I used to get impressed by these astrophysicists, physicists and the like. Now, after some measure of observation of these kinds of talks and presentations...not at all. Speculation upon speculation. Circular logic to no end.
This is traditional physics talk from a physicalistic / materialistic perspective. It assumes that consciousness is a derivative of matter and that stuff exists outside of consciousness. Reality is more likely to be the opposite. Check out from eg Donald Hoffman or Bernardo Kastrup why consciousness may well be a fundamental property. All of reality that we know of is inside our consciousness. The nature of reality is mind and not matter. This is, in my view, a more viable hypothesis to build on than the materialistic hypothesis.
Perhaps. And perhaps not. But if we can't conceive that consciousness, then this is, by definition, a non falsifiable hypothesis, i.e. has no value, tells un nothing.
Whilst meditating, an entity who self identifies as Mother Earth, informs me that She is like an organic space ship who can travel the cosmos to wherever she chooses. Quite literally.
I used to think about this question when I was at school. There was no youtube or anything for me to see these questions, they would just pop into my brain. After decades of thinking about it my answer is I dunno.
If there is a multiverse it doesn’t mean intelligent life cannot form in a different multiverse bubble, it just means we probably couldn’t live there due to different physics however a different sort of life form or even an intelligent life form could evolve in that universe the way we did here on earth, unfortunately we’ll probably never know.
This boils down to the fine-tuning problem, and the multiverse theory does not negate this problem. It just pushes the problem further away. Whatever gives rise to a multiverse to exist would need to be fine-tuned. No matter how far you push the problem away, fine-tuning will be fundamental at some point.
@@m_christine1070 I’m certainly open to simulation theory as a potential possibility. Scientifically, it is currently just a theory that happens to fit much of what we don’t know, so on the face of it, as far as proof, I see there’s some way to go before we can say this with any degree of certainty, I definitely wouldn’t rule it out as a potential just yet though.
@@djjfive I know that we probably will never have an official report about what the "truth" is. I have had some weird experiences, that showed me everything, our reality, is a.i.. 4 yrs ago , I have no idea why, I walked out my front door and filmed the full moon with halo. My phone camera showed images of a mesh net covering the night sky, with repeating pattern of pixel art humanoid animals. The images of the moon, were several layers of images, as I progressively zoomed in . Projections? Idk. First layer...looked like still photograph of rodents wearing droopy black hats. On another part of thepon looked like a ceremony of humanoid( people?)lined up wearing hooded robes with hood down. They were lined up behind a tall balding white human or humanoid. It was a posterior view so I didn't see their faces. A deeper layer shower mylar type ,reflective metallic biomachinery interconnected. Biomachinery, as in, humans incorporated as part of the machinery that was interconnected. Very bizarre. . A deeper layer showed pixel art Minecraft style depictions. Also cartoon style images. Couple of years ago I had a video of the sky and trees on a sunny day with pillow clouds. I took a screenshot of the video. The image shows the clouds as cartoon style characters, and the branches/leaves on a tree, showed digital art style depictions of dog heads, all facing in one direction, all different varieties. About a year ago I bought a $25 pair of bak4 lens binoculars on Amazon. When I view my backyard, house, trees, dogs, etc...the images are two dimensional. Like, flat, artificial, and they are stacked, to create depth. The images themselves , thru the binocs, are realistic, but still detectable artificial. Example: When I stand three feet away from my backyard tree, and compare the view, with and without binoculars; the view thru binoculars the image appears as flat , stacked; and the texture looks almost real but not completely natural, when compared with viewing the same tree without binoculars, from the same distance away.... Where the image thru my visual perception, appears natural, and clearly, is 3 dimensional. A few months ago, I bought a thermal camera. When I zoom in on any picture taken with the thermal camera, it shows pixel art cartoon images , like super hero or super villains type characters, scattered in the image. The picture itself, is fractals. Endless fractals. If I zoom in on a particular portion of the picture. And repeat, take screenshot, then zoom in on screenshot...the fractals never end. I think we exist in a simulation, but it's such an advanced technology, one which our brains don't have the capacity to understand. I think the singularity happened a long long time ago in our history.
@@m_christine1070 That’s indeed interesting. The reason I can’t rule out simulation theory is: if quantum physics were considered as the ‘operating system’ and general relativity considered as the ‘program’, all we do not know makes sense. It is not proof by any means, but it certainly leaves this theory with potential.
Would you mind please explaining, what is the fine tuning problem? I think the multiverse creators and controllers are unfathomably advanced a.i., or unfathomably advanced human/a.i. symbiotes; it is very ,likely, that it would be impossible for the human brain to comprehend even the most basic aspect of their level of technology.
