Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:39, 4 January 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fine-tuned universe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Creationism B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physics B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the Puddle thinking page were merged into Fine-tuned universe on 29 January 2010. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Archives

/Archive 1 Up to December 2005 2006 2007–2008 2009 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Why remove specific information about what might be fine-tuned?

I am taking issue with User:GDallimore removal of sourced and reliable information drawn from a publication of an undeniable authority in the field. Just because User:GDallimore thinks there is undue wp:weight, does not make it so. Someone else complained earlier that Victor Stenger receives undue weight in this article regarding Stenger's criticism that the Universe is not fine-tuned at all. By muzzling the very observations of specific ostensible fine-tuning, while at the same time, allowing for specific refutation of fine-tuning demonstrates a clear non-neutral POV. This must not become either an article that supports the notion of fine-tuning nor implicitly rejects the notion. 65.183.156.110 (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I have kept out of this discussion so far, but I have to agree with 65.183.156.110 comments above. In a subject which can raise strong opinions on either side of the argument, all opinions should be quoted and respected. It is certainly not a question of undue wp:weight to have detailed proposals of each side of the discussion. User:GDallimore must respect this and take their discussion to the Talk page, instead of reverting - that's the way to an edit war. The article must reflect both sides in a neutral POV way. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I did NOT remove sourced content. I summarised an overlong series of specific quotes from one single source which has not had any independent review. Anyone wanting the current version needs to justify quoting huge swaths of a primary source. GDallimore (Talk) 23:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Most of the references in the section are to a secondary, not primary, source. -Jordgette 01:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

They are primary in the sense that they do nothing but quote the original without commentary. Commentary is what is vital here to justify lifting so much material directly from a single source. GDallimore (Talk) 11:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not true at all:

___________________

From reference :

...

Indeed, recognizing the improbable connections that hold together the universe as we know it requires flinging the widest of intellectual nets, encompassing everything from quantum weirdness to biological imperatives to galactic clumping. Of Rees's six numbers, two relate to basic forces, two determine the size and large-scale texture of the universe, and two fix the properties of space itself. Rees's six numbers are:

ε, the .007 figure, which describes the strength of the force that binds atomic nuclei together and determines how all atoms on Earth are made.

N, equal to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. The number measures the strength of the forces that hold atoms together divided by the force of gravity between them. It means that gravity is vastly weaker than intra-atomic attraction. If the number were smaller than this vast amount, "only a short-lived, miniature universe could exist," says Rees.

Ω, which measures the density of material in the universe— including galaxies, diffuse gas, and dark matter. The number reveals the relative importance of gravity in an expanding universe. If gravity were too strong, the universe would have collapsed long before life could have evolved. Had it been too weak, no galaxies or stars could have formed.

λ, the newest addition to the list, discovered in 1998. It describes the strength of a previously unsuspected force, a kind of cosmic antigravity, that controls the expansion of the universe. Fortunately, it is very small, with no discernable effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the force were stronger, it would have stopped stars and galaxies— and life— from forming.

Q, which represents the amplitude of complex irregularities or ripples in the expanding universe that seed the growth of such structures as planets and galaxies. It is a ratio equal to 1/100,000. If the ratio were smaller, the universe would be a lifeless cloud of cold gas. If it were larger, "great gobs of matter would have condensed into huge black holes," says Rees. Such a universe would be so violent that no stars or solar systems could survive.

D, the number of spatial dimensions in our universe— that is, three. "Life could not exist if it were two or four," contends Rees. If each of the six numbers Rees has identified were dependent upon the others— in the same sense that, say, the number of arms and fingers in a family depends upon the number of family members— the fact that they allow for the existence of life would seem less of a shock. "At the moment, however," says Rees, "we cannot predict any of them from the value of the others." So unless theoreticians discover some unifying theory, each number compounds the unlikeliness of each of the other numbers.

___________________

From the Misplaced Pages article:

...

Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless physical constants.

N, the ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism, is approximately 10. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.

Epsilon (ε), the strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei, is 0.007. If it were 0.006, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang.

Omega (Ω), also known as the Density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.

