Robert is so much better at thinking than a lot of established philosophers, that's a relief considering how embarrassing sometimes they can be

@PuBearsticks

7 ай бұрын

Would you be willing to provide an example of one of these embarrassing philosophers?

@HeavyMetal45

22 күн бұрын

@@PuBearsticksthe guy Robert is talking to lol.

Great content on this channel . 👍

@jessebryant9233

Жыл бұрын

Dudes one of the best moderators. Another is the guy on Unbelievable?

To me the anthropic principle explains why the universe is what it is. Cosmologists tend to hate it because it explains nothing, and they're right. But on the other hand the reasoning is undeniable.

@mickobrien3156

Жыл бұрын

Imagine you're a puddle in a cracked sidewalk.... Oh, wow! This crack was perfectly tailored just for me. Clearly it was made for me. What other puddle is exactly this size? That best sums up this debate, to me. The Universe just.... is. We eventually fine-tuned ourselves to fit the laws of whatever this Universe is. It's not the other way around. That's just silly, like my puddle analogy.

@captainoates7236

Жыл бұрын

@@mickobrien3156 Your analogy perfectly fits the strong anthropic principle which basically implies the universe is fine tuned to make life inevitable. Mine is the weak anthropic principle which just states that if we weren't here to see it, it can't' exist.

@CesarClouds

Жыл бұрын

Look up the Copernican principle, almost the opposite of the anthropic principle.

@racsooj456

Жыл бұрын

I don't think the fact that we are in a universe that allows for us to be here tells us 'why' the universe is what it is, so much as It tells us what it can accommodate. There's an important distinction to my mind. The anthropic principle doesnt really get to the heart of issue in the same way a man who survives a supposed execution by firing squad might be able to appeal to the anthropic principle to explain his survival and yet be missing the obviously suspicious nature of his existence given the circumstances. Not a perfect analogy but there's something to it.

@warrenrae32

Жыл бұрын

@@mickobrien3156th respect the puddle analogy is a gross oversimplification of the complexities involved in the fine tuning of the properties of matter which run deep throughout the laws of physics and affect not just the necessary parameters to support life but also cosmological fine tuning which determine the very existence of the universe itself. Even the so called 'Anthropic coincidences' go beyond 'us' fitting into the existing cracks. For example The mass 5 roadblock which hinders formation of elements with an atomic mass of greater than 5 and 8 is an amazing fact necessary for the universe to work and exist as we know it. If the ‘mass 5 roadblock’ wasn’t there all the hydrogen and helium present shortly after the Big Bang would have been converted into the heavier elements. That would have prevented star formation (as stars depend upon hydrogen and helium to burn).Without stars there would be very little available energy in the universe. The ‘mass 5 roadblock’ allows stars to exist and only later, due to the incredible temperatures and pressures within stars, are the rest of the elements (necessary for the existence of planets and life itself) produced. There is a finely tuned precise exited state on the carbon atom which enables the mass 5 roadblock to be overcome and to cause 3 helium 4 nuclei to yield carbon 12.If the resonance on the carbon atom was present on the oxygen atom all the carbon in stars would have been converted into oxygen. Then there would be no carbon (the ‘king of the elements’) to form complex chemistry necessary for biology. Most physicists and chemists consider all the other elements to be inferior to carbon as a required candidate for complex life (which includes silicon despite earlier hopes to the contrary ). So we can be very grateful that there is a resonance on the carbon atom but not on the oxygen atom allowing for the existence of carbon for complex chemical compounds for the structures necessary for life and oxygen which due to its unique features is the ideal energy source and very difficult to replace for complex life. Such a process,the triple alpha process (which produces all the elements in the periodic table beyond hydrogen, helium and lithium) hindered in the big bang but later governed by the finely tuned laws of the universe allows for the formation of the rest of the elements one by one inside the interiors of stars strongly points to a ‘Super-intellect’ who designed the universe. As Fred Hoyle who discovered the extremely precise finely tuned resonance on the carbon atom once stated: "Would you not say to yourself, 'Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.'" As Professor Paul Davies wrote: “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. . . It seems as though somebody has fine tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe. . . The impression of design is overwhelming.”

The problem with arguments against fine tuning is that there is no particular reason why a Universe that relies on pure chance would have any laws that would direct toward complexity and consciousness. Even with extreme passage of time, laws of probability do not have any "reason" to create complexity. Why should it bother? I know there are some computer simulations that generate complexity with a (required) set of "rules". But those "rules" must first be laid down. And who creates the "rules?" Why would a completely random Universe have any "rules?" Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

"Somethings don't have explanations ..." or is it that they don't readily fit your narrative and are therefore disregarded.

@Ben_the_Ignorant

Жыл бұрын

A "scientist" not looking for explanations is not a scientist. The guy is a materialist hack.

@uninspired3583

Жыл бұрын

If there is sufficient evidence, we change the narrative.

@uninspired3583

Жыл бұрын

@@Alex-ww8if sometimes people disagree on what counts as evidence. I'm suggesting that the data that doesn't "fit the narrative" is not a matter of dismissing inconvenient evidence, but rather dismissal of poor evidence. Thus, if the evidence is sufficient, it can change the narrative.

