Thank you, this channel is very good!

Dear Mr. Ellis. I have listened to many of your interviews. I appreciate your objectivity and that you don’t take any sides on this issue or throw in any bias . ❤❤❤❤

Very insightful.

We exist and we're here. Isn't that miraculous enough?

@xecyc7951

26 күн бұрын

Heat death and the universe becoming a soup of decayed particles will be very miraculous. Consciousness will cease to exist, which is the only thing that invented "miracles" or "fine tuning".

@Resmith18SR

25 күн бұрын

@@xecyc7951 In billions of years from now.

Excellent.... thanks 🙏❤.

The list of prerequisites for life is getting longer and longer. How life came into being is more mysterious than ever.

@obiwanduglobi6359

Ай бұрын

How do you come to this conclusion? Modern sciences have made great progress in understanding life. Religion made no progress at all afaik, it's still the same answer - for over 2'000 years now.

electromagnetic force at fine structure constant enables DNA to make proteins? natural selection (choice?) indicating free will? might electronagnetic force also have to do with cosmological constant expansion of space? and also causation with time greater than space?

Here are some examples of how non-contradictory infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could potentially resolve paradoxes or contradictions in chemistry: 1) Molecular Chirality/Homochirality Paradoxes Contradictory: Classical models struggle to explain the origin and consistent preference for one chiral handedness over another in biological molecules like amino acids and sugars. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Infinitesimal Monadic Protolife Transitions dsi/dt = κ Σjk Γijk(n)[sj, sk] + ξi Pref(R/S) = f(Φn) Modeling molecular dynamics as transitions between monadic protolife states si based on infinitesimal relational algebras Γijk(n) that depend on specific geometric monad configurations n. The homochiral preference could emerge from particular resonance conditions Φn favoring one handedness. 2) Paradoxes in Reaction Kinetics Contradictory: Transition state theory and kinetic models often rely on discontinuous approximations that become paradoxical at certain limits. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Infinitesimal Thermodynamic Geometries dG = Vdp - SdT (Gibbs free energy infinitesimals) κ = Ae-ΔG‡/RT (Arrhenius smoothly from monadic infinities) Using infinitesimal calculus to model thermodynamic quantities like Gibbs free energy dG allows kinetic parameters like rate constants κ to vary smoothly without discontinuities stemming from replacing finite differences with true infinitesimals. 3) Molecular Structure/Bonding Paradoxes Contradictory: Wave mechanics models struggle with paradoxes around the nature of chemical bonding, electron delocalization effects, radicals, etc. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Pluralistic Quantum Superposition |Ψ> = Σn cn Un(A) |0> (superposed monadic perspectives) Un(A) = ΠiΓn,i(Ai) (integrated relational properties) Representing molecular electronic states as superpositions of monadic perspectives integrated over relational algebraic properties Γn,i(Ai) like spins, positions, charges, etc. could resolve paradoxes by grounding electronic structure in coherent relational pluralisms. 4) Molecular Machines/Motor Paradoxes Contradictory: Inefficiencies and limitations in synthetic molecular machines intended to mimic biological molecular motors like ATP synthase, kinesin, etc. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Nonlinear Dissipative Monadologies d|Θ>/dt = -iH|Θ> + LΓ|Θ> (pluralistic nonet mechanics) LΓ = Σn ζn |Un> rather than isolated molecular wavefunctions, where infinitesimal monadic sink operators LΓ account for open-system energy exchanges, could resolve paradoxes around efficiency limits. The key theme is using intrinsically pluralistic frameworks to represent molecular properties and dynamics in terms of superpositions, infinitesimals, monadic configurations, and relational algebraic structures - rather than trying to force classically separable approximations. This allows resolving contradictions while maintaining coherence with quantum dynamics and thermodynamics across scales. Here are 4 more examples of how infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could resolve contradictions in chemistry: 5) The Particle/Wave Duality of Matter Contradictory: The paradoxical wave-particle dual behavior of matter, exemplified by the double-slit experiment, defies a consistent ontological interpretation. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Monadic Perspectival Wavefunction Realizations |Ψ> = Σn cn Un(r,p) Un(r,p) = Rn(r) Pn(p) Model matter as a superposition of monadic perspectival realizations Un(r,p) which are products of wavefunctional position Rn(r) and momentum Pn(p) distributions. This infinitesimal plurality avoids the paradox by allowing matter to behave holistically wave-like and particle-like simultaneously across monads. 6) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Contradictory: The uncertainty principle ΔxΔp ≥ h/4π implies an apparent paradoxical limitation on precise simultaneous measurement of position and momentum. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Complementary Pluriverse Observables Δx Δp ≥ h/4π Δx = Σi |xiP - xP| (deviations across monadic ensembles) xP = ||P (pluriverse-valued perspective on x) Reinterpret uncertainties as deviations from pluriverse-valued observables like position xP across an ensemble of monadic perspectives, avoiding paradox by representing uncertainty intrinsically through the perspectival complementarity. 7) The Concept of the Chemical Bond Contradictory: Phenomonological models of bonds rely paradoxically on notions like "electronic charge clouds" without proper dynamical foundations. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Infinitesimal Intermonadic Charge Relations Γij = Σn qinj / rnij (dyadic catalytic charge interactions) |Ψ> = Σk ck Πij Γij |0> (superposed bond configuration states) Treat chemical bonds as superposed pluralities of infinitesimal dyadic charge relation configurations Γij between monadic catalysts rather than ambiguous "clouds". This grounds bonds in precise interaction algebras transcending paradoxical visualizations. 8) Thermodynamic Entropy/Time's Arrow Contradictory: Statistical mechanics gives time-reversible equations, paradoxically clashing with the time-irreversible increase of entropy described phenomenologically. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Relational Pluriverse Thermodynamics S = -kB Σn pn ln pn (entropy from realization weights pn) pn = |Tr Un(H) /Z|2 (Born statistical weights from monadologies) dS/dt ≥ 0 (towards maximal pluriverse realization) Entropy increase emerges from tracking the statistical weights pn of pluriversal monadic realizations Un(H) evolving towards maximal realization diversity, resolving paradoxes around time-reversal by centering entropics on the growth of relational pluralisms. In each case, the non-contradictory possibilities involve reformulating chemistry in terms of intrinsically pluralistic frameworks centered on monadic elements, their infinitesimal relational transitions, superposed realizations, and deviations across perspectival ensembles. This allows resolving apparent paradoxes stemming from the over-idealized separability premises of classical molecular models, dynamically deriving and unifying dualisms like wave/particle in a coherent algebraic ontology.

