This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I agree with am following the advice of Tznkai and taking this to email. Timurghlu, and Tom Walsh, please sign up as Wikipedians so that we can communicate by email. Send me email when you've done this and we can correspond without generating huge amounts of talk on this page. I've been concerned for some time that the conversation was veering out of control, and Tznkai's rebuke to all of us confirms my discomfort with the path that we've been following.
I will answer Timurghlu and Tom when they've signed up and sent email.
Ciao, Bill Jefferys 1 July 2005 11:44 (UTC)
Go ahead and leave brief pertinent thoughts here. The rest of the discussion pertaining to I/J has been archived, Wikipedia is not a message board.-- Tznkai 1 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)
Hi all,
I will continue the discussion with Mr. Jeffries through Wikipedians, however I will add this addendum to the I-J section of the article so as to show both sides of the debate.
Sincerely, Timurghlu
These are the additions I will add tomorrow morning: -Links to several pro-design articles concerning fine-tuning (all approved by Bill Jeffries) -The following statement (which is, as Tznkai required, a notable criticism of I-J):
In philosophical terms, omnipotence occurs over a system, and can occur in two different ways. 1) Control of the resultant system through causal control of the laws that operate the system. 2) Through direct control of the resultant system.
In #1, the Designer creates a system of laws that produce the resultant reality, and has the ability to change the resultant reality by creating new laws, operating through laws which the Designer has exclusive access to, or by changing the parameters of laws. In # 2, the Designer (outside of the bounds of human logic) can simply control a resultant system. (For example, a #1 Designer would create life by creating a system that resulted in life (a guided evolution) while a #2 Designer would simply create life without a system (Life simply appears even if the totality of designed laws say it cannot).). Note that a #1 Designer is not one which cannot intervene in the system but rather uses his causal control to generate the desired resultant reality (analogous to using a cheat code or a programming modification in a video game).
CID arguments assume #1 while I-J assumes #2. Thus CID assumes that the resultant reality of Life could only occur when the causal laws were set, randomly or with purpose, at F, while I-J argues that Life could occur without reason. If both CID and I-J follow #1, they arrive at mutually supporting conclusions.--Timurghlu
Is the Ikeda/Jefferys (IJ) argument pertinent and notable? There is more than one IJ argument! The "prosecutor's fallacy" argument is sound. The interpretation of the fine-tuning theorem amounts to a word game, as I will attempt to show below. Is the argument presented fairly and accurately? No. Only the "naturalistic" side of the argument is presented. Please read further. Is there an obvious counter argument that does not count as orginal research? Yes. Suggest that after "The philosopher of science Elliott Sober makes a similar argument." the following text, or its equivalent, be added to present the other side:
Confirmation of my claim will be found in Bill Jefferys' last reply to me (which can be read in the Archive) where he wrote, in part: "My view is that... a universe would only be (sufficiently) fine-tuned for life if natural processes alone are sufficient for life to arise." --Tom Walsh
Ghost's vote
I've reverted to previous version, but left in the new external links.
The changes made this morning continue to misunderstand and misrepresent the I/J argument. Even if I/J were to make the same assumption as the CID argument [as presented by the writer], the observation of fine-tuning would at best not undermine design and would certainly not undermine "no design". See [ Elliott Sober's article], which does not mention omnipotence and other issues and comes to this conclusion. Thus the assertion that I/J and CID would "arrive at mutually supporting conclusions" is false, since CID's conclusion is that design is supported and "no design" is undermined.
Such changes need to be discussed thoroughly in our email discussion before being made to the main page. As long as the changes misrepresent the arguments being discussed, they have no business being in the main page.-- Bill Jefferys 2 July 2005 13:41 (UTC)
It's obvious that we're not in agreement at this time as to the status of the section. Since Timurghlu insists on including what he believes to be a rebuttal of the Argument, and Bill questions its reasoning, it's with great regret that I tagged the section. I will enforce the tag as long as the section is kept, and we continue debating the issues. I propose a Straw poll to resolve matters.-- ghost 2 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)
Timurghlu and Bill Jeffreys are seeking mediation through Tznkai.
Sincerely,
Timurghlu
When will the unresolved issues in this article be settled and the Sectfact tag be removed? -- Tom Walsh, 10 Aug 05
Hi Tom,
Essentially, the two criticisms that I will place in the new article will be
1)Clarify the sheer speculative nature of assuming non-law universes 2)Clarify that purposelessness can sustain life in non-law universes just as much as purposefulness could.
I-J reaches its contrarian conclusion though its third assumption (Purposeful forces can create universes without underlying laws governing them, yet Purposeless forces cannot). If either side of this assumption goes then the argument is a wash (and note that both assumptions are based solely on complete speculation).
I'll post the actual text of the comments when the article is posted, but that's the jist (with one paragraph for each point).
Sincerely, Timurghlu
-Best wishes, Timurghlu
Welcome back, Bill! (as of 26 Sep 05) When may we expect to see the long-awaited "separate article on the I-J argument?" -- Tom Walsh, signing on, 27 Sep 05
In order to settle how, and if, we should handle the argument within this article, I propose a straw poll. I suggest the following questions be offered to the community, with voting to end the morning of July 6th (as this will give both the weekend and workweek editors time to respond). In order to reduce sock puppets, I ask that Anon users abstain. Please vote your preference under each choice, numbering which is your 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th. I forget the name of the talling system, but I'll use the same used on Wikipedia:Honorific names.-- ghost 2 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)
The straw poll concluded on 6 July and it is now 9 July. It appears clear that option (3) is ranked overall highest. Option (2) which includes both versions is ranked low; the other version is being judged original research and therefore not appropriate. I regard ghost and Tznkai as playing the role of referees. Question: Do they agree with this assessment? If so, should I split off the article into its own article, as suggested, and put appropriate links into the fine-tuning article? My eventual goal would be to rewrite the article in a more accessible, nonmathematical form; do the referees agree with this proposal? This will not happen immediately as I have two out-of-town meetings during the next two weeks. Bill Jefferys 9 July 2005 15:27 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with this, I do hope however that Bill will send the newly re-written article out to the email list before posting it. Timughlu 23:32, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
In order to resolve the dispute over the Ikeda/Jefferys Argument, we should:
1.) Keep Prof. Jefferys version. It's mathematicially factual, and POV neutral.
2.) Keep both versions. In the interests of NPOV, we must present both sides of an argument.
3.) Split off the Ikeda/Jefferys Argument as it's own article, leaving a brief summary and links. This article should be about Fine-tuned universe, not the Argument.
4.) Remove the Ikeda/Jefferys Argument altogether. Although elegant, it's Original research, and thus violates Wikipedia policy.
5.) Find another solution.
Alright. We need to do some investigation before we move on here. I'd like to know the exact state of the I/J argument. Has it been published anywhere? Even if I/J is not peer-reveiwed it may in fact be notable we need to get that settled before we continue.-- Tznkai 3 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)
Sure. My conclusions are based on Wikipedia:Original research. The I-J argument does not appear to be original research. (Thx for the links, Bill. They saved me a lot of hassle.) I agree that Prof. Jefferys' web-published material notable and verifiable, where it's web-published by independant (sorry, not your webpage, Bill) and credible sites. The NCSE & University of Texas articles meet this standard. Prior research that meets this standard is fine. To date, Bill's expansion is an attempt it inform and educate the reader, not rework his previous efforts into something original. Therefore, we can deal with I-J like we would any other published theory.
