What are your thoughts on the Anthropic Principle? Do you think it has use in science? Tell us why in the comments. If you enjoyed this episode, give our excellent contributors a thumbs up! If you'd like to further explore the cosmos, consciousness, and meaning, please consider becoming a subscriber. For more episodes from Season 19, see our Season 19 playlist: bit.ly/38ZCxq9

@tomashull9805

4 жыл бұрын

The Anthropic Principle definitely conveys deep insights, but most scientists just do not want to go there...Steven Weinberg, the Nobel Prize laureate, is just a perfect example of their ignorance: "…Instrumentalist point of view namely: how can the laws of nature refer to people making measurements? Or, you know, even them if no physicists ever appeared? One can imagine all kinds of utopias…” kzread.info/dash/bejne/n3aiy9CapNrXZs4.html They simply do not want to follow the evidence wherever it may lead...

@tomashull9805

4 жыл бұрын

@@rubiks6 This is what materialistic philosophy does to educated people who lack wisdom. They become fools coz of their pride...

@tomashull9805

4 жыл бұрын

If you're looking for fresh ideas, possibly controversial, here is a hint from Anton Zelinger : "...Space-time itself cannot be above or beyond such considerations. I suggest we need a new deep analysis of space-time, a conceptual analysis maybe analogous to the one done by the Viennese physicist-philosopher Ernst Mach who kicked Newton’s absolute space and absolute time form their throne. The hope is that in the end we will have new physics analogous to Einstein’s new physics in the two theories of relativity." www.edge.org/response-detail/26790 Or his, and others hints of the return to old good ether to unify Gravity and Quantum Mechanics: www.newscientist.com/article/mg24432543-300-einstein-killed-the-aether-now-the-idea-is-back-to-save-relativity/

@tomashull9805

4 жыл бұрын

@@rubiks6 Seeking the truth means questioning your own beliefs, no? Were the creative days 24h long? How did the light get to the earth from the distant galaxies and stars, if the creative days were 24h long?

@2010sunshine

3 жыл бұрын

First, Congratulations and thanks to Robert Lawrence Kuhn, for yet another excellent episode of Closer to Truth.. I agree with Arvi Loeb at 13:00

19:43 Bang on. To have to invent an infinite number of universes to explain our one universe is exactly why I reject Many Worlds. It's a lazy theory.

@alexojideagu

3 жыл бұрын

If the universe came into existence there is no reason to imagine it won't happen again. There is not a single unique phenomenon in our universe. The idea that a universe can only happen once is highly unlikely

@youtubetrailerpark

3 жыл бұрын

@@alexojideagu I understand your point but if that's the case then in the 13+ billion years since our universe was created, that's plenty of time for many other universes to be created and bump into ours many times over. If there are infinite universes, then eventually some or a lot, should have crashed into ours, possibly destroying our own or at least revealing themselves in that way.

@alexojideagu

3 жыл бұрын

​@@youtubetrailerpark For all we know that does happen. There are spots in the microwave background map that could indicate contact with another universe. Or maybe they repel each other. There's also different types of infinite. Either our infinite universe with different laws of physics in further out regions, or parallel layer cake universes right here with us. Either way I can't see our big bang being unique.

@alexojideagu

3 жыл бұрын

​@@youtubetrailerpark Another point, we cannot exist outside our universe. We are made of the energy fields in this universe. So maybe they can never interact with a different universe with different fields. We are like software running on a PC. We can't even exist in an Apple Mac universe. They will just pass through each other. Maybe some things will always be unknowable, even if they are true. We could argue that's the equivalent of them not existing, from our point of view. So in THAT sense you could be right.

@youtubetrailerpark

3 жыл бұрын

@@alexojideagu A fun philosophical argument for sure, and we can point counter-point endlessly with speculation. I understand infinities are widely used as terms in theories but are generally frowned upon and only really being used to fill gaps until new discoveries can appropriately plug those holes.

Like so-called Dark Energy and Dark Matter, the 'Multiverse' always seems like a lazy theory, that basically 'sez, "we really don't know, so instead we'll claim _anything's_ possible, and just give it a fancy 'name'!"

@mingonmongo1

3 жыл бұрын

@-GinPi Gamma LOL... this from the _rocket scientist_ who 'sez, "Humans are inherently Evil. Here comes the Asteroid. Hallelujah!" ;-p

@ruatsangawhite7261

2 жыл бұрын

multiverse theory is a byproduct of quantum superposition, no-one said it's the truth but it sure is a possibility

I think the "is what it is" is the correct explanation and that's anxiety causing to most people so they look for other answers. Humans require things to make sense to them to not be anxiety causing and hence the creation of God(s) and so forth. That's not to reject the possibilities of a higher consciousness per se, but there's no evidence one exists based on the universe we exist in either.

@wesley6442

Жыл бұрын

I am inclined to agree, we have to remember that life on our planet went through several extinctions, it's blatantly obvious the universe is completely hostile towards life. but, if you give it enough time it can eventually happen, it's a strange universe but strange is a term we humans made up to convey what appears to be out of the ordinary of our day to day experiences.. saying we exist in the right time and place a sort of "sweet spot" for life to exist and therefore invoke anthropic principle seems to me like special pleading.. earth has harbored life many times over millions of years, but it was also a hot molten rock for a long time too.. if humanity and life as we know it becomes extinct given enough time, new life forms will arise asking the same things.. maybe even there is or were alien species with intelligence enough to think the exact same things. I totally agree with your mention of belief in a god, we as humans require a deeper meaning to our lives, so we invoke the idea of a god or spirituality, to mitigate existential dread and anxiety surrounding our finite time and place in existence.. But, I want to get at the core of the truth and abandon all delusion, to seek the absolute truth and I am more than willing to carry that burden of proof, even if it terrifies me from time to time..

