Alexander Vilenkin - Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 чер 2024
- For subscriber-only exclusives, register for free today: bit.ly/3He94Ns
If the deep laws of the universe had been ever so slightly different human beings wouldn’t, and couldn’t, exist. All explanations of this exquisite fine-tuning, obvious and not-so-obvious, have problems or complexities. Natural or supernatural, that is the question.
Watch more videos on fine tuning: bit.ly/47M0sYs
Support the show and shop Closer To Truth merch: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Alexander Vilenkin is the Leonard Jane Holmes Bernstein Professor of Evolutionary Science and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 260 publications.
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
“For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.”
-1st Corinthians 1:19-21 KJV ✝️
Can you explain in layman’s terms what that means/ is trying to say?
Meanwhile, science keeps giving us things that improve the quality of our lives, religion keeps giving us division, hate and intolerance
@@theonewhoknocks1976 that no amount of man’s own wisdom, no matter how seemingly impressive at first, can deny God’s power over His creation.
For example, Nietzsche declared that he was going to replace Christianity with his own philosophy but instead he went mad and died bound up in a straight up jacket drooling on himself.
However, talk to someone who’s been converted. They always passed street preachers thinking those preachers stupid, idiotic, or foolish until one day it clicked.
The Universe is a mental. 'Matter' is derived from Mind. When the science catches up over the next few hundred years, there will be a spiritual (non-religious) revolution (web of life, connection, understanding, oneness) on our Earth. And our peoples will be one; we all came from and shall return to, the same creative source.
God had to Fine Tune the Universe to ten decimal places but couldn't design eyes to not need glasses, the spine to not have back pain, and women to not die while child bearing.
amen
Funny you. We did those other things not God.
@@missh1774 are you suggesting that humans are more powerful than the God who fine tuned an entire Universe?
@@sentientflower7891 I was addressing the other things that was listed. The first part is not an option.
@@missh1774 are you suggesting that human spines didn't originate until after Eve sinned?
Since we have life and mind it is only natural that any universe we find ourselves in is at least hospitable enough to accommodate us, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Exactly what factors are responsible for those conditions is the big question.
Personally I find the notion of a universe fine-tuned for humans to be unconvincng when one takes a broader (and more valid) perspective, in which it becomes clear that if tuned at all the universe we observe is much more clearly tuned to create black holes.
An inordinate fondness for neutrinos.
This seems like an odd logical evasion. This issue seems to have convinced many unwilling physicists that there is a case to be answered. Given the person and cultural resistance to the implications of such a finding, I would assume then that it is close to being a water tight case. The issue then becomes, why the universe is fine tuned, rather than whether it is at all. The nutrinos and black holes just seem to be the by-product of the mechanics of a universe that the required tuning produces.
@@bozo5632 😉
Good point, I am of the opinion that the universe as in all nature, has a cycle and black holes play a crucial part in the birth and death of the universe
@@edwardmiller3859 A valid point of view. I'm hopeful that new data will shed more light on cyclic cosmologies of all sorts.
Excellent !
How about a discussion on the origins of life.
Interesting stuff.
The multiple universe hypothesis is a means for scientists to deny a single intelligent designer/creator. With multiple universe, then this one out of countless other that didn't work in the past finally worked. The problem with multiple universes starts with the laws of thermodynamics claiming energy and matter can't be created. So where did all the other universe come from if energy and matter can't be created? And how does energy and matter exist in our universe if they can't be created? Wouldn't the universe be nothing but empty space if energy and matter wasn't created sometime in the past? Because the universe contains so much energy and matter, then is it not safe to assume energy and matter can indeed be created, we're just too ignorant to understand how or why creation of energy and matter happened in the first place?
Your incredulity about where the energy came from is meaningless. We don’t know. So it is not evidence to support a designer in anyway.
@@ihatespam2Fine-tuned universe .
The Anthropic Principle
Scientists are finding that the universe is like a watch ( anology of William Paley ), except even more precisely designed (like a smartphone). These highly-precise and interdependent environmental conditions (called "anthropic constants") make up what is known as the "Anthropic Principle" -- a title for the mounting evidence that has many scientists believing that the universe is extremely fine tuned (designed) to support human CONSCIOUSNESS on earth . (Antony Garrard Newton Flew)
No, not to deny anything. It's an attempt to explain something. That's a different thing.
Believe it or not, most people don't sit around trying to think of ways of affirming or denying a Creator. Believe it. It's really just a tiny percentage of religious people who ever think that way.
Maybe a Creator makes sense and would explain everything for you - FOR YOU - but if that's true, it's only because you already think there is a Creator. So how could it be not true? Very tidy.
But I think that's ancient make-believe. Imho if you don't assume it, then there's no reason - whatsoever - to believe it. So I'm still looking for answers. And, unlike some people, if I ever get mine, I'll have proof for it.
@@ihatespam2 Meaningless? You mean like multiple universes? It's easier to believe in a God that created everything than multiple universe because they too would have to be created. People can't explain how this universe was created let along multiple ones.
