Doug Adams said it best: “This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

@ManiBalajiC

2 жыл бұрын

Nice One....

Krauss said, " we don't have anything better " I like that statement because he's honest about it.

@leonardu6094

3 жыл бұрын

Except he's wrong

@spridle

3 жыл бұрын

What do you make of this theory. We were created in a big bang that advanced aliens have discovered how to make. And they know we are working on our own machines hoping we can recreate the big bang, and that's why they are keeping an eye on us. Lol.

@DanieleNiero

3 жыл бұрын

@@spridle that is not a theory. Is not even an hypotesis. It is a wild assumptions

@spridle

3 жыл бұрын

@@DanieleNiero about as wild as your grammar on a machine that autocorrects it for you.

@DanieleNiero

3 жыл бұрын

@@spridle English is not my first language and the grammar in that comment is good enough. You are being a little childish and extremely sensitive. And my phone corrects words (sometimes) not grammar.

I just want to say how grateful I am for Robert Lawrence Kuhn. He’s doing what I wish I could do - if I was knowledgeable enough to do so. It’s an amazing service, allowing me to seek vicariously through him - to sit back and absorb this intellectual level of open minded discourse is just the best thing ever in my opinion. I think it pushes us all forward

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

Hey Tom.... I agree with your assessment. I too wish I was more knowledgeable like Mr Kuhn, especially in the sciences and logic. But we keep learning... so that's good.

@chrisc1257

3 жыл бұрын

Forward to where? A fine dining establishment with extorted grant funds?

@Michael-tq6xm

3 жыл бұрын

It's difficult to seek truth using the theory of just one person. Go through Bell Dirac Feynman etc to look at all possible known theorums before making your own judgement.

@ili626

3 жыл бұрын

Michael of course, it goes without saying, that one must cast a wide net. Nevertheless, Kuhn is acting as a pretty prolific, highly competent, and accessible communicator, who himself is casting a wide net.

@chrisc1257

3 жыл бұрын

@@Michael-tq6xm Egos = E mc2.

If God wanted us to believe in him he could just appear in a vision that everyone could see, and then everyone would believe in him.

@yasminahiba2742

3 жыл бұрын

Then the word faith will have no meaning ...actually by then we will know as an observable fact that God exist .....and since we are beeing tested by God the almighty during our lifetime ...God should not appear to us until the day of judgment

@publiusovidius7386

3 жыл бұрын

@@rubiks6 lol. You're just making things up. You're mythologizing and you don't realize that's what you're doing. Making up a god and then putting your ideas into his pretend mind.

@truthmatters2782

3 жыл бұрын

Religions would like us to believe that God/s cannot reveal himself to us or there's no need for faith or we become robots. Really!! Lucifer knows God exist and yet choose to turn against god. So did a third of all angels in heaven according to the myth. Religions only survived bcos it hoodwinked people into believing there's a spiritual dimension in existence. With that they can paddle all kinds of nonsense and no need for accountability citing their beliefs are beyond evidence and understanding. If a god exist he'd be very much against this and gives irrefutable evidence and we can then choose to accept God's way or ours. Right now we have a smorgasbord of gods to choose from and depending on where you're born you'd believe in the BS spewed out by their "holy men". Stop being gullible.

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

@@rubiks6 Hey.. thanks for the link to Roger Penrose KZread discussion. I found it also very interesting.

@genesis204

3 жыл бұрын

That would remove the point, he wouldn’t know who actually wanted to believe in him,

I have a hypothesis that's based on a science fiction idea I'm developing. It's based around the idea of life as an emergent property of universes that operates under the laws of natural selection. I have a long winded explanation but the simplest form of the idea is that the purpose of life is to evolve in the hopes that some species will evolve to the point where it can either prevent or survive the heat death of the universe. Imagine a trillion universes, all teeming with life where dark energy has pushed everything apart and those universes have become cold and empty. Every time life comes into existence in a universe it's in a race against time to evolve a species intelligent and capable enough to solve the dark energy problem in order for those universes and life within them to continue to exist. If we take into account an infinite number of universes and an infinite number of times where life can come into existence it creates an infinite number of possibilities for natural selection to correct for this singular goal of ultimate survival. And yet every time a universe with life comes into existence, the heat death of that universe occurs before a species can evolve to stop it. And if we take it further, perhaps it's not even life itself that's operating under natural selection but it's the universes that operate under it whereby universes that come into existence that support the possibility of life survive longer than those that don't. What that would mean is that our universe, while it supports life, doesn't have the absolute perfect conditions for life and that may end up preventing a species in our universe from solving the heat death issue but a species in a future universe where that universe is more suited to life than this one can. Like I said, it's an idea I'm developing...I don't really have a story yet, just the concept but I thought it was worth sharing even if someone else reads it and makes a fortune ripping it off for their own novel lol.

Thankyou

How much would one have to change the universal constant of electron and/or proton quantum charge or the force that charges exert upon each other so as to make the DNA molecule impossible or dramatically reduce its ability to copy and retain information with extreme fidelity or make DNA replication or numerous other critical, complex biological processes 'non-viable/impractical' (for example)? I don't want to hear philosophical arguments as much as see some data. Has anyone done a rigorous study along those lines?

Wonderful brains these two have got..

When we talk about frequencies there are basically an infintite of divisions. Is it possible that like frequencies, we dimensions can be split up in the same way? Such as, dimension 3.12345?

@ryanprice9841

3 жыл бұрын

No, conservation of energy would prevent that from working over vast periods of time. Unless those universes/dimensions can slim down to not existing within a greater metaverse that DOES conserve energy...but at point weve defeated the point of the hypothesis as it wouldnt explain anything anymore

@robertjkuklajr3175

3 жыл бұрын

@@ryanprice9841 wouldn't that be based on only our universes energy? We have yet to detect another universe. If other universes do exist, the hypothesis that other life forms of a different nature could possibly exist. Also, in a different universe negative energy could be the source of energy that makes it go round. Speratic self enduced positive or negative energy could be a source of energy. I think the possibilities are truely endless, just as our expanding/accelerating universe seems to be.