More universes than you can shake a stick at what an idea

How does one learn about a conference focused exclusively on the fine tuned universe? I must attend!

Excellent interviews. Top shelf CTT.

To me, the Anthropic Principle(weak & strong) seems like just another bias that many support without having ample knowledge of the system as a whole.

The intros to these videos are pleasant to the point of humor

They could save a lot of time if they realized the answers there looking for are always in the comments .

Try as I might to attempt to understand the subtleties of the Anthropic Principle, I can't escape this reaction to anything anyone says when explaining the Anthropic Principle: "Well, duh!"

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

Hey Simon, there are a couple of case where I find it useful. If someone insists that the sheer number of planets in the universe guarantees that there are uncountable civilizations "out there", I point out that the current data also supports the idea of only one planet with life since it would have to be this one, no matter how unlikely. The second one is kind of similar; the idea that we must live on an average planet, in an average galaxy, at an average time in the universe, blah, blah blah. Just because I won the Powerball the first time I played doesn't mean that anyone can win if they just buy a ticket. You can't say someone is average after the black swan plucked them out of obscurity, same with planets. I'm sure there are other very specific arguments that can be dismissed with the Anthropic Principle, even though this doesn't actually say anything about reality.

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

Would it help you if the so-called "anthropic principle could be reduced to X exists because Y exists? No doubt you would ask whoever suggested that to you to define both X and Y. You might also ask your interlocutor If He is saying that there can be no X without Y?- Or if X then Y? You might also ask him he is suggesting that either X or Y are causes or effects of one another, or if he is suggesting that both X and Y can simultaneously be both causes and effects, but I have a shrewd suspicion that proponents of the so-called anthropic principle have not got the faintest idea what they are trying to convey by it or what it means. However it may be that whoever is trying to convey that he supposes that X exists because Y exists, in which case you will find yourself no further forward so long as he does not define either X or Y, because he will be embarking upon psychological algebra or x=y=x where neither X nor Y are defined or ascribed any value, but he may refer you to the fantasy dreamed up by a chap called Schrödinger and his imaginary cat, because those that go in for what is called "quantum mechanics, somehow or other got it into woolly little heads that the observer and the observed are indistinguishable, which is plainly gibberish, and largely imagination. You may also discover that proponents of the so-called anthropic principle make reference to something that they call "the universe", but sad to say if you ask them to define or set out exactly what they mean by, "the universe, they will be wholly unable to assist you without reference to psychological algebra or substituting for one undefined another undefined or undefineds, or without resort to cognates and synonyms all of which they are incapable of defining. Moreover they will probably tell you that it is impossible to define "the universe without reference to psychological algebra or cognates or synonyms or without substituting one unknown or undefined with another unknown or undefined . It will be as if they showed you a blurred or unfocused photograph of something in order to demonstrate what it is, and when you point out that it is impossible to discover what it is because the photograph is out of focus - merely a blur, whereupon they will produce to you yet another unfocused or blurred photograph, because that is precisely what "universe" is in the minds of those that use the term - it is no more than a vague or unfocused generalisation or unfocused idea, and plainly you cannot focus or clarify a photograph that is merely a blur or out of focus. The proponents of the anthropic principle appear to be indistinguishable from those that point is an object and say that they can point at it, because and only because they are pointing at it, which is entirely circular. It is not dissimilar to those that imagine that what they see in a cloud chamber are what-they-call "subatomic particles", and if you ask them what exactly is a subatomic particle, they will tell you that it is whatever can be apprehended or noticed in a cloud chamber, or they will say nothing different from x=y=x, and you will be back to square one, and if you ask them to show you either an X or a Y, they will tell you that everything that you can possibly experience is composed of X's and Y's and if you ask them exactly how they are able to identify or recognise an X or a Y, they will refer you to the anthropic principle or simply substitute one bit of gibberish for another bit of gibberish gibberish, Or tell you something not entirely dissimilar to X's and Y 's exist or are capable of being experienced because they suppose them to exist or be capable of being experienced, in which case you may well ask them if you can become a millionaire because you suppose that you are a millionaire? You might as well abandon all hope of discovering what whoever uses the term "universe actually means by "the universe, because it is invariably the case that those who speak about "the universe" have absolutely no idea either what the words of the universe mean to them or what they seek to convey when they use the words "the universe, and that is because it is impossible to focus an unfocused idea(for example the universe) exactly as it is impossible to focus an unfocused photograph;You might get some vague idea of of what it is a photograph, but it will be no more than a vague idea or just another unfocused photograph. "The universe" is not by any means the only vague generalisation incapable of being clarified or focused, but is merely one of a number of vague generalisations or unfocused photographs, including words such as rights, or law, and I guarantee you that if you ask anyone to set out clearly what they mean by either a right or law - or the universe for that matter, they will be unable to tell you, for the simple reason that they can no more make sense of or clarify a vague generalisation or picture of something that is vague or unfocused, than they can focus an unfocused photograph, or any more than they can turn a vague generalisation into something that is not no more than a vague generalisation,, Because terms such as the universe or rights or law, are no more than vague and focused generalisations that simply cannot be focused or clarified. It would be exactly as if you were asked to go out and recognise or find X, and when you enquire how you might be able to recognise or find X, only to be shown a blurry unfocused photograph of X, and when you say that you can make no sense of the blurred unfocused photograph of X, they will simply give you another blurred or unfocused photograph of X, or they will tell you that anyone and everyone you meet is X, in which case you will say that if everyone and anyone you meet is X, then it follows as the night the day that you will be unable to identify X or tell X apart from anything that looks like X, whereupon which you will be probably told something not dissimilar to Feynman's idea that there is only one electron, or that everything is X, to which you will see that if everything is X, you will be unable to distinguish one X from another, whereupon you will be told that since everything is X it really doesn't matter whether it is one X or another X, Which is rather like being told that everything tastes more or less like chicken.. The really is no point in asking anyone to define "the universe", because you will only be met with more psychological algebra, or substituting for one unknown or undefined another undefined another unknown and undefined. It is utterly impossible to turn a vague generalisation into something that is not a vague generalisation because it was never anything but a vague generalisation in the first place

