Always a pleasure to listen to the great mind of Steven Weinberg

@fartpooboxohyeah8611

Жыл бұрын

My cats name is Mittens..

@SamoaVsEverybody814

3 ай бұрын

​@@fartpooboxohyeah8611Mine's a fat orange tabby named Mufasa

I appreciate Steven Weinberg's humility in presenting the puzzles which vex theoretical physicists. He presents the limitations on our knowledge of how the universe is, allowing for multiple possibilities.

..." and matter will play a very little role "....🙏.... excellenty crisp and clear discourse... thank you...

One of your best episode’s. Thanks.

Another excellent video from an excellent channel on yt. Just a small thing: please make it clear what is new material and old published long ago (obviously this one). Seems like old videos now being mixed with newer ones. A bit confusing, but should be easy to fix. But again: a lot to discover here!

@slylataupe4272

Жыл бұрын

It’s on purpose, they refresh it so as they can make audience and revenues…

@b.g.5869

9 ай бұрын

​@@slylataupe4272These are just clips of episodes from a television show that span over 20 years.

@b.g.5869

9 ай бұрын

Were you under the impression these are made for KZread? They're clips from episodes of a long running US public television show. Many of these interviews were made before KZread existed.

Steven Weinberg was a great physicist

@user-wx6pf2bc2r

3 ай бұрын

Soarly missed.

R.I.P. Mr. Weinberg. You were always a pleasure to listen to and a decent human being.

enjoyed that

Terrific! I actually understood what Weinberg was saying from first to last! Maybe I'm not as dumb as I thought. Or more likely he's so smart he can make himself understood to imbeciles like me.

@fartpooboxohyeah8611

Жыл бұрын

If you understood, please explain it...

It was a sad day when Steven Weinberg died. Physics lost a great man.

@chilluminati1292

Жыл бұрын

Nothing sad about it, we all die

@cristianm7097

Жыл бұрын

@@chilluminati1292 Afterlife = true love.

@suatustel746

Жыл бұрын

@@chilluminati1292 yes granted what you said, as a sweeping generalazitions, but don't forget there's a sucker born eery minute outweighed the great minds!!!!

@arawiri

Жыл бұрын

Not really

@arawiri

Жыл бұрын

Physics doesn't need anymind, mind gets in physics way.

In Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation of quantum wave function collapse, what determines, and more importantly, "when is it determined"- the split into another universe takes place?

@JudoMateo

Жыл бұрын

Utter fantasy, a parsimonious one at that.

It’s criminal how few people know anything about Steven Weinberg

@11pupona

Жыл бұрын

and almost all know who the kardashians are....agree 100%

@rb5519

Жыл бұрын

I remember hearing about him in the 90s.

It’s all about the sound.

Amazing

Fine tuning does not require a Fine Tuner.

@alanaban3519

Жыл бұрын

Y

@alanaban3519

Жыл бұрын

You came by random selection not by design

@sreenathjohnsonsaysnotolgbtq

Жыл бұрын

😖 it does if I want for example warm water to take a bath I need to mix the right proportional of cold and hot water for my liking then how much does this grand system the universe needs. I know that fine tuning of the universe throngs even atheist such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens for natural reason cannot explain why the almost infinitely improbable universe came into existence.

If all space (actually "empty" or not) is filled with annihilating matter-antimatter pairs...why isn't measurable background gamma radiation ubiquitous?

This guy is a very smart man

I don't know if I'm just not getting this, but it sounds like he's asking this ... Why is the energy of empty space so seemingly insignificant (although collectively 70% of all the universe's energy), and alternatively, why is it not simply a flat zero? So, instead, should it be 0.1 x 10-¹⁰⁰⁰⁰? If you can't measure it, and you have to literally guess at what it "should" be, then maybe you just can't estimate it at all. May be it "should" be 0.1 x 10 to the minus infinity? Hmmm ... "zero point one times ten to the minus infinity" would be equal to "zero, but not zero" ... right? Kinda like the idea of multiplying by negative one. Basically absurd to calculate. And I still don't see the point of postulating an infinity of other universes to compensate for the incomprehensibility of God's mind.

Professor Mr. Weinberg mentioned planets 9. Is he including "Planet 9 or X" or referring to Pluto? Excellent video.

@JB_inks

10 ай бұрын

Pluto

@skronked

9 ай бұрын

Are you referring to Shasta-9, the pleasure planet in Alpha Centuria

He was amazing man. Would have loved to have met him.

@user-wx6pf2bc2r

3 ай бұрын

Alas!it's to late now.

what year was this made ?

I wish we knew the date of the videos. You see Robert with dark hair and I know Steven Weinberg passed away in 2021.

Excellent q & a. S.W. was brilliant.

I like the tea kettle metaphor......

I don't see any link between the anthropic principle and postulating multiverses. We are not here due to any 'fine tuning' - we are here because we can be. And the universe is the way it is because that's the way it is. The whole fine-tuning argument is like throwing a handful of mud against a wall and then examining the resulting pattern and saying 'How amazing it is that the mud made THIS specific pattern! Of all the possible patterns it could have made, it made THIS amazing one! It must be a SPECIAL pattern! Hallelujah'

@xenphoton5833

Жыл бұрын

What if the mud recognized its own existence? I guess you could call that some pretty special mud. 😁

@cripplingautism5785

Жыл бұрын

except the vast majority of possible mud patterns don't lead to complexity of any kind. the fact that ours did makes it by definition 'special'.