@geraintwd

Жыл бұрын

It might not be impossible, but is it likely? Is there any reason to believe that this might be the case? We can waste an eternity speculating, or we can accept that there are just some things we are never actually going to be able to test. Alternate dimensions are a fun idea, but I don't think the multiverse hypothesis is useful except as a tool to illustrate the fact that we have no way of knowing whether the way things are in our universe is the only way things can be, or just one of many possible combinations of laws, forces, constants, etc.

the whole process of evolution is a mystery. the fact that we learn and become advanced as we evolve and learn new things and gather information and have light bulbs go off in our heads is just fascinating. why we have consciousness of all these things is mind blowing to me!!!

@jamesbentonticer4706

3 жыл бұрын

It's not the "whole" process that is unknown, it various aspects that are unknown.

@kingwillie206

3 жыл бұрын

Maybe you should reframe the question in your mind and ask how instead of why.

@albertsmith6717

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, the whole process of evolution is a mysterious confusing hoax because of no observations of lifeforms evolving into higher lifeforms. Instead of filling your mind with silly nonsensical theories, Here is a serious question that everyone should know. Where was your consciousness at the beginning of the universe and how and why do you have consciousness?

@kingwillie206

3 жыл бұрын

@@albertsmith6717 - You gain consciousness at a certain age and stage of brain development and lose it at a certain age. I hope that answers your question.

@albertsmith6717

3 жыл бұрын

@@kingwillie206 No, you didn't answer the questions, correctly. Where, when, how and why?

Me: I believe in God by 0.1% I don't believe in God by 99.9% Theists: I believe in God by 100%

The fact that he said "to you and me" instead of "to you and i" puts me 100% in his court. Most seriously, yes! Always look for hard evidence.

@geoden

3 жыл бұрын

Indeed! Evidence and facts are the mainstay of the scientific endeavour, without them you are not scientific and cannot call yourself a scientist. Sadly, on the web, a few people who are apparently scientifically qualified, don't behave like scientists.

@christiaanvandermerwe8562

2 жыл бұрын

@@geoden Scientific Facts do't exist. Not an opinion, but simply the result of there being no such thing as Scientific Proof. The idea of proof, leaves no room for uncertainty, something that is intrinsic to the practice of Science. Proof is thus reserved for the Disciplines of Mathematics & Logic, both of which are philosophical and not scientific. Thus, it is Philosophy that is ultimately the most rigorous method of deducing and deriving facts (using Scientific evidence as a framework of support of course... Although it is relevant to mention that Science presupposes the rational faculties of the humans mind, as well as the freedom of those practicing it to follow where the evidence leads. Additionally, Science is predicated on the notion that Mathematics & the Laws of Logic are not only applicable/exiting within the Mind, but that these truths also have some influence on how the nature of physical reality is governed. This is an assumption that there is ultimately some rational/logical basis to the foundation of the objective/external material world (a notion that is not really reconcilable under a strictly Naturalistic and Scientific Materialism Metaphysical Ontology). This rational basis (mind dependent) of objective reality is precisely why the physical world is intelligible at all, it is also the same reason that people like to pride themselves on being rational. If there is no rational basis to objective reality, there would be no benefit to being rational. Now, this is all to show that as much as scientific evidence is valuable, it is only merely a portion of the whole endeavor. More critical, is the ability to interpret the data to draw reasonable (i.e. logically coherent and consistent) conclusions that allow for reasonable predictions to be made. To highlight this point further, any *Revolutionary Scientific Discovery* is precisely new & groundbreaking as it is a finding that is not *already* the mainstream consensus opinion, or else it would not be revolutionary... This essentially means that those maverick scientists who you claim are *not scientific* have the best chance of actually discovering something new....

@boywonder8241

Жыл бұрын

The term "between you and I" is always wrong. Use "me." "Between you and I" might sound scholarly, but it is grammatically incorrect. You must say "between you and me." "Between you and I" is incorrect because the word "I" cannot be the object of a preposition.

Consciousness is fine tuning Consciousness. It is our experience of life.

@kenkaplan3654

Жыл бұрын

I was going to write that.

Could these constants change over long periods of time

There is only one place, one small speck of dust, that host conscious life. Consciousness is improbable in our Universe, therefore it hasn't been fine tuned to host it.

Is there scientific evidence for answered prayer or intuition?

I love Lawrence Krauss' phrase, "the cold hard evidence of experiment." Special and General Relativity have been verified as much as any theory has been, and they are as good as it gets in today's science. One of the implications of Relativity is the idea of "block time" or "eternalism." Time is also a component of the Schrödinger equation, fundamental to QM, so both of these basic theories rely on a dimension we call time. I would be surprised by any new theory that eliminates the time dimension. I suspect that multiverse theorists don't consider atemporal (timeless) multiverses as part of the possibly infinite set of universes. There may be universes where time "flows" differently. Since nothing happens in timeless universes, they would be pointless, Curiously, none of the constants that make our universe anthropic are associated with the flow of time or sets its direction. We have a law explaining that there is entropy, which creates a direction of time in our universe, but we don't know the fundamental cause of this. I and many others postulate that time is caused by observers. The implications of this postulate result in a causal loop, right? Without an explanation for the cause of time's arrow, I think that this postulate needs to be added to the list of indicators that we are in an anthropic universe. That is, could we (or any life) live in a universe that was either atemporal or in which time flowed differently? Of course, we have that nasty block time issue, whereby everything that ever happened or will happened is extant, and the flow of time, causality, and free will are illusions. Instead, the universe is comprised entirely of events. According to Theory, depending on our motion and/or gravitation we encounter these events in some sequence, the events that fall in what is commonly called our lightcone. (Forgive the use of "encounter." It is impossible to write timelessly, that is, without verbs). Does that make our universe pointless, too? Last, That you to Dr. Krauss for the birthday greetings last year. Go BHSoS Class of '64!

What I don't get is: if they are "constants"... Is it possible that they must be this way? I mean, same as you can't say "rain is so finely tuned that it falls on my field and waters my plants instead of flying up into space, this can't be a coincidence", is it possible that those constants in the universe are just that: constants, that can't be any other way? In that case, no tuning was possible and the entire tuning argument becomes meaningless.

