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.
@@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!!!!
If all space (actually "empty" or not) is filled with annihilating matter-antimatter pairs...why isn't measurable background gamma radiation ubiquitous?
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!
Were you under the impression these are made for UA-cam? They're clips from episodes of a long running US public television show. Many of these interviews were made before UA-cam existed.
The most logical explanation for the Fined tuned Universe is that we have one universal process from the quantum world of the very small to cosmology at the largest scale, with complexity arising out of simplicity.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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......!
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.
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.
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!
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 !
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.
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'
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.
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.
@@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
@@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.
@@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.
Loved Steven's explanation of why the anthropic principle doesn't really add anything in the sense that it is either trivially true or a backwards explanation of the fact. I've always found the anthropic principle dissatisfying, but struggled to articulate exactly why - and this is coming from someone that isn't just wanting it to be a weak argument due to believing in god or something.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Empty space energy is that of quantum fluctuation that is Planck fluctuations. Does it have mass ? Then this might be the dark matter if this energy applies to Einstein E= mc^2
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.
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 ?
@@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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
The concept , or more like the hypothesis of the multiverse was proposed by astute cosmologists who realized a very important problem in trying to explain the nature of the universe ; namely that the 'fine tuning' of the universal constants is so incomprehensibly precise that a random selection of those values to all intents and purposes precludes the possibility of a single exclusive universe imposing those values of the constants at its inception - at the very moment of its creation , unless there is an infinite creator. I like to quote a simple analogy. Suppose you place a bet on a national lottery where there might be 20 million other people who also place a bet. Your chances of winning would be in the order of many millions to 1 . Lets just assume its 20 million to 1. That means 1 chance in 2 times 10 to the power 6. You wouldn't go to sleep believing that you are VERY LIKELY to win the jackpot, but you would hope against hope that you might. Now if we take just one universal constant such as the cosmological constant ,'omega', if that had been different from its present value by 1 in 10 to the power 139 , the universe could not exist as we know it. That's like saying the chances of a 'successful' universe should have been less likely than you winning the lottery by an order of magnitude of 1 in 10 to the power 133 . By this reasoning , if one rejects the idea of an infinite creator , there is no choice but to require the existence of a multiverse. However there are strong compelling reasons why the multiverse concept can't really supply an answer to the mystery.
Could you expand on the compelling reasons for doubting multiverse? To me it appears there is more reason to believe it exists rather than not, so curious as to the counter points 🙂
@@stephenbeckman208 There are certainly multiverse theories that are close to unscientific (landscape of string theory for example). But there are multiverse theories (many worlds interpretation in the sense of Schrödinger equation and nothing else) that make more sense to believe in rather than not. Concerning fine-tuning: Most of the fine-tuning problems are not really problems. They just seem to be problems with artificial random measures but are not really problems if you don't artificially use certain random measures. There is however one "fine-tuning" (incredibly low tuning) that's really a small issue. The "fine"-tuning of entropy (it's much more likely that a Boltzmann brain exists than the universe having low entropy by chance). This "fine"-tuning however can't be explained by multiverses because we would again much more likely find ourselves in a universe with Boltzmann brains than with low entropy.
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.
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.
@@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".
@@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 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.
“Quantum states… explain in detail the world around us.” That is not an empirical result; it is a materialist claim. Here’s an example. When Columbus crossed the Atlantic, or Neil Armstrong travelled to the moon, vast numbers of particles shared very similar trajectories. They did so not because of the summative effect of the individual trajectories of the particles, but because of the choices of the mission designers and their political masters. Even if - the materialist doctrine - those brain states were caused by physical states, the immense amplification from a few synapses to a world-changing project is not in any obvious way built into quantum mechanics. And that’s “even if…”
@@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?
😖 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.
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.
It is madness to think symmetry can form out of chaos and time out of statistical entropy! But it is logical that a process of spherical 4πr² symmetry forming and breaking could form entropy with the potential for greater symmetry formation. When the spherical symmetry breaks, it could form the potential for the most beautiful of geometrical shapes, the spiral. We have photon ∆E=hf energy continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons. Could this process form a design pattern or template in the form of spherical geometry for self-organization and complexity to arise?
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.😊🙏
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.
@@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.😊🙏
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 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 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
@@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.
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.
11:13- "QM wave function of the universe"= astrology and this man does not understand the meaning of "wave function" ( of Schrodinger as i understand).;1) it is a function or relations in a complex plane/space and not the physical(space-time of GR);2)it refers only to the describe a "microworld phenomena" in which data are gathered by macro(rigid bodies measurement devices); hence, speaking about the wave function of Universe means that an outside (of Universe)device must test it; hm, it could be theoretically the God (of philosophers) but he is a spirit (a super-intelligent) and not part of the physical universe. Another ...astrologer.