funny that people speak much about life and consciousness without having good understanding of these subjects/phenomena and making no attempts to go deeper into these subjects as very important phenomena in the very basics of the observable universe.

To me, there is no rolling ocean around Crete ,only Mediterranean Sea. On a more serious note, great episode!

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

Where does an ocean stop and a sea begin and vice versa? If you swim from East to West in the Mediterranean, at what point does the Mediterranean ceased to be the Mediterranean and becoming Atlantic in terms of what you can experience? - Is there perhaps a sign that you will encounter while swimming that reads: "beyond this point you leave the Mediterranean and enter the Atlantic?

@garbura76

2 жыл бұрын

@@vhawk1951kl Yes there is ,It's called Gibraltar.

Anthropic principle: I don't need to explain anything cuz I'm alive - The only survivor of a zombie plague that destroyed civilisation

My school had an anthropic principal who had a remarkably magnanimous and pragmatic attitude to the poor performance of the students...

@junkjunk2493

2 жыл бұрын

ok funny guy , show yourself out ....

@sundiverjl

2 жыл бұрын

🤣

Life cannot be understood intellectually, But Experientially Zen

Excellent, thank you

15:00 ish he like looking at the universe and the way it shimmers. That is the best

thank you for this ... one of the better one's ..

Luke Barnes seemed to have the last word on this. The principle bears on what kind of universe can be known, or as I have put it "The only world that can be known is one that brings forth living, knowing, beings". We do not, however, know what kinds of living, knowing beings are possible. There might be evolutionary paths to very different such beings in worlds with constants tuned differently than ours. Taken this way, the principle does not get you all that far...

@cripplingautism5785

4 жыл бұрын

the vast majority of possible universes don't even lead to complex structures let alone life. there's no chance of any sort of life without complexity

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

That you can help me with this: is it possible to you to define "the universe" without resort to psychological algebra or X = Y = X, or substituting for one undefined another undefined? What exactly do you mean by "the universe"? Would you agree with me that X is imaginary if it cannot be directly immediately personally experience as direct me immediately and personally as pain?

A better case can be made for a strong Anthropic principle of earth than for universe.

"Sentientropic Principle" would have been a better name for it. "Anthropic Principle" is a misnomer IMO.

@SandipChitale

4 жыл бұрын

@@rubiks6 The core idea behind the principle would hold even if there were non-human sentient beings that existed elsewhere in the universe.

@SandipChitale

4 жыл бұрын

@@rubiks6 The chemistry of carbon is same all over the universe. The universe is unimaginably big. So there is no reason to definitely say there are no sentient beings elsewhere. The reason I want to remove the mention of humans specifically because then the religious types co-opt and ride on a scientific principles coat tails to justify - god made the humongous universe for humans on a small planet revolving around the sun in the nondescript location of a average galaxy. Talk about arrogant self importance. Also the scientists that proposed the principle did not mean humans.

@SandipChitale

4 жыл бұрын

@@rubiks6 thanks.

@SandipChitale

4 жыл бұрын

@@rubiks6 kzread.info/dash/bejne/pIuKpaVvfsLHn7w.html

@SandipChitale

4 жыл бұрын

@@rubiks6 what convinces you that abiogenesis does not happen?

Whatever gets me plugged into a simulation where anything is possible, let's put research into that.

There are 2 possibilities it seems: either our existence is due to random chance, which because the universe is so fine tuned means there would have to be an enormous number of universes, each with a different format. Or the fine tuning which leads to the existence of life is not completely random. Scientists reject the latter because it is used by creationists to justify their beliefs. But given how unlikely the multiverse possibility seems, wouldn't scientists be better off exploring other explanations? For example, variations in the double-slit photon experiment show causality can actually go backward in time, at least at the level of quantum particles anyway. Meanwhile, the measurement problem remains unsolved. Is there a role in reality played by the conscious observer? This opens the door to the possibility that at some level causality could work backward in time from conscious observers to the Big Bang. Which would suggest WE caused the Big Bang, and WE are somehow finetuning the universe. Physicists reject this as a kind of "woo", but it seems no less so than the multiverse explanation. Both explanations would be hard to find experimental evidence to support, but is one more difficult than the other? We are trapped in a way of thinking about "creation" that goes all the way back to ancient times, and physicists are just as trapped in that paradigm. A "designed" universe, one created by a Creator that existed before the "beginning", is not the only kind of non-random universe that might exist. Look at a major city, such as Boston. As it exists now, with all its complicated systems, was never created by some being, but nor is it a random place. Yes, its organic growth took place in TIME. But the growth of a designed universe might not be restricted by time with a one-directional arrow. If that seems too wild for physicists to grapple with, why are the willing to grappled with a multiverse with a nearly infinite variety of configurations? Gravity is a far weaker force than electromagnetic. Might there be another force even weaker than gravity, something stemming from collective consciousness, that reaches back through time and adjusts reality? Such a force would be so weak it would be impossible to detect in a lab, but a weak force that can travel back through time would have an enormously powerful impact on the development of our universe. A kind of reverse butterfly effect. Thanks for the shows, love your quest and happy to share the ride!