These videos are very information dense, but what I got from watching halfway was you can't go beyond what you can know

@PuBearsticks

7 ай бұрын

You can't even know if what you think you know is actually knowledge or just one of many potential interpretations

Well to parallel this I will use an old saying. 'The future is for those who are there for it'

What is so mind boggling about fine-tuning is not the answer to the question of “why” but rather the fact that our existence is predicated on a confluence of events and conditions that are balanced on such a narrow tolerances that as in the case of the cosmological constant if it differed as little as 1 in 10^120 it would result in a universe we could not exist in!! Explaining it away the odds with a near infinite multiverse may not work?? If the universes in a multiverse arose from a no-boundary state without time or dimensions then there would be no way to relate the universes by temporal succession or precedence, meaning each universe would be as if it were the only universe that came to be?? That would be the case if there could be no possible bleed of information between universes as may be the case if the universe were separated by a true no-boundary condition!!!! In such a case the large number of universes in a multiverse could not serve to even out the odds of our extremely fine-tuned universe, due to each of the universes being as a closed system arising from a state devoid of any information that would result in universes What is so mind boggling about fine-tuning is not the answer to the question of “why” but rather the fact that our existence is predicated on a confluence of events and conditions that are balanced on such a narrow tolerances that as in the case of the cosmological constant if it differed as little as 1 in 10^120 it would result in a universe we could not exist in!! Explaining it away the odds with a near infinite multiverse may not work?? If the universes in a multiverse arose from a no-boundary state without time or dimensions then there would be no way to relate the universes by temporal succession or precedence, meaning each universe would be as if it were the only universe that came to be?? That would be the case if there could be no possible bleed of information between universes as may be the case if the universe were separated by a true no-boundary condition!!!!, with no possible relation to any other of the universes in the multiverse!!

His ideas remind me of those many have towards quantum theory: "Shut up and calculate!". We make no progress by saying, "this is the way it is and we have to accept that". The theory of the multiverse and "infinite possibilities" is another way of saying the same thing. Theories of this kind make all things possible so there is no need to look any further...they explain everything. That is until we reach the question, "What created the multiverse?" Not asking THAT question is another cop out.

Is there any evidence for the multiverse yet?

@kipponi

Жыл бұрын

No.

His position makes o sense to me. According to what I have gleaned, if the ratios aren't just right in interconnected complex ways, the whole place blows up or collapses. To say "we don't know" or "it doesn't matter" is scientific and philosophical evasion and negligence.+ Why the n investigate anything?

Reminds me of Marvin Minsky in his voice. Is there a limit to linguistic meaning? To the understanding and communication of meaning? A limit that is unrelated to evolutionary boundaries: genetic manipulation and current, ecological manifestation and variety? If there is then fine tuning is an illusion. If there is not, if linguistic meaning is inextricably tied to evolutionary boundaries then there may be something to fine-tuning, though it may not necessarily be so. The question that intrigues is what could possibly limit linguistic meaning? Consciousness itself? Consciousness unhinged from genetics tied to ecologic balance and conformity? What limits Consciousness? What delimits Consciousness? What kind of explorer will make advances in meaning? The scientist: physicist, anthropologist, or someone else?

@arthurwieczorek4894

Жыл бұрын

Linguistic meanings are of only two basic kind; straight or circular. Circular 'meaning' is empty. Straight meaning must ultimately have its foundation on a premise. Ultimate premises cannot be proven per se. They are the assumptions without which there could be no conception of 'proof'. What explorer will make advances in understanding meaning? The advancement was made decades ago in the field of General Semantics.

@kallianpublico7517

Жыл бұрын

@@arthurwieczorek4894 Semantics hasn't advanced.? There are no new words?

If people here would like a response to some of these claims, I’d recommend that they check out ‘A physicist and a philosopher defend fine-tuning’ with Luke Barnes and Dustin Crummet. It came out yesterday as a response to a different video, but it covers similar territory

@b.g.5869

Жыл бұрын

This video here is from years ago; Kuhn interviewed Barnes about fine tuning in this same episode btw. I don't see any video with your description on or off KZread but I'm quite familiar with Barnes' views on fine tuning (he wrote a book about it in 2019).

@calebp6114

Жыл бұрын

@@b.g.5869 The video came out a month ago on Capturing Christianity's YT channel. Although the philosopher was actually Phillip Goff rather than Dustin Crummett, my bad.

@b.g.5869

Жыл бұрын

@@calebp6114 I'm familiar with Goff. He's a proponent of panpsychism. Interesting guy.

As usual, very interesting, still another "your guess is as good as mine". And maybe that is the way it must be.

if life and advanced intelligence develop from consciousness, then the universe may be fine tuned for consciousness? how can go about determining fine tuning for consciousness using scientific method?

Why is it so many physicists automatically appeal to the multiverse as soon as we discuss fine tuning? We only have one universe we can make any sense of and when it gets hard they just kick the can down the road on nothing more than pseudo-scientific mysticism.

@Hank254

Жыл бұрын

Actually bringing the multiverse into the discussion is giving fine tuning more acceptance that it deserves. The fine tuning argument is a perfect example of pseudo-scientific mysticism kicking the can down the road.

@Al-ji4gd

Жыл бұрын

@@Hank254 It's hilarious that you think fine-tuning is pseudo-scientific mysticism when the majority of physicists and philosophers acquainted with the idea agree that it exists and think it's a problem. But, hey, postulating unobservable, empirically unverifiable universes popping into existence every infinitesimal fraction of a second after a quantum event is FAR more plausible, huh? If anything is pseudo-scientific claptrap, it's that.

@Hank254

Жыл бұрын

​ @Aj Please cite a reliable source that shows the majority of physicists acquainted with it agree fine tuning exists and is a problem. "postulating unobservable, empirically unverifiable universes" You mean like the spaceless/timeless universe your god exists in? Lol!

@Al-ji4gd

Жыл бұрын

@@Hank254 I never purported to know anything about what kind of existence or realm God inhabits. Not to mention, there are people out there who have had religious or spiritual experiences. Perhaps none of those are veridical but that's still far more empirical evidence than the existence of a multiverse, for which there is precisely NONE. As for the physicists, there was a poll amongst physicists a few years ago that I don't really know where to find. As for the philosophers, just look at the most recent philpeople survey from 2020 amongst philosophers of science, a large portion of which are physicists. Only like 20% of them reject fine-tuning. Some argue design, some for the multiverse, some say it's a brute fact, but very few reject fine-tuning itself. Do your own homework, for once.

