Talk:Fine-tuned universe/Archive 6

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.  -Jord gette  [talk]  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 [13]:

...

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 Wikipedia 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 1036. 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 10−122. 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 10−5. 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.

___________________

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. [Avital Pilpel, SKEPTIC, November 2007 Issue, p.18] 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.  -Jord gette  [talk]  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. -- Park, Robert L. (2009). Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science. Princeton University Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-691-13355-3"

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)

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)


 * The above user has been blocked, and then re-blocked due to evasion. The article is now semi-protected. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 4 January 2015 (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)


 * Keep it. As long as Parks' argument is attributed to him within the text, as it is, it should be retained. It's a notable opinion and almost surely shared by others. --GodBlessYou2 (talk) 19:00, 5 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfd998 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Insulting other editors will get you nowhere.--McSly (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

McSly, how you can remove that edit as 'pov' and 'undue' when several other items fit that same criteria in the naturalistic sections including almost all of the quotes? Stop being biased and allow a fleshed out argument to appear, not a neutered one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfd998 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Even "science fiction" is more appropriate in a science article than Biblical fiction....  -Jord gette  [talk]  19:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Jfd998, this article deals with a topic around which there is mostly just speculation. Those proffering the anthropic principle are admittedly speculating about the significance of the fact that minor changes in any number of constants would make life as we know it impossible.  Conversely, those who reject their interpretation of these facts are also speculating about alternative explanations.  It appears that all or most of the naturalistic explanations outlined in the article refer to some source . . . in other words, they aren't just arguments being offered by Wikipedia editors.  I favor adding material rather than deleting it.  I would likely be supportive of you adding material that is sourced and identifies who is making the claim.  But in general, I don't like to see material deleted, so I don't favor your suggestion of cutting material just because you want to see more sources supporting each entry.  Regarding what you want to add, it's unclear to me what material you wanted to add.  Perhaps you should start a new section in Talk clearly identifying what you want to add so we can all see it, since people generally don't revert the talk page.  (Otherwise, it's awkward, at least for me, to see what you want to add using the compare feature.) FYI, I came here after noticing the Fringe Theories Noticeboard posting by AndytheGrump.  As stated above, I generally favor expanding articles in ways that respect each editors contributions, including yours.  But I don't generally favor cutting material, which thereby disrespects the contributions of other editors.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2015 (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)


 * Mainstream science doesn't resort to religious explanations - that much at least is clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Objection. There is debate within science, and especially in the philsophy of science, where and how to address the possibility of God even in theory, since a spiritual being can be neither proven or disproven by scientific method. A very good examination of the issue is done by Rodney Stark in several of his books which look at the history of modern science, especially "For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery." In short, prior to the 1900's most scientists believed in God, yet at the same time did not invoke God for explanations, but held that the unchangeable nature of God (as uniquely taught in the Judeo-Christian worldview) meant that the God's "laws of nature" were immutable and therefore decipherable and that doing science was compatible with understanding God.  Newton, Copernicus, and Galileo fell into this mold.  Many modern scientists also believe science and the belief in a Creator are compatible. They would reject the claim that they are relying on "God of the gaps" arguments, and would insist that such a characterization is being wrongly made against them by those scientists who, due to atheistic beliefs, insist that science and faith are mutually exclusive.  In short, many highly regarded scientists who believe everything about modern cosmology and biology still believe there is room for a "Creator" who may have pre-planned, pre-programmed, pre-aligned the physics and chemistry and balance of the universe to achieve some plan.  The contributions of editors to this article reflecting those opinions should not be "ghettoized" by being put into a "God of the Gaps" article, especially when the proponents of these ideas would refute the characterization that they are making a "God of the Gaps" argument.—GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "There is debate within science, and especially in the philsophy of science, where and how to address the possibility of God even in theory, since a spiritual being can be neither proven or disproven by scientific method"? That is a highly-debatable assertion - because the scientific method by definition doesn't deal with things that can neither be proven nor disproven. If there is a debate, it isn't about science. The fact that there are many scientists believing in a god - or many gods - is thus neither here nor there, unless they make explicit claims relating their beliefs to their scientific work In any case, this article isn't about the general relationship between science and religion, but about a very specific argument - and accordingly, we can only build this article on material directly discussing the topic. What Stark (or anyone else) has to say about Monotheism or anything else not directly addressing the topic of this article is an irrelevance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Jps's Complaints
JpS is reverting my edits, but instead of discussing here has posted his complain at the this link at the Fringe Theory Notice Board. Editors wishing to review the issue or participate must apparently go there instead of here. —GodBlessYou2 (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

book references
, when you cite a book, please provide a page number. I reverted your addition of a whole book as a source, as it is not reasonable to ask other editors and readers to read a whole book to verify the content. Please feel free to add it back, with a page number. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Would it not be better to identify exactly what you seek to verify and to ask for the page number, if you sincerely wanted to just verify the information, rather than delete the source within hours of it being posted? That would show more respect for other editors No where in policy does it require a page number.  Your request is even inconsistent with the sources in the article, as seen by references: 8. 9, 20 23. 25 and probably others.


