I love how a believer criticizes something for "doesn't seem to be science".

@user-vq6xc6zj5z

7 ай бұрын

The multiverse is not science because it can not be falsified. Even hardcore atheist like Sabine Hossenfelder are full of contempt for it.

@teleamor

7 ай бұрын

ItsEverythingElse- Holder's right. Multiverse theory is NOT scientific. ZERO evidence for it and it can't be tested.

@Jay-kk3dv

7 ай бұрын

What?

@archaeologistify

7 ай бұрын

Thinking there are 2 diametrically opposed camps that fight each other and it's somehow ironic that a person from 1 camp thinks as a person from the enemy camp is called tribalism. Try not falling for it. Theres nothing ironical about a believer thinking scientifically. If anything, it should be cherished.

@JavHos98

6 ай бұрын

Answering them in their own terms rather than speaking about any theology

I love Rodney Holder. His book, Big Bang, Big God was a joy to read.

Fine tuning may just be a brute fact, just as "why is there something rather than nothing" may be.

@markb3786

7 ай бұрын

nah. let's turn it into something mystical

@wmpx34

7 ай бұрын

@@markb3786sky daddy it is then

@Resmith18SR

7 ай бұрын

Everything including our existing could be a brute fact, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth studying to find out the truth and also be in awe of how everything seems to work.

@teleamor

7 ай бұрын

@@wmpx34 who mocks a "sky daddy", by default believes our finite universe created ITSELF. LOL!

@user-vq6xc6zj5z

7 ай бұрын

Yes but if that is it is outside of the reach of the scientific method. The scientific method is there to find causes of thing and " brute fact without further cause" is hence a philosophical hypothesis, that can not be investigated by scientific means.

Given what little we really know about creatuon, it is no farther stretch to suggest that the creation is the multiverse, because that is where life comes from.

This question infuriates me! WE are fine tuned to live here! We are not special.

@JackPullen-Paradox

7 ай бұрын

Just because Science holds tight to Galileo doesn't mean we are not special. It just means the Earth rotates about the Sun.

If things were different, things would indeed have been different. I’m not sure why this is a profound or explanatory observation.

@francesco5581

7 ай бұрын

if things were different there would not be anyone asking that question. That is the profound thing .

@demographicoutlier

7 ай бұрын

@@francesco5581 see, that's the crux of the banality for me. We're here because we exist among a universe in which the conditions are such that we could have evolved through eons of adaptation and consequently ever-increasing fitness for that specific environment. We're here because we exist at the right time and in the right conditions which allow for it. Were there other condition or were it another time we wouldn't be. It's pure happenstance and coincidence. There is nothing special in this observation, certainly nothing to suggest anything has been "fine tuned" outside of our own organic needs/limitations as it befits the laws of the universe around us, but that is to be expected. It's a form of existential tautology. What about this amazes or confounds you? It's very possible I am missing something here.

@francesco5581

7 ай бұрын

@@demographicoutlier that to have a complex universe, one that contain life, one with consciousness, one stable universe, one with elements, laws of physics, fine tuned constants you NEED to have a very unique starting set. Then all what you say is just a second step. You cant give for granted to have this complex, elegant, meaningful reality instead of 2 electrons bumping into each other. It's me that dont understand how you cant get it.

@demographicoutlier

7 ай бұрын

@@francesco5581 right, granted. And what I say shouldn't be meant to minimize the majesty of it all. It's simply to say this is pretty much the only way this could have happened, otherwise we would not be here to ponder it at all. It's not like we have some frame of reference of alternative universes which we had hoped could produce human life yet failed that we can compare ours with and marvel at the exactitude of it all - it simply is what is. It's like every time you wind up at an intersection and reach a stop sign at the exact moment someone perpendicular to you also does. If you stop to imagine all of the little steps you took in your day, indeed your life, that got you to that very point at that very time and then extend your thought to account for same of the other driver - including that extra 15 seconds when you doubled back to grab the coffee you'd forgotten that you MUST have taken to have wound up in that exact scenario, well the odds of it all are astronomically large. Too large of course for it not to have been divined and finely tuned. The sheer precision of it all! Only, we know that the actual odds are 100% because here you both are. It's commonplace, it's banal. Reason being, we haven't defined any of the outcomes ahead of time such that the occurrence becomes unique or fantastical. Given an eternity of time, or an infinite expression of universes, were we not to have taken a human form of consciousness, perhaps we take some other vessel or experience consciousness in unique and unimaginable ways in a universe governed by other laws which allow for the rise of the same. The possibilities are endless unless/until there is some concrete resolution for how things all came to be and what the extent of the cosmos truly is. It could be a Russian nesting doll of universes all the way down for all we know. The "cars" in this analogy are humanity and our universe. That they happened to intersect at the moment they did is as unremarkable as any two previously undefined makes/models/drivers absent some predefined specifications for each. It had to happen. There could be an unending number of life & law permutations outside of our ability to know which render our local presentation rather ho hum. The chances of this universe coming into being are 100% and we are living evidence of that. I think perhaps you are weighting humanity too heavily as some evolutionary end goal achievement in a way that is unwarranted, which is causing you to further believe that this universe was built up around us for the purpose of hosting life in our fashion. We just are. It just is.

@asyetundetermined

7 ай бұрын

@@francesco5581 right, granted. And what I say shouldn't be meant to minimize the majesty of it all. It's simply to say this is pretty much the only way this could have happened, otherwise we would not be here to ponder it at all. It's not like we have some frame of reference of alternative universes which we had hoped could produce human life yet failed that we can compare ours with and marvel at the exactitude of it all - it simply is what is. It's like every time you wind up at an intersection and reach a stop sign at the exact moment someone perpendicular to you also does. If you stop to imagine all of the little steps you took in your day, indeed your life, that got you to that very point at that very time and then extend your thought to account for same of the other driver - including that extra 15 seconds when you doubled back to grab the coffee you'd forgotten that you MUST have taken to have wound up in that exact scenario, well the odds of it all are astronomically large. Too large of course for it not to have been divined and finely tuned. The sheer precision of it all! Only, we know that the actual odds are 100% because here you both are. It's commonplace, it's banal. Reason being, we haven't defined any of the outcomes ahead of time such that the occurrence becomes unique or fantastical. Given an eternity of time, or an infinite expression of universes, were we not to have taken a human form of consciousness, perhaps we take some other vessel or experience consciousness in unique and unimaginable ways in a universe governed by other laws which allow for the rise of the same. The possibilities are endless unless/until there is some concrete resolution for how things all came to be and what the extent of the cosmos truly is. It could be a Russian nesting doll of universes all the way down for all we know. The "cars" in this analogy are humanity and our universe. That they happened to intersect at the moment they did is as unremarkable as any two previously undefined makes/models/drivers absent some predefined specifications for each. It had to happen. There could be an unending number of life & law permutations outside of our ability to know which render our local presentation rather ho hum. The chances of this universe coming into being are 100% and we are living evidence of that. I think perhaps you are weighting humanity too heavily as some evolutionary end goal achievement in a way that is unwarranted, which is causing you to further believe that this universe was built up around us for the purpose of hosting life in our fashion. We just are. It just is.

What if there is only one intelligence which veils itself so not to be by itself? Did all quantum fluctuations in the early universe not appear out of the same big bang/singularity?

I know that was difficult. Good job.

Let’s just be clear: the only philosophical framework under which you can actually argue that there is a very specific set of physical requirements for life to exist is naturalism. Because, under naturalism, life itself is simply a byproduct of certain environmental conditions, and so of course the environment is going to determine where and when life can exist. Under theism, on the other hand, there is supposedly an all powerful, all knowing deity who is directly and solely responsible for creating literally _everything_ that exists. An all powerful God wouldn’t need any set of physical parameters in order to create or sustain life. Therefore, under theism, the physical constants and whatever other environmental conditions that exist are absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether or not life can exist. God could make life exist without any environment at all, if he so chose, for one example.