Fine tuning requires a prior intent to get certain results, which requires a previously existing mind, which cannot be validated by science or logic and is indistinguishable from fiction.

I was wondering why my skull was so precisely fitted to my brain. NOW I know it's magic!

Well rounded reasoning, i like his arguments.

I've always wondered what happens at the edge of the universe, at the border of its expansion. What is that empty space beyond that borderline that is soon to become part of our universe?

@cristianm7097

Жыл бұрын

@buzz magister We live in a black hole which has all the Universe information on its surface.

@Jack-gn4gl

Жыл бұрын

Like being on the edge of a bubble

@cristianm7097

Жыл бұрын

@@Jack-gn4gl We are the shadows of a real world.

@joachimb5721

Жыл бұрын

You’re thinking too 3-dimensional.

@havenbastion

Жыл бұрын

There's no edge to the universe. It is infinite in time, space, and scale.

There seem to be three distinct explanations of the problem of fine tuning. The problem: this universe is so incredibly "fine-tuned" to exactly the physical parameters necessary to permit life and human consciousness, that an explanation of the fine-tuning is needed. There are two better known explanations, and I'll add a third one that I came up with. Explanation 1: It is not strange that our universe has the exact parameters necessary to support life and human consciousness, because there are an infinite number of other universes whose parameters are different and do not support life and consciousness. In that infinity of universes, there are bound to be a tiny tiny percentage where the parameters are just those needed for life and consciousness to exist. Explanation 2: There are not an infinite number of other universes. To claim that there are is not a scientific claim, because other universes cannot possibly be observed. No, the reason our universe is so incredibly fine-tuned to the parameters that permit the evolution of life and consciousness is that our universe was designed with those incredibly precise parameters by a cosmic machinist, an engineer God. Explanation 3: This is my explanation, which probably others have come up with too, but I don't recall seeing my explanation elsewhere. According to Explanation 3, Explanation 1 is wrong, because there are not an infinite number of universes, at any rate that is not a testable hypothesis; but Explanation 2 is also wrong, because the universe is not merely a cosmic machine designed by a God who is merely an engineer setting parameters like dials on a machine. So here's Explanation 3: if the universe started out alive, or has always been alive at some fundamental level, then of course its parameters would be precisely those that life would need. In other words, the "fine-tuning" of our universe to support life is evidence that the universe's origin was a living origin. Matter and energy have taken on parameters so incredibly fine-tuned to life and consciousness because matter and energy were born from life, are "coagulates" of life, coagulates that formed over billions of years or more.

@kenkaplan3654

3 ай бұрын

And if you study Vedanta and other highly sophisticated spiritual philosophies "God", not anthropomorphically, is life itself. The intelligence and aliveness are one and we are *within* the infinite aliveness AS IT IS IN THIS FORM. We have to get away from the Western religious idea of God. Kabir had a superconscious experience and out it in a poem. "When He Himself reveals Himself, Brahma brings into manifestation That which can never be seen. As the seed is in the plant, as the shade is in the tree, as the void is in the sky, as infinite forms are in the void-- So from beyond the Infinite, the Infinite comes; and from the Infinite the finite extends. The creature is in Brahma, and Brahma is in the creature: they are ever distinct, yet ever united. He Himself is the tree, the seed, and the germ. He Himself is the flower, the fruit, and the shade. He Himself is the sun, the light, and the lighted. He Himself is Brahma, creature, and Maya. He Himself is the manifold form, the infinite space; He is the breath, the word, and the meaning. He Himself is the limit and the limitless: and beyond both the limited and the limitless is He, the *Pure Being*. He is the Immanent Mind in Brahma and in the creature. The Supreme Soul is seen within the soul, The Point is seen within the Supreme Soul, And within the Point, the reflection is seen again. Kabîr is blest because he has this supreme vision!

If space is omnipresent and omniscience it is not empty. We think of consciousness and intelligence in human brains but not in space which is supposedly empty.

The multiverse not only describes concurrent universes but past as well. We are a point in (colloquially) infinite time.

Metaphysics Chip away the darkness and negative spaces and positive stuff emerges.

1. Universe has a cause. Why? Because every single thing we know of in the universe has a cause. It's not logical to conclude otherwise. 2. Super String Theory and all the variants of Multiverse theories don't at all explain existence, at best they explain the reason for energy, matter and life in the universe, not anything more than that. 3. It's not possible to explain existence because we are a part of it as are the tools we aim to use to answer the question. You cannot have part of the question as the answer. We can never get at the relationship of existence to non-existence because we can't "look" at it "from the outside" and the tools we have to use are part of that system too. I'm obviously meaning scientific observations utilizing math, physics and any other cognitive/technological system available to us.

@B.S...