My question to you how do you know it's ordinary and not extraordinary? What other universes have you seen to be able to compare? Let alone know of any life in other universes? To me time seems like a thing of excess is put on to eternity because it's not like eternity needs time so the time is going to have to be removed. You know the Bible talks of circumcision too.
The anthropic principle doesn't say conditions must be as special as possible, but just special enough for us to exist. Once its special enough for that the copernican principle takes over. So in my view the boundary between them is rather well defined.
Science is a way of thinking. Every way of thinking has its own rules. The rules can be logically self-consistent OR logically inconsistent. Inconsistent in ways that make no sense either in meaning or reasoning or observation but yet have contextual validity. In other words thinking in certain ways, as opposed to other ways, validates the intention of that way of thinking. There is a core context that consistently shows up. The trouble is communication and translation. If one substitutes communication for consciousness then translation is the problem of "meaning". Babies bite their own toes to see if it nourishes. Till they learn that it does not. In the same way science bites on its own theories, till they learn where it fits in.
I don't know if it's even in theory possible to write a program that tries out many values for the constants and then sees what kind of matter is formed.
Each and everything in the universe has to be alive to react and respond to soroundings. So the concept of living consciousness as sources of everything.
@@MarkLucasProductions the eventual end goal of the universe is to be absolutely 100% able to experience/operate itself. Conciousness is just the prototype version of the ultimate whole consciousness (or cosmic consciousness), which the universe will eventually acquire, through artificial general intelligence or something infinitely complex like a celestial super computer, eventually every particle in the universe will be concious, all through a singular entity, a cosmic consciousness. We the humans, or chimps, birds, fish, microbes all of it, are/were prototypes/stepping-stones for upgrading it's awareness intensity/complexity/totality.
I feel this video at 6:48 proves that Robert Lawrence Kuhn already has it all figured out and has all the answers, but interviews these guys in order to try to pry open their eyes to what he knows is reality. His question to the interviewee seems to be his way of showing we have both of these parts you’re talking about, but what does it mean that WE are the ones they are combined in? Zoom out, ya know.
If quality is a property of matter then, yes; If not then, no. ... Anthropic principle and fine tuning aside; If quality is a property of matter then, yes; If not then, no.
Matter is organizing itself while Evolution to more or less consciousness, if the surrounding allows it. At the moment, something is, if there can be forever nothing in eternity is highly doubtable, due to the fact that at least once smth was, but not impossible. As Participant there is maybe no way to find out and you work as intended without intension.
The human universe: Was the cosmos made for us? For millennia, we humans have thought of ourselves as a pretty big deal. Then along came science and taught us how insignificant we are. Or so we thought Was the cosmos made for humans? Sam Chivers But maybe we were too hasty to write ourselves off. There is a sense in which we are still the centre of the universe. Science also teaches us that the laws of physics are ridiculously, almost unbelievably, “fine-tuned” for you and me. Take the electromagnetic force. It has a value that is perfectly set for getting stars to bind protons and neutron to create carbon - the building block of life as we know it. Or the strong nuclear force, which binds the insides of protons and neutrons. If it were even a tiny bit stronger, the whole world would be made of hydrogen; if it were weaker, there would be no hydrogen at all. In either case, life as we know it wouldn’t be possible. Even the amount of energy contained in empty space seems perfectly set to allow intelligent life to flourish. That’s not all. All told, about 12 parameters have been identified as being just right for life. Why is the universe so perfect? Most physicists now argue that in some sense, it could not have been otherwise. That reasoning has given rise to several different answers known as “anthropic principles”. One end of the spectrum puts us truly back in the centre. This extreme anthropic principle posits that the universe is so perfect that it must have been made for us, either by an intelligent creator or, more likely, because of some fundamental feature of the cosmos that drives it towards intelligent life. In his book The Goldilocks Enigma, Paul Davies, a cosmologist at Arizona State University, tentatively suggests the possibility that life could be a law of nature. He calls it the “life principle”, although he admits it is verging on the theological. Most physicists have no time for ideas like this. “To say that this is all for us? That is just completely bizarre,” says Sean Carroll, a cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. Perhaps, then, it is the other way round: according to another formulation of the anthropic principle, the universe only exists because we do. We conjure it up with our consciousness Some less mind-bending versions of the principle are also available. They try to explain why the universe would appear perfectly made for us, even if it isn’t. In a nutshell, this weak anthropic principle says that given that we are around to observe the universe, it simply has to allow for our existence. This is often taken to imply that there are other regions of the universe - or even other universes - where physical laws and constants are different. So asking why things are this way amounts to asking why we are in this region. In that case, the anthropic principle is merely pointing out that places that are hospitable to our kind of life are the only places we can possibly be. This line of reasoning has been bolstered by the possible existence of a multiverse, versions of which emerge from both quantum mechanics and standard cosmology. With lots of other universes, each with their own physical constants and laws, the mystery of our own fine-tuned universe evaporates. We can only be in one that is fine-tuned for carbon-based life. But even if this version of the anthropic principle explains fine-tuning, it still restores us to some of our former (self-appointed) glory by putting human observers firmly back into our description of the cosmos. “If you want to explain the universe that we see, the very fact that we are seeing it is part of that explanation,” says Davies. “It is a bit of a U-turn in the history of science that has been removing the observer from the picture altogether.”