In any discussion of the apparent fine tuning three things need to be pointed out: An all powerful God could have created life in any way he wanted -- fine tuned or not. Secondly, the fine tuning argument rests on the assumption that the conditions and settings we observer are statistically rare and so must have been set that way intentionally. This assumption is completely unsupported since we have no probability distribution for these conditions/values. Thirdly, if the universe is fine tuned for something then it acctually appears to be fine tuned to create black holes, not humans.

Anything that emerges out of an environment is by necessity fine tuned to that environment. As opposed to the environment being fine tuned for it.

@wmpx34

7 ай бұрын

This is the simple answer that everyone seems to overlook. The anthropic principle. It’s like finding a bird’s nest in a tree and concluding that the tree was designed perfectly to hold it.

@brothermine2292

7 ай бұрын

If the environment isn't compatible with complex, durable structures, then they can't emerge.

@Kritiker313

7 ай бұрын

The fine tuning had to be in place for for life to emerge in the first place.

Given an infinite number of combinations in space time there is no way life would not appear and not only once but an infinite number of times. The idea of deliberate creations of life is an interesting example of human ignorance and lack of scientific understanding!

I dont think the premise if his argument is correct. I habe understand that you can adjust several "tunings" and still end up with a universie that could support complexity that supports life

Most of the most common elements about twenty of them are each one absolutely essential for life without which life would be impossible.

@bananacabbage7402

7 ай бұрын

In the first four periods of the periodic table, all alkali metals, alkaline earth metals, halogens and other non-metals, and most transition metals play a biological role. Classes of elements that do not appear to be essential for any form of life are noble gases, metalloids, post-transition metals and group three transition metals. This means that only ten of the first 36 elements are not used in biochemistry, namely Helium, Beryllium, Neon, Aluminium, Silicon, Argon, Scandium, Gallium, Germanium and Krypton In the higher periods Strontium, Molybdenum, Iodine, Tungsten and Mercury play a role in some life forms. In all 31 naturally occurring elements are known to appear in biochemistry. Other elements are important to life in other ways e.g. by providing nuclear energy that heats the Earth’s core (Thorium and Uranium) or as mineral substrate (Aluminium and Silicon). Helium is especially relevant to stellar nucleosynthesis and radioactivity.

@simonhibbs887

7 ай бұрын

It’s almost as though there were an evolutionary selective natural process, and that chemical systems and organism which are most efficient at using all the resources available to them have an advantage.

@JungleJargon

7 ай бұрын

@@bananacabbage7402 Yes and there would be no elements without hydrogen and the noble gases.

@JungleJargon

7 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Evolution doesn’t exist in my vocabulary, only evolutionism exists which is pseudoscience claiming that energy and matter can make and direct themselves.

NOT impressed with either theistic or materialists arguments for fine-tuning or consciousness, etc.

It's not finely-tuned, it's: Mostly inhospitable, extreme, chaotic, unfinished, and empty.

@davewyman

7 ай бұрын

That seems more plausible than the claim of fine tuning.

@CodyAdams-pf9un

6 ай бұрын

The math says it is fine-tuned though, and it's a major debate in theoretical physics about why. The fact that space seems infinite and expanding guarantees life will exist somewhere. But even if the universe was very small it still seems fine-tuned because of the precise math required in the 4 fundamental forces that are perfectly balanced on a razor blade to create atoms and complex structure

I think at to the end of our journeys it like a collection collect skills details experience upgrade that's the story that's what it do this is not the early of human's catogry but some of are at future some of are at before early I feels like this planet can speak one day if creater or desire ask from us what's the language you offer what would you say.? Thank you for the video clip sr.

It cracks me up the way these "scientists" blithely and freely interchange the terms 'constant' and 'variable.' And the scientist/theologian says if you reject the design claim, you are driven to the multiverse claim. OR, you can simply posit that life was fine-tuned to and by the environment in which it evolved.

@simonhibbs887

7 ай бұрын

A parameter can be a constant in some contexts or a variable in others. In mathematics Pi has a constant value in Euclidean geometry for example, but in fact the geometry of our spacetime is not Euclidean so in our universe technically Pi is not constant, though this rarely matters.

In Gerant Lewis' and Luke Barnes' book on fine-tuning, they said they DO vary all the constants at once in their simulations, rather than varying them one at a time. They said the universe is still fine-tuned.

@theophany150

7 ай бұрын

That is pretty interesting. i am working on my own brand of syncretism here. Sheldrake got me to question my concept of the cosmos as a big machine. So I tried out the idea that it works more like a big organism. It is starting to feel like a comfortable idea. If the organic model is superior to the mechanistic model, then fine tuning is something like homeostasis. Does that sound deistic/theistic?

@philochristos

7 ай бұрын

@@theophany150 That sounds like a distinction without a difference. Organisms ARE mechanistic, aren't they? They're physical things that operate according to the laws of nature.

@theophany150

7 ай бұрын

@@philochristos Not according to the way it is usually conceptualized, I don't think. Fine tuning is usually imagined within more of a Prime Cause type situation because all these particles and molecules and forces, if that is all there is to it, should behave utterly predictably, like balls on a billiard table. IOW, you might be able to predict the weather in your town today if you knew every single thing that happened within the first billionth of a second after the Big Bang. But is there is some principle that regulates it all? If so, what is it? This is a big idea of Paul Davies', I think, and his answer seems to be teleology, so maybe that is right.

@brothermine2292

7 ай бұрын

Yes. Although there are many more life-enabling combinations when multiple constants can be changed, it's still a tiny number compared to the vast number of combinations that would lack the complexity for life.

@philochristos

7 ай бұрын

@@theophany150 Is Paul Davies a pantheist? Is that what you're getting at?

The multiverse 'hypothesis' seems more like an attempt to dilute than to explain the evidence that we have.

As Krause says, the real miracle would be if life existed in a universe that isn’t fine tuned. And, fine tuning assumes that the fine tuning was imposed, rather than a events randomly played out and just had the right conditions that enable atoms to form. Saying God by definition is eternal only uses semantics to avoid answering the question they force on materialists to answer.

Another counter argument against fine tuning is that we don't know if those variables can be tweaked or randomized. Easy to change in a computer model, but in reality, there may be natural reasons, not requiring a mind, that the variables are the way they are.

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

Well, they are able to tweak those variables with computer modeling and do find that degrees of variation are possible with all the identified fine tuning variables.

@TestMeatDollSteak

7 ай бұрын

The major objection, that I see, is that if indeed there even is any “fine tuning”, then that “fine tuning” counts as evidence _against_ the existence of an all powerful, all knowing “designer”. An omnipotent deity/designer/creator wouldn’t need any particular set of physical parameters to bring life into existence - if he does need a very specific balance of particular physical constants in order to create and sustain life, then his creative powers are constrained by those very same laws of physics. If he’s omnipotent & omniscient, on the other hand, then the laws of physics and all other environmental parameters are completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not life can exist, because “God’s will” would be the determining factor that decides where and when life exists, not physics or the environment. Only under the philosophical framework of naturalism can it honestly be argued that life *requires* certain environmental conditions in order to exist. Because, under naturalism, life is simply a byproduct of the environment itself, rather than a miracle created by some all powerful deity who isn’t bound by any physical constraints.

@simonhibbs887

7 ай бұрын

@@TestMeatDollSteakI don’t buy the fine tuning argument, and I’m an atheist, but I’m not sure that objection quite works. If the universe is fine tuned it doesn’t mean the fine tuner was constrained by the laws of physics, if they laid down the laws themselves. Laying down such laws doesn’t necessarily constrain the creator either, only the created. They may only be laws for us, not for it. Any such act of creation by an infinite being is necessarily an act of limitation from the infinite to the finite. This was recognised by the Kabbalists who theorised an act of withdrawal of the infinite they called Tzimtzum. As I said I’m not a theist, strict physicalist, but I find this stuff fun to think about.