Thanks be to God❤you two's interesing topics which gives me inspiration. A Chinese ancient idea is all information of cosmics stored in Human body is able to be reflected by human's meditation. 0:24 ... it's interesting is that it's really mainstream cosmologists (yeah) and we're dealing with fine-tuning in that respect you've kind of existed in all these worlds uh so what's your view what's happening here? 0:37 ... 3:46 ... the question is if you shift the fine structure constant or the electron proton ratio will that stuff still work and that's a fascinating area which has hardly been touched and (What type of inclusion what type of range of estimates are there? ) well for the moment what we've been able to do is locate some work on this on well first Hydrogen we've done some calculate hydrogen molecule but then on water and it looks as if you have to make quite a substantial variation in the fine structure constant for water to be significantly affected more probably than the amount you have to change it in orer t alter the nucleos synthesis so it looks maybe as if the physics results will give you a stronger limit on fine-tuning (tighter limit yeah) yeah than the biology but this is a very very tentative conclusion. 4:38 ant it'll require a lot of development to see if that's so 4:42 so what I find interesting is you're now developing the concept of fine tuning in biology and using the from physics but what you're doing is you're suing some of the exact same information in terms of ratios weight ratios between proton and electron or the strength of the electromatic 4:58 GE: we're using the the Shedding equation in detail for molecules (right) 5:05 so um I have to ask you this a good friend of yours in mind at different times John Leslie has proposed that one of the ideas of fine-tuning is that what people do is they look at it in only one area but he says that because fine-tuing will have an effect in radically different areas at the same in physics and now in biology he would say it affects different things that makes the fine-tuning argument stronger. 5:35 GE

I think the use of the term fine-tuning (due to ing) is assumed by many to imply fine tuner and that is clearly wrong. Therefore it is less incorrect to use the term fine tuned. Teleonomy not teleology.

One of the most intelligent conversation in the world. 🎉

We have no direct evidence for it, but sure, let’s suppose the ‘constants’ of nature could vary. If we accept that as reasonable speculation, surely it must also be reasonable to suppose that they do in fact vary. That implies a multiverse. I think it’s incoherent to argue both that we must accept the plausibility of different tuning but arbitrarily also deny the plausibility of varying tuning.

@Hank254

29 күн бұрын

"but sure, let’s suppose..." That's exactly what the Fine Tuning Argument is... a big 'what if'. Until it is proven that the constants have dials that need to be set, the FTA is just daydreaming.

Regarding John Lezlies (?) argument: Biology is nothing else but applied physics. Full stop. Therefore, there is no "further argument" for fine tuning imo; but i might be wrong.

If we say that a set of constants in a given universe need to coexist in such a relative manner to allow for matter, life etc, even with the assumption that all possible universes are ‘attempted’ or caused to result in surviving universes, what is the impetus that necessitates the process of universe creation?

@tonyatkinson2210

Ай бұрын

That’s the question. Essentially, why is there something rather than nothing .

@obiwanduglobi6359

Ай бұрын

@@tonyatkinson2210 Obviously, I have no answer to this question. But i know the field where the answer is (still...) hidden: physics. (Not philosophy, and not religion.)

