(2:45) *LB: **_"We woke up in a laboratory and we're trying to work out how it made us."_* ... Excellent analogy! I can regress it one step further. The laboratory that created us woke up one day, and it's been trying to work out why it exists ever since. Humans merely represent the most recent evolutionary step for "Existence" in trying to work it all out. *Example:* I am an artist (mural-size oil paintings). I enjoy my art, and from my own perspective, I am satisfied with their quality. They all end up looking exactly how I want them to look, and they fill me with an overwhelming sense of personal satisfaction, ... ... but that level of _satisfaction_ only carries me so far. Self-gratification is not enough. I require an unbiased *outside observer* to look at them and tell me what they think. A *value judgment* from an outside observe is exponentially more valuable than a self-assessment. ... Such is the same for "Existence!"
You're a social mammal. So you instinctively care what your group thinks about you. That's why you want an observer to look at your art. If you were an octopus artist instead, you'd instinctively hide your art from observers. It's not the whole universe, or an important feature of the universe.
@@bozo5632 *"You're a social mammal. So you instinctively care what your group thinks about you. That's why you want an observer to look at your art."* ... I want someone to look at my art for the reasons stated in my comment. An outside observer provides information that cannot be generated by the observed. *"If you were an octopus artist instead, you'd instinctively hide your art from observers. "* ... I haven't run into many octopus artists. Probably a lot of ink drawings, I would imagine. *"It's not the whole universe, or an important feature of the universe."* ... After 13.8 billion years, value judgments issued from outside observers are the prime objective of the universe. It's higher-level information that cannot be generated via Newtonian physics. "New information" is what keeps existence pushing forward.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I think you should consider what I said instead of reflexively rejecting it. What you're saying makes sense in the realm of social animals, but nowhere else, and the animal realm is dinky. You're personifying the whole universe - to suit your needs. There's no basis for doing that. Most of this world is molten iron. Most of this galaxy is hydrogen plasma. Please don't take it personally, but very, very little of the universe wants to see your art, let alone has the ability to comment constructively. I don't pretend to have it all figured out, but I can some times tell when someone doesn't.
You cannot regress it one step because the laboratory would be outside of your existence. A great analogy would be the difference between an author and the characters in the story. The author does not cause anything to happen in the story they make the story possible. The characters in the story are all in causal relationships with each other and able to makes things happen. The Cosmos is outside the causal chain because it is the basis for cause and effect. The things inside the Cosmos has causal power.
@@bozo5632 *"I think you should consider what I said instead of reflexively rejecting it."* ... I've suffered through 62 years of considerations before reaching my conclusions. *"What you're saying makes sense in the realm of social animals, but nowhere else, and the animal realm is dinky. "* ... Humans are a microcosm of Existence. We emerged after Existence extracted all of the information it could from dinky inanimate matter and then from the dinky animal kingdom. We "dinky humans" can provide value judgments and spectrum-based categorizations that animals and particles can't. *"You're personifying the whole universe - to suit your needs."* ... And you are perfectly free to think that way. That's a *value judgement* you've assessed based on my words. *"There's no basis for doing that. Most of this world is molten iron. Most of this galaxy is hydrogen plasma."* ... Most of Botticelli's _"'The Birth of Venus"_ painting is cotton fiber, cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, ash-forming minerals and numerous oil-based pigments. As with planet Earth and Botticelli's painting, it's not what it's made of that's important; ... _it's what's sitting on top of them._
One implication of the anthropic principle is that the causal chain that culminates in organisms extends right back to the origin of the Universe. It wasn't a causal chain that could be said to have begun with, say, the Earth, because in order for there even to be complex matter, then the key constraints already must have existed before there was any complex matter, such as planets, let alone organic life.
i think the anthropic principle might not answer any question that’s worth asking. we’re usually more concerned with the “how” things are as they are and not the “why” (although the how is sometimes disguised as why, but i believe you get the distinction i’m making here) and it’s not because the why isn’t interesting, but because i don’t think we can answer that, unless you bring religion into the picture. The anthropic principle makes us believe that we’re getting somewhere with the why, but we’re probably not.