@TestMeatDollSteak

7 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Yes, it absolutely _DOES_ mean that the designer in question is constrained by those same laws of physics. Can God change all of the physical parameters and still sustain life? Can God create life without any environmental conditions whatsoever? If the answer to either question is no, then God is not all powerful, as it implies that he must rely on certain physical parameters in order to create or sustain life. If the answer to those questions is yes, then the laws of physics are completely irrelevant to life’s existence. They’re instead just arbitrary values that God has chosen, like background music in a movie.

@TestMeatDollSteak

7 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Look at it this way, if you prefer: if a “fine tuner” laid down the laws of physics and then essentially let them alone such that the laws of physics and the environmental conditions that they bring about alone are dictating where and when life exists, then that scenario is practically and functionally indistinguishable to us from naturalism. I would also assume that any theist who embraces this position should similarly wholeheartedly embrace abiogenesis. If a “miracle” is required to start life on earth, rather than chemistry as dictated by the laws of physics, then how “precisely fine-tuned for life” are the laws physics, exactly? That’s just theists trying to have it both ways, per usual.

I am much more interested in where existence came from. Since it is a prerequisite for anything else to come into existence and it could not come from non-existence it seems that it is uncaused. Universes are small fries. Can such an existence in pure form before all things, before the big bangs, before time, can it be aware?

If you have infinitely many universes, it is not necessarily true that everything will happen. Besides, if there were a beginning to the universes, then the universes would not have reached a true infinity; so, there is even less chance of having any particular occurrence. Further, if any conceivable life form has a physics associated with it, then there is a constraint that the multiverse must obey and multiplying the possibilities will not get one out of this fact.

3:08 What both of them don't understand is that each additional variable makes the fine tuning problem worse - at least if all variables have to be changed in a fixed way to each other. In that case each variable has to be imagined like a number beam into infinity. If you have three variables there are three infinite number beams, if you have four you have four and so on. Now if universes could be stable if you vary them on this beam in a fixed ratio this would mean you always would have to connect three numbers on each number beam in a fixed ratio, or four on four number beams and so on. So it's like a bit of sliding a geometric line structure foreward on the three infinite number beams or on four. That you can slide this structure forward in your mind gives you the imoression that there are lots of other and even infinite ways a functional universe could be constructed. But if you want to calculate in how many ways this could go wrong you have to connect any number (minus that functional ratio combination)to any number on either three infinite number beams. Or on four number beams if you have 4 variables that should be in a fixed relation. If you visualize that amounts of connections halfway realistically you should be able to see that you just increase already infinite ways how the universe could fail in an EXPONENTIAL fashion each time you add a new number beam aka variable that needs to move in a fixed relation to the other variables. Look into how Cantor shows that some types of infinities are (much) bigger than others and you will understand the principle..

@renocicchi7346

4 ай бұрын

I disagree. Imagine for example a photon. Photons have an electric field and a magnetic field. If you alter the magnetic field but don’t alter the electric field, photons will be nothing like how it is in this universe where electricity and magnetism are directly proportional. But if you can change both the electrical field and the magnetic field, both can be changed equally and the photon would operate perfectly normally. So if you can only change one aspect, all possible outcomes will be impossible, while introducing another variable would suddenly allow something possible again. There is of course the argument that its physically impossible to change the constants of the universe in the same way it’s impossible to change magnetic field of a photon without changing the electric field of a photon. That’s because electricity and magnetism are both dependent on each other, and the constants of the universe and their values are also dependent each other. So changing one constants variable will cause a cascade of changes to the other constants variables. It is thus silly to try to change a single constant of the universe and expect it to create complexity. But it is not silly to expect complexity if one allows variation in all the constants to accommodate the changes as each force and particle effect and are dependent on each other, like the weak force and electricity connect through the electroweak unified theory

What if life exists despite the universe not being fine tuned? This would be an explanation for the Fermi paradox.

e are not looking for some 'designer' like one who would design a clock work for example. We are better served to ask about a designer that is not separate from what arises. We could say something that is not separate from the universe however this already puts the mind in a kind of frame work of which we are not yet clear about just what that universe is. One good starting place is some view like Bernardo Kastrup ideas. At least it takes into account the one who may be pondering such matters. Without a more comprehensive understanding of what is consciousness we will fall into unnecessary confusions. Just to get us to ask possibly more fruitful questions let us consider the following from J G Bennett's "The Dramatic Universe vol 1" p50-51: "We can recast the ancient question: 'Of what stuff is all reality made?' in the form: 'Of what stuff is all experience made?' Ordinarily we tend to imagine that there must be two kinds of stuff corresponding to the distinction between subject and object. For example, if we look at a table it seems as if there are two quite different kinds of stuff present: one the 'inner' stuff of our awareness, and the other the stuff of the table itself, which is somehow 'outside'. This means that we make the Cartesian distinction of 'thinking substance' and 'extended substance'. This is rather like saying that because a stick two ends, it must be made of two different materials, whereas the ends are only aspects of the stick and have no 'existence' apart from it. What exist is the experience itself. To affirm this is not to deny polarity, but to restore it to its right status as the binary aspect of experience. The event, looking at the table is a whole, the togetherness of which derives from our awareness. It is also a relationship in which our interest or concern enables our organs of perception to respond to the impressions received from the table by selecting them from the totality of sense-data present at a given moment. It is therefore only under the category of polarity that the words 'I' and 'the table have their usual meaning. It is necessary to stress these distinctions because we have the strongly formed habit of thinking in dualistic terms; that is, of attending to the aspect of polarity to the exclusion of other elements present in experience. On account of this habit of thought, all sorts of fictitious questions arise, and here again philosophers have wasted much time and energy by treating them as if they were real."

The Universe or Ultimate Reality which created and is responsible for all life and subsequent human life doesn't require us to have certain specific beliefs about it. Our individual lives are unique and unrepeatable.

There are deeper laws. Constants follow from those laws. I can show direct connection between mass of electron and Hubble constant.

@BLSFL_HAZE

7 ай бұрын

Why do you think the physical constants can't just naturally be the way they are, without anything deeper, causing them to be that way?

@matterasmachine

7 ай бұрын

@@BLSFL_HAZE they could probably, but I have the connection. That connection might show that mass of proton/ electron are not fundamental, but rather function of average temperature.

And in the universe that’s not designed and is random- why would there be a stark difference between life and non-life ? A purely random universe should be equal in all its parts because it would have no prior design paradigm to resist its own randomness -therefore there should be no structure or contrast of anything at all

@simonhibbs887

7 ай бұрын

>should be equal in all its parts I think you’re confusing the concept of an even distribution with that of a random distribution. Random distributions are not homogenous. They have arbitrary variations which lead to differentiation and ultimately structure, which is what we observe happened in the early universe.

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

At least at the “turning point” of where non-life turned into life, abiogenesis researchers are finding the differences between the two not very stark at all, but really rather fuzzy. As there seem to have been hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of chemical natural selection micro baby steps slowly morphing into biological natural selection over the course of hundreds of millions of years.

@MrSanford65

7 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 in a random universe it is impossible to evolve into anything unless there is a parameter for which it ( the universe ) deflects into itself. Now for there to be life or contrasts or any kind of constructs of something coming out of randomness there has to be a limit surrounding the universe-there has to be some unseen force, pushing back on randomness for which any creation could happen. But ignoring that, what is stopping everything from evolving into life if the universe being its own property -has to be the same throughout ?

@TheShinedownfan21

7 ай бұрын

There is no stark difference between life and non-life, that's why it is so difficult to pin down a definition of exactly what qualifies as life. In our human vocabulary we simply designate some chemical processes as "special" because we experience them from a particular point of view.