@tonyatkinson2210

Ай бұрын

@@obiwanduglobi6359 true . I suspect the answer will be naturalistic also

@obiwanduglobi6359

Ай бұрын

@@tonyatkinson2210 Everything human kind can observe is of physical origin. Following Ockham's Razor, it is evident that the beginning of our universe must have a physical origin, too.

FINALLY!! They are thinking "out of the box"

This argument is like saying - Water in a puddle thinking - wow! look at that! the shape of the hole in the ground is exactly same shape as my bottom surface. Of course this makes fine-tuning argument a tautology.

@EstebanGunn

27 күн бұрын

I keep seeing the atheist automata post that same puddle analogy, and it's honestly not that impressive. The universe does not self sustain and generate life in the same way a puddle simply exists. The bumps, grooves, and dents in a hole are not inherently conducive to the makeup of a puddle in the same way that the complex set of actions and reactions that continuously happen throughout the universe maintain said universe and generate life and remain stable enough to nurture it to complexity. Also every puddle in existence has an explanation for how it came into being. You're reframing the argument into a strawman. The fine tuning argument is less that of a sentient puddle and more like this: You come across a desolate planet, like Mars, with no signs of life, yet you find a functioning clock. There are no signs of life, so the only conclusion is that the clock naturally formed. There is no evidence of a clock maker and yet there it is. Some would say that a naturally forming clock is such a remote possibility that the existence of a clock is in and of itself evidence of a clock maker.

@SandipChitale

26 күн бұрын

​@@EstebanGunn I keep seeing the creationist/intelligent design automata post that same functioning clock on Mars. ... Read "Blind Watchmaker" - by Richard Dawkins. Or "Unweaving the Rainbow" or "Climbing Mount Improbable" how complexity comes about in the universe, shifts to the cultural evolution in Humans and then we make clocks. Also read up on Sara Walker and Lee Cronin's Assembly Theory. Thanks!

@ubeduhe772

25 күн бұрын

OMG Dawkins as reference! Did you read The God Delusion too?​@@SandipChitale

@SandipChitale

24 күн бұрын

@@ubeduhe772 Irrelevant.

BIG idea from a favorite thinker.

If there is true infinity, there has to be intelligent life out there in the cosmos....

@Braun09tv

Ай бұрын

Yes, but if reality is a dream, then more intelligent structure might be outside the cosmos.

We are the slime mold that grows under these conditions.

If he's saying the universe was fine-tuned for life, he's exceptionally myopic, js

The universe is the biggest stage imaginable. It would be strange if there were no spectators

@xecyc7951

26 күн бұрын

@@halcyon2864 and who created the spectators? more spectators? lol ok, idiot

So if I get this, the fine tuning of the universe to enable life is on a knife edge…but also the chance of life to form through biology is on a second knife edge…so the whole thing is totally improbable?

@simonhibbs887

Ай бұрын

There is no way to know either of those things. We don’t know of the constants could be different, and it’s plausible if they could that they might vary across space so different regions have different constants. In that case some regions would be like ours. On evolution, if the universe is infinite or sufficiently large, even extremely low likelihood events become inevitable.

I have yet to see anyone who is a proponent of 'fine tuning' give compelling evidence that these constants can be other than they are. Or what the constraints on their values are. Until then i am not convinced

@genghisthegreat2034

Ай бұрын

Do you consider those to be " absolute constants ", right out in the n-th decimal place ? If the ' constants ' could have assumed even slightly different values, and those different values would not permit carbon-based life , then the only alternative is a veritable froth of lifeless universes, is it not ?

@user-gk9lg5sp4y

Ай бұрын

@genghisthegreat2034 That assumes the Multiverse. I personally, as a layman, think the Multiverse makes the most sense but it's not falsifiable currently and therefore not 'science'. No one knows if the constants are even constant much less what range of values are possible.

@101xaplax101

Ай бұрын

I can assure you that the universe doesn’t care if your “not convinced”

@genghisthegreat2034

Ай бұрын

@@user-gk9lg5sp4y we do know that the precision of their values, way out in the n-th decimal place , is necessary, for nuclear fusion in stars, for carbon based life, and for the right balance between isotopes to permit that. We also know, purely from orbital mechanics, that if the exponent in the inverse square law , was even slightly different from exactly 2, no stable orbits of anything, would be possible.

@BullseyeIX

Ай бұрын

@@user-gk9lg5sp4y There are so many possibilities, if time is endless all possibilities will eventually happen. But then what are the limitations, could creatures evolve to become immortal and learn to manipulate the laws of the universe?