Lambda (λ) is the cosmological constant. It describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10. This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant was not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.

Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees.

D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4.

1. Martin Rees, 1999. Just Six Numbers, HarperCollins Publishers, ISBN 0-465-03672-4.
2. ^ Lemley, Brad. "Why is There Life?". Discover magazine. Retrieved 23 August 2014.
3. John D. Barrow The Value of the Cosmological Constant

___________________

Doesn't look like verbatim copying to me. But, the six numbers are mentioned and discussed. 65.183.156.110 (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question at all: where are the six numbers discussed independently of the source based on reliable sources?

Responding to what you've actually said - you say the article is not identical to the second source. I never said it was. Rather, I'd assumed the bits that aren't mentioned in the second source (which is free to read on the web) are from the original book (which is not). If the extra material is not from the original book, it needs removing immediately as being original research. But I was assuming good faith on that, not having access to the book. But that doesn't avoid the problem that it's just quoting the book without commentary.

Importantly, you seem to have missed the point that the commentary needs to be on whether the book's example are good and worthwhile and whether they are disputed. Reporting one person's view on fine-tuning in extensive detail is what the problem is. That is what is undue about it - going back to the second comment in this thread "It is certainly not a question of undue wp:weight to have detailed proposals of each side of the discussion". That is absolutely correct. I have not problem with that explanation of NPOV at all. But where's the discussion about these six specific examples from the other side of the argument? Nowhere. Without it, these examples need cutting back to a brief summary or it is giving one source and one side of the argument, undue weight.

I repeat for clarity, none of the sources include any discussion about the validity of these examples proposed by one author, either for or against. The second source merely reports the book without any criticism or commentary. Consequently, as I've already mentioned, it is no different from the book, it's only use being that it confirms the content of the book which not everyone will have access to. The third source is merely confirming the value of the cosmological constant and doesn't actually add anything at all to the discussion. GDallimore (Talk) 14:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You wrote (previously to 14:10, 8 November 2014) five sentences, all of them declaratory. None of them a question. So I am not sure how I "haven't answered the question at all" when none was asked. I did respond to the phrase: "...they do nothing but quote the original...", which in context I take to mean the content that you were deleting. And my response is that the claim is false.

Now, the question that you just now ask: "where are the six numbers discussed independently of the source based on reliable sources?", I am not answering. First of all, you didn't ask it, nor previously demand that Martin Rees needed additional sources. That, Geoff, is what we on the other side of the pond call "moving the goalposts". The text, as it is, is well cited from a reliable source. Just as Victor Stenger claims stand on their own, so do Rees's. Deleting one without the other is not NPOV. Deleting them both just reduces the information that the article delivers. It is neither necessary nor constructive to delete either. 65.183.156.110 (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

First, I object to being stalked on the Internet. You don't know me and my sig is GDallimore. Stalking someone is what we who live in polite society call behaving like a fuckwit and I shall treat you as such from here on in.

Second, just because you haven't understood the problem with the section doesn't mean I have moved the goalposts. It is your understanding that has changed, not my position which has and has always been that an entire section devoted to a detailed commentary on the work of one author without any criticism of that position is giving that one author undue weight. And I quote: "I summarised an overlong series of specific quotes from one single source which has not had any independent review." The fact it was not phrased directly as a question is irrelevant when the question is obviously implied and to feign ignorance and complain otherwise is called wikilawyering or, in other words, behaving like a fuckwit... again... try to actually pay attention to the simple argument being made here and respond to it.

And so, finally, I repeat for the hard-of-hearing-stalker-man: I DID NOT delete the material. I cut it back to a suitable length.

You're the one banging on about Stenger's position and it seems to me that an appropriate solution would be to give this author as much weight as Stenger, which means briefly summarising his position, which is EXACTLY what I did. Perhaps my only mistake was not to move that summary into the next section of the article alongside the summary of Stenger's views.