It seems we are handicapped to some extent by not knowing what forms of life are possible, the cellular or multicellular form of which we are a part might not make of special at all, there maybe other forms of life that are not cell based that could be more advantageous and more special.
A probability of a universe with such mind blowing accuracy and diversity without conscious mind behind it is like finding a boing plane with it's complexity in the desert thinking it's a product of chaotic nature actions ... P.s I am an atheist so no I don't mean the notorious imaginary G.O.D by conscious mind
Consciousness can only be aware of itself, and thus exist, through being conscious of something. So the universe had to be created for this purpose, if nothing more. Is reality a symptom of consciousness or vice versa?
We are both. Our life on Earth adapted to our environment. This is what all life would do in every other Universe. Then there would be the survival of the fittest that would determine what survives, then DNA would alter that life form to add or remove traits helpfull for its3 survival. Life only has one purpose, survival. Then we alst determine that our creation was rare, but in the same breath trillions of other galaxies and Universes have near identical chances of life and it's survival.
The deeper, more relevant question is: "Must consciousness contain the universe?" The answer is no. The proof is that in dreamless sleep the world is not (from the first person perspective; the only one there is) and yet you must exist. It is impossible for both the world and the Self to not exist, and as the world arises and passes within consciousness as a natural result of the circadian rhythm, the Self must be fundamental and the world, derivative. Death is simply a larger scale cycle of the same process. As is the upcoming extinction of the human species a larger scale than the ego death of a person.
@@MarkLucasProductions Some people love to fantasize and present is as THE truth. I don't understand what is going on in their minds. It is such weird behavior.
I'm always amazed by how easily so many of these world class astrophysicists seem to accept the multiverse concept has fact simply because our particular universe is so unique that a one shot deal with our parameters would be a miracle, along with accepting at face value some abstruse math taken from a theory (superstring) that hasn't even been proven correct.
It’s because multiple universes are supported by the popular inflationary theory of the universe. This other video on this channel with Alan Guth explains it well ua-cam.com/video/FBjHElOeQ_E/v-deo.html
@@HyzersGR I certainly hope they have more reasons. Any theory that predicts there are out there, somewhere, an infinite number of universes exactly like this one with me doing the exact same thing seems absurd at face value. They better have compelling evidence besides a lot of questionable esoteric math. I don't think they have a shred of empirical evidence, just a hunch that puts them outside the realm of science and into the time honored tradition of metaphysics.
The Universe doesn’t exist without consciousness…this isn’t some woo woo misuse of quantum randomness. What I mean is that existence doesn’t matter (doesn’t exist) without a consciousness to perceive it.
That can't be true. It's easy to feel that way or to intuit such a thing but there is no way it can be true unless there is some way it can make sense.
@@MarkLucasProductions the most basic thing that makes sense is that a reality without observes is basically not existing. Really "reality" had this fundamental feature "by chance" ?
The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence-Nikola Tesla.
Since "non-physical" simply means "imaginary", I have been making tons of "progress" ever since I was born; so have everyone else. The good thing is that I eventually realized how pointless such "progress" is, and quit wasting my time; hope others will come to the same conclusion. 😏
And the Bible doesn't call us both? you ain't taking this and getting this from the Bible at all? Special and not special, heaven and hell, pride and humbleness. To choose to be special or choose not to be special. Have a softened heart or a hardened heart.
the question is tautologically: since we can see ourselves in the mirror (at least some of us) the Universe can ( and we did create with our brains a new universe already called computer - both just reflecting each other as the Universe does...