Wikipedia's policy on theorys states:
Items that are scientifically peer reviewed are the gold standard for Wikipedia. I-J doesn't reach that at this time. But it does meet every other requirement for inclusion.-- ghost 3 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)
This is not a "response to ghost", it is another argument. It should be taking place on the email list. We need to avoid the proliferation of back-and-forth that plagued the earlier discussion. And IMO, the above is original research. The notion of "partially life-friendly" appears nowhere in I/J, nowhere in Sober, and seems to be original to Tom Walsh. It's relevance to I/J is not clear to me. That is all that I will say; if Tom wants to hash this out in email, I will be happy to do so, but not here
Tom had adequate opportunity to vote in the straw poll, but chose not to. That's his decision, but the voting has closed. Bill Jefferys 21:49, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Bill, Tom Walsh should vote in the poll and can join in on the email discussion (timurghlu@gmail.com, I will forward you onto the ongoing list).
Timughlu 23:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
Tom Walsh's analysis has a major, obvious flaw. Tom's objections are still IMO original research, besides being wrong. I will be happy to discuss the obvious flaws in Tom's analysis, and reasons why Tom's complaints are wrong IN THE EMAIL LIST, WHICH TOM HAS SO FAR IGNORED. I will NOT discuss them here, for reasons already stated.
I did not write the article as it stands. The article was written by Nathan Urban and one other contributor who paraphrased some email I wrote him. So much for Tom's complaint that it was "written by the co-creator". Bill Jefferys 03:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
What's wrong with no hair? The anon. removed it with take to talk, but he didn't. The idea seems to fit as one extreme, so include it. Vsmith 22:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
"No hair" is wrong for several reasons:
Nurban 19:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I recently rewrote the intro for both accuracy and npov. It now accurately describes FTU's relationship with mainstream science (something missing in previous versions), accurately describes ID (in line with all neutral, significant definitions of the concept, including the WP article), and details that it is a matter of simple logic that design implies a designer, who in turn would by necessity need to be omnipotent to accomplish what ID and FTU entail. All points missing in the previous versions, which inaccurately described ID and FTU, and contained a number of equivocations and weasel words.
Before anyone rushes to revert or type a hasty refutation, I suggest they adjust the scope of their counter-argument to encompass the statements to the same effect of the leading ID proponents. If the reader does not know these statements, I suggest they reconsider typing. FeloniousMonk 01:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Once again I find myself having to revert Timurghlu's revert. Timurghlu's version being repeatedly reverted to [1] is deficient because it:
Aside from these points, I'll again point out that this article was deficient in both accuracy and npov. If someone has issues with my edits, they should make their case by presenting their evidence here, not by blanket reverts. Revert warring is not acceptable, nor is defending an article against new editors. FeloniousMonk 16:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
You say "it is a matter of simple logic that design implies a designer, who in turn would by necessity need to be omnipotent to accomplish what ID and FTU entail." Show the simple logic, if you please (but leave out ID - this is the FTU article we are discussing). Does the design of snowflakes require a designer? How can you use logic to rule out a creator of the universe with almost but not quite omnipotent powers? 4.250.27.167 18:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I noticed "being" and "designer" have already been removed. Since we are in agreement about unsourced original research, I figured our disagreement was a misundeerstanding, so I deleted the "omnipowerful" without further talk (we seem to agree). I also noticed from your arguments that perhaps there was an issue with what was meant by "universe" so I added a section dealing with that issue. As we don't source "water is wet" unless someone raises an objection, I did not provide sources for every point made in that section, but if you would be so kind as to raise any issues with what is in the universe section in the talk section, I would be more than willing to source any contended points. Naturally, spelling, details, further elaboration is not what I'm talking about when I say talk first - I am obviously refering to wholesale deletion. Wholesale deletion on spurious grounds by people OTHER than yourself has left a bad taste in my mouth. WAS 4.250 16:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Your "creation does not require a creator" suggestion was most excellent. I provided just such a section. Please don't hestiate to ask for clarification. Anything you can't follow won't be understandable by many others as well, so we won't just be clarifying the issue for you but for many others as well. Physics isn't easy!!!! WAS 4.250 17:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'm sorry that I didn't notice the comments (I looked at the top of the discussion page), otherwise the revert wouldn't have occured. Having read it and the comments above, I suggest making the following changes for the following reasons (barring strong opposition, I'll post tomorrow?).
-Change "Though the concept of physical constants is widely accepted within mainstream science" to "Though the concept that physical constants in the universe have a small margin where they support known life is widely accepted within mainstream science".
-Change "The assertion that the universe is fine-tuned is largely promoted by advocates of intelligent design whose adherents hold that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection, and proponents of other forms of creationism." to "The assertion that the universe is fine-tuned is mostly promoted by advocates of theism and teleology and mostly denied by advocates of materialism.
-Move the argument for a Designer down to the "Intelligent Design" section of the article.
-Other issues: I don't see the tautology, could someone explain it?
I'm thinking to add a section that lists some of the fine-tuned constants and their margins of error under a section preceding "Explaining a Fine-Tuned Universe" called "Examples of Fine-Tuning." Any ideas/comments? Timurghlu
The fine-tuned universe argument boils down to the tautology "If things had been different, things would be different." It is fundamentally uninformative. In 1759 Voltaire was already ripping the logic of the tautology behind the fine-tuning argument:
"It is demonstrable," said he, "that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end. Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles. The legs are visibly designed for stockings, accordingly we wear stockings. Stones were made to be hewn and to construct castles, therefore My Lord has a magnificent castle; for the greatest baron in the province ought to be the best lodged. Swine were intended to be eaten, therefore we eat pork all the year round: and they, who assert that everything is right, do not express themselves correctly; they should say that everything is best."
In fact, Voltaire's quote is worthy of inclusion in the article.
On your specific points:
I'd object to any version of the article that glosses-over the fine-tuned universe argument's relationship to intelligent design and other arguments for creationism and theistic/deistic philosophy, or any list of "Fine-Tuning Examples" that is not well-supported by credible, neutral sources. Additionally, for such a list to not be pov it would have to not draw conclusions, something the list you propose would appear to do. FeloniousMonk 22:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
--
Hey Felonious,
Looking over your prior contributions, I can see why you would want to include this in your area of focus. If you want to expand the subsection about ID and fine-tuning then I think this is fine, but you are casting a wide net (are you saying any evidence from science for the existence of God is to be called "Intelligent Design Theory"?) As far as I can tell the only prominent IDer who has talked about cosmological constants is Guillermo Gonzalez (and even he admits it's not central to the evolution/ID debate).
Again, this isn't the ID debate, the facts about the constants are well known and have been well known. That's why there is so much focus on the notion of the multiverse (it's the only other real alternative to explain the remarkable organization of natural laws). Here's an example of an explicitly anti-ID perspective that supports cosmological fine-tuning [ [2]]. In popular culture, one example of a strong rationalist who is (at least in part) convinced of fine-tuning but not by ID is the prominent science fiction author Robert J. Sawyer.
On the three edits.
-There is little to no disagreement that the constants of the universe have extremely small margins of error to support life was we know it (and in some cases any recognizable form of life). If there is disagreement to this point, I haven't seen it. This isn't the ID debate. The facts here are clear, it is the interpretation (as you noted) that is at issue. "Though the concept that physical constants in the universe have a small margin where they support known life is widely accepted within mainstream science but the belief that this indicates purposeful fine-tuning is not." is totally valid.
-It looks like we are in agreement on this one: the people who have promoted the remarkable construction of cosmological constants have been theists. Those who have played it down have been materialists.