 * Also, what page number do you request for my including Stephen Barr (2006) Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. University of Notre Dame Press. ISBN-10: 0268021988. in the list of "Further Reading."  The entire book is about fine-tuned universe theory.  Pick a page, any page.  Is your rule "delete if a page number isn't provided" being only selectively used? –GodBlessYou2 (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * it shows respect for readers and other editors if you apply minimal standards of scholarship and use page numbers, yes. WIth regard to your reference to Barr -  sources support specific bits of content. A whole book is not a source for any individual bit of content.  This too is basic scholarship. I tagged the rest.   Thanks for pointing out that i had missed some. Jytdog (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't mind you tagging sources to request page numbers, but I strongly object to you deleting any. You have not shown any policy requiring use of page numbers.  I agree it is good practice if citing a specific fact, but it is clearly not necessary, especially when the reference supports a broad concept which may be reiterated frequently throughout a book. I would like to hear you agree to refrain from this practice of deleting sources without page numbers in the future, not only for my entries but for other editors as well.  Request page numbers if you seriously want to investigate a source further, but do not delete it until you have done so.
 * Finally, you ignored my question regarding the section "Further Reading" which is intended to provide a list of books entirely devoted to the subject matter. Barr's is one such book.  Yet you deleted it.  Clearly page numbers are not required for a book in the list of books related to the subject.  Please replace it in the "Further Reading" list.==GodBlessYou2 (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I objected to your edit note, where you called its removal "vandalism". There has been no vandalism and so that was not a valid reason to make a change to the article.  More importantly, as far as I can see, there is no support at Fringe_theories/Noticeboard nor at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard to make reference to Barr here.  I would recommend that you allow those discussions to play out but I don't have much of a dog in that hunt. If you want to add it back to Further Reading with an accurate edit note I wouldn't object; I cannot speak for others. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I notice that the book citation template has two fields for page numbers. This is because if you make a claim that needs to be referenced, and your reference is a book, then you need to cite the place in the book that supports the claim. This is for sourcing specific claims and is standard practice in academia. If a book generally supports a particular relevant POV, then the Further Reading section is appropriate. It is not acceptable to insert a book reference for any specific claim with the attitude of, "It's in there, let them find it."  -Jord gette  [talk]  19:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

using the page number field in a citation template is a fine way to do it. But my preferred way is to cite the book one time and use "ref name" for repeat references, and use the page number template for the page number relevant to a specific instance of the citation. That way readers can more easily how many sources are actually used in the article. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Elaborating on my note above, two books were added to Further Reading and another editor has since reverted the additions. The edit summary claimed the books are "entirely related to fine tuned universe hypothesis" but a look at their Amazon pages reveals otherwise. Look at the titles of the items in Further Reading -- they are all focused on this issue. Books that are about the general relationship between science and faith, while perhaps appropriate for some other article, do not belong in Further Reading here. Again, specific claims may be referenced with inline citations, but we need page numbers in order to do that.  -Jord gette  [talk]  00:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Both books are by astrophysists. Both explain and describe the fine tuned universe evidence for a target audience of people who are not professional scientists, therefore the books are useful for people trying to learn about the issue. Both argue that the fine tuned universe evidence is compatible with faith.  That does not make it irrelevant.  Barr's book, published by a university press,  specifically deal with cosmology and the arguments for and against a fine tuned universe, most especially pages 38-166.  Similarly, Haish's book provides an overview of quantum physics in chapter 2 then chapter three "The Finely Tuned Universe" begins to describe the evidence in favor of a fine tuned universe.  We can take this to the reliable sources noticeboard if you insist, but clearly these are reliable and relevant sources.  Just because they are marketed to people as a means of reconciling science and faith does not change the fact that their discussion of science related to the fine tuned universe theory is very relevant to the topic of this article. --GodBlessYou2 (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Please do not re-add contentious material while the issue is under discussion. Feel free to forum shop wherever you like but I suspect you won't get much traction while the issue is being discussed here. Edit warring against consensus and then complaining about it won't go well for you. Please read wp:brd--Adam in MO Talk 03:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Fred Adams original research
Hello Jytdog, You recently reverted an edit revison 644659438 on "Fine-tuned Universe" based on the reason, "No original research".

If so, then why is the following text allowed in the page? It also cites the very same original research used by the edit you reverted.


 * "Fred Adams has investigated the structure of stars in universes with different values of the gravitational constant G, the fine-structure constant α, and a nuclear reaction rate parameter C. His study suggests that roughly 25% of this parameter space allows stars to exist.[17]"

The edit that you reverted was only adding more clarifying information to the above text using the same cited source. Therefore, the edit should be accepted. 205.241.40.253 (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking! Your edit was as follows:


 * "Fred Adams has investigated the structure of stars in universes with different values of the gravitational constant G, the fine-structure constant α, and a nuclear reaction rate parameter C. His study suggests that roughly 25% of this parameter space allows stars to exist (although his criteria of star existence only considers achieving sustained nuclear reaction, and does not consider other factors, i.e. the different values of the gravitational constant having an effect on the cosmic expansion that would also determine the existence of stars; in addition, the author notes that the 25% only addresses the question of if stars can exist, not if life can exist, which would reduce the value of 25% by introducing additional constraints.)"