@geraintwd

Жыл бұрын

Or it's equally feasible that those constants could have had different values, or that some other constants might have existed in their place. In that scenario, the universe might have imploded back upon itself shortly after its initial expansion, or entirely different chemical elements might have been formed, or life might have evolved along paths unrecognisable to us, or it might have never evolved at all. There might be a set of conditions even BETTER than the ones we find in our universe, which could have led to sapient life popping up all over the place, instead of just on this one little rock we call home. Unfortunately, all of this will only ever be speculation.

I think that it is possible that randomness can foster life more often than if it has been randomness, always without any meaning or goal. In mutations in DNA and in the creation of the natural laws of a domain like the physical universe.

@michaelidarecis

3 жыл бұрын

That argument fails to account for the woman.

It’s all getting less mysterious. And it’s awesome knowing what we think we know.

@chrisgarret3285

Жыл бұрын

getting way way more mysterious

Robert Kuhn, thank you for your videos. But, let's not let a cosmic instant of sentient thinking convince us we have the answers to the universe. We certainly don't know what those coming later will know. And so on...

Science at it's very best should be based on evidence not prediction.

It does not selfselect for our exsistenze.. Its the same as saying that evolution is selecting for us.. We are here in this universe so of course its for us.

@schmetterling4477

2 жыл бұрын

Good luck with that claim.

ME: Stands up and Claps!

If life can come from a different set of fundamental numbers, then that certainly supports the idea that life and/or consciousness is the primary objective. I am starting to think it is.

@slothbearanonymous

Жыл бұрын

If different fundamental constants could also birth life, how would this support the notion that life is the primary objective of all constants?

Right, "not by the probability, but by the evidence".

I have a lot of respect for Lawrence and his opinions.. Anthropic arguments of the past may have been based solely on ignorance, BUT this one is decidedly different..Aside from the mathmatiical support for multiple universes, we can observe the theory playing out in miniature within our own universe, galaxy, AND solar system.. The size of planets, their orbits, spins, compositions, internal dynamics, distance from the sun, stability AND MORE, are are all largely random variables that get shuffled throughout the galaxy..We would be unambiguously CORRECT to say we find ourselves living on the earth because it is the one place in our solar system where our kind of life COULD exist..We would be unambiguously incorrect to say the earth and its environment is fine-tuned for our existence..One opinion..

@Bill..N

3 жыл бұрын

@Tracchofyre Yes indeed friend..I actually considered resolving the example down to that exact point, but it was getting too long..Well done!

@xspotbox4400

3 жыл бұрын

Why people can't survive on space station in Earth's orbit for long? Main reason is gravity, we must move every day or our muscles get to weak to support bone joints, all chemical processes inside a body are get affected. Space station smell like a toilet, there's no natural environment to regulate decomposition of various bacteria, organic fluids from food and bodies, feces, saliva, skin flakes and small hair are everywhere. We don't need to be weightless for fatigue to appear, any kind of gravity different from our planet will start to deform human body and force it to mutate in unpredictable ways. This means not only our solar system, we will never find another home anywhere in entire universe.

@Bill..N

3 жыл бұрын

@@xspotbox4400 Your comment is a LITTLE tangential but I liked it !.. (Graphic images, lol) Your point is a valid concern for space exploration, BUT definitely there are solutions to both the gravity problem cleanliness and radiation shielding as well..I get your point tho friend..

@xspotbox4400

3 жыл бұрын

@@Bill..N This universe is fined tuned for constant mutations.

Lawrence doesn't say he doesn't believe in something, it's just that his mind is so mixed up that he can not know the truth. In his mind, he's not searching for the truth, but thousands of other possibilities to idiotic for comprehension. No, these people do not want to know the truth. If they knew the truth, they would have to end the nonsense of idiotic lies, which would put most of them out of a job.

At the stage we are now, the individual can come to essentially any conclusion they would like and be just as correct as anyone else. I don't think anyone is justified in telling anyone else how they should view the big questions in life. Those that do, whether it religion, or science, or neither, are equally presumptuous.

@schmetterling4477

2 жыл бұрын

Except that science has given you that computer and it makes your life better thanks to little inventions like modern medicine. Religion only promises eternal damnation if you touch yourself or eat shrimp on the wrong day of the week.

Conciousness is fine tuned for the universe

as Krauss suggested, the range of constants permissive of life is many orders of magnitude....anthropic principle too parochial

Not so sure if natural constants are such random product as it seems, if everything is energy, than it doesn't matter what fixed value are, since they can only annihilate to exactly 0. So what if light speed could be different, it doesn't mean there would be some extra energy in space because of that, if energy would be taken from photons, this energy would spread among other constants and over all amount wouldn't change. I'm no expert for those hypothesis, i do understand how those physical values are interconnected, but can't see how different variables could create or change or destroy total amount of energy available, except in temporal and dimensional sense. If empty space can grow faster than light, than those galaxies must take some energy away with them, this means amount of energy locked inside our space time dimension is not constant. Now when i said that probably nobody will take my comment seriously, because conservation law of energy shell not be violated, but both facts can't be true at same time and there must be some inter dimensional leakages of energy than no theory in the existence can describe, simply because natural laws are not just good ideas and if one fail, nothing is absolute any more and science is a flawed model. Or this is the answer, universe is stretching because space must compensate for leakages of energy beyond light speed horizon.

"We don't know enough." I like that. How can the vastness of the universe explain something like consciousness? It seems like a "signpost" is either missing or pointing beyond the cosmos.

@roqsteady5290

3 жыл бұрын

You should just stop at "We don't know enough", when we don't know we don't know and not "my god did it".

@theamalgamut8871

3 жыл бұрын

@@roqsteady5290 exactly

@killermoon635

2 жыл бұрын

Lack of explanation is not proof for anything

@Some_Deist

2 жыл бұрын

@@roqsteady5290 Have you ever thought that maybe consciousness indeed is immaterial and we cannot explain it due to scientism ? (Methodologies narrowed down to matter only)

Probability, is part of quantum mechanics, which gives us the powers to see the possibilities in the future

Likely hood is consciousness is a product of the complexity of an eternal universe where every possible history is employed or a product of the infinity nature of black holes and electrodynamics thus consciousness itself is a product of quantum behavior.

