Luke Barnes explains the bigger picture of fine-tuning

March 17th, 2016 in clues. Tags: , ,

I have been interested in astronomy and cosmology since I was a boy, and in recent years have done a bit of reading on the science of universal fine-tuning, and the philosophical questions that the science brings to our attention.

Various cosmologists have written on the subject – Martin Rees and Paul Davies are two I have read. And currently, probably the “go to” cosmologist is Luke Barnes, who has written some of the latest papers, articles and blog posts on the topic.

His latest is a beauty!

The Fine-Tuning of Nature’s Laws in The New Atlantis journal is available online, as part of a series on life in the universe.

If you want to read one explanation of fine-tuning, I recommend you try this.

I like it because it is easy to read (you don’t have to be a physicist or a mathematician to understand the science he outlines), Barnes writes with expert knowledge, and (perhaps best of all) he explains the larger context: how cosmologists are trying to understand how the universe came to be as it is, explanations of the apparent fine-tuning, how theories are tested, how statistical approaches may help, and philosophical questions.

Barnes seems quite at home with discussing statistics, philosophy and human questioning as he is with his own subject of cosmology.

Don’t believe me, check it out.


  1. The universe is the way it is because we made it that way. We defined every galaxy and every star. The universe is just a physical perception of energy fields that defy any attempt by us to understand what they are or where they came from. You think the observer affects what they observe? They define and by defining the create what they observe.
    Well at least in my dream world where everything is a product of our thoughts all of which come from a precursor thought. Sorry but like everyone else I have no idea where that first defining thought came from.

  2. Hi James, I appreciate you commenting, but I can’t really understand that comment. Are you saying everything is subjective, that no objective reality exists? Does that mean this conversation isn’t really happening?

Comments are closed.