 * The added text in parentheses appears to be your commentary on Adams. Please note that per WP:OR, when you use a primary source (as this one is, you cannot go beyond what the paper itself says.   So:
 * where in Adams, does Adams say that his parameters "only considers achieving sustained nuclear reaction"?
 * where in Adams, does Adams say that "cosmic expansion ... would also determine the existence of stars"?
 * where in Adams, does Adams note "that the 25% only addresses the question of if stars can exist, not if life can exist, which would reduce the value of 25% by introducing additional constraints"?
 * I don't find those things in Adams; they appear to be your original research, commenting on Adams, and if so, that is not allowed in WP. Thanks again for asking. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ahh thank you for your clarification. Here are the answers to your questions.
 * where in Adams, does Adams say that his parameters "only considers achieving sustained nuclear reaction"?
 * The 25% is from Figure 5 of his paper. On p17, he states: "Figure 5 shows the portion of the plane that allows for stars to successfully achieve sustained nuclear reactions."  Thus, the 25% of Figure 5 only considers achieving sustained nuclear reaction as the paper clearly states.
 * where in Adams, does Adams say that "cosmic expansion ... would also determine the existence of stars"?
 * It doesn't, which is exactly the reason why it supports the edit sentence, "does not consider other factors, i.e. ... cosmic expansion ..."
 * However, from your clarified reason, I see how this can be my personal comment of the paper. I am willing to omit this part, "i.e. the different values of ... would also determine the existence of stars;"
 * where in Adams, does Adams note "that the 25% only addresses the question of if stars can exist, not if life can exist, which would reduce the value of 25% by introducing additional constraints"?"
 * In his conclusion section on p29, he states:
 * "Finally, we note that this paper has focused on the question of whether or not stars can exist in universe with alternate values of the relevant parameters. An important and more global question is whether or not these universes could also support life of some kind. Of course, such questions are made difficult by our current lack of an a priori theory of life. Nonetheless, some basic requirements can be identified (with reasonable certainty): In addition to energy sources (provided by stars), there will be additional constraints to provide the right mix of chemical elements (e.g., carbon in our universe) and a universal solvent (e.g., water). These additional requirements will place additional constraints on the allowed region(s) of parameter space."
 * As you can see, the edit was simply a concise version of his conclusion. If you prefer, I do not mind adding the above entire conclusion as a direct quote to the article, instead of rewording it short.
 * 205.241.40.253 (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for talking.
 * You do realize that you just demonstrated that everything you added was OR, right? I think you know, but I just want to be sure. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain how everything I added was OR. As stated, I am willing to omit the 2nd bullet.  But, the 1st and 3rd bullets are as stated in the paper.
 * 205.241.40.253 (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears that #1 and #2 are OR, but #3 is an appropriate edit (it seems to be exactly what Adams stated, correct me if I am wrong). #1 is OR because pointing out what is mentioned in a paper, as a way of highlighting what isn't, is original research. In the Apollo 11 you would not point out that an article on the event only interviews people from NASA (i.e. doesn't mention moon-landing conspiracy theories), as that would be OR.  -Jord gette  [talk]  01:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 1 is OR because you added "only". We don't know what Adams would say about how these three factors might relate to other things like expansion.  #3 is OR because I don't see where he says anything about the area under the curves being 25% of the space (I think that is where you are getting the 1st 25%) and he definitely doesn't say anything about " not if life can exist, which would reduce the value of 25% by introducing additional constraints" that I can see. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree.
 * #1 used "only" because Figure 5 only shows stars that successfully achieved sustained nuclear reactions. Figure 5 does NOT show any other info other than "sustained nuclear reactions" as the author stated.
 * You say, "We don't know what Adams would say about how these three factors might relate to other things like expansion." But, we do.  On p28, it states "In future work, another issue to be considered is coupling the effects of alternate values of the fundamental constants to the cosmic expansion, big bang nucleosynthesis, and structure formation."  He clearly stated that cosmic expansion was not part of this paper, and it needs to be considered in the future work.
 * 25% is used even in the existing text of the current article. It comes from p27, which states: "Roughly one fourth of this parameter space allows for the existence of “ordinary” stars (see Figure 5)."  Again, it directly ties this 25% to Figure 5, which only shows stars achieving sustained nuclear reactions.


 * #3 is a concise rewording of the aforementioned conclusion. The conclusion does state that the paper does NOT address if life can exist.  It also states that asking this question about life would introduce "additional requirements will place additional constraints on the allowed region(s) of parameter space."


 * How about making the edit as follows?
 * (His criteria of star existence is based on achieving sustained nuclear reaction and he suggests considering other factors, i.e. cosmic expansion, etc. in the future work. In addition, the author notes that the 25% only addresses the question of if stars can exist, not if life can exist -- asking the question about the life would introduce additional requirements that will place additional constraints on the 25%.)
 * 24.25.206.220 (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That  version is OK with me with two modifications.  Please don't put it in parentheses, and please say something like "approximately 25%" - we cannot be more precise than he is.  Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 10:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Thank you for the discussion and please feel free to make any adjustment if necessary.
 * 24.25.206.220 (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of capitalization of universe
There is request for comment about capitalization of the word universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Please participate. SchreiberBike talk 00:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification of request for comment
An RfC has been commenced at MOSCAPS Request for comment - Capitalise universe.