@Hank254

Жыл бұрын

@@Al-ji4gd "I never purported to know anything about what kind of existence or realm God inhabits." Do you purport he may possibly exist inside a universe it is claimed he created? Or are you saying he didn't create the universe? And as far as considering a person's claimed religious experience to be 'empirical evidence', it's no wonder you don't understand this stuff!

Loewer doesn't say very much in this video. He simply disagrees with the notion that the fine tuning of universe demands (must have an) explanation. I didn't find the core of his reasoning at all persuasive on this.

The purpose of science is to provide rational explanations for natural phenomena, so if there is no explanation, there is no science. Scientists must necessarily explain circumfluent phenomena; that’s the primary job of all scientists.

The notion of probabilities not making sense in the context of infinite sets is wrong, if I'm understanding what's proposed here. There's the notion of measure, so even if you're talking about two countable (i.e. lowest order, as characterized in the continuum hypothesis, etc) infinite sets. If you take draw from the integers, as the number of trials increases, the percent of draws of even numbers will converge to 50%, the number of multiples of 10 will converge to 10%, etc. If you draw from the rationals, the percentage of integers will converge to 0. So probabilities make complete sense in this context.

As a teenager, I considered all the arguments for the existence of God and disposed of them all. Then I heard the Fine-tuning Argument and that convinced me. A little more work and I might go to Church on Sunday.

@kenkaplan3654

4 ай бұрын

God is not what the Abrahamic religions present it to be.

@tedgrant2

3 ай бұрын

@@kenkaplan3654 So what is it then ?

Doesn't Life adapt to the local conditions? ISTM, that if Life can exist in an environment and if the processes allow it, then Life will exist. The idea of Fine Tuning seems to assume that Life can only have one form and that the universe might be "tuned" for that form.

@markb3786

5 ай бұрын

We are fine-tuned for life on earth at this particular moment.

When we think the most fundamental is must be physical then i must reminding us, our body, brain and mind also inside / part of the matrix.

We can argue about fine turning all day and still be no closer to the why ! Maybe they are that way because that is the only way it could end up with a viable universe.

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

Maybe a viable universe is the only universe possible . If that they case , it’s not fine tuned . It’s not tuned at all

@thomasridley8675

Жыл бұрын

@@tonyatkinson2210 Only a viable universe would have any chance of developing intelligent life. Even then luck would play a big factor. We only exist because the planet has allowed us a period of relatively stable conditions. Which won't last forever.

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

@@thomasridley8675 what I’m saying is that if the only initial conditions possible - are the initial conditions that that produce life at some point, on at least one planet during the universes existence . The only universes possible are ones that produce life - Ergo . It’s not fine tuned

@thomasridley8675

Жыл бұрын

@@tonyatkinson2210 Of course I have too agree with that. Necessity does trump the idea of design. Or at least remove it as a viable argument for design.

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

@@thomasridley8675 agreed . Though necessity still leaves the biggest questions unanswered .

Eternity manifests itself through Life (forms), where the wave merges with its material form (becomes a particle). Eternity bringing the substance into form (manifestation). Going Beyond (form) is Eternity not being manifested, in which I do not believe (as possible). The ultimate purpose of BEing might be just this manifestation(s) of Eternity that will always Be. Assuming it will never end. Life forms, as the product of the fine tuning will always present (hold) the different dimentions (mineral, plant, animal kingdoms ets.), and as long as Eternity Is, the fine tuning will be as well. Now, what will happen if all (units) are being brought (back) to the One (substance) and the fine tuning is complete as all would represent the same frequency... if there is such thing, there would be the end of Eternity itself! Assuming Eternity is all present, then all tuning is never at rest, nor Eternity will ever end... Motion is Eternity and while things spin, all is (going to be) fine! 👍❤️♾️1️⃣

@erikhviid3189

Жыл бұрын

What ?

One efficient way to get "Closer to the Truth" is to censor any dissenting opinions!

@Hank254

Жыл бұрын

That is actually pretty ironic... what is often done today is to argue that disruptive attempts to stop the conversation (censorship) is framed as 'dissenting opinion' when they aren't even valid opinions at all.

1:38 Fine-Tuning of distracting by the universe.

the scales involved are extraordinary... meanwhile, humanity is failing to find a way to end the war... as winter is closing in, millions are desperately hoping for a miracle... Happy Thanksgiving everyone and may peace and harmony rule our world once and for all...

@stevepierce6467

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, if "god" fine-tuned us to be able to do what we are doing, such as war in Ukraine, he is a pretty lousy and screwed-up god.

👍😳🤷🏽‍♂️

Infinity cures everything. What if atoms are not infinite? Why can't we have near infinite? The planet forms before the life that lives on it. The life is born first and then the planet forms a billion years later. Which sounds more likely? We can only live on a planet that has values that we can live with. Why are we born on a good planet? Why are we living and along comes a good planet?

ah yes probability. i have £10 in my pocket, what are the chances my neighbour will have more or less than me? you don't know cos you have no idea how much my neighbour has. it could be 100% that i have more, or it could be .00000001% i have more. we only have this one universe and nothing to "what are the odds" it against. it's 100% that our universe will have all these values and the will be what they are.

Constants might be a measurable aspect of a higher dimensional structure that has reached zero entropy. Or, you know…something way cooler 😅

The universe so vast we speculate we have multiverses. Fine tuned or not, it is all pre planned.

Everything is full of presuppositions

"Anyone who has ears for listening should listen!" Unfortunately, stating the opposite has become such an obsession it has reached the level of dogma. For the specific issue of the video (fine tuning), framing it in the context of Philosophy - as it is inevitably the case - it becomes nothing more than a boorish variation of nihilism.