@ferdinandkraft857

3 жыл бұрын

If you can't spell _likelihood_ you can't explain consciousness.

Not knowing is not "ignorance", it is "honesty". Only not knowing and claiming to know is arrogance. And ignorance is a precursor.

The problem with proposing a God to explain fine-tuning is that he is also fine-tuned, so it just pushes the buck back a step without actually explaining the origin of fine-tuning. If God can eternally exist without being tuned by some intelligence, the same can be true for a fine-tuned universe or multiverse.

Good vid. Title is totally off.

@tomashull9805

3 жыл бұрын

I agree... I'm reluctant now to watch the "new CTT videos", because they are just old, recycled ones with clickbait titles that are not related to the content at all... It's disappointing...

Take this thought "if it was designed for life.. Why is life not everywhere.. Why is the universe seemingly dvindling to a heat death..". We are so self centered that it hurts our ability to be rational

@schmetterling4477

2 жыл бұрын

What makes you believe that the universe is dwindling to a heat death? Did you, by any chance, notice that the comic microwave background is an almost perfect Planck spectrum? Did you also notice how gravity drove the universe from that to an almost perfect disequilibrium with near point-like sources of radiation in an otherwise cold background? OK... knowing these two facts, what makes you believe that heat death is even remotely on the table?

the universe is not finely tuned for us. We are finely tuned to the universe. We evolved in the universe as it already was and through natural selection have become finely tuned to the conditions we exist in.

@tomashull9805

3 жыл бұрын

What tuned natural selection?

@LeventeCzelnai

3 жыл бұрын

that would be entirely the opposite of human intuition, but who knows.

@jeffamos9854

3 жыл бұрын

Tomas Hull Natural selection is a process that created humans that asked dumb questions like yours. Read a evolutionary biology book goofy.

@tomashull9805

3 жыл бұрын

@@jeffamos9854 Enlighten me! Unless, of course, you didn't read any of those evolutionary biology books yourself and you won't be able to find how natural selection evolved from a random processes to non-random... I'm all ears... ;-)

@jeffamos9854

3 жыл бұрын

Tomas Hull , RNA considered to be the first molecule to start to self replicate and for higher molecules, DNA. Then cells. Go read a book about it. Not your imaginary god friend or whatever woowooism you believe.

Krauss accepts that at present the anthropic principle seems to be apparent, but then counters it by saying that it is an argument from ignorance, since scientists would dump it if they could. He finds it an appalling prospect and ends by saying that we should be driven by 'the cold, hard evidence of experiment.' Well fine, but if no such experiments exist...?

One of the first o/ About the topic: Tuned is an adjective, therefore is ontologicly subjetive. Qualify the universe like this, is methodlogical egocentrism

I am that I am,

If the odds of the universe existing in its current form is 10^-38, how do we know they're weren't 10^48 tries. If you have a wheel of fortune with 10^38 numbers on it, and you're allowed to spin an indefinite number of times, then wouldn't the odds of getting any specific number be 1:1?

@svendtang5432

2 жыл бұрын

Does the concept of tries even make sense when there is no time (presupposes that time was created with the universe), so anything is bound to happen that can within what the basic constituents of the universes allow.

@taharnouaoui7755

Жыл бұрын

its an initial constant buddy not a variable y cant change it

There isn't cold hard evidence against the anthropic argument - but there is cold hard evidence all around us... here we are, life and inteligence. He mentions several times the anthropic argument turned out to be wrong and went away... isn't that the point of this video - that it never went away, its still here as ever and is recognised by intelligent reason.

@Yesunimwokozi1

Жыл бұрын

They hate anthropic principle because it invokes God very fast and powerfully..

This is a respectfull comment, I think Laurence is Dum, Reason ( To be able to evaluate things better, is to keep an open mind, the Atheist's exclude God from every equation, while religious scientists include God into their equations ) both need to be impartial as since nobody has disproved the other. So keeping an open mind will lead us to a better explanation in Futures to come. You see, the thinking evolves into things, so we need the right set of thinking to hopefully get us somewhere.

@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763

3 жыл бұрын

Why do I have to "include God" when there is no good evidence that God exists?

@cooking_innovations

3 жыл бұрын

@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 it depends what type of God àyour referring to 🤣, The evidence most people refer to, is none existence. The whole thing is so complicated, never mind if we are on the right track to what we think or even are debating. People are analysing things according to their beliefs, they only see, judge and make decisions according to their beliefs, so how can the Atheist's and theists be trusted. A good scientist would completely keep an open mind to anything so his beliefs doesn't affect his judgement

@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763

3 жыл бұрын

@@cooking_innovations What do you mean with "evidence people refer to is non-existence"? How is non-existence (of what) evidence that a deity exists? And why is "trusting atheists" relevant? When a person says that they are not convinced that deities exist, what is there to trust? Assuming that they secretly are convinced that deities exist doesn't make too much sense.

@cooking_innovations

3 жыл бұрын

@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 You cannot prove nor disprove anything buddy. You are so convinced of something because you only see it your way. If the evidence leans to one thing, then it LEANS TO ( as MEANING ), so therefore not 100 percent correct, and could be the other way. I cannot say that God exists nor can i say that God doesn't exist. The mystery here is COMPLETE nothingness cannot produce something, nor that something has always existed makes sense. no one knows the answers as to 100 percent

@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763

3 жыл бұрын

@@cooking_innovations Well, there are some problems with what you say. For example, if I describe a deity and give it contradicting attributes, then the deity as described can not exist. For example: "God exists. He can do absolutely anything he wants. He can not lie." Both is not possible. So the deity as described can not exist. Then there are claims like the genesis narrative, where God creates night and day first, and then the next day the plants, and only the day after that the sun. That makes no sense whatsoever, so based on everything we know this has not happened. And you are right, we can never be 100% sure about anything. That makes it even more absurd that most theists say that they can't be wrong with their belief that God exists. Pick any religion, and most people on the planet will disagree with you on whether that one is correct. And they contradict each other, so they can't be all true. So necessarily either most or all theists are wrong with their belief. What matters is evidence that supports a claim. With enough good evidence a claim becomes more likely to be true. For example does the Moon exist? We have tons of evidence for that. So we can be quite sure that it exists. But does God exist? We have no good evidence for that. So why should I believe it? How could I believe it?