@TheShinedownfan21

7 ай бұрын

@@MrSanford65 There are various patterns forming in the universe, some of which we call "life," some of which we call "stars" or "atoms," but no entity is directing them or intelligently designing them or intentionally making them do what they do. There are only physical interactions which produce logical flows and cycles but no final result, only continuous change.

The fine-tuning mentality is an extension of the Geocentric mentality. Any highly evolved state could be interpreted as fine tuned. Logically, it is impossible for "the fundamental constants of nature" to be unchanging. E.g. perfect periodicity in nature is impossible. The constants are essentially relational and necessarily not unchanging.

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

How is it logically impossible for the constants of Nature to be unchanging? Serious question.

@brendangreeves3775

7 ай бұрын

Perfect precision ( absolute and unchanging) is impossible in nature. Nature is fundamentally a manifestation of the dynamical relative state. The absolute is impossible.

(1:10) *RH: **_"Well, one explanation certainly for this is that there is a designer behind it."_* ... Nobody ever wants to consider that maybe the universe is not the byproduct of chance nor the playground of an omniscient being, but rather something that "appears" random and orchestrated at the same time. If the universe was able to emerge based on the bare minimum amount of intelligence necessary to facilitate its existence ... _then how would anyone be able to tell either way?_ You'd end up with half claiming it's the result of *benign randomness* and the other half claiming *divine orchestration.* ... And behold, that just happens to be what we've got going on today!

@AH-tx1nj

7 ай бұрын

Aaaaand we're back to Square¹. LOL!

@simonhibbs887

7 ай бұрын

>bare minimum amount of intelligence. So there is a creator god, but he’s cosmically stupid. You know, that would actually explain quite a lot. Actually in his horror fiction H.P. Lovecraft beat us to it on that one with Azathoth, the mindless daemon sultan of chaos at the heart of the universe.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

7 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 *"So there is a creator god, but he’s cosmically stupid. You know, that would actually explain quite a lot."* ... Not sure how a *minimum amount of intelligence* commensurate to whatever amount would be required to facilitate basic emergence translates to any type of a creation scenario, let alone a "cosmically stupid" God. ... And if you feel it's the latter, then what makes it a "stupid God?" Is there a "smarter version" of the universe that we can compare to this stupid one? Just like the MWI addresses cosmic inflation, a minimum amount of intelligence required to facilitate basic emergence addresses why intelligent humans exist today. ... Otherwise, you're once again left trying to explain how intelligence emerged within a nonintelligent universe.

If the reason of life is to think then why do we not

If all the things he mentioned in the first minute were fine tuned, then what's not fine tuned? If everything is fine tuned, then nothing is fine tuned because 'fine tuned' is meaningless. The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, is that part of fine tuning as well? Was the fine tuner fine tuned? The whole thing is a fine example of the Necessitation Fallacy.

1/137. Is the clue to understanding fine tuning

@user-vq6xc6zj5z

7 ай бұрын

The physicist Pauli said when dead he will ask the devil what this number say. Some people claim that the hospital room he died had the number 137, but I have not yet verified if this is an internet myth :)

Multiverse = moving the goalposts

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

Science doesn’t have goalposts. Only religious apologists do. And they project their need to maintain their belief systems at all cost on science. Meanwhile, science doesn’t have a belief system; rather, science comes up with hypotheses based on available data and then seeks to see if they can disprove those hypotheses. Wholly different from how the holy operate.

@stellarwind1946

7 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863of course it has goalposts. That is the whole purpose of the scientific method.

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

@@stellarwind1946 Science has goals, not goalposts. Two different things. Goalposts are what happen when Christian apologists say, evolution has never been seen in the lab, therefore our Christian God is the creator of life. But then when evolution is found in the lab and seen clearly, for example, in just how viruses evolve, the Christian apologists then call that micro evolution and say, but we have never seen macro evolution in the lab, therefore our Christian God created everything. For science it is different. They have a goal, for example, to understand how gravity works and so come up with hypotheses and try to disprove them. In the cases of Newton’s theory of gravity, they were eventually able to see that, although a great theory for most things, it did not work with certain phenomenon (the orbit of the planet, Mercury, being a prime example) and so eventually Einstein’s theory of gravity was adopted. Goalposts have to do with maintaining belief systems. Science doesn’t have belief systems, just hypotheses and ideas that they constantly scrutinize with very critical eyes. Totally different from how the religious apologists operate.

@Resmith18SR

7 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 Einstein was a Pantheist.

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

@@Resmith18SR Believing in cooking utensils is neither here nor there to how science works.

To make long story short, both arguments against the fine-tuning are bunk. And the infinite universes hypothesis clearly violate the Occam's razor principle.

@simonhibbs887

7 ай бұрын

Occam’s Razor applies to competing explanations of the same outcome. It is not meant to be a way of choosing between hypotheses that make different predictions. If the multiverse hypotheses makes different predictions from a single universe hypothesis then logic won’t split the difference. We can see this in the history of science. Very rarely was the simplest explanation correct. Newtonian mechanics is simpler than relativity, yet they make different predictions so this is allowed. Finally the razor is just a heuristic, not a law. It can be a useful guide and that’s all.

@sapientum8

7 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Occam's razor principle is against unnecessary multiplication of entities, positing that the theory with fewest number of entities should be preferred. Multiverse theory, which requires an infinite number of entities, is indeed the most extreme case of such a multiplication. By this principle, the hypothesis of 1 fine-tuned universe and 1 higher intelligence that did the fine-tuning (2 entities in total) is much more preferable than the multiverse theory which demands infinite number of entities.

@simonhibbs887

7 ай бұрын

@@sapientum8 Occam’s Razor is a statement about assumptions, not results. Really, please go and read up on it. It’s far more often misused than applied appropriately, especially when it comes to scientific rather than philosophical applications. There’s an extensive article on it on Wikipedia that’s fairly decent. Occam’s Razor is not a statements about the results a theory predicts. It’s about the assumptions required in order to arrive at a given prediction. The key point is assumptions. Let’s look specifically at inflation theory. Inflation proposes an additional mechanism that applied in the early universe to explain various observations. By default Occam’s Razor tells us we should prefer not to add extra mechanisms, but we had data we couldn’t explain and so we needed to adjust our theories. Still resistant to accepting this extra mechanism, various experiments were proposed to test any of the observable additional predictions inflation theory makes. Two of these predictions, to do with aspects of the CMB, have now been confirmed. So we had observations of large scale structure we couldn’t explain, now we have several more observations we have no other explanatory model for, and inflation theory explains all of these. So now most cosmologists accept that inflation theory is a useful, predictive proposition that we need in order to explain what we see in the world. Occam’s razor has nothing more to add to this. We tried to wield it, but eliminating inflation theory also reduces our explanatory power. We need a way to explain these observations and inflation gives us that, so we have to put the razor away for use another time. It turns out that inflation theory also predicts that different vastly separated regions of spacetime expand at different rates and in different ways. It’s not really a multiverse in the Marvel Universe kind of way. It’s just vastly separated regions of space where different physical conditions apply. It’s still one contiguous spacetime though. No actual additional entities are predicted, just greater variation in existing spacetime. However even if additional entities were predicted that would be fine. Occam’s Razor could say nothing about them because they would be predictions, not assumptions of the theory. It then turns out that this prediction offers a potential counter to the fine tuning argument, because how the elementary structures of physics emerge, and therefore the relationships between physical parameters, may vary between regions. This isn’t why inflation theory was proposed, it’s just a prediction of it. As it happens I’m not entirely happy with inflation theory for abstruse technical reasons, I’m with a minority of physicists that think there are other ways we might be able to explain the the same phenomena inflation theory does. However these explanations will likely also require additions to our theoretical models, just different additions from inflation theory. So again, most likely Occam’s Razor will not help us choose between them.