-There is an ID section inside the article, it is stated that ID proponents use the argument in the introduction, why do you want a full paragraph up there? Do you not trust readers to look at the entire article? You can even cite cases where IDers have used cosmological constants to back up their anti-Darwinian claims.
On the Voltaire quote, a Panglossian argument is not a tautology (a tautology would be something like "only God could have made a universe that could support life, thus the universe that is supportive life was made by God", fine-tuning doesn't say this, it's a probability statement not a deductive proof). Second, the I-J section deals with what you (and Voltaire) were talking about, which is in mathematical terms called a reversing of conditional probabilities (i.e. "the nose is made for glasses" instead of the accurate statement "the glasses were made for the nose"). We can go in a whole different argument why that doesn't hold for fine-tuning but in short, "the universe's constants that clearly support the creation of cars" is just as panglossian as "the universe's constants clearly support the formation of life". The question, again, is the nature of the probalities involved.
There's a reason why there has been so much focus on the multiverse option: it's the only other really attractive option in this case besides teleology. The majority of argument in this arena has been over the multiverse, not over ID. Again, the terms of the debate here are quite different from traditional ID arguments (that's why you don't see Dembski, Wells, Behe, Berlinksi, etc... talk about cosmological constants much except in passing or as part of larger statements (such as Meyer's "The Return of the God Hypothesis").
Here are the examples I will add. It's not comprehensive, and it's too wordy and cribbed as is . I'll whittle it down. I assume others will add to it with time:
Sincerely,
Hi Felonious,
I agree that IDers use cosmological arguments to back up their argument. But they are not alone in that, in fact most theists do. Ken Miller, a vociferous and leading anti-IDer, believes in cosmological design and ontological arguments as one example. The Design argument has biological and cosmological proponents. The Discovery Institute scientists focus primarily of "BID". There are those not convinced by "BID" who are quite convinced by "CID". Perhaps the distinction should be incorporated into the ID section (a suggestion, but I don't know if it's necessary).
Fine-Tuning is not "if things had been diferent, things would be different" as much as Darwinism is. Using the car example to say "the physics of the universe support the creation of cars, if they hadn't cars wouldn't be here" would be a "tautology" in this sense. So would "The laws of nature allow for life to change over time, if they didn't then life couldn't". I think the point you are getting at is not tautology, but rather what Eliot Sober (links and I-J section) called the "Observational Selection Effect", where simply because you have an odd occurance is not evidence that the occurance has a specific cause (i.e. improper reversing of condition probabilities). The I-J section deals with this.
I will try to find links to each of the FTU points I will post. Quick question: what is enough of a link, a long pro-tuning scientific article? A cititation of a scientific paper (hard to get links to, but people with access to research engines could read them)?
Sincerely,
Hi Felonious,
As a compromise (since there are plenty of people who disagree with ID's biological position but who are convinced by cosmological design arguments), how about "The assertion that the universe is fine-tuned is largely promoted by advocates of theism and denied by advocates of materialism. In recent years, propenents of the theory of intelligent design and other forms of creationism have become (the?) chief advocates of fine-tuning."
Concerning the tautology comment in the article, is there a way we can get a unbiased 3rd party view on this? The FTU argument is not "if things had been different, things would be different" as much as Darwinism is (and while that might not be relevant to this article, it certainly would be to the Darwinism article). The FTU argument is more accurately distilled as "if things had been even slightly different, life would not have arisen" or "the probability of life arising by chance in the universe is infinitesimally small". Neither of these are tautologies. "If things had been different, things would be different" is not a distilled version of FTU: it leaves out what the difference in question is, and ignores the fact that FTU is a probability argument not a deductive proof (which is usually where tautologies can be a concern).
I'll post the "Fine Tuning Examples" list tomorrow. I'll place five or six links (too much?) at the top of the section, in number form.
Sincerely
We know there are these fundamental physics constants. No one knows why they are what they are. These constants cause everything that physics can measure to be as it is - including life on Earth and A LACK OF LIFE EVERY WHERE ELSE WE HAVE LOOKED. (Some tuning. Tuned for death and pain too did he?) No one knows whether these constants can be or could have been different. No one knows if other types of life exist in this universe much less in universes where the physics are different. To look at this unknown thing (why are the constants what they are?) and see God in it is just the God of the gaps in another guise. For the constants to have been tuned, you not only must have life in this universe (such as it is), but a lack of life in other possible universes. And there is zero knowledge here. Here are three out of an INFINITE number of possibilities. (Possibility One) Maybe this is the only universe and the constants are not tunable. (Possibility Two) Maybe there is an infinite number of universes. (Possibility Three) Maybe there is only one universe AND its constants could be any value AND only one setting produces life AND the reason for that setting was something tuned the values of the constants just so. If possibility three is correct, then OK there is a "God". But why choose possibility three? Because it is useful in claiming there is a God? Because there exists a foundation run by a formerly unemployed guy who found a trick to get creationists to fund scientists? WAS 4.250 15:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Rees did make clear his sense of wonder. Look at this passage from the same link, talking about the multiverse idea:
What we've traditionally called 'our universe' is just a tiny part of something which is infinite, so allows for many replicas of us elsewhere (in our same space-time domain, but far beyond the horizon of our observations) ... One thing which struck me recently, and I found it a really disconcerting concept, was that once we accept all that, we get into a very deep set of questions about the nature of physical reality. That's because even in our universe, and certainly in some of the others, there'd be the potential for life to develop far beyond the level it's reached on earth today ... the most complex conceivable entities may not be organic life, but some sort of hyper-computers. But once you accept that our universe, or even other universes, may allow the emergence within them of immense complexity, far beyond our human brains, far beyond the kind of computers we can conceive, perhaps almost at the level of the limits that Seth Lloyd discusses for computers—then you get a rather extraordinary conclusion. These super or hyper-computers would have the capacity to simulate not just a simple part of reality, but a large fraction of an entire universe.
And then of course the question arises: if these simulations exist in far larger numbers than the universe themselves, could we be in one of them? ... All these multiverse ideas lead to a remarkable synthesis between cosmology and physics, giving substance to ideas that some of us had ten or 20 years ago. But they also lead to the extraordinary consequence that we may not be the deepest reality, we may be a simulation. The possibility that we are creations of some supreme, or super-being, blurs the boundary between physics and idealist philosophy, between the natural and the supernatural, and between the relation of mind and multiverse and the possibility that we're in the matrix rather than the physics itself.
Rees rules out nothing, and if he's to be called a pseudo-scientist, then so must they all. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Felonious,
I spent most of my "wikitime budget" for the day posting the new section. I will reply in a longer depth to your points tomorrow when I can give them the thought that they deserve (no sarcasm; I don't like giving replies that haven't been thought out).
Talk with you tomorrow.
Sincerely, Timurghlu
I think that it would be helpful to include a quotation by Rees in the article. Not as an FTU theorist, but as a scientist observing the idea. Or else I can dig up something by Tipler and Barrow. -- goethean ॐ 15:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
It is a fundamental part of quantum mechanics that particles pop into and out of existence all the time without a creator being any part of the physics equations (see creation and annihilation operators) that describe this and all other known particle behaviors.