Жыл бұрын

1 - false. Many Quantum effects have in principle no classical antecedent cause. E.g tunneling, fluctuation, nuclear decay etc. In fact the effect of quantum tunneling has zero classical probability. Quantum effects are in no way logical. 2 - true but Quantum mechanics does offer a possibility. A quantum system at the fundamental ontological level of reality or being is a state of indeterminism. What emerges is unpredictable. 3 - false. The Scientific Method which includes theory and empirical evidence discovered Quantum Mechanics which revealed deep true knowledge of reality.

@kos-mos1127

Жыл бұрын

It is funny you left out philosophy and metaphysics since they are tools that are part of existence.

@chrisgarret3285

Жыл бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 did no such thing, all included.

@xenphoton5833

Жыл бұрын

What is the answer to the question if the questions answer is the question.

@chrisgarret3285

Жыл бұрын

@@xenphoton5833 exactly, agree in #3

Even a dimwit like me appreciates the magnitude of this conversation

@xenphoton5833

Жыл бұрын

If you appreciate the magnitude of this conversation, you're likely not a dimwit

Could quantum fields have gravitational attraction that nearly cancels their own expansion? Maybe 120 orders of magnitude energy in quantum fields is the denominator / base for 112 orders of magnitude time expanding space as numerator, leaving 10 power -8 cosmological constant?

If a multiverse explains fine tuning for life, what explains the fine tuning of the multiverse that enables some universe to b finely tuned? Is there an evidence for a multiverse? Is it falsifiable? Even if string theory would some day b proven correct. Wouldn't it just prove that one solution is true, not that other solutions are correct in other universes?

Why not

Every number in the material universe can at best only approach zero, it can't be reached.

Saying that universe has find tuning, is like seeing in front of you and say Earth is Flat!!!

The universe has no responsibility to explain itself, and it doesn't care that we want it to be explained.

@-mozhel7252

Жыл бұрын

However we are seeking an explanation!

@chrisbennett6260

Жыл бұрын

david are you apart from the universe ,separate from it

👏👏👏

There are deeper laws and all constants are caused by them - that’s it.

@chrisbennett6260

Жыл бұрын

according to how you look at it ,

@matterasmachine

Жыл бұрын

@@chrisbennett6260 it's better then bunch of variables and miracles like Big Bang

@chrisbennett6260

Жыл бұрын

@@matterasmachine whatever makes you happy

@matterasmachine

Жыл бұрын

@@chrisbennett6260 whatever makes you happy

With or without a multiverse we have a diminished ability to calculate things. The observer problem can be kept this simple. Nobody will discuss the obnoxious physical form of infinity that a world where I wrote 'dimished' above instead of 'diminished' leads. It's too much free lunch. Way, way, way too much.

10:05 Weinberg is saying... “Why are we living at a time....”? - I assume “One has to first identify what is “living”!? Not just living, living....but aware of living livings”!? Science begone......!

If the average temperature of space is 4 degrees Kelvin, it's clear it's not empty. If it were empty, that temperature would be zero.

I've always seen the anthropic principle as a statement in logic. Clearly, if physical constants are not fined tuned, then humans don't exist. This is a statement of the form A=>B (A implies B), which is logically equivalent to the statement not(B)=>not(A), which translates to the following: if humans exist, then physical constants are fine tuned . Here we recognize the anthropic principle.

@chrisbennett6260

Жыл бұрын

and if its not fine tuned you wouldnt know Didly Squat anyway

@jasonwiley798

11 ай бұрын

😅😮😮 zzz 5

The answers to our key questions are found within the data succinctly referred to as, the initial conditions-more precisely, its finely-tuned values-culminating to the Big Bang or, more correctly, the Beginning. TLDR: since it is highly unlikely (actually, "absurdly" so, to put it mildly, even flattering) to be from random processes then, logically, it is not and, therefore, by design-deliberate & intelligent design. Furthermore, postulating multiverses is even more highly & absurdly so unlikely, since the unlikelihood is exponentially compounded to way beyond comprehension! Just do the math! P.S. Interestingly (& coincidentally) the Bible begins with, "in the beginning." How did they/it know?

@irrelevant_noob

11 ай бұрын

The math tells us that *_any_* epsilon, no matter how small, is still more likely than zero. It's absurd to think that i could "randomly" get a shuffled deck (or 100 decks) containing the cards in ANY particular order... that doesn't mean i cannot shuffle cards. PS Interestingly, the Star Wars begins with "A long time ago"... How did George Lucas know?! He _must_ be god!

Of course there are multiple universes or why whould htere only be one? One thing about intelligent life, that probability is incredibly low, we think that a bilion is alarge number but in fact a bililon atoms is not very much, therefore there might be intellignet life only in some galaxies per universe.

If the universe were really fine tuned there would be no Evil.

@xenphoton5833

Жыл бұрын

A universe without the slightest possibility of evil would be completely evil

@dubsar

Жыл бұрын

@@xenphoton5833 Explain.

@uknowme1811

Жыл бұрын

Explain.

@christianadam2907

Жыл бұрын

1) Evil is a church invention. 2) Why would the universe care about your feeling about the behavior of humans? Except you think an imaginary sky wizard did it, or you are just super egoistic, self-centered, and think humans are the top of the cake. The question of fine-tuning was invented by apologists to mislead gullible idiots.