One theory of fine tuning is that perhaps we are a programmed game that some advanced creature is playing. Otherwise why is the universe so finely tuned. A little more this way or that way and there would be no life in the universe. Another analogy is that we are like water in a puddle. The water hole we are in fits and finely tuned for us. But gradually the water in the hole dries up. And life dries up with it.

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

Or maybe we are all part of a carnival attraction. You put in your quarter, get wired up, live a life, die (hopefully not to brutally) and then come out a half hour later and tell your friends about it.

@simonhibbs887

7 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863We could call the game “A life well lived”.

Yes multiverse the new paradigm to explain away the fire breather of the equations. Lol. I like their(physicalists ) persistence and how they take on a magical belief with no experimental evidence, to support a multiverse, which by the way is profoundly magical too.

"different kind of life" is clearly a fairytale and a recursive argument that is totally illogical since it has no bases in reality, both material and rational; in fact if we are to make any scenario, no matter how stretched, we can not really propose any feature of a so called "different kind of life"; the only raison d'etre for this is to come handy in combating fine tuning; it is hard any way to tell how life appeared, it is so complex, we have no idea about it's origins and we can not replicate

Fine tuning has several problems. First it assumes that the physics of the universe could be other than it is. There’s no basis for assuming that. Next in stating the parameters of the universe are unlikely it makes specific assumptions about the probability of various combinations of parameters. We have no basis to make any assumptions about the probability of any of these. Then there the basic claim that the universe is fine tuned for life at all. Conversely our universe seems incredibly hostile to life. Even given the most optimistic estimates of the prevalence of life, it can only survive on an infinitesimal sliver of the universe. Space is full of spectacularly dangerous phenomena: black holes, quasars, supernovae, gamma ray bursts, planetary and asteroid collisions, gravitational disturbances that fling planets into interstellar space. Any of these and many more can wipe out planets or entire solar systems. If life had taken just 10% longer to evolve here than it did, the sun would be so hot it would make Earth uninhabitable before we’d have time to develop civilisation. If earth was 10% more massive space technology would be basically impossible. It seems very likely most planets with life are destroyed, incinerated or frozen before that life has a chance to evolve and get off it. The distances between stars and hostility of space very likely makes escaping our solar system impractical, so when it’s destroyed we go with it. Essentially the fate of the inhabitants of Pompeii, destruction by an inescapable natural disaster, seems likely to be the fate of most, or even all evolved life. Imagine how popular the fine tuning argument would be to any of them when their fate comes due.

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

Our universe may not be hostile toward life, but it is certainly hostile to long lived life, unless you’re a jellyfish, perhaps. Or unless you consider life from the perspective of the species, rather than the individual of the species. But as you say, any life bound to a planet in a single solar system is vulnerable. Which is where i quibble with you. I do think the goal of any intelligent species that cares about itself, should be to establish itself on other planets in other solar systems as quickly as possible. You suggest that is technologically unlikely. But I would argue that an intelligent species willing to make this happen and willing work together for it on a planetary level, could achieve such a goal. It would probably take more, however, than just advancements in science and technology alone.

@brothermine2292

7 ай бұрын

I don't think your "problems" with the fine-tuning problem seriously undermine it. 1. It's a valid scientific question to ask why the fundamental constants are as they are, and to seek the explanation for their values. I assume you're proposing that the fundamental constants either (1.1) must be as they are for some reason as yet unknown, or (1.2) are a "brute empirical fact" that in principle cannot be explained. Although discovering the reason in 1.1 would be very satisfying and would probably be favored by Occam's Razor, it's been one of the "holy grails" of cosmology for decades yet still no one has a clue about what that reason might be or how to discover it. So we have no reason to assume 1.1 is correct. Although unexplainable "brute facts" like in 1.2 are logically possible, they get no favoritism from Occam's Razor, which is about comparing alternative explanations. It would be interesting to survey professional cosmologists regarding their subjective Bayesian probabilities of 1.1, 1.2, a designer, and a non-designer multiversal explanation of fine-tuning. 2. Although one could call the universe "hostile" to life, the threshold between "hostile" and "not hostile" is undefined. That means "hostile" is poorly defined. Like nearly all adjectives, "hostile" is actually a linguistic shorthand that refers to the more fundamental relative comparison "more hostile than" some unstated alternative(s). Our universe is much LESS hostile to life than most alternative universes would be, assuming their fundamental constants deviate a bit from ours. Since those many alternative universes would be "more hostile" to life than our universe is, it's more appropriate to call them hostile than to call ours hostile, in the context of the debate about fine-tuning. One might ask, if the universe was designed, why wasn't it designed to be much less hostile to life? Like the question of evil, one would have to read the mind of the designer to answer the question. There's no reason to assume the level of hostility in our universe is inconsistent with the goals a designer might have. (On the other hand, it does seem like an awful waste of space & time for there to be so few hospitable environments.)

@simonhibbs887

7 ай бұрын

@@brothermine2292 How the universe came to be, and why it is this way are of course perfectly fine questions. I’m sure we would all love to know. It’s not the question I object to, it’s the pretence to knowledge we don’t have. I don’t need to make any claim about how the universe came to be this way in order to question the claims made in the fine tuning argument. The topic is the validity of the claims made in that argument, not any I may or may not choose to make, so 1.1 and 1.2 aren’t relevant. I’m not making those claims and even if I did that wouldn’t affect the validity of fine tuning.

@simonhibbs887

7 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 I completely agree it’s worth having a go at moving beyond our solar system, it may be possible, it just seems incredibly hard to do. I’m thinking in terms of the long term fate of life on most planets, and intelligent species in particular. Achieving multicellularity seems like a pretty unlikely fluke to start with, and a lot of planets will get destroyed or sterilised before advanced life gets going. Even if it does get going, if the atmosphere is too dense or gravity too strong even by a relatively small amount you’re not getting off. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the vast majority of planets that do develop technological civilisations end up wiped out either before they get off, or in circumstances where getting off the planet isn’t feasible, or where even getting off the planet isn’t enough to escape doom anyway. It’s rough out there.

@brothermine2292

7 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 : Questioning the assumptions of the fine-tuning argument is equivalent to proposing 1.1 or 1.2. The original fine-tuning argument was (paraphrasing): A) Small changes of the fundamental constants would eliminate the possibility of complex structures and life. B) The probability is tiny that the universe would have its *particular* set of fundamental constants resulting purely from a natural initial condition or natural process. C) A + B implies a designer. That argument was rebutted decades ago by: C₂) A + B implies a designer or a multiverse. It's fine that you point out that B is an assumption that might be wrong. My point is that when B is deleted, we end up with: C₃) A implies a designer or a multiverse or 1.1 or 1.2. This is why 1.1 and 1.2 are relevant.

In the beginning was information

Fine tuning just seems like people who are either 1) unwilling to admit how little we still know or 2) can't give up on God. I think the "anthropic principle" answers this. Both of these ideas are based on the pretty much unfounded idea that there is a possibility of other universes. That's a theory some people propose, but there is no evidence for it that is not circular.

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

Cosmic Inflation Theory predicts multiple and probably infinite or at least exponentially expanding universes.

@ovidiusnaso602

7 ай бұрын

meh@@longcastle4863

Could it be special because if one universe ends or world ends the force let's off a chain reaction which then nudges us the human being to reorientate where the variables of inflation are most preferred for the longevity of doing the natural genetic information transfer re: the cosmic relationship with source, the human being, and the other living ecologies on this planet? What if every single human being had a little filament. A representation of a string. But a group of strings share some commonality either as a family or a shared interest? But say, the only strings that actually matter are the ones that serve a purpose and have outlived many civilisations. Of course that would mean the strings are bound to institutions as well but the point is, the strings or string that is associated to the pitch in a wave or frequency is the ones that offer the line to navigate from deep past, through the muck of the present and toward the centre lane of inflation. But of course this is just how I imagine it to be 🙆🏽‍♀️. Thanks Robert. Comments section are becoming more thoughtful. It's wonderful 💛

I love how a believer criticizes multi-verse because they can't be observed and the theory is untested.

