This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fine-tuned universe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Puddle thinking page were merged into Fine-tuned universe on 29 January 2010. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
User:JackNickol is edit warring to change a section title, he has said on my talk page that The title of the section 'Religious Apologetics' is unnecessarily provoking for people with faith. "Religious Apologetics" simply means the discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse, it does NOT provoke people of faith in any way at all. Theroadislong ( talk) 07:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
This article is very bad, and needs a lot of rewriting. I'll just write a list of some low hanging fruit, as I don't at the moment have the time to go in and fix it all:
Alternatively, the anthropic principle may be understood to render the observed values tautological and not in need of explanation... no. This is wrong, and acknowledged as wrong by the article; you need the anthropic principle plus a multiverse with different physical constants. It's not surprising that someone will win the lottery as long as a lot of different people are buying different lottery tickets.
You might note your metaphor doesn't actually have an anthropic component. Metaquanta ( talk) 03:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of natural explanations have been proposed, such as the anthropic principle and multiple universes.Same as above, that's one explanation not two.
by 2012 results from the LHC had ruled out the class of supersymmetric theories that could have explained the fine-tuningWhat?? Supersymmetry is not anything close to ruled out by experimental results from the LHC, there just weren't any superpartners found at the energy levels the LHC could test.
The fine-tuned universe argument's regarding the formation of life assumes only carbon-based life forms are possible, sometimes referred to as carbon chauvinism.This is just flat out wrong - for instance, what does the number of spacetime dimensions or the value of the cosmological constant care about carbon vs. silicon based life? It's not related at all. If you want there to be a criticism section there is plenty of material to put there - e.g. for something not mentioned in this article, David Albert's arguments against the bayesian paradigm of claiming that the sensitivity of life to changes in physical constants means we can say that those constants taking the value they do is unlikely.
First, the fine tuning might be an illusion: we don't know the true number of independent physical constants, which could be small and even reduce to one.It's not so much the number, but that we don't know what the fine tuning will be in the truly independent physical constants we eventually get out of our final theory of everything; there could still be fine tuning if there was only one independent physical constant governing the universe.
And we don't know either the laws of the "potential universe factory", i.e. the range and statistical distribution ruling the "choice" for each constant (including our arbitrary choice of units and precise set of constants)Not that factually incorrect, just badly written. I also don't think our choice units have to do with anything.
One is an oscillatory universe or a multiverseThe cyclic model/"oscillatory universe" is a kind of multiverse, they aren't different things. This point needs to be made a lot more clear; "multiverse" here also includes that the physical constants in our universe are just different far away, farther than light will have had (or possibly will ever have had) time to reach us. This is kind of implied in the "Multiverse" section but under jargon that would not be familiar to the average reader.
While other universes might explain any apparent fine-tuning, fine-tuning itself is not evidence of the multiverseThis is a fringe view from a single philosopher (Roger White) cited to a single paper that Scientific American wrote an article on.
Maybe you should read it. Metaquanta ( talk) 03:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Volteer1 ( talk) 04:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I was brought here from the page for Averroes, who argued for a fine tuned universe based on the properties of Earth, as a teleologic proof of God. (Plenty of water, rivers, temperature, etc.) Others in the past have used the physical chemistry of water as evidence. (High melting point, freezing point, and the density of ice, as well as its overall abundance.)
I got reverted, so I am noting it here. On the Habitability of Universes without Stable Deuterium shows complex chemistry is possible, even if a proton could not bond to a neutron. I assume it was considered "original research" because it is a primary source. I think the point is important, so please help finding the appropriate secondary source. Thanks! Sanxiyn ( talk) 09:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Isn't Epsilon actually the fine-structure constant at the helium fusion part? -- Con spiration 11:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fine-tuned universe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Puddle thinking page were merged into Fine-tuned universe on 29 January 2010. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
User:JackNickol is edit warring to change a section title, he has said on my talk page that The title of the section 'Religious Apologetics' is unnecessarily provoking for people with faith. "Religious Apologetics" simply means the discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse, it does NOT provoke people of faith in any way at all. Theroadislong ( talk) 07:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
This article is very bad, and needs a lot of rewriting. I'll just write a list of some low hanging fruit, as I don't at the moment have the time to go in and fix it all:
Alternatively, the anthropic principle may be understood to render the observed values tautological and not in need of explanation... no. This is wrong, and acknowledged as wrong by the article; you need the anthropic principle plus a multiverse with different physical constants. It's not surprising that someone will win the lottery as long as a lot of different people are buying different lottery tickets.
You might note your metaphor doesn't actually have an anthropic component. Metaquanta ( talk) 03:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of natural explanations have been proposed, such as the anthropic principle and multiple universes.Same as above, that's one explanation not two.
by 2012 results from the LHC had ruled out the class of supersymmetric theories that could have explained the fine-tuningWhat?? Supersymmetry is not anything close to ruled out by experimental results from the LHC, there just weren't any superpartners found at the energy levels the LHC could test.
The fine-tuned universe argument's regarding the formation of life assumes only carbon-based life forms are possible, sometimes referred to as carbon chauvinism.This is just flat out wrong - for instance, what does the number of spacetime dimensions or the value of the cosmological constant care about carbon vs. silicon based life? It's not related at all. If you want there to be a criticism section there is plenty of material to put there - e.g. for something not mentioned in this article, David Albert's arguments against the bayesian paradigm of claiming that the sensitivity of life to changes in physical constants means we can say that those constants taking the value they do is unlikely.
First, the fine tuning might be an illusion: we don't know the true number of independent physical constants, which could be small and even reduce to one.It's not so much the number, but that we don't know what the fine tuning will be in the truly independent physical constants we eventually get out of our final theory of everything; there could still be fine tuning if there was only one independent physical constant governing the universe.
And we don't know either the laws of the "potential universe factory", i.e. the range and statistical distribution ruling the "choice" for each constant (including our arbitrary choice of units and precise set of constants)Not that factually incorrect, just badly written. I also don't think our choice units have to do with anything.
One is an oscillatory universe or a multiverseThe cyclic model/"oscillatory universe" is a kind of multiverse, they aren't different things. This point needs to be made a lot more clear; "multiverse" here also includes that the physical constants in our universe are just different far away, farther than light will have had (or possibly will ever have had) time to reach us. This is kind of implied in the "Multiverse" section but under jargon that would not be familiar to the average reader.
While other universes might explain any apparent fine-tuning, fine-tuning itself is not evidence of the multiverseThis is a fringe view from a single philosopher (Roger White) cited to a single paper that Scientific American wrote an article on.
Maybe you should read it. Metaquanta ( talk) 03:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Volteer1 ( talk) 04:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I was brought here from the page for Averroes, who argued for a fine tuned universe based on the properties of Earth, as a teleologic proof of God. (Plenty of water, rivers, temperature, etc.) Others in the past have used the physical chemistry of water as evidence. (High melting point, freezing point, and the density of ice, as well as its overall abundance.)
I got reverted, so I am noting it here. On the Habitability of Universes without Stable Deuterium shows complex chemistry is possible, even if a proton could not bond to a neutron. I assume it was considered "original research" because it is a primary source. I think the point is important, so please help finding the appropriate secondary source. Thanks! Sanxiyn ( talk) 09:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Isn't Epsilon actually the fine-structure constant at the helium fusion part? -- Con spiration 11:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)