@christianadam2907

Жыл бұрын

@@sdud1801 🤣👍 no-one, but thanks for asking

The vacuum catastrophe

Thanks good stuff a whole lot of pure speculation,,,and a simple we dont have the amswers!!!?

The outcome of the whole discussion is "I/we don't know". Then what's the point of such discussion? The fact is ,there is no end of the chains of "Why?". Can you answer the question why you were born under your parents,instead of being born of a billionaire's parents? Why were you born in a country of your birth, instead of in Africa/ Syria/ Afghanistan? Can anyone explain/predict/identify why a particular sparm out of millions can ultimately penetrate an egg, starting at the dawn of a life? Similarly, you have to accept the fact that had there been no fine tuning of the different cosmological constant, the intelligent and conscious life of our form would not be possible on earth.😊🙏

@rdberg1957

Жыл бұрын

The point of the discussion is to lay out what we know and what we don't know. The pursuit of knowledge involves asking questions. There are those of us humans with mathematical understanding who desire to ask those questions.

@dg7780

Жыл бұрын

@@rdberg1957 I do understand your point of view. I have some mathematical understanding as well and am passionately curious to know the unknown, and the only way to get some insight is to ask the question. But to my understanding about Physics and cosmology, science basically explain s / try to understand about "how" any event has occurred and its implications on all natural creations and how entire humanity can be benefitted through scientific applications of the acquired knowledge. Science never deals with the chains of "why" to understand any natural phenomenon, though "how" is synonymously meant as "why" in any scientific explanation. One has to accept and start with some base to move forward. Human intelligence can't question and get the answer about "Why" the"base" is existing, which in turn leads to chains of "why" and "I/we don't know" by the scientific community.😊🙏

I'm not a scientist but Steven Weinberg is my idea of who and what a scientist should be.

I think I know what space is about, The solution is in the geometrical struktur, which is different, from what it appears to us...

@kos-mos1127

Жыл бұрын

Space is state that something can be in.

@gehteuchnixan9027

Жыл бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 No, i believe below our actuell Standard Modell, space and matter are the same... Both are fields.... The rather important question is: What are fields?

Fascinating, but when Weinberg said "cubic feet" it felt like a punch in the gut.

The true fine tuning is in the initial preset of reality. That preset whatever it was (quantum fields, energy, a banana, whatever) had to be incredibly fine tuned to give rise to a complex universe (With consciousness inside). And that preset was there because incredible luck or by an intelligent intent. No other options. Is also interesting that an atheist have ALWAYS to seek refuge into the multiverse theory to explain fin tuning.

@kensey007

Жыл бұрын

Here is an alternative without multiverse. I think this universe is less likely on theism because an omnipotent God could have done absolutely anything or nothing at all. Naturalism is presumably more limited. You need some justification for why a God a priori would have made this particular universe.

@francesco5581

Жыл бұрын

@@kensey007 If one thiinks about the classic religion God yes, one can argue about many things. Evil for example or like you say "why this particular universe". So lets add a few considerations A) We dont know if this universe isnt perfect for its purpose. Maybe its B) Something is never more perfect than all other options. C) I dont see intelligence creating only from above ..but from the bottom up to... bacteria -> eel -> monkey -> human. D) randomness is not a creative force. Just does not care. E) the initial setup question problem is still on the table

@kensey007

Жыл бұрын

@@francesco5581 Even saying this universe is perfect to God doesn't answer the question. You'd have to have a basis for knowing why this universe would have been perfect to God. Absent some other data it seems just as likely that an all powerful God would want a universe made of nothing but green jello and think green jello universe is perfect. Or conscious green jello if you prefer. There seems to be no reason to predict our actual universe on theism over any other possibility no matter how strange it might seem to us because I don't a priori know anything about God's desires. On naturalism, it intuitively seems that we could rule out conscious green jello universe (or, for example, a universe of only souls corresponding to green jello and nothing physical) just because it seems so contrary to everything we know about actual reality. An omnipotent God would have no such constraints.

@francesco5581

Жыл бұрын

@@kensey007 Why perfect to God ? cant be just perfect for a meaning that God set for us ? Maybe we are part of that whole consciousness too... Anyway i agree that is hard to imagine a God at work to create mosquitoes... Naturalism start with the premise that "natural" rules exist by chance. And that by chance nature lead to complexity and that there is a playground that allow that complexity. By chance of course. Bot options have problems, both options raise questions... Still i dont see any other one.

@kensey007

Жыл бұрын

@@francesco5581 The way I see it, every universe is very unlikely under either scenario. But something had to win the lottery.

Steve is my Jesus.

It’s like saying a computer is dumb luck…. No it was built and obviously designed

"Look!", said the Puddle, "at how perfectly the ground fits me. It must be fine-tuned for my existence!"

when was this recorded? and what was the cause of Steven's dead?

ozone is earth boundary.?

Hees to smart four me two compreehend!

If you think fine tuning is easy, you haven't seen all the experimental universes that have never created anything worth integrating into the prime universe.

