The Fine-Tuning Argument: A Non-Mathematical Critique
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @vimoh
Support this channel at / vimoh
Or make a one-time donation at vimoh.stck.me
Let us talk about the fine tuning argument and let us try to debunk it without using mathematics because I think it is possible. This argument looks and sounds like a great big scientific. Theory, but it's actually not. It's actually quite silly. So today I am going to try to debunk the fine tuning argument without using any mathematics whatsoever.
What is the fine tuning argument? In a nutshell, it is the idea that the universe is very big and very vast and very complicated. But there are certain fundamental properties of it that if even if they were a little bit different, would make the universe completely inhospitable to life, and by life we mostly mean us, But we'll get to that.
I am Vimoh, an Indian atheist and my videos have to do with religion, atheism, Indian culture, and sometimes contemporary political happenings.
Below are some videos from this channel that every Indian atheist must watch.
✔️ Videos for the Indian atheist - • Delving Deeper
✔️ How I became an atheist - • My journey between rel...
✔️ Why I am not a "Hindu atheist" - • Why I am not a Hindu A...
✔️ Why I am not a "Hindu atheist" (part 2) - • Belief in karma = beli...
✔️ The Indian atheist problem - • The Indian atheist pro...
✔️ Why atheism is important - • You can't fight irrati...
The shoe says wow, the foot is just designed perfectly for me to fit onto
That assumes that there are multiple shoes or feet. Yes you can customise a shoe for yourself bet you didn't know that
Not sure about other things but human emotions are perfectly tuned, especially the "stupidity" one...
I love it 😂🔥
Great production quantity 👌. And content, as usual, is awesome.
When one says fine tune. It inherently implies a designer doing the fine tuning. These are causal relations that we measure and label in hindsight. If the universe was a little different life would not be possible.... but the universe is so diverse. It's so different at different levels and constantly changing. We human are the outcomes of endless possibilities. Our bodies itself host millions of organisms. It's already so different. A little different orbit and Mars dried up. A little different geography and the culture and bio diversity changes.
Yes life is mysterious. We have a go a long way
if some of the propreties of the universe were slightly different life wouldn't have been possible, not only for us as humans but for every kind of life; this is a pretty established concept which was and is accepted even by known atheists like Stephen Hawkings.
Now the point here is how do we explain it.
Chance is simply pathetic as an explanation.
Necessity is also unjustified as an explanation.
Therefore the best explanation and the more intuitive is intention.
It is not arrogance, it is simply the best explanation of the facts.
vimoh please also make all your videos in hindi/urdu , we need more sane voices in our native languages .
3.49...😂😂😂😂😂
human has the ability to survive in any condition, but laziness is stopping us, aur ansestor has far more capacity than us
That ability is human created, no?
Your foolish logic is causing me headache. The fine tuning argument is that if there were any slight changes in any of the conditions from what they are now, the universe would collapse. Example: fine tuning in atoms. In your example at the start of mountains trees etc. removing any of those would not immediately end the existence of everything. you seem to be missing the point.
Previously theists used to claim our natural surroundings as a fine tuned gift from the God to mankind like the mountains, river, rain, Sun etc. Now we were able to explain why all these are happening, theists moved the same idea towards the extremes i.e., The smallest (atoms) and biggest (universe) are perfect and the constants that govern these are finely tuned for these to exist and thus leading to formation of complex atoms and molecules that we currently have and If the universal observed constants are not finely tuned as it is now, then it would have stopped from it's beginning just after Big Bang. If you just see the standard model of subatomic particles except electron, up and down quark which form the Proton and Neutron nothing else is stable. What if there is a different set of constants that can lead to a more stable variety of subatomic particles forming different structures of even more varied atoms and molecules that could also lead to life. Why do you only consider an alternative set of constants where atoms never form at all. Then If you consider the universe based on the observed cosmological constant 'A' and gravitational constant G, stars and galaxies are leaving our observable universe at an accelerated rate of 73 km/sec for every Mega parsec distance from the earth. Why don't we have a stable universe that has a slow expansion rate after Big Bang just enough to counter the gravitational pull... Why does it have an accelerated expansion ? It's more likely the universe is formed in such a way randomly and life came into existence based on what it got (carbon hydrogen oxygen... which are made of Proton neutron and electron) and evolved into us in a remote planet adapting to its environment with numerous failed species from years of evolution but we think this is the only way the universe might exist and form atoms with subatomic particles that are known to us. It's obviously human arrogance that everything starting from 13 billion years ago happened for us.
wait. if the universe was any other way, then we wouldnt exist to make this arguement in the first place. its similar to flipping a coin 1000 times and recording the outcomes and then later on claiming that the chances of this exact pattern to emerge is so low that god must have willed this pattern. but the pattern did occur and as long as the observer exists, no matter what the pattern is, the observer would make the exact same statement.
There is difference between shooting an arrow at a target ... and .... randomly shooting an arrow somewhere, then going and paitining the target around where it landed. - The latter scenario is exactly like every fine tuning arguement ever made by theists.
This is brilliant! I'm surprised you needed no physics/math xD Human arrogance is indeed the true centre of the Universe :)
Am sorry but i dont see any speicifc refutation of the premises and the conclusion..