The abstract notion of life, intelligent life and pure intelligence does not have to be exactly what is in this universe. And on top of that it does not have be like that we find on earth. Some other universe with different properties could have resulted in different kind of each of these. Humans as specific intelligent form of life are definitely a contingent accident related to the asteroid strike on Earth 165 million years ago that wiped out dinosaurs. I agree though about carbon chauvinism for this universe for being the key element i.e. carbon for naturally occurring life due its specific chemical properties along with H, O , and N. However naturally created life which evolved into intelligent life (humans) could create artificial life, intelligent life or pure intelligence (even) in a non carbon substrate like silicon. Also note that the organic chemistry likely creates life in many parts of the universe, intelligent life requires stability of the environment to allow life to take root and evolve into intelligent life. So contingency of stable environment is needed for intelligent life. If the environment is not stable the evolution may go in fits and starts and may not end up with intelligent life at all because intelligent is downstream of a long chain of evolution in a stable path. If constants were different the basis of life could have shifted to be around other element like silicon say! Who knows. In a nutshell, we need to remember that the notion of life, evolution and intelligence could be thought of as conceptual abstractions and thus different forms of these could exist in different kind of universes and be asking the same question for their existence and wonder about the fine tuning of their universe for their existence. BFD.

This great manuver from scientist. Ilove that. Its like Quantum biology

Fine tuning is a hypothesis, and can only be proven if we can access the hypothetical multiverse.

@crabb9966

Ай бұрын

You want us to stop thinking about this because there might be a convenient multiverse?

@obiwanduglobi6359

Ай бұрын

There's a different possibility: The heavens will tear open, HE will appear and tell us: I have fine-tuned you all! I think the multiverse is much, much more likely...

@crabb9966

Ай бұрын

@@obiwanduglobi6359 I mean, if this is your line of thought I think you are extremely philosophically driven.

@obiwanduglobi6359

Ай бұрын

@@crabb9966 Not at all, I like empirical data. And the opposite of empirical data is religion (and in some cases Philosophy) - to make a long story short.

@crabb9966

29 күн бұрын

@@obiwanduglobi6359 what? Well, what if the empirical data points to religion, what are you to do?

*Fine Tuning:* Take a 93-billion-light-years-wide distribution of particles and add in 1% of intelligent orchestration and you end up with two diametrically opposed conclusions: (1) it's all random, (2) it's all orchestrated. The reason why people subscribe to one or the other is because deep inside, that's how they want it to be. The atheist wants it to all be random and the theist wants it to all be by the hands of an omniscient God. ... As with most of these "either-or" type of debates, in reality it's a mixture of both.

@user-gk9lg5sp4y

Ай бұрын

so a mixture of 'orchestration' and randomness then. Cool story, bro.

@erawanpencil

Ай бұрын

It could also be some sort of bizarre superposition of both, that we don't understand yet. I think George hit on that here when he says at the end the 'laws of physics had the foreknowledge of life written into them.' Most materialist physicists believe only computational reality is meaningful, so they get stuck in the false dichotomy of wondering if things are random or deterministic. What if a process was neither deterministic or random? One might say that would leave only cause-less will or whim, or divine intent, but what if it wasn't that either?

@anteodedi8937

Ай бұрын

Another atheistic position is the view of constants being metaphysically necessary. So not all atheists subscribe to the view that it is a matter of chance/contingency.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

Ай бұрын

@@anteodedi8937 *"Another atheistic position is the view of constants being metaphysically necessary. So not all atheists subscribe to the view that it is a matter of chance/contingency."* ... In my 63 years of life, I have never met nor read of any atheists that subscribe to anything metaphysical.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

Ай бұрын

@@erawanpencil *"I think George hit on that here when he says at the end the 'laws of physics had the foreknowledge of life written into them."* ... I don't believe there was any foreknowledge of life emerging 10 billion years after T=0. It was a *minimal amount of orchestration* that facilitates an evolution from simplicity to complexity and nothing more. "Life" just happened to be one of those higher levels of complexity that emerged. A self-aware consciousness only emerged over the last 300,000 years of the existence of the universe. And why? Because its more complex than life and higher complexity emerges from lower complexity.

To me, this points to a non-physical super intellect that could not only conceive these things but also make them so.

My acoustic guitar needs to be tuned regularly. Presumably, the universe needs to be tuned regularly. Therefore, God exists !

According to current scientific understanding, we only know one universe and one specific configuration of physical laws. There is no evidence that the physical laws (fundamental principles of matter and energy), can be "setup" different, or that these laws were finely tuned to allow for the existence of life or complex structures. Therefore, the idea of "fine-tuning" can be considered a false analogy since there is nothing to tune, as we do not know of any other possible configurations of physical laws.... So, the universe is not "unlikely" without a designer, because there are no variables or known alternatives that would make it more or less probable.

@deanodebo

Ай бұрын

Do you have some sort of evidence that the scientific method leads to truthful conclusions?

@tomjackson7755

Ай бұрын

@@deanodebo Repeatability would be the evidence.

@deanodebo

Ай бұрын

@@tomjackson7755 What do you mean by that?