We know for a fact that this universe was created because we're part of it. We can measure and observer it in many ways. We can't observer or measure multiple ones.
I've had so many people tell me they didn't believe in God because there is no scientific evidence to support the claim. then say if they were shown the evidence that God is real they would change their mind. So, I showed them the scientific evidence, actual experiments done by physicists that proved beyond a doubt that God is real. Yet still, they refused to believe.
The old saying is so true, we can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink.
@@ronaldkemp3952 oh boy. First You misunderstood my use of the word meaningless. The argument is meaningless, I’m not saying, if true, it would have no meaning. Very different.
And nobody is asking you to believe in multiple universes. And why is it that you MUST believe in something? Is it possible for you to conceive of the possibility that you could say, “I don’t know” when a subject is brought up and you don’t know?
Seems like the honest thing to do, right? That’s what science does. You seem to be listening to the news and not the science. Then you argue about the “beliefs” of a science speculation as if they claim it as a fact. They don’t.
Nearly Every word you said above is fallacious.
Are you looking for an easy belief? Im looking for evidence and where there is none, I don’t believe. That’s called Atheism.
No evidence for god, so, be honest, don’t believe. It’s not complicated.
Just because the universe is here DOES NOT mean it was created. The word created here is a logic fallacy, because it suggests a creator. So it is a “begging the question” fallacy and a “circular reasoning” fallacy. Look it up.
Also, your whole position is the fallacious “argument from incredulity”
Just because we’re here, theologically orientated people assume that the universe is tuned for life. But they really don’t understand their own argument for a creator. If a creator existed and it (it must be an “it”, a solitary creature is neither female or male (obviously)) determined the laws of physics to favor life, it did a horrible job of it. Overall, the universe is incredibly hostile to life. This creator could have determined laws of physics that were different from the ones that exist, that enabled life virtually everywhere. That’s the concept of a creator, at least in the Jewish/christian/Islamic concept of a creator. So if the laws of physics is made up by an infinitely great intelligence, there is no excuse as to why physics couldn’t have been designed differently. By differently, I don’t mean that some small differences in the individual values of the particles and fields is what would be possible. I mean an entirely different physics. A physics with particles and fields that enables a vastly different cosmos. A cosmos where life is favored, which is not what we see here.
The opposite- our minds are fine-tuned for the Universe.
fine-tuned cosmological constant:
The fact that he said that zero was in the range of needed values for fine tuning (starting at about 9:50), as well as, if the number was EXACTLY zero that would be (some) evidence AGAINST multiverse theories (starting at about 10:25), astounded me some. If zero were a "good" value, vis a vis fine-tuning life, that's surprising in and of itself, because a zero-term may reduce equation complexity (i.e., making terms multiplied by it drop out). However, now the question in my mind is, whether the cosmological constant is ACTUALLY zero, but just appears non-zero due to (our) measurement error. Does the cosmological constant have "error bars" on it's estimated value, that DO NOT include zero (even though zero is a good value "life-wise", and how would one know the latter)? He seemed to imply that there are such bars, though I'm not really sure. Also would a universe with a cosmological constant of EXACTLY ZERO be any different from our manifest universe? I mean, if one could show a zero-valued universe would have effects -- not observed in this universe -- then the notion of an exact zero for that constant is (at least, somewhat) disproved.
The cosmological constant is a measure of the rate of expansion of the universe. Since we know the universe is expanding, and the rate it which it is happening, we're pretty confident of it's value. I think the margin for error is about 1% of it's value. Exactly zero would produce a static universe in which some small rate of expansion would exactly counter the gravitational attraction of the galaxies, which would seem to be a very special condition.
Our universe does appear to be best suited for cell based life forms like ourselves. There could be life forms that are not cell based that are happy in another universe that is nothing like ours. Our imagination is just not sufficient for coming up with life forms except those that are cell based. We don't really know that much about life's potential.
The problem any life form will have is protecting itself from environmental entropy. It seems like any system that maintains a consistent structure and efficient, consistent processes will need to control it's environment. It's hard to see how it could do that without some form of protective layer or method of isolation, preferably a flexible and porous one that can allow needed resources to be absorbed or ingested.
Read somewhere that people dont question why could life just be carbon based when there are many other elements on the periodic table ?
@johnbowen4442
There are so many possibilities that are beyond our imagination. It is really understandable. The species just got to a point where they're capable of explaining their own existence without using supernatural influences.
@@simonhibbs887
It is difficult to see our way around these things from our current human perspective. 😊
@@mickeybrumfield764wrong . Only supernatural is possible. The forces are created . Every physical force is contingent on what is not contingent . You can't have an infinite regress of contingent physical forces .
.
The “Argument from Contingency” examines how every being must be either necessary or contingent. Since not every being can be contingent, it follow that there must be a necessary being upon which all things depend. This being is God.
A necessary being is a concrete entity that cannot fail to exist. An example of such a being might be the God of classical theism or the universe of necessitarians.
A necessary being is simply a being that possesses necessary existence. But we may define this concept very simply in terms of the concept of a possible world: a necessary being is a being that exists in all possible worlds (and necessary existence is the property of existing in all possible worlds).