@theomnisthour6400

Жыл бұрын

@@sdud1801 Go back to sleep if you're not ready for creation truth

@billystanton1522

Жыл бұрын

@@theomnisthour6400 a puddle wakes up one day and says, "wow, this word was made for me. I fit so perfectly into this hole. It's really quiet perfect. It must be designed specifically for me." The universe seems fine tuned for us because A) if it wasn't we wouldn't be here B) we have adapted to the surroundings around us C) it isn't fine tuned. Disease, natural disaster, unlivible space. The argument of fine tuning is not evidence for anything spiritual

@theomnisthour6400

Жыл бұрын

@@billystanton1522 A poodle wakes up and says "Woof, woof". Sweet dreams, sleepy poodle! One day you'll wake up with eyes less wide shut

@billystanton1522

Жыл бұрын

@@theomnisthour6400 one day you might be able to answer with more intelligence and thought while understanding the reasoning put forward as opposed to making arguments from incredulity. A person's belief must be incredibly weak to avoid understanding another's view

@alexhill8088

Жыл бұрын

@@billystanton1522 Not even close. This is a better analogy: 100 alphabet soup factories blow up at the same time. All the noodles perfectly align to write out all of Tolstoy's works in chronological order each time. Saying "Wow, something must have caused this" wouldn't be unreasonable.

One way to describe the human experience is monkeys posturing in the mirror.

The multiverse sounds like the same type of explanation as the is a benevolent create. Maybe physicists have to admit they don’t know and maybe aren’t smart enough to figure it out.

"The anthropic principle is a retreat". Thank you\. "Otherwise there might actually be intelligence behind all this". God forbid.

In the description "Coincidence and luck seem wildly unlikely" is nonsense. As pointed out so eloquently by Stephen Weinberg. We see randomness producing order everywhere in nature. Quantum states are by their very nature random and yet explain in detail the world around us. The multiverse doesn't seem a wildly unlikely scenario to me. Everything in nature comes in multiple instances. If you say that it's widely unlikely because there is no evidence, all I would say is well then so is a Tuner.

@jamenta2

Жыл бұрын

Randomness itself has a known order to it. That's how the casinos in Las Vegas make quite a bit of money each year. And scientists are able to use the known order of randomness to determine when something statistically could not be simply attributed to random chance alone.

@johnyharris

Жыл бұрын

​@@jamenta2 *"Randomness itself has a known order to it."* - surely a contradiction in terms. Yes _true_ randomness is difficult to achieve as usually it's based on some algorithm, if you know the algorithm you can predict the outcome. However, quantum states are truly random, as we have no information on the state to predict an outcome. As the great Richard Feynman said "Nature itself doesn’t know through which hole the electron will pass".

@jamenta2

Жыл бұрын

@@johnyharris Yes, but there are peaks and troughs to the wave function in the two-slit experiment. Surely you know this Johny? That is why you get the wave form when neither of the slits are observed. If I roll two dice, the odds I will roll a 7 is much higher than any other roll of the dice. It is more likely I will roll a 7. I may not, but the randomness follows a known statistical pattern between the two dice. Las Vegas casinos at the Craps tables - depend on this known order of randomness, to remain profitable.

@QuickM8tey

Жыл бұрын

@@jamenta2 True Randomness doesn't have a "known order" to it that any human mind can figure out lmao. Casinos use psuedo-RNG math implementations to ensure their machines only lose a specific percentage of times. In other words, their games are rigged. This has very little to do with the kind of unpredictable randomness nature can produce. Casinos pull many other tricks in other games to guarantee their profits too, they are not mathematicians or academics, they are business people. Human business is not a place to look for true randomness, nature is. Random number generation via radioactive decay or Quantum Mechanics is an example of something genuinely random.

@jamenta2

Жыл бұрын

@@QuickM8tey Casinos made money off the predictable pattern of "randomness" even before there were programmed machines. You must be like - in you 20s. Young and naive.

Even if there is only one universe, we could not be here if things were set up in ways that didn't support our development. In our exploration of the universe, we are guaranteed never to find anything that prohibited our existence. It doesn't explain why things are set the way they are, but neither does positing infinite universes that vary in certain features.

@jimmyevans6129

Жыл бұрын

I think the question is, does there have to be a reason? Obviously, we exist in parameters that allow it, and these seem to be quite limited in many cases. But the opposite is nonsense-- how could we live in anything but? I also think that it is impossible to have infinite realities, since existence requires movement, a binary choice, and so you cannot stay in one nanosecond of reality- you can only choose infinite minus one. The one moment you are in must be abandoned to exist.

@arthurwieczorek4894

Жыл бұрын

Does 'the way things are set', in terms of cosmological parameters, need an explanation? How about this. For a universe to exist it must have cosmological parameters. This universe, the only one we know of, has the precise parameters that it has. The universe is a given and these parameters are a given. To ask the question Why is to make mere sound, not make sound as signal. The universe is not just another thing in the universe.

I could listen to Stephen all day. (You're looking younger by the way. Whatever it is you're doing, it appears to be working) 🙂.

@jedi4049

Жыл бұрын

He is dead.