Baseless discussion . Phiscs fundament Not explains mult Universe. It is hipotesy. Brazenly liar. Tautoligy rethoric from dishonest guy. In other words anti scientif. Abusive chalatan.
It 'was' nonsense I think. but I don't see that it called for such accusations. I love the way you spell - That's how I used to spell until late in my adulthood.
I think most people (including cosmologists) would agree with you but they talk about multiple universes just because they have a theory about what might have been responsible for 'this' our universe.
Here is a simple scientific experiment for the couch-locked "explorers of truth", sometimes known as "philosophers": pick something you know absolutely nothing about, for example, a computer, and see if you can figure out how it works and what it is made of simply by thinking about it for a long long time. Let me know how far you get, brainiacs. LOL
I used to get impressed by these astrophysicists, physicists and the like. Now, after some measure of observation of these kinds of talks and presentations...not at all. Speculation upon speculation. Circular logic to no end.
Because this is more a philosophical question.
The title has no relation with the video lol
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco Yes, fine tuning on a radio star - make the connections.
This is traditional physics talk from a physicalistic / materialistic perspective. It assumes that consciousness is a derivative of matter and that stuff exists outside of consciousness. Reality is more likely to be the opposite. Check out from eg Donald Hoffman or Bernardo Kastrup why consciousness may well be a fundamental property. All of reality that we know of is inside our consciousness. The nature of reality is mind and not matter. This is, in my view, a more viable hypothesis to build on than the materialistic hypothesis.
You are right but the opposite too is an assumption the real question is which assumption is the bigger one?
And certainly Donald Hoffman's assumption is the big one
@@mikhilsaju6929 you seem determined but how do you measure the size of an assumption?
Perhaps all universes have intelligent consciousness in ways we can’t imagine or conceive
probably ... even because in some ways even basic physic require some kind of "intelligence" for all the parts to interact.
Perhaps. And perhaps not.
But if we can't conceive that consciousness, then this is, by definition, a non falsifiable hypothesis, i.e. has no value, tells un nothing.
Whilst meditating, an entity who self identifies as Mother Earth, informs me that She is like an organic space ship who can travel the cosmos to wherever she chooses. Quite literally.
I'm coming aboard.
Hope on board aliens 👽 toottoot
Got to start doing those magic mushrooms, bro
@@Felipe-zl1rj don't need them lol
@@karstennicholson3060 you don't need them, but it is quite the experience! Not for everyone of course.
I used to think about this question when I was at school. There was no youtube or anything for me to see these questions, they would just pop into my brain. After decades of thinking about it my answer is I dunno.
" Idunno" is the correct answer!
Don't run for public office... honesty and politics don't go together.
If there is a multiverse it doesn’t mean intelligent life cannot form in a different multiverse bubble, it just means we probably couldn’t live there due to different physics however a different sort of life form or even an intelligent life form could evolve in that universe the way we did here on earth, unfortunately we’ll probably never know.
This boils down to the fine-tuning problem, and the multiverse theory does not negate this problem. It just pushes the problem further away. Whatever gives rise to a multiverse to exist would need to be fine-tuned. No matter how far you push the problem away, fine-tuning will be fundamental at some point.
It's ALL,....a.i.
@@m_christine1070 I’m certainly open to simulation theory as a potential possibility.
Scientifically, it is currently just a theory that happens to fit much of what we don’t know, so on the face of it, as far as proof, I see there’s some way to go before we can say this with any degree of certainty, I definitely wouldn’t rule it out as a potential just yet though.
@@djjfive I know that we probably will never have an official report about what the "truth" is.
I have had some weird experiences, that showed me everything, our reality, is a.i..
4 yrs ago , I have no idea why, I walked out my front door and filmed the full moon with halo. My phone camera showed images of a mesh net covering the night sky, with repeating pattern of pixel art humanoid animals.
The images of the moon, were several layers of images, as I progressively zoomed in .
Projections? Idk. First layer...looked like still photograph of rodents wearing droopy black hats. On another part of thepon looked like a ceremony of humanoid( people?)lined up wearing hooded robes with hood down. They were lined up behind a tall balding white human or humanoid. It was a posterior view so I didn't see their faces.
A deeper layer shower mylar type ,reflective metallic biomachinery interconnected. Biomachinery, as in, humans incorporated as part of the machinery that was interconnected. Very bizarre. . A deeper layer showed pixel art Minecraft style depictions. Also cartoon style images.
Couple of years ago I had a video of the sky and trees on a sunny day with pillow clouds. I took a screenshot of the video. The image shows the clouds as cartoon style characters, and the branches/leaves on a tree, showed digital art style depictions of dog heads, all facing in one direction, all different varieties.