The fact that the universe is fine tuned is a widely accept fact amonst physicists. Its not like if they were different a different life form would come into existent.. not even carbon or any of the elements beyond helium or hydrogen would be possible without these fine tuning of certain conditions..
Coming to the idea that we might have been a mistake? Ya sure that is possible but that is not the point of the argument is it?
The vastness of the universe doesnt negate that there is indeed a small pocket here on earth (or possibility other planets) where there is evidence of design rather than chance... Its like saying the entire car is not designed for putting the audioset... So the audioset is probably not designed for this car... Its enough if it is should that even a small narrow spot is designed.. the argument still works...
Yeah, but physicists mean something vastly different when they say fine tuned, unsurprisingly they don't base their physics on terrestrial life. The question is what would happen if the constants were different and no one knows. Theoretical physicists model what would happen if the constants we have were different, but there is no way to model what would happen if we had entirely different constants, or even the same constants we have now but with a single additional constant. As a result, all of their argumentation is based on an infinitesimal portion of probability space. For all we know, life is possible in 99.999999% of possible universes. There's no way to know which is why the argument fails.
Vimoh I take the fine tuning argument this way, if the universe is due to big bang then then why do the constant exist like universal gravitational constant or why there are laws like Newton's Law, Coulomb's Law, or why is e=mc^2 applicable everywhere and many more formulas we have studied in our school life. Don't say that it is due to humans who gave the laws, laws are not made after human gave it existed before and we can say that after big bang all theses laws existed we just found or we can say we discovered so *Vimoh answer don't run i will wait, if you don't answer i will take it as my win.
Come to the live stream this Saturday at 8 pm and we can talk face to face. Will be happy to explain everything.
@@vimoh Thank you for inviting but don't get me wrong and I am just honest see I questioned so that I could get the answer and make you think about it , not for debate I could even accept the debate but I don't think I could do good debate with you after all I am just 16 year old boy I just wanted your reply as in form of video or in form of comment. I would love if you answer my question. I would love if we would continue our talk in other ways like in emails.
Implicit to your question is that these constants are unlikely (surely you wouldn't think it was strange for that to be the gravitational constant if you thought it was 99.9999% likely that any possible universe would have the same constant, for example).
The question then is: why think it is unlikely? Does it matter that it is unlikely (if the constant was different, would we just get different life, for example).
Personally, I don't have a strong intuition about whether it is likely or not or whether it would even be coherent for these constants to be different. So you need to motivate that premise or the argument collapses.
I wonder how much our innate fear of randomness and, ultimately, death plays into these anthropocentric delusions. Psychologists like Irwin Yalom (who wrote a brilliant treatise on existential psychodynamics) believe it's central to our neurological makeup. I'm inclined to agree with him.
Life is created around the universe not the universe was created around Life.
Ladies and gentlemen I present to you, one of the four horsemen of our own Indian subcontinent!!! Vimoh! 🙌 Take a bow!
Vi tere 16 k subscribers or tere bate sun ke lag rahi hey....einstein hey tu......
If you use logic it itself is mathmatics . Math is just language of logic.
Apart from your brutal sarcasm. You are a great guy Vimoh :)
Nice work. Keep opening eyes
i gave you peer reviewed article on afterlife and you haven't replied yet seems you don't have any argument against it
You never gave me any peer reviewed article.
Wait. Who used math to disprove it?
The mathematical rebuttal has to do with using percentages instead of actual distances. It makes the margins appear small even though the actual distances and ranges may be significantly sizable.
And one thing who makes much sense you (a youtuber with his own arguments) or Dr.Francis Collins(highly intelligent scientist head of human genome project)who you people think could be saying the right thing
When a scientist provides evidence for his scientific findings, he gets attention. When he doesn't, he doesn't. Simple.
@@vimoh oh so u think he is doing this for attention then why don't all scientists do that they can all get attention and BTW he has a strong argument for that
The complex letter code of DNA that by no means a coincidence that such a complex code could happen by chance I don't understand how you guys can think that way
@@leonsukhgill6488 I never said he is doing it for attention. I am saying a scientist's claims are taken seriously when there is evidence for it. Not when he is just expressing personal opinion.
@@leonsukhgill6488 It didn't happen by chance. It happened because of a complex process known as evolution by natural selection.
If universe is fine-tuned by an intelligent being then who fine tuned the intelligent being. This line of thinking leads to infinite regress.
Even though there might be math that correlates phenomenas creating an illusion of fine tuning but we should always remember that sceintific methods are basically study of second principles. These methods so far has fallen short of discovering first principles.
You didn’t repudiate the fine-tuning theory but you just contradicted your own argument. You don’t believe that fine-tuning exists yet you blame humankind for their arrogance or theistic tendencies. Your non-belief is reason enough to throw the whole theory of arrogance out of the window. Because clearly humanity isn’t united regarding that theory.
My 0.02, nothing personal!
but the guy didn't even talk of science, he was just using plain logic...and well I get that you are religious,religion isn't bad or something, it just gets in the way of developing a scientific way of thinking, of becomening a person, who won't just belive in anything, whatever is discovered using the scientific method and logic, is true regardless if you belive in it, but I mean what were you expecting when you clicked on this video...😅