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Anthropic principle
Why does this article play down the anthropic principle so much, when in the outside world it's the biggest challenge to notions of a fine-tuned universe? bobrayner (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not initially concur with the premise of your question. I don't see that the anthropic principle is played down at all.  It is mentioned most prominently in the lede of the article and again later down.  I dunno what is meant by '"the outside world"', but while it is true that the WAP coupled with the premise of the existence of an extremely large number of other parallel universes (which is an unfalsifiable premise, therefore one that lives more in the realm of metaphysics than of physics) creates a viable argument against the remarkability of fine-tuning, it still does not actually challenge the fact of apparent fine-tuning.  Fine-tuned Universe and Anthropic principle are closely related notions (and also related to the notions Teleology, Intelligent design, and Carbon chauvinism), and the latter has been used as an explanation of the former, but they are not the same. 70.109.185.202 (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is it give very little text to the Fine-tuning of the Universe. The fine-tuned parameters for life on a planet was 200 in 2014, the number goes up each year. Each year new discoveries are made. The history of these discoveries are not covered. Very poor article, not balanced. Telecine Guy 21:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe that the argument of selection bias applies well to the fine tuning of parameters for life on the planet Earth. There are likely a zillion small rocky planets in just the Milky Way as habitable as Earth is.  But the selection bias argument is quite debatable with regard to the Universe, if there is only one universe.  And the proponents of selection bias have no way to prove that the universe we are in is one of zillions of universes. 173.48.62.104 (talk) 08:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, that number of parameters is easily abused. How many of those 200 are fundamental parameters, and how many are derived from other constants? (I don't think there are 200 fundamental parameters) Within what percentage tolerances of "tuning" defines "fine tuning"? I can come up with 200 finely tuned parameters for me making this comment today.  -Jord gette  [talk]  02:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I see two problems. The first is there should be a clear separation between definition of what it means for the universe to be finely tuned and the hot-button topic of the explanation of why and how that tuning occurred. The intro makes it clear that the tuning is widely considered to be real. The second issue is the clarity of language. Many of the arguments that the universe is not finely tuned are really arguing that there was no tuner. The language used in the arguments should not confuse the reader about which part of the topic is in dispute.Tochd (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I must agree with Tochd, for the most part. Although there are arguments that there is no fine tuning.  I think that is what Stenger is saying.  And, no doubt, if Stenger were to concede that maybe there is evidence of fine tuning, he would argue that such is not remarkable and certainly that there is no tuner. 173.48.62.104 (talk) 08:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

And they accuse me of "edit warring"...
In this edit, User:Isambard Kingdom moved the following paragraph from the second paragraph in the lede to the section Disputes regarding the existence and extent of fine-tuning:


 * Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." He also states that anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because biogenesis occurs frequently". Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of natural explanations have been proposed, such as the anthropic principle along with multiple universes. George F. R. Ellis states "that no possible astronomical observations can ever see those other universes. The arguments are indirect at best. And even if the multiverse exists, it leaves the deep mysteries of nature unexplained."

The ostensible justification is that this paragraph is presented as "one sided" as if there is not broad consensus among physicists and cosmologists regarding the fact of fine tuning (certainly no broad agreement regarding the cause of fine tuning). This paragraph says much more than just that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life." While it says that and while that statement is correct and well-cited, this paragraph puts the whole topic in context. It points out that we don't (yet) know if the fine tuning of parameters results in just life on this planet or if the fine tuning may result in life all over in the Universe. It makes a reference to the Anthropic principle which is not done in the first paragraph. FTU and AP are so closely related topics that there is no good reason not to be relating them immediately in the lede.

It is WP:FALSEBALANCE to imply that there is much of a dispute among the leading physicists that work in the field of cosmology. There is no such dispute, just as there is no such dispute among scientists regarding the evolution of species. To imply that there is such a dispute because of outliers like Stenger, is False Balance and is contrary to WP:NPOV.