The summary of Origin of the Universe as a quantum tunneling event in Phys. Rev. D 25, 2065–2073 (1982) says "We present a nonsingular model of cosmogenesis in which the Universe arises as a result of quantum-mechanical barrier penetration. The Universe is described throughout its evolution by a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric, and the matter distribution by a perfect fluid, whose equation of state is chosen so as to allow the tunneling to occur. Cosmic evolution proceeds in three stages; an initial static spacetime configuration tunnels into a "fireball" state in which particle creation occurs. As the fireball expands, particle creation ends, and the Universe enters the "post-big-bang" epoch of adiabatic expansion. We find that within the context of the FRW ansatz, only a spatially closed universe may originate in this manner. Implications of this creation scheme and possible generalizations are discussed. As a by-product of this investigation we find that the evolution of the Universe is described by a Gellmann-Low equation with the beta function specified by the equation of state." [14]
In a vacuum state, according to all known data, particles with any arbritrary energy above the vacuum may be created. These virtual particles are included in the definition of the vacuum. There is no evidence for or against a virtual particle with the mass of the universe popping into existence, but a fundamental law of particle behavior is that what can happen does happpen due to the wave nature of all things (see propagator).
In terms of virtual particles, the propagator at spacelike separation can be thought of as a means of calculating the amplitude for creating a virtual particle-antiparticle pair that eventually disappear into the vacuum, or for detecting a virtual pair emerging from the vacuum. In Feynman's language, such creation and annihilation processes are equivalent to a virtual particle wandering backward and forward through time, which can take it outside of the light cone. However, no causality violation is involved.
These facts have led some to postulate a many universes theory or multiverse theory. WAS 4.250 19:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
"One thing is clear in our framing of questions such as `How did the Universe get started?' is that the Universe was self-creating. This is not a statement on a `cause' behind the origin of the Universe, nor is it a statement on a lack of purpose or destiny. It is simply a statement that the Universe was emergent, that the actual of the Universe probably derived from a indeterminate sea of potentiality that we call the quantum vacuum, whose properties may always remain beyond our current understanding." [15] WAS 4.250 19:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I noticed the category of pseudoscience has cloaked/decloaked recently. Obviously, the category "pseudoscience" must be applied from the point of view of whatever is considered "mainstream". I know of no pseudoscientific topic whose followers admit it is pseudoscientific. If a topic must be "undisputedly" aggreed to be pseudoscientific to apply the label/category, then the category, obviously, would never be applied. No one thinks their pet project is pseudoscience, so the label must be applied from the point of view of mainstream science. FuelWagon 18:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I just wish to note that the section I retitled "Known physical constants" needs a great deal more work. I only took a rough first cut at it. I'm not saying I will work more on it. The pay here is low. And even tho I'm retired, that's a disincentive. Cheers. WAS 4.250 01:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
"Life as we know it would not be possible if the physical constants of the universe were even slightly different from what they are. How many other settings of these constants would produce life as we don't know it is unknown. [16]" WAS 4.250 21:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Charles Townes' Nobel prize is not relevant and should not be mentioned in the External Links, any more we should mention the honors and awards that have been given to others in that section (and I know from personal knowledge that some of the other authors have received prestigious honors). If Townes' arguments in that article are good, then they stand on their own, regardless of prizes and honors that he has been awarded. If they are not good, prizes that he has been awarded will not make them any more correct.
For some reason, Creationists have this notion that their arguments will be strengthened by quoting eminent people and mentioning how eminent they are by listing their affiliations with prestigious institutions or their having been awarded prestigious honors. This is nothing but the fallacious appeal to authority. Real scientists simply give the names of the authors when they cite someone's work. They don't even list affiliations (e.g., the university at which they work).
The citations in WikiPedia should follow this general policy, observed throughout the scholarly world, of citing authors, but not their honors or affiliations. Bill Jefferys 11:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I've now had an opportunity to reread the article. I notice that it in fact is not "by" Charles Townes at all. The author is actually Bonnie Azab Powell, the UC Berkeley employee who interviewed him. And, the title is not "Fine Tuning and Design"; the article has no title, but at most a teaser line, "'Explore as much as we can': Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution, intelligent design, and the meaning of life". So if someone knows how this should be cited (if it should be cited at all), I hope they will fix this. In any case, the citation should not be as it is given...it inaccurately attributes the article to Townes and gives it a bogus title. Perhaps it should say something like "Interview with Charles Townes," by Bonnie Azab Powell.
I'm somewhat at a loss as to why this article is included at all; it is mostly ruminations by Townes about his personal approach to religion and science, basically a human interest piece written by his institution after he won the Templeton Prize. It's not a scholarly piece by Townes about the fields of his own expertise, namely quantum electronics and astrophysics. Townes may be an expert on these subjects, but he is not an expert on evolutionary biology, or on the meaning of life (any more than anyone is an expert on the that nebulous topic). Intelligent design not being a scientific theory at all, and unrelated to his fields of expertise in physics and astrophysics, it is difficult to give him special status as an expert on intelligent design, either.
The article says precious little about "Fine Tuned Universe," the subject of the Wiki article; in fact, Townes has some negative things to say about some aspects of the Intelligent Design movement, and is clearly supportive of the findings of evolutionary biology. What he does say about fine tuning isn't any more than already can be found in the Wiki article, basically, that the universe seems special, the laws seem to be such that if they were much different we wouldn't be here, and that one might explain this by a multiverse or by design, and evolution is consistent with intelligent design. This hardly seems sufficient to warrant an external URL.
So my bottom line conclusion is that the article was cited in an attempt to puff up the case for ID by someone who wanted to drop in the Nobel Prize connection, like, look, here's this really smart person, who won the Nobel, and he is favorable to the idea that the universe was designed, so you should be too (the fallacious appeal to authority).
My own feeling is that this article adds little if anything to the Wiki article and that the citation should be eliminated. If anyone can tell me how this article adds substantively to the Wiki article, they are free to try to convince me otherwise. Otherwise, I will eliminate the citation in the next few days. Bill Jefferys 13:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The issue is addressed so tangentially that it doesn't actually add anything to the discussion. There are much better cites that could be made. For example, Nobel laureate Steve Weinberg has an excellent article in the New York Review of Books, that actually addresses the whole intelligent design issue and discusses fine tuning extensively. Still, if cited, the "Nobel laureate" part is quite irrelevant, and no decent scholar would put this information as part of the citation.
Your latest edit mentions that Townes is the inventor of the maser. True, but how is this relevant to the fine tuning question? Should anyone be forming opinions about Townes' credibility on intelligent design because he invented the maser? I don't think so. And furthermore, would a scholar actually put in the citation list such a comment? I strongly doubt it.
Does Wiki have a policy regarding extraneous comments as part of citations? If it doesn't, it should. If it does, maybe some Wikipedian of greater depth of knowledge than I can address it. If Wiki is to be a truly scholarly source, IMO it ought to adhere to scholarly standards, including in citation lists.
Like you, I would like to avoid an edit war. Can we get some advice from someone more experienced? Bill Jefferys 18:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
There's some content in the fine tuning section of Intelligent design that should probably be integrated into this article, both to avoid duplication and to improve the quality of both the donor and receipient pages. Anyone volunteering to do this work?
The last two paragraphs of the introduction seem unconnected with the body of the article. The penultimate paragraph clearly belongs in the body, while the final paragraph is doubtful as it stands. As is stated in the body of the article, there is widespread consensus on the fact of fine-tuning; what is debateable is the explanation thereof. Who are these critics? Also, I note that the link to Carbon Chauvinism is wonky: that article has been renamed.
This article needs a section on symmetry breaking (I do not mean that it should merely be linked to the somewhat flawed WP article on symmetry breaking). Jim62sch 12:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fine-tuned universe/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I would think including the level of 'fine-tuning', i.e. the percent of maximum variance commonly accepted as allowable for each constant should be added for the reader to understand. Also, the max variance allowable is so small for many of these constant I'm not sure it is fair to refer in the article to them as 'signifigant'. |
Last edited at 20:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I agree with am following the advice of Tznkai and taking this to email. Timurghlu, and Tom Walsh, please sign up as Wikipedians so that we can communicate by email. Send me email when you've done this and we can correspond without generating huge amounts of talk on this page. I've been concerned for some time that the conversation was veering out of control, and Tznkai's rebuke to all of us confirms my discomfort with the path that we've been following.