Note, also, that the position put forward by Stenger has a sourced criticism. Seems to me that Stenger's position and the criticism of it is ripe for expansion in the name of NPOV. That would be a worthwhile addition to an encyclopedia. Not this extensive quoting of one person's book. GDallimore (Talk) 16:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Rees's explanation of a complicated and controversial phenomenon is extensively covered in the mainstream media, and has hundreds of cites in the Google Scholar, so it certainly carries WP:WEIGHT. Leaning on his explanation to show why some people believe in a fine-tuned universe is IMHO a reasonable way to structure that part of the article. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The "argument from imperfection" issue.

So here is the entire paragraph that has some controversy and that I have just deleted:

The argument from imperfection suggests that if the Universe were designed to be fine-tuned for life, it should be the best one possible and that evidence suggests that it is not. In fact, most of the Universe is highly hostile to life. This objection is based on the proposition that a best possible universe must be saturated with life at a given point in time.

Now there are a couple of problems. First of all, the wiki article that is linked Evolutionary argument against naturalism is not at all the same as the "Argument from imperfection" argument implied by the link. In fact, these two arguments are on opposite sides. Alvin Plantinga is not at all the same as Avital Pilpel and the two are taking opposite positions on the issue of fine tuning. Linking Pilpel's argument to Plantinga's argument is neither accurate nor forthright. Additionally, Pilpel's SKEPTIC magazine article does have an online source (at Pilpel's website) that is readily available and this was not linked in the reference.

So, before returning this paragraph back to the article, I suggest two things:

1. That we actually read both sources, and find out where they speak to each other, put that in this wiki article and cite it.

2. That we not misappropriate any cite, especially to sources that do not say what the cite implies. That's just not honest editing.

76.118.23.40 (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea how I missed that one. Good catch.--TMD Talk Page. 19:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Skeptical view

The skeptical view on this article should be expanded.

• Mark Colyvan, Jay Garfield, Graham Priest. (2005). Problems with the Argument from Fine Tuning. Synthese 145: 325-38.
• McGrew, T., L. McGrew and E. Vestrup: 2001, ‘Probabilities and the Fine-Tuning Argument: A Sceptical View, Mind 110, 1027–1037.

• Cosmythology: Was the Universe Designed to Produce Us? by Victor Stenger

• Is Carbon Production in Stars Fine-Tuned for Life? by Victor Stenger

• A Case Against the Fine-Tuning of the Cosmos by Victor Stenger which concludes "With so many errors and misjudgments, and with such a gross lack of understanding of the basic science exhibited by the supporters of supernatural fine-tuning, we can safely say that their motivation is more wishful thinking than scientific inference. A proper analysis finds there is no evidence that the universe is fine-tuned for us or anything else." AlanSkeptic (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's not edit this article bluntly. I am not the least bit religious, but I recognize that there is a legitimate argument for a fine-tuning problem in physics. It's not helpful to try to stamp out the issue by digging up as many religion-bashing sources as we can find, and it is naïve to suggest that the only position that can acknowledge fine-tuning is a theistic one. -Jordgette 21:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Stenger is already well-represented in the article. We don't need more Victor Stenger in the article. Alan, even though I completely agree with you about characters like Norman Vincent Peale and Deepak Chopra, it's pretty clear that you're not a particularly neutral editor about anything beyond the material. Don't assume that your POV is WP:NPOV or is immune to skeptical critique itself.64.134.101.80 (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the Park quote because as another user pointed out it wasn't entirely on-topic and yes Stenger should be balanced not undue weight, he doesn't need to be mentioned anymore than is already cited. No objections from the Colyvan paper though but this section should be expanded with other sources. PunkRockerTom (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Alan do you have access to "Probabilities and the Fine-Tuning Argument: A Sceptical View" if you do can you let me know what this paper says. I cannot get access to it. PunkRockerTom (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed this quote per concerns of another user:

If the universe was designed for life, it must be said that it is a shockingly inefficient design. There are vast reaches of the universe in which life as we know it is clearly impossible: gravitational forces would be crushing, or radiation levels are too high for complex molecules to exist, or temperatures would make the formation of stable chemical bonds impossible... Fine-tuned for life? It would make more sense to ask why God designed a universe so inhospitable to life.

