Very interesting perspective. However I would question why assigning a probability of 1/3 to the marble being in bag number 2 is saying something from nothing. Surely knowing that there are only three bags is "some information", and not "no clue"? If we were told there were four bags, we would give a different answer.
Complete layman here, but I think the 'no clue' part is referring to the actual distribution of the marble. The empirical probability that the marble is in box 2 can range from 0-1 no matter how many boxes there are.
@@bjornyesterday2562 wow ,i dont fucking know there's fucking talking water that recognize fitness of it's environment .You believe in bullshit claim like selective process and creative process are indistinguishable, so it's not a suprise to hear this from you
Isn't it amazing enough that life and human life and our lives exist on this planet in the immensely huge Universe? Our individual lives are unique, unrepeatable, fleeting and are remarkable.
It could be that the universe just “appears” to us to be fine-tuned. Perhaps, once we obtain sufficient knowledge from empirical evidence, we will know that the universe can only be one way - the way it is. Or we could learn from experimental proof that multiple universes exist accounting for the full range of apparent fine-tuned constants and laws. Finally, isn’t the very question “is the universe fine-tuned?” an anthropic question? Namely, we ask it from the self-centered perspective of the only emergent intelligent life. But it could be said that the universe is actually far more fine-tuned for the opposite of life - namely, non-life, which is the vast majority of everything observable. Or fine-tuned for dark energy. Or fine-tuned for increasing entropy disorder. Or fine-tuned for conservation of energy (positive & negative energy equals zero). Or fine-tuned for random chaotic quantum fluctuations. And so on.
Steven Weinberg (Nobel laureate in high energy physics, Atheist) “…does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning. The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.” If not: “the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.” [“Life in the Universe”, Scientific American, Oct. '94, 49.] Robert Krauss: “The problem with this from a fundamental perspective is that a cosmological constant associated in modern parlance with a nonzero vacuum energy density in the universe on a scale that would be cosmologically relevant and yet still allowed today would take a value that is over 120 orders of magnitude smaller than the naive value that one might expect based on considerations of quantum mechanics and gravity.” [The End of the Age Problem, And The Case For A Cosmological Constant Revisited (1997): Online] Alejandro Jenkins (Center for Th. Physics, MIT) & Gilad Perez (Yang Inst. for Th. Physics): “…the most serious fine-tuning problem in theoretical physics: the smallness of the “cosmological constant,” thanks to which our universe neither recollapsed into nothingness a fraction of a second after the big bang, nor was ripped part by an exponentially accelerating expansion. [“Looking for Life in the Multiverse”, Scientific American (Dec. 2009): Online] Hans Peter Nilles: “Quantum fluctuations create a vacuum energy which in turn curves the space much stronger than it is observed. Hence, the classical vacuum energy needs to be adjusted in a very accurate way in order to cancel the contributes from quantum effects. This would require a fine-tuning of the fundamental parameters of the theory to an accuracy of at least 60 digits. From the theoretical point of view we consider this is a rather unsatisfactory situation and would like to analyze alternatives leading to the observed cosmological constant in a more natural way… [the author discusses the Randall-Sundrum set-up and brane hypotheses, the conclusion reads:].. Unfortunately we have not yet found a satisfactory model where such a relation is realized and the problem of the size of the cosmological constant still has to wait for a solution.” [“Dark Energy in Extra Dimensions and String Theory: Consistency Conditions”, (Dec. 2000): Online] George Smoot (Nobel laureate, physics professor at University of California): “In order to make a universe as big and wonderful as it is, lasting as long as it is-we’re talking fifteen billion years and we’re talking huge distances here-in order for it to be that big, you have to make it perfectly. Otherwise, imperfections would mount up and the universe would either collapse on itself or fly apart, and so it’s actually quite a precise job. And I don’t know if you’ve had discussions with people about how critical it is that the density of the universe come out so close to the density that decides whether it’s going to keep expanding forever or collapse back, but we know it’s within one percent.” [(interview with Fred Heeren) Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God (Day Star Publications, 2000) 168.] Steven Weinberg (Nobel laureate in high energy physics [the very early universe], Atheist): “In any case, there is one constant whose value does seem remarkably well adjusted in our favor. It is the energy density of empty space, also known as the cosmological constant. It could have any value, but from first principles one would guess that this constant should be very large, and could be positive or negative. If large and positive, the cosmological constant would act as a repulsive force that increases with distance, a force that would prevent matter from clumping together in the early universe, the process that was the first step in forming galaxies and stars and planets and people. If large and negative the cosmological constant would act as an attractive force increasing with distance, a force that would almost immediately reverse the expansion of the universe and cause it to recollapse, leaving no time for the evolution of life. In fact, astronomical observations show that the cosmological constant is quite small, very much smaller than would have been guessed from first principles.” [Facing up (Harvard University Press, 2003), 237.]
I totally agree. If you were to work out the probability that you exist as an individual it would be so low, but you do exist. This argument is always looked at the wrong way round.
He is right. The phrase 'fine tuning' implies some kind of crisis or perplexity about some measurements of the physical world, like for instance the speed of light. The other thing it implies is that, say, the speed of light could have been faster than the measurement found. 'Gee, I wonder why the speed of light wasn't the number on my licences plate.' For me 'fine tuning' is a misnomer that is a fine basis for tuning up obscurantism.
It’s probably better to think of the speed of light as one. Then for more complex systems, you figure out what percentage of one they travel at. So for the Atom, you’ve got protons and neutrons, with gluons, traveling at the speed of light, and then electrons with the electromagnetic field, traveling at the speed of light between the electrons and protons. The whole conglomerate, then has to move slower, because the force particles are moving as fast as they can, the speed of light.
@@michaelmckinney7240 You are completely right in your comment. The phrase 'fine tuning' practically shouts 'intelligent designer adjusting the dials'. So what is that supposed to mean? That Deism or Theism or something else is right?
@@thomaskist9503 The speed of light as one with variations in percentage down for different media or context. Thank you for that idea. It is a very scientific way of thinking about something.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 Thank you for your reply Arthur. "Fine tuning" is something of a misnomer as it suggests corrections were needed after the Big Bang to insure the balance of forces were configured in such a way to produce the long term equilibrium needed for evolution to slowly develop the emergent complexity we see throughout the cosmos. It's far more likely (in my opinion) that no adjustment was needed because the formula to achieve this eventual result was preconceived. The actions of matter and energy post Big Bang appear to be formulaic in their resulting stability and durable functionality. I don't like the phrase "intelligent design" because it often refers to a formal line of reasoning within Christianity to offer a back door accommodation to the ever growing body of research that directly contradicts biblical doctrine. I believe "design" and intelligence were present in the "creation", or using a less "loaded" term, "origin" of the universe, but not as conceived by conservative Christians who misuse the term "intelligent design." Deism posits the idea that God created the universe and then allowed all to play out as it would while remaining aloof and indifferent to the outcome. This makes very little sense. The undeniable phenomenon of "evolved emergent complexity" clearly shows that an active agent driving a universal process of "complexification" has been at work since the Big Bang. Theism also asserts that God is real and accepts revelation and supernatural events whereas Deism does not. Both have limitations, Deism for the reason described above and Theism for it's acceptance of supernatural phenomenon such as the miracles written about in the bible, miracles that are clearly no more than fables. A new vocabulary is needed to grapple with these challenging ideas and central to this controversy is the need for a more accurate and more compelling definition of the word "God." Religion has distorted, co-opted, and mythologized its meaning. Re-thinking the concept of God is indispensable before getting beyond the very narrow and intellectually stifling dogma that surrounds this topic. Accepting that no definition of the word "God" can ever hope to be adequate, a partial and more accurate phrase might be; God is a form of eternal, self perpetuating, and completely lucid energy whose dominant attribute is love.
I strongly resonate with his take and it never sat well with me when flat out conjecture is supposed to pose for methodologically precise inquiry and experimental testing of a priori assumption, which I would separate semantically from mere conjecture, which is also just a concealed way of actually saying "I have no clue". He may have chosen to phrase this observation more cautiously, therefore more politely. But I see him making a strong point about this inconsistency in logic, which I go along with and which probably says more about resorting to such awkward ways of dodging their discomfort over not knowing than it says about the scientific process of discovery and how to get there or about calculating probabilities. In plain language: It must be o.k. not to have a clue. The imperative that then follows is "let's take a closer look and find out (by employing the methods that have been serving us very well so far)".
I believe if you jrop a block of steel in a bucket of nitrogen it will scattere like glass because all the electrons are reducing pressure that support the structure and mass of that steel block and due to the sudden change In the environment immediately that activated the kinetic energy field in two ways the first way was the drop motion the second way was when the block of steel immediately struck the bucket of nitrogen boosting the kinetic energy field inside the block of steel even at greater heights causing an explosion that scattered the block of steel outward like glass. My point is on the contraction of the universe and if I'am right about this it may be true to the fact, if the universe stops contracting everything would cool down and the cold vacuum pressure would in golf the entire universe back down to its starting point the plank level a place where the poor old electrons begin striking their matches to get the heat up and running again. Guys these are the God of the universes they deserve all the credit for their hard work because they can turn cold death into tingling sensations which is a whole new world of awareness straight out of pure consciousness. I believe it goes deeper than that. Seek and you shall find.
I thought survival bias was the only explanation needed for explaining our fundamental parameters. It's more like the universe works on rough tuning - try every probabilty until one path survives - not fine tuning.
2:15 What if there's a marble in a box, but I haven't told you about if there is a marble in the other two, Box 1 or 3 also having a marble in each. There could be one in one box or one in each. Isn't that knowledge an important detail useful in fine-tuning a decision?
It is, you're quite right ,and the point he's making is we don't know any of that. We have no knowledge about the assignment of marbles to boxes. Similarly with the universe we have no knowledge of how or why the universe became the way it is, so assigning probabilities about it is nonsensical.
@selvamthiagarajan8152 Lawyers and others usr this quirk in English, and you're assuming that there is only one marble present to let you misinterpret the situation. There could be two or even three boxes with a marble in each.
But that isn't the scenario he described. You are now making up different scenarios, and each scenario gets its own set of reasoning. If we are told that there is one marble, and it exists in one of the boxes, then we can indeed say that the odds of it existing in a specific box is one in three. That is common sense.
@@ronaldmorgan7632 >”Then we can indeed say that the odds of it existing in a specific box is one in three”. Except we can’t. I posted a top level comment explaining why.
Our mind is the product of reality, not vice versa. So using our mind to say that the reality is improbable is basically putting the resulting cart before the initial horse. Actually, it's worse, but it's hard to think of a good analogy.
Is the speed of light fine-tuned? ONLY if one is committed to philosophical dualism, would they believe that friend.. More likely, NONE of the constants are fine-tuned.
@@Bill..NI agree that none of the constants are fine tuned. In my conception, existence exists, nature is its character, and constants are the basic characteristics of that character. They are the 'givens', the absolutes, the ultimate frames of physical reference. I'll bet the dualism you are referring to is God and nature.
3:30. No. His wording is slightly off. "Of all the possible values these measurements could have been, why these?" VS. 'Of all the possible values I can imagine these measurements being, why these?' In my mind big difference.
6:31 something is giving rise to structure and mechanics of the observable Universe... which in its or their absence could have been a total chaos instead... where do these constants originate from and what is their nature, precisely 🤔
00:21 Well, the first thing I want to ask as a philosopher is...umm...umm is umm [unintelligible] the first thing I want to do is to understand better than I must say I do exactly what the crisis about the values of these parameters is supposed to be.... umm 00:42 I think I'll pass on this one.
100% agree. We have no freaking idea what the allowable values of the constants even could be much much less what the probabilities of their possible values may be.
@@prof3gamer988 Of course, but the fine tuning argument implicitly assumes random allocation and a single universe. We have no reason to make either assumption.
@simonhibbs887 We do have a reason to make that assumption, our universe is the only observable universe and the rest is just an extravagant theory that introduces all kinds of entities making a mockery of Occam's razor. If that weren't true, Occam's razor is useless.
@silversurfer4441 Please provide data showing convincingly that it is possible for that value to be other than it is or even what range of values for that constant are possible.
Fine-Tuning isn't about how a particular value arises. Fine-Tuning is about how if those values changed a small amount, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist. Say, for example, (and I have no idea if this is true), the gravitation constant increased by 10%, then the big bang would have been over in 10 seconds. It is that sort of thing physicist are talking about. The fundamental parameters of the models seem to be "fine-tuned" so our universe can exist the way it is, change them slightly and our universe would be much different. What prompted me to comment, however, is that the result of small changes in parameters to the outcome is also a sign of a mathematical fitting function which is overly complex. That is to say, it is possible that while the mathematical outcomes are unstable, that is really because the universe itself isn't properly represented by the models. An analogy would be like fitting a 10th order polynomial to a bunch of data points. We can get a perfect fit, but change one parameter in the 5th decimal place and we get a wildly different result.
>"Fine-Tuning isn't about how a particular value arises. Fine-Tuning is about how if those values changed a small amount, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist." But surely that's only a relevant question if there is a process by which the values could change. If there isn't, then why does that matter?
@@simonhibbs887 Observations that support the estimation of the model parameters have only existed for a few decades or centuries at most. As near as we can estimate, the universe is about 14 billion years old. Simply put, there is insufficient observational evidence to conclude our model parameters don't change over time. They may have been stable for the short time we have been observing them. This is why deep space observations such as Hubble and James Watt telescopes are so important. They look back in time and we may collect data to see if model parameters have changed. In any event, the fine tuning problem isn't about changing parameters, its about how IF we change parameters even small amounts then the predictions are wildly different from the universe we observe. In other words, why do the parameters need to be finely tuned? Or, my alternate perspective, why are the models so sensitive to small changes in the parameters.
They doesn't seem to get what the issue is. We supposedly know the values of a bunch of constants, and we know that some of the constants effect each other. We know that if the strong nuclear force was outside a certain range, then the atom might fly apart. Each one of the constants has a range in which if it were not in that range, certain things wouldn't work. So, how is this controversial or difficult to understand?
Odd, that he's not questioning why the universe is flat (ish). A big bang would would spread out uniformly, right? Then again, the big bang is predicated on an ever expanding universe, but we have no way of knowing if it's always been expanding, or if it's say cyclical.
Albert's understanding of physics is incorrect. The cosmological constant is actually very finely tuned, and that a small change in its value would have made the universe uninhabitable. David Albert argues that the cosmological constant is not finely tuned, because it could have been much larger or smaller than it is, and the universe would still be able to exist. However, this is not true. The cosmological constant is a measure of the dark energy in the universe. Dark energy is a repulsive force that is causing the universe to expand at an accelerating rate. If the cosmological constant were much larger than it is, the universe would have expanded so quickly that stars and galaxies would not have been able to form. If the cosmological constant were much smaller than it is, the universe would have eventually collapsed. Therefore, the cosmological constant is very finely tuned. A small change in its value would have made the universe uninhabitable. Here is a simple analogy: imagine a ball rolling down a hill. The hill represents the potential energy of the universe, and the ball represents the universe itself. If the hill is too steep, the ball will roll down too quickly and crash at the bottom. If the hill is too shallow, the ball will not roll down at all. The cosmological constant is like the slope of the hill. If the cosmological constant were too large, the universe would expand too quickly and crash at the bottom. If the cosmological constant were too small, the universe would not expand at all. The fact that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate tells us that the cosmological constant is very finely tuned. A small change in its value would have made the universe uninhabitable. It is important to note that the cosmological constant is not the only physical constant that is finely tuned. For example, the strength of the nuclear force is also very finely tuned. If the nuclear force were slightly weaker, stars would not be able to fuse hydrogen into helium, and life would not be possible. The fact that so many physical constants are finely tuned is one of the great mysteries of physics. There is no known scientific explanation for why this is the case.