The problem with the concept consciousness is the definition. Where does the idea come from? Of course from our brain. Most people seems yo have a need to apply this concept to anything that they can observe but not explain. We are driven to make complex systems simple. Of course everything must be fine tuned, even a chaos is ruled by laws. One or infinite number of universa must depend on laws of nature in their specific bubble. If they collaps, it is because of the laws, if they don't exist it is because of laws. The most probable id that it is a set of laws that was set at the Big Bang. Or even created in the very moment - or even before... There could very well have been or will by new Big Bangs. Who, what,when, where, why is a popular song, though missing "how" You can easily make a general model of that;Who; that is the objectWhat; that is what happens to the object, lets call it transformationWhen; a point in spacetimeWhere; the corresponding point in spacetimeHow; the definition of the above Why; the reason that is defined by how

What about if something beautiful comes out of the arguments.

2 smart lawrence in the house :D :)

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

Apart from my spelling how is nothing possible? Krauss has yo, but the big handball

Can you guys get this guy to talk with Astrophysicist Hugh Ross?

@Yesunimwokozi1

Жыл бұрын

He will keep saying I don't know I Know😂

fine tunning means that there's no such thing as chaos/ randomness, people don't think we as a species are dumb

Does he still believe that the universe came from nothing because a state of nothingness is unstable? I have a feeling that he might! 😛

I'm just happy it was fine tuned for me

@karanssharma

3 жыл бұрын

no

@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646

3 жыл бұрын

Many people forced into sex trafficking disagree with you.

@somebodyelse5784

3 жыл бұрын

@@karanssharma Yes. Any deviation in the causal sequence leading up to me, I would not be here to tell you that.

@somebodyelse5784

3 жыл бұрын

@@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646 Was that the worst destiny you could think of?

@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646

3 жыл бұрын

@@somebodyelse5784 does it really need to be?

Laurence how did it go with Hamza Tzortzis.

@ripanbiswas6723

3 жыл бұрын

You can't argue with someone's ignorance. Hamza doesn’t have that level of intellectuals which Laurence does.

@averagebodybuilder

3 жыл бұрын

@@ripanbiswas6723 sorry. Only a fool could make a fairy tale that laurence won the debate.

@jamesbentonticer4706

3 жыл бұрын

@@averagebodybuilder then I suppose I'm a fool.

@averagebodybuilder

3 жыл бұрын

@@jamesbentonticer4706 yup. Indeed you are.

The odds of winning a lottery with 10 digits is one in a billion. The probability of having the winning number seems very low. Why.. you assigned a value to single number arbitrarily. Have you also considered the odds of having any none winning random number is also one in a blillion? The fine tune argumet assumes life and consciousness are precious. What if they are not in the vast universe we haven't explored?

@ripanbiswas6723

3 жыл бұрын

Since still we don't know we are alone or not in this universe, I think we can't conclude anything on the issue right now. For the sake of argument, let's assume that we are alone in this universe. Then we must say that the creator of universe (if something like that exists) was not a good designer since there are blackholes, and lots of other unknown stuff that we don't need directly to survive on this planet. The universe could be just a planet and a little bit sky. Now, let's assume we are not alone in this universe, then life is not so precious in the way you are thinking, it’s common everywhere.

An explanation of the fine-tuning principle: Take a balloon and blow it up with an arbitrary volume of air. The balloon will naturally move to a state of equilibrium where the pressure inside the balloon just offset the pressure outside the balloon plus the elastic forces of the rubber walls of the balloon. If we now look at that situation we can calculate a "fine-turning constant" that would be required to hold the balloon in that configuration and call that "fine tuning constant" a properly of this balloon universe. This is the same thing we have with our actual universe. We have a universe that is doing the only thing it can do which appears to us to be producing a "fine tuning constant" and then we're asking how that fine tuning constant came to be? Well, it came to be because the universe is doing the only thing it can do. There is not "magical fine turning constant" that is dictating how the universe must behave, just as there is no fine tuning constant dictating how a balloon must be. Also, consider this. Our universe is expanding. If it has been designed by a fine turning constant why not design a constant that holds the universe in a steady state of equilibrium? This would be analogous to use filling a balloon with a gas that's lighter than air. It's so-called "fine turning constantly" would then change over time if we let it go into the atmosphere. The higher the balloon goes the less air pressure outside, and so the balloon expands. This will continue until the balloon itself can no longer stretch and suddenly bursts which would then give the balloon universe a whole new physics. In short, I don't see anything to this idea of a fine tuning constant. This whole idea stems from humans trying to imagine what properties you would need to set at the beginning in order to "design" a universe to behave the way our universe behaves. But that's now how the real universe works. The real universe just does what it does thus giving humans the illusion that there exists some abstract Platonic fine tuning constant behind it. But there's really no need for this imaginary magical entity to exist. It's just a reflection of what the universe is naturally doing as it tries to remain in a state of equilibrium. In short, the principle of equilibrium is what gives right to the fine tuning constants, not the other way around. And there's no need to postulate anything to explain a principle of equilibrium because equilibrium is self explanatory. It's simply the only action that things can undergo without any external intervening forces. So there is no mystery surrounding any fine turning constants. All those amount to our human numerical abstractions based on observing processes that are doing the only thing they can do. Conclusion: There are no fine tuning constants. They simply don't exist in the real world. They are an invention of human abstract imagination., In the same way that they don't exist for a balloon.

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

I find your observations of fine-tuning to be very interesting. I wonder though why there exist so many arguments related to "fine tuning"? Maybe like you said... "the real universe just does what it does thus giving humans the illusion that there exists some abstract Platonic fine tuning constant behind it." I wonder though how many scientists see this fine tuning as an illusion? What do you exactly mean by "abstract?" How can the Laws of Nature be "abstract"? I'm puzzled. Or are you not referring to any laws of nature but just the concept of fine-tuning? I assume that's what you mean? You do call it an "imaginary magical entity" right? Anyhow... if fine tuning itself is just abstract and imaginary, then I see no reason to go further and even explore the idea of consciousness coming from fine tuning? Right?