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

The fundamental problem with the term universeS", is that is an oxymoron or definitional impossibility, just as more than one unique object is a definitional impossibility, because both universe and unique are absolute terms, or if they are not you need to redefine both universe and unique, and the difficulty with that is that you will struggle to find a single human being that can clearly set out what he means by "the universe" without reference to cognates and synonyms or psychological algebra of the sort x=y=x, or merely substituting for one unknown another undefined another unknown and undefined. "Owing to the loss of the capacity to ponder and reflect, whenever the contemporary average man hears or employs in conversation any word with which he is familiar only by its consonance, he does not pause to think, nor does there even arise in him any question as to what exactly is meant by this word, he having already decided, once and for all, both that he knows it and that others know it too. A question, perhaps, does sometimes arise in him when he hears an entirely unfamiliar word the first time; but in this case he is content merely to substitute for the unfamiliar word another suitable word of familiar consonance." There are of course screamingly obvious and fundamental difficulties with employing any universal for screamingly obvious reasons. Broadly speaking all and any universal can only be imaginary in the sense that something is imaginary if it is incapable of or not amenable to, direct immediate personal experience as direct immediate and personal as pain. In short all and any universal is no more than a vague generalisation and little more than an unfocused or blurred photograph, and it is of course impossible to focus an unfocused or blurred photograph such that one is capable of discerning it to be a photograph of something in particular. Men (human beings) come up with vague generalisations such as "the universe", or the law, or rights that are incapable of being turned into something that is not no more than a vague generalisation, because it was never more than a vague generalisations first place. It is arguably impossible for any universal to be directly immediately personally experienced (as directly immediately personally as pain) qua, or as, that universal, in fact some might say that is axiomatic. By the same token "the universe" can only be a word to denote a compound of piecemeal seriatim experiences glued together with what can only be called imagination, there being no corresponding experience that can be directly immediately personally experience (as directly immediately personally as pain).In short it is impossible to experience "the universe" save as an imaginary compound of a number of piecemeal and seriatim experiences- It can only be a vague idea or generalisation with no corresponding experience. See also David Hume's missing shade of blue. Moreover there is no essential difference between "the universe" and David Hume's unicorn - you can imagine it but you can't experience it any more than you can experience the missing shade of blue, The one being an experiential possibility and the other being a conceptual impossibility such as you can't even imagine jumping over your own knees or standing on your own shoulders or a square circle or a four sided triangle. It strikes me that there is very little difference between the anthropic principle and Schrodinger's cat and/or Feynman's universal electron; all jolly interesting ideas but wholly incapable of direct immediate personal experience as direct immediate and personal as pain, but that goes for atoms and electrons and other subatomic particles as well.

Thx again for your work.

@rl7012

Жыл бұрын

He swans around the world to exotic and interesting places talking to his mates. Not exactly a hard job.

The interview at 21:26 is really interesting.

Apart from the interesting content, shout out to the camera people on the interview really well done.

For quantum field anthropic principle, there might be a subjective observer, maybe consciousness, measuring the physical constants of nature?

There's a lot of support for the idea that Jack should make the team - especially from Jack. Which is why the coach gets to decide.

thank you, I totally agree with understanding the validity of both sides :]

what are the "fine tuned physical constants" that the anthropic principle tends to speak of? besides lambda for example

They seemed like they lost the forest for the trees.

I think that a persons opinion of the Anthropic Principle might hinge on whether or not you believe the universe can exist without an observer to observe it. A lot of people and scientists will say “of course things can exist if not observed” but then again, does it? The entire concept of existence is an observer concept. I feel like we lack the full capability or vocabulary to express something that does not involve the observer as subject. I don’t know. Hurts my brain

@schmetterling4477

2 жыл бұрын

An "observer" in science is an irreversible thermodynamic process. A lump of coal will therefor generate just as much reality as your eyeballs will. If you don't understand this, then you need to study physics for a little bit longer. Let's say... ten years and we meet, again?

@ 15:20 Avi says looking at a great painting is enough, and we shouldn’t care about if there was a painter …. Not sure I agree.

The multiverse coming from inflation (quantum inflaton field), might be better to say fine tuning of the constants of nature from quantum field? The multiverse more like an environment in which fine tuning happens? The quantum inflaton field brings about fine tuned constants of nature on the small scale in multiverse on the large scale?

being based on laws of nature for universe, would the anthropic principle argue that intelligent observers like human beings be prevalent as the main purpose of the universe, wherever possible in the case of weak anthropic principle, in every part of the universe in the case of the strong anthropic principle?

Is possibility of a larger subjective observer for universe a more relevant question for the anthropic principle?

How could the fine tuned constants of nature be derived from quantum mechanics (inflation field)?

@schmetterling4477

2 жыл бұрын

Which constants are fine tuned, in your opinion?

That which exists must be able to exist. If a constant appears fine-tuned, then fine-tuning processes must exist. A fine-tuning process can be formed by a negative feedback loop such as designed in heating/cooling thermostats.

@bokchoiman

4 жыл бұрын

If fine tuning, then why fine tuning? Do humans fine tune systems with no motives? If there are constants, for what purpose are they constant?

@johnhodge6610

4 жыл бұрын

@@bokchoiman I suggest the universe is a feedback system. For example, the CMB temperature is within a few microkelvin of the Euler constant which is part of a feedback system. So, all the subsystems in the universe are also feedback systems. Humans use fine tuning (feedback systems) in many equipment control system designs. Indeed, it is difficult to find a human designed system that does not have some form of control system. I suggest this is also true in the universe, all we have to do is identify the components and processes.