@@les2997 "David Albert argues that the cosmological constant is not finely tuned, because it could have been much larger or smaller than it is, and the universe would still be able to exist." With "the universe" I think you mean our particular universe, not A universe. I find this very hard to believe. Nothing as such was stated in this video, or all the other of alberts interviews or talks does he refute the validity of dark energy and evidence of accelerated expansion. Did you even watch the video? He defends the justification of claiming fine tuning for CC, since it is are argued from empirically confirmed theories and not from an a priori "principle of indifference", like the flatness problem. "The fact that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate tells us that the cosmological constant is very finely tuned." No. "If the nuclear force were slightly weaker, stars would not be able to fuse hydrogen into helium, and life would not be possible." So? We dont have a physical mechanism that explains free parameters, if they can, how and possible dependencies to other constants. If given such a model, a change in the nuclear force could for example necessarily induce changes in other known or new unknown constants. Fine tuning is a property of our model, of free parameters. Something else would form. We simply dont know and posing such claims are arguably meaningless as of now. One can assume a multiverse where free parameters are all expressed. Do we know their probability distributions? No. Can we state how likely or unlikely we, humans, carbon life, or general life forms are to exist? No. Is it surprising that changing the world changes the world? No. Is it surprising that arbitrary laws do not all converge to human life forms? No. "Lawrence Krauss called Albert a “moronic philosopher”." You didnt answe my question. From lawrence krauss: "certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don't seem to be so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective."
He says it seems to him that you get "something out or nothing" when getting a probability of where the marble is. But do you really have nothing though? At least in his example, there IS an a priori knowledge, which is that there IS one single marble in one of the boxes. Not 2 marbles, not 3, not 0, just one marble, in one of the boxes. THAT, is the statement from which the statistics are derived, and it's not nothing.
I think the issue is that the argument confuses our lack of knowledge about where the marble is, which means we might think it's in any box, with the probability that whatever put the marble in the box put it in box 2. This latter probability is what we want to know. Maybe the marble was placed there by randomly allocating it to a box, or maybe the robot arm that put it there could only reach box 1 and so there was never any chance it would be put in either of the other boxes. We just don't know. So the 1/3 chance is a statement about our lack of knowledge, not a statement about the process that placed the marble. Similarly the anthropic argument is properly sees as a statement about our lack of knowledge about how the universe came to be, not a statement about the process that created it.
The fact of alternative a priori possibilities does show the ungroundedness of our current picture, and that's the point of fine-tuning. Yes, the universe has to have some shape. To point out the logically possible shapes it could have had is another way of pointing out that we don't know the reason (grounding) for its actual shape. The higher the number of logically possible alternatives, the less we know about grounding. It merely indicates where the mystery lies.
>"The fact of alternative a priori possibilities " How do you know there are other possibilities? Do you have any observations that show that other values were possible, and how the values we observer came to be selected?
@@simonhibbs887 I'm responding to his argument that just because there are alternative conceivables (a priori possibilities) does not imply actually low statistical probability that initial conditions are what they are. That is a point he made in this interview. A particular example he gives is the potentially infinite shapes of space as alternative conceivables (logical possibilities). I'm merely pointing out the work that alternative conceivables do in this context, which is to show ungroundedness.
@@koffeeblack5717 That’s fair enough. I think we need to distinguish between possible and conceivable. Universes with different constant values are conceivable but that doesn’t mean they are possible. In many situations we use the terms interchangeably but here the distinction is significant.
@@simonhibbs887 I prefer to distinguish between different kinds of possibility. Logically possible means without contradiction in concept, and so is the broadest. Then there is metaphysical possibility which is possible given our most basic assumptions about reality. Then empirical possibility, which is possibility given a set of empirical facts. In each case logical coherence is basic, but the more statements we assume, whether derived from observation, theory, or a body of knowledge, condition further the limits of basic coherence that we can assert. Thus the form of conditional possibility is always "possible given x". This is what modal logic seeks to model with possible worlds semantics. In important respects, conceivability is a test or thought experiment for logical possibility or a more theoretical variety of conditional possibility. What these philosophical reflections show is where we lack grounding (reason for why x and not not x). The lack of grounding or prior determination for why things are the way they are indicates epistemic contingency, which is all the fine tuning crisis purports to be anyway.
ProfDaveAlb your such a great communicator and so clear is your words. I appreciate the thought and hard work you have put into the words you speak when answering these fundamental questions. Thanks you Closer to the truth! Looking up at the night sky at all the stars is just like looking down on the pale blue dot 🔵 and you see all the glowing lights , coincidences? Also , is anyone willing to make a bet , that there is a planet 🌎 almost 90-99 percent similar to earth in some galaxy, at this very instance of our time right this second your reading this , another you and me are typing and reading this. It won’t be 💯 exact but even 90 percent would be miraculously crazy no ? Equation is simple , you roll a 100 trillion sided dice , and you get to roll it a 100 trillion times , how many times will you roll 1 ? Which is earth let’s say? It might not roll it once on 1 , or it might randomly roll a 1 like dozens who knows thousands of times ?
The same question could be applied to "dark matter" and "dark energy", both of which are tossed about as though they've both become the "accepted probabilities" despite there being no empirical evidence for the existence of either. What we think we see may not be what we see. What's the problem with that?
Well, the evidence for some causal phenomenon is the many observations we have, made by different teams using different methods and instruments. Marx Tegmark spoke about this in a recent clip on the channel. As he said, it's important we keep an open mind about the nature of the causes of these observations. Dark matter and Dark Energy are just labels which some people take more seriously than others. I look forward to find ing out which theory is correct, if I'm lucky enough for that to happen in my lifetime.
They're different names for the same thing. Aether isn't a probability. It's there where the chief elements derive from - which are only perturbation modalities of the Aether... Mind you, Tesla acknowledged the aether stating that light is but a sound wave in the aether, the aether itself. Maybe you think you're smarter than Tesla - i know Simon here thinks he is. Thinking everything revolves around the empirical, or that the empirical is the fundamental, which you indirectly make known here... or that your senses are a criterion... the hell happened to you persons? You're a piece of dust in this universe - don't you think, just maybe, that perhaps you have to come to her, instead of her being shoehorned into your reality. The atheists, nihilists, atomists.... I'll never understand them.
@@S3RAVA3LM The existence of the aether was disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment. If light propagates through an aether then it’s speed must be constant relative to the aether. The experiment proved that this cannot be the case.
Philosophers of science (such as David Albert and Tim Maudlin) are the best interviewees for Closer to Truth. They know how to think carefully about metaphysical questions, and are skilled at detecting biased or unstated assumptions in other people's claims. The only mistake Albert made here is at 2:54 when he said experiment could determine the probability that the marble is in box #2 in the scenario where the only thing that's known is that there is one marble and it's in one of the three boxes. (Unless I'm misinterpreting him about which scenario is to be experimentally tested.) The experimental design would need to specify the procedure(s) for placing one marble in one of three boxes. But the procedure(s) can't be specified without changing the scenario, because in the given scenario it's one of the unknowns. Two experimenters could design different procedures and thus reach different conclusions about the probability. An experimenter who designs a procedure that deposits the marble utterly randomly would conclude the probability is 1/3. An experimenter who designs a procedure that always deposits the marble in box #2 would conclude the probability is 1. So Albert erred when he said experiment can tell us the probability in the given scenario.
I think we can let him off, he's just saying that it's conceivable that such an experiment could be done, but yes his broader point is we don't know how the marble gets into a box at all. It could be it will always go into box 1. You can't get a probability out of a sample of 1.
@@simonhibbs887: Yes, and before I read your reply I added a sentence about the possibility that I misinterpreted Albert about which scenario is to be experimentally tested.
@@simonhibbs887: If we were forced to bet on whether the marble is in box #2, and assuming the stakes are very high, it would make sense to bet as if the probability is 1/3. I can't get into the heads of people who think our "fine-tuned" universe is unlikely (without a god or a multiverse), but perhaps they feel forced to bet and thus bet it's unlikely. Personally, I would be more satisfied if I knew the explanations of the values of the fundamental constants, the origin of the laws of physics, and the origin of the universe. One could say that unsatisfied curiosity is a crisis, especially because there are serious consequences when divisive or dangerous notions arise to fill the void left by lack of knowledge.
@@brothermine2292 >"If we were forced to bet on whether the marble is in box #2, and assuming the stakes are very high, it would make sense to bet as if the probability is 1/3." I just posted a top level comment on this. It's the probability that someone would guess the marble is in that box, so it's a statement about our knowledge. It's not a statement about the process by which the marble was out in the box.
@@simonhibbs887 : I don't see the point in your reply. It appears to be unrelated to the quoted excerpt of my comment, which is about how to bet when ignorant of the process that put the marble in one of the boxes, and is not about that process. I replied to the "top level" comment you mentioned. But my reply there is unrelated to my reply here.
Interesting discussion. He explains his position and points very clearly. His emphasis on testable hypotheses makes sense which underlies the scientific method. That said, all of science/math lies on the foundation of axioms which are never proven, only asserted based on the axioms being rational assertions deemed simple enough to not argue over. My guess is that most physicists accept principles of equal probability of all types of spaces as A Priori because they deem it simple enough to be considered axiomatic. That is well explained as a fallacy. Does this principle undermine any other axiomatic assertions in other domains.
If I knew apriori which box the marble is in , I would assign it 100% certainty what box the marble is in. Only because I don't know, I reason with probability. This is the fundamentals of probability, what is so insane about it? [~2:30]
The problem is that your statement is about your uncertainty about where the Marble is. It's a statement about your lack of knowledge. It's not a statement about the actual location of the marble or the reasons why it got there.
The tool of probability assessment is useful for gambling and insurance companies to mediate losses, not for discerning reality. In reality the highly improbable can be possible.
I've been saying the same thing or something similar for years. That Fine Tuners presume that if its theoretically or mathematically possible that a value could be different then they fallaciously assume its possible with equal probability as any other value.
I appreciate these thoughtful discussions. But I feel like David Albert is missing the strength of the fine-tuning argument. Imagine if you were a physicist living around 1950, slightly before Fred Hoyle began the process of discovering what we now call fine-tuning. Would you expect that most of the fundamental constants of physics (like the relative strengths of each of the four fundamental forces and the masses of different fundamental particles) as well as the initial conditions of the universe (like the entropy level) would have to have very precise values (in many cases amazingly precise values) in order for the universe to be capable of supporting life? Probably not. That would be like hearing that someone won a lottery and before knowing anything about the lottery thinking it was likely that they only had a 1 in 10 to 200th chance of winning. Of course, you would not expect that, since they actually did win. You would think that perhaps they were lucky (1 in a hundred million is lucky), but it would not seem plausible that they were super-astronomically lucky. But since Hoyle's time we have discovered that we are super-astronomically lucky that the universe can support life. That cries out for an explanation. The two most common explanations are that there is a multiverse where different universes have different fundamental constants and conditions OR there is a God who intended the universe to support life like us and He was smart enough and powerful enough to make our universe with the correct constants. I explain this in more detail in this video (my video is based largely on information from 4 books on fine-tuning I've read, 2 of which are written by atheists, one co-authored by an atheist and a Christian, and one written by a Christian): ua-cam.com/video/s4ysjoErlFs/v-deo.html
>"But since Hoyle's time we have discovered that we are super-astronomically lucky that the universe can support life." He's not missing anything, he's challenging the basic premise that we can say anything about the reasons why the universe is the way it is, including saying that it was lucky, or fine tuned, or anything else. If we genuinely don't know anything about how the universe came about, we can't say any of those things. That's what not knowing anything about it means. > "That cries out for an explanation." I'd like to know too, but I'm not prepared to make stuff up about it to fill the void.
@@simonhibbs887 , but it's not true that we don't know anything. There are lots of things we don't know, but some things we do know. Albert himself points out that we have some knowledge which gives us an expectation that the cosmological constant could have been vastly larger than it is. The fact that it is not only many, many orders of magnitude smaller than expected based on what we know, but also that it needs to have very nearly the value it actually does have for the universe to be life-permitting is surprising. This one example of fine-tuning should be enough to say that we have something that calls for an explanation. But we also know the values of the different fundamental forces. That is something we know. It is not unreasonable to ask could the force of gravity have been as strong as the strong nuclear force? We know that it is not. We also know that if it was, or even if it was closer to that, the universe would not be life-permitting. Like the cosmological constant, it is fine-tuned for life. We know what values of a whole set of both fundamental constants and initial conditions of the universe have (not perfectly, not with omniscient certainty, but well enough to reason from them). We also know, through modeling and theoretical physics (again not with absolute certainty) that the universe had to have very nearly these exact values and conditions to permit life. Does that not cry out for explanation?
@@MarkWCorbett1 There are two ways to look at the issue of the cosmological constant. One is to look at all the many theories that predict different values and the few theories that are consistent with the measured value, and think that having the measured value is unlikely. However that's assigning an equal chance to all those theories that they are true. Is that a reasonable assumption? It's another case of assigning prior probabilities when we have no evidence to do so. The other way is to use the fact that many theories are inconsistent with the measured value to exclude them, since they patently don't correspond to reality. That leaves us with many fewer theories left to consider. I think this approach is likely to be more productive. The constants had to have these values to permit our life, but there are a wide range of values for many of the constants that could support complexity, and therefore could conceivably support some form of evolution and something analogous to life and observers. That doesn’t matter though, we don’t know how our universe came to be. That’s just a fact. >Does that not cry out for an explanation? Suppose I say yes. Then what? It doesn’t matter how much we cry out for an explanation, the anthropic argument can’t give you one. I’m not so desperate for an answer that I’m going to pretend that it does.
@@simonhibbs887 , I don't think we are limited to the anthropic argument (I'm not sure which form of that you are referring to). An argument to the best explanation, given all that we do know, is a reasonable way to argue. It is also reasonable to see fine-tuning from a more Bayesian/abductive point of view.
@@MarkWCorbett1 "Does that not cry out for explanation?" Sure. But immediately jumping to the "goddidit" knee-jerk response of theists is NOT the same as conducting a rational exploration of the topic free of bias. One of the fundamental problems the "fine tuning" proponents fail to acknowledge is that we ALSO don't know if there are other universe and/or if there were other universes before this one. We--living, conscious beings--are clearly "fine tuned" to exist in THIS universe...i.e. we arose and evolved within the parameters of this universe. Had the universe spawned with different values, we certainly wouldn't know it because we would likely never had existed. Heck, any number of different scenarios would entail a Universe that is spawned and just as quickly collapsed. And, again, we would have no way of knowing that, because they would never have given rise to living, conscious beings who could observe it. But none of that points to any sort of "intention" wrt this Universe. Maybe by pure chance this is the Universe that arose. Or maybe an infinite number of other Universes either exist alongside ours, or preexisted ours, and it just so happens that the random configuration of this one allowed for the existence of life. Again, at this point we just don't know...but that is NOT a reason to interject a deity into the discussion. ***And even if we do, now we have to figure out who/what created the deity, as it was clearly fine-tuned to be able to create Universes that support life.***
David Albert isn’t really solving a problem here, he only pushes it to another level. If there are underlying reasons (which we don’t understand presently) why the universe is fine tuned for complexity, we should still ask ourselves why those underlying reasons? Why are they aligned with complexity and life?
You're just re-stating the fine tuning question, making the assumption that there is fine tuning. What he's saying is that we have no reason to make that assumption, and so it's not a reasonable question to ask in that way.
@@simonhibbs887 If there are ”higher reasons” (poorly understood by us) why the universe APPEARS to be fine tuned for complexity and life (when, as a matter of fact, there is no fine tuning), we should want to know why the higher reasons give rise to complexity and life. You might say, if you’re a materilist, “well, the higher principles simply exist, they need not be accounted for”. And I would reply, that’s a very strange place to stop the inquiry.
