"We can get life out of the universe; that's not saying intelligent life." Getting life in the first place is the hard thing to explain, compared to getting intelligent life, IMO.

Thanks for asking the hard questions

Biologist describes theory of universe based on Darwinian evolution. Then states he doesn't believe it. I feel like I just watched both something and nothing. Like the virtual particles of the quantum foam, popping into existence and immediately self-annihilating.

@tomjerry1170

7 ай бұрын

I couldn't believe what I was hearing

@fartpooboxohyeah8611

7 ай бұрын

​@@tomjerry1170What do you think you were hearing?

@michaelhall2709

7 ай бұрын

That seems a very apt description of what I just watched, yes.

@enlightenedanalysis1071

7 ай бұрын

Sorry but I think you misunderstood. When he said he does not believe it, he means it’s a hunch, NOT a belief. You need to understand his point in the CONTEXT of what he saId earlier in the video. He said it’s a hunch, not a belief and certainly not a theory. He is simply being cautious in his statements. Thanks.

@ianmatthews137

17 күн бұрын

@@enlightenedanalysis1071 You can't get Darwinian evolution from a single entity. I assume from his work that he knows what evolution means. So I can then only assume that he hadn't been taking his meds.

Interesting approach, new ways of thinking are always good when we get stuck

All we can do is to keep meditating on the topic. Jumping to a conclusion isn't the way to go.

Asymmetry seems to be key. Nothing happens in a symmetric universe, be it one or many or perhaps even infinite. Symmetry breaking, the arrow of time and entropy allows for a dynamic entity with emergent complexity.

@enlightenedanalysis1071

7 ай бұрын

Excellent point

@gordong2457

7 ай бұрын

That’s an interesting observation

@Anton_Sh.

6 ай бұрын

and possibly we feel that asymmetry as the will for life and not death.. this way it comes close to somewhat mystical experience

"What Does a Fine-Tuned Universe Mean?" Physics does not provide meaning. Scientifically, a fine-tuned physical universe has no more intrinsic meaning than a coarse-tuned physical universes or than any other kind of universe one can imagine. Such metaphysical question can only be answered by metaphysics.

My take is that scientists are not interested in why the universe is complex. They are interested in how the universe is complex. You ask the question, Why is the universe complex? Suppose you answer it! There is just another question about why that answer is correct. You are in an infinite regress. There is some difference between nihilism, on the one hand, and Ocham's Razor, on the other.

With other galaxies so far away, how can we say for certain that there are no other Earth- like planets out there?

The man is brilliant, has profound thoughts, but gives us nothing but make believe and admits he has no idea how it could happen. Then he adds every now & then.... “I don’t believe it”.

@les2997

7 ай бұрын

All he said is pure speculation with no empirical basis.

@weznash

7 ай бұрын

No one alive can be certain of these kinds of things. We speculate until we know and this chap is at the front of the pack in terms good ideas.

@enlightenedanalysis1071

7 ай бұрын

When he said he does not believe it, he means it’s a hunch, NOT a belief. You need to understand his point in the CONTEXT of what he saId earlier in the video. He said it’s a hunch, not a belief and certainly not a theory. He is simply being cautious in his statements. Thanks.

The idea of fine tuning, is just the result of us not having all the necessary information needed to understand the laws of physics. We know we are missing something, see dark matter etc., so who is to say that the universe could have evolved any other way? It’s a typical case of us humans looking for meaning where there is none. A plant doesn’t grow because, it grows because it can’t do anything else.

@prof3gamer988

7 ай бұрын

It is fallacious to think we will just discover the truth u are proposing.

@HosenMatzDeluXe

7 ай бұрын

@@prof3gamer988 maybe, maybe not. A hundred years ago we didn't even knew other galaxies existed, look at us now, searching for gravitational waves and what not. I don't think it is possible to fully comprehend a system without seeing it from the inside and the outside, and as far as we know we will never leave this universe. So maybe we will never know how all of this works, but for as long as there are humans, we will try to figure it out. I'm certain of that.

@prof3gamer988

7 ай бұрын

@@HosenMatzDeluXe the problem is your use of language "the idea of fine tunning, is just..." That kind of propositions are factual, but you have 0 evidence to show that is the case. So, it becomes a fallacy

We have only one universe to look at, so I don't see how we can say what 'normal' is. The tuning is as it is - and that is fine, but we can't know if that is rare or normal, common or unique. However the constants were set, as long as it supported life, the life would think it was set for them. It begs the question of why are their rules at all, much less constants to by fine tuned or not.

What an astounding coincidence that I found my keys last night under the streetlight! No, for it is the only place the keys could be found.

@penguinista

7 ай бұрын

I had a similar experience, but I found my lost keys in the sunlight. So I deduced that the sun must have been designed as a key spotting device. It bathes us with photons that are bright enough to see with, but not too bright. Warms us, but doesn't burn us to death. That guy Occam, who has never seen anything interesting happen, is sure I am right. Complicated explanations make me sleepy.

We aren't assuming a multiverse for us to be here. He's applying Occam's razor woefully incorrectly

Multiverse or cyclical universe is still the best explanation.