.
Conclusion:
To explain existence, Something is necessary , not all things are contingent .
Could be any or all of the ff :
~ the laws of Physics known and still unknown .
~ Consciousness in One form or another .
~ God in One form or another .
It almost seems there is some fractal nature to the universe. Take the Mandelbrot set as an example. Tiny changes to the start position, when zoomed in, can lead to vastly different outcomes. This behaviour is seen everywhere in nature.
We have a perfectly good model of how a mathematical framework can exist outside of the conscious experience. That's what we have created with computational devices. Just imagine yourselves as beings, made of pixel dust existing inside a matrix. Then you realize your thoughts come from underlying binary code also known as dark matter. You should know a physical architecture or server system can expand from the outside and that expansion is reflected on the inside. That's what dark energy represents, it's not only our container, but it's why the universe is expanding exponentially. The difference is you cannot physically interact with it internally. Through the mind and thoughts we can interact with the mathematical framework.
E=MC² hence matter and energy are interchangeable.
Light is used as a metaphor for intellect, wisdom and consciousness, without light (electromagnetic radiation), the mathematical framework we use everyday known as computational architectures, wouldn't be accessible to us in such a rich and interactive operating system experience. These architectures show us what mathematical frameworks look like from the outside in. This universe shows us what a mathematical framework looks like, from the inside out.
"... about 30 Constants of Nature." Alex or Robert: Please supply the list. The National Institute of Standards and Technology lists 7: speed of light, the Planck constant, elementary charge, the hyperfine transition of frequency of cesium-133, the Boltzmann constant, the Avogadro constant, the luminous efficacy of monochromatic radiation of frequency 540x10 to the 12th power hertz. Add in the Cosmological constant. 22 more to go. ??
The strengths of the various forces, the mass of some particles, vacuum permeability...
even if exist a fundamental law that regulate all the universal constants (and all the other things) ... that law was there by chance ? Or is even a much bigger sign of fine tuning ?
It’s just a sign that it worked. There could have been billions of failed universes, and this one worked. Just like evolution works, naturally, without design or a designer.
@@ihatespam2The forces are created . Every physical force is contingent on what is not contingent . You can't have an infinite regress of contingent physical forces .
.
The “Argument from Contingency” examines how every being must be either necessary or contingent. Since not every being can be contingent, it follow that there must be a necessary being upon which all things depend. This being is God.
A necessary being is a concrete entity that cannot fail to exist. An example of such a being might be the God of classical theism or the universe of necessitarians.
A necessary being is simply a being that possesses necessary existence. But we may define this concept very simply in terms of the concept of a possible world: a necessary being is a being that exists in all possible worlds (and necessary existence is the property of existing in all possible worlds).
.
Conclusion:
To explain existence, Something is necessary , not all things are contingent .
Could be any or all of the ff :
~ the laws of Physics known and still unknown .
~ Consciousness in One form or another .
~ God in One form or another .
@@ihatespam2It only proves that atheism is just a dogmatic belief. Nearly 2000 years ago, the apostle St. Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans, For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse".
@@ihatespam2 if you dont believe in a creative intelligence then evolution does not exist, everything is just a result from a cascade of events (determinism) from the initial condition. And of course that initial condition was here by chance. What a luck huh ?
@@francesco5581 thats a very remedial strawman version of the Atheist position. I’m sure that makes you FEEL right. But you said almost nothing.
Basically, you said believing in a creative intelligence existing explains everything and science or Atheism don’t. But you explain nothing. Have you ever read any of the arguments against god? There are only a handful and they have all shown god claims to be fallacious illogical arguments. Yet you stand confidently attacking those unconvinced by those god claims, as if you have said something. This is how belief weakens the brain. It makes you feel you are saying something, but you’re just parroting.
Atheism is the null position. The deistic god claim is unproven, the Yahweh god claim is false. (Clearly the Bible is full of garbage ideas and horrible ethics)
So you have to say which god claim you believe in and I can show why it is not a good one.
Your first sentence says not believing is based on a first condition issue. That’s patently false. Not believing is based on not being convinced by your argument. Second, SAYING not believing in a “creative intelligence” (whatever that means) then evolution doesn’t exist. That is not an argument. It’s just SAYING something. You say it requires an initial condition. Who ever said that? Not me. Why do you believe that requirement? Was it an apologist talking point that you just accept because you WANT to believe and not think? Is it possible there wasn’t ever an initial condition? Of course that’s possible, because you admit, this god you want, could be unconditioned. Is equally possible, therefore, the cosmos could be unconditioned or part of something natural and unconditioned. Inventing a god, to fill that gap is not called for.
And the old trope of ignorant apologists, “it’s all by chance” says the “evolutionist strawman!”
You are being a dishonest interlocutor. You are putting words in the mouth of the other interlocutor. You don’t care what they think, you tell them a remedial version of what they think then dismiss it.
In the process you show that you don’t understand the arguments and you don’t understand the logic or the science. Evolution is not chance and luck.