@bokchoiman

4 жыл бұрын

@@johnhodge6610 I suppose thing could he done without intention, such as various geometric shapes we find in nature, but is it really without intention, or are the laws tuned from an external source to produce such patterns?

@johnhodge6610

4 жыл бұрын

@@bokchoiman Are you approaching "creationism"? What humans can predict (science) is a small subset of what exists. The next step is to go only one step in things we can predict. The metaphysics (creationism, God, MUH, many worlds, etc.) are not helpful.

@bokchoiman

4 жыл бұрын

@@johnhodge6610 I would say its helpful in that there becomes another goal that strives to answer the question of "why" that so some scientists persistently obsess over. God is definitely a motivator for some.

Wait wait wait hold up @11:00. So if earlier things explain later things, but future things are unlnown and therefore indeterminate, it would seem to indicate that the origin of the arrow of time is simply that everything in the universe came into being at once. Because if some things came into being later than other things , it would be impossible or paradoxical to travel the universe even in principle because we know from reality that later things can never backwardsly affect earlier things.

Irt seems to me that it is a mute point whether there are multiple universes. Whether the anthropic principle is true or not the fact is that even if ther are multiple univesrses we cannot see them, we will never be able to see then or they will never manifest their presence in any sort of experiment simply because we cannot exist outside our own universe. So, enunciating such hypotheses is really metaphysics.

I love this series, but it seems that so many of your "mysteries" about the universe are only mysterious if you think humans are special, that we have a "purpose" beyond simply existence, that we have free will. I keep going back to the word hubris. If you let go of the idea that we must be special agents of unique causality, if you embrace the idea that we are insignificant specks floating along observing, then a lot of these things get a lot simpler.

@Existentialist946

3 жыл бұрын

Non free-will is unintelligible. Human beings won't be special. Not more than other conscious entities. However, what reason do we have to suppose we're insignificant specks? Seems to me that this is the materialist position, but materialism is incoherent.

@aslanbayramuqlany6189

3 жыл бұрын

Of course they get a lot simpler. Just ignoring patterns is the simplest way, but that is the direct opposite of the purpose of science.

@jrb1987

7 ай бұрын

Embracing your idea WILL NOT make things simpler.

@sambolino44

7 ай бұрын

@@jrb1987 Fair enough: what I think has no effect on how things are. Maybe what I should have said is that it would remove a lot of the mystery.

@F-mc6tw

4 ай бұрын

Human beings are ordinary. Consciousness is not. This body is not us.

how can a value of energy be selected? from 10 power112 values of energy in quantum probabilities of multiverse? what would be other ways for weak and strong anthropic principles?

Also what about Ockhams Razor ?

What is fine tuning of natural forces, maybe this is the only way universe can exist. Like there's only one constant, manifested trough all other constant values of nature. They could all be a part of same thing, this is the best argument for antropic principle for me. Universe is not things inside other things, as ancient Greeks believed. This unity of constants is best presented on Earth, if matter find itself in certain equilibrium, it will produce ways to resist entropy and invent many alternatives how energy can be routed and bend around the corners, so system can maintain stability and remain open for all kinds of possibilities. There's no need for other universes, existing one can produce all kinds of alternatives, even change natural constants, if contained in a limited space and allowed time frame. This universe is what we think of God, omni everything we can imagine and eternal. Let's say there is no life in universe and we could somehow ask same question, even if life doesn't exist, it could exist, all conditions are present. Same goes for universe with life, universe is stable and potent with life, so god like beings could exist also. They don't exist, but we could create some if we want and learn how to do it. Universe is stable until is not, galaxies can get torn apart of fade away, but natural system will always recover somehow and redistribute matter in most efficient way. We should ask questions like could creatures large as planets exist or what happens when galaxy became infested with intelligent life, capable to travel everywhere in an instant or even go back in time. Obviously there are limits what can became, living beings can grow only to a certain size, or they can't be made from fragile biological material. We could also ask how smart can a smallest brain became, but here's a problem, size doesn't matter when it comes to intelligence, it became important if conscious being wants to build worlds. In example, even ants could evolve intelligence, but they would need some incredible social and technological progress to build rockets and reach space. Giants could build structures more easy, but they would be to heavy and to slow for lift off. Fine tuning produced appropriate dimensions also, we are kinda just the right size, in respect to size of our planet and structure of biological mass.

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

Given that "the universe" (which is no more than a compound of piecemeal seriatim experiences glued together with imagination) can only be imaginary, it is axiomatic that the imaginary can only exist if there is an imaginer- one does the imagining. It is futile to canvass or discuss "the universe" without setting out clearly what you seek to convey when you use the words "the universe" or mean by, "the universe - and this latter is very important *without reference to cognates and synonyms or psychological algebra of the sort x=y=x, where both X and Y are undefined and all have no value attached to them* It would be far simpler simply to substitute for "the universe", stuff, and if you do substitute for the universe stuff you are no better or worse off than if you had simply stuck with "the universe", which like all universals can only possibly be imaginary in the sense that no universal can be directly immediately personally experienced (as directly immediately personally as pain) as or qua that universal - because it is plainly no more than a vague unfocused generalisation with no corresponding direct immediate personal experience as direct immediate and personal as pain, So stuff would serve as well.