Lastly, the move was made without consensus and precisely violates WP:EDITCONSENSUS by falsely changing the status quo from what the status quo was for years to a new status quo and falsely implying that when someone else tries to recover the state of the article. (In that flowchart, we are in the loop, and it is a falsehood to imply that a new consensus is reached.) I have retuned the paragraph back to where it was and have asked editors that had moved it to justify such in the talk page and they have not done so. Yet, I am the one accused of edit warring. I am merely trying to preserve the integrity of the article and requiring those changing the article to justify their changes. That is the Wikipedia way. 173.48.62.104 (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I believe it is not necessarily a "fact" that the universe is fine-tuned. For it to be a fact (again, I believe) implies that other un-tuned universes are at least possible (even if they don't actually exist), and as far as I know, whether or not this is possible is not known, and, so, no "fact" is established. I'm happy to be corrected on this, but also fearing descent into the anthropic rabbit hole. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * So there were a few different concerns I brought up and IK's response is, because the consensus version of the article that he changed is not according to his POV, he gets to change it to according to his own POV. We can't have a climate change denier go to Global warming and change the lede where it says "Multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming" nor can we have a creationist go to Intelligent design and change the lede where it says "Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses."
 * The paragraph that you have relegated without consensus says, with citation, that cosmologists pretty well agree on fine-tuning and it says nothing about any fine tuner, which would be bad if it did. Then that paragraph puts on some important nuance that is context for the whole article, not just the "Disputes" section.  It says, quoting Davies, that we don't know if the implication of fine tuning is a minimally biophilic universe or an optimally biophilic universe.  It then says that there are all sorts of naturalistic explanations posited for fine tuning and relates the concept of FTU to the AP.  FTU and AP are very closely related and this fact belongs in the lede.  And it briefly outlines the most common naturalistic explanation of FTU from usage of the WAP and sets the stage for the content of the article.
 * Whether you believe that it's a fact or not is immaterial. Whether you fear descent into an anthropic rabbit hole is immaterial.  The fact is that astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists largely agree that there is something there about a few different parameters of the Universe that, ostensibly, don't have any reason to be set the way they are.  But they are set the way they are and if some of them were much different, galaxies and stars do not form or we don't get small rocky planets with elemental diversity or carbon doesn't form or nearly all of the carbon gets converted into oxygen or many other different scenarios that preclude life as it is understood.  That is not controversial, and because it may be with you doesn't mean that the article should reflect your personal POV about that.
 * Because of controversy with a very few physicists like Stenger, we should include what Stenger has to say, but that is not the large consensus of the scientific community about fine tuning.
 * You made some changes to the article 4 days ago. Not all of those changes have consensus behind them.  Only those changes that have consensus become the new consensus.  This one change does not qualify as the new consensus, independent of what you believe is a "fact" or not.  It's not about "factiness".  It's about illustrating what the topic of the article is about with cited and verifiable sources of persons widely viewed as qualified to be quoted.  Paul Davies' opinion is weightier than yours. 173.48.62.104 (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The point here, as I see it, is that the lede is supposed to be a very brief summary of what the article covers. The lede does not need to have inline citations and it should not contain anything that is not covered and cited in the body of the article. If you cut/paste a section into the lede you are in breach of those rules. Just leave it where it is and add a summary to the lede.Charles (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll get back to this later, Susskind doesn't really believe in fine-tuning: http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/leonard-susskind Isambard Kingdom (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So PBS is quoting him wrong? 173.48.62.104 (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I added some qualification to Susskind's view and added an essay and interview with Steven Weinberg. These are respectable authorities, and I think their views in this article add some balance to the presentation. I hope this helps. Thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's leave the Davis/Ellis paragraph where it was in the first place. It was moved without consensus. 173.48.62.104 (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Expansion of Space, not Spacetime
Space and time do form spacetime in general relativity, but it is a common misconception to talk about an expanding spacetime instead of an expanding space in cosmology, see Albert Einstein: The Expansion Of Space, David Weinberg: Universal Misconceptions 1, Davis & Lineweaver: Expanding Confusion, Page 5, Leonard Susskind: Lecture Notes 8, Leonard Susskind: Cosmology II, Alan Guth: The Early Universe V und The metric expansion of space. In an expanding space the distance between points grows with time, while an expanding spacetime would imply that even the duration between events would grow, which is discussed in  or non-mainstream theories like Expanding Space Time Theory (EST) but not in standard cosmology. --Yukterez (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

New Lede
=== Please do not do an automatic revert. I am truly trying to improve this article based on some of the current issues. This lead paragraph cited a page from "Talk:Origins", which said very little concerning a good definition of fine-tuning. Also, the language that was used was convoluted, and really didn't reflect the original meaning from the scientists who were among the first ones to write about it. I have tried to keep the language neutral as I see this whole article seems to argue back and forth from one sentence to another. The issue is not that scientists don't see any examples that seemed to be fine-tuned in the Universe. (I can prove that most of the notable scientists do by the many quotes in articles and books that I have read.) The majority of them just disagree on how they would explain the cause of that fine tuning. I think this revision is an accurate portrayal of this concept's origins. So please try and suggest changes instead of just using quick reverts with level of scrutiny that you do not apply to the entire page, as is seen from the very first reference that has long been listed on this. I have all the citations listed there and will be adding them references at the bottom. I'm new at doing the reference list with the wiki markup, so I would welcome correction there. Csdalrymple 06:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC) === -comment added byCsdalrymple 07:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Csdalrymple (talk • contribs)