@@RikiTikiTaviXVX >'You might say, if you’re a materilist, “well, the higher principles simply exist, they need not be accounted for”. And I would reply, that’s a very strange place to stop the inquiry.' You have it backwards. I am all for continuing the inquiry, I don't know how the universe came to be as it is, and Albert doesn't either. We would love to have the existence of our universe accounted for. It is the proponents of the anthropic argument that are trying to end, or limit the scope of the argument, by making unsupportable claims about how our universe came to be. Albert and myself are not even claiming that we can exclude a fine tuner, or fine tuning mechanism. We're saying the anthropic argument does not provide any evidence for one. So we are very much on the side of keeping an open mind.
A very good and interesting one here! ( A lot to find on this channel, you probably know...) Clear distinction here between the usual in physics BIG problem with initial conditions. in short here instead - no need to ask, they are what they are- still the puzzling dark energy/cosmological constant problem, given by maths theories and experiments is still a mystery. Not everyone will agree of course. Why the natural constants the way they are? Why this univerese? Still, this way of thinking by D. Albert, maybe makes it a little bit easier to fall asleep at night without having to solve every weird problem of the/this universe......
I think the "fine tuning" of the Universe idea is backasswards. We are a product of the Universe, we are fine tuned to it. So in my mind given the properties of this Universe is as it is, we possibly could not arise from any other universe for that very reason.
@@matthewjett9070 I don't think it is logical for the universe to conform to our needs. We are a product of the Universe, we a result of this Universe, not the other way around.
@@NWLee Why it is not logical? I don't understand your reasoning. There are an infinite number of configurations the universe could have taken where life just doesn't work.
2:34 Your guest is allowing himself to become snagged on what appears to me to be a fallacious premise. You're not starting with "zero knowledge" of where the marble is located. Rather, you know that the marble is in one and only one of the three containers. So the starting point is not, "I have no idea where the marble is located". The corre t starting point would look more like, "I have no idea which 9f these containers holds the marble. But I know that the marble is one of these three containers". So you very well could and, dare I say say, "should", make the assumption that the marble has a one in three chance of being in any one of the containers, all else being equal. Or am I missing something here (again...lol)? Go Bluejays!!
What is the phenomenon we're assigning a probability of. Are we assigning a probability that whatever process put the marble in the box put it in box 2? Suppose that the boxes come from a factory that makes sets of three boxes and always puts a marble in the first box. In this case the chances of the factory putting the marble in box 2 are actually zero. I think what you are actually doing is assigning the probability that, if someone was asked to pick which box the marble is in, that they would pick box 2. That is not the question that matters though. The one that matters is not the posterior probability of selection, but the prior probability of assignment, and that's something we cannot know.
I interpreted that as him going back and forth between the somewhat bad example situation with the marble and the real one with fine tuning. We know much more about the marble than we do about fine tuning which I think he was trying to get at, where we don't know the denominator or even the numerator for that matter
Everything that exists has a 100% probability of existing, All existing things have some value that makes it what it is, the probability that it could be different is meaningless. What is the Probability a Horse could be an automobile? ask Ford. Anthropomorphic thinking has infected this with the puddle fallacy, it is what it is, when some value must be that value for us to exist, it's not us that defines it , it's it that defines us.
@@jamesjacob21 If it was different we would not be here to ask the question, we are here therefor it is not different. The very fact that we, through some function of the universe as it exists produced us. Any number of other possibilities may be able to produce us or something capable of asking the question, but they all result from the fundamentals as they exist in their {tune} , not as they might be in ours, the very fact of us being a result of our universes fine tuning means nothing except we are resultant from this X tune. The problem is not understanding we are resultant of these factors and {probably} any others would not produce the same set. Non arbitrary value's are just the cards the universe has to deal and expecting it to deal one's it doesn't have is meaningless.
It is just an opinion, but I think the cosmological constant problem lends NO support for the universe being finely tuned for life, BUT it might indicate an error in Einsteins assumptions, or QM needs a little tweeking.. Peace..
Calculating the probability of some coordinates for a quantum electron ... at the moment you get uour answer, is predictive during the activity, so doesn't this imply that you have to assume a symantecless inherent universe to hedge against God, where uniquely 0 and ∞ are substitutes from no effect when 'operated upon' by a finite number in the projective real numbers and doesn't this also require s novel interpretation of Hubbles expansionary univers findings, to classify it as science?
He doesn't seem to understand that both statistics and probability are _already admitting_ that we don't have certainty. If we know there is a marble in one of the boxes then saying 'I don't have a clue' is not correct. His argument more like walking up to a set of three boxes and saying 'Well, there must be a 1/3 probability of a marble being in one of the boxes' when we don't even know if there is a marble at all. That being said, I agree with him that the FTA is an imagined problem... it is flawed on so many levels I am surprised any rational thinker falls for it.
Look, I've just about had enough of this "Fine Tuning" lark. Nobody knows why the universe appears to be fine tuned. My electric piano appears to be fine tuned, but it has no strings !
It's very flawed logic to assert the hypothetical answer is anything but one third. Recall the original question was one person saying to another "there is a marble in one of these three boxes. What's the probability that it's in box two?" The one third answer is anything but "insane" as he describes. Only later does he add qualifiers to the original question by asking about the boxes history and prior use. This obfuscates and makes the original question something very different from that point in the argument where he begins to change the descriptive character of these three boxes. Remember, he originally said nothing more than there being three boxes and one has a marble in it. If this experiment were actually conducted by completely random means where one marble was placed in one of the three boxes hundreds of times and subjects were asked the probability of any of the three boxes, it would be confirmed that (in general) each respondent would be correct an average of 33 percent of the time. There's nothing "insane" about basic logic. So why is the speaker taking aim at what some speciously call the "fallacy" of fine tuning.The answer is, this is what pure empiricism does best and it answers very little. The speaker is making the assertion that reality can only be understood via empirical methods. In other words if it can't be weighed, measured or observed it can't possibly be valid. His repeated use of the word "empirical" shows his intellectual predilection for a "facts only" approach to understanding the universe. His use of "empiricism" is actually no more than garden variety skepticism, and it has no hope of answering the deepest questions about the cosmos. It's no surprise he's a physicist. Empiricism and a materialistic view of the world are tailor made for each other as both reinforce and validate the reluctance to see any possibility that a transcendent agent is present in all existent reality. Skeptics like the one here like to get invitations to lectures, symposiums and conferences, and any speculation about "fine tuning" being something other than random raises eyebrows with colleagues, better to play it safe.
>"If this experiment were actually conducted by completely random means where one marble was placed in one of the three boxes hundreds of times and subjects were asked the probability of any of the three boxes, it would be confirmed that (in general) each respondent would be correct an average of 33 percent of the time. There's nothing "insane" about basic logic." You are making the assumption here that the process that put the marble in the box does so randomly, with an even distribution. How do you know that? We have no reason to make that assumption. Suppose that the process is a machine that always puts a marble in Box 1. Then the prior probability the marble will be in box 2 is zero. So the 1/3 probability is not a statement about the process that assigned the marble to a box. As Albert correctly points out, we don't know anything about that process. It's actually a statement about our lack of knowledge about where the marble is.
@@simonhibbs887 I understand your point but your point was not made in the original hypothetical question (please review the posting from 1:08 onward) He doesn't say the marbles were placed by a non random process. The way he states the question makes it thoroughly reasonable for the hearer of that question to assume the process of placing the marbles was completely random which is completely logical and the only reasonable answer to that "leading" question is to say the probability of the marble being in box 2 is exactly 33 and 1/3 percent. Now if he were to add conditions and stipulations after the hypothetical subject gave his one third answer than that would change the subjects estimation of one third, but he doesn't. In other words had the questioner been told before giving his answer that box number two has a hole in its bottom, then that would certainly change the calculus whereby he reached his one third conclusion. He is changing the terms of the original question by adding qualifiers post facto. The original question is really a trick question because he didn't give the subject who's being asked the question all the information. You are correct when you say; "So the 1/3 probability is not a statement about the process that assigned the marble to a box." You're exactly right. None of the particularities of that hypothetical process were mentioned in the original question and it was assumed the process was random, so how can we expect any other answer than one third. If I watch a baseball game with a friend for an hour and we're both completely immersed in the action and he says to me afterward. "That was great. Let's go play catch. I would assume he meant with a baseball and gloves. When he throws a football at me, he has changed the tenor and substance of his original statement "Let's go play catch." Yet my first assumption is still logically correct in thinking he meant baseball not football. When the terms of any question are changed after any answer to that original question then the logic of the respondents answer to that original question still obtains.
@@michaelmckinney7240 >”The way he states the question makes it thoroughly reasonable for the hearer of that question to assume the process of placing the marbles was completely random…” I see the problem here, the anthropic argument is not his argument. It’s an argument he is responding to. So first he states the argument as it is put forward and argued by it’s proponents. Later he gives his analysis and points out it’s flaws. >”He is changing the terms of the original question by adding qualifiers post facto. “ He’s not adding qualifiers. He’s pointing out that proponents of the argument are making assumptions they have no reason to make. The problem is precisely that the anthropic argument is a badly stated question. That’s not his fault.
@@simonhibbs887 It sounds like he's in agreement with the anthropic argument which is no more than a clumsy and unpersuasive attempt to dismiss a real and undeniably operative principle of our universe. It's essence is the assertion that because our brains are inextricably linked to the same forces that produced the symmetry and ordered regularity of the cosmos our brains automatic default position is to affirm its own internal predilection. This argument is unconvincing because it rests on the flawed premise that objective thought is not possible because the brain is preconditioned toward bias. Total objectivity is impossible as quantum mechanics confirms but generally speaking our senses accurately report the physical reality surrounding us and can be relied upon within the range of normal human experience. When observers state that the cosmos seems fine tuned they're basing this assertion on hard science not speculation. For example we know that the forces of matter, antimatter, gravity and the outward blast wave of the Big Bang were ultimately resolved to produce a long lived universe, and only a long lived universe could allow the evolution of stars, planets, galaxies and sentient life. Is it really convincing to call this "apriori" thinking? Cosmology confirms the "fine tuning" phenomenon to be real and despite the speakers assertion that this poses a problem or a crisis, the problem and crisis is real only for those who are wedded to empiricism. The threat or crisis is really an opportunity to see the universe from a deeper perspective. The bias against "fine tuning" is based on what it implies. That being, a fundamental acceptance that our cosmos has been brought into existence by a transcendent agent of ultimate power. This comes way too close to a theological conclusion and this is, and will always be anathema to materialism. Empiricism and materialism are joined at the hip and so have been dancing together for a long time. Empiricism is vital when designing an aircraft wing or a vaccine but it's hopelessly inadequate in solving the universes ultimate mystery.
I don't know, this fine tuning talk smacks of intelligent design, and I don't like it. I mean, it's like asking why a true random number generator generated the number it did.
Well, if i first admit that i have no clue about the game. Then maybe you'll give me more information about the marble game? I'll then be forced to choose.😮 33% chance, hopefully its not a "corner-street-hustle trick" and i lose my money. Sidenote: i looked up "a priori" assumptions about human nature Either way, i choose. I choose, and i "some how i knew exactly where the marble was, or was not." "One could say that unsatisfied curiosity is a crisis, especially because there are serious consequences when divisive or dangerous notions arise to fill the void left by lack of knowledge." - another user
2:30. No. The situation is one where you have to assign a probability. If he picked box number one he would assign the same probability. Nothing astonishing there. Oh, he trying to make a point about a priori knowledge visa vis empirical experience.
Correct, lack of a priori knowledge is the issue. We don't 'have' to assign a probability at all. We can just be honest and say we don't know. The anthropic argument is best seen as a statement about our lack of knowledge, not a statement about how the universe came to be.
I enjoyed that. Agreed. The universe mass produces uniqueness using common processes and principles, such that vanishingly small probabilities result from a priori thinking, but nevertheless, uniqueness is the norm (at the human scale). Every planet, moon, sun, asteroid... Small probabilities "of x being like itself" mean little or nothing.
The FT universe argument fails to establish anything. A universe with constants that are consistent with our biological existence is the ONLY universe that we biological observers could possibly observe. We cannot logically observe a universe that is incompatible with our existence! So, observing that our universe is compatible with our existence as observers is not at all surprising. On the contrary, what *would* be surprising (if not impossible) is to observe a universe that is Incompatible with our existence!
The reason why philosophers and physicists fail to get to the bottom of fine tuning is they are more prepared to hide divine design, then to get to the truth.
Nobody's stopping anyone else from getting to the bottom of it. There are plenty of physicists and philosophers that do take fine tuning seriously, so there's no conspiracy against it. I just think they're wrong.
See, you are scared to face the truth. You are confident without giving any scientific argument. Implies you are scared the truth is divine design.@@simonhibbs887
I don’t understand him. I think is a very stupid argument. Only a empty minded being can look at the boxes and don’t try to calculate the odds beforehand. Even my dog sniffs them.
The odd beforehand are the odds that the process by which a marble was put in the box put it in box 2. But that process might always result in the marble going into box 1. We have no way to know. The 1/3 value is not a statement about the process that put the marble in the box, it's a statement about our knowledge about which box the marble might be in. Basically it's the chance that, if someone was asked to guess which box the marble is in, that they would pick that box. That tells us nothing at all about the process that placed the marble though.
You say you don't understand but then you don't hesitate to call it stupid. We know much more about the marble in the cup (1 marble, 3 cups, therefore 1/3) but we don't know any of that information about our own universe, not the numerator or the denominator. It's incorrect reasoning to assume either of those numbers due to a total lack of empirical evidence
@@kylebowles9820 I don’t understand the reasoning. That’s all. And the universe is fine tuned. If the theories about the multiverses are correct ( I’m not saying they are) then all the infinite universes are also fine tuned in infinite different ways. That’s the only requirement for them to exist.
@@dplouro The fine tuning argument isn't just saying that the universe has very specific characteristics. Everything that exists has exactly the characteristics it has, that's not what fine tuning means. It's a specific claim that the exact characteristics of the universe were tuned somehow from a range of possibilities.
@@simonhibbs887 yes. That’s exactly what I think. Like all living things the universe ( or universes ) are a result of natural selection until stability is achieved.
"I have no clue" also means "I make no prediction". Physicist don't take the easy way out. They try to predict something. Saying the probabilities are 1/3 for each box may not be right, but it is a theory and when tested by experiment can be verified or falsified. I grow weary of philosophical spaghetti tossing. You may not like the statistical/probabilistic basis for Quantum Mechanics, but the model is based on observation, it has been tested extensively and to many decimal places. In other words, it says "I make a prediction and that prediction is correct to the best I can determine." Physics has struggled from the start as to the nature of the Wave Function and if it is real or a statistical machine that just works. This video has added nothing to that discussion and hasn't even illuminated the issue.
>"Saying the probabilities are 1/3 for each box may not be right, but it is a theory and when tested by experiment can be verified or falsified." Unfortunately we can't create new universes in the laboratory, so this isn't an experiment we're going to be able to perform any time soon. What probability are we trying to estimate? I think we're trying to guess the prior probability that whatever process put a marble in the box put it in box 2. But suppose that process always puts a marble in box 1. In that case the probability it put one in box 2 is zero. When we assign our own guess at the probability, at that point the marble is already in a box, we just don't know which one. The 1/3 probability is actually a statement about our lack of knowledge about which box the marble is in. It's a statement about the chances of us guessing correctly which box has the marble, not a statement about where the marble is or how it got there.
Very disappointed. Albert did not address the core of the question, that is if the constants miss by a tiny tiny amount, there will be no life, at least no life that we can conceive of. Yes, the curvature of universe has huge number of options, the probability of being near flat is extremely small. But that is irrelevant to the present question, because many many other curvatures may create a universe. It will be different from ours but physicists can calculate its characteristics. To pursue this line of argument further, he needs to show that a slight change of curvature will make a universe impossible. But then he will be stuck because the near flatness becomes another fine-tuning problem
These are just clips from interviews. What you wrote above is basically just a statement of what the fine tuning question is. I think knowing that is assumed in this clip.