An alternative to a spatial 'multiverse' with a huge number of universes, one could perhaps better think of a huge number of e p o c h o s in time dimension of only one eternal universe (where our 'Big Bang universe' with a 'right' set of 'fine tuned' natural constants, that are consistent with the fact of our presence in it, is merely the current epoch). In this case too the 'fine tuning' and the 'anthropic principle' reduce to what Weinberg calls 'common sense' or, as we understand, nothing improbable and/or extraordinary.
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.
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. UA-cam 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.
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.
The universe isn't fine tuned for life , as far as we know we couldn't survive anywhere else in the universe......there are even very large areas of the earth where humans cannot survive without modern technology, heating, air conditioning and insulated housing. That is why ancient humans inhabited only a small area of the earth where the temperature was suitable.
what if light gets redder in time? what if universe is not homogenous and our particular region expands, while other compress as a result. this will give the illusion of expansion, dark energy and empty space energy
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 .
@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.
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.
@@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.
Always a pleasure to listen to the great mind of Steven Weinberg
R.I.P. Mr. Weinberg. You were always a pleasure to listen to and a decent human being.
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.
Humility? If so humble, why didn't he jut say what Roger Penrose would say: "Who the fuck knows?"
One of your best episode’s. Thanks.
Steven Weinberg was a great physicist
Soarly missed.
..." and matter will play a very little role "....🙏.... excellenty crisp and clear discourse... thank you...
Such a wonderful man.
It was a sad day when Steven Weinberg died. Physics lost a great man.
Nothing sad about it, we all die
@@chilluminati1292 Afterlife = true love.
@@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!!!!
Not really
Physics doesn't need anymind, mind gets in physics way.
It’s criminal how few people know anything about Steven Weinberg
and almost all know who the kardashians are....agree 100%
I remember hearing about him in the 90s.
I recall with great joy the few minutes of conversation I had with Steven Weinberg a few years ago.
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
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!
It’s on purpose, they refresh it so as they can make audience and revenues…
@@slylataupe4272These are just clips of episodes from a television show that span over 20 years.
Were you under the impression these are made for UA-cam? They're clips from episodes of a long running US public television show.
Many of these interviews were made before UA-cam existed.
The most logical explanation for the Fined tuned Universe is that we have one universal process from the quantum world of the very small to cosmology at the largest scale, with complexity arising out of simplicity.
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.
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.
It is funny you left out philosophy and metaphysics since they are tools that are part of existence.
@@kos-mos1127 did no such thing, all included.
What is the answer to the question if the questions answer is the question.
@@xenphoton5833 exactly, agree in #3
That's the longest most convoluted "I don't effing know" answer I've ever heard.
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.
I wish we knew the date of the videos. You see Robert with dark hair and I know Steven Weinberg passed away in 2021.
It’s all about the sound.
He was amazing man. Would have loved to have met him.
Alas!it's to late now.
Having met and spoken with him I confirm you would for sure have loved to meet him.
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?
I'm not a scientist but Steven Weinberg is my idea of who and what a scientist should be.
Well rounded reasoning, i like his arguments.
Amazing
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?
Utter fantasy, a parsimonious one at that.
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.
As I recall multiplying by negative one is not absurd at all and results in changing the sign of the number multiplied.
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......!
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.
Yes, it is quite an unscientific concept, fine tuning...I feel like it is for theologians to grapple with, not scientists and philosophers.
No, it doesn't, it requires more research.
@@bradmodd7856 Theology is attempting to explain the impossible in terms of the incredible and is always intellectually regressive.
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.
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!
Excellent q & a. S.W. was brilliant.
The voice of a Giant
enjoyed that
Even a dimwit like me appreciates the magnitude of this conversation
If you appreciate the magnitude of this conversation, you're likely not a dimwit
what year was this made ?
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 !
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.
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'
What if the mud recognized its own existence? I guess you could call that some pretty special mud. 😁
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'.
Metaphysics
Chip away the darkness and negative spaces and positive stuff emerges.
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.
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.
@@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
@@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.
@@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.
@@francesco5581 The way I see it, every universe is very unlikely under either scenario. But something had to win the lottery.
I was wondering why my skull was so precisely fitted to my brain. NOW I know it's magic!
The multiverse not only describes concurrent universes but past as well. We are a point in (colloquially) infinite time.