Why is it solipsistic? Isn't it potentially a statement about aspect of reality? Can an aspect of reality be solipsistic? It certainly can make that impression, but that's more of a matter of individual psychology than anything out there in the world.
@@krzemyslav Why is it solipsistic? Doesn't the anthropic principal infer that the universe was "created" soley for human existence? Hence the Greek word, anthropos! I suppose it is unacceptable to some that humanity, as it is, evolved in such a way as to adapt to the completely random way the environment actually was. Humans are the result of trillions x millions of random mutations. Earth is a random speck formed by random processes of the elements and energy in the universe. Evolution is a process that is formed by random activity. It applies to language, culture, and yes, rituals and religion. Can random genetic mutations adapt to surroundings? If yes, they stay until they can't. If no, it's a fairly fast exit... (The above processes have been simplified for brevity.)
It's the opposite. By showing that our descriptions of reality are limited to what we can sense, we are saying that we don't know (can't know) everything about the universe. We admit there is possibly more "out there" than what we have access to. On the other hand, if you believed things REALLY are the way they are _based on human observation_ that would be a naive and self-centered view. To think the sun is objectively bright light for example is naive. The anthropic view would say it only seems bright if you have eyes sensitive to it, in fact there is more intense light that appears less bright to humans.
Good try. What is metaphysics, what is purpose? It sounds circular to say that the purpose of life (edit: or "reality") is to create life. Reality is just a word to point to what we suspect is there beyond the filters and interpretations of our senses. Reality could be nothing more than whatever umwelt we experience. Our position in time certainly is.
@@sonarbangla8711 well again, it's just circular to say these things are the same and nothing more. What is metaphysics? What is there beyond matter? Saying words that represent relationships between physical objects (any kind of matter) doesn't mean meta-anything. I apologize in advance if i misunderstood something, what I'm always hoping to uncover and correct.
@@pjaworek6793 The physics of QM claims that the quantum field when observed/measured collapses the field to produce fine tuned particles that leads to life, consciousness, soul and faith (Penrose an atheist claims mathematics is based on faith). If you fail to grasp the complicated nature of metaphysics of life and soul, I assume you are smart enough to grasp how consciousness and faith are metaphysical. You must have tried your luck winning five lotteries in a row, to grasp the complication of the metaphysical nature of life and soul, you will have to provide winning millions/billions of lotteries in a row. If you can do that then you can see what Penrose meant by faith, yet he didn't grasp 'divine design', he left it for further clarification. Even if we can grasp reality by way of circular logic or circumstantial evidence, what better do you expect from limited knowledge?
@@sonarbangla8711 ... some kind of structure in an attempt to define a word?. So as the dictionary starts out, "metaphysics is a branch of philosophy..." the rest is obvious, 'beyond physics' that kind of idea. Thing is, that's neither science nor physics. Just like fine tuning, it's all in the realm of fantasy, with nothing tangible. There's no evidence theres anything beyond physics, that's what the 'meta' means. Oh, and there's nothing in qm that "produces fine tuned particles". Either back up what you're saying with something that's (can I say?) meta-fantasy or I'll bid you good day. Another btw, don't ever say that circular logic is useful for anything, protip #1.
I love the Anthropic Principle almost as much as Hoffman's Interface Theory - I only like Hoffman's more because he takes the same concepts much further and can articulate it like nobody else. It should be common knowledge at this point that the universe isn't "absolutely" anything, one way or the other. Even a basic concept like "the order of events" depends on your proximity to the event - if you're very far away, the light takes so long to reach you the event appears to happen later, and others appear to happen before. Where if you were nearer, their order could be swapped. Every aspect of reality is like that, so reality isn't absolutely any "description". BUT! We can describe it - we can pull descriptions out of it. But how it's described depends completely on your instrumentation. The sun is only bright if you have eyes and only warm if you have skin. To all the other "channels" or dimensions of reality, it might have many other aspects and descriptions. The universe could be teeming with life and events, we'll just never have access to it. Even if you cast other channels into vision, like for example visualizing radio, it doesn't make you experience that thing like that - you're just casting it into vision (another dimension). It's important that we study and understand consciousness, so that we can truly experience these other aspects of reality - not just describe them with tools we have now. We can enter new realities entirely once we start to understand consciousness.