(1:10) *BL: **_"There may be some things that just don't have an explanation."_* Every effect has a cause, every finish has a start, every phenomenon has a catalyst, and everything that has died was once alive. Those who boldly claim, _"No explanation is required!"_ do so because discovering an explanation doesn't fit their narrative. ... Whenever finding the answer becomes difficult, the easiest path is to simply dismiss the question or fabricate an answer. Atheists dismiss the question whereas theists fabricate an answer ... all the while "the truth" patiently waits to be revealed.

@javiej

Жыл бұрын

Some things are just what they are with no explanation required. Why Phi is an irrational number and not a rational one? the universe would be just fine if it was the opposite, but it is what it is. It happens that the ratio between a circle and it's diameter is an irrational number, period. No need for a "God" to explain that.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

Жыл бұрын

@@javiej *"Some things are just what they are with no explanation required."* ... That's an absolutely untrue statement. Just because an answer eludes you doesn't negate the existence of an answer. Tossing questions off the table just because they are "difficult" to answer is just as bad as fabricating the answers. *"Why Phi is an irrational number and not a rational one? "* ... For the same reason the color "red" is not "yellow." Red is the result of a different pattern of electromagnetic radiation than what makes up yellow, and Pi is an irrational number because there is a necessary balance of order and chaos embedded within the fabric of the universe with mathematics sorting it all out. There are reasons why things are what they are ... and reasons why they are not something else. You can't "pick and choose" what questions are relevant based solely on their level of difficulty.

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

Not sure I agree . There is no reason to think that all effects require a cause . We just don’t know . If there are some uncaused effects then they won’t have explanations . They will just be brute facts

@javiej

Жыл бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC "... because there is a neccesary balance of order and chaos embedded in the fabric of the universe..." Really? I have a doubt then, is your science coming from Star Wars or from Lord of the rings?

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

Жыл бұрын

@@javiej *"Really? I have a doubt then, is your science coming from Star Wars or from Lord of the rings?*"* ... Any search query asking if the universe is "stable, balanced, uniform, or homogenous" will quickly show you. And if you doubt me, then tell me if the universe is more chaotic or more stable? Since you are the doubter, then which one is it?

There are deeper laws that everything follows from.

@erikhviid3189

Жыл бұрын

Evidence ?

@matterasmachine

Жыл бұрын

@@erikhviid3189 I can show conn cation between Hubble constant and mass of electron

@erikhviid3189

Жыл бұрын

@@matterasmachine Be my guest. The floor is yours.

@matterasmachine

Жыл бұрын

@@erikhviid3189 I will post video in my channel when it’s ready. So far you can find the general idea there. This universe is matrix’s. And Hubble constant shows how fast matter loses energy. And that energy is the energy that electromagnetic field consists of.

@matterasmachine

Жыл бұрын

@@erikhviid3189 so electron might be not real but might be the energy lost/emitted by Proton per second. And if you look at the definition of the charge, it is actually about energy emitted per second.

I don't get how one can say that other universes exist.

@stevepierce6467

Жыл бұрын

It is easy. Just open your mouth, or put fingers to keys, and...."Other universes exist." Since we don't even agree on the definition of "universe," it is possible to say anything at all.

I don't like the assumption of fine tuning. What is being fine tuned, what are the instruments for the tuning process, and of what method -- math etc. ? Because there are no instruments and there is no calculator or an object - subject relationship in Nature(physics). What is the object of fine tuning, who is the one that acts upon a subjects? Fine tuning denotes imperfection, thus the objective is to perfect, to reach its final goal. The realm of phenomena is imperfect, there is strife, disease, decay, death, loss. There is not perfection here, but the Goal is Soul to reconcile liberation, to realize you're not the body, nervous system etc. to recollect your cosmic nature. So it's a subjective opinion, one used for what purpose -- to indicate to the fools(materialists) that there could be a God? God is not outside of himself, like an artificer is to his art work, God very much is in all things, the substrate and sustenance and being of all things, and all things in God. There is no duality, no seperation, no God here, fine tuning something over there. Fine tuning argument is insufficient.

It’s a matter of logic: they even cannot recognise themselves, what can lead them to multiverse assumptions! 99.9999% they got the idea from that video. very likely there are multiverse but that has nothing to do with quantum mechanics, basically even with this universe (too early and doesn’t help science right now) it’s a kind of phantasy.

@javiej

Жыл бұрын

The idea of the multiverse is not a theory, it is a deduction based on quantum mechanics (that is, a way to interpret its results). It may be wrong or not, but you can't say it has nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics

@aminomar7890

Жыл бұрын

@@javiej the ambiguity in quantum mechanics has to do with the current incomplete understanding of space and time thus gravity, it has nothing to do with multiverses ! Einstein didn’t scratch the surface regarding space , time and gravity. Dirac had the right to wonder (Dirac large numbers hypothesis), future generations must work on connecting both levels (subatomic and cosmological levels) to get better understanding of space, time, gravity, entanglement, superposition, constants,….etc even the way they look to numbers still very weak (constants and infinity ),…

@aminomar7890

Жыл бұрын

@@javiej they connected so-called multiverse with quantum mechanics because, QM defies classical physics not because they were smart! they wanted an interpretation, and that was all they could come with. next step in physics needs a new revolutionary way of thinking (patching techniques will never work anymore).

@javiej

Жыл бұрын

@@aminomar7890 No, they didn't "connect" a multiverse theory with quantum mechanics, and it is neither a patch added to it. In fact the concept of the multiverse is the simplest formulation of quantum mechanics possible, as basically it is equivalent to.the traditional previous formulation of Quantum Mechanics minus the "collapse" of the wave function. What the multiverse does is to remove an unproven addition from the traditional formulation (the collapse), not to add anything to it. Basically it is a deduction as I said, not a new theory, and it just says that there is no collapse, so when there is a particle interaction (even if they are particles from the observer) all the combinations in the superposition continue to exist, now entangled with the observer. As a mathematical model the multiverse is much simpler and consistent than adding a "collapse of the wave function" that nobody knows what it means. A different thing is if it is what is happening in reality or not, which we just don't know.

