe is fixed by the physical constants and the laws of physics. In a universe containing luminous stars and chemical elements essential for organic life, the physical constants are necessarily precisely adjusted (or finely tuned). Slight deviations from the observed values result in a starless and lifeless universe." p.522 (you may need an account to see the page)

I don't think he's pitching an "intelligent design" argument here when he refers to "cosmic design at a fundamental level", though some would probably read it that way. To me, it simply means we don't yet understand the fundamentals of physical law, and my impression is that that's how most scientists see it, too.

Do we have scientific refs that dispute this idea of "fine tuning" or my interpretation of it? Dicklyon 17:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a credible astrophysicist with a somewhat different take on it, but not really disagreeing that the constants are finely tuned for the universe as we know it:

"The precise values of physical constants measured today are not necessarily the only combination of values that could conceivably lead, ..., to intelligent life" p.10

And he references Hubert Reeves's 1991 "complexity principle" as a less chauvinistic alternative to "anthropic principle". This the kind of thing we need to follow up.

Searching in the above book for "physical constants" allows access to pages 8 and 9, which say

"The issue is this: If the numerical values of certain physical constants (for example, the velocity of light, an electron's charge and mass, the gravitational constant, etc.) differed even slightly from their observed values, then the long sequence of events that produced galaxies, stars, planets, and life might have been impossible. The cosmos would likely be starless and lifeless, a proposition very much at odds with the once seen around us."

For your consideration. Dicklyon 17:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If the nature of the universe is defined by the values of N physical constants, then any theoretically possible universe may be represented by a point in N-dimensional space - a plot on a graph, if you will. Now, it's all very well to say that varying one or more of those constants just slightly will result in a starless/lifeless/uninteresting/whatever universe, but all that means is that the points we can easily extrapolate our knowledge of physics to describe look pretty bleak - it says nothing about regions of this N-dimensional space which are nowhere near the point representing the universe we observe. Now, this is all hopelessly OR (unless someone who's more familiar with the literature can find a reference to a similar argument) but I felt it needed to be said - not least because it seems to knock a hole in the basic concept of the FTU. SheffieldSteel 03:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"a"

"and that small changes in these relationships would correspond to very different universe" should be "and that small changes in these relationships would correspond to a very different universe", right? Info D 13:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

sure! making a change like that is called a minor edit and you can legitimately click the little "This is a minor edit" box down by the Edit summary when you do it. no need to check up with others for something like that.
thanks for catching the omision. r b-j 19:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Problematic

"Both popular and professional research articles in cosmology often use the term "universe" to refer to the observable universe. The reason for this usage is that only observable phenomena are scientifically relevant. Since unobservable phenomena have no perceptible effects, physicists argue that they "causally do not exist". Since unobservable parts of the universe cannot be measured, hypotheses about them are not testable, and thus inappropriate for a scientific theory." See Brane cosmology and multiverse. They may "often" use the above definitions, but definitions based on string- and M-theory are gaining in acceptance. •Jim62sch• 00:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
i find it a little problematic also, but not entirely. this is one of the problems of string theory or of Brane cosmology or the multiverse conjecture. no one has devised an experiment that will test it. it's not falsifiable. if it remains infalsifiable for long, it will move from science to philosophy because science eventually makes predictions that can be tested. r b-j 00:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they may...one never knows, although I suspect these theories will remain theories whether or not they are testable, and testing them may very well be impossible as you note. Of course we can't really test parts of QM either (yet) -- the effect of using Planck energy to probe the Planck length for example: will it result in a singularity? On paper yes, but until we can actully test it, we'll really never know. I suppose more than anything, string theory, M-theory, branes, etc are just extremely interesting to think about (and maybe in the case of branes and brane cosmology it's best to consider them to be gedenkenexperiments). Besides, parts of classical physics (for example Newton's third law and (acceleration) that all things, regardless of shape fall at the same rate (on earth 32ft/s/s) absent other influences)* weren't "proven" until we went into space. The first when a Shuttle astronaut pushed on a satellite and went in the opposite direction of his push, and the other on the moon with the famous feather and hammer experiment.
Anyway, my intent was to point out that the mention of physicists and their attitudes is not wholly accurate.
*Yes, that's a crappy sentence but it's the best I can do at 6AM ;) •Jim62sch• 10:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