@xspotbox4400

2 жыл бұрын

@@vhawk1951kl Would prefer thinking of the universe as something that exists physically independent from any conscious or other sorts of perceptions. But that's the point, individual conscious imagination is a reality, allowing creatures like us to observe and wonder about existence. Question is, why is the universe doing this, what does imagination mean from energy distribution perspective? So energy potentials want to discharge and balance out, and the way to do this is by making up imaginary realities, that doesn't make much sense. There must be limits to what is physically imaginable. Or not, because the universe is so fine tuned, but this physical tuning doesn't apply to imagination limits. We can imagine worlds without gravity, light, elements, dimensions,... whatever we want exactly because of what you were saying. It's not about the power or quantities, if idea, visions and internal experiences becomes too much, something happens with origins of our perception. The self gets simplified or something like that. We care for every small detail when our perception is focused on nearby objects, but when we experience wider and more complex reality, our perception of self becomes more vague, less emotional and personal, because mind can't handle such distances and so many possibilities emerging with larger scales of everything. A very small, but capable brain could describe here and now much better than we ever could. Thing is, a very small brain can't be made to care about those things, not enough cells to produce complex questions or even realize why they're so important.

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

When you speak of "the universe" what exactly does the term convey to you, and how would you go about conveying to others what it conveys to you? It is fairly pointless or futile to discuss or canvass "the universe" unless you define your terms or set out how you understand what you mean by "the universe" "Assuming that you purport to have some direct immediate personal experience (as direct immediate and personal as pain) of what you call "the universe, and how do you know that what you are experiencing is what you call "the universe" How many constants or natural forces or "values" of nature have you yourself personally directly and immediately measured that you may have any direct immediate experience of them? When you use the words "the universe" what exactly do they convey to you and what do you seek to convey to others when you use them?

The fact that there are observers is significant, in a way that, 'what if there was no Higgs-Boson?' is not.

To me, the anthropic principle if used blindly on our universe i comparison to inflation and the multiverses, is lazy. But like the last phgsicist said, it can be used to scale up our arguments when we KNOW another supporting cause. Eg-Why do we see quasars 14 billion light years away and not some other not so bright object? Part of the reason is that it is bright enough to be seen. But digging duther into it reveals the mechanics of making it bright, and how it was cosmological redshift and the accelarated expansion of the universe that shadowed the "not so bright object". We cant model the universe as vuewing it outside of it, like a control set up, one because we dont know how to get out, what IS out, does anyTHING even exist anymore for us to be embedded into it and "see" it, or there is some other form of "vision" which helps us in analysing "the" universe as a control set up. It does seem trivial though, that we can only see our universe as 1-a product of a lottery if we conider our life forms to be complex or 2-one out of infinite universes without anything special and us being the degenerate life forms we are, and there might exist other forms of "life". The anthropic prinicple should only aid us to discover or register some phenomena-there should be some interesting physics deep beneath it

Dr. Kuhn the man in black.

Anthropic principle points to larger subjectivity and - or observation in universe?

I’ve always been confused on what principle is what, there’s so many nuances, but I’ve never understood some people attributing “something else” to fine tuning. We’re here, so of course the universe is fine tuned for us. If it was tuned a bit differently, whatever that tuning was best for would be here. We’re just a result, not the intention. That’s why I feel “tuning” can be a misleading word. The universe didn’t come to be the way it is because it was intended to host intelligent life, it just so happened to be conducive to it. (In my opinion)

@rl7012

Жыл бұрын

First you say the universe is fine tuned for us and then you say it isn't. 'We’re just a result, not the intention. ' That is an assertion only. You have no way of knowing if there was an intention or if there wasn't. If the anthropic principle is false, then how do you explain natural selection and evolution or do you think first life accidentally invented that too?

@ihatespam2

10 ай бұрын

@@rl7012yet to assume otherwise would be ridiculous. “Tuned” begs the question. It sneaks in a tuner or intention. With no evidence. It is rational to see that, like evolution, that it is that way, because it works that way. Not necessarily the only way. But when we have another example we can discuss it further.

Life is just a by-product? What are the chances that proteins would form by chance? 1-10^130 by some others I’ve found 1-10^40 big big difference by multi magnitudes. And let us remember that life started 10-11 billion years after the universe was formed.

@bozo5632

3 жыл бұрын

There was a 100% chance that it would happen here. A coin that has already been flipped isn't 50/50.

Why would the creation of multiple universes just to explain things that we cannot now explain, be anything more than a sop to inadequate evidence and theories? I think we are now being overwhelmed with ridiculous notions and silly theories.

human like intelligent observation from value of energy in universe?

Could multiple universes / multiverse also come from a subjective observer? In which case, can multiverse measure physical constants of nature for a subjective observer?

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

Multiple universes is a definitional impossibility exactly as it is impossible (by definition) for there to be more than one unique object. If there is more than one "the universe", then *by definition* none of them are the universe, or you simply need to re-define whatever you understand by the term "the universe", and the truth of the matter is you have not the faintest idea what you mean by "the universe", or rather that is precisely what my left pocket is betting my right pocket, moreover it bets that you are about to demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever of what you mean by the universe, by signally failing to set out exactly what you mean by "the universe - without reference to cognates and synonyms or psychological algebra, or, x=y=x, where both X and Y are undefined or ascribed no particular value. I think you will discover that is check mate.

1.25 speed is purrfect for this video.

@ingenuity168

4 жыл бұрын

1.5 is good for me. 🤣

There are no accidents. Everything is interconnected. We are the universe as we know it. The universe is one organism which constantly involves to experience all of it including the underlying unifying stuff that ever this else is brought into existence is more mind like than matter like. The universe is energy and frequencies as Nicola Tesla once said….

Might the constants of nature come from subjective observation?