I suggest you study up and avoid liars like the Discovery Institute and Prager U etc. for info on things they have sworn to oppose science whenever it disagrees with their beliefs.
Some easy explanations come from many online sources like, Forrest Valkyrie or Professor Dave. Good luck.
The world is fine-tuned so that I can live in it.
And that proves, beyond doubt, that a god exists.
And he seems to be very fond of beetles.
infinite existence (Creator) uses mathematics generated from infinitesimal time to establish laws of nature for energy in universe(s)?
any universe with energy can have life and mind?
And where does energy come from?
@@werneropperman5342we don’t know so what do you do with that lack of knowledge?
@@ihatespam2The forces are created . Every physical force is contingent on what is not contingent . You can't have an infinite regress of contingent physical forces .
.
The “Argument from Contingency” examines how every being must be either necessary or contingent. Since not every being can be contingent, it follow that there must be a necessary being upon which all things depend. This being is God.
A necessary being is a concrete entity that cannot fail to exist. An example of such a being might be the God of classical theism or the universe of necessitarians.
A necessary being is simply a being that possesses necessary existence. But we may define this concept very simply in terms of the concept of a possible world: a necessary being is a being that exists in all possible worlds (and necessary existence is the property of existing in all possible worlds).
.
Conclusion:
To explain existence, Something is necessary , not all things are contingent .
Could be any or all of the ff :
~ the laws of Physics known and still unknown .
~ Consciousness in One form or another .
~ God in One form or another .
The universe and physical laws are a result of Darwinian evolution. Atoms capture an energy field that exists in space, a regenertive energy field. Atoms have evolved structures and processes optimised for efficient energy capture, in the same respect that cellular biology evolved the same structural and process theme for efficient capture of sunlight. Atoms and cellular biology are both depicted as nucleus, shells and bonding behaviour, are both highly complex and sophisticated interactive systems. The similarities are a result of convergent Darwinian evolution.
I don't believe in fine tuning. It's just that humans are arrogant and think the universe was created for them. the settings of the universe are just the settings of the universe, just like water is wet. In another universe with other settings, other kinds of beings would exist. The whole thing is arbitrary and not driven by some "creator."
So you don't feel anything like Einstein who believed that the Laws of Nature best represent the order and harmony which Scientists discover? Einstein and the Dutch philosopher Spinoza were both Pantheists.
seems obvious to me.glad someone else thinks thke same
smart man..or woman
God: Just set it and forget it. 😂
Even if it was a plain fact that there was a divine Creator / designer, I would be very skeptical of theological claims about how life came about, how humans came to be, the existence of souls, of an afterlife - all that stuff.
Life seems to be a minor feature. Pound for pound, it's so rare, even on Earth. Let alone in space, or in black holes etc.
To hijack a quote, if we can ascertain anything about the mind of God by observing His works, it's that He seems to have an inordinate fondness for neutrinos, and neutral hydrogen plasma, and apparently He's really big on dark matter.
@@bozo5632 Life exists and is a part of the Universe no matter how miniscule a part. Why would rarity be something that you wouldn't marvel? I'm a Pantheist like Einstein.
existence is the only necessity there really is, and it applies to what is, or it would't have been real, so no there was no choice, there had to be life by virtue of there being life. there is nothing else we are more sure about than the necessity of what we see in some sense. as well as our ideas that it might have been otherwise, or that there is something different in other places and at other times, the only thing we know for sure is what we observe as it appears in our impressions. fine tuning arguments are strange to me.
Agreed. Maybe it took millions of universe attempts, but this one worked because of some innate balance. Or maybe, this is the only way it works. Not that different from evolution in that it just occurred naturally.
No need to imagine a tuner, or tuning, or its fineness.
@@ihatespam2totally wrong . No need to imagine that there is no tuner because everything that we know needs a tuner. Law of cause and effect and law of thermodynamics.
The forces are created . Every physical force is contingent on what is not contingent . You can't have an infinite regress of contingent physical forces .
.
The “Argument from Contingency” examines how every being must be either necessary or contingent. Since not every being can be contingent, it follow that there must be a necessary being upon which all things depend. This being is God.
A necessary being is a concrete entity that cannot fail to exist. An example of such a being might be the God of classical theism or the universe of necessitarians.
A necessary being is simply a being that possesses necessary existence. But we may define this concept very simply in terms of the concept of a possible world: a necessary being is a being that exists in all possible worlds (and necessary existence is the property of existing in all possible worlds).
.
Conclusion:
To explain existence, Something is necessary , not all things are contingent .
Could be any or all of the ff :
~ the laws of Physics known and still unknown .
~ Consciousness in One form or another .
~ God in One form or another .
@@dongshengdi773 you say totally wrong with such confidence, then blather dictums without any evidence. Just philosophical ideas based on invalid premise.
Who said “forces are created?” Maybe your little talk king points are keeping you from thinking?
These arguments are all done and won by naturalism. Just because we haven’t proven what happened before the Big Bang, doesn’t support, nonsense about dad spirits worried about your penis.
ja truly it would be a shame if we wouldnt live in the best of all possible universes...