@@dianneforit5409 I agree, and like to think experience emerges in more realities than not, but remain unconvinced that it's a necessary component of reality (panpsychism). By the time you have something as rich and organic as dirt, for sure, it eventually wakes up.
The Anthropic Princile is a quick argument became the values that we observe are that way be because that’s the conditions in which we are able to exist. Otherwise we would not be able to ask the questions.
Once our species started to look around (without any preconditions), we figured out a lot of stuff. Hey, we spotted the Higgs boson, right? But as to the really big question, why is there something rather than nothing; we've got zippo. Why is all this here, where did it come from? So if Inflation is eternal into the past, okay I think that makes some sense. But where did Inflation come from? It's just always been there and always will be there? We're just one in an ever infinitely expanding number of pocket universes dropping out of the Inflaton field. I guess I can live with that.
The two most common explanations for fine-tuning are that it is either due to a Fine-Tuner (God) or due to selection effect in a multiverse. In this video I first explain what fine-tuning is (you probably already know if you watched this) and then I give some reasons to think that God is a better explanation than the multiverse: ua-cam.com/video/s4ysjoErlFs/v-deo.html
Hey a theist with manners and a proper introduction to tge material they want to share good on you! Too bad you don't seem to consider the science in your one option - fine tuning. Why would there be more than one option, you'd have to think and that's not allowed in the bible.
Interesting but what do you mean by "we're observers who bring reality into existence"? It almost sounds contradictory to me but I guess I don't understand what you mean. Respectfully...
It seems like our experience of reality, and actual reality are two different things. We can know that this is true because our perception and knowledge of the world can vary from the actual state of the world. Obvious examples of this are optical illusions, mistaken perceptions where we misinterpret what we sense, deceptions such as stage magic, and full on hallucinations. Whenever there’s a discrepancy though, reality wins every time. We always lose, always. No matter how sure I was that I saw milk in the fridge, if there’s no milk I’m not drinking tea today. So I think your view is mistaking the experience of the world you have in your mind, with the reality of the physical world. Your experience of the world really is your consciousness, but the physical world can get on without that just fine. In fact it does so whenever we are in deep sleep or sedated.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 oh what i mean is that the double slip proves that the observer collapses the wave function and brings our reality into existence. No observer, no collapse, and therefore no finite reality ever comes to be.
@@mikefinn Precisely. And although hard determinism undermines the meaning behind moral choice-making, the persistent illusion that we DO have the freedom of shaping our own reality, suffices just fine. Ofc we'd all rather the Abrahamic god variant be true instead, unfortunately there's no real evidence for it let alone proof. Truth over Everything.
mikef • It never becomes a subjectivity. It is only what it truly is, and the human mind tries continuously to understand it correctly. In this endeavor, the subjectivity and dogma ( in this dogmatic domain enters mathematical dogma also ) doesn't help absolutely at all. In order to understand everything correctly you have to have an extremely pragmatic train of thoughts.
@@DeaderEyeland_1983 I can't agree on the Abrahamic god. The level of divinely sanctioned brutality, misogyny and arbitrary injustice in there is hard to stomach. I can accept that when looking at the bible as a historical document, those people lived in brutal times. God as an eternal being has no such excuse, for example I cannot accept that Lot was judged a good and holy man by god worthy of salvation, despite offering his daughters up for rape in order to save himself. Don't even start me on Jephthah. So no, I don't accept that the watered down children's version we have taught in churches these days has any legitimacy. The whole idea is appalling. That's not to say I particularly have a problem with people who are believers, if they're good people and have admirable intentions I take them as they are. I understand why some people believe and that faith can mean a lot to them. It's not for me though, even in principle.
@@simonhibbs887 Facts. I also can't agree with all the mythological nonsense, blatant inconsistencies, slavery/sexual slavery, and the lack of any demonstratable proof that the man Jesus was the son of some magical Skydaddy. Too many specifics as well you have to funnel through first like before telling me God is real you haven't even shown a man can walk on water or turn water to wine. Be born of a virgin, RISE FROM THE DEAD, which is utterly fundamental to your entire belief system. And sure there's metaphorical truth in the Bible. There's also metaphorical truths in every work of fiction literally ever written. Harry Potter? Lord of the Rings anyone?