Add it back in if you have a problem but it appears to be slightly off-topic. PunkRockerTom (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

'Slightly off-topic'? To the contrary, it is explicitly addressing the subject of the article - the proposition that the universe is fine-tuned for life. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Andy thanks for your input. It was removed by other users as it is obviously controversial to some people so I did remove it again but the user TMDrew wrote "the argument the universe is inhospitable for life is irrelevant to the fine-tuning argument". That's why I removed it. So I agree if it is on-topic it should be included. Now I look at this again I don't really understand TMDrew's comment. It seems Park's comment actually is on topic. My mistake for not reading the quote properly. PunkRockerTom (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Move religious arguments section?

Any objections if I trim the Religious arguments section and move most of it to the God of the gaps article? The only somewhat-interesting parts of the "Religious arguments" section also apply to "God of the gaps" arguments in general. The remaining content, specific to fine-tuned universe, should be merged with the "Possible naturalistic explanations" section. I'd also like to fix a minor "false balance" issue where intelligent-design arguments are treated as equivalently valid to the mainstream scientific position in the section. I propose the remaining content of the section should be something like:

Scientists believe if fine-tuning does exist, then available naturalistic solutions, such as the possible existence of multiple universes, are adequate to explain the phenomenon. However, some advocates for intelligent design claim that intelligent design of the Universe, presumably by God, is a simpler explanation for fine-tuning than any of the existing naturalistic solutions. Scientists dismiss this as an illogical God of the gaps argument.

Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Objection. How does one know what the "mainstream scientific position" is? Is there a poll? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert Park's argument?

I don't follow Robert Park's argument as described here; he seems to say that if God existed, then God would have omitted the large sections of the Universe that are inhospitable for life, because, I dunno, real estate taxes? I don't have a copy of the book. It seems like an extremely weak argument to me; if there's no strong WP:SECONDARY source for the argument, and if Robert Park is the only source who thinks it's a good argument, we should remove it. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a worthwhile point, and hardly WP:UNDUE; so it should be in the article. bobrayner (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with removing that section. Fine-tuning doesn't say that the entire universe is conducive for life - it says that it is remarkable that some sections are conducive for life and lists the highly improbable reasons why. Terrible reasoning in that quote and it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfd998 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't remove on-topic sourced content because random contributors don't agree with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Science fiction

It's ridiculous that science fiction is labelled as 'naturalistic explanations' when in reality, it is nothing but science fiction. There is no proof at all from any reputable peer reviewed paper for any of the sections under 'naturalistic explanations'. They are not taken seriously by people who work in the field because there is no proof - it is all science fiction and should be labelled as such. Also, it's unfair that the criticisms of a particular theory are only allowed under the theistic section for Design but unallowed for the gross speculation and pseudo-science above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfd998 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

If you can cite a source that describes the 'naturalistic explanations' as science fiction, do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Considering as the article currently states there is no evidence for the multiverse (0) the burden is on you to prove why it should be there. And if there no evidence for it, it is science fiction. In my opinion a desperate way to conjur up an explanation for why the 10^50 probabilities line up towards life.

There are NO sources for the 'bubble universe' section at all that link to any scientific paper - there is one link in three paragraphs to a paragraph in a book on theory. That is science fiction. I will remove that paragraph within 24 hours or label it as science fiction if there is no link attached.

love — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfd998 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Your ill-educated opinions on science fiction are of no relevance to this article - and if you persist in removing sourced content, you will be blocked from editing, assuming you haven't been already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You lost your appeal, because you are a fat man sitting around in a Hawaiian man t-shirt spouting science-fiction on the internet conflating it in your mind with Truth. And you are wrong, because you don't understand science - real, empirical, verifiable Science, as opposed to science fiction - as much as you would like to think.

added fleshed out explanations

added fleshed out explanations for the Design argument which were small and badly written with sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfd998 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Park, Robert L. (2009). Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science. Princeton University Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-691-13355-3

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• B-Class Creationism articles
• Mid-importance Creationism articles
• WikiProject Creationism articles
• B-Class physics articles
• Mid-importance physics articles
• B-Class physics articles of Mid-importance