@@simonhibbs887 Thanks. My point is that the flat surface is not a suitable analogy, because we do not know whether a tiny change of curvature can or cannot created a universe. At least I am not aware of a theory that says a tiny change cannot create a universe similar to ours. But we do know that a tiny change of constants cannot create life.
@@cchang2771 Actually we don’t know that a tiny change of constants cannot create life. We know that it would not create a universe like our own, with the specific particles and fields and such ours is composed of. It may be that different values would produce similarly complex but utterly different universes.
@@simonhibbs887 We do know. It may produce similarly complex but different universes but it would not produce life as we know it. The "fine tuning" problem by definition is that a tiny change of a specific amount cannot create life. See Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (many of the numbers below are exponents, for example, 10 50 means 10exp(50) 1. Fine-Tuning for Life: the Evidence 1.1 Examples from Physics 1.1.1 Fine-tuned constants The strength of gravity, when measured against the strength of electromagnetism, seems fine-tuned for life (Rees 2000: ch. 3; Uzan 2011: sect. 4; Lewis & Barnes 2016: ch. 4). If gravity had been absent or substantially weaker, galaxies, stars and planets would not have formed in the first place. Had it been only slightly weaker (and/or electromagnetism slightly stronger), main sequence stars such as the sun would have been significantly colder and would not explode in supernovae, which are the main source of many heavier elements (Carr & Rees 1979). If, in contrast, gravity had been slightly stronger, stars would have formed from smaller amounts of material, which would have meant that, inasmuch as still stable, they would have been much smaller and more short-lived (Adams 2008; Barnes 2012: sect. 4.7.1). The strength of the strong nuclear force, when measured against that of electromagnetism, seems fine-tuned for life (Rees 2000: ch. 4; Lewis & Barnes 2016: ch. 4). Had it been stronger by more than about 50 % , almost all hydrogen would have been burned in the very early universe (MacDonald & Mullan 2009). Had it been weaker by a similar amount, stellar nucleosynthesis would have been much less efficient and few, if any, elements beyond hydrogen would have formed. For the production of appreciable amounts of both carbon and oxygen in stars, even much smaller deviations of the strength of the strong force from its actual value would be fatal (Hoyle et al. 1953; Barrow & Tipler 1986: 252-253; Oberhummer et al. 2000; Barnes 2012: sect. 4.7.2). The difference between the masses of the two lightest quarks-the up- and down-quark-seems fine-tuned for life (Carr & Rees 1979; Hogan 2000: sect. 4; Hogan 2007; Adams 2019: sect. 2.25). Partly, the fine-tuning of these two masses obtains relative to the strength of the weak force (Barr & Khan 2007). Changes in the difference between them have the potential to affect the stability properties of the proton and neutron, which are bound states of these quarks, or lead to a much simpler and less complex universe where bound states of quarks other than the proton and neutron dominate. Similar effects would occur if the mass of the electron, which is roughly ten times smaller than the mass difference between the down- and up-quark, would be somewhat larger in relation to that difference. There are also absolute constraints on the masses of the two lightest quarks (Adams 2019: fig. 5). The strength of the weak force seems to be fine-tuned for life (Carr & Rees 1979). If it were weaker by a factor of about 10 , there would have been much more neutrons in the early universe, leading very quickly to the formation of initially deuterium and tritium and soon helium. Long-lived stars such as the sun, which depend on hydrogen that they can burn to helium, would not exist. Further possible consequences of altering the strength of the weak force for the existence of life are explored by Hall et al. (2014). The cosmological constant characterizes the energy density ρ V of the vacuum. On theoretical grounds, outlined in Section 5 of this article, one would expect it to be larger than its actual value by an immense number of magnitudes. (Depending on the specific assumptions made, the discrepancy is between 10 50 and 10 123 .) However, only values of ρ V a few order of magnitude larger than the actual value are compatible with the formation of galaxies (Weinberg 1987; Barnes 2012: sect. 4.6; Schellekens 2013: sect. 3). This constraint is relaxed if one considers universes with different baryon-to-photon ratios and different values of the number Q (discussed below), which quantifies density fluctuations in the early universe (Adams 2019: sect. 4.2)
Just because a system has high sensitivity to a particular input doesn't have any bearing on the probability of the state. It could be that the large scale curvature of the universe is quantized, and at this energy there is only one solution. Then the sensitivity of that value doesn't correspond to a change in state and therefore has no effect on probability.
Thanks for a great look at cosmological thinking. People are basically sheep in a herd. Goats have a different perspective and think differently. Progress for the masses. Follow the goat but not to the slaughter house. Thinking is hard and stupid people tend to not even try. Ah, the contentment of sheep. Be a goat.
Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability: A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.) Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness. A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)
Nice information a counter argument would be that over time say billions of years would allow time to build complexity for e.g in just 60 years it went from the write Brothers to a space rocket on the moon imagine a billion? Ofcourse a cell has 15 million bits of data? Why do we even have a universe the probability of life is 1 in 10^2,685,000
The moment of lucid evolutionary mythology is in our heads and it now has less value than another time because we need an excuse. Haha Of course we studying how our brains rationalize the universe around us and all we have is an approximation of tools to use on this paradox
What a nonsense. "I don't know anything about where the marble is". That's not true. You were told there is a marble. Then you were told there were three boxes. And you were told the marble is in one of these boxes. That makes the best possible guess that it's in the middle box 1/3. About the cosmological fine-tuning : well, you can find a pair of shoes on a beach. You know nothing about the history of these shoes. But you can hypothesize that these shoes are meant to be put on feet. You can't say "I do not know anything about these shoes, they could have materialized because of a quantum fluctuation" - it is perfectly reasonable to put these shoes in the context of what you know: that it's likely these shoes were made by somebody or at least they do not seem to be a logical manifestation of the randomness of sand and pebbles you find on a beach. Likewise, it is perfectly reasonable to hypothesize about cosmological fine tuning. Be it that there are multiple universes each with other constants, or that the constants actually are the result of a deeper physical process, or whatever.
Seriously, you dont need to know prior probabilities and do a careful analysis to see that physics is fine-tuned for life. When you understand physics it is staring you in the face. Low entropy is not fine-tuning. Cosmological constant may or may not be fine-tuning. The argument for fine tuning comes mostly from nuclear physics, chemistry and the strength of gravity.
Bizarre claim that the universe is “fine tuned” for life when 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999 % of the universe appears to be devoid of life . A universe fine tuned fir life would see life everywhere - in empty space , in the center of stars etc . If anything - this universe is fine tuned for black holes . They are everywhere and are numerous .
@@tonyatkinson2210 If it was fine-tuned by intelligent design there would be no need for wide open space, barren planets etc, but if it is fine-tuned by an anthropic selection principle then what we observe is what would be expected.
This guy implicitly says he admits the limitation of physics to explain certain things and that it is a waste of time asking certain questions. Fine tuning does not lend itself to probabilistic analysis. Things just are the way they are. The paradigm that frames this thinking is that of the materialist and that is fine. It is clear that some questions can only be posed if one abandons the realm of scientific objectivity and one enters the realm of subjectivity, which appears to be framed by our individual consciousness. It gets of course even more complicated because science can not explain consciousness...There is no model for it. There is no formal mathematical definition of what it is and no explanation of how it arises. Others, like the idealists argue that consciousness is not material. (i.e Paradigm shift) What we refer to as an objective world is deeply rooted on a field of subjectivity. (see quantum mechanics and the problem of the observer)
Sorry, I'm not buying the argument. The premise that probability is the determining factor of why things are the way they are strikes me as ludicrous. It boarders on a straw-man argument.
What probability are we estimating? I think that the probability we are after is the chance that the process which put a marble in a box put it in box 2. What do we know about that process? Nothing, except that it put a marble in a box. Let's suppose the boxes came from a factory that makes rows of three boxes, and always puts a marble in box 1. In this case the chance that the factory put a marble in box 2 is zero. The one third chance estimate is not about the process that put the marble in the box. It's a statement about our knowledge of which box the marble might be in. It's basically the probability that, if someone was asked to guess which box the marble is in, that they would pick box 2. That tells us nothing about the actual probability that the marble was put in box 2. If we say that this constant only had a one in a thousand chance of having this value, that only makes sense if the process by which the value was selected was a random process, and that it has an even distribution of probabilities for the value. That's two very big, very specific assumptions to make about a process we know nothing about.
Where you assert that 1/3 is the probability that people would guess box #2, you must have an unstated reason why you believe the probability is 1/3 that they would guess box #2. Is there any more to that reason besides your knowledge / experience / educated guess about how most people behave when they lack knowledge? What if some people have a bias regarding the numbers 1, 2, and 3, and the subsets who think 1 or 3 is their lucky number isn't exactly twice as large as the subset who think 2 is their lucky number? Then 1/3 isn't the correct probability that people would guess box #2. Please elaborate on why you believe it is... are you actually making a guess about people's guessing behavior using "a priori probabilities" due to your lack of knowledge of the actual processes that all people use to guess which box?
@@brothermine2292 To be fair you're right, we can't even say the probability of someone guessing it is necessarily 1/3. We actually can't say anything useful about the probability at all. Thank you. I still think the 1/3 is at best a statement about our confidence of where the marble might be, but it has nothing to do with the actual probability.
@@simonhibbs887 : Yes, you could call it "confidence." That's what my comment on how to bet when ignorant (if forced to bet) is about. I infer that you agree that it makes sense to bet as if the probability is 1/3. And I think that's similar to betting that a universe "tuned" for life is very unlikely without a god or multiverse, even though we don't know the true probability. Apparently Albert doesn't agree that it makes sense to bet as if the probability is 1/3. But on the other hand, he didn't clearly deny that that's how he would bet if forced to bet.
@@brothermine2292 The point is not only are not being asked to make such a bet. We also have no reason to assign any such confidence. It’s purely a statement about our lack of knowledge. Inferring that it gives us actual knowledge about the real process by which the universe came about, or that this process was probabilistic, or anything about that process at all is unwarranted. The Anthropic line of reasoning gives us no such knowledge.
@@simonhibbs887 : I partially agree... we lack knowledge of the actual process and therefore the actual probability. However, I see now that I misunderstood you earlier when I wrote that what you call "confidence" is what I was writing about in my comment about how to bet when ignorant of the actual probability. When you claim "we" aren't being asked to bet, it looks like you're speaking for yourself using the "royal we" and you're not speaking for everyone. Recall that I wrote, in my comment about how to bet when forced to bet, that I can't get inside the heads of others, some of whom may believe they're forced to bet. Do you claim to be able to get inside their heads, where you wrote "we" aren't asked to bet?
Guys shows he doesnt understand Newton in terms universe . He ceticism are cover up his ignorance about phich proceendings . Guys is more interesting in show up Fine tuning though ceticism than figure out phich reality honestly He figure out Fine tuning is nill phich reality. He Fine tuning is only rethoric without evidence
Imperfections are NOT fallacies of fine-tuning but, rather, an important part of it.... God the Holy Spirit magnificently and perfectly fine-tuned the Universe not only with perfections but also imperfections for mankind to understand the differences between bad, good, better, and best to give them a hint that there is a better or worse place out there (heaven or hell) so to hopefully find faith in a loving Creator for their souls' salvation which is life's main purpose.
@@tomjackson7755 Have faith in a loving God and you may receive the light that can make you understand God better that may inspire you also to share to the world.. This may also drive your demons away to save your lost soul...
@@evaadam3635 Oh look more complete nonsense while avoiding answering the question. Are you avoiding answering the question because it shows that you have no idea what you are talking about?
(2:00) *DA: **_"That seems like a really suspicious example of getting something for nothing."_* ... I like Albert's thinking on this. I am a huge proponent of mathematics, logic, and probability, but they're not the end-all for explaining every phenomenon we encounter. ... There is a lot more to "Existence" than mathematical predictions alone can address! Beware of any propositions that are based on "likelihood" statistics. *Example:* Take a proposition such as, _"Statistics show that (type of person) is 33.3% more likely to do (fill in the blank) than those who aren't like that."_ ... Now, the fact is that you can be a perfect match for whatever that "type of person" is and yet there is a *0% probability* that you will ever do (fill in the blank). ... However, the statistics claim that there's a 1-out-of-3 likelihood that you will. This is what happens when mathematics and logic are used to fulfil a predetermined narrative.
More fluff. Just because he does not understand does not make it a non "crisis". If his explanation is brute, that it had to be, then he has to explain why he cannot phantom any other possibility which was just as likely. Lack of imagination or thereof.
He did not offer an explanation, how can he when his point is that we don't know? We can imagine lots of different reasons for the creation of the universe, or why it is this way, but we have no way to test them. Therefore we have no evidence we can use to assign probabilities to any of them.
The marble could be in any box but only known when observed😎consciousness is infinite and survives after physical matter is destroyed..Telepathy is very real and communication between other dimensions can be done..Everything is energy,frequency and a vibration and is infinite and eternal😎
@simonhibbs887 its very useful if you can communicate and interpret telepathically especially with passed energy/matter/people that have transformed..This dimension is nothing compared to other dimensions..Being aware of exactly what we are opens Pandora's box😎
Very interesting perspective. However I would question why assigning a probability of 1/3 to the marble being in bag number 2 is saying something from nothing. Surely knowing that there are only three bags is "some information", and not "no clue"? If we were told there were four bags, we would give a different answer.
Complete layman here, but I think the 'no clue' part is referring to the actual distribution of the marble. The empirical probability that the marble is in box 2 can range from 0-1 no matter how many boxes there are.
It's the water claiming "this pothole is so perfect, fits me so perfectly, it had to be designed for me!
Good point. Then again, if the universe is deterministic, in some sense that pothole was “designed” for those exact water molecules.
Pothole and molecules? Really, @@wmpx34?
@@wmpx34 if
@@bjornyesterday2562 wow ,i dont fucking know there's fucking talking water that recognize fitness of it's environment .You believe in bullshit claim like selective process and creative process are indistinguishable, so it's not a suprise to hear this from you
It is
Isn't it amazing enough that life and human life and our lives exist on this planet in the immensely huge Universe? Our individual lives are unique, unrepeatable, fleeting and are remarkable.
It could be that the universe just “appears” to us to be fine-tuned. Perhaps, once we obtain sufficient knowledge from empirical evidence, we will know that the universe can only be one way - the way it is. Or we could learn from experimental proof that multiple universes exist accounting for the full range of apparent fine-tuned constants and laws. Finally, isn’t the very question “is the universe fine-tuned?” an anthropic question? Namely, we ask it from the self-centered perspective of the only emergent intelligent life. But it could be said that the universe is actually far more fine-tuned for the opposite of life - namely, non-life, which is the vast majority of everything observable. Or fine-tuned for dark energy. Or fine-tuned for increasing entropy disorder. Or fine-tuned for conservation of energy (positive & negative energy equals zero). Or fine-tuned for random chaotic quantum fluctuations. And so on.
The truth is bitter, ugly when processed, but the result is robust.
I have always felt this way about the supposed "fine tuning" argument. Glad to know that at least one philosopher agrees with me.
Steven Weinberg (Nobel laureate in high energy physics, Atheist) “…does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning. The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.” If not: “the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.” [“Life in the Universe”, Scientific American, Oct. '94, 49.]