 * "A number of scientists from various fields have noted that if some of the elements in the fundamental physical constants, mathematical, or natural laws were to vary slightly...": the "slightly" is subjective; Stenger, Fred Adams, and Weinberg seem to disagree with the "slightly" part, and Weinberg is extremely notable. So I toned it down from 'noted that' to 'argue that'. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I carefully chose the word "noted", instead of "claim" or "have shown" due to the fact that it didn't show POV. I think it is appropriate given the fact that these scientists have studied, verified, and published work on this subject. If you had an issue with the word "slightly", you could have easily changed only that word. It is difficult to adequately sum up the amount of variation concerning all of the on-going research with a few words in the lede. That is why we can expound on such things in the rest of the article. Now concerning the research...Adams and Weinberg are frequently misquoted as opponents of fine-tuning. Adams' research on fine-tuning only studies the variance allowing the existence of stars in parallel worlds, and doesn't address the vast amount of other fine-tuning evidence. He even states as much in the conclusion of his paper, but that doesn't stop biased bloggers from restating his work as disproving the fine-tuning argument. Weinberg is often similarly misquoted as well, when he states he doesn't see fine-tuning in ONE aspect of the many in the argument. He does, however, admit that there seems to be fine-tuning in other aspects. Stenger's view, which refuses to acknowledge that ANY signs of fine-tuning exists, is unsupported by scientific consensus, and is used solely as an attempt to prove his religious views of atheism. The possible explanations, such as multiple universes, doesn't belong in this section unless you give equal and NPOV considerations to all of the explanations. Let's be clear...there is no resolution of all of the aspects of fine-tuning in our Universe with all of our current scientific EVIDENCE. So, to even suggest that one is the "best explanation" (especially about a theory which is controversial and not even able to be tested) is the very epitome of POV. --Csdalrymple 23:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csdalrymple (talk • contribs)
 * You're correct about Weinberg, I'll correct the article. But what are "other explanations" for fine-tuning besides multiple universes (a large category that logically subsumes bubble universes and top-down cosmology), that we need to give "equal consideration" to? If you're talking about the religious stuff, the bulk of that needs to be moved to Teleological argument where it belongs anyway; we shouldn't have a big chunk of the article about religion here, just as we don't mention religion much in the natural selection article. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at his writings, Weinberg isn't dead against fine-tuning like the article text implied before I changed it; but I wouldn't characterize him as "admitting" that there is fine-tuning of other constants, he seems more ambivalent. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
It is completely inappropriate to claim in the lede that the subject of the article is pseudoscience, let alone in the first sentence of the lede. For one thing, this claim contradicts the sentence that follows. It also contradicts much of the article. There are opinions on either side of this question, and presently the article is well balanced. The tendentious edit in the lede destroys this balance and makes the lede confusing. The editor should also know about the three-revert rule.  -Jord gette  [talk]  23:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All Intelligent Design topics are defined as pseudoscience by Wikipedia and Wikipedia has a strong aversion to labeling any pseudoscience as scientific. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pseudoscience Lipsquid (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And yes, there are lots of opinions about intelligent design and the majority of reliable academic sources are overwhelmingly against ID as science. There is no controversy.  Lipsquid (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose the question, then, is whether or not a fine-tuned universe is necessarily intelligently designed. I can imagine it might be, but I'm uncertain if everyone considers it to be ID. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much the heart of the matter. "Universe fine-tuning" is not exclusively an intelligent design topic. Intelligent design necessitates fine-tuning -- which is why there is a panel to the right about intelligent design -- but not vice versa. Paul Davies, for example, is about as far from an ID proponent as one can get, yet he asserts in the article that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life." This quote alone makes it inappropriate to label the concept pseudoscience in the lede. It's important to understand that the phrase "fine-tuned" does not necessarily imply a "tuner"; phrases such as “apparent fine tuning" or "the appearance of fine-tuning" more accurately reflect the positions of these scientists. It is a subtle but real distinction. Efforts to delegitimize the concept with the pseudoscience label are misguided, IMO...and that's coming from a lifelong atheist.  -Jord gette  [talk]  01:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To tune is an action that requires a tuner as in there must be a cause for a perceived effect. I accept the argument that life exists, because it does.  The reason life exists is unknowable.  Anything unknowable masquerading as science is pseudoscience and when it comes to religion is a God of the gaps argument.  Lipsquid (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, and a fine one, but enough scientists note the appearance of some effect or perceived effect. For example if there is a multiverse (presently unknowable, but broadly not considered pseudoscience), then our own universe would appear to be fine-tuned without such a tuner. In this case it's not so cut and dried that we can say unknowable = pseudoscience.  -Jord gette  [talk]  02:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think my biggest concern was that tuning implies a tuner as an action verb, but I like your argument and appreciate the line of thinking especially the "appearance of fine tuning" rather than specifically saying "fine tuned". It is unproductive to play word or definition games so I won't, I appreciate the feedback and logical discussion.  I will move along.  Best! Lipsquid (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Clueless bullies teaming up to avoid 3RR and to avoid actually reading and researching before reverts.
So, in this edit, User:Dbachmann removed some symbols that existed for a long time in this article. Problem is that the symbols are in the original source and I have updated the reference to show that. In addition, removing the symbols makes the article readability worse and less precise. The section begins with: Martin Rees in Just Six Numbers (1999) formulated the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless physical constants ... Do those six constants have names? Why describe each one separately without retaining the names given? The three reverting editors obviously just teamed up (a teeny little cabal) and didn't bother to lift a finger doing the least amount of verification. Such a shame. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The real shame is that you posted this only after edit warring up to the three revert limit. clpo13(talk) 06:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Teamed up? It is called a "watchlist" -Roxy the dog™ woof 06:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously we all thought your edits were not an improvement to the article. They certainly don't help readability.  Calling people who don't know each other a "cabal" because they all disliked the same edits is pretty funny though.  Maybe you should discuss the proposed edits on the talk page after several reverted you and should try to do so without offending people.   Lipsquid (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Obviously".  Need to go to college dude.  And take some English composition courses so you might know what "readability" is.  And take some physics or some science course.  I was simply reverting a part of what User:Dbachmann edited.  Kept most of his edits.  But removing the names of the "six numbers" did not improve readability.  You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.  71.184.228.118 (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And, BTW, I included in my very first edit of the evening, the source for verification of where the symbol names come from. I do my Wikipedia work very carefully.  I put in verifiable references.  And reverting verified edits is not the Wikipedia way.  You guys need to grow up a little. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * When stuck at the bottom of a hole, the least logical solution is to keep digging. Lipsquid (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Doesn't mean a thing. (I'll let the content speak for itself.)71.184.228.118 (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think naming the constants and including the symbols improves readability.  -Jord gette  [talk]  19:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:Harizotoh9 and User:Apollo_The_Logician
The works of Ikeda and Jefferys and Sober are making the statement that they believe probabilistic analysis refutes design and Carrier is saying something about the existence of God. Even though the different naturalistic or theistic explanations should be pointed at (and they are) the root topic of this article is about alleged fine-tuning of the Universe. 69.5.112.154 (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Diproton argument
As far as I can tell, IF 2% stronger strong nuclear force THEN no hydrogen left, is simply false. Paul Davies and Martin Rees do make the argument and citations are good, but even respected physicists can be often wrong, and it is the case here.