Kuhn shredded Kauffman's argument. Kauffman tried to offer an evolutionary mechanism that would explain why the universe would evolve to produce complexity, but he failed to describe the feedback mechanism needed to explain why the production of complexity when the laws of physics & fundamental constants randomly fluctuate to a state compatible with complexity would cause the laws & constants to stop fluctuating back to values that promote less complexity. Kauffman spoke of a "fastest growing" universe, but if there's only one universe then it's also the slowest. Growth is thus irrelevant. What's relevant is to explain why the laws & constants would STOP changing after reaching a state that promotes complexity (and life). Physicists have postulated several kinds of multiverses. Occam would probably dislike some of them, but not necessarily all of them. The multiverses of Eternal Inflation theory and of Lee Smolin's Cosmological Natural Selection theory don't require more than one universe initially, and could instead be described as a single universe that produced loosely connected (a.k.a. isolated) branches. Eternal Inflation is a plausible natural consequence of Inflation theory, because Inflation theory lacks a mechanism that would cause inflation to cease everywhere.

Spectacular - Bravo

The Occam’s razor proposition gets ignored by atheistic scientists only when the origin of the universe is discussed.

8:46 good one Robert. Where does the role of light fit into it? Also, what if the many world interpretation (the complex) was and will always be a necessary process to get back to the one universe interpretation? Isn't that like an inside job or a hack for fine tuning the one universe? I mean, just because a physicist is trained in the one world view and it might even compliment his own lineage rule, it doesn't mean a physicist who has a completely different genetic code will see the result as a fair representation. If he does he is probably lying or has settled for valuing the job. I think you need both to get back to the evolved tuned one.

@fartpooboxohyeah8611

7 ай бұрын

Creator

@missh1774

7 ай бұрын

🤧🗞️swing*〰️💩➰*👤splat! @@fartpooboxohyeah8611💛

Let me try this other tact. If fine-tuning were indeed true and the world, the universe were designed, what would that mean? Would it mean a designer, God? It seems to me to accept that reasoning is to solve a little perplexity by positing a gigantic unsolvable mystery. A mystery that many people will claim to have figured out and over which much dispute will occur. A mystery solution is one that rejects nature (as every miracle does), which is the very thing it was trying to understand in the first place.

@zamolxezamolxe8131

7 ай бұрын

Something we call "deity". The only thing which comes close to that would be energy. So no old male with beard in the sky. Have fun worshipping energy lol

@Anton_Sh.

6 ай бұрын

@@zamolxezamolxe8131 I think that's what Aristotle called "Metaphysics" .

@zamolxezamolxe8131

6 ай бұрын

@@Anton_Sh. heard of it, but never details. Yet I doubt he knew about energy and details about atoms as we know it.

@Anton_Sh.

6 ай бұрын

@@zamolxezamolxe8131 I think enegy is considered the literal part of physics. Metaphysics should lie beyond it, we can't reach there, but this must be where the energy comes from into existence.

@zamolxezamolxe8131

6 ай бұрын

@Anton_Sh. aha ok. But sorry, bro, I won't worship energy lol

0:41 Why is the universe complex? Because complementing the second Law of Thermodynamics is the Principle of Cosmogenisis, the three components of which are, formally, differentiation, autopoiesis, and communion. See The Universe Story, Swimme and Berry, 1992.

Why would 10^500 universes be superfluous but, for example, 10^80 atoms in this universe not be superfluous? Superfluousness is just another anthropocentric idea suggesting there should be some kind of economy based on our own sense of scale.

@richardatkinson4710

7 ай бұрын

The point is that we only detect one universe. To account for it by supposing a vast undetectable multiverse is insanely profligate. But the 10^80 particles are all detectable. They are not hypothetical extras.

@kalewintermute28

7 ай бұрын

@@richardatkinson4710 The multiverse wasn't developed as a solution to the fine tuning problem it was an interpretation of quantum theory which accounted for superposition. So it's not a complicated solution to a problem, it's a pre-existing solution to a natural phenomenon which was later found to also be a solution to the fine tuning problem.

@richardatkinson4710

7 ай бұрын

@@kalewintermute28 That’s not actually true. The “many worlds” multiverse is a consequence of Everett’s “Relative-State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics”. He spelled out his motivation quite clearly: to avoid the objectionable (in his view) dependence on a conscious observer for quantum collapse. He interprets the wave equation as actually existing. There was an alternative, Bopp’s stochastic interpretation, which could not observationally be distinguished from his own theory. Again, he quite clearly gives his motivation for rejecting it: “a naked prejudice for determinism.”

So universes compete with one another over how fast they can run down this slide of adjacent possibilities? I don't think I have that right. 'Slide of adjacent possibilities', equals entropy.

understand fundamental reality of existence

Interesting approach. I'm not sure that this idea is incompatible with "bubble universe" forms of multiverse, though. That is where isolated pockets of space-time develop slightly different properties. The difficult question to test is whether these parameters can change at all, but if they can under some possible consitions it seems reasonable that there would be some selection for some over others. Kuhn asked some good questions, but seems to have some trouble with the idea of brute facts underlying things. It's fair to ask if the model is "turtles all the way down," but it may just be that simpler model. Also, it doesn't need to be fine-tuned for life. It seems that, whatever the universe is capable of, or how it got to where it is, the fact that conscious entities exist in it just allows the universe to be acknowledged as existing. Maybe the "fine-tuned" final product universe has no life, but we can't observe it because then we'd be unable to live in it.

@Bill..N

7 ай бұрын

Well said and easy to agree with, friend. . I think YOUR comment on this video will stand as the most considered and insightful response .. Peace..