Long wandering discussions are one way of saying "We Do Not Know". We are here because if our universe was not fine-tuned then we would not be here. The question is random chance verses the existence of a "Tuner". I vote for dumb luck.

@francesco5581

Жыл бұрын

so you think that reality played his chances on a 1 out of 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 odds of having a meaningful/complex universe ? there could really be a reality (so everything that exist) of 2 atoms floating for eternity ?

@chrisconklin2981

Жыл бұрын

@@francesco5581 You don't know and neither do I.

@awood0813

Жыл бұрын

@@francesco5581 More like the universe is what it is and we arose tuned to it. The universe could have been structured an infinite number of ways and we simply cannot know if other life and meaning would have been possible in any of those other variations. We can know those other variables would not allow for us, the laws of physics as we understand them today or our reality, but we cannot know if other complexity and meaning would not have developed in our stead. To better paraphrase it, we know that the variables of the universe today allow reality as we know it to exist and we know that if those variables were different our reality would not be able to exist, but we can't know that complexity and meaning wouldn't exist in those other variables. At the end of the day things bottom out and you either have brute facts and say the universe is what it is because that's the way it is or you subscribe to a creator. To me, the simpler idea is that the universe is what it is because I don't have to add another more complex and more unexplainable element (a creator) to the mix to explain what we know.

@chrisgarret3285

Жыл бұрын

which explains precisely nothing. Still can't tell me why there is anything rather than nothing

@awood0813

Жыл бұрын

@@chrisgarret3285 There are two ways to interpret your statement so I'll try my best to answer both. If you mean why do we have an actual universe with things, I can simply point to our best understanding of the early universe and the big bang/expansion that came from an extremely compressed dense point as to why we have (any)things. If on the other hand you mean why is there anything at all including the big bang/expansion instead of absolute nothingness I would say that your statement is based out of the very human centric notion that there needs to be a reason or meaning to the existence of the universe. There doesn't.

Everybody knows that power can be projected through space, even space that contains gases such as our atmosphere. Is it only momentum that pushes particles through so-called empty space? I think that we need some new ideas in this area. I wonder why cosmologists and physicists have no problem positing black holes, gravity waves, and even multiple Universes or dimensions to make equations seem to work; yet the idea that there is no such thing as empty space never comes up. Perhaps it would be too glaring of an idea that would demand theories and thus show the state of understanding or lack thereof that erodes away the reputations of the experts. There is energy in the space between the atoms of our environment. It is just a continuation of the empty space of the Universe. How can particles and empty space be in the same place. It is that they locate there each in their own way, in a combination of complementary usage and some joint occupation. How particles, space, energy, and forces live together should be a fundamental area of inquiry. One final point: Why do we not suppose anything about the space that the Universe is expanding into? Perhaps some of the energy that we consider to be unique to our Universe or some other form may occupy the area of future expansion. That would certainly affect some well-established calculations. I think that it is philosophically and scientifically unwise to assume a nothing theory of an area outside of our Universe. It amounts to a simplification of the the idea that the Universe really does mean everything, not just what our best instruments and theories can engender. It does make sense to apply some reasonable limits to get useful results for our calculations; but negating a large something that is probably infinitely larger than our present expanding idea of the Universe is not a good idea if one actually wants to understand reality.

honest guy

Weinberg seems strangely comfortable to me in postulating a multiverse without any direct supporting evidence. His argument seems to rest strongly on string theory which itself has very little direct supporting evidence. From this rather meager position Weinberg feels he can offer a salutary answer to the anthropic principle.

He’s very fair-minded about the anthropic principle, not dismissive of it altogether as you might expect an atheist like him to do. He’s willing to affirm it, albeit in a very narrow sense, if that sense has logical merit. This is a rational man !

Nice camera work, not

Their voices sound almost identical - kind of weird.

Every being is a universe that hasn't yet seen his or her own universe. The children of these age and doctors are disturbing the cause and effect of natural and spiritual growth.

Steven Weinberg claims the universe is just about balanced for humans to grasp the connection with cosmic consciousness, that every thing in the universe is for humanity to thrive. Although he is an atheist, his arguments implies that Anthropic principle is real.

The answer is. It would not have happened otherwise.

RIP

BEWARE! The provider of this video is being deceptive. This exact video was streamed 6 years earlier in 2010. It was titled: "Steven Weinberg - How Many Universes Exist." Weinberg died July 2021, age 88. WAIT, it gets worse. This same video was first made even earlier. KZread revenues increase when viewers believe they're watching the latest! They know recent videos get more clicks. BTW, the very first "truly" original video was interesting.

@jedi4049

Жыл бұрын

I thought most ppl knew this already?

The Universe is Nothing close to 'fine-tuned'...!

@rw2452

Жыл бұрын

Stephen Hawking has entered the chat “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”. “For example,” Hawking writes, “if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life.-- Brief History of Time.

If time and space are infinite how can one explain how could you be here right now?

@kos-mos1127

Жыл бұрын

The path integral which plots all possible states a particle can be in.

@Pyriold

Жыл бұрын

The same way how you explain how a particular grain of sand is on a particular beach just now. It could be in a lot of places but it has to be *somewhere* and that place does not need to be anything special.