@xspotbox4400

3 жыл бұрын

You forgot one thing, there's something like Newton's laws of energy conservation and motion. Thing is, Newton didn't know about all kinds of light radiation and he couldn't even imagine those waves can propagate trough empty space only at certain rate of change or speed. If he would knew things can change in an instant, his laws makes no sense. And nobody in science is allowed to even think about violating Newton's sacred laws, like you can't be a scientist if you don't take them as highest laws in their totality.

@jonnanderson6489

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnbrzykcy3076 In regards to your second sentence query, perhaps "Anthropic" theories satisfy the human psychological desire for existential relevance. When one ponders infinite seas it's reassuring to have a boat .

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

@@jonnanderson6489 I like your observations. Even if the seas are not "infinite", I'd still like to have a boat... But who will help me when the boat starts sinking?

@jonnanderson6489

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnbrzykcy3076 Well if I'm nearby you may use my can of Flexseal.

In 1M-10M years, there won't be any humans, and consciousness will be so advanced that it can create a new Universe or a pocket of it.

Let me simplify for you. Consciousness has now been proven to affect the outcomes of double-slit experiments. Blind experiments using meditators, and even internet randoms, have shown that just envisioning an outcome WILL change the expected, or visualized, result. Now what that entails is remarkable. It posits that all thought is powerful. It begs to differ that anyone who gets the ability to understand the nature of reality, could be a force to be reckoned with.

@doctorwebman

Жыл бұрын

That is actually false. You can set up a machine to take a measurement when nobody is around, and you get the same results. Consciousness is not required. All particles are observers that can take measurements.

@geraintwd

Жыл бұрын

Sorry but this is a misrepresentation of quantum mechanics. The double slit experiment does not imply that the position of a particle is affected by conscious observation. Indeed, it would be impossible for a human to directly observe the motion of individual particles, much less influence them, simply due to their size. What actually happens is that by measuring a single particle, we must interact with it in some way. That interaction in turn will change some aspect of the particle, such as its spin, or its position. None of this implies that a conscious agent is manipulating these particles. It could equally be a laser beam that the particles pass through, for example.

@jaramiemanson256

Жыл бұрын

@@geraintwd There is a way test this. Create your own double-slit experiment and record it. Yes observing it, collapses the wave function, and at baseline there is 50/50. Do it having one of the slits with a solar panel connected to a voltmeter. At baseline (no meditating), measure voltage. Then run the experiment, visually knowing in the minds eye the slit with the solar panel, and document it. Bet you get a good difference.

@geraintwd

Жыл бұрын

​@@jaramiemanson256 well, y'know, you had me there. I almost thought you were serious.

@jaramiemanson256

Жыл бұрын

@@geraintwd I am serious. If observation or even meditation can affect the end result of a double slit experiment then even grander things can occur. Imagine mind controlled craft. Easy, they have it. Can a human mess up a quantum computer with thought alone?

Human thought is a natural feature of this universe. Prove me wrong...

@ryanprice9841

3 жыл бұрын

Ok, youre defining emergent properties as natural features...which on a abstract level is practically true but on a fundamental level, nature has no thoughts at all, so thoughts are ways of describing natures emergent behavior, they are not part of that nature in itself

@cpmarianoibz

3 жыл бұрын

@UC_4hCPGR_D8O_JJ8WpjuZgQ didnt always exsisted but when it did it was couse its a natural feature of our universe... Some may argue

@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646

3 жыл бұрын

There are two meanings for natural. One is anything that happens that humans are not involved in. The other is ANYTHING that happens in OUR universe, if a rock or life form came from another universe somehow, it would be the only unnatural thing ever recorded.

@mikekennedy2965

3 жыл бұрын

@@ryanprice9841 Nature has thoughts. we are the thinking part of nature

@jamesbentonticer4706

3 жыл бұрын

@@ryanprice9841 that was very well put.

A piece from an amazing new (not for the fainthearted) autobiography titled: Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within - and what a mind-blowing and thought-provoking story it is... Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach into the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlie all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law which allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice verse. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment of time than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to between making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, or producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always to respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result from any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things in a conventional way - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life - including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream - already exists within us. kzread.info/dash/bejne/gIZppsaqmrDel6Q.html

@tyamada21

3 жыл бұрын

@@rubiks6 I can assure you that thousands of people have read it, as it's posted on many other vid sites. However, even though what you have written in response here is far lass it's also far far more foolish. If this is all you have going in your life to fill your ego then I sincerely pity you. Please go and bother someone else and grow up!

@johnschort7634

3 жыл бұрын

The proper pronunciation of the phrase Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo would be a great help. For instance is renege a single syllable, or is it ren' ge with a hard g or soft g?

@johnschort7634

3 жыл бұрын

@@rubiks6 no paragraph break needed for people really interested in what is said. If ur interested u don't notice paragraph breaks unless someone points them out. Plus not everyone (myself included) are sure where to insert them. We just type the way we speak.

@tyamada21

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnschort7634 You can here the chant pron ounced clearly in this beautiful song by Olivia-Newton -John. : ) kzread.info/dash/bejne/gIZppsaqmrDel6Q.html

@johnschort7634

3 жыл бұрын

@@tyamada21 I'm not normally into music vids, but I'll watch it cuz I love her voice,and I seek clarification.

That Robert Kuhn dude had the same Jewish mother as Jerry Stiller (RIP). And Krauss is immersed in billions and billions of tiny universes and anthropic arguments.

Simplified in spiritual way: Consciousness is both embedded in and creates everything. Everything has consciousness whether you realize it or not but to varying degrees of awareness. The way us, as a conscious individual, become aware of consciousness is through the interaction of things. Things that have form or things that produce, you can say, a reaction like yin and yang, like that. Consciousness is released when there’s this bumping together of things. In order for consciousness to create form, you have to have something like a medium. Like clay, it can mold energy into form, and those forms can exist in an infinite number of ways. Scientific observation of the mind and consciousness is for, well, inferior apes with limited mind.

@doctorwebman

Жыл бұрын

Care to back up those claims with some science?

@doctorwebman

Жыл бұрын

@@Hellohellohello803 Start with your best piece of evidence.