The universe may have evolved out of the chaos and probabilities. Quantum states continue to collapse based on probabilities following a path of lease resistance. A feedback loop arouse adding fine tuning. Brains arouse allowing feedback and fine tuning to be local.
You're saying something that is correct. Yes, "in the natural direction of least resistance". 👍 You should and must deeply refine your understanding of the natural dynamic of the Universe. However, for this little amount of understanding, I congratulate you, because at least you're on the right track.👍
Wow, not a peep from Luke Barnes about his Christian god! Is this a rhetorical move for this particular interview, or is he actually backing away from his usually strident claims that fine tuning is real and supports his Fundamentalist Christianity?
I'm not familiar with Luke Barnes. I personally think fine tuning is real because I perceive the reality of God the Creator behind "fine tuning". Respectfully...
@@johnbrzykcy3076 We simply don’t yet know if the cosmic constants take their values from some deeper natural force, or from pure chance. Even the claim of “pure chance” would require evidence and argument that it is so. Saying “my god did it” no more answers this scientific agnosticism, than did the same answer given for lightening in ancient times.
I was surprised at how little I disagreed with Barnes in this clip. It was refreshing, but I guess we'll see if the rest of the interview is as reasonable when it's released!
Oh look, it's the fine tuning "scientist" who everyone misunderstands. Does he mean god did it? Does he have thoughts on what came before the universe? Who knows? The anthropic principal is not an explanation to anything, it's just a "trivial" principal. To get an explanation of why there's life, you'd have to know where there isnt life. Just like we know why quasars are bright by studying them and non-quasar objects. I think that is what he's saying but....
@@gooddaysahead1 Strange but thanks for the comments. Got any tips on where he admits this? Ive seen him comment on skydivephil, that he was totally misunderstood. Confusing character.
@@pjaworek6793 I've read a few diverse explanations of the AP. They seem to be all over the place. When "fine tuning" gets into the conversation, it appears to lean toward a theological debate tool, and that's where I first came into contact with it. 2) Because we're part and parcel of the universe, we only have limited ability to understand the universe... due to the filter of consciousness, therefore subjectivity comes into play... or so they say. 3) The universe's destiny leans toward human existence is the version that most troubles me. I think we're a fluke, and no, I'm not depressed. We're an amazing fluke that has the tools and ability to be objective about many things. Many would argue this idea. I realize it sounds counter intuitive, but it's the realization that we are an amalgam of random events, which should make us humble. Yet, because we are an amalgam, etc., we should be stunned by our own existence.
He uses Frankenstein and his monster as a metaphor. From my view it is the created that is to observe and study the creation, to better understand the Creator. The universe is not sentient, no more than a rock. Be it a rock on earth or a larger rock (planet) in space. God is the mind with mindfulness, not a bunch of floating things. In the beginning God…
(2:45) *LB: **_"We woke up in a laboratory and we're trying to work out how it made us."_* ... Excellent analogy! I can regress it one step further. The laboratory that created us woke up one day, and it's been trying to work out why it exists ever since. Humans merely represent the most recent evolutionary step for "Existence" in trying to work it all out.
*Example:* I am an artist (mural-size oil paintings). I enjoy my art, and from my own perspective, I am satisfied with their quality. They all end up looking exactly how I want them to look, and they fill me with an overwhelming sense of personal satisfaction, ...
... but that level of _satisfaction_ only carries me so far.
Self-gratification is not enough. I require an unbiased *outside observer* to look at them and tell me what they think. A *value judgment* from an outside observe is exponentially more valuable than a self-assessment. ... Such is the same for "Existence!"
You're a social mammal. So you instinctively care what your group thinks about you. That's why you want an observer to look at your art.
If you were an octopus artist instead, you'd instinctively hide your art from observers.
It's not the whole universe, or an important feature of the universe.