Each ’scientist’ has a different epistemology and orientation toward the Anthropic Principle. Is the Anthropic Principle about the nature of the Universe or about the nature of the human experience and being? Even ancient religions have claimed to have multiple tiers of worlds or universes similar to reality being in a multiverse. Pantheons had different ‘gods’ residing in different dimensions in a hierarchy above human dwelling places. Hebrews also had a tiered universe with Yahweh dwelling in a heaven above the stary heavens that was above and beyond our humanly observed cosmos in some other realm. The Hebrew temple was designed to set the stage showing the separation between mankind and the ultimate reality of G-d's divine attributes and dwelling place, behind a veil in a sacred space called the ‘Holiest of Holies”. Somewhat as if the master of creation ruled a multi-verse. All of this had a mythos message for us humans. The questions posed to scientists in this video have been being asked of the wise for thousands of years. So the Anthropic Principle might puzzle us, humans, because a higher reality exists behind the veil of the limits of our human conscience facilities-the limits of our consciousness and intellect. What are our limits as observers who dwell here in this tier of a multi-tiered universe? What would it look like from a higher tier?

@junkjunk2493

2 жыл бұрын

well steve , you been thinkin , dont hurt yourself

Perhaps someone can help me with this: Is it or is it not the case that the so-called "anthropic principle", if you boil it down to its bare bones states Something along the Lines of X exists (whatever you mean by exists or exists) because Y insists, or is it saying that there can be no doubt X without Y. Is that not meaningless unless you define or focus both X and Y? Next question is it possible to come up with a coherent definition without resort to psychological algebra, or saying X = Y = X where both X and Y are wholly undefined and have no value attached to them or simply defining one undefined in terms of other undefineds? - Substituting for one unknown other unknowns.

It's not helpful because it's narrow mindfulness, ultimately decreasing curiosity

Our consciousness made this universe

the weak anthropic principle might require a mathematical determination for the value of energy in universes? the strong anthropic principle might require that time determine the value of energy in universe?

Jean Paul Sartre postulated that there are an infinite number of possibilities for an event, carrying this to the big bang gives rise to the existence of the multiverse. The anthropic principle then follows.

@rl7012

Жыл бұрын

Sartre was full of it.

@charlesrothauser1328

Жыл бұрын

@@rl7012 Jean-Paul Sartre was awarded the 1964 Nobel prize in Literature. His book entitled Being and Nothingness is required reading in college philosophy courses on existentialism.

@rl7012

Жыл бұрын

@@charlesrothauser1328 So what? They gave a Nobel prize to Obama for doing absolutely nothing. Your defence is from authority and that book pushes the atheist banal narrative. Sartre says that nothingness is an experienced reality and cannot be a merely subjective mistake. That is bollox for a start. There is no such thing as nothingness. Nothingness does not exist. An existentialist believes that life is meaningless because they presume that there is no inherent reason for human existence. You may think that is laudable, but that would make you a lefty woke progressive then. But some of us use both sides of our brain.

In anthropic principles, the man is the First person in the narrative. The universe exists for this person as long as he is alive in the physical body. Everything, thAt is the universe, is lost with loss of this First person's life.

How many planets in the Universe, with life-forms, get pass the the Dinosaur Age, like we did?

one cannot ask oneself 'why am I not here?'

human observation is a natural development of life in the universe, galaxy, solar system and on planet earth?

I put together two word to bridge these ideas, Complex Wonderment. What do you think?

Soo theoretical physicists purpose the anthropic principle can be explained through an infinite set of universes with varying characteristics. Only a minute subset of those universes would have the necessary proponents for life, a subset of infinity is still infinity, thus we are not a special case. I feel as if this isn't a compelling enough argument Let us not even look at life, merely look at the probability for disentropy itself. If the fundamental forces of the universe were varied life couldn't form, sure. But the vast majority of UNIVERSES THEMSELVES would evaporate essentially instantaneously. Some would have clouds of gas and nothing else. The existence of universes containing stars and galaxies is practically as unlikely as universes with life. This brings me towards a teleological perspective due to the fact that I can imagine that life is a byproduct of our universe, but it certainly seems as though the universe is "supposed" to take on particular characteristics in general

14:27 15:39

Does this mean that the universe didnt, or, wouldn't exist unless there was an observer?

anthropic principle demonstrates that human observers develop naturally from laws of nature in universe?

So is this essentially ’Cogito ergo sum’?

Maybe universe has Copernican principle; then anthropic principle grows stronger from galaxy (weak anthropic) to star / sun (middle anthropic) to earth (strong anthropic)?

Does the universe respond to your sphere of influence or is it the opposite, you respond to the universes sphere of influence over you. Both have properties of truth. So I begin a contribution. Could the universe be observing the observer creating confusion? Done?

If can demonstrate that the whole universe is consistent with subjective observation, then would have weak anthropic principle?

While I agree with the non-purpose driven anthropic principle, how could you not- it's common-sense logic- I don't think it even answers the question that's really being asked. I don't want to know why I find myself in this universe- I want to know how this universe exists. Not "why" it exists- "why" presupposes purpose- and I don't think it makes sense in this context. "How" is the proper question- how does a universe this finely tuned come into existence with no purpose or cosmic designer behind it? None of the current theories really feel very satisfying to be honest. Nor do the myriad of religious or spiritual explanations. Imo there are two really big questions left- this one, and consciousness. And really you could boil both questions down to- why does anything exist at all. Shouldn't nothing existing be the default? If you can explain that- to a large degree the rest probably follows.

Subjective observation of a multiverse explains constants of nature for universe with weak anthropic principle?

Is the weak anthropic principle asking whether subjective observation is consistent with the whole universe? Is the strong anthropic principle asking whether subjective observation is required by the whole universe?