Maybe life is fine-tuned for the universe?
Universe don't need us. It does its "things"😂.
Maybe it's "fine tuned," so to speak, for atoms and structure and stuff.
But it's QUITE a presumption to think therefore it's fine tuned for minds. It assumes we are THE purpose of the whole universe. And that's silly.
Fine tuning is about:
A) first set of the universe... why, if there is no "tuner", chance didn't start with a banana? an atom?
B) the existence of a thousand steps in creating this universe, all needed the right temperatures, elements, quantities, pressures to go to the next step and avoiding a dead end
C) the presence of a table of elements, of various forces, of energy ...
D) the very fine tuned universal constants, a little difference and you have a not working universe
E) the presence of the possibility of colors, tastes, sounds, emotions even before minds
And so many other things ... that is fine tuning, is not about our human form.
.
Once the universe is up and running, we can to some extent reverse engineer the current state of it to a point where the origins just ...are. The cosmological constants help us reverse engineer an explanation of how things came to be the way they are now, but finding an explanation for why they exist in the way they do leaves us with nothing to reverse engineer/ extrapolate from. Eventually we arrive at the fundamental/irreducible conditions of the universe, and just have to accept them as brute facts we have no way of explaining.
We can speculate that the brute fundamental aspects of the universe were created and designed by some other force or mind, but then we're adding a different brute fact which can't be explained either.
To throw in our own existence as proof of the intention design doesn't really change the problem imo. Either way, we wouldn't be here if the cosmological constants were significantly different. And to imagine this entire, vast, mostly empty universe was created billions of years ago just for us to exist seems arrogant. Maybe it was designed for tomatoes to eventually exist in one tiny spot of an empty universe, and when I eat one I'm utterly thwarting the purpose of the designer whose purpose is inevitably mysterious to me.
Anyway, when it comes to talking about what is fundamental in our human model of the universe, we're basically identifying the end point of our human understanding. It might be we can go further and dig deeper, that's the history of our scientific endeavour, but for now we simply don't know why the cosmological constants are the way they are.
.
I have no problem with thinking the universe as fine-tuned for something, but the question as to why it has to be fine tuned for "us" specifically, and not some other (really vague) thing, or have a "teleology", that might be adequate to produce an "us" (eventually), is the real question (e.g., theism vs. naturalism). So if I just think the universe is there to maximize the product of repetition x variation (e.g., complexity as a kind of variation), it might have found an "us" as part of a blind hill-climbing algorithm working on the components of existence (e.g., the periodic table, which also depends on stuff) to maximize that product. I could even call myself a "naturalist" and hold this belief (which I do), and come up with an objectively rationalized "moral code" (which in fact I did, e.q., we don't want to do things that damp out either repetition or variation, because it goes against the universal teleology). This kind of a teleology doesn't imply any conscious intention to get to an "us", a priori, by the universe, but it does imply something of a (vague) teleology (drive to maximize(repetition x variation)), which could have zapped itself into existence (Boltzman-Wise) rather than an omnipotent/omniscient being.
However, if I'm using the argument that a universal teleology is what a universal teleology does, then there are expectations, given a more conventionally theistic teleology is actually operating. For instance, "Star Trek" should be considered the most religious show on television, given the large number of humanoid species traipsing around the galaxy, if we think the universal teleology derives from a divine (omni) being that's "really into" lesser forms in it's (metaphorical?) image. On the other hand, the scientific evidence so far suggests we're (relatively) alone (e.g. Fermi paradox), so if the universe has a teleology for an "us", or something like us, it seems pretty crappy at it, under a naturalistic view, combined with a universal teleology, consistent with what the universe does. On the third hand, maybe God really did intend the universe specifically for us and is just showing off by creating everything else.
.
Fine tuning of constants is but the tip of the iceberg. There exist innumerable processes that have to be exactly so, for the Universe to be the way it is. For example stars seem purpose built to manufacture large amounts of Carbon, which itself seems perfectly designed to create the complex structures necessary for life. If the explanation for life is that it is a random occurrence, it would have to happen in a universe that is minimal. As Boltzmann pointed out, you would expect a single brain to happen in a box. The universe is far far larger than is tenable for such explanations.
Any objective examination of the facts leads to the inevitably conclusion that reality is the way it is, because it couldn't be any other way. Whether you call this design, or teleology, to maintain this is somehow a random occurrence requires mental gymnastics and an ostrich mentality of the highest order.
.
A supernatural creative agency is required for change to occur.
Law of thermodynamics
Law of cause and effect.
Nothing can't become something.
Nothing can come out from Nothing.
Infinity doesn't compute.
.
The first cause , the Prime mover, the unmoved mover, the Ultimate Observer, the intelligent Designer, the Programmer of This simulated universe, etc .
.
Nurture vs Nature .
Religion vs Science .
Theism vs Naturalism.
Newtonian vs Einsteinian.
They're actually both ,
Not either or .
We are both spiritual and physical beings , same as the nature of the universe .
Naaah. It seems "fine tuned" to us because we evolved inside it. If it were different, different things evolve - and they'd think it was made just for them. Just confirmation bias and hubris.