It took almost 14 billion years for humans to show up, but the vast universe was designed for us?

How about a symposium in front of the Library of Celsus, in Ephesus?

Feels like a book was just force fed to my brain in 9 minutes damn

Why do we think the apparent fine tuning needs an explanation why would anyone not think it needs an explanation

@stevepierce6467

Жыл бұрын

Fine-tuning does not need an explanation; fine-tuning IS an explanation.

@mrshankerbillletmein491

Жыл бұрын

@@stevepierce6467 A lot of effort goes into trying to exlain fine tuning and its implications.

@stevepierce6467

Жыл бұрын

@@mrshankerbillletmein491 You are right. It takes a lot of effort to try to explain something so patently in line with religious dogma and so incredibly out of line with the real world. Fine tuning is one of the more pompous efforts to explain the perceived complexities of the universe when geology, genetics and LOTS of time are far simpler and less ridiculous explanations.

@mrshankerbillletmein491

Жыл бұрын

@@stevepierce6467Time and chance are said to produce life and a life permtting universe. Many of us wonder how that could be when we know that time makes everything less functional and turns things to dust that being the case what is the explanation for a fine tuned universe with very complex intelligent life. A fine tuner seems to me a far simpler and less ridiculous explanation.

@stevepierce6467

Жыл бұрын

@@mrshankerbillletmein491 You do seem to forget that while things decay in a closed system, we are lucky to have had an exterior source of energy to fuel it all, the sun! For 4.5 billion years time and the sun have done their work well. Lay off the nonsensical YEC talking points.

Love = infinite, everything else is either finite or unknown.. so please stop using infinite for the unknowns

@Tom_Quixote

Жыл бұрын

Love seems very finite in this universe.

this channel really attracts the nut job eh. i imagine (not that i know anything) that nature sees all these values as "1" it's humans assign significance to them, it may be that one variable actually dictates what all the others will be, saying "god made these numbers cos they are fine tuned" is less plausible than "nature made these numbers and they can't be anything (much) else. in fact the numbers can be changed, some of them quite significantly before we get NOTHING, mostly we get DIFFERENT.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

Жыл бұрын

*"i imagine (not that i know anything) that nature sees all these values as "1""* ... Or variations of "1." *"we only have this one universe and nothing to "what are the odds" against it. it's 100% that our universe will have all these values and they will be what they are. "* ... That is far more logical and accurate than the physicists postulating "infinite universes" (Multiverse). I'm sure Ockham would agree, as well.

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC it’s occam , not Ockham And you don’t understand occam if you think a multiverse hypothesis isn’t . Occam’s razor deals with the assumptions of the explanation - not the outcome .

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

Жыл бұрын

@@tonyatkinson2210 *"it’s occam , not Ockham"* ... LOL!!! I suggest you do some actual *research* before correcting people for being "correct." You can start by researching a 13th century philosopher named "William of Ockham" whose famous phrase, _“plurality should not be assumed without necessity,”_ later became known as Ockham's razor.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

Жыл бұрын

@@Alex-ww8if *"How does nature, which doesn’t even thing “signify” anything?"* ... You replied to the wrong person.

How does he know there are an infinite number of universes? I can think of no way to even find out if there is any other universe at all. Is he the one that is assuming his conclusion and guilty of a fallacy?

Not impressed. Falling back on a multiverse hypothesis. And I thought that prager U video was just a strawman argument but apparently that's actually what you're doing. And yes, there may be some constants that maybe there's no way they could be something else like pi or e, or indeed any dimensionless constant (like the fine structure constant) but I don't see the same thing being true about the speed of light or gravitational constant or planck's constant. There is no clear reason they need to be what they are, and if they were much different the structures of life would probably not be possible. Actually it doesn't seem like it makes sense that there is a universe even with the constants as they are, everything should have collapsed into black holes in the early universe, so it's hard to speculate on how things would go wrong if those constants were different since they should have gone wrong with things as they are.

What is 100% certain is that our perception of the universe is fine tuned. So the chances that the universe is randomly ignorant of our existence yet by mere chance funnels itself into the landscapes of our perception without some kind of similitude of tuning is near zero. Furthermore, I don’t think life could survive if much of the universe wasn’t finally tuned into our perception. The mind would have to know the entire substance of the universe first , to actively know what to tune out and what to tune in

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

The universe doesn’t channel anything into us . It’s the other way around . Our perceptions channels very skewed, undeniably wildly inaccurate data from the universe that our evolved monkey brains try to make sense of

@MrSanford65

Жыл бұрын

@@tonyatkinson2210 Our brains are calibrated to see the universe in a certain way. And you can only calibrate something to receive that which is meant for it. There definitely had to be some kind of convergence of the universe to create life and its perceptions of its creator . The universe we know, and it’s physical laws have to be somehow subordinate to our intelligence for us to perceive it. The only universe we can know has to be fine-tuned for us.

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

@@MrSanford65 id argue that we don’t perceive the universe . Our eyes only detect a small fraction of the electromagnetic radiation , our ears only a small fraction of sound waves etc . Our brains construct widely incorrect models of what actually exists . What we see when we look out of the window isn’t reality . It’s a poor model of reality . We are blind to the vast amount of data out there I’d also don’t think we perceive our creator . I see no evidence for one

*Weak Anthropic Principle* Consider the length of time that known intelligent life has existed compared to the length of the universe and that 99% of species have eventually failed. Consider the infinitesimal part of the universe that is amenable to life. Fine-tuning elevates that brief time and space and 1% even within that brevity to the forefront and says, _“Aha! This is what everything is for! The little part and short time that produced me and those similar to me is what the universe is all about.”_ If you think all combinations of parameters are possible, then *any* single combination of laws of physics is equally unlikely. Obviously, the ones that produce intelligent beings will be special to those intelligent beings. Probability does have a special place for life or things interesting to living things.