@simonhibbs887

7 ай бұрын

Yes, I particularly enjoyed that bit too.

@stellarwind1946

7 ай бұрын

Yes, only scientists are allowed to do that.

@markb3786

7 ай бұрын

@@stellarwind1946 well give me a mathematical basis for whichever religion you like. You still need to do some kind of math or science to form that initial hypothesis that you are going to study. You can't just scream, "sky daddy"

@brothermine2292

7 ай бұрын

Furthermore, some multiverse theories might be testable. For example, by looking for irregularities in the CMB or in the CNB.

@simonhibbs887

7 ай бұрын

@@stellarwind1946 Apart from the implicit criticism of religion on the same basis, the point is fine tuning itself is based on assumptions about phenomena that cannot be observed or tested. Fine tuning makes assumptions about the mechanism of probabilistic assignment of parameters, then when someone proposes a different mechanism they complain such a mechanism can’t be known. If such mechanisms can’t be known, how can we make statements about the probability distributions it produces?

There is only one way our universe can happen and will happen. All was predetermined from the start. There is only one universe. Perhaps the next universe will be slightly different and in it, you will be slightly different as well.

I don't understand what the idea of fine tuning. Is he saying that the universe is too complex to be without intentional design? If anything, I think of fine tuning like using sound or frequencies to vibrate a slate of metal with sand on top of it. Most sounds or frequencies will just disperse the sand, but at just the right, finely tuned frequencies you will get complex, fractal like designs that show up in the sand. There's nothing inherently designed but just a deterministic outcome of infinite probability. I think a better question for fine tuning should be; "Is there something tuning the universe? And if so, why is it adjusting and fine tuning?" Most people will probably argue that the things tuning the universe are the black holes currently sending vibrations and ripples through spacetime itself, but something that no one considers is the possibility that there can be left overs or residuals of previous universes, or even just larger universe than our own that could impose forces on ours. By no means am I an astrologist, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt, but if the universe is constantly being affected by the many black holes pulling and shaping our universe, then for them to not have as large of an effect, there would have to be a larger scale of affecting us to the point that we can't recognize is in the same way that the earth spins. If our entire universe was spinning and swirling like a vortex, then we would see fold in the space time that would push against each other as the universe is focused more and more into what essentially would be the Einstein's vortex effect. Personally, I'm just convinced that we exist in a black hole that's part of another universe, possibly made of similar matter or with more complex matter like weird matter. Looking at the mathematics that prove the existence of black holes leads me to believe that there the same mathematics that show the existence of a white hole mean that it has to be there in some form that we're just not able to recognize. Inside of Black holes could exist the inversion of itself, a White hole that would infinitely expend matter internally and that we're most likely inside the white hole part of a black hole. Therefore, any external forces that influence our outer black hole would also influence our own universe but not in ways that we would be able to notice their affects, much like how the Earth spins. Black hole collisions could be the source behind the big bangs, where a sudden influx of mass is introduced into our universe, completely annihilating or overwriting our current universe. Obviously this is so large scale and has so many mechanisms that it's hard to explain or even imagine and I fear that it's because of this that other scientists are afraid to take that stance because it leave them open to leading questions or ridicule by those that would refute it simply because it goes against their current ideas. There's still so much to the scale of what's beyond our universe that we don't know or understand to really argue about intentions or reasons behind its creation.

It's an antiepistemic (against valid epistemic standards) and antirational opposition to to reason.

People do have great faith in theories

@simonhibbs887

7 ай бұрын

In a sense they are all we have.

@markb3786

7 ай бұрын

you should learn what a true scientific theory is and how it results. my guess is you won't

@thedarknessthatcomesbefore4279

7 ай бұрын

Particularly in theological theories.

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

Scientists don’t have faith in theories, but they are partial to theories that work.

A single cyclic universe accomplishes the same thing as multi-verse, it just takes a lot longer.

@jackforeman2742

7 ай бұрын

Moreover in either senecio not only can anything else happen (possibly) but the same thing can happen over and over (possibly). And in all cases it is aware of itself?

@francesco5581

7 ай бұрын

the cyclic universe gives infinite chances to have a dead end. Also is a theory abandoned by almost everyone who proposed it ...

7:26 Someone that believes in a god refutes the multiverse theories because they are not tested. How odd…😏

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

Religious apologists are furious at science for the multiverse idea because they were hoping to stick their Gods in there.

Indeed, God holds the heavens and the earth, lest they cease. And if they should cease, no one could hold them [in place] after Him. Indeed, He is Forbearing and Forgiving. (Quran 35:41) Well from the perspective of the Islamic tradition, even the Multiverse Argument would be a theistic one. Because the Quran begins by the mention of God being the Sustainer and Creator of the multiverse.

@davewyman

7 ай бұрын

Who holds God?

@SabreenSyeed

7 ай бұрын

@@davewyman The definition of God is the One who needs no-one.

If you were designing a universe to contain life why make evolution such a long process? I agree that physics is fine-tuned but a multiverse theory explains it much better.

@cookeecutkk

7 ай бұрын

It’s not long, at all, if one accounts for the total possible age of the universe. Our universe is expected to remain in a life bearing capable state for at least some tens of trillions of years. I.e. there’s plenty of time for our evolutionary history to repeat itself, from scratch, many times over.

@TheUltimateSeeds

7 ай бұрын

I suggest that is it done via evolution to help give the impression that it was all "naturally occurring" in order to not only help obscure the fact that the whole thing is one big *"illusion"* taking place in the mind of the "Grand Designer," but also, to the "Designer" who allegedly has *eternal* life, a few billion years is nothing.

@simonhibbs887

7 ай бұрын

@@cookeecutkk>”it’s not long at all” Compared to the age of the universe no, but the one that really matters is the period a star can support life bearing planets. In another few hundred million years our sun will become so hot Earth will become unable to support life. That seems a long time, but it’s only 10% more than since the planet firmed. Basically if we’d taken just 10% longer to evolve, we’d have been incinerated before we developed a civilisation. Since evolving multicellular life took so long, it seems like it’s an unlikely accident. This implies that on the vast majority of planets that do evolve life, it gets wiped out without any chance to get anywhere. And that’s just one way a life bearing planet can get arbitrarily wiped out. Just ask the dinosaurs.

@cookeecutkk

7 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Very true. But then again it’s a numbers game. And the numbers are overwhelming - innumerable galaxies and planets… Plus, the majority of stars are red dwarfs and these are - extremely- long lived. They might not support Earth-like life but they could very well support alternative forms.

If to think is to existe then the oposite is..........

Why Fine-Tuning seems Designed ?.... answer: because fine-tuning is designing.. dugh ! this is like asking why a baked bread has a baker... The older we get, the more forgetful and funnier we become..

@matswessling6600

7 ай бұрын

that is exactly the point why we shouldnt call it "fine tuning"

Suppose there are billions of planets in our universe with life. There would be untold trillions of planets without life. So why not assume the universe is fined tuned for planets? Or stars? Or photons? Or unending and universal expansion? There’s a lot more of non-life going on than life. Saying the universe is fine tuned for life is akin to saying that earth is the center of the universe.

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:34-35).

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

Tell that to Christians who hate people from the LGBTQ community, while many of the White Christians also hate Asians, peoples if color and Jews. But the verse you quote certainly does illustrate the hypocrisy of Christians. So thanks for that.

This is already a wrong question, its a loaded question. You asked a question that had a presumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty. There’s no such thing as “ fine-tuning “ !!