Robert Krauss: “The problem with this from a fundamental perspective is that a cosmological constant associated in modern parlance with a nonzero vacuum energy density in the universe on a scale that would be cosmologically relevant and yet still allowed today would take a value that is over 120 orders of magnitude smaller than the naive value that one might expect based on considerations of quantum mechanics and gravity.” [The End of the Age Problem, And The Case For A Cosmological Constant Revisited (1997): Online]
Alejandro Jenkins (Center for Th. Physics, MIT) & Gilad Perez (Yang Inst. for Th. Physics): “…the most serious fine-tuning problem in theoretical physics: the smallness of the “cosmological constant,” thanks to which our universe neither recollapsed into nothingness a fraction of a second after the big bang, nor was ripped part by an exponentially accelerating expansion. [“Looking for Life in the Multiverse”, Scientific American (Dec. 2009): Online]
Hans Peter Nilles: “Quantum fluctuations create a vacuum energy which in turn curves the space much stronger than it is observed. Hence, the classical vacuum energy needs to be adjusted in a very accurate way in order to cancel the contributes from quantum effects. This would require a fine-tuning of the fundamental parameters of the theory to an accuracy of at least 60 digits. From the theoretical point of view we consider this is a rather unsatisfactory situation and would like to analyze alternatives leading to the observed cosmological constant in a more natural way… [the author discusses the Randall-Sundrum set-up and brane hypotheses, the conclusion reads:].. Unfortunately we have not yet found a satisfactory model where such a relation is realized and the problem of the size of the cosmological constant still has to wait for a solution.” [“Dark Energy in Extra Dimensions and String Theory: Consistency Conditions”, (Dec. 2000): Online]
George Smoot (Nobel laureate, physics professor at University of California): “In order to make a universe as big and wonderful as it is, lasting as long as it is-we’re talking fifteen billion years and we’re talking huge distances here-in order for it to be that big, you have to make it perfectly. Otherwise, imperfections would mount up and the universe would either collapse on itself or fly apart, and so it’s actually quite a precise job. And I don’t know if you’ve had discussions with people about how critical it is that the density of the universe come out so close to the density that decides whether it’s going to keep expanding forever or collapse back, but we know it’s within one percent.” [(interview with Fred Heeren) Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God (Day Star Publications, 2000) 168.]
Steven Weinberg (Nobel laureate in high energy physics [the very early universe], Atheist): “In any case, there is one constant whose value does seem remarkably well adjusted in our favor. It is the energy density of empty space, also known as the cosmological constant. It could have any value, but from first principles one would guess that this constant should be very large, and could be positive or negative. If large and positive, the cosmological constant would act as a repulsive force that increases with distance, a force that would prevent matter from clumping together in the early universe, the process that was the first step in forming galaxies and stars and planets and people. If large and negative the cosmological constant would act as an attractive force increasing with distance, a force that would almost immediately reverse the expansion of the universe and cause it to recollapse, leaving no time for the evolution of life. In fact, astronomical observations show that the cosmological constant is quite small, very much smaller than would have been guessed from first principles.” [Facing up (Harvard University Press, 2003), 237.]
I totally agree. If you were to work out the probability that you exist as an individual it would be so low, but you do exist. This argument is always looked at the wrong way round.
He is right. The phrase 'fine tuning' implies some kind of crisis or perplexity about some measurements of the physical world, like for instance the speed of light. The other thing it implies is that, say, the speed of light could have been faster than the measurement found. 'Gee, I wonder why the speed of light wasn't the number on my licences plate.' For me 'fine tuning' is a misnomer that is a fine basis for tuning up obscurantism.
The phrase "fine tuning" implies no crisis at all except to those wedded to a materialistic conception of the universe and its origin.
It’s probably better to think of the speed of light as one. Then for more complex systems, you figure out what percentage of one they travel at. So for the Atom, you’ve got protons and neutrons, with gluons, traveling at the speed of light, and then electrons with the electromagnetic field, traveling at the speed of light between the electrons and protons. The whole conglomerate, then has to move slower, because the force particles are moving as fast as they can, the speed of light.
@@michaelmckinney7240 You are completely right in your comment. The phrase 'fine tuning' practically shouts 'intelligent designer adjusting the dials'.
So what is that supposed to mean? That Deism or Theism or something else is right?
@@thomaskist9503 The speed of light as one with variations in percentage down for different media or context. Thank you for that idea. It is a very scientific way of thinking about something.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 Thank you for your reply Arthur. "Fine tuning" is something of a misnomer as it suggests corrections were needed after the Big Bang to insure the balance of forces were configured in such a way to produce the long term equilibrium needed for evolution to slowly develop the emergent complexity we see throughout the cosmos. It's far more likely (in my opinion) that no adjustment was needed because the formula to achieve this eventual result was preconceived. The actions of matter and energy post Big Bang appear to be formulaic in their resulting stability and durable functionality.
I don't like the phrase "intelligent design" because it often refers to a formal line of reasoning within Christianity to offer a back door accommodation to the ever growing body of research that directly contradicts biblical doctrine. I believe "design" and intelligence were present in the "creation", or using a less "loaded" term, "origin" of the universe, but not as conceived by conservative Christians who misuse the term "intelligent design."
Deism posits the idea that God created the universe and then allowed all to play out as it would while remaining aloof and indifferent to the outcome.
This makes very little sense. The undeniable phenomenon of "evolved emergent complexity" clearly shows that an active agent driving a universal process of "complexification" has been at work since the Big Bang.
Theism also asserts that God is real and accepts revelation and supernatural events whereas Deism does not. Both have limitations, Deism for the reason described above and Theism for it's acceptance of supernatural phenomenon such as the miracles written about in the bible, miracles that are clearly no more than fables.
A new vocabulary is needed to grapple with these challenging ideas and central to this controversy is the need for a more accurate and more compelling definition of the word "God." Religion has distorted, co-opted, and mythologized its meaning. Re-thinking the concept of God is indispensable before getting beyond the very narrow and intellectually stifling dogma that surrounds this topic. Accepting that no definition of the word "God" can ever hope to be adequate, a partial and more accurate phrase might be; God is a form of eternal, self perpetuating, and completely lucid energy whose dominant attribute is love.
I strongly resonate with his take and it never sat well with me when flat out conjecture is supposed to pose for methodologically precise inquiry and experimental testing of a priori assumption, which I would separate semantically from mere conjecture, which is also just a concealed way of actually saying "I have no clue". He may have chosen to phrase this observation more cautiously, therefore more politely. But I see him making a strong point about this inconsistency in logic, which I go along with and which probably says more about resorting to such awkward ways of dodging their discomfort over not knowing than it says about the scientific process of discovery and how to get there or about calculating probabilities. In plain language: It must be o.k. not to have a clue. The imperative that then follows is "let's take a closer look and find out (by employing the methods that have been serving us very well so far)".
As a discerning marble, I always go for the handmade chestnut box, with custom black felt interior
many thousands of scholars and PhDs make their living off the constant fine tuning of probabilities. Good gig if you can get it. ;)
I believe if you jrop a block of steel in a bucket of nitrogen it will scattere like glass because all the electrons are reducing pressure that support the structure and mass of that steel block and due to the sudden change In the environment immediately that activated the kinetic energy field in two ways the first way was the drop motion the second way was when the block of steel immediately struck the bucket of nitrogen boosting the kinetic energy field inside the block of steel even at greater heights causing an explosion that scattered the block of steel outward like glass. My point is on the contraction of the universe and if I'am right about this it may be true to the fact, if the universe stops contracting everything would cool down and the cold vacuum pressure would in golf the entire universe back down to its starting point the plank level a place where the poor old electrons begin striking their matches to get the heat up and running again. Guys these are the God of the universes they deserve all the credit for their hard work because they can turn cold death into tingling sensations which is a whole new world of awareness straight out of pure consciousness. I believe it goes deeper than that. Seek and you shall find.
I thought survival bias was the only explanation needed for explaining our fundamental parameters. It's more like the universe works on rough tuning - try every probabilty until one path survives - not fine tuning.
I do not see a big problem right there. The problem of explaining the values for constants and initial conditions is still a thing to answer.
Assigning probability when we don't even know how many boxes there are in the analogy is clearly going to lead us down the wrong path.
2:15 What if there's a marble in a box, but I haven't told you about if there is a marble in the other two, Box 1 or 3 also having a marble in each. There could be one in one box or one in each. Isn't that knowledge an important detail useful in fine-tuning a decision?
you are onto something, please break it down for me, I want to understand.
It is, you're quite right ,and the point he's making is we don't know any of that. We have no knowledge about the assignment of marbles to boxes. Similarly with the universe we have no knowledge of how or why the universe became the way it is, so assigning probabilities about it is nonsensical.
@selvamthiagarajan8152 Lawyers and others usr this quirk in English, and you're assuming that there is only one marble present to let you misinterpret the situation. There could be two or even three boxes with a marble in each.
But that isn't the scenario he described. You are now making up different scenarios, and each scenario gets its own set of reasoning. If we are told that there is one marble, and it exists in one of the boxes, then we can indeed say that the odds of it existing in a specific box is one in three. That is common sense.
@@ronaldmorgan7632 >”Then we can indeed say that the odds of it existing in a specific box is one in three”.
Except we can’t. I posted a top level comment explaining why.
Our mind is the product of reality, not vice versa. So using our mind to say that the reality is improbable is basically putting the resulting cart before the initial horse. Actually, it's worse, but it's hard to think of a good analogy.
The speed of light is one of the parameters that is supposed to be fine tuned. Am I right about that?
Is the speed of light fine-tuned? ONLY if one is committed to philosophical dualism, would they believe that friend.. More likely, NONE of the constants are fine-tuned.
@@Bill..NI agree that none of the constants are fine tuned. In my conception, existence exists, nature is its character, and constants are the basic characteristics of that character. They are the 'givens', the absolutes, the ultimate frames of physical reference.
I'll bet the dualism you are referring to is God and nature.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 Yes, correct friend..
@@arthurwieczorek4894 HOWEVER, naturalism or nature is unattached even unrelated to dualistic beliefs.
But what exactly is probability ?
I always wondered why the electron has the charge that it does. Looks like I can keep on thinking that.
As long as it matches the proton, it hardly matters.
@@bozo5632 peak scientism incompetent arrogance
3:30. No. His wording is slightly off. "Of all the possible values these measurements could have been, why these?" VS. 'Of all the possible values I can imagine these measurements being, why these?' In my mind big difference.
6:31 something is giving rise to structure and mechanics of the observable Universe... which in its or their absence could have been a total chaos instead... where do these constants originate from and what is their nature, precisely 🤔
00:21 Well, the first thing I want to ask as a philosopher is...umm...umm is umm [unintelligible] the first thing I want to do is to understand better than I must say I do exactly what the crisis about the values of these parameters is supposed to be.... umm 00:42 I think I'll pass on this one.
100% agree. We have no freaking idea what the allowable values of the constants even could be much much less what the probabilities of their possible values may be.
The explanation for the values they have is still a problem to answer
@@prof3gamer988 Of course, but the fine tuning argument implicitly assumes random allocation and a single universe. We have no reason to make either assumption.
That's not true. If the gravitational constant was just an iota weak, no expanding universe.
@simonhibbs887 We do have a reason to make that assumption, our universe is the only observable universe and the rest is just an extravagant theory that introduces all kinds of entities making a mockery of Occam's razor. If that weren't true, Occam's razor is useless.
@silversurfer4441 Please provide data showing convincingly that it is possible for that value to be other than it is or even what range of values for that constant are possible.
Fine-Tuning isn't about how a particular value arises. Fine-Tuning is about how if those values changed a small amount, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist. Say, for example, (and I have no idea if this is true), the gravitation constant increased by 10%, then the big bang would have been over in 10 seconds. It is that sort of thing physicist are talking about. The fundamental parameters of the models seem to be "fine-tuned" so our universe can exist the way it is, change them slightly and our universe would be much different.
What prompted me to comment, however, is that the result of small changes in parameters to the outcome is also a sign of a mathematical fitting function which is overly complex. That is to say, it is possible that while the mathematical outcomes are unstable, that is really because the universe itself isn't properly represented by the models. An analogy would be like fitting a 10th order polynomial to a bunch of data points. We can get a perfect fit, but change one parameter in the 5th decimal place and we get a wildly different result.
>"Fine-Tuning isn't about how a particular value arises. Fine-Tuning is about how if those values changed a small amount, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist."
But surely that's only a relevant question if there is a process by which the values could change. If there isn't, then why does that matter?
@@simonhibbs887 Observations that support the estimation of the model parameters have only existed for a few decades or centuries at most. As near as we can estimate, the universe is about 14 billion years old.
Simply put, there is insufficient observational evidence to conclude our model parameters don't change over time. They may have been stable for the short time we have been observing them.
This is why deep space observations such as Hubble and James Watt telescopes are so important. They look back in time and we may collect data to see if model parameters have changed.
In any event, the fine tuning problem isn't about changing parameters, its about how IF we change parameters even small amounts then the predictions are wildly different from the universe we observe.
In other words, why do the parameters need to be finely tuned? Or, my alternate perspective, why are the models so sensitive to small changes in the parameters.
1:00 The principle of indifference visa vis, what? The principle of personal intuition. The principle of......
He makes things very complicated
The Universe is fine tuned to sterility and not at all fine tuned for life.
They doesn't seem to get what the issue is. We supposedly know the values of a bunch of constants, and we know that some of the constants effect each other. We know that if the strong nuclear force was outside a certain range, then the atom might fly apart. Each one of the constants has a range in which if it were not in that range, certain things wouldn't work. So, how is this controversial or difficult to understand?
Odd, that he's not questioning why the universe is flat (ish). A big bang would would spread out uniformly, right? Then again, the big bang is predicated on an ever expanding universe, but we have no way of knowing if it's always been expanding, or if it's say cyclical.
Speaking of marbles, I hope no one after listening to this lost theirs.
Um. Well. Um. This was, um. Interesting.
Finally, someone talking sensibly about the overblown hysteria over fine tuning.
Albert's understanding of physics is incorrect. The cosmological constant is actually very finely tuned, and that a small change in its value would have made the universe uninhabitable.
David Albert argues that the cosmological constant is not finely tuned, because it could have been much larger or smaller than it is, and the universe would still be able to exist. However, this is not true.
The cosmological constant is a measure of the dark energy in the universe. Dark energy is a repulsive force that is causing the universe to expand at an accelerating rate. If the cosmological constant were much larger than it is, the universe would have expanded so quickly that stars and galaxies would not have been able to form. If the cosmological constant were much smaller than it is, the universe would have eventually collapsed.
Therefore, the cosmological constant is very finely tuned. A small change in its value would have made the universe uninhabitable.
Here is a simple analogy: imagine a ball rolling down a hill. The hill represents the potential energy of the universe, and the ball represents the universe itself. If the hill is too steep, the ball will roll down too quickly and crash at the bottom. If the hill is too shallow, the ball will not roll down at all.
The cosmological constant is like the slope of the hill. If the cosmological constant were too large, the universe would expand too quickly and crash at the bottom. If the cosmological constant were too small, the universe would not expand at all.
The fact that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate tells us that the cosmological constant is very finely tuned. A small change in its value would have made the universe uninhabitable.
It is important to note that the cosmological constant is not the only physical constant that is finely tuned. For example, the strength of the nuclear force is also very finely tuned. If the nuclear force were slightly weaker, stars would not be able to fuse hydrogen into helium, and life would not be possible.
The fact that so many physical constants are finely tuned is one of the great mysteries of physics. There is no known scientific explanation for why this is the case.
@@les2997 Where did he state otherwise?
@@Florreking Lawrence Krauss called Albert a “moronic philosopher”.
@@les2997
"David Albert argues that the cosmological constant is not finely tuned, because it could have been much larger or smaller than it is, and the universe would still be able to exist."
With "the universe" I think you mean our particular universe, not A universe.
I find this very hard to believe. Nothing as such was stated in this video, or all the other of alberts interviews or talks does he refute the validity of dark energy and evidence of accelerated expansion.
Did you even watch the video? He defends the justification of claiming fine tuning for CC, since it is are argued from empirically confirmed theories and not from an a priori "principle of indifference", like the flatness problem.