The Universe is what it is...... We are what grows, under those conditions.

molecule format uato-stew or tandy

The adjacent possible, emergence, on a cosmic scale, cosmogenisis. The counter-part to the second Law of Thermodynamics.

Fine tuning is easily explained when we realize, as we have in steps throughout our history, that the world, the universe we live in is much much bigger than we imagined.

@jamenta2

7 ай бұрын

Another - "dog ate my homework" explanation.

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

@@jamenta2 non sequitur much?

@jamenta2

7 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 Just the first thought which popped up in my head. "Dog at my homework" is a line I stole from Robert Lanza tbh.

Not fine tuned for life, just tuned in a way that life is possible.

Silliness! This is like saying that the result of a roll of the dice is designed.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

7 ай бұрын

*"Silliness! This is like saying that the result of a roll of the dice is designed."* ... A six-sided, sequentially numbered cube is necessarily "designed." You're using something that is "designed" in support of an argument claiming there is no design.

@OBGynKenobi

7 ай бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC the result of the roll. But I already said that.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

7 ай бұрын

@@OBGynKenobi *"the result of the roll. But I already said that."* ... Not enough regression. You used something designed to make an argument for a lack of design.

@michaelhall2709

7 ай бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLCSo what? Sorry, but I can’t imagine what you think you’ve demonstrated by pointing that out.

@jordan_8329

7 ай бұрын

​​​​@@michaelhall2709the possibile results are baked into the cake of the design of the dice. A single 6 sided dice could not produce the result of 9. You dont always need a single result to say something is designed. If there are a range of possible and probable outcomes with other outcomes excluded entirely that can still be part of some ultimate design. If you roll a 6 sided dice 20 times, you are pretty likely to get each possible outcome (within the paramaters of the action) atleast once or twice. If the universe was designed to be a life producing universe then it was bound to happen atleast once within the many galaxies.

Having fluctuation being able to happen is already a fine-tuning.

Lots of comments unfairly criticising Kauffman for saying he does not “believe” it. What he means is that it’s a hunch, NOT a belief or theory. We need to understand his point in the CONTEXT of what he saId earlier in the video at 5:16 . He said it’s a hunch, not a belief and certainly not a theory. He is simply being cautious in his statements. Thanks.

0:45 Part of the problem is that people assume there is some kind of tuning in the first place.

What if all of humanity and other life in the uni is all within huge liposomes? All our life is within huge lipid bubbles floating in space, and this, in fact, is what the multiverse is all about?

I'm with Khun: if the system is designed to select, from stocastic variations, the one that is ultimately life-permitting, the system itself appears to be designed for life. Organisms do the same: they harness stocasticity for fitting purposes. This requires an explanation, and to me, it points to a Designer, a Mind.

@Anton_Sh.

6 ай бұрын

Why do you conclude to name something , which is probably humanly unnamable?

@kenkaplan3654

3 ай бұрын

@@Anton_Sh. It still exists. "The Tao that can not be named is not the true Tao". But there is a Tao.

Wouldn't mind slippin' into another Universe...this one's not much Chop!😂

I'm quite happy to admit I do not understand lightning. But is my ignorance good evidence for a god ?

a biologist equating math to reality at the end there.

Perhaps fine tuning is Self designed.

How can we make any of these assumptions without some sort of measure or context, we cannot say our universe is complex as we have no other data for comparison.

@robertvangeel3599

3 ай бұрын

You don't seem to understand the word 'complexity'. This is a formal word. An un-complex universe would have max entropy, just everything moving around randomly in a state of low-energy. Why is there low entropy?

Perhaps you have ran out of scientific researchers who can be of any further value trying to understand the nature of our consciousness my good sir as this has been and will continue to be my favorite show....

I think Kuhn's question is cogent. Doesn't evolution itself have to evolve? I need to read Kauffman's books again. I think he is arguing that it doesn't have to but his reasoning is beyond me at the moment. It may well be I don't really understand evolution.

@simonhibbs887

7 ай бұрын

The argument is basically that any variable set of open ended initial conditions will lead to some sort of evolutionary process. The fine tuning argument presupposes that the initial conditions must be variable, otherwise there would be no range to select from. So basically it’s turning the framing of the question against itself.

So the multiverse theory is that there is, indeed, a multiverse AND that they are substantial different from each other in their laws of nature.

@kenkaplan3654

3 ай бұрын

The dog ate my homework.

Wouldn't say "fine-tuned" -- more like in a stable dynamic equilibrium

A Fine-Tuned Universe obviously suggests that a Fine-Tuner exists who has no beginning and no end. The purpose for all this is to give temporary homes for lost sentients for a chance of salvation through applying their FREE WILL TO CHOOSE to believe in a loving Creator.. Please consider this : All our "CONSCIOUS CHOICES" in all our lives have been based on a belief that these choices are the good, better, best, or right choices to make... there is no conscious choice, NONE, that is not based on a belief system.. ..and all our loving Creator hopes for is for you to at least include Him as part of your beliefs that may even save you from the tyranny of evil forces... ...many of you have been opening all doors in your hearts to welcome all evils that has ruined your lives. What your loving Creator begs is for you to at least give Him a chance who has been patiently knocking your heart all this time so for you to also welcome Him that may save you... is this too much to ask ?