@@bozo5632 *"You're a social mammal. So you instinctively care what your group thinks about you. That's why you want an observer to look at your art."*
... I want someone to look at my art for the reasons stated in my comment. An outside observer provides information that cannot be generated by the observed.
*"If you were an octopus artist instead, you'd instinctively hide your art from observers. "*
... I haven't run into many octopus artists. Probably a lot of ink drawings, I would imagine.
*"It's not the whole universe, or an important feature of the universe."*
... After 13.8 billion years, value judgments issued from outside observers are the prime objective of the universe. It's higher-level information that cannot be generated via Newtonian physics. "New information" is what keeps existence pushing forward.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I think you should consider what I said instead of reflexively rejecting it.
What you're saying makes sense in the realm of social animals, but nowhere else, and the animal realm is dinky.
You're personifying the whole universe - to suit your needs. There's no basis for doing that. Most of this world is molten iron. Most of this galaxy is hydrogen plasma. Please don't take it personally, but very, very little of the universe wants to see your art, let alone has the ability to comment constructively.
I don't pretend to have it all figured out, but I can some times tell when someone doesn't.
You cannot regress it one step because the laboratory would be outside of your existence. A great analogy would be the difference between an author and the characters in the story. The author does not cause anything to happen in the story they make the story possible. The characters in the story are all in causal relationships with each other and able to makes things happen. The Cosmos is outside the causal chain because it is the basis for cause and effect. The things inside the Cosmos has causal power.
@@bozo5632 *"I think you should consider what I said instead of reflexively rejecting it."*
... I've suffered through 62 years of considerations before reaching my conclusions.
*"What you're saying makes sense in the realm of social animals, but nowhere else, and the animal realm is dinky. "*
... Humans are a microcosm of Existence. We emerged after Existence extracted all of the information it could from dinky inanimate matter and then from the dinky animal kingdom. We "dinky humans" can provide value judgments and spectrum-based categorizations that animals and particles can't.
*"You're personifying the whole universe - to suit your needs."*
... And you are perfectly free to think that way. That's a *value judgement* you've assessed based on my words.
*"There's no basis for doing that. Most of this world is molten iron. Most of this galaxy is hydrogen plasma."*
... Most of Botticelli's _"'The Birth of Venus"_ painting is cotton fiber, cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, ash-forming minerals and numerous oil-based pigments. As with planet Earth and Botticelli's painting, it's not what it's made of that's important; ... _it's what's sitting on top of them._
One implication of the anthropic principle is that the causal chain that culminates in organisms extends right back to the origin of the Universe. It wasn't a causal chain that could be said to have begun with, say, the Earth, because in order for there even to be complex matter, then the key constraints already must have existed before there was any complex matter, such as planets, let alone organic life.
i think the anthropic principle might not answer any question that’s worth asking. we’re usually more concerned with the “how” things are as they are and not the “why” (although the how is sometimes disguised as why, but i believe you get the distinction i’m making here) and it’s not because the why isn’t interesting, but because i don’t think we can answer that, unless you bring religion into the picture. The anthropic principle makes us believe that we’re getting somewhere with the why, but we’re probably not.
We go no where faster with religion.
the 'strong anthropic principle' is logic personified, particularly in relation to refuting the 'fine tunning' argument put forward by theists
The anthropic principle is the most solipsistic idea I have ever heard. Humility be damned.
Why is it solipsistic? Isn't it potentially a statement about aspect of reality? Can an aspect of reality be solipsistic? It certainly can make that impression, but that's more of a matter of individual psychology than anything out there in the world.
@@krzemyslav Why is it solipsistic? Doesn't the anthropic principal infer that the universe was "created" soley for human existence? Hence the Greek word, anthropos!
I suppose it is unacceptable to some that humanity, as it is, evolved in such a way as to adapt to the completely random way the environment actually was. Humans are the result of trillions x millions of random mutations. Earth is a random speck formed by random processes of the elements and energy in the universe. Evolution is a process that is formed by random activity. It applies to language, culture, and yes, rituals and religion. Can random genetic mutations adapt to surroundings? If yes, they stay until they can't. If no, it's a fairly fast exit...