ALL of these arguments for and against rely on TIME. Einstein already refuted the idea of time being outside of space. What is the argument within Space/Time? Find someone to address that!

Galaxies, cosmological constant and other constants of nature explained by subjective observer for universe?

Way too many crickets in Greece apparently.

So what, if there were no humans? So what? Cosmology should care? Without fine tuning and the anthropic principle, humans wouldn't exist to make bath robes. But obviously bath robes simply necessarily must exist, therefore (insert your preferred worldview) is true.

That Pedro guy is not very dense.

It seems to me that all these scientists have a belief and interpret the evidence according to their belief and as their belief is materialism that is their interpretation.They reject and do not consider the alternative of God because they do not want to not because the evidence points that way.

The Antropic principle is rejected but the multiverse is okay . Which means infinite squared to explain our existence. The multivese is the the last stand of atheism. I always understood that infinite s were a sign of error in a theories ?

I believe there most be more universe's than what we observe on the night sky but they all have the same chemical we have on our universe.

As I understanding, fine tuning should applies the whole universe, not one planet, lest be stranded in the wake of any catarascophic event there isn't escape route designed for humans to flee..

Is it? No.

In my opinion the Anthropic Principle doesn't hold water at any level. The weak version is stating the obvious and the strong version gives humanity the central role, which is patently stupid. To believe that there is any 'fine tuning' going on is also quite stupid. As far as we know there is one place, the planet earth, that is 'suitable' for life. Hardly a good argument for the statement, 'the universe is fine tuned for life'. The 'multiverse' idea is purely speculative and can never be demonstrated. Even if it were true, it could be that all these universes are 'fine tuned for life' and ours is just the one we find ourselves in. I cannot see how the multiverse claim can be helpful in explaining anything.

@vhawk1951kl

2 жыл бұрын

Are you not yourself exactly falling into something analogous to the anthropic principle by declaring that someone is stupid simply and only because you assert that they are stupid? Is it not identical is to declaring that such and such is the case because there is someone to say that such and such is the case? Moreover it appears to be identical to declaring that the observer creates(possibly causes) the observed by the simple act of observation which seems to be not a million miles from Schrodinger's fantasy about the cat that declares that the cat is either alive or dead simply and only because someone declares the the cat to be alive or dead: wherein lies the difference between the anthropic principle (so-called) and Schrodinger's fantasy about the cat? Another possibly more amusing analogy is: If a man says something in conditions where there is no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?

Pedro G Ferreira, 9:05, lost argument twice...RLK "we don't exist without galaxies" - "observational facts made by observers"PGF "yeah-well": Anthropic means “relating to human beings or their existence.” The principle means “law.” The Anthropic Principle is the Law of Human Existence.-PGF "but we knew"(be aware of through observation)

I love when super "smaht" people dismiss claims that humans may be more than a random accident. Seems like argument from authority. Maybe they need a piece of humble pie. I look up to a lot of these people, I truly do. But I don't need them to think for me on these big ideas. If I want to know about black holes or the Higgs boson, I know who to ask, but for these matters, your opinion is just that, an opinion. Of course the comical irony is, you'd need just as much "faith" to believe in a "multiverse"", but it sounds more "sciency". Lol

This show is great! Self importance seems inescapable. But is it because of the problem of consciousness or just solipsism? Weak Anthropic seems obvious. That don’t mean you can reverse engineer and understand everything at all. The constants can still be just a functional reality. Not necessarily the only one, but good luck finding another. But brains/consciousness as a fundamental or first, is absurd and without any evidence or possible evidence if it is non-physical. 14 billion years, no known consciousness verses, us. Seems like an absurd leap with only wishes and supernatural beliefs as support. Again, evidence otherwise is welcome but I’m not holding my breath. The expression “fine tuning” begs the question of intention. Reaching some form of equilibrium seems like it would be natural, not unlike evolution. It’s just hard to detect the process from our POV and brains evolution.

So funny and ironic that the religious person's argument against the principle is that it makes too many assumptions 😂 Personally, I think the principle is just one possibility. There are many others, none of which I am attached to until they are proven. Including the god hypothesis.

So what, we know we exist because we exist to know that we exist and we know God exist because we exist?

Disappointed you didn't pursue the infinite regression problem of multiverse generators, and multiverse generator generators etc. Why our mulliverse and not others? Surely invoking an unseen infinite number of universes is just as arbitrary as invoking an unseen deity? Is the multiverse the giant turlte on which everything rests? Since both "turtles all the way down" and one giant turtle seem philosophically incoherent, surely that only leaves a possibility of simulationism? Where the context from which we are simulated doesn't suffer from this paradox. Since we see paintings where four dimenions are compressed to 2, surely the possibility of a much larger number of dimensions suggests the universe is a work of art? Seems to make more sense than any variety of infinite regression or brute fact.

If the anthropic principle is true then that would add weight to the fairy tale of abiogenesis as the anthropic principle is the only way to explain where natural selection and evolution, if they exist, came from. But if the anthropic principle is true then why have we not found life or signs of life anywhere else in the universe yet? The anthropic principle points towards a prior intelligent consciousness. If the anthropic principle is false then life is completely inexplicable on every level. No way could it have been accidentally invented by chemicals bumping together on prebiotic earth. It also smashes natural selection and evolution as universal laws.

Life is just activation of consciousness that transcends space time. Universe is just a movie running on the screen of consciousness. Once this is realized by thinking beings, the thoughts disappear in pure consciousness and there is no conflict or doubt left.

Weak Anthropic principle more likely that humanity here for universe than strong Anthropic principle tending toward universe here for humanity.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. And because when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.