ID Series

The series box in Intelligent design includes Fine-tuned universe as part of the series. Perhaps we should add the box to this page as well. Rares 07:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

i have mixed feelings about it. Fine-tuned universe and Anthropic principle have some scientific value. ID really does not. it's a religious/philosophical statement. r b-j 17:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't have mixed feelings about it. Just say no. It's OK for intelligent design to point here as a concept that they use. It's less OK to make a prominent box here saying that this article is a part of that other weirdness; a link or two is enough. Dicklyon 17:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
FTU is one of the current cornerstones of ID. As for FTU and the anthropic principles having scientific value, that is extremely debatable. Neither is truly falsifiable, thus neither is science. They are philosophy. •Jim62sch• 23:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
real physicists make real reference to fine-tuned universe and anthropic principle. there is nothing in the fine-tuned universe other than a plausible observation of facts that really are testable. FTU is not a theory, it's an observation, or an interpretation of an observation. the WAP is just a tautology and really doesn't say anything. the SAP and FAP (aptly renamed CRAP) do say something that can never be tested and is thus not science. string theory cannot be falsified (as yet) and is not yet relegated to the philosophical scrap heap. also the totally naturalistic theory of creation using a multiverse theory along with WAP is also untestable. but it makes a claim to be science (as being the scientic alternative speculation to a theistic cosmology). r b-j 13:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

OR?

If this is not OR, it needs cites.

However, this line of reasoning begs the question of what "fine tuned" conditions might have been necessary to lead to the spontaneous existence or creation of an omnipotent God. Thus, this argument may be seen as explaining one "improbable" situation (the observed existence of the universe with a set of physical constants capable of creating complex life) by supposing an even more improbable situation (the existence of a meta-universe and whatever structure or meta-physical laws would be necessary to allow for the spontaneous creation or existence of a supreme being which was complex enough to create our own universe). This line of argument, therefore, may be subject to criticism from proponents of Occam's Razor.

Removed from article 11/6/2006 •Jim62sch• 10:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Explanations of fine-tuning should be sourced and more rigorous

There was a lot of un-sourced stuff in this section which (to put it at its kindest) was PoV that did not distinguish speculation from fact and was badly ill-informed. I have put it roughly in a shape aligned with the pre-eminent scientist to have written a book in this field Martin Rees who is President of the Royal Society. The comment attributed to Steven Gould is unsourced and frankly incredible, and most of the rest should be sourced or deleted. It was 'not' a "good edit" alas. NBeale 22:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition the Ikeda/Jeffries "argument" is simply a posting on a website. It is inappropriate to give it this much prominence when major books by global experts only get a few lines. Jeffries is barely notable, not a member of the NAS and Ikeda isn't even notable. At most it rates a sentence. NBeale 23:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As you are proposing major changes to the consensus version, you'll need to discuss the changes here.
Additionally, your denegration of the Ikeda-Jefferys hypothesis merely means that you are not up on current physics trends. •Jim62sch• 22:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
At least it's a "hypothesis" not a "theorem." Can you give some references please? I can find nothing in Science or Nature and only one ref in Google Scholar which is a self-published website. Their argument BTW is completly bogus but this is not the forum to debate this point. The fact is that, as far as I can see, it has not been peer reviewed or sited sufficently to have academic credibility. if I am mistaken please provide the evidence. Thanks. NBeale 18:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Science and Nature aren't about to publish anything regarding Fine-tuning because it isn't a scientific concept but is merely philosophical. --ScienceApologist 19:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
A quick search of Google Scholar reveals about 919 papers matching "Fine Tuning" and Anthropic of which 587 are in Physics, Astronomy and Planetary science. And my question was, are there any quality citations of I/J? NBeale 21:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Have you spelled it correctly yet? You couldn't find anything yesterday because you were spelling Jefferys incorrectly. You mean "theory", theorems are found in geometry, etc. •Jim62sch• 23:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[23], [24], [25], [26]. Enough to start. •Jim62sch• 23:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
All look like self-citations with the exception of Stenger to be published in "The Skeptical Intelligencer" not exactly scholarly peer-reviewed. Basically it's a junk argument I'm afraid. Stenger doesn't seem from his article to have made much of an impact as a scientist (no hon degrees, non-academician etc..) and no-one else seems to take this "argument" seriously. Whereas the Anthropic Principle scientists are major figures. NBeale 07:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Premise

There were some uncited and very POV statements in the critics part of the Premise section. I have adjusted them to NPOV (eg is claimed that) and noted that they need citations. However the sentence: The argument loses much of its meaning and appeal if it is restated in the alternative terms "If the constants of the universe weren't exactly what they are, Saturn wouldn't have rings around it." is risible and should be deleted. You might as well say that an argument that God does not exist loses much of its meaning and force if it is restated in the alternative terms of "A Boeing 747 does not exist". Can anyone suggest a rational reason why that (unsourced) sentence should be retained? NBeale 18:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey - and not just any Boeing 747 but the Ultimate Boeing 747 at that. Whilst we are on the "Premise" it is interesting that Victor Stenger is blatantly quoted out of context. Thanks for bringing this section up as Victor Stenger's position is that... "The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God-of-the-gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon." the reference is page 20 of that PDF. This was added in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fine-tuned_universe&diff=prev&oldid=80933287 to justify the definition and yet nothing more of Stenger was added even though he is a strong opponent of the whole of this Intelligent Design related pseudoscience. Looks like we need to balance that out. Ttiotsw 04:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Using Victor Stenger stuff.