"The fact that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate tells us that the cosmological constant is very finely tuned."
No.
"If the nuclear force were slightly weaker, stars would not be able to fuse hydrogen into helium, and life would not be possible." So?
We dont have a physical mechanism that explains free parameters, if they can, how and possible dependencies to other constants. If given such a model, a change in the nuclear force could for example necessarily induce changes in other known or new unknown constants. Fine tuning is a property of our model, of free parameters.
Something else would form. We simply dont know and posing such claims are arguably meaningless as of now.
One can assume a multiverse where free parameters are all expressed. Do we know their probability distributions? No. Can we state how likely or unlikely we, humans, carbon life, or general life forms are to exist? No.
Is it surprising that changing the world changes the world? No. Is it surprising that arbitrary laws do not all converge to human life forms? No.
"Lawrence Krauss called Albert a “moronic philosopher”."
You didnt answe my question.
From lawrence krauss: "certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don't seem to be so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective."
@@les2997 Yes, he said exactly that. Watch the video again.
He says it seems to him that you get "something out or nothing" when getting a probability of where the marble is. But do you really have nothing though? At least in his example, there IS an a priori knowledge, which is that there IS one single marble in one of the boxes. Not 2 marbles, not 3, not 0, just one marble, in one of the boxes. THAT, is the statement from which the statistics are derived, and it's not nothing.
I think the issue is that the argument confuses our lack of knowledge about where the marble is, which means we might think it's in any box, with the probability that whatever put the marble in the box put it in box 2. This latter probability is what we want to know. Maybe the marble was placed there by randomly allocating it to a box, or maybe the robot arm that put it there could only reach box 1 and so there was never any chance it would be put in either of the other boxes. We just don't know. So the 1/3 chance is a statement about our lack of knowledge, not a statement about the process that placed the marble. Similarly the anthropic argument is properly sees as a statement about our lack of knowledge about how the universe came to be, not a statement about the process that created it.
Trust (faith), Process (action), and Result (end)
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
The fact of alternative a priori possibilities does show the ungroundedness of our current picture, and that's the point of fine-tuning. Yes, the universe has to have some shape. To point out the logically possible shapes it could have had is another way of pointing out that we don't know the reason (grounding) for its actual shape. The higher the number of logically possible alternatives, the less we know about grounding. It merely indicates where the mystery lies.
>"The fact of alternative a priori possibilities "
How do you know there are other possibilities? Do you have any observations that show that other values were possible, and how the values we observer came to be selected?
@@simonhibbs887 I'm responding to his argument that just because there are alternative conceivables (a priori possibilities) does not imply actually low statistical probability that initial conditions are what they are. That is a point he made in this interview. A particular example he gives is the potentially infinite shapes of space as alternative conceivables (logical possibilities). I'm merely pointing out the work that alternative conceivables do in this context, which is to show ungroundedness.
@@koffeeblack5717 That’s fair enough. I think we need to distinguish between possible and conceivable. Universes with different constant values are conceivable but that doesn’t mean they are possible. In many situations we use the terms interchangeably but here the distinction is significant.
@@simonhibbs887 I prefer to distinguish between different kinds of possibility. Logically possible means without contradiction in concept, and so is the broadest. Then there is metaphysical possibility which is possible given our most basic assumptions about reality. Then empirical possibility, which is possibility given a set of empirical facts. In each case logical coherence is basic, but the more statements we assume, whether derived from observation, theory, or a body of knowledge, condition further the limits of basic coherence that we can assert. Thus the form of conditional possibility is always "possible given x". This is what modal logic seeks to model with possible worlds semantics.
In important respects, conceivability is a test or thought experiment for logical possibility or a more theoretical variety of conditional possibility. What these philosophical reflections show is where we lack grounding (reason for why x and not not x). The lack of grounding or prior determination for why things are the way they are indicates epistemic contingency, which is all the fine tuning crisis purports to be anyway.
He doesn’t know and no one else does either is what I got from this
ProfDaveAlb your such a great communicator and so clear is your words. I appreciate the thought and hard work you have put into the words you speak when answering these fundamental questions. Thanks you Closer to the truth!
Looking up at the night sky at all the stars is just like looking down on the pale blue dot 🔵 and you see all the glowing lights , coincidences?
Also , is anyone willing to make a bet , that there is a planet 🌎 almost 90-99 percent similar to earth in some galaxy, at this very instance of our time right this second your reading this , another you and me are typing and reading this. It won’t be 💯 exact but even 90 percent would be miraculously crazy no ?
Equation is simple , you roll a 100 trillion sided dice , and you get to roll it a 100 trillion times , how many times will you roll 1 ? Which is earth let’s say? It might not roll it once on 1 , or it might randomly roll a 1 like dozens who knows thousands of times ?
The same question could be applied to "dark matter" and "dark energy", both of which are tossed about as though they've both become the "accepted probabilities" despite there being no empirical evidence for the existence of either. What we think we see may not be what we see. What's the problem with that?
Well, the evidence for some causal phenomenon is the many observations we have, made by different teams using different methods and instruments. Marx Tegmark spoke about this in a recent clip on the channel. As he said, it's important we keep an open mind about the nature of the causes of these observations. Dark matter and Dark Energy are just labels which some people take more seriously than others. I look forward to find ing out which theory is correct, if I'm lucky enough for that to happen in my lifetime.
They're different names for the same thing. Aether isn't a probability. It's there where the chief elements derive from - which are only perturbation modalities of the Aether...
Mind you, Tesla acknowledged the aether stating that light is but a sound wave in the aether, the aether itself.
Maybe you think you're smarter than Tesla - i know Simon here thinks he is.
Thinking everything revolves around the empirical, or that the empirical is the fundamental, which you indirectly make known here... or that your senses are a criterion... the hell happened to you persons?
You're a piece of dust in this universe - don't you think, just maybe, that perhaps you have to come to her, instead of her being shoehorned into your reality.
The atheists, nihilists, atomists....
I'll never understand them.
@@S3RAVA3LM The existence of the aether was disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment. If light propagates through an aether then it’s speed must be constant relative to the aether. The experiment proved that this cannot be the case.
Philosophers of science (such as David Albert and Tim Maudlin) are the best interviewees for Closer to Truth. They know how to think carefully about metaphysical questions, and are skilled at detecting biased or unstated assumptions in other people's claims.
The only mistake Albert made here is at 2:54 when he said experiment could determine the probability that the marble is in box #2 in the scenario where the only thing that's known is that there is one marble and it's in one of the three boxes. (Unless I'm misinterpreting him about which scenario is to be experimentally tested.) The experimental design would need to specify the procedure(s) for placing one marble in one of three boxes. But the procedure(s) can't be specified without changing the scenario, because in the given scenario it's one of the unknowns. Two experimenters could design different procedures and thus reach different conclusions about the probability. An experimenter who designs a procedure that deposits the marble utterly randomly would conclude the probability is 1/3. An experimenter who designs a procedure that always deposits the marble in box #2 would conclude the probability is 1. So Albert erred when he said experiment can tell us the probability in the given scenario.
I think we can let him off, he's just saying that it's conceivable that such an experiment could be done, but yes his broader point is we don't know how the marble gets into a box at all. It could be it will always go into box 1. You can't get a probability out of a sample of 1.
@@simonhibbs887: Yes, and before I read your reply I added a sentence about the possibility that I misinterpreted Albert about which scenario is to be experimentally tested.
@@simonhibbs887: If we were forced to bet on whether the marble is in box #2, and assuming the stakes are very high, it would make sense to bet as if the probability is 1/3.
I can't get into the heads of people who think our "fine-tuned" universe is unlikely (without a god or a multiverse), but perhaps they feel forced to bet and thus bet it's unlikely.
Personally, I would be more satisfied if I knew the explanations of the values of the fundamental constants, the origin of the laws of physics, and the origin of the universe. One could say that unsatisfied curiosity is a crisis, especially because there are serious consequences when divisive or dangerous notions arise to fill the void left by lack of knowledge.
@@brothermine2292 >"If we were forced to bet on whether the marble is in box #2, and assuming the stakes are very high, it would make sense to bet as if the probability is 1/3."
I just posted a top level comment on this. It's the probability that someone would guess the marble is in that box, so it's a statement about our knowledge. It's not a statement about the process by which the marble was out in the box.
@@simonhibbs887 : I don't see the point in your reply. It appears to be unrelated to the quoted excerpt of my comment, which is about how to bet when ignorant of the process that put the marble in one of the boxes, and is not about that process.
I replied to the "top level" comment you mentioned. But my reply there is unrelated to my reply here.
Interesting discussion. He explains his position and points very clearly.
His emphasis on testable hypotheses makes sense which underlies the scientific method. That said, all of science/math lies on the foundation of axioms which are never proven, only asserted based on the axioms being rational assertions deemed simple enough to not argue over.
My guess is that most physicists accept principles of equal probability of all types of spaces as A Priori because they deem it simple enough to be considered axiomatic. That is well explained as a fallacy. Does this principle undermine any other axiomatic assertions in other domains.
Very sound reasoning. Even Stephen Hawking was made that fallacy in logic on several occasions as did Einstein.
Because Hawking and Einstein were notein the dame class with this gellow 0:03
more please
If I knew apriori which box the marble is in , I would assign it 100% certainty what box the marble is in. Only because I don't know, I reason with probability. This is the fundamentals of probability, what is so insane about it? [~2:30]
The problem is that your statement is about your uncertainty about where the Marble is. It's a statement about your lack of knowledge. It's not a statement about the actual location of the marble or the reasons why it got there.
The tool of probability assessment is useful for gambling and insurance companies to mediate losses, not for discerning reality. In reality the highly improbable can be possible.
I've been saying the same thing or something similar for years. That Fine Tuners presume that if its theoretically or mathematically possible that a value could be different then they fallaciously assume its possible with equal probability as any other value.
I appreciate these thoughtful discussions. But I feel like David Albert is missing the strength of the fine-tuning argument.
Imagine if you were a physicist living around 1950, slightly before Fred Hoyle began the process of discovering what we now call fine-tuning. Would you expect that most of the fundamental constants of physics (like the relative strengths of each of the four fundamental forces and the masses of different fundamental particles) as well as the initial conditions of the universe (like the entropy level) would have to have very precise values (in many cases amazingly precise values) in order for the universe to be capable of supporting life? Probably not. That would be like hearing that someone won a lottery and before knowing anything about the lottery thinking it was likely that they only had a 1 in 10 to 200th chance of winning. Of course, you would not expect that, since they actually did win. You would think that perhaps they were lucky (1 in a hundred million is lucky), but it would not seem plausible that they were super-astronomically lucky. But since Hoyle's time we have discovered that we are super-astronomically lucky that the universe can support life. That cries out for an explanation. The two most common explanations are that there is a multiverse where different universes have different fundamental constants and conditions OR there is a God who intended the universe to support life like us and He was smart enough and powerful enough to make our universe with the correct constants. I explain this in more detail in this video (my video is based largely on information from 4 books on fine-tuning I've read, 2 of which are written by atheists, one co-authored by an atheist and a Christian, and one written by a Christian):
ua-cam.com/video/s4ysjoErlFs/v-deo.html
>"But since Hoyle's time we have discovered that we are super-astronomically lucky that the universe can support life."
He's not missing anything, he's challenging the basic premise that we can say anything about the reasons why the universe is the way it is, including saying that it was lucky, or fine tuned, or anything else. If we genuinely don't know anything about how the universe came about, we can't say any of those things. That's what not knowing anything about it means.
> "That cries out for an explanation."
I'd like to know too, but I'm not prepared to make stuff up about it to fill the void.
@@simonhibbs887 , but it's not true that we don't know anything. There are lots of things we don't know, but some things we do know. Albert himself points out that we have some knowledge which gives us an expectation that the cosmological constant could have been vastly larger than it is. The fact that it is not only many, many orders of magnitude smaller than expected based on what we know, but also that it needs to have very nearly the value it actually does have for the universe to be life-permitting is surprising. This one example of fine-tuning should be enough to say that we have something that calls for an explanation.
But we also know the values of the different fundamental forces. That is something we know. It is not unreasonable to ask could the force of gravity have been as strong as the strong nuclear force? We know that it is not. We also know that if it was, or even if it was closer to that, the universe would not be life-permitting. Like the cosmological constant, it is fine-tuned for life.
We know what values of a whole set of both fundamental constants and initial conditions of the universe have (not perfectly, not with omniscient certainty, but well enough to reason from them). We also know, through modeling and theoretical physics (again not with absolute certainty) that the universe had to have very nearly these exact values and conditions to permit life. Does that not cry out for explanation?
@@MarkWCorbett1 There are two ways to look at the issue of the cosmological constant. One is to look at all the many theories that predict different values and the few theories that are consistent with the measured value, and think that having the measured value is unlikely.
However that's assigning an equal chance to all those theories that they are true. Is that a reasonable assumption? It's another case of assigning prior probabilities when we have no evidence to do so.
The other way is to use the fact that many theories are inconsistent with the measured value to exclude them, since they patently don't correspond to reality. That leaves us with many fewer theories left to consider. I think this approach is likely to be more productive.
The constants had to have these values to permit our life, but there are a wide range of values for many of the constants that could support complexity, and therefore could conceivably support some form of evolution and something analogous to life and observers. That doesn’t matter though, we don’t know how our universe came to be. That’s just a fact.
>Does that not cry out for an explanation?
Suppose I say yes. Then what? It doesn’t matter how much we cry out for an explanation, the anthropic argument can’t give you one. I’m not so desperate for an answer that I’m going to pretend that it does.
@@simonhibbs887 , I don't think we are limited to the anthropic argument (I'm not sure which form of that you are referring to). An argument to the best explanation, given all that we do know, is a reasonable way to argue. It is also reasonable to see fine-tuning from a more Bayesian/abductive point of view.
@@MarkWCorbett1 "Does that not cry out for explanation?" Sure. But immediately jumping to the "goddidit" knee-jerk response of theists is NOT the same as conducting a rational exploration of the topic free of bias. One of the fundamental problems the "fine tuning" proponents fail to acknowledge is that we ALSO don't know if there are other universe and/or if there were other universes before this one. We--living, conscious beings--are clearly "fine tuned" to exist in THIS universe...i.e. we arose and evolved within the parameters of this universe. Had the universe spawned with different values, we certainly wouldn't know it because we would likely never had existed. Heck, any number of different scenarios would entail a Universe that is spawned and just as quickly collapsed. And, again, we would have no way of knowing that, because they would never have given rise to living, conscious beings who could observe it. But none of that points to any sort of "intention" wrt this Universe. Maybe by pure chance this is the Universe that arose. Or maybe an infinite number of other Universes either exist alongside ours, or preexisted ours, and it just so happens that the random configuration of this one allowed for the existence of life. Again, at this point we just don't know...but that is NOT a reason to interject a deity into the discussion. ***And even if we do, now we have to figure out who/what created the deity, as it was clearly fine-tuned to be able to create Universes that support life.***
Random Access Memory?
David Albert isn’t really solving a problem here, he only pushes it to another level. If there are underlying reasons (which we don’t understand presently) why the universe is fine tuned for complexity, we should still ask ourselves why those underlying reasons? Why are they aligned with complexity and life?
You're just re-stating the fine tuning question, making the assumption that there is fine tuning. What he's saying is that we have no reason to make that assumption, and so it's not a reasonable question to ask in that way.
He wasn't tasked with solving a problem.
@@simonhibbs887 If there are ”higher reasons” (poorly understood by us) why the universe APPEARS to be fine tuned for complexity and life (when, as a matter of fact, there is no fine tuning), we should want to know why the higher reasons give rise to complexity and life. You might say, if you’re a materilist, “well, the higher principles simply exist, they need not be accounted for”. And I would reply, that’s a very strange place to stop the inquiry.