“If you have a good theory that naturally generates a multiverse, then you can begin to make a case.,” he said. Well, if you have a good theory that generates a God that is capable of computing that certain values for the physical constants will lead to the emergence of life after a few billion years, then you can begin to make a case. We have two highly absurd competing theories, with the God theory being the slightly more absurd one. In fact, it’s easier to assume that it’s simply an accident that the parameters are such that life could emerge.

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

From what I understand, the idea of a multiverse arises out of the mathematics of cosmic inflation theory, which most physicists agree is a pretty good theory, as it finds a place for most of the data we have been able to obtain about the beginning of our universe and which, for almost 50 years now, has not come upon any serious contradictions. Which is why it was the winner of the 2014 Nobel Prize for physics. It’s proving to have staying power and continues to point to areas for further research.

Anyone who thinks the universe is fine tuned simply doesn’t understand physics. Many of the quantities that they claim to be fine-tuned, such as mass of the electron, Planck’s constant, Newton’s gravitational constant, speed of light, etc., simply appear so because of the units used. These parameters are not fine-tuned but simply cannot be anything else.

@Casey-Jones

4 ай бұрын

Sorry, It is you who doesn't understand physics

@ruslanbabayan326

4 ай бұрын

@@Casey-Jones I do understand it. I have a degree in astrophysics and have been studying physics my whole life so that I would be able to distinguish BS from real science.

@Casey-Jones

4 ай бұрын

@@ruslanbabayan326 LOL - I can distinguish BS from real science as well

@ruslanbabayan326

4 ай бұрын

@@Casey-Jones If you did then you would know that fine-tuning is BS

His first sentence says it all: life will come into existence at some point. Through evolution and natural selection. Praise God! 🥴

Multiple universes 😂😂😂

Thinking a multiverse entails “no Creator(s)” (ie atheism) is akin to thinking that a computer running many simulations simultaneously entails “no computer programmer/owner” 😂

I thought Adam and Eve were our parents!

It’s clear the universe was designed by God. How can you have information without intelligence? If I say if the porch light is on then I’m home but if the porch light is off I’m not home, then I have encoded a bit of information into the sequence porch light on/off. Intelligence encodes sequence with information. Without intelligence you can’t have information(bits/qubits).

@kirkalexander4715

7 ай бұрын

Well there you have it. Intelligence encodes sequence with words, resulting in (approximately) zero information. Thanks for clearing the whole thing up. We'll leave the light on for you.

@TestMeatDollSteak

7 ай бұрын

When a rock falls off of a cliff and lands near the muddy banks of a river below it, that rock will leave a whole host of “information” about itself in the form of the imprint that it makes in the mud. Its approximate size, shape, some details about its surface features, etc. Even if no intelligent beings exist to survey and analyze that impression left in the mud, that imprint and all of its “information” would still be there. What intelligence is required in order for any of that to be the case? It’s all literally atoms in motion…

@simonhibbs887

7 ай бұрын

Suppose a robot with a set of sensors enters an environment, say a maze. It has no information about the environment, it’s mapping memory is blank, no human has seen the environment which was created randomly, or witnesses what is happening. The robot scans the environment, creates a map in its memory, calculates the most direct route to the other side, and navigates to it without colliding with any obstacles. If information can’t exist without intelligence, how does the robot sense its environment? Where does the map the robot creates in its memory come from? How is it able to navigate effectively? I know the robot was created by humans, but the maze wasn’t and the map it created in it’s memory wasn’t. No human knows anything about either.

Rodders is up there with the best of them, Trump, Musk Kanye etc.

What exists exists. Hypotheticals are meaningless. Why we are here is really a meaningless question. It’s like asking what if Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson had been aborted. If “they” had been we would never have been able to ask the question. The same with existence.

When I go to Church, I never make a donation. Because I've given all my money to the poor. God provides everything I need.

Holder went off the rails at 9:32 when he claimed that multiverse advocates are "virtually driven to a maximal multiverse in which all math structures have physical existence." He didn't provide an argument to justify that claim, which looks like woo-woo bs. To provide a non-designer alternative to explain fine-tuning does NOT require a multiverse containing all math structures, nor an infinite number of universes. It would suffice to have either (1) a vast number of universes in which the fundamental constants are randomly set, or (2) initially a single universe or small number of universes that can spawn multiple child universes, plus an evolutionary mechanism such that fundamental constants like ours are favorable for spawning child universes. I see no reason to call either type "maximal." Holder is also mistaken at 10:22 when he includes the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics among the alternative explanations of the appearance of fine-tuning. MWI does NOT offer an explanation of fine-tuning, because each branch has the SAME (fine-tuned) fundamental constants.

Physics is a result of Darwinian evolution. That's why cellular biology and atomic physics share the same structural theme

@DarwinianUniversal

6 ай бұрын

I'll make this breif but I have a lot more to say on the subject. The material universe "atoms" are made of energy fields. But here's a question to pose. Why do these energy fields conspire to generate a system of intricate complex units that share the same theme as cellular biology? That is to say, a system of units comprised on a nucleus shrouded within shells, and the capacity to bond with each other and build composite bodies? This depicts atomic physics just as readily as it depicts cellular biology. So here's another question to pose. Knowing how cellular biology achieved this system theme, what are the odds that universal physics would mirror it by random chance? Ok, so cellular biology achieved this structural theme while evolving over billions of years, while optimizing itself for efficient environmental energy capture. Like plants capture of sunlight to power its internal processes. Every organism requires an external energy source to power its biological activity and it evolves to efficiently capture it. The same is true of atomic physics General Relativity depicts spacetime geometry "as it relates to atomic activity" as being curved in and around gravitating bodies. The key to unlocking the correct universal context is realizing that space possesses an environmental energy field, and atomic energy fields have evolved their intricate and complex structures and processes to efficiently capture it. This is what is really happening. Nature only has one means/process of generating highly complex interactive systems, and we have a precedence "cellular biology" whereby it generated precisely the same system theme as atomic physics. Criminal detectives pray for evidence as straightforward as close correlation and striking likeness. Problem is science already thinks it has the answers and isn't interested in listening to anything else. To fathom this theme I suggest focusing on biological activity as being analogous to atomic activity. Both are products of work that depend upon an environmental energy that the system need capture. Not asking you to believe it. But I would be thrilled if you could pick up on the theme I have laid down

Why Lim (goldilocks ranges of variables)^n ~ fine tuning ~ intelligent design 😂

The logic is so flawed...

Design is looking backward and fabricating, ha, ha. Everything, everything, is emergent. Claiming purpose is misinterpreting accumulating knowledge. Explanation has proven, over and again. to be evolving with knowledge.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. I find it so sad that many otherwise intelligent people will go to any lengths to deny the blindingly obvious truth that is staring them in the face. The hand and precise design of the initial conditions of the universe point to a creatorial supreme intelligence that is far, far beyond human intelligence. As a Christian, I know that creatorial power as God, my Heavenly Father. One day everyone will understand and realise that God has abundantly shown us some small insight and glimmer of his power and depth through his created universe and world. Of course, I am well aware that this view is likely to be attacked on here and I just find that incredibly sad.

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

Until the Christian Church stops with its insane bigotry and racism, I think people will care very little about what one’s Christian faith leads one to believe. If you continue to believe in targeting and hating other people, many will have no use for you.

Fine Tuning is pure bunk since the Universe isn't fine tuned for life at all.

@stellarwind1946

7 ай бұрын

So earth is special?

@sentientflower7891

7 ай бұрын

@@stellarwind1946 Earth is unique.

@markb3786

7 ай бұрын

@@sentientflower7891 good distinction

@sentientflower7891

7 ай бұрын

@@markb3786 unique things are special, by definition. But the Universe quite obviously doesn't exist for unique things.

@stellarwind1946

7 ай бұрын

@@sentientflower7891doesn’t that negate the Copernican principle?