Complexity isn’t the same thing as written directives or directed working mechanisms. Fine tuning is only a small part of the problem for supposing evolution.

But if it is fine tuned why so much natural death and disasters? Couldn’t the fine tuner have tuned it a little finer to allow for a better safer life on earth. Can anyone help with this? Or have I misunderstood the argument.

The problem with this is that the universe can’t work against itself, so therefore regressing the dynamics of cause and effect; all effects must be smaller than the cause which would lead backwards to an ultimate force of cause (creation )which in it’s material eminence -can only create a universe of simple, naked force. The fact that anything in this universe can be created or seen a separate amongst itself tells you it has to be a design- such as a way that a sandstorm doesn’t look like a design, but a Sandcastle does

@blijebij

7 ай бұрын

Hmm entropy makes that information levels up in progressing of time. So i would not state the sum of effects is smaller then the cause. Further, the fun part is, fine tuning can point strongly to intelligence behind the universe, how ever it points, it suggests, its not proof! The opposite you also can not do, state that all was coincidense. The truth is, with the information we got you simply cant choose between one and the other. So yes you can say it suggests, or favor a side, fine. But proof? nope for neither side, religious or atheist being true there is no final proof. People do not like that in general, but that is how it is. Further I would expand your thought even about the Universe can't work against it self, make that Reality can't work against it self. Reality, that includes the Universe also, can nog be divided against it self.

@MrSanford65

7 ай бұрын

@@blijebij There is never going to be proof, but I think sometimes science asks the wrong question because more than likely there was probably never a beginning in the first place, because if they were a big bang, then everything following its own course would’ve exploded everything back into nothingness. But there is a certain hesitation of the universe that seems to benefit life such as the gravitational field surrounding earth and restraining itself perfect perfectly for unknown reasons. But I will say that if the very definition of design is restraint for the sake of form, I think that definition fits the universe . Perhaps what we call the universe is simply a series of little designs.

@blijebij

7 ай бұрын

@@MrSanford65 But do you mean Science as the Institute or certain split offs like scientist with a personal favoring. Ofcourse we humans are dogmatic, me, you , religious people, scientist, we all are conditioned by our human scale. I agree that a cylic Universe would make way more sense. A reality that simply always existed. This would be more logic for people that believe consciousness (god) is core of reality as well as atheist. A universe out of nothing is not logic. There are several reasons why it would not be logic. 1. what introduced change, and time? 2. Nothing is error, al we know and witness falls within math, or better stated relations. Nothing is not linked to any relation. People often swap emptyness with nothing, but both are totally different things. 3. Where did information, relation and energy come from , so where is the balance if it came from nothing? 4. classic big bang has a big problem with gravity and has to invent a never testable cosmic law named inflation. ell etc etc So a reality that always existed is way more logical consistent. Well with series of little designs, at the foundation of Reality all has to fall within one relation else there is no unification, mathematics stands on relation and unification. I think at the foundation of Reality you find a form of unification. I think maybe Science just want to make the best of it from the emperical testable data collective we got now. It is indeed quite lineair thinking but I have also hope as I see over time scientist become slowly more open minded and less lineair :)

@MrSanford65

7 ай бұрын

@@blijebij you just made a point that I’ve been making for years when it comes to atheism and the denial of metaphysics, is that emptiness and nothingness are not only different, but existence doesn’t necessarily have to have an opposite; all there is is transparency, which seems to have a force like unseen gravity. I also agree with you that even asking the question of consciousness as something material or immaterial separate total being may be a wrong headed question. I believe if we examine ourselves in this life-our memories are only from three or four years old and right before we die, and we witness birth and deaths every day, so it only makes sense that we would super impose our experience of beginnings , and ending to the entire universe. But a glimpse of something doesn’t mean that everything is a glimpse.

@blijebij

7 ай бұрын

@@MrSanford65 Well said! Yes i agree ^^

NOT fine tuned for life when tomorrow a meteorite could take out "God's Highest Creation" and 3.5 billion years of evolution on planet Earth. 😢

In the beginning Robert puts the burden of proof on science to establish why the laws of nature are what they are, in order to disprove God. (Science isn't interested in disproving God. It just assumes nature is natural as a premise for doing business. ) I turn it around and ask Robert, on what basis he thinks the laws of nature, the measurements of the so-called fine-tuning, could have been other than they are? And I will answer my own question. He thinks the laws of nature could have been different because he assumes that the universe is just another thing in the universe. All things in the universe could have been different, so the very fabric of the universe could have been different.😮😮

Of course the universe is suited for us or we wouldn't be here. But i don't consider that to be the question. It's the "fine tuning" that applies to everything else. The question is why does everything work so well? Why doesn't everything crash in to each other? Why is there symmetry, gravity, physical constants? Yes laws of physics, but why and how? That's the question. I personally find it hard to accept that this is just a brute fact just because it is. I believe in design, not chance.

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

Some seem always ready to jump to the God of the Gaps, but when that gets filled with science, then the search is on… For new gaps 😊

@michaelhall2709

7 ай бұрын

Ever looked at a snowflake under a microscope? It’s as complex as a cathedral, with untold numbers of them having formed in the cosmos since the Big Bang, each one supposedly unique. Does that mean they’re individually designed?