@@RikiTikiTaviXVX >'You might say, if you’re a materilist, “well, the higher principles simply exist, they need not be accounted for”. And I would reply, that’s a very strange place to stop the inquiry.'
You have it backwards. I am all for continuing the inquiry, I don't know how the universe came to be as it is, and Albert doesn't either. We would love to have the existence of our universe accounted for. It is the proponents of the anthropic argument that are trying to end, or limit the scope of the argument, by making unsupportable claims about how our universe came to be.
Albert and myself are not even claiming that we can exclude a fine tuner, or fine tuning mechanism. We're saying the anthropic argument does not provide any evidence for one. So we are very much on the side of keeping an open mind.
they are only aligned with complexity and life because it seems so by hindsight.
I didn’t know Louis CK was so insightful
Always like this guest. His responses are always very well thought out.
A very good and interesting one here! ( A lot to find on this channel, you probably know...)
Clear distinction here between the usual in physics BIG problem with initial conditions. in short here instead - no need to ask, they are what they are- still the puzzling dark energy/cosmological constant problem, given by maths theories and experiments is still a mystery. Not everyone will agree of course. Why the natural constants the way they are? Why this univerese? Still, this way of thinking by D. Albert, maybe makes it a little bit easier to fall asleep at night without having to solve every weird problem of the/this universe......
why worry? Enjoy ;)
I think the "fine tuning" of the Universe idea is backasswards. We are a product of the Universe, we are fine tuned to it. So in my mind given the properties of this Universe is as it is, we possibly could not arise from any other universe for that very reason.
I don't think this argument actually makes much sense.
@@matthewjett9070 It seems logical to me, cause and effect. We can't exist in a universe that has properties incompatible with our existence.
@@NWLee Are you arguing for or against the fine tuning argument? Or are you reformulating it? It sounds like you agree based on your comment.
@@matthewjett9070 I don't think it is logical for the universe to conform to our needs. We are a product of the Universe, we a result of this Universe, not the other way around.
@@NWLee Why it is not logical? I don't understand your reasoning. There are an infinite number of configurations the universe could have taken where life just doesn't work.
I would ask, who put the marble in the box? Then work back from there. The potential of the marble still holds the person's binding agent 🤭
2:34 Your guest is allowing himself to become snagged on what appears to me to be a fallacious premise.
You're not starting with "zero knowledge" of where the marble is located.
Rather, you know that the marble is in one and only one of the three containers.
So the starting point is not, "I have no idea where the marble is located".
The corre t starting point would look more like, "I have no idea which 9f these containers holds the marble. But I know that the marble is one of these three containers".
So you very well could and, dare I say say, "should", make the assumption that the marble has a one in three chance of being in any one of the containers, all else being equal.
Or am I missing something here (again...lol)?
Go Bluejays!!
What is the phenomenon we're assigning a probability of. Are we assigning a probability that whatever process put the marble in the box put it in box 2?
Suppose that the boxes come from a factory that makes sets of three boxes and always puts a marble in the first box. In this case the chances of the factory putting the marble in box 2 are actually zero.
I think what you are actually doing is assigning the probability that, if someone was asked to pick which box the marble is in, that they would pick box 2. That is not the question that matters though. The one that matters is not the posterior probability of selection, but the prior probability of assignment, and that's something we cannot know.
I interpreted that as him going back and forth between the somewhat bad example situation with the marble and the real one with fine tuning. We know much more about the marble than we do about fine tuning which I think he was trying to get at, where we don't know the denominator or even the numerator for that matter
Wonderful! Finally a coherent description of the fallacy of fine tuning!
Everything that exists has a 100% probability of existing, All existing things have some value that makes it what it is, the probability that it could be different is meaningless. What is the Probability a Horse could be an automobile? ask Ford. Anthropomorphic thinking has infected this with the puddle fallacy, it is what it is, when some value must be that value for us to exist, it's not us that defines it , it's it that defines us.
It is not meaningless that we don't know the probability that it could be different. I don't think you understand the fine tuning problem at all.
@@jamesjacob21 If it was different we would not be here to ask the question, we are here therefor it is not different. The very fact that we, through some function of the universe as it exists produced us. Any number of other possibilities may be able to produce us or something capable of asking the question, but they all result from the fundamentals as they exist in their {tune} , not as they might be in ours, the very fact of us being a result of our universes fine tuning means nothing except we are resultant from this X tune. The problem is not understanding we are resultant of these factors and {probably} any others would not produce the same set. Non arbitrary value's are just the cards the universe has to deal and expecting it to deal one's it doesn't have is meaningless.
It is just an opinion, but I think the cosmological constant problem lends NO support for the universe being finely tuned for life, BUT it might indicate an error in Einsteins assumptions, or QM needs a little tweeking.. Peace..
he said the same thing for 8 minutes... just wow
Calculating the probability of some coordinates for a quantum electron ... at the moment you get uour answer, is predictive during the activity, so doesn't this imply that you have to assume a symantecless inherent universe to hedge against God, where uniquely 0 and ∞ are substitutes from no effect when 'operated upon' by a finite number in the projective real numbers and doesn't this also require s novel interpretation of Hubbles expansionary univers findings, to classify it as science?
He doesn't seem to understand that both statistics and probability are _already admitting_ that we don't have certainty. If we know there is a marble in one of the boxes then saying 'I don't have a clue' is not correct. His argument more like walking up to a set of three boxes and saying 'Well, there must be a 1/3 probability of a marble being in one of the boxes' when we don't even know if there is a marble at all.
That being said, I agree with him that the FTA is an imagined problem... it is flawed on so many levels I am surprised any rational thinker falls for it.
Look, I've just about had enough of this "Fine Tuning" lark.
Nobody knows why the universe appears to be fine tuned.
My electric piano appears to be fine tuned, but it has no strings !
It's very flawed logic to assert the hypothetical answer is anything but one third. Recall the original question was one person saying to another "there is a marble in one of these three boxes. What's the probability that it's in box two?" The one third answer is anything but "insane" as he describes. Only later does he add qualifiers to the original question by asking about the boxes history and prior use. This obfuscates and makes the original question something very different from that point in the argument where he begins to change the descriptive character of these three boxes. Remember, he originally said nothing more than there being three boxes and one has a marble in it. If this experiment were actually conducted by completely random means where one marble was placed in one of the three boxes hundreds of times and subjects were asked the probability of any of the three boxes, it would be confirmed that (in general) each respondent would be correct an average of 33 percent of the time. There's nothing "insane" about basic logic.
So why is the speaker taking aim at what some speciously call the "fallacy" of fine tuning.The answer is, this is what pure empiricism does best and it answers very little. The speaker is making the assertion that reality can only be understood via empirical methods. In other words if it can't be weighed, measured or observed it can't possibly be valid. His repeated use of the word "empirical" shows his intellectual predilection for a "facts only" approach to understanding the universe. His use of "empiricism" is actually no more than garden variety skepticism, and it has no hope of answering the deepest questions about the cosmos. It's no surprise he's a physicist. Empiricism and a materialistic view of the world are tailor made for each other as both reinforce and validate the reluctance to see any possibility that a transcendent agent is present in all existent reality.
Skeptics like the one here like to get invitations to lectures, symposiums and conferences, and any speculation about "fine tuning" being something other than random raises eyebrows with colleagues, better to play it safe.
>"If this experiment were actually conducted by completely random means where one marble was placed in one of the three boxes hundreds of times and subjects were asked the probability of any of the three boxes, it would be confirmed that (in general) each respondent would be correct an average of 33 percent of the time. There's nothing "insane" about basic logic."
You are making the assumption here that the process that put the marble in the box does so randomly, with an even distribution. How do you know that? We have no reason to make that assumption. Suppose that the process is a machine that always puts a marble in Box 1. Then the prior probability the marble will be in box 2 is zero.
So the 1/3 probability is not a statement about the process that assigned the marble to a box. As Albert correctly points out, we don't know anything about that process. It's actually a statement about our lack of knowledge about where the marble is.
@@simonhibbs887 I understand your point but your point was not made in the original hypothetical question (please review the posting from 1:08 onward) He doesn't say the marbles were placed by a non random process. The way he states the question makes it thoroughly reasonable for the hearer of that question to assume the process of placing the marbles was completely random which is completely logical and the only reasonable answer to that "leading" question is to say the probability of the marble being in box 2 is exactly 33 and 1/3 percent. Now if he were to add conditions and stipulations after the hypothetical subject gave his one third answer than that would change the subjects estimation of one third, but he doesn't. In other words had the questioner been told before giving his answer that box number two has a hole in its bottom, then that would certainly change the calculus whereby he reached his one third conclusion. He is changing the terms of the original question by adding qualifiers post facto. The original question is really a trick question because he didn't give the subject who's being asked the question all the information.
You are correct when you say;
"So the 1/3 probability is not a statement about the process that assigned the marble to a box."
You're exactly right. None of the particularities of that hypothetical process were mentioned in the original question and it was assumed the process was random, so how can we expect any other answer than one third.
If I watch a baseball game with a friend for an hour and we're both completely immersed in the action and he says to me afterward. "That was great. Let's go play catch. I would assume he meant with a baseball and gloves. When he throws a football at me, he has changed the tenor and substance of his original statement "Let's go play catch." Yet my first assumption is still logically correct in thinking he meant baseball not football.
When the terms of any question are changed after any answer to that original question then the logic of the respondents answer to that original question still obtains.
@@michaelmckinney7240 >”The way he states the question makes it thoroughly reasonable for the hearer of that question to assume the process of placing the marbles was completely random…”
I see the problem here, the anthropic argument is not his argument. It’s an argument he is responding to. So first he states the argument as it is put forward and argued by it’s proponents. Later he gives his analysis and points out it’s flaws.
>”He is changing the terms of the original question by adding qualifiers post facto. “
He’s not adding qualifiers. He’s pointing out that proponents of the argument are making assumptions they have no reason to make. The problem is precisely that the anthropic argument is a badly stated question. That’s not his fault.
@@simonhibbs887 It sounds like he's in agreement with the anthropic argument which is no more than a clumsy and unpersuasive attempt to dismiss a real and undeniably operative principle of our universe. It's essence is the assertion that because our brains are inextricably linked to the same forces that produced the symmetry and ordered regularity of the cosmos our brains automatic default position is to affirm its own internal predilection. This argument is unconvincing because it rests on the flawed premise that objective thought is not possible because the brain is preconditioned toward bias. Total objectivity is impossible as quantum mechanics confirms but generally speaking our senses accurately report the physical reality surrounding us and can be relied upon within the range of normal human experience. When observers state that the cosmos seems fine tuned they're basing this assertion on hard science not speculation. For example we know that the forces of matter, antimatter, gravity and the outward blast wave of the Big Bang were ultimately resolved to produce a long lived universe, and only a long lived universe could allow the evolution of stars, planets, galaxies and sentient life. Is it really convincing to call this "apriori" thinking? Cosmology confirms the "fine tuning" phenomenon to be real and despite the speakers assertion that this poses a problem or a crisis, the problem and crisis is real only for those who are wedded to empiricism. The threat or crisis is really an opportunity to see the universe from a deeper perspective. The bias against "fine tuning" is based on what it implies. That being, a fundamental acceptance that our cosmos has been brought into existence by a transcendent agent of ultimate power. This comes way too close to a theological conclusion and this is, and will always be anathema to materialism. Empiricism and materialism are joined at the hip and so have been dancing together for a long time. Empiricism is vital when designing an aircraft wing or a vaccine but it's hopelessly inadequate in solving the universes ultimate mystery.
I don't know, this fine tuning talk smacks of intelligent design, and I don't like it.
I mean, it's like asking why a true random number generator generated the number it did.
It must be pure torture to have a daily domestic disagreement with David. He just crushes logic.
Thank you very much.
Well, if i first admit that i have no clue about the game. Then maybe you'll give me more information about the marble game?
I'll then be forced to choose.😮 33% chance, hopefully its not a "corner-street-hustle trick" and i lose my money.
Sidenote: i looked up "a priori" assumptions about human nature
Either way, i choose. I choose, and i "some how i knew exactly where the marble was, or was not."
"One could say that unsatisfied curiosity is a crisis, especially because there are serious consequences when divisive or dangerous notions arise to fill the void left by lack of knowledge." - another user
Thanks!
Given enough time and universes.....................Ha
Jeez ! How big is that guy..?!?
2:30. No. The situation is one where you have to assign a probability. If he picked box number one he would assign the same probability. Nothing astonishing there.
Oh, he trying to make a point about a priori knowledge visa vis empirical experience.
Correct, lack of a priori knowledge is the issue. We don't 'have' to assign a probability at all. We can just be honest and say we don't know. The anthropic argument is best seen as a statement about our lack of knowledge, not a statement about how the universe came to be.
I enjoyed that. Agreed. The universe mass produces uniqueness using common processes and principles, such that vanishingly small probabilities result from a priori thinking, but nevertheless, uniqueness is the norm (at the human scale). Every planet, moon, sun, asteroid... Small probabilities "of x being like itself" mean little or nothing.
Albert talks as if he never ran into the difference between empirical randomness and epistemological randomness.
The FT universe argument fails to establish anything. A universe with constants that are consistent with our biological existence is the ONLY universe that we biological observers could possibly observe. We cannot logically observe a universe that is incompatible with our existence! So, observing that our universe is compatible with our existence as observers is not at all surprising. On the contrary, what *would* be surprising (if not impossible) is to observe a universe that is Incompatible with our existence!
The reason why philosophers and physicists fail to get to the bottom of fine tuning is they are more prepared to hide divine design, then to get to the truth.
YEP, and I'm not a christian or anything else
Nobody's stopping anyone else from getting to the bottom of it. There are plenty of physicists and philosophers that do take fine tuning seriously, so there's no conspiracy against it. I just think they're wrong.
See, you are scared to face the truth. You are confident without giving any scientific argument. Implies you are scared the truth is divine design.@@simonhibbs887
Can you define "divine design?"
You should know, you are an atheist.@@gregorymercurio7402
I don’t understand him. I think is a very stupid argument. Only a empty minded being can look at the boxes and don’t try to calculate the odds beforehand. Even my dog sniffs them.
The odd beforehand are the odds that the process by which a marble was put in the box put it in box 2. But that process might always result in the marble going into box 1. We have no way to know. The 1/3 value is not a statement about the process that put the marble in the box, it's a statement about our knowledge about which box the marble might be in. Basically it's the chance that, if someone was asked to guess which box the marble is in, that they would pick that box. That tells us nothing at all about the process that placed the marble though.
You say you don't understand but then you don't hesitate to call it stupid. We know much more about the marble in the cup (1 marble, 3 cups, therefore 1/3) but we don't know any of that information about our own universe, not the numerator or the denominator. It's incorrect reasoning to assume either of those numbers due to a total lack of empirical evidence
@@kylebowles9820 I don’t understand the reasoning. That’s all. And the universe is fine tuned. If the theories about the multiverses are correct ( I’m not saying they are) then all the infinite universes are also fine tuned in infinite different ways. That’s the only requirement for them to exist.
@@dplouro The fine tuning argument isn't just saying that the universe has very specific characteristics. Everything that exists has exactly the characteristics it has, that's not what fine tuning means. It's a specific claim that the exact characteristics of the universe were tuned somehow from a range of possibilities.
@@simonhibbs887 yes. That’s exactly what I think. Like all living things the universe ( or universes ) are a result of natural selection until stability is achieved.
"I have no clue" also means "I make no prediction". Physicist don't take the easy way out. They try to predict something. Saying the probabilities are 1/3 for each box may not be right, but it is a theory and when tested by experiment can be verified or falsified. I grow weary of philosophical spaghetti tossing.