Loved Steven's explanation of why the anthropic principle doesn't really add anything in the sense that it is either trivially true or a backwards explanation of the fact. I've always found the anthropic principle dissatisfying, but struggled to articulate exactly why - and this is coming from someone that isn't just wanting it to be a weak argument due to believing in god or something.
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?
@buzz magister We live in a black hole which has all the Universe information on its surface.
Like being on the edge of a bubble
@@Jack-r2v9b We are the shadows of a real world.
You’re thinking too 3-dimensional.
There's no edge to the universe. It is infinite in time, space, and scale.
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.
However we are seeking an explanation!
david are you apart from the universe ,separate from it
Ah yes, neil d tyson razor
Every number in the material universe can at best only approach zero, it can't be reached.
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.
Professor Mr. Weinberg mentioned planets 9. Is he including "Planet 9 or X" or referring to Pluto? Excellent video.
Pluto
Are you referring to Shasta-9, the pleasure planet in Alpha Centuria
To me this is the best take on that question that I've heard so far
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.
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) 🙂.
He is dead.
I like the tea kettle metaphor......
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
when was this recorded? and what was the cause of Steven's dead?
Empty space energy is that of quantum fluctuation that is Planck fluctuations. Does it have mass ? Then this might be the dark matter if this energy applies to Einstein E= mc^2
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.
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 ?
@@francesco5581 You don't know and neither do I.
@@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.
which explains precisely nothing. Still can't tell me why there is anything rather than nothing
@@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.
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.
and if its not fine tuned you wouldnt know Didly Squat anyway
😅😮😮 zzz 5
Fascinating, but when Weinberg said "cubic feet" it felt like a punch in the gut.
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.
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.
Cosmological constant is nearly zero. The energy is 3/2 kT where T of the universe is about 2.7 Kelvin.
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?
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!
The concept , or more like the hypothesis of the multiverse was proposed by astute cosmologists who realized a very important problem in trying to explain the nature of the universe ; namely that the 'fine tuning' of the universal constants is so incomprehensibly precise that a random selection of those values to all intents and purposes precludes the possibility of a single exclusive universe imposing those values of the constants at its inception - at the very moment of its creation , unless there is an infinite creator.
I like to quote a simple analogy. Suppose you place a bet on a national lottery where there might be 20 million other people who also place a bet. Your chances of winning would be in the order of many millions to 1 . Lets just assume its 20 million to 1. That means 1 chance in 2 times 10 to the power 6. You wouldn't go to sleep believing that you are VERY LIKELY to win the jackpot, but you would hope against hope that you might. Now if we take just one universal constant such as the cosmological constant ,'omega', if that had been different from its present value by 1 in 10 to the power 139 , the universe could not exist as we know it. That's like saying the chances of a 'successful' universe should have been less likely than you winning the lottery by an order of magnitude of 1 in 10 to the power 133 . By this reasoning , if one rejects the idea of an infinite creator , there is no choice but to require the existence of a multiverse. However there are strong compelling reasons why the multiverse concept can't really supply an answer to the mystery.
Could you expand on the compelling reasons for doubting multiverse? To me it appears there is more reason to believe it exists rather than not, so curious as to the counter points 🙂
@@stephenbeckman208
There are certainly multiverse theories that are close to unscientific (landscape of string theory for example). But there are multiverse theories (many worlds interpretation in the sense of Schrödinger equation and nothing else) that make more sense to believe in rather than not.
Concerning fine-tuning:
Most of the fine-tuning problems are not really problems. They just seem to be problems with artificial random measures but are not really problems if you don't artificially use certain random measures.
There is however one "fine-tuning" (incredibly low tuning) that's really a small issue. The "fine"-tuning of entropy (it's much more likely that a Boltzmann brain exists than the universe having low entropy by chance).
This "fine"-tuning however can't be explained by multiverses because we would again much more likely find ourselves in a universe with Boltzmann brains than with low entropy.
Closer to Truth? More like, Closer to MY Truth.
ozone is earth boundary.?
It’s like saying a computer is dumb luck…. No it was built and obviously designed
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.
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.
@@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".
@@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 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.
“Quantum states… explain in detail the world around us.” That is not an empirical result; it is a materialist claim. Here’s an example. When Columbus crossed the Atlantic, or Neil Armstrong travelled to the moon, vast numbers of particles shared very similar trajectories. They did so not because of the summative effect of the individual trajectories of the particles, but because of the choices of the mission designers and their political masters. Even if - the materialist doctrine - those brain states were caused by physical states, the immense amplification from a few synapses to a world-changing project is not in any obvious way built into quantum mechanics. And that’s “even if…”
I think I know what space is about, The solution is in the geometrical struktur, which is different, from what it appears to us...