*God’s Fine-tuning is self-defeating: Designer infinite regression* All god ideas so far fail the fine tuning test, because the god(s) would require more fine tuning than the universe that supposedly cannot exist without an intelligent creator. In other words, if multifaceted complex systems requiring narrow parameters must have an intelligent designer, then so must that designer, thus requiring an infinite regression of intelligent designers. In other words, If “god” doesn’t require fine-tuning, then neither does our universe. If both require FT, then postulating God just adds a lot of unnecessary assumptions without solving the problem. Anyone claiming that the universe requires FT, but god doesn’t, is engaging in gross special pleading, what I call “super special pleading,” because the proposed solution fails the test far worse than the problem. A god would need *more* fine-tuning than the universe.

@Hank254

Жыл бұрын

Yes, very true and that fact is always answered with special pleading.

@scienceexplains302

Жыл бұрын

@@Hank254 Yes, even what I called “super special pleading”, since the supposed solution os worse than the problem, even by the claimant’s standards of what was “wrong” (too much order without design)

Scientists are not philosophers., But here i am, not sure what is he talking about,like philosophers.

The elements of the table of elements are mostly essential for life in one way or a number of different ways. Some of the light gases don’t seem to be essential. Twenty of the other elements are each absolutely essential for life. They might seem to be randomly formed and still most of the most common elements are essential for life. You don’t always see randomly formed essential working parts as we see in biology. In reality, you don’t ever see randomly formed essential working parts other than what we see in biology. Then there’s the mathematical improbability of billions bits of programming ordering themselves by making mistakes for each one of the different kinds of living organisms. Add to that the problem of genetic entropy that we see. We have lost genetic information since the time of Neanderthals. We are losing functions in our genomes. Then there’s the problem with what you have to do with the sixteen known and named ancient civilizations descended from the known sixteen grandsons of Noah. We have no other human history. There is no other human history. How many people can name sixteen ancient civilizations? I can because I had an education and I knew what to look for and where to look for it.

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

Creationists citing science 😂😂😂😂

@tomjackson7755

Жыл бұрын

Why are you still telling this proven lie of only sixteen ancient civilizations?

@JungleJargon

Жыл бұрын

@@tomjackson7755 So prove there were other actual ancient civilizations.

@JungleJargon

Жыл бұрын

@@tonyatkinson2210 Evolutionism doesn’t have any science, only speculation conjecture assumption assertion imagination and fantasy.

@tomjackson7755

Жыл бұрын

@@JungleJargon I already have. Why are you still telling this lie?

that video (where they got the idea from) is genuine one, the content of that video belongs to rational intelligent entity, no one from the beginning of human history till this moment can say that (impossible), no mistakes, but he/she wanted to mislead the interrogator (the purpose, has nothing to do with humans at all, not from the future,….) but in general what mentioned in that videos is correct, tried not to say anything helpful (Only general ideas similar to those mentioned in religions (scientific hints)), to concise: no human being can say that. (the thoughts belongs to rational intelligent entity not to humans).

For me Fine Tuning is rather simple in the way it actually happens... If universes are created, it is likely that certain forces exist prior, during and post is creation... These forces which may well be infinite, may fine tune themselves by simply organizing via good ole Evolution, but at an infinite universal scale. Thus over infinite time and space, the process continue to organize itself creating what is seemingly a fine tuned existence. However it's fine tuned by it's greater evolving infinite whole on an ever-evolving formula to best tackle its own ongoing evolutional needs. Given that... It makes sense to me that "A" universe would eventually give birth to "seemingly" thinking beings that would invent Super Intelligent machines, that would have even greater insight than what would be possible of a naturally evolved being, which in turn would be able to somehow use it's greater ability to effect the universe in line with past evolutions of the universe to see the universe to it's conclusion in a speediest solution has the best maintains and or impoves it's evolutional edge in the multi universe energy eating and procreation frenzy. *crazy, but seriously*.. By this stage in the infinite evolution, the universe such as this one is quite normal. And even in failure, we strengthen the percieved winner... Evolution of the universe continues no matter what. Evolution happens in any system that can effect itself.. Which is basically any system... Especially the universe... And all of it is natural and just happens. Nothing can ultimately fine tune the Universe as a whole but the universe itself. So here we are.

@TactileTherapy

Жыл бұрын

I like this perspective. However, I disagree with the evolution of the forces. There is no place where I can see -whether in the far past or distant future- where the fundamental forces would change

@jessebryant9233

Жыл бұрын

@@TactileTherapy Why believe they are actually constant and can't change in the first place? And if they can't change, then known laws of physics give evidence counter to the naturalistic view.

@TactileTherapy

Жыл бұрын

@@jessebryant9233 maybe i spoke too soon. There are energy states and regimes where i can imagine the laws being different

@jessebryant9233

Жыл бұрын

@@TactileTherapy Fair enough... But, you can "imagine"? Okay, I'm curious... As for "regimes", what do you mean by that?

@jessebryant9233

Жыл бұрын

@@TactileTherapy ???

I am absolutely bored that when talking against fine tuning (that is obvious) they have just 2 arguments A) we dont know what other possibilities were (actually you do) B) Multiverse !! Fine tuning is obvious not just by the cosmological constants but also from the initial preset of reality. There is no way that without an intelligent push you have a complex universe and not 3 atoms chasing each other or 4 ...or 5 ...or 58 ..or 59 ...(or more probably nothingness...)

@uninspired3583

Жыл бұрын

Fine tuned for what, black holes? There's a lot more material tied up in black holes than in organics. Can just as easily say the universe is fine tuned for black holes and life is a by product

@francesco5581

Жыл бұрын

@@uninspired3583 its not about being fine tuned for life ... but is about complexity and the "casual" presence of something able to observe reality itself. Also black holes itself defy the basic concept of matter and physic laws...so are a wrong example by themselves.... and btw you have to assume that something so "incredible" like black holes are here "by chance" ... Again is not possible.