@tomjackson7755

Ай бұрын

@@deanodebo I don't know if I can make it any simpler than that. What word or words don't you understand?

@deanodebo

Ай бұрын

@@tomjackson7755 “repeatability” is ambiguous. I asked about truthful conclusions. Can you name a scientific theory that’s been proven true?

It’s almost as if the biological elements evolved within the physics framework.

"The laws of physics had the foreknowledge of biology written into it"... Why is this disturbing?

ja this one needs a little bit more digging deep...

Our universe is remarkably fine-tuned for life-permitting. The Fine-Tuning is a plausible and undeniable evidence for intelligent design.

@obiwanduglobi6359

Ай бұрын

It's the argument of a goldfish in a glass: "Wow, the conditions of my surroundings are just excellent! Therefore: God! Blubb, blubb..."

@slackster999

24 күн бұрын

@@obiwanduglobi6359 Just making up nonsense analogies is not an argument, why not a bear in the woods, a bird in a tree? Humans uniquely have the faculty to ask these questions and they are legitimate questions.

@obiwanduglobi6359

24 күн бұрын

@@slackster999 I chose this exemple because a goldfish in a glass lives in his own, small universe without the possibility of interacting with it's surroundings. The argument behind it is basically the Anthropic Principle. The question of fine tuning is legitimate and shall be discussed in depth, of course. But: the initial commentator made a claim and didn't ask a question.

If there are infinite worlds, overlapping fine tuning is certainly possible. But this sounds like a reach. Design seems more likely. It just seems llike science is avoiding the obvious. In no other circumstance have we fought so hard to deny what is so surface- level apparent.

@BenjaminGoose

Ай бұрын

Design is a bad answer because it implies a designer, which just pushes back the question of where everything came from.

@simonhibbs887

Ай бұрын

Surface level apparence has a terrible track record. Its surface level apparent that the world is flat, that the sun travels round the earth, that the planets move in epicycles, that time progresses at a constant rate, that particles must have a discrete location at all times. I would readily agree that the surface level view would be that organisms are designed, absent any other explanation that seems likely. However now we have the Copernican model, relativity, quantum mechanics and evolution through natural selection. None of these ideas were pushed on to reality by humans, they were forced on us by incontrovertible evidence due to nature obstinately being that way. If, when we had investigated nature in detail what we had found was a flat world, a luminiferous aether, crystal spheres in the heavens, and a patent reference encoded in our DNA, that’s what would be in the text books.

@Hank254

Ай бұрын

"It just seems llike science is avoiding the obvious." Science (scientists) aren't avoiding the obvious... they just aren't starting with a conclusion that they want to prove. The FTA is just an exercise in confirmation bias... it is putting the cart before the horse.