@jamenta2

7 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 The efficacy of Randomness - the God of the Gaps materialists fervently believe in with all their heart and soul. Oh I forgot, you have no soul - you're just a mechanical biological machine. My mistake!

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

@@jamenta2 No problem. Just do better next time 😇

@jamenta2

7 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 How can I? There is no choice when I am a biological machine! You should know that.

Is there such a thing as design from natural processes, or is that an oxymoron?

@bozo5632

7 ай бұрын

Seems unavoidably true.

The winning formula for complexity will pop out. Do I believe it? Not at all.

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

I’d personally always bet on the scientists. They have a way of always coming through.,,

You might as well get a random person off the street

I hate the multiverse theory too but this guy is incomprehensible. What Darwinian process is he talking about?

There are deeper laws. Matrix. Variables are emergent.

fine-tuning/design/structure is obvious when the presence of a handfull of organic molecules (the building blocks of life), within a brief slice of time, suddenly generate a full blown life form capable of questioning its own existence and purpose 🤔

@derekallen4568

7 ай бұрын

Only if you're indoctrinated.

@simonhibbs887

7 ай бұрын

Where suddenly = 4 billion years of infinitesimally gradual change.

@r2c3

7 ай бұрын

​@@derekallen4568am I supposed to negate the presence of structured molecules only becouse you're against a particular doctrine...

@derekallen4568

7 ай бұрын

@@r2c3 I'm not against any doctrine. If the universe was created, then the creator could have designed the universe anyway he wanted, and we would've been able to inhabit all of the planets. There have been many creator gods over the millennia, yet you believe in the one that you've been indoctrinated into.

@jamenta2

7 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Another fallacy. Perhaps the first event of abiogenesis might occur often in 4 billion years, but after that first event - abiogenesis can only take place within a narrow window of a number of hours, and a very precise and increasingly statistical improbable sequence of events must take place in a very precise order - for there to be any possibility of an active organism to emerge from inorganic inert matter. And we're talking about chance/coincidence that are ridiculously absurd (in the trillions to trillions to trillions to 1 odds) - so absurd, they are not rationally acceptable given the current religious "belief system" of Materialists. Something else seems to be taking place - yet unknown. My guess it has to do with the nature of consciousness itself.

Seems to me that either you believe something intelligent either and/or conscious started out of randomness or it was designed ie genetic code for cells. So what concept do you believe in? Or asked another way what theory do you have more faith in?

@bozo5632

7 ай бұрын

Don't make such a big deal out of consciousness / intelligence, imho.

@jesusreyes2186

7 ай бұрын

@@bozo5632 yea ok whatever you say 😃

The universe is consist of mostly 90% radiation pulsating like one giant electron and preventing the vacuum of space from closing all around against it and the force from the vacuum is constantly pressing up against the electrons pulsating forces which creates a wall that can never be penetrated no matter what because the two forces are always coming against each other causing a back-and-forth motion because the electrons are always working and pulsating against the vacuum pressure. My understanding about a vacuum is a place where time and particles do not exist because this is the place only electrons are created through pressure, example; imagine being out in a place you couldn't move any of your limbs or blink your eyes because you are forever stuck in a spot and your body is constantly being compressed by all the forces of the vacuum coming inward on you from every angle and squeezing you to the level of a perfect marble and then the size of a atom and back to an electron and then the remaining heat inflation now the beginning of time and back to the first friction the plunk level. My point is, the reason for time and the reason why everything is moving is because space allows it, example space diluted the pressure inside the vacuum by creating space on a quantum level based on every individual electron pulsating making it possible for everything inside space to levitate and move with freedom thank God for electrons and there pulsating behavior because when they work together individually they create space our universe in between each of them on a quantum level.

We are the universe since the universe is 100% inside of us. We can observe, discuss and change what is in the universe is likely the universe doing all that through us. The universe observing itself and acting through us looks like something that comes naturaly with it being a matter of time for it to happen.

The illusion of the fine-tuned universe is that we built our mathematical model of our universe by testing it and experimenting with it and measuring it. Then from these measurements, tests and experiment we created models for astronomy, physics and chemistry. Now, if we start changing constants and coefficients we find out that the universe breaks down. WHHHHAAAAATTTT!!!. LOL. Of course it breaks down because those constants and coefficients of the models came from our measurements of THIS current universe. It works only with the constants and the formulas we derived and developed from our observation of this universe. This is like proving god from reading the bible. It is circular.

The Fine Tuning Paradox: 1. The Universe is fine tuned with great precision to host human life. 2. Humankind isn't fine tuned at all and self exterminates. God comments, "Blame the talking snake!"

Darwinian Scientists: grant us one miracle and we’ll explain the rest. 😂😂😂

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

That may have been funny when cartoonist first came up with it back in the Eighties, but considering the advancements in abiogenesis research since then, the joke…is the joke.

@bozo5632

7 ай бұрын

Religious apologists: Grant us whatever we say depending on our mood, and we'll explain nothing.

'Fine tuned for life 'is a phrase which implies an assumption - the universe has a purpose, which is to create life. The other approach is simply to acknowledge that the way the universe works has eventually reached a point where at least one speck of life within its vastness has emerged. In other words life is just an effect of how the universe works, like we wouldn't say a puddle is purposely fine-tuned to fit a hole in the ground. Why the constants are the way they are, well that's open to speculation and it's difficult to know how to find , or at least falsify, an answer. And such apparently unanswerable questions are available for a God of the Gaps to fill of course. But in this case it doesn't tell us anything about the nature of the God-answer - the word 'God' here is just acting as a place-holder term in lieu of what the answer actually is.