@uninspired3583

Жыл бұрын

@@francesco5581 you're missing my point. Consider the mass tied up in material able to self replicate vs mass in conditions not able to. To me that ratio suggests rare exception, not the rule. If we're talking about what the entire universe is "tuned" for, it isn't tuned very well at all to support life. Most of it is very hostile for us. There's far more material tied up in stars, black holes, and dark matter. If the universe is tuned, its for those things.

@francesco5581

Жыл бұрын

@@uninspired3583 its like to say that a house is more important than his owner... Btw i understand your point and is clear when comparing earth with the rest of the universe that could be (maybe) devoid of life BUT is still also clear that an ant is more important that a whole universe without life. And is the very same universe that gave us this prioritizing way to put things in order of importance. Also i see a degree of "intelligence" also in matter not tied to life, so i see life as a product of an underlying engine of intelligence that become more complex in every step ... matter -> life -> consciousness. That because without, at least, with a basic intelligence in matter you would not have anything coherent ... not chemical reaction if a reagent doesn't not recognize the reactant. And there is still the problem of the first set up of the universe.

@uninspired3583

Жыл бұрын

@@francesco5581 what do you mean by more important?

Have you ever heard such pedantic nonsense? At 1:12 he says fine tuning doesn't need an explanation because there are things that can't be explained. Really? How very convenient for empiricists to excuse themselves on this perplexing question. That's one way to dispose of this compelling argument, but it's not very convincing, as unconvincing as that old stand by argument made at 8:10 that there might be an infinite number of universes and that makes this one not so special. How totally ridiculous, we have no compelling evidence that multiple universes exist, only pure speculation, but we have a mountain of evidence that the present universe we see all around us is real including the "fine tuning" making it propitious to life.

@markb3786

5 ай бұрын

But I bet you have no problem at all jumping the gap to sky daddy

@michaelmckinney7240

5 ай бұрын

@@markb3786 Your comment is nugatory.

Theologically speaking; God is Fine Tuned for Love.

@markb3786

5 ай бұрын

He sure has a funny way of showing it; at least on this planet.

Fine tuning is such a nonsense concept. it is following the same logic as people who see evolution as progressing towards a goal. The answer is in the question. If the universe was not made exactly right for it and us to exist, it and us would not exist. We did not evolve to make us capable of surviving our environment, it is simply the case that everybody else died out, and we are all that is left. Next time you vacuum clean your floor, ask those stray dust particles you missed if they now think their existence is caused by supernatural design.

Why do we think we need to have an explanation? Because of the human tendency to create explanations. Because of the process of science which tries to explain phenomena though hypothesis and experiments.

There may be some things that don't have explanations? Hilarious. Keep trying to deny it. An intelligence had to differentiate the first energetic pattern/physical structure from the universe of all possibility. Take that one on chief.

@uninspired3583

Жыл бұрын

Why must that have been intelligence? Phases of matter get separated all the time through natural processes.

If you claim that fine tuning is a fallacy, we do not have to fly into outer space to test your claim. We start with our very selves: Male and female. They are separate individuals but very fine tuned for each other, for reproductive purposes and emotional satisfaction. Is fine tuning not indisputably clear here? Look at the design of their separate reproductive organs - how they complement each other!

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

Weird. Because if I did fly into space I’d die immediately. Seems that the universe isn’t fine tuned for life after all

@redacted428

Жыл бұрын

@@tonyatkinson2210 you weren't born in outer space. Nor were you born with the means to fly there. So your argument kinda falls flat 😂

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

@@redacted428 No it doesn’t . If we live on a uni erase designed for life , then why does life only exist on a tiny planet in the far reaches of a single galaxy . Why isn’t it everywhere ? Why isn’t it on the surface of the sun , in the vacuum of space , in supernovas and black holes ?

@redacted428

Жыл бұрын

@@tonyatkinson2210 that's a childish question. You don't live on the surface of the sun so why should the sun be designed to support you living there? That's like asking "why can't fish live on land?" Seriously Tony, grow up.

@tonyatkinson2210

Жыл бұрын

@@redacted428 Wait . So the designer is limited to only an very fined tuned universe in which life can only survive on one tiny planet in a vast universe ? That’s not how to designed things work .

Some good points. It's obviously a fallacy to argue that since it's so unlikely that our universe exists, it must be designed (even if we could make sense of 'unlikely' here.) Think of a lottery. It's very unlikely for any given person to win a lottery, but each week someone does. We don't infer from that that design is at work!

This video seems to dance around a certain issue. That is the concept of find-tuning being used by theists to justify the existence of God.

@redacted428

Жыл бұрын

Captain Obvious has arrived 👆😂

I always love when the answer is "you are not allowed to ask this question" 🤦‍♂️

@b.g.5869

Жыл бұрын

He didn't say that.

But two humans and a talking flying serpent were naughty, which completely spoiled God's plan. Which is rather surprising really, when you consider that he designed everything very carefully. Now snakes can't fly, women have pain in childbirth and men have to play video games.

The universe is a thought.

Is he not understanding the question?

Fine tuning is one of many self fulfilling wishful thinking , we see values in superstitious subjects to confirm our bias .

@mickobrien3156

Жыл бұрын

Yup! It's like this... You're a puddle in a cracked sidewalk. And you say, wow, this crack perfectly fits me. What other crack is exactly my size? Fine-tuning is for non-thinkers. They just see the first superficial layer... themselves... and think everything must be there to serve. But we fit the Universe, not the other way around. And not too mention, life isn't even particularly important. It's a weird quirk. The Universe has no need for it. None at all. We're just a tick that formed in its arm, sucking off its entropy.

they took the idea from that video (alien interview), it goes back to 50’s some of them knew that the video is genuine (original). but later they went too far (multiverse in quantum mechanics) ! Some are good at theft but not at thinking!