But what if there is no space? What if space and time are experiences and visuals our brains display to us? It's possibly all connected to a central hive-like The Matrix.
Fine tuned for fusion. Maybe.
Maybe maybe not a multitude of possibilities
The universe functions on higher end consciousness technologies of which Generative AI is but a miniature.
Excellent job of explaining a complicated issue . Thanks you from my monkey brain .
If fine-tuning suggests a fine-tuner... Well where is it??
Under your bed. 😉
Choose a room.
@@catherinemoore9534 Haha what lol
@@missh1774 I just did, still no fine-tuner 😂
4:32 calculation of zero point fluctuations seems to be more of an arbitrary value than a universal constant 🤔
There is only one stable and balance universe that consists of matter and antimatter. Any model of universe that doesn't account for universe antimatter is not in dynamic equilibrium to account for the existence of variety of universal constants. The very present of the constants indicates the universe has stopped expanding and what is expanding now is our knowledge!
that's what I thought! I don't know where Dr. Vilenkin got his 36 constants, just an arbitrary guess maybe; there's 6 quarks with three colors and 6 L 1 leptons and the five bosons = 34? so new antiparticles?
Irony is that in the unforced cosmos,only the human beings is forced I,e, without miteculous preparation of sequences ,grand music is unheard here.
When scientists use the phrase "fine tuned" they are referring to the physical conditions that give the universe its characteristics, not that some god is adjusting the knobs deliberately to produce a desired result as Creationists want you to believe. There is no evidence that the universe has any goals or intentions. We are just one of the many patterns that have developed as it goes its way. It never produces any final result, only continuous change.
OK, then there is no beauty or elegance in equations. It is all random. No moral, ethics, zilch. A nihilistic hell.
@@pedropinho573 Orderly patterns naturally develop as forces interact. "Randomness" is just a way for humans to describe forms of order that are too complex to describe with ordinary equations. There is a field of mathematics devoted to this called statistical probability. Events in the universe are not directed by a personal mind, but minds like ours evolve out of physical interactions. Intelligence, will and desire are strictly animal traits, they do not exist in disembodied form like ghosts, and cannot precede or cause biological processes.. Morals are a product of human culture because humans are social animals who depend on mutual cooperation. We communicate values through language, laws and traditions, but our morals are not handed down to us from On High, we make them up collectively.
@@pedropinho573 It is the zealot who believes he is doing God's will who creates a nihilistic hell of his own delusions. God is always silent, which is very convenient for his self-appointed spokesmen here on Earth. Normal people base there morals not on the occult but on a realistic assessment of the consequences of their actions.
@@pedropinho573 Beauty and elegance are in the mind of the beholder. Your worldview is crippled by the psychological hangups of Bronze Age primitives with inter-tribal warfare, authority, obedience, punishment, vengeance and fear of evil spirits. What an ugly mind this produces
In your description of the universe there is no moral imperative. If it is socially constructed, then if everyone became a Nazi, the Holocaust would be justified. A nihilistic hell as I said. However, most people have an innate sense of morals. It is NOT socially built. It is a part of human nature. Your worldview cannot explain that.
Let's talk about pure theoretical stuff that says what would if it could, if only
............
All hypothetical absurd theoretical stuff.
Etc.
In order to find the correct universal dynamic of the Universe you must stay highly tight to the iterative causal REALITY, think that has been lost since the Kepler, Galileo and Newton's times.
That's the only correct way.
4 3 2
my theory is mine alone
Sry, Alex creator left the chat
but left as with the process
a critical one
which waits
for eveybody
The answer to this question is *"Lego bricks."* ... I saw where someone built a life-size Bugatti out of Lego bricks, but would anyone ever argue that these tiny little plastic, three-posed bricks were "fine-tuned" to facilitate a Bugatti? NO! Existence only facilitates a basic framework for future evolution and then allows evolution to facilitate everything else that follows.
"Existence" never knows for sure what comes next. All it can do is establish a *specific degree of probability* based on past and current events (just like we do).
I looked at the cost of the latest Bugatti. I think it is rather cheap as a representation for one person's contribution to the fine tuning paradox. Isn't a person's worth, much more valuable than the power it's engine would generate in under 10 seconds?
@@missh1774 *"Isn't a person's worth, much more valuable than the power it's engine would generate in under 10 seconds?"*
... Your reply serves as a testament on how totally miss the context of my comment.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC yay nothing new then?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC oh pishh. Not "Totally".
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLCnot totally because the present means you should be different enough from the past to consider the future. The comment was meant to shift you from your position and include you inside of existence. Unless it's your automated bot. That's gonna be difficult to reason with again 🤔
Its interesting , how likely the research community is to use the same words and methods to describe the unique experience they have got from life ..
Statistics , a few constants ...
These believers are a problem for real science
So the Creator is comparable to a toddler fiddling with puzzle pieces until they fit into the board? We would just be as accidental as any other universe? 🤔
What we can know is that there is a creator, nothing more.