I will answer Timurghlu and Tom when they've signed up and sent email.
Ciao, Bill Jefferys 1 July 2005 11:44 (UTC)
Go ahead and leave brief pertinent thoughts here. The rest of the discussion pertaining to I/J has been archived, Wikipedia is not a message board.-- Tznkai 1 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)
Hi all,
I will continue the discussion with Mr. Jeffries through Wikipedians, however I will add this addendum to the I-J section of the article so as to show both sides of the debate.
Sincerely, Timurghlu
These are the additions I will add tomorrow morning: -Links to several pro-design articles concerning fine-tuning (all approved by Bill Jeffries) -The following statement (which is, as Tznkai required, a notable criticism of I-J):
In philosophical terms, omnipotence occurs over a system, and can occur in two different ways. 1) Control of the resultant system through causal control of the laws that operate the system. 2) Through direct control of the resultant system.
In #1, the Designer creates a system of laws that produce the resultant reality, and has the ability to change the resultant reality by creating new laws, operating through laws which the Designer has exclusive access to, or by changing the parameters of laws. In # 2, the Designer (outside of the bounds of human logic) can simply control a resultant system. (For example, a #1 Designer would create life by creating a system that resulted in life (a guided evolution) while a #2 Designer would simply create life without a system (Life simply appears even if the totality of designed laws say it cannot).). Note that a #1 Designer is not one which cannot intervene in the system but rather uses his causal control to generate the desired resultant reality (analogous to using a cheat code or a programming modification in a video game).
CID arguments assume #1 while I-J assumes #2. Thus CID assumes that the resultant reality of Life could only occur when the causal laws were set, randomly or with purpose, at F, while I-J argues that Life could occur without reason. If both CID and I-J follow #1, they arrive at mutually supporting conclusions.--Timurghlu
Is the Ikeda/Jefferys (IJ) argument pertinent and notable? There is more than one IJ argument! The "prosecutor's fallacy" argument is sound. The interpretation of the fine-tuning theorem amounts to a word game, as I will attempt to show below. Is the argument presented fairly and accurately? No. Only the "naturalistic" side of the argument is presented. Please read further. Is there an obvious counter argument that does not count as orginal research? Yes. Suggest that after "The philosopher of science Elliott Sober makes a similar argument." the following text, or its equivalent, be added to present the other side:
Confirmation of my claim will be found in Bill Jefferys' last reply to me (which can be read in the Archive) where he wrote, in part: "My view is that... a universe would only be (sufficiently) fine-tuned for life if natural processes alone are sufficient for life to arise." --Tom Walsh
Ghost's vote
I've reverted to previous version, but left in the new external links.
The changes made this morning continue to misunderstand and misrepresent the I/J argument. Even if I/J were to make the same assumption as the CID argument [as presented by the writer], the observation of fine-tuning would at best not undermine design and would certainly not undermine "no design". See [ Elliott Sober's article], which does not mention omnipotence and other issues and comes to this conclusion. Thus the assertion that I/J and CID would "arrive at mutually supporting conclusions" is false, since CID's conclusion is that design is supported and "no design" is undermined.
Such changes need to be discussed thoroughly in our email discussion before being made to the main page. As long as the changes misrepresent the arguments being discussed, they have no business being in the main page.-- Bill Jefferys 2 July 2005 13:41 (UTC)
It's obvious that we're not in agreement at this time as to the status of the section. Since Timurghlu insists on including what he believes to be a rebuttal of the Argument, and Bill questions its reasoning, it's with great regret that I tagged the section. I will enforce the tag as long as the section is kept, and we continue debating the issues. I propose a Straw poll to resolve matters.-- ghost 2 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)
Timurghlu and Bill Jeffreys are seeking mediation through Tznkai.
Sincerely,
Timurghlu
When will the unresolved issues in this article be settled and the Sectfact tag be removed? -- Tom Walsh, 10 Aug 05
Hi Tom,
Essentially, the two criticisms that I will place in the new article will be
1)Clarify the sheer speculative nature of assuming non-law universes 2)Clarify that purposelessness can sustain life in non-law universes just as much as purposefulness could.
I-J reaches its contrarian conclusion though its third assumption (Purposeful forces can create universes without underlying laws governing them, yet Purposeless forces cannot). If either side of this assumption goes then the argument is a wash (and note that both assumptions are based solely on complete speculation).
I'll post the actual text of the comments when the article is posted, but that's the jist (with one paragraph for each point).
Sincerely, Timurghlu
-Best wishes, Timurghlu
Welcome back, Bill! (as of 26 Sep 05) When may we expect to see the long-awaited "separate article on the I-J argument?" -- Tom Walsh, signing on, 27 Sep 05
In order to settle how, and if, we should handle the argument within this article, I propose a straw poll. I suggest the following questions be offered to the community, with voting to end the morning of July 6th (as this will give both the weekend and workweek editors time to respond). In order to reduce sock puppets, I ask that Anon users abstain. Please vote your preference under each choice, numbering which is your 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th. I forget the name of the talling system, but I'll use the same used on Wikipedia:Honorific names.-- ghost 2 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)
The straw poll concluded on 6 July and it is now 9 July. It appears clear that option (3) is ranked overall highest. Option (2) which includes both versions is ranked low; the other version is being judged original research and therefore not appropriate. I regard ghost and Tznkai as playing the role of referees. Question: Do they agree with this assessment? If so, should I split off the article into its own article, as suggested, and put appropriate links into the fine-tuning article? My eventual goal would be to rewrite the article in a more accessible, nonmathematical form; do the referees agree with this proposal? This will not happen immediately as I have two out-of-town meetings during the next two weeks. Bill Jefferys 9 July 2005 15:27 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with this, I do hope however that Bill will send the newly re-written article out to the email list before posting it. Timughlu 23:32, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
In order to resolve the dispute over the Ikeda/Jefferys Argument, we should:
1.) Keep Prof. Jefferys version. It's mathematicially factual, and POV neutral.
2.) Keep both versions. In the interests of NPOV, we must present both sides of an argument.
3.) Split off the Ikeda/Jefferys Argument as it's own article, leaving a brief summary and links. This article should be about Fine-tuned universe, not the Argument.
4.) Remove the Ikeda/Jefferys Argument altogether. Although elegant, it's Original research, and thus violates Wikipedia policy.
5.) Find another solution.
Alright. We need to do some investigation before we move on here. I'd like to know the exact state of the I/J argument. Has it been published anywhere? Even if I/J is not peer-reveiwed it may in fact be notable we need to get that settled before we continue.-- Tznkai 3 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)
Sure. My conclusions are based on Wikipedia:Original research. The I-J argument does not appear to be original research. (Thx for the links, Bill. They saved me a lot of hassle.) I agree that Prof. Jefferys' web-published material notable and verifiable, where it's web-published by independant (sorry, not your webpage, Bill) and credible sites. The NCSE & University of Texas articles meet this standard. Prior research that meets this standard is fine. To date, Bill's expansion is an attempt it inform and educate the reader, not rework his previous efforts into something original. Therefore, we can deal with I-J like we would any other published theory.