I think this guy has gotten the issue backwards. I happen to know some people who argue for design, and their point is that the scientist must be ethical in analyzing his data. They would ask if the universe exhibits design , and if so would argue that one should go in line with the evidence as opposed to looking for ways to get around it. Due respect to this gentleman, but what he is saying is essentially that no matter how much data pointing towards design the universe may exhibit, to even entertain the thought that there may by design involved is a "fallacy"!? Really Sir? While some people who argue for design may have all kinda of other fallacious ideas, their reasoning on this is pretty sound and quite honest. I don't care what somebody's worldview is - what this guy is saying is simply intellectually dishonest, and quite fallacious in its own right. And another thing - this whole business of appealing to "possible universes" is just ridiculous...and is damaging the the place of science in society. Ordinary people look at that and say - it's all a bunch of speculative nonsense - referring to science as a whole. I guarantee you that if a credible scientist goes into a debate with some religious fundamentalist and they argue "possible parallel universes" vs "intelligent design" respectively - the fundamentalist will inevitably destroy the scientist. Science is shooting its public image in the head with this stuff.

Just like Robert I'd like universe to be fine-tuned, but I'm not convinced. On the other hand I don't find Barry's arguments especially convincing. Maybe I'm just too low-brow to be convinced either way.

Two Jews talking about make believe. What a shocker….

The Fine-tuning Argument is, of course, a modern variation of the Design Argument. God designed the world and all its parameter so that we can live in it for a short time. It's very easy to parody. The value of PI was chosen so that circles can be round.

@tedgrant2

Жыл бұрын

@@Alex-ww8if My ears and nose were designed by God so that my spectacles won't fall off. God designed rabbits with white tails to make them easier to shoot. The rainbow was created to remind God to close the windows.

@tedgrant2

Жыл бұрын

@@Alex-ww8if God put Eve in the Garden to do the cleaning and washing up. And put the snake in the Garden to see what would happen. He didn't know, even though he is omniscient.

@tedgrant2

Жыл бұрын

@@Alex-ww8if God knows the furure just as well as the past. He knows all your decisions and prayers before you make them up. It's no good asking him to forgive you. He's heard it all before !

@tedgrant2

Жыл бұрын

@@Alex-ww8if You don't fool God, you know. He knows everything about you and has known, way before your parents decided to make you. He knows and has known for ever who is worthy are who will suffer in the flames for ever.

@tedgrant2

Жыл бұрын

@@Alex-ww8if He can do anything he likes. He could easily make a world with perfect little robots that obey his every command. Or he could make a world where nothing is certain and we might be happy or sad.

It takes more faith to say there is not a God than it takes to say there is one.

@chrisconklin2981

Жыл бұрын

It is not a question of faith for those who see no evidence for the existence of God(s). Rather, it is a sense of amusement to watch believers.

@thekolobsociety

Жыл бұрын

@@chrisconklin2981 How do you deal with a lack of foundation for basic morality, as an atheist?

@chrisconklin2981

Жыл бұрын

@@thekolobsociety You make an assumption that your theistic "foundation" is the only workable set of morals. Again, I find that amusing. All civilizations have organically produced workable arraignments.

@thekolobsociety

Жыл бұрын

@@chrisconklin2981 Do you believe morality objective?

@chrisconklin2981

Жыл бұрын

@@thekolobsociety I have never been able to tell the difference between objective or subjective morality. However as you brought up the subject: tell me, what is objective morality?

I am sorry, but if you don't show your eyes I won't listen to you. Remove the sunglasses please.

so, god picked the least likely combination of values, seems legit.

@javiej

Жыл бұрын

less likely compared to what? he was clear in the video, you can only apply statistics when the other possibilities also exist. Otherwise is like saying: what were the odds that Phi was an irrational number ? and with that particular value 3.14xxxx?.. rubish.

Imagine you're a puddle in a cracked sidewalk. Wow, this crack is perfectly sized to fit me. What other crack is exactly my size? The Universe was not fine-tuned for life. It's the other way around. Life eventually fine-tuned itself to the physical laws of the Universe.

Liars like this guy have all kinds of opinions about what they observe but they have no clue how our Creator was able to create an AI that makes them living beings in fake worlds like this one.

@tomjackson7755

Жыл бұрын

Brad you are off your meds again get help.

I have already proven with mathematics that the number of multiverses cannot be infinite. I have already proven by the same, that the expansion cannot be infinite in size. I have already proven with mathematics that there is nothing greater than The Infinite Father. I have already proven with mathematics that the expansion was brought into existence by the finite, and not by The Infinite Father.

@jsar5409

Жыл бұрын

Lmao are you having a stroke?

@bodeezer3359

Жыл бұрын

@@jsar5409 No, I am not. Thanks. It turns out that truth is stranger than fiction. Also... "The thing about smart people is that they seem like crazy people to dumb people." - a quote by Stephen Hawking.

@jsar5409

Жыл бұрын

@@bodeezer3359 believing in fantasy isn't exactly the best way to demonstrate intelligence lol.

@bodeezer3359

Жыл бұрын

@@jsar5409 How can one call mathematical proof, fantasy, having neither examined this proof, nor proven it false? Calling such a "fantasy," is in and of itself, a fallacy.

@jsar5409

Жыл бұрын

@@bodeezer3359 where is this mathematical proof of a God? Please provide this information

To be honest guys doesnt knows phich his minds lack Phisch standard NOW to be honest guys concept concern phisch are baseless concept. Phich fundament shows true though experience with reality that figure out how phich proceedings are POSSIBLE. To be honest guys are so boring challatan. He ignores principles phich proceedings honestly.