Here are several classical contradictions in biology and their potential non-contradictory resolutions from an infinitesimal monadological perspective: 1. Origin of Life Paradoxes Classical: Paradoxes around abiogenesis, homochirality, first replicators Non-Contradictory: Infinitesimal protolife monadic transitions dsi/dt = κ Σjk Γijk(ℓ)[sj, sk] + ξi ℓ = f(n1...nm) is monad configuration 2. Molecular Binding Paradoxes Classical: Paradoxes in protein folding, substrate specificity Non-Contradictory: Nonlinear monadic multiplex resonances |Φ> = Σn cn Un(Sα) |0> (superposed protolife states) Wn,m = (monad binding coefficients) 3. Genetic Paradoxes Classical: Paradoxes like non-viability of certain gene combinations Non-Contradictory: Pluriverse-valued genetic realizability ⌈Φ⌉ = {Ui(Φ) | i ∈ N} (genotypes as monadic realizations) Φ ↔ Ψ ⇐⇒ ⌈Φ⌉ = ⌈Ψ⌉ (equivalence over pluriverse) 4. Neurological Binding Paradoxes Classical: Binding problem paradoxes, separability paradoxes Non-Contradictory: Relational pluriverse neural geometries |Ω> = Σn pn Un(Nn) (superposition of neural monad states) Geodesic[Nn](a,b)→Paths[Σn p(n)Uap →q Ubq] (experience paths) 5. Evolution Paradoxes Classical: Paradoxes like irreducible complexity, Muller's ratchet Non-Contradictory: Infinitesimal transitions on fitness landscapes dfx/dt = Div(∇fxFx) + ξx (monadic exploratory dynamics) Fx = Γ(x, {xj}) (catalytic fitness relations) 6. Paradoxes in Embryogenesis Classical: Paradoxes like random determination of chirality Non-Contradictory: Resonant infinitesimal monadic transitions dαi/dt = Σj Γij(αi,αj) + ξi (coordinated determinative algebras) Γij = f(ni, nj, rij) (chiro-isomeric transition charges) The key themes are using infinitesimal monadic transition processes, relational resonance algebras, pluriverse-valued realizability, and higher-dimensional resonant superpositions to resolve paradoxes stemming from classical separability assumptions, random determinacy, and failure to account for integrated pluralistic structures underlying biological phenomena. By building models from infinitesimal relational pluralisms as conceptual primitives, the apparent contradictions dissolve into coherent higher-dimensional resonance dynamics between monadic elements and their catalytic interaction algebras across scales. Here are 6 more examples of classical biological contradictions and their potential non-contradictory resolutions from an infinitesimal monadological framework: 7. Paradoxes in Evolutionary Game Theory Classical: Paradoxes like evolutionary unstable strategies Non-Contradictory: Monadic Stochastic Replicator Dynamics dxi/dt = xi(fi(x) - φ(x)) (selection-mutation equation) fi(x) = Σj Γij(x) uj(x) (monadic fitness from relational algebras) 8. Circadian Rhythm Paradoxes Classical: Paradoxes like inconsistency of molecular clocks Non-Contradictory: Harmonic Infinitesimal Cronometric Resonances Ψ(t) = Σn cn Un(Bt) (superposed monadic clock states) Un(Bt) = Πi Γni(Biti) (integrated relational chronometers) 9. Paradoxes in Ecosystem Dynamics Classical: Paradoxes like overshoot, cyclic attractions Non-Contradictory: Pluriversal Ecodynamic Geometries dN/dt = f(N, K, r...) + Δ (pluriversal population dynamics) Δ = Div(Γ∇N) (relational ecosystem interaction flows) 10. The Paradox of Biological Computation Classical: Paradox of how molecules perform computation Non-Contradictory: Logogrammatic Biophotonic Codons |Ψ> = Σn cn Un(M) (superposed biomolecular vocables) Un(M) = Πi Γni(Mi) (integrated relational codices) 11. The Evolution of Consciousness Paradox Classical: Paradox of subjective experience emerging Non-Contradictory: Plurinomenal Resonant Anthropics Cn = Φn |0> (first-person qualia state) |Ω> = ⊗n Cn (cohered pluriversal experience) 12. The Ontogeny/Phylogeny Paradox Classical: Paradox of developmental/evolutionary interactions Non-Contradictory: Fractal Biolinguistic Generative Grammars L = G(Σ, N, P, S) (biolinguistic production system) P = {Uα → Uβ Uγ} (plurinominal rewrite transitions) The key themes continues to be representing biological phenomena using infinitesimal relational resonances, pluriversal superpositions, logogrammatic algebras, first-person experience from cohered pluralities, and fractal self-similar generative structures - rather than classical separable, deterministic models. This allows reconceiving seemingly paradoxical biological processes as coherent higher-dimensional resonances between relational pluralistic elements across scales, unified within a common infinitesimal algebraic framework resolving contradictions.

Again if I Consider the God Conclusion. It's Very Possible that God Operates on Infinite Time Scales and Moves Freely Between Any of those Times. Hence It's Possible Our Time is Just One of God's Activities. Not the Multiverse, The Multi Time Possibility. Hence under this God Possibility there is Very Very Much More Diversity than Just a Physical Universe Containing Energy, Matter and Life. Always Good to be Provoked into Thinking by CTT.

@simonhibbs887

Ай бұрын

What criteria should we use to determine what is or is not possible?

@Hank254

Ай бұрын

God is not a conclusion, it is just an avoidance of the question. If you want to say that some god is the 'who', you still have to answer the 'how'.

@chrisgriffiths2533

Ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 SH887, Obviously Use Any Criteria You Wish.

@chrisgriffiths2533

Ай бұрын

@@Hank254 H254, The Name God is a Human Conclusion from Long Long ago. It's the Name We gave to the Creator of All. Plus God is Not a "Who" and Only God Knows the Full "Why". God is Not Science, God is Belief. Plus Henk, Don't Avoid Thinking.

@simonhibbs887

Ай бұрын

@@chrisgriffiths2533 I’ll go for evidence.