@jamenta2

7 ай бұрын

The fine-tuning goes far beyond just a hole in the ground. In addition, one can build a theoretical hypothesis regarding fine-tuning that doesn't include "God" which is understandably, forbodden for the Skeptic Materialist goons.

Nonsense bias of greater cause… Was the earth precisely fine tuned to fit a puddle, or was the puddle precisely fine tuned to fit the earth? Nonsense Bias of greater cause.

How many coincidences does it take to be true his arguments would not hold up in court

The book 'the origin of time' details how Stephen Hawking and his colleagues spent the last 10-20 years of his life exploring the idea that the laws of physics 'evolved' in a Darwinian manner. Professor Hawking also strongly disliked the concept of a multiverse. However, if I have it right, Hawking thought there couldn't be any initial 'boundary conditions'.

This poor guy doesn’t realize we exist in a simulation.

@marishkagrayson

7 ай бұрын

Hmm, but who fine-tuned the simulator? Even a self simulating universe is odd. What is the origin of everything (simulators included)?

@anxious_robot

7 ай бұрын

@@marishkagrayson I dunno. It could be an advanced civilization, it could be a God, but it could be something eternal that always was and always will be. I think our monkey brains are limited and can't think of something always existing. We're really tied to causality. What if things happen or exist without a cause? My guess would be that's at the very root of all this. Something that just is and just always will be, whatever that is. My hope is in death we get an answer.

I once saw this guy in a field, he had a bucket with him, it was full of stuff, I looked in, it had inside, screws, wires, plastic items, batteries, solder, glass. I watched curiously as he threw it all up in the air as high as he could. I could not believe my eyes, when it all landed, it came down as a 52 inch 4k, curve screen surround sound TV with game ready graphics card and 6 usb ports.

@rizdekd3912

7 ай бұрын

" it came down as a 52 inch 4k, curve screen surround sound TV" Actually that would suggest a god existed, right? But if it took billions of years for first long chained replicating molecules to form under serendipitous conditions which then after millions of years of subsequential evolution under 'just right' conditions these molecules transformed into more and more complex molecules and then developed into actual simple life and then into complex life, then after billions of years of evolution one of those life forms was able to build a 52 inch monitor, we might think THAT was something that happened naturally. The first clue is when it all landed. Why did it all land? What caused it to fall back down? Natural forces or Divine will? At one time people including Newton just thought gravity was due to Divine will because they couldn't explain how objects could affect other objects around them, now, we generally think gravity is a natural process. I assume we'll eventually figure out how simple life could develop naturally.

@Resmith18SR

5 ай бұрын

I saw the same thing, but the tv was an 85 inch UHD. 🤣

I’m fairly science-literate, and yet even with my familiarity with the Anthropic Principle (strangely omitted from the conversation), this struck me as absolute gibberish.

So the universe can depend on human evolutionary survival? A sort of existential, species supremacy 😂😂😂? Is there a civil rights division of fine-tuning? Effort guarantees existence? What existence does not guarantee effort? Which effort? Which purpose? Its funny how people can cite evolution and purpose in the same context. When did evolution come to include will?

Many of your guest may need better investigate Taoist and Zen Buddist and along with early Hindus teachings of an organic an organic world before this universe and perhaps what tools they were using to get the of what sounds as a multiverse over 2,500 back in history and not worrie why it modern scientists so to come simular conclusions.

The desire to win doesn't seem to have any foundation from a scientific perspective.

Jeremiah 33: 22 “As the hosts of heaven cannot be counted and as the sand on the seashore cannot be measured, so too will I multiply the descendants of My servant David and the Levites who minister before Me.”

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

Blah blah blah blah Bible

@benjiedrollinger990

7 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 I’m glad you enjoyed the scripture.

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

@@benjiedrollinger990 Why don’t you quote the part where the Israelites are told to slaughter all the people of a city except for the young girls who the soldiers determine (how?) are virgins. Because those they can take as their sexual slaves.

ja maybe but the one-universe can still be endless and the big-bang is if anything just a local peripheral phenomenon

Fourier analysis

pass the bong, dude....

His comment “that we have already produced life experimentally” is a lie. It is simply not true. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA) Retired surgeon

"10 to the 500th of universes... that seems like an abundance" - totally unaccounted for conclusion. Like saying 10 to the 500th prime numbers 'seems' like an abundance. Stopped watching after that line.

Isn't life on earth fine tuned to the laws of physics, rather than the laws of physics designed for life?

@NightmareCourtPictures

3 ай бұрын

This is called naturalness. It is synonymous with anthropics. You have zillions of animals that compete, some die but the ones that survive are the ones that are better adapted to the environment until they become finely tuned surviving machines. The multiverse idea is about instantiating zillions of universes, the ones that didn’t collapse into dust is going to be the ones that survived and what we observe, and it will have said constants that allow the things in the universe to exist since we observe it. Therefor the multiverse is a natural explanation to fine tuning. The problem is the multiverse is unobservable, assuming it’s even real. It also pushes the buck back because you could ask, why does the multiverse exist? And where did it come from…and with a failure to study it would leave Science with a giant question mark forever. The problem is the multiverse is not a clean idea that explains anything…only temporarily without evidence, explains why fine tuning can exist in our universe with a natural explanation.