You can call it accidental, others call it randomness. We do it all the time with our own creations , simulated games , robots , AI , etc
Even if there was a creator, it seems pretty obvious that the entire universe isn't only about us. We are approximately 0% important.
The term "fine-tuned" implies an intelligence behind the tuning, which may or may not be true. The fact that it is fine tuned is indisputable. It also may be that for the universe to exist at all, the conditions that would allow for it to exist from whatever preceded it, must be fine-tuned as well. Its seems obvious that the state before our universe was one that could allow for the possibility for our universe to come into being and after it did, was fine-tuned to evolve into a universe that allows for us. The idea of fine-tuning could also imply that only a fine-tuned pre-state can exist. It also could be true that the pre-star was conscious and self-aware and wanted to have an intelligence nursery universe exist.
ron hudson wrote "The fact that it is fine tuned is indisputable."
In a universe where life is almost impossible to find, it's not only disputable that the universe is fine-tuned for life - observations prove that it is the exact opposite.
You have added a new dimension to the phrase "being wrong."
@@bully3808yea you are totally wrong .
Fine tuned clearly proves of a designer or else the universe would just be a pile of rocks.
The forces are created . Every physical force is contingent on what is not contingent . You can't have an infinite regress of contingent physical forces .
.
The “Argument from Contingency” examines how every being must be either necessary or contingent. Since not every being can be contingent, it follow that there must be a necessary being upon which all things depend. This being is God.
A necessary being is a concrete entity that cannot fail to exist. An example of such a being might be the God of classical theism or the universe of necessitarians.
A necessary being is simply a being that possesses necessary existence. But we may define this concept very simply in terms of the concept of a possible world: a necessary being is a being that exists in all possible worlds (and necessary existence is the property of existing in all possible worlds).
.
Conclusion:
To explain existence, Something is necessary , not all things are contingent .
Could be any or all of the ff :
~ the laws of Physics known and still unknown .
~ Consciousness in One form or another .
~ God in One form or another .
@@dongshengdi773
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Oh, did you write a novel? Sorry, I didn't have time to waste reading it.
NEXT !!!!!!!!!!
Isn't it a miracle that we and the Universe exist at all? The Laws of Nature exist and like Einstein who believed that the harmony and order which exists and which Science discovers are proof of the Mind of God.
human beings fine tuned by universe?
Way more probable. In fact this is exactly what the theory of evolution predicts: life adapts to its environment and there are plenty of evidence to support that theory. On the other hand, there are no evidence that the universe has been fine tuned for life. In fact there are evidence to the contrary: an extremely large proportion of the universe we know does not even support life.
I still believe in a single cyclic universe..... the simplest form of multiverse.
Something to be said for that.
Robert should really talk to the South African, mr Piet Geldenhuys who discovered the Radio Active Constant in the 90s.
This guys showing Universe is pseud Science. He model Universe doesnt show up nothing with emperism verification though phich proceendings.
One of the more interesting thoughts I've had on this subject concerns the consequences of Roger Penrose's CCC theory - if light/radiation is the only thing that survives from one 'aeon' (in Roger's lexicon) to another, then modifying that light is the only way to leave any imprint or impact whatsoever on the next aeon. Therefore, any intelligent/conscious civilization that lived long enough to see the end of the universe or advance technology to the point that it could, in fact, imprint information into that light before everything in the universe dissipates could actually modify the initial conditions of the next universe, perhaps even to the point that it could cause favorable conditions for life/intelligence, maybe even one that reproduces the very civilization that modified those conditions to begin with!
Your idea about influencing the next universe's initial conditions via light in the CCC model presents intriguing possibilities, but there are several critical logical issues to consider:
Information Loss in Expanding Universe: In the context of an infinitely expanding universe, as proposed by the CCC model, any encoded information in electromagnetic radiation wavelengths would be lost long before reaching such an expansion. Due to the Doppler effect and the energy characteristics of electromagnetic radiation, this information would eventually merge with and disappear into the vacuum's noise, rendering it undetectable.
No Influence of Light Information on Cosmic Forces: Even if information within light were somehow preserved, it would not influence cosmic forces, connections, or the universe's natural laws. It's akin to sending a postcard; while the text is readable, it doesn't alter the universe's fundamental properties or laws.
Holographic Principle and Information Destruction: The holographic principle suggests that in an infinitely expanding universe, every bit of information would ultimately be destroyed. This poses a significant problem for the CCC model, as it implies that all information is lost and cannot be recovered in a subsequent aeon. This unresolved 'information problem' challenges the feasibility of transmitting information between consecutive eons.
It is a very creative idea, but it wont hold up.
might be that energy makes an universe itself be alive and have intelligence?
A deity is more complicated than Nature. So what designed It. Oh, nothing. So save a step.
...I would like to add some thoughts. Consider this: GOD separated a section of Heaven and created HIS Garden. Everything that was in Heaven is here in the Garden. Consider the actual number of stars, planets, galaxies. Now consider the physical distances. Just by the numbers, there should be other life. There is not, and the wonderful basics that are so well balanced here only in HIS Garden. Wow, what a marvelous Garden it is. My mind is boggled by contemplating the Facts. I stand in Awe and Appreciation. Just consider the wonderful knowledge just between the two of you. Your Gifts and Talents. How beautiful life, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...Blessings...Just consider the science, and the new facts added each day...