The first two most fundamental steps towards deriving the mechanism how fine-tuning occurs is to : 1) recognize that this earth is the only vessel in the entire known universe that composes bodies in its bowels to then deliver and sustain them on its own surface through plants it develops for that purpose (to deliver the parts as food and air). This is an ongoing process that happens billions of times every single day AND NOT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED JUST ONCE LONG AGO IN THE PAST as present science suggests. This inevitably implies that two purpose free assumptions in current science MUST be discarded as totally irrelevant for sustenance of life on this earth: A) The Copernican assumption that the earth goes around the sun, "proved" by observations of motions in the sky without providing any handle as to how to control them for the satisfaction of the needs of beings. B) The fatalistic Laws of thermodynamics, the first of which is already being violated by QM with assumptios as to existence of VIRTUAL PARTICLES of the FIELDS, although only as exceptions for the convenience of some theories. When the questions (A and B) themselves are irrelevant for sustenance of life function, no point wasting time, efforts and funds arguing about the accuracy of the answers. 2) Assumptions as to existence of particles must be linked to the life process as serving the single purpose of the perceptions in bodies of beings of SATISFACTION(S) OF THE NEEDS (N) as functions of 6 SENSE PERCEPTIONS (s, including breathing as COMMON sense that link animals and humans to plants) with the common formula for preparing the means in plants: N = f(s) = S (si, so, sm, ta, to, te) Where, si (sight) so (sound) sm (smell) ta (taste) to (touch) te (temper = bresthing) If we assume 3 common need perceptions of all beings (hunger, fear, pain) and 3 corresponding means for their satisfaction (food, clothes, shelter), then there could exist only 12 types of particles, instead of the 17 (or 25, according to some) of the standard model (of which only one, photon, has any direct relevance whatsoever to perceptions of beings). Accuracy of the assumptions involved can be verified by deriving the mathematical model of the mechanism how particle interactions inside the earth develop plants on its own surface, and how well the so derived model serves to PRACTICALLY SATISFY THE NEEDS OF BEINGS. Thus obviating the necessity for any special experiments and/or observations as proof. This obviously implies also interpreting the DIGITS as corresponding to unique set of particles among so assumed, with the 4 basic rules of arithmetic operations (+ - × ÷) as the ONLY LAWS OF MOTION for all interactions among them, in our minds as corresponding to what happens inside the earth while composing our bodies. This functional linking of the 3 entities (PLANTS, ANIMALS and HUMANS) is the exclusive task for physics (with mathematics as one of its branches) and NOT for biology which starts with CELLS. Dissecting and analyzing the already delivered entities (PLANTS, ANIMALS and HUMANS) won't bring us anywhere closer to deriving this model. On the contrary, it only distracts our attention further and further away from the real task.

...If I may, I would like to offer my point of view. Considering the number of cosmological heavenly bodies, suppose Earth, and all life forms reside in GOD'S Garden. The whole earth is HIS Garden. Man has learned so much in a very short time. Each and everyone has special gifts and talents. I suggest we keep open minds. There really is nothing new, just the reorganization of Old Facts. If I am wrong about GOD, live a life helping as many as I am able, and die feeling complete with joy. However, suppose that scoff at my thoughts and they are wrong, the consequences of hell, what a loss for them. Pre Big Bang Time/Space was Eternal. No Past, Present, or Future. Only man tracks Time/Space. I will State that the Big Bang was not an explosion. I will close here, there is much more I would like to share/explain. When I think back, I seem to just come back to a Loving, Creative GOD. Man is privileged to reside in GOD'S S Garden, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...

@simonhibbs887

Ай бұрын

Suppose a religious believer and an atheist live long and fulfilling lives, love their families, bring up moral hard working children, and contribute positively to society. One prayed regularly, the other did not. If the atheist is wrong and in death it turns out there is a god, what aspects of their lives do you think a moral loving god would value most, and which the least? The love of family, dutiful parenting, contributions to society, or prayer?

@obiwanduglobi6359

Ай бұрын

Just out of interest: what God do you mean? JHWH, Allah, Jesus, Thor or even Manitou? There are thousands of them out there...

His arguments are pointless because we have a data point of one……things have evolved within the specific constraints imposed upon them by the physical constants……there is no reason to assume that if you changed the constants complex but different structures would not have emerged…….its a meaningless conversation…….imagine if the only car he ever saw ran on gasoline and he said it’s a miracle because it can’t run on water and it can’t run on Pepsi …..it’s an imperfect metaphor but you hopefully get the point ……things evolve around constraints……if you change the constraints the devices don’t work….why is that a surprise to anyone?

@khalidtamr8856

Ай бұрын

That just pushes it one step back. Why are the constraints the way that they are, and lead to such things?

@johnmeeks2799

9 күн бұрын

"There is not a shred of evidence that the universe is logically necessary. Indeed, as a theoretical physicist I find it rather easy to imagine alternative universes that are logically consistent and therefore equal contenders of reality" -Paul Davies (Agnostic Physicist) Could the constants of nature have different values than they do? There's absolutely no reason to say they couldn't. If the universe is a random accident, then constants could in fact be different. The four forces could all be stronger or weaker. There's nothing that prevented them from being different. To say that the constants couldn't be different is unjustified and makes absolutely no sense to say they need to be that way so they just are. Nope! They could be any value in an unguided naturalistic view.

Yes, obviously physics had biology written into it.

@simonhibbs887

Ай бұрын

Did it have infant bone cancer written into it as well, and if so by who?