@doctorwebman

Жыл бұрын

@@Hellohellohello803 Hello? Did you run because you have no evidence?

Mr krauss tell me how infinity did not exist. I'm tired of shallow answers

Royal Fizbin. Star Trek episode. If you get enough tries in a galaxy, you will get life given billions of years

Universe is called God's play, in Yoga scriptures. Evolution plays out in this drama as if God is not necessary but, without God entire universe collapses like building without foundation

@xspotbox4400

3 жыл бұрын

Universe was just fine before anybody could arriwed in this world, but once stars and planets appeared and came to stable orbits, conscious life was just a matter of time.

First time Esteemed Krauss offered a prosaic explanation with proleptic effort!

Try explaining fine-tuning in 1B years when there is no complex life on the planet. It's not fine-turning, it's fortunate timing.

Several women have accused Krauss of sexual misconduct, describing behavior that went unchecked for over a decade. He has been banned from at least three universities, removed from multiple speaking events, and is/was under formal investigation. I never liked the guy and he did not contribute to physic anyway other then using it as credential. Krauss is always saying ``look how good I am``

This Universe allows for consciousness...not necessarily fine-tuned for it. But all those other Universes? Eh, maybe not.

Krauss: "...The problem is it's based on a set of probabilities that without some fundamental theory are just completely ad hoc and are at best plausible and surely to god after 400 years of sciencewe shouldn't be based on plausibility we should be driven by by by the cold hard evidence of experiment..." If only Krauss himself and 99.9% of scientists applied the same; "be driven by hard evidence of experiment" rather than speculations and fairy-tales without shreds of evidence...

See if I understand correctly. Science has no explanation for it & we have multiple theories for it but we know it’s not not god. Why? “Because”

@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763

2 жыл бұрын

Do they say that? Usually the position of science is: "no good evidence for Gods existence, therefor no good reason to believe in it"

@logicalatheist1065

2 жыл бұрын

What he said is correct. No evidence, no reason to believe, especially supernatural claims

What's consciousness?

@xspotbox4400

3 жыл бұрын

Depends on your morals, could be just a noise in ears and aching inside skull.

@shashikamanoj1160

3 жыл бұрын

@@xspotbox4400 this is a classic example of the postmodern chatter. No definition. No point of reference. Everything is relative and nobody knows what and how to explain. The greatest invention of the 20th century is 'Words' and words are like mirrors facing each other. Anyway, nice try...

@glynemartin

3 жыл бұрын

@@shashikamanoj1160 Consciousness is the Observer of all experience...

@dailywebmoments

3 жыл бұрын

tatti

@shashikamanoj1160

3 жыл бұрын

@@glynemartin are there other observers?

All of his argument just went out the window when he said "Thanks to god that..." . These so called astrophysics are smart and delusional at the same time. Stop creating probability excuses to justify the fine tuning of the universe. He said if there was different constants in this universe we might have another form of life instead of humans. Thats ur logic ?

Don't forget nothig

Atheist bias may or not play a role in a view scientists are human too.

When i think about religion and cosmology, i think...well, there is an awful lot of stuff out there, an awful lot. If all that matters is the fate of humans, on one tiny, insignificant planet...why is it all there? What is its purpose?

Did you really had to wait 20 years to put this on YT ?

When information observes itself became a conscient mass

The interviewer is trying to be Lawrence Krauss

Why would a perfect God need to fine tune anything...fine tuning is desperate Apologetics...because the range is far greater than Theists know or assume

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

I like your observation but it puzzles me. Does "fine tuning" necessarily assume some kind of god? I'm not at all familiar with the range of the natural laws that still would be compatible for life. However I think "fine tuning" for life itself and fine tuning for consciousness are necessarily two different aspects ( whether created or evolved ).

@rationalsceptic7634

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnbrzykcy3076 We dont know..Theists and Sceptics are merely guessing...but God of the Gaps is hardly rational evidence?

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

@@rationalsceptic7634 I agree with you and I dislike a "god of the gaps" theory. But can I still struggle to understand the god of creation without being deluded or ignorant? I hope so. I'm a skeptical Christian or questioning Christian.

@rationalsceptic7634

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnbrzykcy3076 I am a searching Agnostic with many Christian friends...they see God everywhere because they cherry pick ha..be safe tgc

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

@@rationalsceptic7634 Thanks. I wish ( or do I?) that I could see "god" everywhere. But I, like you, keep searching and wondering ( and wandering haha ). Best to you.... John in Florida

Lailha illallah

Obviously the universe is fine tuned so some half wit humanoid ape creature could slowly poison this one planet. Clearly that is what the entire universe and the billions of Galaxies in it are there for. Sounds completely reasonable.

@vegansydmost1345

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, thank you: i wondered if anyone noticed how destructive we are, even worse when we're "well-meaning". There is no good or evil, i say: just mental illness.

I think there are an infinite number of universes spitting and stuff, but that doesn't disprove God. God is the multiverse itself then, because we wouldn't be here without our universe.

@entropy8634

Жыл бұрын

Sure. But now there's nothing disproving multiple gods. There's also nothing disproving hypergod- the god of gods. And then nothing disproving hyper hypergod. Eventually there would be infinite layers of gods, none of which can be disproven.

They all believe in intelligent design but refuse to give that intelligence credit..now they want you to believe that the world has shaped the soul and that it wasnt made for our souls this is backwards talk

@ferdinandkraft857

3 жыл бұрын

Who designed the Intelligent Designer?

@ItsJamisonJamison

2 жыл бұрын

@@ferdinandkraft857 Revelation 22 13 I am the alpha and omega the first and the last the beginning and the end

@ferdinandkraft857

2 жыл бұрын

@@ItsJamisonJamison blah blah blah

our universe rather self selected for bacteria

Krauss literally hand waves whilst he metaphorically hand waves

@jamesbentonticer4706

3 жыл бұрын

He's not metaphorically hand waving anything. He is a phd in theoretical physics. The one profession requiring the highest level of intelligence possible. And he is even one of the greatest amongst his peers.

@entropy8634

Жыл бұрын

I thought he answered it succinctly in first minute, the rest of the video explains and expands on the answer. "We don't know any other constants that could give rise to any other sort of consciousness". The fine tuning argument assumes that no other constants will allow consciousness.