Victor Stenger is notable and is a critic of fine-tuning (well actually any ID stuff). He has a reasonable number of books to his name and quotes or is quoted by others in this field so I've segued him into this article. Please use talk before blanking these edits. BTW: He's not in Wikipedia as ... well one reason is I haven't yet finished my draft article as I'm fairly new to Wikipedia WRT creating new WP:LIVING pages and got bogged down on bibliography references and see-also stuff as his books are cited reasonably often and trying to avoid copyvio on biographical data. Ttiotsw 09:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Balancing out Other religious creation views

Explaining my edit, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fine-tuned_universe&diff=93233733&oldid=93228420 I changed the "are"s in the second sentence to "may be"s i.e. it is now "Some of these may be fully compatible with known scientific facts (notwithstanding their use of metaphysical ideas which maybe considered to be beyond the domain of science). " as it already was weasel with the "some" so I added may be. In the last sentence I changed the "some" at the start of the sentence to "Many" i.e. it is now "Many other religious creation views are either incompatible with, or indifferent to, scientific understandings. The reason being that so far it's just mentioned "some" and only two other examples (Christianity and Judeism) are discussed and thus the majority that are left is..."Many" plus you seriously can't get away with the word "creation" in a sentence that talks about compatibility with "science". Ttiotsw 22:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The edit was hardly an improvement. •Jim62sch• 23:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
...and Fine-tuned universe is hardly a science so it's hard to identify concrete stuff. Got to be a bit more precise as to what was wrong with my edit. Ttiotsw 01:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Too weaselly. BTW, FTU is a form of the anthropic principle, which is accepted by some scierntists. •Jim62sch• 20:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

on the "known examples of fine-tuning" section

I agree that a list of proposed examples of "fine-tuning" of physical constants would be a good idea, but there doesn't seem to be any difference between this and a list of "anthropic coincidences", which seems to be the more common term; I think it would be better to fork the list to list of anthropic coincidences or something like that, leaving a link (and one or two common examples) from here and from anthropic principle. Ben Standeven 20:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Premise: WTF?

Can someone help with this?

Victor Stenger characterizes the fine-tuned universe concept as capable of being interpreted as a "claim of evidence for divine cosmic plan": "As the argument goes, the chance that any initially random set of constants would correspond to the set of values that we find in our universe is very small and the universe is exceedingly unlikely to be the result of mindless chance. Rather, an intelligent, purposeful, Creator must have arranged the constants to support life."[2]. Stenger in that paper is critical of the claims and provides his own explanations highlighting the flaws in claims of the fine-tuning advocates and concludes that "The universe is not fine-tuned for humanity. Humanity is fine-tuned to the universe." [3].

He's critical of what claims? His own claims from the previous sentence? I am confused :-( SheffieldSteel 04:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

my interpretation of that is that it is possible that a different (perhaps only slightly different) universe with different fundamental constants (not extremely different) that would result in a different kind of matter, a different mix or availability of elements, etc., that a somewhat different form of life and "humanity" (whatever intelligent life that may eventually evolve) would evolve that would be adapted to the different material universe. i think that he's really just making clear what is the cause and effect. it's a pretty wierd philosophy that the universal constants took on the values they have so that we can be around to talk about them. i think that reverses cause and effect. r b-j 19:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I made sense of the bit that what bugging me (the bold text above). SheffieldSteel 01:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Source of "2%"

This article gives "2%" as the "margin of error" for the strong nuclear force, withone any citation. In fact, in the section "Known physical constants and possible examples of fine tuning" two sources are cited, both of which disagree with the 2%. This needs citation or a change to the other numbers (9% and 50%). JMD (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I was bold

I found a stray paragraph on Cosmological Natural Selection towards the end of section 5 (which I renamed because it just seemed so wrong) which I re-united with the main CNS discussion. I hope that someone with a stronger background in cosmology can check it. I'd hate to think I ruined the main points of the theory. SheffieldSteel 01:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)