To be precise, it is not disputed that IF 2% stronger strong nuclear force THEN stable diproton. What is disputed is IF stable diproton THEN no hydrogen left.

To be careful, I noted the dispute instead of deleting it. (I also think this particular case is of historic interest, although of no scientific interest.) But I'd prefer a better example in "Premise" section. Since "Examples" section is copied from Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees, I guess it can stay there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanxiyn (talk • contribs) 05:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy...
Now has an article: https://seop.illc.uva.nl/entries/fine-tuning/ William M. Connolley (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fine-tuned Universe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716192004/http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf to http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716192004/http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf to http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fine-tuned Universe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406200054/http://www.optcorp.com/edu/articleDetailEDU.aspx?aid=1530 to http://www.optcorp.com/edu/articleDetailEDU.aspx?aid=1530
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141221081439/http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning to http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150605024914/http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Fallacy/FTCosmo.pdf to http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Fallacy/FTCosmo.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051205085645/http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/anthro.skinq.html to http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/anthro.skinq.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Multiverse
Craig has 2 Phds and has written or edited 30 books. He has also written many scholarly and popular articles. He has debated well known public intellectuals like Sam Harris and C. Hitchens and A. C. Grayling. Why is he called "unreliable"? 24.189.33.102 (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Any contribution should be backed-up with independent, secondary, reliable sources. Also suggest you read Wikipedia policy contained in WP:FRINGE. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Why do you feel Craig is unreliable? Why do you feel he is not neutral? 24.189.33.102 (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * You should read my comments above, other editors comments on your Talk page and also WP:FRINGE. Case closed. David J Johnson (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I read your comments and I asked you to support them. Why do you feel Craig is unreliable? Please don't be so dogmatic you are in violation of Wikipedia rules.24.189.41.93 (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Once more, any contribution(s) to this article must be backed-up with independent, secondary and reliable sources and not one individual view(s). That is Wikipedia policy and is in no way being "dogmatic" and neither is it a "violation of Wikipedia rules". I and other editors, who have commented on your previous Talk page, have already informed you of the conventions that Wikipedia operates and you appear to have taken no notice. You also appear not to have read WP:FRINGE. All this has been explained to you multiple times and you are asked to abide by Wikipedia policy. David J Johnson (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To IP editor. Please note that your sources do not meet our requirements for reliability. Further attempts to insert them will result in me asking Admins for sanctions against you for tendentious editing. Thanks. -Roxy, the Prod . wooF 16:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree 24.189.41.93: In order to include Craig in this article, you need to refer to a reliable secondary source. His own writings are a primary source, and it doesn't matter how notable he is as a philosopher or theologian, just because he writes something doesn't mean it's reliable information unless it is reported on by an independent, reliable secondary source such as the journal Nature. That is how Wikipedia works. Please stop attempting this insertion.  -Jord gette  [talk]  16:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

If Wikipedia does not approve of primary sources why does this article refer to numerous primary sources? Should we eliminate all such sources?24.189.41.93 (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Glancing over the list, the primary sources in this article appear to be papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals and/or authored by highly notable cosmologists. Feel free to point to primary sources that do not meet such criteria.  -Jord gette  [talk]  16:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

So it is okay to refer to notable individuals as primary sources! Both philosophers and scientists are used as primary sources throughout the article. Now the question becomes: why do you feel Craig is not notable? Craig has 2 Phds and has written or edited 30 books. He has also written many scholarly and popular articles. He has debated well known public intellectuals like Sam Harris and C. Hitchens and A. C. Grayling.24.189.41.93 (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