It's God.

Weak argument , you have no proof for the multi verse so I have to believe it exist ? Give me something better

Yeah,a Mercedes Benz can be " finely tuned" but not the universe.

I think String Theory is real.

@schmetterling4477

2 жыл бұрын

Of course it is real. The question is... does it describe the world?

The Quran’s explanation about all this is mesmerisingly brilliant!

@lyahall4044

3 жыл бұрын

The Quran is full of fairytales plagiarising the Old Testament! I’m an Ex Muslim and I think religions are all nonsense

@juance2262

3 жыл бұрын

@@lyahall4044 Ummm no one asked your opinion, but I am a Christian.

@lyahall4044

3 жыл бұрын

@@juance2262 enjoy the delusion

@juance2262

3 жыл бұрын

@@lyahall4044 It is not a delusion, it is a wonderful truth.

@lyahall4044

3 жыл бұрын

@@juance2262 hmmm if only....

We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is a Witness over all things? Lo, they are in doubt about the meeting with their Lord. Surely, He encompasses all things. Quran 41:53:54

@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763

2 жыл бұрын

Well, so far there are no signs to be seen.

Well, you know, exually one of the natural constants is a bit off. I don't know which one, but the comet should have passed by the earth. We all should look like winged lizards. I'm sorry.

@xspotbox4400

3 жыл бұрын

It wasn't a comet, inability to survive in cold temperatures and breath oxygen rich atmosphere got them in the end. We are smaller and can regulate body temperature more efficient, do more useful work with less chemical energy, since our brain is larger and can ration energy way better, by converting more potentials to pulses and distribute them around extremely fine tuned body system in form of information.

In a few years, this debate/question about the nature of consciousness will seem as silly the question of whether the universe is tuned for creatures with five fingers on the hand. Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. It's how we perceive thoughts - that's it.

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

What do you mean by "emergent"? Do you mean "it's just there" or "it simply evolves" ?

@richardschuerger3214

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnbrzykcy3076 The brain does not see, hear, or feel. It's locked in a bony cranium with no direct access to the world outside your body (if things are going well) The brain receives neural impulses that encode sensory info and it reconstructs your perception of the world from that. It's literally doing the same thing as when you hallucinate it's just that normally, your brain has a pretty good model of what those impulses mean and the reality you hallucinate is useful enough to navigate the world with and to have common agreement with others as to many of its qualities. If your conscious reality is just a very realistic hallucination, then the idea that it is anything other than the construction of the brain is ridiculous. It's just the religious quest for the nonexistent soul, using different words. Krauss had it right in the vid. And this is despite the fact that asking a physicist about consciousness is like asking a physician about plumbing. Relevant expertise matters. Start here: kzread.info/dash/bejne/nq2pmdhwnrrgltI.html

@richardschuerger3214

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnbrzykcy3076 I should have started by answering directly - by emergent, I mean there is no fundamental thing called consciousness. It's a result of neuronal activity. You can build a walls, floors, and ceilings, but you can't directly build a room except for it emerging from the walls, floor, and ceiling. It's like that.

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

@@richardschuerger3214 Thanks for sharing all that. I'll try to watch the video later. I sometimes watch KZread videos by Bernardo Kastrup. He seems to be highly educated in science and philosophy. I agree with you that the brain "reconstructs your perception of the world.." Personally I don't like the word "hallucination" but I can accept the word "imagination." Yes... consciousness is a mystery to me. We all seem to have it yet it's very little understood. Thanks for sharing ...

@johnbrzykcy3076

3 жыл бұрын

@@richardschuerger3214 Okay... I think I understand a bit now what you mean. However I wonder if consciousness could just have a wall and ceiling? Ooops... help.... It would be like a dream of "falling" forever...

Asking Lawrence Krauss about religion is like asking Trump about Biden Right now.

@averagebodybuilder

3 жыл бұрын

I know. Just ask Hamza Tzortzis.

The anthropic argument is foolish.

@joshheter1517

3 жыл бұрын

Why?

@Cephas3524

3 жыл бұрын

@@joshheter1517 to ask that question is foolish.

@joshheter1517

3 жыл бұрын

@@Cephas3524 Ha... you’re a troll, but you’re not even good at it. Get a life.

@Cephas3524

3 жыл бұрын

@@joshheter1517 "The faults of others are easier to see than one's own." Have a nice day.

@joshheter1517

3 жыл бұрын

@@Cephas3524 Oh, the irony.

Lawrence Krauss had to step down from his position at ASU because of serious sexual harassment allegations. It also doesn't help that he presented doctored information during his debate with William Lane Craig that his entire argument relied upon. He really isn't someone you should be having on the show.

@ferdinandkraft857

3 жыл бұрын

_Allegations_. Nowadays anyone can come up with "allegations" and destroy someone's else career.

@withoutlimits16

3 жыл бұрын

@@ferdinandkraft857 "That investigation concluded this week. According to BuzzFeed News, which first reported on Krauss’s alleged sexual misconduct in February, Arizona State found evidence to support several allegations: that Krauss grabbed a woman’s breast at a meeting; that he groped another’s thigh; that he told an employee he would buy her birth control so she wouldn’t inconvenience him with maternity leave; that he made suggestive comments about a student’s attire; and that he suggested a threesome to a female job candidate at the Origins Project, Krauss’s flagship program at Arizona State." from the Atlantic

@ferdinandkraft857

3 жыл бұрын

@@withoutlimits16 "this week" is actually 2018. Here is another news excerpt: "During the investigation, Krauss told officials he likely had his hand raised to help steady the woman due to a loss of balance while the photo was taken, the report states. Additionally, he added that he may have raised his hand to block the camera's anticipated flash. ASU's final report states that due to the corroboration of consistent stories from five interviewees - one being the woman involved - Krauss did grab the woman's breast and his explanation for his raised arm did not outweigh the other evidence. " That's it. Interviews. No concrete evidence.

@withoutlimits16

3 жыл бұрын

@@ferdinandkraft857 Interviews are evidence. There were more allegations than just that. Read the article. He was told to step down form the university directly after this.

Computer generated... simulation theory