Space is state that something can be in.
@@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?
A lot of physics average themselves out such as temperature for example. The Universe just averages itself out, and that is called fine tuning.
Fine tuning does not require a Fine Tuner.
Y
You came by random selection not by design
😖 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.
well it hasn't been tuned, if no tuner. Something else happened.
Steve is my Jesus.
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.
luck. it was ours to get kicked out of it 😂
It is madness to think symmetry can form out of chaos and time out of statistical entropy! But it is logical that a process of spherical 4πr² symmetry forming and breaking could form entropy with the potential for greater symmetry formation. When the spherical symmetry breaks, it could form the potential for the most beautiful of geometrical shapes, the spiral.
We have photon ∆E=hf energy continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons. Could this process form a design pattern or template in the form of spherical geometry for self-organization and complexity to arise?
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.😊🙏
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.
@@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.😊🙏
Why do you get it backwards the planet has been here a lot longer than us. We developed to fit the condition that existed.
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.
@@sdud1801 Go back to sleep if you're not ready for creation truth
@@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
@@billystanton1522 A poodle wakes up and says "Woof, woof". Sweet dreams, sleepy poodle! One day you'll wake up with eyes less wide shut
@@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
@@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.
If time and space are infinite how can one explain how could you be here right now?
The path integral which plots all possible states a particle can be in.
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.
11:13- "QM wave function of the universe"= astrology and this man does not understand the meaning of "wave function" ( of Schrodinger as i understand).;1) it is a function or relations in a complex plane/space and not the physical(space-time of GR);2)it refers only to the describe a "microworld phenomena" in which data are gathered by macro(rigid bodies measurement devices); hence, speaking about the wave function of Universe means that an outside (of Universe)device must test it; hm, it could be theoretically the God (of philosophers) but he is a spirit (a super-intelligent) and not part of the physical universe. Another ...astrologer.
An alternative to a spatial 'multiverse' with a huge number of universes, one could perhaps better think of a huge number of e p o c h o s in time dimension of only one eternal universe (where our 'Big Bang universe' with a 'right' set of 'fine tuned' natural constants, that are consistent with the fact of our presence in it, is merely the current epoch).
In this case too the 'fine tuning' and the 'anthropic principle' reduce to what Weinberg calls 'common sense' or, as we understand, nothing improbable and/or extraordinary.
Nice camera work, not
The human 'Mind' want's to be god. It will never ever be, because it was created, it is finite, it will go.
There is only one God and is my cat. Everybody obeys him.
👏👏👏
"The anthropic principle is a retreat". Thank you\. "Otherwise there might actually be intelligence behind all this". God forbid.
The vacuum catastrophe
One way to describe the human experience is monkeys posturing in the mirror.
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.
"Look!", said the Puddle, "at how perfectly the ground fits me. It must be fine-tuned for my existence!"
I must be pretty smart because I know exactly what he doesn't know.
Their voices sound almost identical - kind of weird.
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. UA-cam 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.
I thought most ppl knew this already?
The Universe is Nothing close to 'fine-tuned'...!
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.
Thanks good stuff a whole lot of pure speculation,,,and a simple we dont have the amswers!!!?
The universe isn't fine tuned for life , as far as we know we couldn't survive anywhere else in the universe......there are even very large areas of the earth where humans cannot survive without modern technology, heating, air conditioning and insulated housing. That is why ancient humans inhabited only a small area of the earth where the temperature was suitable.
what if light gets redder in time? what if universe is not homogenous and our particular region expands, while other compress as a result. this will give the illusion of expansion, dark energy and empty space energy
has to do with the nature of time.
The answer is. It would not have happened otherwise.
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 .
@Awesome Wrench Smells like Holy Spirit to me. Didn't Nirvana do a song about that?
@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.
Life is always fine-tuned to the environment it finds itself in.
@@havenbastion Exactly. He's trying to claim that the water designed the glass it fills. Sad. And he probably votes too.
Oh no, I would say the parameters of the universe allowed life to begin in the first place.
The universe is and will always be impossible to understand for human beings. Expanding into what ffs!
Nobody knows why the universe is fine-tuned.
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.
@@stevepierce6467
Good answer !
@@tedgrant2 Thanks
@@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.
@@StaticBlaster Guess you both have no understanding of the Fall in Genesis. We live in a fallen universe, as a result of free will.