If there are no more objections I will add Craig's statement about the multiverse.24.189.41.93 (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No, read the comments from several editors above and comply with Wikipedia policies. Consensus is against these changes. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I have considered the objections mentioned above. I have patiently considered these objections despite their obvious lack of merit. Do you have any additional objections? Please comply with Wikipedia policies and work for a solution.24.189.41.93 (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Please do not lecture experienced editors on Wikipedia policies. The "solution" is already there - the consensus is against your changes. Please just accept this. David J Johnson (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If you feel your objections have merit please defend them. If you feel my criticism of said objections is unconvincing tell me why. Don't be shy. I am sure you are not the sort of editor who relies on groupthink. I am sure you are not a dogmatic editor who ignores opinions that challenge his own. I am sure you are not the sort of editor who is afraid to engage in challenging discussions.24.189.41.93 (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I am saying Craig is reliable and notable. Why do you disagree? I noted that the article relies on many primary sources. Why do you disagree? Please don't just state your opinion (again and again) as if it was holy writ, defend your opinion.24.189.41.93 (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Craig is notable as a theologian. This is not a theology article. Consensus is against the suggested changes. Goodbye.  -Jord gette  [talk]  21:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Craig has a PhD in philosophy. He writes on philosophical topics.24.189.41.93 (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus is against your changes. I'm afraid that's the only thing that matters here.  -Jord gette  [talk]  16:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Uncited material
More some bizarre reason User:Roxy the dog wants to readd uncited information. When I put a cn tag they then removed it for some bizarre reason. Is there any objection to either removing the uncited material or just simply adding a cn tag? 80.111.44.144 (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've read the infinite regress objection in just about everything I've seen on the alien design/simulation hypothesis. I'm sure we can dig up a source. Also I agree that "naturalistic explanations" is better than "scientific explanations" because "scientific explanation" is a much narrower description, and some of these hypotheses aren't quite (yet) scientific.  -Jord gette  [talk]  19:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Poorly written article
This article is biased, has spelling mistakes, and is a jumbled mess:
 * If Paul Davies, a physicist, states there is broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is fine-tuned, then why is the section on "Disputes regarding the existence and extent of fine-tuning" read as a debunking of fine-tuning. It is incredibly critic heavy even though this is not the consensus of scientists. NOTE: Maybe Davies claim is exaggerated, but not mentioning ANY response to why he is wrong or any response to the critiques is clearly a POV violation.
 * Stenger-heavy. This article mentions Stenger the most and goes on to quote him multiple times. Meanwhile "the astrophysicist Luke Barnes has criticised much of Stenger's work". That's it. I mean how is that not biased? (side note: Stenger's argument about unwarranted assumptions about how carbon life is the only life possible is in itself an argument from ignorance. I know of no person who says that because we don't know if non-carbon life is possible therefore the fine-tuning of the universe is true! Most of the consensus is based on our current understanding of the universe
 * "modern cosmology theorises (SPELLING ERROR) that multiple universes may exist" and other multiverse theories are nonscientific. Why because they are all non-falsifiable.
 * "some researchers studying M-theory and gravity leaks hope to see some evidence of soon" - multiple recent peer reviewed article have shown that gravity DOES NOT leak into other dimensions and universes
 * "Some multiverse theories are not falsifiable" - this is asserted, but reading scientific writings (not journals, but articles) has led me to believe that the consensus is that all multiverse theories are non-falsifible and therefore fall outside of science.
 * It is often accused that theists and deists presuppose theism and deism and then come to that conclusion. Even though agreement with the multiverse, which is one possible explanation, presupposes this view (posible inductive reasoning), and then tries to provide evidence for/against (scientific method) but fails according to many physisists because a multiverse is outside scientific purview and must be taken on blind speculation.
 * WP:WEASEL "elegant" explanation. How can it be elegant if there are a lot of arguments against it?
 * " (See for a detailed discussion of the arguments for and against this suggested explanation.)" This is a Wikipedia article, not a click this link to find out more article. I've never seen another article link like this and say "check it out over here"
 * alien design on top of the philosophical arguments. really?
 * Stenger is again mentioned under philosophical arguments, and under the puddles argument. He has been responded to many times where it is not God-of-the-gaps but can fall into naturalism-of-the-gaps. Since most fine-tuning arguments are based on the constant (what we do know) and not speculation (what we don't know, holding out hope that there is a connection between the physical constants for example). If there is, that really wouldn't prove either explanation anyway.
 * Again there is no single response to Stenger anywhere even though he has been criticized again.
 * The puddle analogy was created by a sci-fi writer and not any known philosopher or scientist. It has been critiqued supposes a false-equivalence scenario. For example that life (even though we see many other planets without it) is as malleable as a puddle. That the properties of a puddle (flowing into environment) is someone analogous to the beginning and starting of life, and that the 26 physical constants which have so little margin of error somehow means a hole would exist. As stated earlier in the article stars and planets wouldn't even exist without some of the constants being exactly as they are
 * Secular Web is listed as a primary source for the criticisms of fine-tuning. These are not peer reviewed articles. Some of the critiques are written by people with degrees in criminal justice? And pseudo-historian and all-around fringe charlatan Richard Carrier. And yet the above talk section states that William Lane Craig is not reliable. Honestly, that's a complete joke. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you fix anything obvious, like the spelling errors? Do you have any concrete suggestions for how to improve the article? This laundry list of complaints isn't very helpful.  -Jord gette  [talk]  17:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:GOODFAITH? Your comment seems against the principle. I merely wanted to start a discussion here. That's why the template is at the top of the page. I'm currently in the process of reading Barnes and Davies books and reviews of others, but haven't finished my studies enough to a point where I can confidently fix all the errors. But this notice is important to have for that reason. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're supposed to fix stuff as you see fit. If anyone thinks what you did is wrong, they'll fix your edits themselves. That's how this works.--uKER (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:GOODFAITH? You seem to have an unusual interpretation. WP:POV notice needs a relevant talk section. This isn't it.