(The above processes have been simplified for brevity.)
@@krzemyslavNo the anthropic principle is a statement about our existence not about reality.
@@kos-mos1127 I thought I said that in the first/second sentence.
It's the opposite. By showing that our descriptions of reality are limited to what we can sense, we are saying that we don't know (can't know) everything about the universe. We admit there is possibly more "out there" than what we have access to. On the other hand, if you believed things REALLY are the way they are _based on human observation_ that would be a naive and self-centered view. To think the sun is objectively bright light for example is naive. The anthropic view would say it only seems bright if you have eyes sensitive to it, in fact there is more intense light that appears less bright to humans.
No dogma in science, as science is never settled.
As Popper put it, subject to the most ridiculous or unlikely objections, what separates it from pseudoscience.
Reality isn't just physical or mathematical, but also metaphysical. Its purpose was to create the observer, life, conscious, with a soul and faith.
Good try. What is metaphysics, what is purpose? It sounds circular to say that the purpose of life (edit: or "reality") is to create life. Reality is just a word to point to what we suspect is there beyond the filters and interpretations of our senses. Reality could be nothing more than whatever umwelt we experience. Our position in time certainly is.
@@pjaworek6793 Consciousness, faith are metaphysical. Physics and metaphysics together explains reality
@@sonarbangla8711 well again, it's just circular to say these things are the same and nothing more. What is metaphysics?
What is there beyond matter? Saying words that represent relationships between physical objects (any kind of matter) doesn't mean meta-anything. I apologize in advance if i misunderstood something, what I'm always hoping to uncover and correct.
@@pjaworek6793 The physics of QM claims that the quantum field when observed/measured collapses the field to produce fine tuned particles that leads to life, consciousness, soul and faith (Penrose an atheist claims mathematics is based on faith). If you fail to grasp the complicated nature of metaphysics of life and soul, I assume you are smart enough to grasp how consciousness and faith are metaphysical.
You must have tried your luck winning five lotteries in a row, to grasp the complication of the metaphysical nature of life and soul, you will have to provide winning millions/billions of lotteries in a row. If you can do that then you can see what Penrose meant by faith, yet he didn't grasp 'divine design', he left it for further clarification. Even if we can grasp reality by way of circular logic or circumstantial evidence, what better do you expect from limited knowledge?
@@sonarbangla8711 ... some kind of structure in an attempt to define a word?. So as the dictionary starts out, "metaphysics is a branch of philosophy..." the rest is obvious, 'beyond physics' that kind of idea. Thing is, that's neither science nor physics. Just like fine tuning, it's all in the realm of fantasy, with nothing tangible. There's no evidence theres anything beyond physics, that's what the 'meta' means.
Oh, and there's nothing in qm that "produces fine tuned particles". Either back up what you're saying with something that's (can I say?) meta-fantasy or I'll bid you good day.
Another btw, don't ever say that circular logic is useful for anything, protip #1.
I love the Anthropic Principle almost as much as Hoffman's Interface Theory - I only like Hoffman's more because he takes the same concepts much further and can articulate it like nobody else.
It should be common knowledge at this point that the universe isn't "absolutely" anything, one way or the other. Even a basic concept like "the order of events" depends on your proximity to the event - if you're very far away, the light takes so long to reach you the event appears to happen later, and others appear to happen before. Where if you were nearer, their order could be swapped. Every aspect of reality is like that, so reality isn't absolutely any "description".
BUT! We can describe it - we can pull descriptions out of it. But how it's described depends completely on your instrumentation. The sun is only bright if you have eyes and only warm if you have skin. To all the other "channels" or dimensions of reality, it might have many other aspects and descriptions.
The universe could be teeming with life and events, we'll just never have access to it. Even if you cast other channels into vision, like for example visualizing radio, it doesn't make you experience that thing like that - you're just casting it into vision (another dimension). It's important that we study and understand consciousness, so that we can truly experience these other aspects of reality - not just describe them with tools we have now. We can enter new realities entirely once we start to understand consciousness.
@@dianneforit5409 I agree, and like to think experience emerges in more realities than not, but remain unconvinced that it's a necessary component of reality (panpsychism). By the time you have something as rich and organic as dirt, for sure, it eventually wakes up.