I honestly think the term "fine tuning" should be abandoned outright. It just seems to give many people the impression that the universe COULD have been another way, but for the fact of being "tuned" precisely the way it is. This makes a lot of people think there MUST have been an intelligent tuner, and there's just no evidence for ANY of that.

@philochristos

7 ай бұрын

Do you think the default position should be to assume the universe could NOT have been otherwise?

@benbennit

7 ай бұрын

All kids should be taught about chaos theory and emergence from an early age.

@BLSFL_HAZE

7 ай бұрын

@philochristos I just think the question "why this universe, rather than another universe?" is born purely out of our ability to imagine impossible situations. In the absence of this ability, the question couldn't possibly arise.

@BLSFL_HAZE

7 ай бұрын

@@benbennit I don't disagree.

@sven888

7 ай бұрын

What if there is only one intelligence which veils itself so not to be by itself? Did all quantum fluctuations in the early universe not appear out of the same big bang/singularity? What if waves (fluctuations) appear but many but the universe is one?

Oh the depths of exotic nonsense materialists are willing to go to deny the possibility of an irreducible mind!!

@simonhibbs887

7 ай бұрын

I don’t deny it’s possibility, although I doubt the logical consistency of many claims made about the idea, I deny we have any credible evidence for it.

@Arunava_Gupta

7 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Do you agree with me though that the multiverse is extremely unlikely and an exotic theory propped up or at least utilised by some to deny the existence of God? I would love to hear your views on this.

@simonhibbs887

7 ай бұрын

@@Arunava_Gupta Inflation theory was developed to explain several observed characteristics of the universe. It made a number of predictions, several of which have subsequently been confirmed. One of the predictions it makes is eternal inflation, which would continuously generate bubble universes with different initial conditions, including physical parameters, or 'constants'. These are the multiple 'universes'. It's difficult to simply dismiss a prediction of a theory, when that theory made several other non trivial predictions that have been subsequently been verified. That doesn't prove eternal inflation multiverses, but it means we have to take the idea seriously. I have not yet seen any serious scientist or philosopher claim that a multiverse, or even a full refutation of the fine tuning argument disproves god. Clearly it is within the capability of an infinitely powerful god, able to create whatever universe they like, to create one with relativity, quantum mechanics and eternal inflation, or whatever else. Who's going to stop them? I had this discussion with a fellow atheist in another comment thread. The fact is the infinitely powerful creator claim is inherently unfalsifiable, because it's consistent with any conceivable state of affairs. That's why I have an innate intellectual allergic reaction to the proposition. It seems to me it's so general to be meaningless, but that's a digression that's got nothing specifically to do with fine tuning or multiverses.

"You cant rely on the multiverse theory because it's untested. Therefore God must have done it."... I mean, ok, is that the kind of logic we're going for here? Because, if that's the case, let me introduce you to my friend the magical pink unicorn.

God = I don't know

@stellarwind1946

7 ай бұрын

Brute fact = I don’t know

How did scientists become so stupid about statistics? Math is not proof of anything. The branch of statistics is the least "meaningful" of all the branches of mathematics. The fact that highly specialized practitioners of science "think" that their numbers which do not show "significance", are significant is the dumbest thing a mathematician, least of all a probability theorist, can decide. "Ooooohhh the probability is so small, there's no way it could possibly ever be overcome". Then why the simple thought of it? How could you ever conceive of it if the math is so disproportionately against it? Is human stupidity mathematically impervious to statistical impossibility? Or is reality, over and over again, more exacting than the autistically defined "outcomes" of the dumbest math: statistics. Were card games and lottery odds and encryption invented by aliens? Statistics was invented by humans for human pastimes. Game theory and science sometimes overlap. Does that mean the universe is a game? Give me a break.

Those who cannot recognize that the universe is clearly designed are simply functioning in accordance with the reality that it is designed to seem undesigned.

@simonhibbs887

7 ай бұрын

Only a specially designed universe, fine tuned to seem completely devoid of design or fine tuning, could possibly seem this undesigned and purposeless.

@TheUltimateSeeds

7 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 simon, I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. Which is it? And please elaborate.

@simonhibbs887

7 ай бұрын

@@TheUltimateSeeds I just think it’s a really fun idea.

Im just gonna say it. Praise be to God. Because we were created by god he gave us the ability to understand the universe he created. Science and religion go hand in hand. By understanding that there is laws in the universe, there must be a law maker.

@davewyman

7 ай бұрын

By understanding there is a law maker, there must be a maker of the law maker.

6:05 most likely our Universe has a better story to tell :)

What a big old fallacious assumption to start. It looks like the ENTIRE universe was 'set up' for life to exist. Has he never heard the puddle analogy. And can't an omnipotent entity allow life to exist anywhere it darn well likes?

A scientist theologian accepting there are other explanations but chooses to believe not only was it set up for us to live but that timeless spaceless entity created it (how please tell me) AND it's an entity he believes in AND his preferred entity interacts in our lives.

holder - ' if you're an a-thesis this is the theory you're driven to' you've got to be kidding me talk about a lack of self awareness ! beware two things when talking to anyone about science and philosophy - theists and bow ties

This joker talks about theories being untested, yet has no problem with taking his theology on spec. And people wonder why it is argued that religion and science should be separated.

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

And it’s even a better reason why religion and politics should be separated. People demanding everybody live according to their truths, despite the fact that there is no proof of their truths.

What a ridiculous approach. If you must then ask why there is a multiverse at all (if that's evidenced), then you should be just as prepared to ask why there is a god at all. If you can't accept any necessary thing except the god in which you believe, you're not approaching this problem from a sufficiently neutral position.

How can a scientist be a theologian?

Please stop with the out-of-focus gimmick at the start of every video. Thanks.

Guys mistakes is showing his universe proposes is wortheless phich He mistakes is keep out Law of phich proceendings. He shows his universe proposes replace phich experiences with ant experiement facts Arrogant and pedantic

@kathyorourke9273

7 ай бұрын

What are you saying? Is it misspelled or esoterica.

@Maxwell-mv9rx

7 ай бұрын

@@kathyorourke9273 what im saying is Guy rambling gibberich . He universes concept us Impossible an emperism verification.

@demographicoutlier

7 ай бұрын

@@Maxwell-mv9rx duly noted

@kathyorourke9273

7 ай бұрын

@@Maxwell-mv9rx wow! Still don’t understand a thing you said. Sorry.

The purpose of religion is to make itself necessary.

I like to think that the universe is playful. Because we're playful, and most living things are playful in some way. We got that from the universe. None of us invented it. It came from the source, which is the universe, a.k.a. God, or whatever you want to call it. We play games, we play music, we play roles, we play with our finances and our lives, etc. Being a part of the universe is being playful, being a part of a play activity. We're all making this up as we go along, as is the universe/God. This particular iteration of the universe is simply an act of play, an improvisation. To what end? Who knows. I bet the Hindus and Buddhists have a pretty good answer.

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

God, then, was apparently one of those kids who liked to play by pulling the wings off flies. Who else would design a world where wildebeest are eaten alive by packs of wild dogs?

@psterud

7 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 Good point. I also think that is a cruel aspect of the universe, that life feeds on life. However, the vast majority of people eat meat, and have a lot of fun doing it. Quite playful.

ahh fine tuning, aka god of the gaps. What a hilariously poor argument

Humans arose accidentally on planet Earth.

Quantum information, Quantum entanglement, Are, fundamental, underlying of Reality. Quantum Mind emerge, Quantum Body emerge, Mind and Body entanglement.. Consciousness emerge. Spacetime emerge, Holographic principal.

We are God😉

Another load of theological junk. Better off speaking to an astrologer

It’s a wash. The probability of a single atheist universe must be laid alongside the probability of a god with just the right motives to create our universe. Good luck calculating your god’s probability.