Wikipedia's policy on theorys states:
Items that are scientifically peer reviewed are the gold standard for Wikipedia. I-J doesn't reach that at this time. But it does meet every other requirement for inclusion.-- ghost 3 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)
This is not a "response to ghost", it is another argument. It should be taking place on the email list. We need to avoid the proliferation of back-and-forth that plagued the earlier discussion. And IMO, the above is original research. The notion of "partially life-friendly" appears nowhere in I/J, nowhere in Sober, and seems to be original to Tom Walsh. It's relevance to I/J is not clear to me. That is all that I will say; if Tom wants to hash this out in email, I will be happy to do so, but not here
Tom had adequate opportunity to vote in the straw poll, but chose not to. That's his decision, but the voting has closed. Bill Jefferys 21:49, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Bill, Tom Walsh should vote in the poll and can join in on the email discussion (timurghlu@gmail.com, I will forward you onto the ongoing list).
Timughlu 23:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
Tom Walsh's analysis has a major, obvious flaw. Tom's objections are still IMO original research, besides being wrong. I will be happy to discuss the obvious flaws in Tom's analysis, and reasons why Tom's complaints are wrong IN THE EMAIL LIST, WHICH TOM HAS SO FAR IGNORED. I will NOT discuss them here, for reasons already stated.
I did not write the article as it stands. The article was written by Nathan Urban and one other contributor who paraphrased some email I wrote him. So much for Tom's complaint that it was "written by the co-creator". Bill Jefferys 03:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
What's wrong with no hair? The anon. removed it with take to talk, but he didn't. The idea seems to fit as one extreme, so include it. Vsmith 22:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
"No hair" is wrong for several reasons:
Nurban 19:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I recently rewrote the intro for both accuracy and npov. It now accurately describes FTU's relationship with mainstream science (something missing in previous versions), accurately describes ID (in line with all neutral, significant definitions of the concept, including the WP article), and details that it is a matter of simple logic that design implies a designer, who in turn would by necessity need to be omnipotent to accomplish what ID and FTU entail. All points missing in the previous versions, which inaccurately described ID and FTU, and contained a number of equivocations and weasel words.
Before anyone rushes to revert or type a hasty refutation, I suggest they adjust the scope of their counter-argument to encompass the statements to the same effect of the leading ID proponents. If the reader does not know these statements, I suggest they reconsider typing. FeloniousMonk 01:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Once again I find myself having to revert Timurghlu's revert. Timurghlu's version being repeatedly reverted to [1] is deficient because it:
Aside from these points, I'll again point out that this article was deficient in both accuracy and npov. If someone has issues with my edits, they should make their case by presenting their evidence here, not by blanket reverts. Revert warring is not acceptable, nor is defending an article against new editors. FeloniousMonk 16:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
You say "it is a matter of simple logic that design implies a designer, who in turn would by necessity need to be omnipotent to accomplish what ID and FTU entail." Show the simple logic, if you please (but leave out ID - this is the FTU article we are discussing). Does the design of snowflakes require a designer? How can you use logic to rule out a creator of the universe with almost but not quite omnipotent powers? 4.250.27.167 18:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I noticed "being" and "designer" have already been removed. Since we are in agreement about unsourced original research, I figured our disagreement was a misundeerstanding, so I deleted the "omnipowerful" without further talk (we seem to agree). I also noticed from your arguments that perhaps there was an issue with what was meant by "universe" so I added a section dealing with that issue. As we don't source "water is wet" unless someone raises an objection, I did not provide sources for every point made in that section, but if you would be so kind as to raise any issues with what is in the universe section in the talk section, I would be more than willing to source any contended points. Naturally, spelling, details, further elaboration is not what I'm talking about when I say talk first - I am obviously refering to wholesale deletion. Wholesale deletion on spurious grounds by people OTHER than yourself has left a bad taste in my mouth. WAS 4.250 16:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Your "creation does not require a creator" suggestion was most excellent. I provided just such a section. Please don't hestiate to ask for clarification. Anything you can't follow won't be understandable by many others as well, so we won't just be clarifying the issue for you but for many others as well. Physics isn't easy!!!! WAS 4.250 17:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'm sorry that I didn't notice the comments (I looked at the top of the discussion page), otherwise the revert wouldn't have occured. Having read it and the comments above, I suggest making the following changes for the following reasons (barring strong opposition, I'll post tomorrow?).
-Change "Though the concept of physical constants is widely accepted within mainstream science" to "Though the concept that physical constants in the universe have a small margin where they support known life is widely accepted within mainstream science".
-Change "The assertion that the universe is fine-tuned is largely promoted by advocates of intelligent design whose adherents hold that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection, and proponents of other forms of creationism." to "The assertion that the universe is fine-tuned is mostly promoted by advocates of theism and teleology and mostly denied by advocates of materialism.
-Move the argument for a Designer down to the "Intelligent Design" section of the article.
-Other issues: I don't see the tautology, could someone explain it?
I'm thinking to add a section that lists some of the fine-tuned constants and their margins of error under a section preceding "Explaining a Fine-Tuned Universe" called "Examples of Fine-Tuning." Any ideas/comments? Timurghlu
The fine-tuned universe argument boils down to the tautology "If things had been different, things would be different." It is fundamentally uninformative. In 1759 Voltaire was already ripping the logic of the tautology behind the fine-tuning argument:
"It is demonstrable," said he, "that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end. Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles. The legs are visibly designed for stockings, accordingly we wear stockings. Stones were made to be hewn and to construct castles, therefore My Lord has a magnificent castle; for the greatest baron in the province ought to be the best lodged. Swine were intended to be eaten, therefore we eat pork all the year round: and they, who assert that everything is right, do not express themselves correctly; they should say that everything is best."
In fact, Voltaire's quote is worthy of inclusion in the article.
On your specific points:
I'd object to any version of the article that glosses-over the fine-tuned universe argument's relationship to intelligent design and other arguments for creationism and theistic/deistic philosophy, or any list of "Fine-Tuning Examples" that is not well-supported by credible, neutral sources. Additionally, for such a list to not be pov it would have to not draw conclusions, something the list you propose would appear to do. FeloniousMonk 22:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
--
Hey Felonious,
Looking over your prior contributions, I can see why you would want to include this in your area of focus. If you want to expand the subsection about ID and fine-tuning then I think this is fine, but you are casting a wide net (are you saying any evidence from science for the existence of God is to be called "Intelligent Design Theory"?) As far as I can tell the only prominent IDer who has talked about cosmological constants is Guillermo Gonzalez (and even he admits it's not central to the evolution/ID debate).
Again, this isn't the ID debate, the facts about the constants are well known and have been well known. That's why there is so much focus on the notion of the multiverse (it's the only other real alternative to explain the remarkable organization of natural laws). Here's an example of an explicitly anti-ID perspective that supports cosmological fine-tuning [ [2]]. In popular culture, one example of a strong rationalist who is (at least in part) convinced of fine-tuning but not by ID is the prominent science fiction author Robert J. Sawyer.
On the three edits.
-There is little to no disagreement that the constants of the universe have extremely small margins of error to support life was we know it (and in some cases any recognizable form of life). If there is disagreement to this point, I haven't seen it. This isn't the ID debate. The facts here are clear, it is the interpretation (as you noted) that is at issue. "Though the concept that physical constants in the universe have a small margin where they support known life is widely accepted within mainstream science but the belief that this indicates purposeful fine-tuning is not." is totally valid.
-It looks like we are in agreement on this one: the people who have promoted the remarkable construction of cosmological constants have been theists. Those who have played it down have been materialists.