The Anthropic Princile is a quick argument became the values that we observe are that way be because that’s the conditions in which we are able to exist. Otherwise we would not be able to ask the questions.
Once our species started to look around (without any preconditions), we figured out a lot of stuff. Hey, we spotted the Higgs boson, right? But as to the really big question, why is there something rather than nothing; we've got zippo. Why is all this here, where did it come from? So if Inflation is eternal into the past, okay I think that makes some sense. But where did Inflation come from? It's just always been there and always will be there? We're just one in an ever infinitely expanding number of pocket universes dropping out of the Inflaton field. I guess I can live with that.
The two most common explanations for fine-tuning are that it is either due to a Fine-Tuner (God) or due to selection effect in a multiverse. In this video I first explain what fine-tuning is (you probably already know if you watched this) and then I give some reasons to think that God is a better explanation than the multiverse: ua-cam.com/video/s4ysjoErlFs/v-deo.html
Hey a theist with manners and a proper introduction to tge material they want to share good on you! Too bad you don't seem to consider the science in your one option - fine tuning. Why would there be more than one option, you'd have to think and that's not allowed in the bible.
@@pjaworek6793 , honestly, other than your false claim that the Bible disallows thinking, I can't even tell what point you are attempting to make.
We're only important in the sense we're observers who bring reality into existence.
Interesting but what do you mean by "we're observers who bring reality into existence"? It almost sounds contradictory to me but I guess I don't understand what you mean.
Respectfully...
It seems like our experience of reality, and actual reality are two different things. We can know that this is true because our perception and knowledge of the world can vary from the actual state of the world. Obvious examples of this are optical illusions, mistaken perceptions where we misinterpret what we sense, deceptions such as stage magic, and full on hallucinations.
Whenever there’s a discrepancy though, reality wins every time. We always lose, always. No matter how sure I was that I saw milk in the fridge, if there’s no milk I’m not drinking tea today.
So I think your view is mistaking the experience of the world you have in your mind, with the reality of the physical world. Your experience of the world really is your consciousness, but the physical world can get on without that just fine. In fact it does so whenever we are in deep sleep or sedated.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 oh what i mean is that the double slip proves that the observer collapses the wave function and brings our reality into existence. No observer, no collapse, and therefore no finite reality ever comes to be.
Nothing matters beyond the matter itself so far as we know. End of Story.
It is what it is. But, becomes what we make it.
@@mikefinn Precisely. And although hard determinism undermines the meaning behind moral choice-making, the persistent illusion that we DO have the freedom of shaping our own reality, suffices just fine.
Ofc we'd all rather the Abrahamic god variant be true instead, unfortunately there's no real evidence for it let alone proof.
Truth over Everything.
mikef • It never becomes a subjectivity. It is only what it truly is, and the human mind tries continuously to understand it correctly.
In this endeavor, the subjectivity and dogma ( in this dogmatic domain enters mathematical dogma also ) doesn't help absolutely at all.
In order to understand everything correctly you have to have an extremely pragmatic train of thoughts.
@@DeaderEyeland_1983 I can't agree on the Abrahamic god. The level of divinely sanctioned brutality, misogyny and arbitrary injustice in there is hard to stomach. I can accept that when looking at the bible as a historical document, those people lived in brutal times. God as an eternal being has no such excuse, for example I cannot accept that Lot was judged a good and holy man by god worthy of salvation, despite offering his daughters up for rape in order to save himself. Don't even start me on Jephthah. So no, I don't accept that the watered down children's version we have taught in churches these days has any legitimacy. The whole idea is appalling.
That's not to say I particularly have a problem with people who are believers, if they're good people and have admirable intentions I take them as they are. I understand why some people believe and that faith can mean a lot to them. It's not for me though, even in principle.
@@simonhibbs887 Facts. I also can't agree with all the mythological nonsense, blatant inconsistencies, slavery/sexual slavery, and the lack of any demonstratable proof that the man Jesus was the son of some magical Skydaddy. Too many specifics as well you have to funnel through first like before telling me God is real you haven't even shown a man can walk on water or turn water to wine. Be born of a virgin, RISE FROM THE DEAD, which is utterly fundamental to your entire belief system.
