Talk:Fine-tuned universe

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. -Jordgette [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)

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)

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)

References

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.

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 [1] 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)