-There is an ID section inside the article, it is stated that ID proponents use the argument in the introduction, why do you want a full paragraph up there? Do you not trust readers to look at the entire article? You can even cite cases where IDers have used cosmological constants to back up their anti-Darwinian claims.
On the Voltaire quote, a Panglossian argument is not a tautology (a tautology would be something like "only God could have made a universe that could support life, thus the universe that is supportive life was made by God", fine-tuning doesn't say this, it's a probability statement not a deductive proof). Second, the I-J section deals with what you (and Voltaire) were talking about, which is in mathematical terms called a reversing of conditional probabilities (i.e. "the nose is made for glasses" instead of the accurate statement "the glasses were made for the nose"). We can go in a whole different argument why that doesn't hold for fine-tuning but in short, "the universe's constants that clearly support the creation of cars" is just as panglossian as "the universe's constants clearly support the formation of life". The question, again, is the nature of the probalities involved.
There's a reason why there has been so much focus on the multiverse option: it's the only other really attractive option in this case besides teleology. The majority of argument in this arena has been over the multiverse, not over ID. Again, the terms of the debate here are quite different from traditional ID arguments (that's why you don't see Dembski, Wells, Behe, Berlinksi, etc... talk about cosmological constants much except in passing or as part of larger statements (such as Meyer's "The Return of the God Hypothesis").
Here are the examples I will add. It's not comprehensive, and it's too wordy and cribbed as is . I'll whittle it down. I assume others will add to it with time:
Sincerely,
Hi Felonious,
I agree that IDers use cosmological arguments to back up their argument. But they are not alone in that, in fact most theists do. Ken Miller, a vociferous and leading anti-IDer, believes in cosmological design and ontological arguments as one example. The Design argument has biological and cosmological proponents. The Discovery Institute scientists focus primarily of "BID". There are those not convinced by "BID" who are quite convinced by "CID". Perhaps the distinction should be incorporated into the ID section (a suggestion, but I don't know if it's necessary).
Fine-Tuning is not "if things had been diferent, things would be different" as much as Darwinism is. Using the car example to say "the physics of the universe support the creation of cars, if they hadn't cars wouldn't be here" would be a "tautology" in this sense. So would "The laws of nature allow for life to change over time, if they didn't then life couldn't". I think the point you are getting at is not tautology, but rather what Eliot Sober (links and I-J section) called the "Observational Selection Effect", where simply because you have an odd occurance is not evidence that the occurance has a specific cause (i.e. improper reversing of condition probabilities). The I-J section deals with this.
I will try to find links to each of the FTU points I will post. Quick question: what is enough of a link, a long pro-tuning scientific article? A cititation of a scientific paper (hard to get links to, but people with access to research engines could read them)?
Sincerely,
Hi Felonious,
As a compromise (since there are plenty of people who disagree with ID's biological position but who are convinced by cosmological design arguments), how about "The assertion that the universe is fine-tuned is largely promoted by advocates of theism and denied by advocates of materialism. In recent years, propenents of the theory of intelligent design and other forms of creationism have become (the?) chief advocates of fine-tuning."
Concerning the tautology comment in the article, is there a way we can get a unbiased 3rd party view on this? The FTU argument is not "if things had been different, things would be different" as much as Darwinism is (and while that might not be relevant to this article, it certainly would be to the Darwinism article). The FTU argument is more accurately distilled as "if things had been even slightly different, life would not have arisen" or "the probability of life arising by chance in the universe is infinitesimally small". Neither of these are tautologies. "If things had been different, things would be different" is not a distilled version of FTU: it leaves out what the difference in question is, and ignores the fact that FTU is a probability argument not a deductive proof (which is usually where tautologies can be a concern).
I'll post the "Fine Tuning Examples" list tomorrow. I'll place five or six links (too much?) at the top of the section, in number form.
Sincerely
We know there are these fundamental physics constants. No one knows why they are what they are. These constants cause everything that physics can measure to be as it is - including life on Earth and A LACK OF LIFE EVERY WHERE ELSE WE HAVE LOOKED. (Some tuning. Tuned for death and pain too did he?) No one knows whether these constants can be or could have been different. No one knows if other types of life exist in this universe much less in universes where the physics are different. To look at this unknown thing (why are the constants what they are?) and see God in it is just the God of the gaps in another guise. For the constants to have been tuned, you not only must have life in this universe (such as it is), but a lack of life in other possible universes. And there is zero knowledge here. Here are three out of an INFINITE number of possibilities. (Possibility One) Maybe this is the only universe and the constants are not tunable. (Possibility Two) Maybe there is an infinite number of universes. (Possibility Three) Maybe there is only one universe AND its constants could be any value AND only one setting produces life AND the reason for that setting was something tuned the values of the constants just so. If possibility three is correct, then OK there is a "God". But why choose possibility three? Because it is useful in claiming there is a God? Because there exists a foundation run by a formerly unemployed guy who found a trick to get creationists to fund scientists? WAS 4.250 15:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Rees did make clear his sense of wonder. Look at this passage from the same link, talking about the multiverse idea:
What we've traditionally called 'our universe' is just a tiny part of something which is infinite, so allows for many replicas of us elsewhere (in our same space-time domain, but far beyond the horizon of our observations) ... One thing which struck me recently, and I found it a really disconcerting concept, was that once we accept all that, we get into a very deep set of questions about the nature of physical reality. That's because even in our universe, and certainly in some of the others, there'd be the potential for life to develop far beyond the level it's reached on earth today ... the most complex conceivable entities may not be organic life, but some sort of hyper-computers. But once you accept that our universe, or even other universes, may allow the emergence within them of immense complexity, far beyond our human brains, far beyond the kind of computers we can conceive, perhaps almost at the level of the limits that Seth Lloyd discusses for computers—then you get a rather extraordinary conclusion. These super or hyper-computers would have the capacity to simulate not just a simple part of reality, but a large fraction of an entire universe.
And then of course the question arises: if these simulations exist in far larger numbers than the universe themselves, could we be in one of them? ... All these multiverse ideas lead to a remarkable synthesis between cosmology and physics, giving substance to ideas that some of us had ten or 20 years ago. But they also lead to the extraordinary consequence that we may not be the deepest reality, we may be a simulation. The possibility that we are creations of some supreme, or super-being, blurs the boundary between physics and idealist philosophy, between the natural and the supernatural, and between the relation of mind and multiverse and the possibility that we're in the matrix rather than the physics itself.
Rees rules out nothing, and if he's to be called a pseudo-scientist, then so must they all. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Felonious,
I spent most of my "wikitime budget" for the day posting the new section. I will reply in a longer depth to your points tomorrow when I can give them the thought that they deserve (no sarcasm; I don't like giving replies that haven't been thought out).
Talk with you tomorrow.
Sincerely, Timurghlu
I think that it would be helpful to include a quotation by Rees in the article. Not as an FTU theorist, but as a scientist observing the idea. Or else I can dig up something by Tipler and Barrow. -- goethean ॐ 15:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
It is a fundamental part of quantum mechanics that particles pop into and out of existence all the time without a creator being any part of the physics equations (see creation and annihilation operators) that describe this and all other known particle behaviors.