And sure there's metaphorical truth in the Bible. There's also metaphorical truths in every work of fiction literally ever written. Harry Potter? Lord of the Rings anyone?
You are completely baffled.
The AP is not " that sort of thing".
It is not necessary for the universe to create an observer in order to exist.
Science is a shadow of what man is capable of within himself.
The universe may have evolved out of the chaos and probabilities. Quantum states continue to collapse based on probabilities following a path of lease resistance. A feedback loop arouse adding fine tuning. Brains arouse allowing feedback and fine tuning to be local.
You're saying something that is correct.
Yes, "in the natural direction of least resistance". 👍
You should and must deeply refine your understanding of the natural dynamic of the Universe.
However, for this little amount of understanding, I congratulate you, because at least you're on the right track.👍
@@mikel4879 Enlighten me.
There is no fine tunings. We observe the variables as they are because we have evolved to fit into the environment.
@@kos-mos1127 This observer has evolved in a universe fine-tuned enough to support complex life.
@@mikefinn if there's no other kind, what makes it fine tuned?
Wow, not a peep from Luke Barnes about his Christian god! Is this a rhetorical move for this particular interview, or is he actually backing away from his usually strident claims that fine tuning is real and supports his Fundamentalist Christianity?
I'm not familiar with Luke Barnes.
I personally think fine tuning is real because I perceive the reality of God the Creator behind "fine tuning".
Respectfully...
It was a long interview. He did mention religious themes and characters, just not in this clip.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 We simply don’t yet know if the cosmic constants take their values from some deeper natural force, or from pure chance. Even the claim of “pure chance” would require evidence and argument that it is so. Saying “my god did it” no more answers this scientific agnosticism, than did the same answer given for lightening in ancient times.
@@bozo5632 Ah-Hah! That’s the enthusiastic Luke we’ve come to know. Thanks!
I was surprised at how little I disagreed with Barnes in this clip. It was refreshing, but I guess we'll see if the rest of the interview is as reasonable when it's released!
The humongous lack of cognitive capacity is unbelievable these days.
Oh look, it's the fine tuning "scientist" who everyone misunderstands. Does he mean god did it? Does he have thoughts on what came before the universe? Who knows?
The anthropic principal is not an explanation to anything, it's just a "trivial" principal. To get an explanation of why there's life, you'd have to know where there isnt life. Just like we know why quasars are bright by studying them and non-quasar objects. I think that is what he's saying but....
Yes. He means a designer did it. He won't accept that
random activity or mutations did it. 🤔
The Universe is outside the causal chain so to ask what came before the universe is nonsense.
@@kos-mos1127 Yes! It's non-falsifiable.
@@gooddaysahead1 Strange but thanks for the comments. Got any tips on where he admits this? Ive seen him comment on skydivephil, that he was totally misunderstood. Confusing character.
@@pjaworek6793 I've read a few diverse explanations of the AP. They seem to be all over the place. When "fine tuning" gets into the conversation, it appears to lean toward a theological debate tool, and that's where I first came into contact with it.
2) Because we're part and parcel of the universe, we only have limited ability to understand the universe... due to the filter of consciousness, therefore subjectivity comes into play... or so they say.
3) The universe's destiny leans toward human existence is the version that most troubles me. I think we're a fluke, and no, I'm not depressed. We're an amazing fluke that has the tools and ability to be objective about many things. Many would argue this idea.
I realize it sounds counter intuitive, but it's the realization that we are an amalgam of random events, which should make us humble. Yet, because we are an amalgam, etc., we should be stunned by our own existence.
He uses Frankenstein and his monster as a metaphor. From my view it is the created that is to observe and study the creation, to better understand the Creator. The universe is not sentient, no more than a rock. Be it a rock on earth or a larger rock (planet) in space. God is the mind with mindfulness, not a bunch of floating things. In the beginning God…
The Universe is intelligent. There is no need for God.
I dont see this is corected. Impossible guys mind an emperism verification.