The human 'Mind' want's to be god. It will never ever be, because it was created, it is finite, it will go.

@raccoon6072

Жыл бұрын

There is only one God and is my cat. Everybody obeys him.

Nobody knows why the universe is fine-tuned.

@stevepierce6467

Жыл бұрын

Nobody knows THAT the universe is fine-tuned. It would seem to be a heretical insult to a god the believers tell us is omnipotent and omniscient, who could only have created a perfect universe with no need of fine tuning.

@tedgrant2

Жыл бұрын

@@stevepierce6467 Good answer !

@stevepierce6467

Жыл бұрын

@@tedgrant2 Thanks

@StaticBlaster

Жыл бұрын

​​@@stevepierce6467 that makes God extremely limited in what he can create. So much for an all powerful bearded man. 🤣🤣🤣I know you're joking. Good answer. In fact, the "fine tuning" debunks God for this reason and yet these believers use it to "prove" God.

@antoniusblock34

Жыл бұрын

@@StaticBlaster Guess you both have no understanding of the Fall in Genesis. We live in a fallen universe, as a result of free will.

Two points. 1) A fine tuned universe'. That is a loaded phrase, or could too easily be considered a loaded phrase. Loaded with what? Loaded with implicit meaning. Loaded with assumptions. Like: like that the universe was created, instead of just began, and that it could have been created differently than it was. Smuggling in the God idea. The phrase is ambiguous. It doesn't have to mean this. It could be taken to refer to the situation of cosmological measurement and constants such that small changes in them would have resulted in a very different universe; a universe without life or a universe without black holes or a universe with.....ask a cosmologist. I regard the used of this ambiguity as an indication of attempting to smuggle mysticism into science. 2) So let 'fine tuning' have its mystical connotation. The question is then, What is a neutral phrase? The phrase has to recognize the specificity of the various parameters for the universe as it is and leave the door open for a natural or supernatural, or for that matter linguistic, explanation.

2 most feared physicists (by votes) are Witten and Weinberg.

My cats name is Mittens.

To me this is the best take on that question that I've heard so far

@MrFlameRad

Жыл бұрын

It's a cop out to avoid admitting a creator. All it does is push the question of fine tuning further back, never settles it. So now it isn't the nature of the universe that's fine tuned, it's the nature of the MULTIVERSE that is fine tuned. If you think a multiverse wouldn't have to be fine tuned for us to exist, you haven't thought deeply enough about the implications of that nor do you probably understand all the relevant science and phenomena that go into making us possible.

Hahaha, what if the so called fine-tuned universe is just a fine tuning fork of a singularity in a more fundamental reality than the universe that being projected from that singularity. That also means all fine-tuned stuff is just only those things that can resonant with this "almighty" singularity that projects this 3D universe + time.

The only thing nonsensical is knowing everything he said and not believing in a Creator.

To further the understanding of theistic incompetence, we don't know if there is anything like intelligent life anywhere else (I'm not discounting that). Think of the possibilities of a laboratory as large as the Universe, then only creating "us" on an infinitesimally small speck within that lab. In other words, creating a lab the size of the State of Ohio and only creating life on a grain of sand - at just one particular time. C'mon

@greensleeves7165

Жыл бұрын

Why does a divine presence have to be minded and premeditative? It could be instinctoid and without final purpose, but still possessed of an imperative of being (primitive awareness for instance) that even it cannot escape from, and which none of us may escape from either. Instead of a "lab" the size of Ohio, in Ohio one grain, semi-spontaneously, and semi-by-instinctive-groping, has condensed to a form of experience capable of grasping itself somewhat. So it reproduced itself to prevent itself simply disappearing again. The basic problem with the multiverse theory is that it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The sledgehammer is used because physical realists don't want anything except strict materialism, and multiverse theory is just strict materialism exploded to an infinite set.

@cisuminocisumino3250

Жыл бұрын

That doesn't nullify the fact that the level of precision needed to get the constants in place is extremely high, so it isn't an "incompetent" idea as you claim. Analogically speaking, if you were to find a highly complex machine like a drill in the middle of a vast wasteland, you wouldn't use such an obviously flawed argument to dismiss the logic of a maker. A highly complex system in the middle of a vast wasteland(the universe) is still very much open to the idea of a maker, because the level of precision needed to set everything in place is just too high.

@gooddaysahead1

Жыл бұрын

@@cisuminocisumino3250 It's a fluke helped along by evolution.

@cisuminocisumino3250

Жыл бұрын

@@gooddaysahead1 it could be, but that is highly unlikely, there must be some intelligent process that guided the evolution. I highly doubt that it arose as a result of some random unintelligent process.

@gooddaysahead1

Жыл бұрын

@@cisuminocisumino3250 I'm pretty enthusiastic about evolution being quite a dynamic process.

The so called fine tuning argument reminds me of how medieval philosopher's argued over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. There are no angels and there is no tuning, fine or otherwise. We exist because we fit this universes parameters. It wasn't "tuned". We adapted .

@mikelouis9389

Жыл бұрын

@@AwesomeWrench Smells like Holy Spirit to me. Didn't Nirvana do a song about that?