Fine tuning /complexity etc ...all points to a blind watchmaker ...plain for anyone to see...

I always find it fascinating to see the lengths scientists go to, to preclude the possibility of God - however God is defined. The notion seems so distasteful that many will go to equally unfounded and unproven potential answers.

@stuford

7 ай бұрын

Yes totally agree with you 👍

@protonman8947

7 ай бұрын

This isn't science. It's mental gymnastics, or if you prefer, mental masturbation. Imagination, however, is a prerequisite for good science to emerge. Ask Albert. Nobody considers any of this factual - it is speculation and is admitted to be such. Religion, on the other hand, makes no admission it could possibly be wrong about God, and in addition, purports to know the mind of God, all without good evidence. What is truly "fascinating" are the lengths to which religious apologists will go, to justify their belief in the supernatural.

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

The idea of God is a dead end that has produced no findings or useful results for humankind. That’s why most scientists have abandoned it in their scientific thinking.

@davefk

7 ай бұрын

The moment they give God any credit, they lose their funding. Most of science is junk anyway...

@michaelspencer4404

2 ай бұрын

Ron, sir, you clearly have your head very far up your butt. OF COURSE you have to go to great lengths in science to describe reality, many of these theories are extraordinarily esoteric and beyond the imagination of human beings. Look at quantum mechanics or organic chemistry…Would you rather have science go “ok well its god” m so then people stop theorizing?! And I disagree w u even further because many scientists do in fact include the possibility of god. But its not our best option considering most evidence points to god being a made up idea, so it would be odd if god were weighted equally with conjectures based on scientific theories

Cosmic evolution is just throwing one step further the question: Why evolving cosmos who permits life? The question about origins will be always open.

Vague. And he doesn't really believe his own ideas.

The universe is random and natural. Gods aren’t real.

@suatustel746

7 ай бұрын

And neutral to human life!!!

@inter3684

7 ай бұрын

in 5th dimension of many universes, your universe is random and natural and nothing special indeed. That is the point. in the panel of multiverse theres a distinct universe for each person. When a person is liar, in his universe 2+2 does not equal 4 but 5 and any other number. His is just a random universe. It really changes from person to person in quantum mechanics

@Resmith18SR

5 ай бұрын

If I believe like Einstein and Spinoza and most pantheists that God is the physical Universe then God is very real, in fact God is Reality itself.

(1:45) *SK: **_"That's an abundance of universes that seems a little superfluous."_* ... On one hand, religion proposes a universe designed by an all-knowing God that somehow _"knew"_ how to do it all ahead of time, and science opts for an infinite number of universes and we just _"got lucky"_ by landing in the one that works. However, neither side can explain where all of the *information* came from to make a single universe, nor an infinite number of universes. ... As with most things, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. It's "Closter to Truth" that in the beginning, the universe possessed the *absolute minimum amount of intelligence* necessary for its self-orchestration, and this same "minimum intelligence" scenario has been playing out during every evolutionary event that's followed.

Fine Tuning solved with the Scientific Method. Outcome Design Happens! The Scientific Method “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” is an Equation! a.k.a. Infinity = 1/x(delta) + 1 Step 1 Observation: Math can deliver unbreakable truths such as 2+2 will always equal 4. Step 2 Question: Do math and Divinity shall a common truth? Step 3 Hypothesis: If God exists and mathematics can tell us God is real. Then something of God should be found in the house of mathematics. Step 4 Prediction: The phrase “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” is an equation. Step 5 Test: This test tells us what a number is. A. If God exist then by reason of him actuating the universe His Mind must be infinite, i.e., Infinity. B. The word “is” in common understandings affix a nature of truth. In math the word “is” denotes equality i.e., the (=) equal sign. C. Man like everything that exist is a part of the whole of reality and in math any part of a singular whole is a fraction of that whole i.e., (1/x). D. Change is a physical reality and in math change operates to show a difference, rate, or expansion of some kind. We often illustrate a mathematical relationship that shows the use of change with the Greek letter delta i.e. (Δ). E. The word “with” in common understandings affix a nature of togetherness. In math the word yields the same meaning, but we represent this word as a matter involving addition i.e., the plus (+) sign. • Again, if God exists then we have a creator who processes all the necessary and appropriate parts to complete our universe. This situation would make God the first and end of reality. A mathematical logical statement to this kind of situation says the whole of reality is that which identifies as being unbroken, closed, complete and singular and has the nature of being 1. • Infinity = 1/x(change) + 1 Spelled out: A number is a set-in space that changes with space. God tells us "I am Alpha and Omega" Here in this equation we see Alpha and Omega Gods Mind is Alpha the beginning "Infinity" and God is the end Omega (1).

"Biologists describe the origin of life as a random occurrence in a dead universe, but have no real understanding of how life began or why the universe appears to have been exquisitely designed for its emergence." ~Robert Lanza "The skeptic affirms that the universe is a nest of boxes with nothing in the last box." ~RW Emerson

The universe is fine-tuned and exquisitely designed . . . for cockroaches!

One more thought if I may. Many scientist seem to be in the business of disproving the God hypothesis. By any means possible.

@caiusKeys

7 ай бұрын

Seems to be driven by ego...