The summary of Origin of the Universe as a quantum tunneling event in Phys. Rev. D 25, 2065–2073 (1982) says "We present a nonsingular model of cosmogenesis in which the Universe arises as a result of quantum-mechanical barrier penetration. The Universe is described throughout its evolution by a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric, and the matter distribution by a perfect fluid, whose equation of state is chosen so as to allow the tunneling to occur. Cosmic evolution proceeds in three stages; an initial static spacetime configuration tunnels into a "fireball" state in which particle creation occurs. As the fireball expands, particle creation ends, and the Universe enters the "post-big-bang" epoch of adiabatic expansion. We find that within the context of the FRW ansatz, only a spatially closed universe may originate in this manner. Implications of this creation scheme and possible generalizations are discussed. As a by-product of this investigation we find that the evolution of the Universe is described by a Gellmann-Low equation with the beta function specified by the equation of state." [14]
In a vacuum state, according to all known data, particles with any arbritrary energy above the vacuum may be created. These virtual particles are included in the definition of the vacuum. There is no evidence for or against a virtual particle with the mass of the universe popping into existence, but a fundamental law of particle behavior is that what can happen does happpen due to the wave nature of all things (see propagator).
In terms of virtual particles, the propagator at spacelike separation can be thought of as a means of calculating the amplitude for creating a virtual particle-antiparticle pair that eventually disappear into the vacuum, or for detecting a virtual pair emerging from the vacuum. In Feynman's language, such creation and annihilation processes are equivalent to a virtual particle wandering backward and forward through time, which can take it outside of the light cone. However, no causality violation is involved.
These facts have led some to postulate a many universes theory or multiverse theory. WAS 4.250 19:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
"One thing is clear in our framing of questions such as `How did the Universe get started?' is that the Universe was self-creating. This is not a statement on a `cause' behind the origin of the Universe, nor is it a statement on a lack of purpose or destiny. It is simply a statement that the Universe was emergent, that the actual of the Universe probably derived from a indeterminate sea of potentiality that we call the quantum vacuum, whose properties may always remain beyond our current understanding." [15] WAS 4.250 19:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I noticed the category of pseudoscience has cloaked/decloaked recently. Obviously, the category "pseudoscience" must be applied from the point of view of whatever is considered "mainstream". I know of no pseudoscientific topic whose followers admit it is pseudoscientific. If a topic must be "undisputedly" aggreed to be pseudoscientific to apply the label/category, then the category, obviously, would never be applied. No one thinks their pet project is pseudoscience, so the label must be applied from the point of view of mainstream science. FuelWagon 18:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I just wish to note that the section I retitled "Known physical constants" needs a great deal more work. I only took a rough first cut at it. I'm not saying I will work more on it. The pay here is low. And even tho I'm retired, that's a disincentive. Cheers. WAS 4.250 01:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
"Life as we know it would not be possible if the physical constants of the universe were even slightly different from what they are. How many other settings of these constants would produce life as we don't know it is unknown. [16]" WAS 4.250 21:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Charles Townes' Nobel prize is not relevant and should not be mentioned in the External Links, any more we should mention the honors and awards that have been given to others in that section (and I know from personal knowledge that some of the other authors have received prestigious honors). If Townes' arguments in that article are good, then they stand on their own, regardless of prizes and honors that he has been awarded. If they are not good, prizes that he has been awarded will not make them any more correct.
For some reason, Creationists have this notion that their arguments will be strengthened by quoting eminent people and mentioning how eminent they are by listing their affiliations with prestigious institutions or their having been awarded prestigious honors. This is nothing but the fallacious appeal to authority. Real scientists simply give the names of the authors when they cite someone's work. They don't even list affiliations (e.g., the university at which they work).
The citations in WikiPedia should follow this general policy, observed throughout the scholarly world, of citing authors, but not their honors or affiliations. Bill Jefferys 11:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I've now had an opportunity to reread the article. I notice that it in fact is not "by" Charles Townes at all. The author is actually Bonnie Azab Powell, the UC Berkeley employee who interviewed him. And, the title is not "Fine Tuning and Design"; the article has no title, but at most a teaser line, "'Explore as much as we can': Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution, intelligent design, and the meaning of life". So if someone knows how this should be cited (if it should be cited at all), I hope they will fix this. In any case, the citation should not be as it is given...it inaccurately attributes the article to Townes and gives it a bogus title. Perhaps it should say something like "Interview with Charles Townes," by Bonnie Azab Powell.
I'm somewhat at a loss as to why this article is included at all; it is mostly ruminations by Townes about his personal approach to religion and science, basically a human interest piece written by his institution after he won the Templeton Prize. It's not a scholarly piece by Townes about the fields of his own expertise, namely quantum electronics and astrophysics. Townes may be an expert on these subjects, but he is not an expert on evolutionary biology, or on the meaning of life (any more than anyone is an expert on the that nebulous topic). Intelligent design not being a scientific theory at all, and unrelated to his fields of expertise in physics and astrophysics, it is difficult to give him special status as an expert on intelligent design, either.
The article says precious little about "Fine Tuned Universe," the subject of the Wiki article; in fact, Townes has some negative things to say about some aspects of the Intelligent Design movement, and is clearly supportive of the findings of evolutionary biology. What he does say about fine tuning isn't any more than already can be found in the Wiki article, basically, that the universe seems special, the laws seem to be such that if they were much different we wouldn't be here, and that one might explain this by a multiverse or by design, and evolution is consistent with intelligent design. This hardly seems sufficient to warrant an external URL.
So my bottom line conclusion is that the article was cited in an attempt to puff up the case for ID by someone who wanted to drop in the Nobel Prize connection, like, look, here's this really smart person, who won the Nobel, and he is favorable to the idea that the universe was designed, so you should be too (the fallacious appeal to authority).
My own feeling is that this article adds little if anything to the Wiki article and that the citation should be eliminated. If anyone can tell me how this article adds substantively to the Wiki article, they are free to try to convince me otherwise. Otherwise, I will eliminate the citation in the next few days. Bill Jefferys 13:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The issue is addressed so tangentially that it doesn't actually add anything to the discussion. There are much better cites that could be made. For example, Nobel laureate Steve Weinberg has an excellent article in the New York Review of Books, that actually addresses the whole intelligent design issue and discusses fine tuning extensively. Still, if cited, the "Nobel laureate" part is quite irrelevant, and no decent scholar would put this information as part of the citation.
Your latest edit mentions that Townes is the inventor of the maser. True, but how is this relevant to the fine tuning question? Should anyone be forming opinions about Townes' credibility on intelligent design because he invented the maser? I don't think so. And furthermore, would a scholar actually put in the citation list such a comment? I strongly doubt it.
Does Wiki have a policy regarding extraneous comments as part of citations? If it doesn't, it should. If it does, maybe some Wikipedian of greater depth of knowledge than I can address it. If Wiki is to be a truly scholarly source, IMO it ought to adhere to scholarly standards, including in citation lists.
Like you, I would like to avoid an edit war. Can we get some advice from someone more experienced? Bill Jefferys 18:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
There's some content in the fine tuning section of Intelligent design that should probably be integrated into this article, both to avoid duplication and to improve the quality of both the donor and receipient pages. Anyone volunteering to do this work?
The last two paragraphs of the introduction seem unconnected with the body of the article. The penultimate paragraph clearly belongs in the body, while the final paragraph is doubtful as it stands. As is stated in the body of the article, there is widespread consensus on the fact of fine-tuning; what is debateable is the explanation thereof. Who are these critics? Also, I note that the link to Carbon Chauvinism is wonky: that article has been renamed.
This article needs a section on symmetry breaking (I do not mean that it should merely be linked to the somewhat flawed WP article on symmetry breaking). Jim62sch 12:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fine-tuned universe/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I would think including the level of 'fine-tuning', i.e. the percent of maximum variance commonly accepted as allowable for each constant should be added for the reader to understand. Also, the max variance allowable is so small for many of these constant I'm not sure it is fair to refer in the article to them as 'signifigant'. |
Last edited at 20:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)