In short, metaphysics discusses by guidance of reason physics, how the hyparxis are unified and extend into mulitplicity. Why this matters right here and now, is because oft is mentioned "we know of the laws, but not sure where they come from". Welcome to metaphysics, in which, such tools and instruments used in teleology are redundant here, and only by Intellect and reason is such inquired. ....what i always notice is, these men of academia's today, they don't know dialectic: how to think, reason, inquire, discuss, apophasis, retroduction.... compared to the ancient greeks. Therefore i understand that these persons today ignore the majestic dialectic of the ancients. should not.... disdainful be a charge? The books i study are like K2, wherefore some of these men is like a ant hill is comparision. Perhaps because they all read each others books, and speak good of them, rendering them as worthy to the students of the circle, is why they're entrapped and ineligibe to apprehend the 'good stuff'. The books written by persons today are not going to reinvent the wheel. They can discover stuff regarding teleology but when it comes to principles, they don't change, only the theory concerning them. You want to discuss 'fine tuning' all the while you occlude Greek Metaphysics. It doesn't add up. Something is wrong.j

Fine tuning implies a god. In physics, there is not god.

I am not religious and I understand God exists and the eternal intelligent creator of the universe is everything that exist past present and future. God always existed and created self. My concept of God coincides fundamentally with Spinoza's God. Why if I didn't read Spinoza I came up thinking rationally with the same concept of God? Because Spinoza and I are right, and humanity still haven't changed their mind. If God exists it is not going to stop existing because reality is ignored. Spinoza thought the mind is eternal and I agree, I think when the brain dies causes the mind to transform to know all and give it perfect sense to our existence. Spinoza is not easy to read, Spinoza is a challenge. If you understand reality is eternal because from nothing can not be created something you are ready to read Spinoza. Spinoza has been treated like a fool who only gave the universe a different name. Spinoza was a wise person who warned us against the dangers of atheism and religion. When we hurt reality we hurt God, God's Life, God's chances of survival, the most sacred, you, I, the miracle of infinite possibilities of God's Life and Death. I am a poet and artist, a psychologist searching for beauty and peace. Was Spinoza and me right and God is everything? I am trying to understand how Spinoza's life was. What do you know about Spinoza, the most influential person of all time? Spinoza's work should be compulsory reading for all. He was the first person to discover God using reason. Spinoza understood God is reality or nature, substance, something as real as I exist. I want to give you hope because death is not the end and you have so much to live for. To end the war the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. I keep repeating myself. The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Is Spinoza still censored? Did you know Spinoza existed before I told you? When Spinoza was born, how old was Spinoza when he died? Did Spinoza know he was literally God? Spinoza is the greatest of all time because he managed to get his thoughts published. Thank you.

@simonhibbs887

Ай бұрын

Suppose all the atheists decided to agree with you today. How would that end the current conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, Ethiopia, Sudan, and elsewhere that are predominantly being fought by religious believers?

¿Me oyes? ¿Entiendes lo que digo? La vida nos da también buenas sorpresas. Soy un poeta y artista buscando la belleza. He redescubierto que Dios es literalmente todo lo que existe pasado presente y futuro. Si existe es Dios y si no existe no es Dios. Es el más grande conocimiento de todos los tiempos y está censurado. Si no conoces la obra del filósofo racional del siglo diecisiete Spinoza es porque está censurado. Spinoza y yo somos buenas personas que entienden que hacer daño a la realidad es hacerse daño a uno mismo. He descubierto que la verdad es el ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es la idea religiosa del creador de la creación y concluye erróneamente que el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. ¿Tengo razón? ¿Tenemos Spinoza y yo razón? El verdadero Dios es el creador inteligente del universo diseñó y creó su propia Vida y Muerte eterna de sí mismo porque quiso dar un sentido a su existencia. Dios es literalmente un juego a vida o muerte eterna. La idea de Dios nos hace humildes porque solo somos una parte infinitesimal de toda la realidad eterna desde que se creó el universo y nació Dios. Se tiene que entender que es solo una idea que no puede hacer daño a nadie y está censurada. Pienso que la muerte del cerebro causa la transformación de la mente para saberlo todo perfectamente. La vida es nuestro cielo e infierno eterno. ¡Aguanta campeón!, porque morir ateo es triste y además no tiene sentido. Me gustaría que pensases en lo que te he dicho. Paso a paso, cada vez un poco. Tenemos que sobrevivir y somos supervivientes. Sé que me estoy repitiendo, pero es extremadante importante, necesito que el descubrimiento de que el ateísmo es una falacia lógica sea noticia. Estoy exhausto mentalmente y físicamente y todavía estoy iendo a trabajar. Tu vida es la urgencia para mí, en lo que más pienso. Gracias.

"Physics of Fine Tuning" Fine Tuning is SPIRITUAL PROCESS not physical, so, the question does not make any sense...

Rambling. Guys shows nothing are NOT consistency with fundamental Law of phich. They are talking about nothing . Absolutetly.

@nickboi9740

Ай бұрын

what

Why doesn’t this have a live performance ? omg 😭