@mikelouis9389

Жыл бұрын

@Mkhitar Vardanyan Nice attempt at insering a given. Prove that we were designed and Prager University bull shyte is considered invalid. Actual peer reviewable proof.

@havenbastion

Жыл бұрын

Life is always fine-tuned to the environment it finds itself in.

@mikelouis9389

Жыл бұрын

@@havenbastion Exactly. He's trying to claim that the water designed the glass it fills. Sad. And he probably votes too.

@mianmauzgujjar8528

Жыл бұрын

Oh no, I would say the parameters of the universe allowed life to begin in the first place.

I can imagine what it would have been like to have had after dinner drinks with Steven Weinberg.

@abelincoln8885

Жыл бұрын

But how long have they all known ... the Universe & Life are thermodynamic systems? And all thermodynamic Systems are Functions ... and ... originate from the SURROUNDING System which must provide the matter, energy ... space, time, laws ... and intelligence to exist & to function. Only an intelligence makes, maintains, improves, operates uses & "fine tunes" .... abstract or physical Functions. The denial is ridiculous.

@1SpudderR

Жыл бұрын

A very small glass filled with Dark matter....!?

@vgrof2315

Жыл бұрын

One would hope that Steven Meyers, and for that matter, Mr. Authority, Dennis Prager, have listened to Steven Weinberg carefully before spouting off their "God of the gaps" arguments for the existence of God. If they listened they didn't learn.

@abelincoln8885

Жыл бұрын

@@vgrof2315 Clown. You are the only one with "god of the gaps" arguments. C'mon provide you evidence ... that nature & natural processes can make, maintain, improve, operate, use fine tune the simplest physical Function 13.7 or 4 billing years ago. Put up or shut with your BS "god of gaps." The Universe & Life are Thermodynamic Systems. All thermodynamic Systems ... are Functions ... with processes, PURPOSE, form, design, properties ... and .. originate from the SURROUNDING "unnatural" System which must provide the matter, energy .... space, time, laws ... & ... intelligence to exist & to function. Where are the origin Theories of the Universe ... with a Natural System originating from the Surrounding Unnatural System? The Universe is an isolated Thermodynamic System .. with finite matter & energy, laws of Nature .. and increasing entropy. There is a surrounding system and it must be unnatural ... otherwise it would be a thermodynamic System. lol Morons. Universal Functions ... is the hypothesis that fully explains Sir Issac Newton's Watchmaker Analogy and any MACHINE Analogy. The Function & Intelligence Categories ... prove ... everything is a Function made only by an intelligence. C'mon. Where is your evidence that nature can make a simply function ... then make it more complex? There is only evidence that Functions are made by an intelligence. Hmmmm? Where are the "god of gaps" arguments ..... with Universal Functions and the Function & Intelligence Categories?

@vgrof2315

Жыл бұрын

@@abelincoln8885 No valid evidence is exactly the point.

Why a Finely Tuned Universe? Here is Occam’s razor’s postulation: Because small changes to the constants of natural laws, [e.g., Aviation] would have resulted in no proof calculus of the flight of birds to jet rockets, speaks further to a universe incapable of supporting life. The Anthropic Principle says that if physical life-forms exist, they must observe that they are in a universe that is capable of sustaining their existence. Just as the proof calculus of AI has computational algorithmic laws governed by Mathematics (e.g., numerical analysis) that is given by a law giver. Therefore, the laws that govern the universe which remains (immutably) constant are also given by a law Giver - The Supreme Observer, Jehovah God. “In the beginning God created the heavens and earth.” Genesis 1:1 “I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon* on the face of the deep.” - Proverbs 8:27 [NIV] *Other side of the black hole, perhaps it’s horizon - the area of no return.

so god picked the least likely values, is that what you're saying?

The universe is and will always be impossible to understand for human beings. Expanding into what ffs!

so they accept string theory as true now?

The guest does not conclusively state that the theories, hypotheses and ideas he supports are undeniable realities, however he is very vehement in condemning any concepts that even remotely suggest the possibility of God. Is he scientifically balanced or scientifically bias?

@kos-mos1127

Жыл бұрын

He is scientifically balanced. Introducing a God is pointless as it adds nothing to the conversation.

@peweegangloku6428

Жыл бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 Introducing God takes us to a whole new level far beyond the current self imposed physicalistic boundary. If the quantum field has always existed, you first have to admit that there was a past eternity. Next, you have to answer why and how all that past eternity and why and how now. What was the trigger? Something deliberately done is the only sensible and logical explanation.

@kos-mos1127

Жыл бұрын

@@peweegangloku6428 There is no reason to invoke God when there is a past eternity because that state was there without beginning.

@peweegangloku6428

Жыл бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 The question is : 'If there was a bottomless past eternity, what served as a trigger for the "ever present quantum field" to have erupted into extremely massive stuffs and vivacious pressure or energy?' Suddenly from nearly zero energy to the most powerful expanding force ever, when the quantum field is said to have been there for past eternity? The probability for this to occur in the light of past eternity is 0.000000000000......to infinity. The probability is absolute zero.