Or to look at it another way...the universe took 13.5 billion years to get where it is now, it's 46 billion light years across, and life like us can exist in just one quintillion quintillion quintillionth of it...the rest would kill us instantly. Even in this one infinitesimal speck that we can survive on, it finds all kinds of ways to kill and maim and torment us...we've had to put in massive effort to overcome all the attacks it launches on us regularly...all life has nearly disappeared at least five times already, and we're likely to bring on a sixth shortly. To say that it's a "garden" in a universe "fine-tuned" for us is ridiculous...confirmation bias and hubris.
No. Chance.
Since we're here, Existence must be fine-tuned for life and mind. But it's only true on a planetary level. There are no theological implications --- unless it's Gaia. 😂
No. That's religion not physics.
That there was a big bang out of nothing for no reason is not my faith. A designer is a better explanation.
So if we are trying to fit these so called constants in our theories, my take is that maybe our theories are so immature as to be meaningless. More work needed, back to the so called drawing board.
I think its the other way round, we are fine tuned to live in the wonder that is nature. .man is so conceited
We've evolved just well enough to survive just long enough to reproduce just often enough to persist in it...for the time being. Nature is a wonder indeed, but it is not ours nor is it "designed" for us.
If cosmological constant was closer to zero?😂
A benevolent tinkerer? Fine tuning things so gazelles get to be eaten alive by packs of wild dogs? How about sadistic fine tuner instead?
So fine-tuned but we get killed by Earth quakes, hurricanes, typhoons, tsunamis, volcanoes, floods, landslides, lightnings etc etc.😅
Which couldn't happen without fine tuning 😂
And the cherry on the cake: more than 3000 diseases to choose from... 😑
.
@@catherinemoore9534 all functioning because of a finely tuned universe 😭
And hard labour.
Well ... Video games are meticulously fine-tuned, and yet can feature all the chaotic features you mention.
"Is the Universe Fine-tuned for Life and Mind?"
Our loving Creator had to fine-tune this Universe for mankind to understand the difference between pain and pleasure, suffering and joy, beautiful and ugly, bad good better or best to provide hints that there is a better or worse place out there (heaven and hell) so for them to hopefully find faith in a loving God for their souls' salvation...
...but, how ever ugly or painful a man can suffer in this temporary life on earth, it can never destroy his soul.. only without faith or losing faith in God can hurt his soul.. So, focus more attention to your soul's fate than your physical body that can die and rot..
..although you are always free to enjoy the blessings of physical life here on earth, the truth is you are a sitting duck to any misfortune that can befall upon you...
...but again life here, good or bad, is only temporary... your lost soul was not sent here to live happily ever after but to save it from returning to hell so that you can return to Heaven (your Original Home) where happiness is genuine and eternal..
Why don't you find yourself a nice Jesus channel to hang out at,
and quit humiliating yourself in public on science channels.
.
RUN BACK TO YOUR SAFE SPACE !!!!!!!!
loving creator except if you are a slave then our loving creator said .. tough luck pal
@@davenchop
Or if you choose a different imaginary friend, then his loving creator will torture you ... forever.
What a guy
@@bully3808 ..it is quite bizarre the way some humans can make up nonsense and then be 100% sure they are right with no evidence.. yet they think they do have evidence... not the swiftest individuals for sure
The only way to affirm the validity of Fine Tuning is to prove that the values of the cosmological constants can only occur through divine intervention.
If I am immersed in a universe made up of innumerable hollow white balls, only one of which contains a small black ball, and I reach out my hand and grab precisely that ball, a miracle did not occur there. Regardless of the number of hollow balls. That ball was as catchable as any of the others.
That a possibility has a very minuscule probability of being possible does not mean that it has zero possibility of being.
Clearly life and evolution is doing the changing.
Stop looking for gaps. The universe isn't fine tuned. Because that would demanded something to tune it.
"2 options.
Either a multiverse or some sort of intelligent process"
Or 3) there's stuff we don't know that presents more options.
I bet on 3.
It's going to be hilarious when religious people die and see god is just some kid with a VR set.
Why anyone will fine tune this universe to creat a very very un-special life with full of sufferings,pain,miseries and tragedies. Especially human life which live in miseries and die in miseries live in hope and die in hope..but hopes are never fulfilled beacuse those hopes are impossible to fulfilled why would any god will create this tragic and comically disgusting grotesque comedy if he is real? Either everything is consiousness and life is just unreal illusion of that consiousness. Which we should not take seriously or too seriously or nihilism is true that this is just purposeless abs meaningless chaos. Some body had said that there is nothing special about life. Life is sexually transmitted disease which is transmitted by sex and always ends with death. Isn't this totally true. Fine tuning constant is a lie and fantasy of some religious minded people. The truth is it is accident. There is nothing there is no prime mover it's just quantum fields interacting with each other.