@robn8036

7 ай бұрын

The “fact” of the comment you posted, was all you were able to extrapolate from that conversation speaks for itself.

@grijzekijker

7 ай бұрын

The essence of a believer is to have faith, not proof. Yet, the essence of a scientist is to come up with proof, which can be tested by peers. As a believer I praise God for His wonderful creation, but I struggle to comprehend how He could speak the words to generate it all. Why such a huge Milky Way galaxy, with useless gaseous planets and surrounded by a messy Oort cloud? Why create billions of other galaxies we can never reach?

@robn8036

7 ай бұрын

@@grijzekijker an excellent, honest comment. Unfortunately for the believer, this is where the toil lies.

When a spaceship enter out into space it and every astronaut will Begin levitating the moment the spaceship entered into space and a way from the spinning planet fusion activity which cut off all particles pulsating activities down to 0 every particle in your body will begin pulsate with every electron and every other particle immediately and simultaneously against the the vacuum while pulsating on levitation mode and against the vacuum deadly force which is now under control by every existing particle pulsating mechanism.

Chicken…egg. Good luck.

@S3RAVA3LM

7 ай бұрын

Tree... seed. Go mad.

Accept the factual results when the results go against atheism instead of trying to fit the factual results with your own bias. That is the scientific method rules.

That God exists. That's the best explanation.

@suatustel746

7 ай бұрын

Which God????

@jamespower5165

7 ай бұрын

Let us consider the consequences of that. The deity(which we will call G) presumably controls all the laws of physics. And yet the best universe that G could come up with is one in which there's an astonishingly limited quantity of life by the most optimistic estimates. If G is sentient, then sentient beings would be the centerpiece of creation. Yet most of the universe is completely inhospitable to it, and most of what goes on in the universe is unconcerned with it. Also life didn't exist for nearly half the life of the universe. And evolved slowly afterwards. No, that's not how it would go unless G was not a very good engineer. A universe purposely created by a good engineer would be teeming with life. Life would always be a part of the universe. That's not what we find

@atmanbrahman1872

7 ай бұрын

@@jamespower5165 Wow, God didn't do things how you would've done them if you were God. Therefore He doesn't exist. You atheotards are loopy with your specious arguments.

@suatustel746

7 ай бұрын

@@jamespower5165 yes l go along with you, even if it's created trial and error traces we're witnessing ;prime incident emergence and disappeance of the Dinasaurs, unsightly disproportinal dump animals gradually paved the way to a higher sentient beings until the next time. Whoever designed the Dinasaurs also subject to evolution.

@jamespower5165

7 ай бұрын

​@@atmanbrahman1872The whole basis of any argument for a deity is to point to something that exists and say "Sounds like something the deity would do" And then when the answer to that also uses the same logic and says let us think about all the things any reasonable deity would do and see if that squares up with the actual world we observe, then apparently it's not a good argument. To the extent that you cannot say what a deity would do, nothing can be a good argument for the deity in the first place

Why not God?

3000 people walk into a police station and all say they had a near death experience and were told the same phrase "it's not your time". Conclusion: 3000 people must all be hallucinating the same phrase or lying.?

@jamenta2

7 ай бұрын

Yes - mere chance will explain it. Everything is "chance".

@simonhibbs887

7 ай бұрын

I don’t think anybody is arguing people don’t have such experiences, only how we should interpret them. I know there are around 3,000 reported NDE cases in the USA, but do they all really report the exact same auditory experience?

@jamenta2

7 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 The scientific study of NDE's has been conducted world wide, in many different countries, not just the United States. The scientific criteria used to identify whether someone has experienced the phenomena is known as the Greyson NDE scale. An excellent book - assuming you would like to educate yourself on the subject - although I get the feeling you really are not that interested, although personally I find the subject remarkably interesting - is a book by the Dutch cardiologist Pim von Lommel, "Consciousness Beyond Life, The Science of the Near-Death Experience." It's an excellent read. Goes into great deal on the NDE phenomena and has a lengthy bibliography. In other words Simon, RTFM.

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

Or their brains all deteriorated in similar ways as they began to die… leading to similar experiences.

@jamenta2

7 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 Yes, the scientists who spent years empirically studying the phenomena (world wide in over 65+ prospective/retrospective studies in the last 3 decades), never considered your possibility longcastle. You might be onto something! You're smart.

Non believers tend to resort to fantasy to explain how we don't need a designer, while design cannot be proven absolutely, but only sircustatially.

I think the reason so many religious people despise the idea of a multiverse, is that they were hoping to shoehorn their God in there.

@jamenta2

7 ай бұрын

Or maybe there is yet no scientific evidence for it. It is just another assumption. And even if multiverses do exist, where did the innate laws come from, and are maintained - to allow multiverses to exist?

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

⁠@@jamenta2 Just another assumption? I don’t know if you’ve noticed or not, but scientific assumptions or hypotheses often result in very useful inventions and technologies for our species.

@jamenta2

7 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 Yes - assumptions turn into hypotheses, and hypotheses turn into scientific theories. I don't know if you know it longcastle - but an assumption still is just an "assumption." Even in science.

@longcastle4863

7 ай бұрын

@@jamenta2 An assumption is an assumption… I’ll be sure to write that down.

@jamenta2

7 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 Yeah - that would be a good starting point for you.

Every brain represents 1 Universe. The 'winning' brain makes a model which becomes the de facto scientific law.