You may not like the statistical/probabilistic basis for Quantum Mechanics, but the model is based on observation, it has been tested extensively and to many decimal places. In other words, it says "I make a prediction and that prediction is correct to the best I can determine."
Physics has struggled from the start as to the nature of the Wave Function and if it is real or a statistical machine that just works. This video has added nothing to that discussion and hasn't even illuminated the issue.
>"Saying the probabilities are 1/3 for each box may not be right, but it is a theory and when tested by experiment can be verified or falsified."
Unfortunately we can't create new universes in the laboratory, so this isn't an experiment we're going to be able to perform any time soon.
What probability are we trying to estimate? I think we're trying to guess the prior probability that whatever process put a marble in the box put it in box 2. But suppose that process always puts a marble in box 1. In that case the probability it put one in box 2 is zero.
When we assign our own guess at the probability, at that point the marble is already in a box, we just don't know which one. The 1/3 probability is actually a statement about our lack of knowledge about which box the marble is in. It's a statement about the chances of us guessing correctly which box has the marble, not a statement about where the marble is or how it got there.
Very disappointed. Albert did not address the core of the question, that is if the constants miss by a tiny tiny amount, there will be no life, at least no life that we can conceive of. Yes, the curvature of universe has huge number of options, the probability of being near flat is extremely small. But that is irrelevant to the present question, because many many other curvatures may create a universe. It will be different from ours but physicists can calculate its characteristics. To pursue this line of argument further, he needs to show that a slight change of curvature will make a universe impossible. But then he will be stuck because the near flatness becomes another fine-tuning problem
These are just clips from interviews. What you wrote above is basically just a statement of what the fine tuning question is. I think knowing that is assumed in this clip.
@@simonhibbs887 Thanks. My point is that the flat surface is not a suitable analogy, because we do not know whether a tiny change of curvature can or cannot created a universe. At least I am not aware of a theory that says a tiny change cannot create a universe similar to ours. But we do know that a tiny change of constants cannot create life.
@@cchang2771 Actually we don’t know that a tiny change of constants cannot create life. We know that it would not create a universe like our own, with the specific particles and fields and such ours is composed of. It may be that different values would produce similarly complex but utterly different universes.
@@simonhibbs887 We do know. It may produce similarly complex but different universes but it would not produce life as we know it. The "fine tuning" problem by definition is that a tiny change of a specific amount cannot create life.
See Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (many of the numbers below are exponents, for example, 10 50 means 10exp(50)
1. Fine-Tuning for Life: the Evidence
1.1 Examples from Physics
1.1.1 Fine-tuned constants
The strength of gravity, when measured against the strength of electromagnetism, seems fine-tuned for life (Rees 2000: ch. 3; Uzan 2011: sect. 4; Lewis & Barnes 2016: ch. 4). If gravity had been absent or substantially weaker, galaxies, stars and planets would not have formed in the first place. Had it been only slightly weaker (and/or electromagnetism slightly stronger), main sequence stars such as the sun would have been significantly colder and would not explode in supernovae, which are the main source of many heavier elements (Carr & Rees 1979). If, in contrast, gravity had been slightly stronger, stars would have formed from smaller amounts of material, which would have meant that, inasmuch as still stable, they would have been much smaller and more short-lived (Adams 2008; Barnes 2012: sect. 4.7.1).
The strength of the strong nuclear force, when measured against that of electromagnetism, seems fine-tuned for life (Rees 2000: ch. 4; Lewis & Barnes 2016: ch. 4). Had it been stronger by more than about
50
%
, almost all hydrogen would have been burned in the very early universe (MacDonald & Mullan 2009). Had it been weaker by a similar amount, stellar nucleosynthesis would have been much less efficient and few, if any, elements beyond hydrogen would have formed. For the production of appreciable amounts of both carbon and oxygen in stars, even much smaller deviations of the strength of the strong force from its actual value would be fatal (Hoyle et al. 1953; Barrow & Tipler 1986: 252-253; Oberhummer et al. 2000; Barnes 2012: sect. 4.7.2).
The difference between the masses of the two lightest quarks-the up- and down-quark-seems fine-tuned for life (Carr & Rees 1979; Hogan 2000: sect. 4; Hogan 2007; Adams 2019: sect. 2.25). Partly, the fine-tuning of these two masses obtains relative to the strength of the weak force (Barr & Khan 2007). Changes in the difference between them have the potential to affect the stability properties of the proton and neutron, which are bound states of these quarks, or lead to a much simpler and less complex universe where bound states of quarks other than the proton and neutron dominate. Similar effects would occur if the mass of the electron, which is roughly ten times smaller than the mass difference between the down- and up-quark, would be somewhat larger in relation to that difference. There are also absolute constraints on the masses of the two lightest quarks (Adams 2019: fig. 5).
The strength of the weak force seems to be fine-tuned for life (Carr & Rees 1979). If it were weaker by a factor of about
10
, there would have been much more neutrons in the early universe, leading very quickly to the formation of initially deuterium and tritium and soon helium. Long-lived stars such as the sun, which depend on hydrogen that they can burn to helium, would not exist. Further possible consequences of altering the strength of the weak force for the existence of life are explored by Hall et al. (2014).
The cosmological constant characterizes the energy density
ρ
V
of the vacuum. On theoretical grounds, outlined in Section 5 of this article, one would expect it to be larger than its actual value by an immense number of magnitudes. (Depending on the specific assumptions made, the discrepancy is between
10
50
and
10
123
.) However, only values of
ρ
V
a few order of magnitude larger than the actual value are compatible with the formation of galaxies (Weinberg 1987; Barnes 2012: sect. 4.6; Schellekens 2013: sect. 3). This constraint is relaxed if one considers universes with different baryon-to-photon ratios and different values of the number Q (discussed below), which quantifies density fluctuations in the early universe (Adams 2019: sect. 4.2)
Just because a system has high sensitivity to a particular input doesn't have any bearing on the probability of the state. It could be that the large scale curvature of the universe is quantized, and at this energy there is only one solution. Then the sensitivity of that value doesn't correspond to a change in state and therefore has no effect on probability.
Thanks for a great look at cosmological thinking. People are basically sheep in a herd. Goats have a different perspective and think differently. Progress for the masses. Follow the goat but not to the slaughter house. Thinking is hard and stupid people tend to not even try. Ah, the contentment of sheep. Be a goat.
Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability:
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)
Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness.
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)
Nice information a counter argument would be that over time say billions of years would allow time to build complexity for e.g in just 60 years it went from the write Brothers to a space rocket on the moon imagine a billion? Ofcourse a cell has 15 million bits of data? Why do we even have a universe the probability of life is 1 in 10^2,685,000
The moment of lucid evolutionary mythology is in our heads and it now has less value than another time because we need an excuse. Haha
Of course we studying how our brains rationalize the universe around us and all we have is an approximation of tools to use on this paradox
What a nonsense. "I don't know anything about where the marble is". That's not true. You were told there is a marble. Then you were told there were three boxes. And you were told the marble is in one of these boxes. That makes the best possible guess that it's in the middle box 1/3.
About the cosmological fine-tuning : well, you can find a pair of shoes on a beach. You know nothing about the history of these shoes. But you can hypothesize that these shoes are meant to be put on feet. You can't say "I do not know anything about these shoes, they could have materialized because of a quantum fluctuation" - it is perfectly reasonable to put these shoes in the context of what you know: that it's likely these shoes were made by somebody or at least they do not seem to be a logical manifestation of the randomness of sand and pebbles you find on a beach. Likewise, it is perfectly reasonable to hypothesize about cosmological fine tuning. Be it that there are multiple universes each with other constants, or that the constants actually are the result of a deeper physical process, or whatever.
Seriously, you dont need to know prior probabilities and do a careful analysis to see that physics is fine-tuned for life. When you understand physics it is staring you in the face. Low entropy is not fine-tuning. Cosmological constant may or may not be fine-tuning. The argument for fine tuning comes mostly from nuclear physics, chemistry and the strength of gravity.
Bizarre claim that the universe is “fine tuned” for life when 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999 % of the universe appears to be devoid of life .
A universe fine tuned fir life would see life everywhere - in empty space , in the center of stars etc .
If anything - this universe is fine tuned for black holes . They are everywhere and are numerous .
All I need to do is look in a mirror and I know the universe is fine-tuned for me
@@tonyatkinson2210 If it was fine-tuned by intelligent design there would be no need for wide open space, barren planets etc, but if it is fine-tuned by an anthropic selection principle then what we observe is what would be expected.
@@doctorlove3119sure . Now prove it by flying to the next galaxy .
@@doctorlove3119 I disagree, you are fine-tuned to the Universe.
This guy implicitly says he admits the limitation of physics to explain certain things and that it is a waste of time asking certain questions. Fine tuning does not lend itself to probabilistic analysis. Things just are the way they are. The paradigm that frames this thinking is that of the materialist and that is fine. It is clear that some questions can only be posed if one abandons the realm of scientific objectivity and one enters the realm of subjectivity, which appears to be framed by our individual consciousness. It gets of course even more complicated because science can not explain consciousness...There is no model for it. There is no formal mathematical definition of what it is and no explanation of how it arises. Others, like the idealists argue that consciousness is not material. (i.e Paradigm shift) What we refer to as an objective world is deeply rooted on a field of subjectivity. (see quantum mechanics and the problem of the observer)
He needs Fine-tuning his voice so sound comes out of mouth not nose 😂.
Sorry, I'm not buying the argument. The premise that probability is the determining factor of why things are the way they are strikes me as ludicrous. It boarders on a straw-man argument.
David's math is slow,so why aren't you asking relevant questions instead of apparently backing backing him up ?
What probability are we estimating? I think that the probability we are after is the chance that the process which put a marble in a box put it in box 2. What do we know about that process? Nothing, except that it put a marble in a box. Let's suppose the boxes came from a factory that makes rows of three boxes, and always puts a marble in box 1. In this case the chance that the factory put a marble in box 2 is zero.
The one third chance estimate is not about the process that put the marble in the box. It's a statement about our knowledge of which box the marble might be in. It's basically the probability that, if someone was asked to guess which box the marble is in, that they would pick box 2. That tells us nothing about the actual probability that the marble was put in box 2.
If we say that this constant only had a one in a thousand chance of having this value, that only makes sense if the process by which the value was selected was a random process, and that it has an even distribution of probabilities for the value. That's two very big, very specific assumptions to make about a process we know nothing about.
Where you assert that 1/3 is the probability that people would guess box #2, you must have an unstated reason why you believe the probability is 1/3 that they would guess box #2. Is there any more to that reason besides your knowledge / experience / educated guess about how most people behave when they lack knowledge? What if some people have a bias regarding the numbers 1, 2, and 3, and the subsets who think 1 or 3 is their lucky number isn't exactly twice as large as the subset who think 2 is their lucky number? Then 1/3 isn't the correct probability that people would guess box #2. Please elaborate on why you believe it is... are you actually making a guess about people's guessing behavior using "a priori probabilities" due to your lack of knowledge of the actual processes that all people use to guess which box?
@@brothermine2292 To be fair you're right, we can't even say the probability of someone guessing it is necessarily 1/3. We actually can't say anything useful about the probability at all. Thank you. I still think the 1/3 is at best a statement about our confidence of where the marble might be, but it has nothing to do with the actual probability.
@@simonhibbs887 : Yes, you could call it "confidence." That's what my comment on how to bet when ignorant (if forced to bet) is about. I infer that you agree that it makes sense to bet as if the probability is 1/3. And I think that's similar to betting that a universe "tuned" for life is very unlikely without a god or multiverse, even though we don't know the true probability.
Apparently Albert doesn't agree that it makes sense to bet as if the probability is 1/3. But on the other hand, he didn't clearly deny that that's how he would bet if forced to bet.
@@brothermine2292 The point is not only are not being asked to make such a bet. We also have no reason to assign any such confidence. It’s purely a statement about our lack of knowledge. Inferring that it gives us actual knowledge about the real process by which the universe came about, or that this process was probabilistic, or anything about that process at all is unwarranted. The Anthropic line of reasoning gives us no such knowledge.
@@simonhibbs887 : I partially agree... we lack knowledge of the actual process and therefore the actual probability. However, I see now that I misunderstood you earlier when I wrote that what you call "confidence" is what I was writing about in my comment about how to bet when ignorant of the actual probability.
When you claim "we" aren't being asked to bet, it looks like you're speaking for yourself using the "royal we" and you're not speaking for everyone. Recall that I wrote, in my comment about how to bet when forced to bet, that I can't get inside the heads of others, some of whom may believe they're forced to bet. Do you claim to be able to get inside their heads, where you wrote "we" aren't asked to bet?
Are you kidding. Fine tune????Dinosaurs didnt last. . .
Guys shows he doesnt understand Newton in terms universe . He ceticism are cover up his ignorance about phich proceendings . Guys is more interesting in show up Fine tuning though ceticism than figure out phich reality honestly He figure out Fine tuning is nill phich reality. He Fine tuning is only rethoric without evidence
Fine tuning (antropic principle) is a mistake.
Big mistake.
Great pragmatic philosopher.
That is amazing! Fine tuning theory is dead to me after this video. Never liked it anyway.
If this guy could be more NASAL, he'd be more credible.
Imperfections are NOT fallacies of fine-tuning but, rather, an important part of it....
God the Holy Spirit magnificently and perfectly fine-tuned the Universe not only with perfections but also imperfections for mankind to understand the differences between bad, good, better, and best to give them a hint that there is a better or worse place out there (heaven or hell) so to hopefully find faith in a loving Creator for their souls' salvation which is life's main purpose.
Here is the question you keep avoiding. What makes you think that what you or anyone else has made up about any gods is true?
@@tomjackson7755 Have faith in a loving God and you may receive the light that can make you understand God better that may inspire you also to share to the world.. This may also drive your demons away to save your lost soul...
@@evaadam3635 Oh look more complete nonsense while avoiding answering the question.
Are you avoiding answering the question because it shows that you have no idea what you are talking about?
(2:00) *DA: **_"That seems like a really suspicious example of getting something for nothing."_* ... I like Albert's thinking on this. I am a huge proponent of mathematics, logic, and probability, but they're not the end-all for explaining every phenomenon we encounter. ... There is a lot more to "Existence" than mathematical predictions alone can address!
Beware of any propositions that are based on "likelihood" statistics. *Example:* Take a proposition such as, _"Statistics show that (type of person) is 33.3% more likely to do (fill in the blank) than those who aren't like that."_ ... Now, the fact is that you can be a perfect match for whatever that "type of person" is and yet there is a *0% probability* that you will ever do (fill in the blank). ... However, the statistics claim that there's a 1-out-of-3 likelihood that you will.
This is what happens when mathematics and logic are used to fulfil a predetermined narrative.
Fun to see Kuhn silenced on his usual attempts to force hoodoo into science. The stop asking invalid questions response was great!
More fluff. Just because he does not understand does not make it a non "crisis". If his explanation is brute, that it had to be, then he has to explain why he cannot phantom any other possibility which was just as likely. Lack of imagination or thereof.
He did not offer an explanation, how can he when his point is that we don't know? We can imagine lots of different reasons for the creation of the universe, or why it is this way, but we have no way to test them. Therefore we have no evidence we can use to assign probabilities to any of them.
Waffle!!! A waist of 8 minutes.
The marble could be in any box but only known when observed😎consciousness is infinite and survives after physical matter is destroyed..Telepathy is very real and communication between other dimensions can be done..Everything is energy,frequency and a vibration and is infinite and eternal😎
It's a shame none of these amazing abilities ever seem to be useful for anything.
@simonhibbs887 its very useful if you can communicate and interpret telepathically especially with passed energy/matter/people that have transformed..This dimension is nothing compared to other dimensions..Being aware of exactly what we are opens Pandora's box😎
@@cheforyourpartyprivatehire9765 What use have people put this to? It seems like if any of that worked it would be very popular