About a year ago I bought a $25 pair of bak4 lens binoculars on Amazon. When I view my backyard, house, trees, dogs, etc...the images are two dimensional. Like, flat, artificial, and they are stacked, to create depth. The images themselves , thru the binocs, are realistic, but still detectable artificial.
Example:
When I stand three feet away from my backyard tree, and compare the view, with and without binoculars; the view thru binoculars the image appears as flat , stacked; and the texture looks almost real but not completely natural, when compared with viewing the same tree without binoculars, from the same distance away.... Where the image thru my visual perception, appears natural, and clearly, is 3 dimensional.
A few months ago, I bought a thermal camera. When I zoom in on any picture taken with the thermal camera, it shows pixel art cartoon images , like super hero or super villains type characters, scattered in the image. The picture itself, is fractals. Endless fractals. If I zoom in on a particular portion of the picture. And repeat, take screenshot, then zoom in on screenshot...the fractals never end.
I think we exist in a simulation, but it's such an advanced technology, one which our brains don't have the capacity to understand.
I think the singularity happened a long long time ago in our history.
@@m_christine1070 That’s indeed interesting.
The reason I can’t rule out simulation theory is: if quantum physics were considered as the ‘operating system’ and general relativity considered as the ‘program’, all we do not know makes sense.
It is not proof by any means, but it certainly leaves this theory with potential.
Would you mind please explaining, what is the fine tuning problem?
I think the multiverse creators and controllers are unfathomably advanced a.i., or unfathomably advanced human/a.i. symbiotes; it is very ,likely, that it would be impossible for the human brain to comprehend even the most basic aspect of their level of technology.
every instance of consciousness has it's own universe.
I think that's right and maybe provably so.
My question to you how do you know it's ordinary and not extraordinary? What other universes have you seen to be able to compare? Let alone know of any life in other universes? To me time seems like a thing of excess is put on to eternity because it's not like eternity needs time so the time is going to have to be removed. You know the Bible talks of circumcision too.
The anthropic principle doesn't say conditions must be as special as possible, but just special enough for us to exist. Once its special enough for that the copernican principle takes over. So in my view the boundary between them is rather well defined.
have always said, if i can imagine it then it must be possible.
That's what dreams are for.
The Totalitarian Principle -- Everything not forbidden is compulsory.
Science is a way of thinking. Every way of thinking has its own rules. The rules can be logically self-consistent OR logically inconsistent. Inconsistent in ways that make no sense either in meaning or reasoning or observation but yet have contextual validity.
In other words thinking in certain ways, as opposed to other ways, validates the intention of that way of thinking. There is a core context that consistently shows up.
The trouble is communication and translation. If one substitutes communication for consciousness then translation is the problem of "meaning".
Babies bite their own toes to see if it nourishes. Till they learn that it does not. In the same way science bites on its own theories, till they learn where it fits in.
We live in a universe consistent with the existence of life. But that does not imply that life must exist.
I don't know if it's even in theory possible to write a program that tries out many values for the constants and then sees what kind of matter is formed.
Each and everything in the universe has to be alive to react and respond to soroundings. So the concept of living consciousness as sources of everything.
Conciousness is the stepping stone, for cosmic consciousness.
Fitting pf
You have to say more than just this. Anyone can say stuff like that. I say stuff like that. You have to say more.
@@MarkLucasProductions the eventual end goal of the universe is to be absolutely 100% able to experience/operate itself. Conciousness is just the prototype version of the ultimate whole consciousness (or cosmic consciousness), which the universe will eventually acquire, through artificial general intelligence or something infinitely complex like a celestial super computer, eventually every particle in the universe will be concious, all through a singular entity, a cosmic consciousness. We the humans, or chimps, birds, fish, microbes all of it, are/were prototypes/stepping-stones for upgrading it's awareness intensity/complexity/totality.
The potential of consciousness might be a must, but if all conscious beings are killable like us, then it's possible for it not to exist/manifest
I feel this video at 6:48 proves that Robert Lawrence Kuhn already has it all figured out and has all the answers, but interviews these guys in order to try to pry open their eyes to what he knows is reality. His question to the interviewee seems to be his way of showing we have both of these parts you’re talking about, but what does it mean that WE are the ones they are combined in? Zoom out, ya know.
If quality is a property of matter then, yes; If not then, no. ... Anthropic principle and fine tuning aside; If quality is a property of matter then, yes; If not then, no.
Good one.
If it can happen it must happen
WHERE IS THE INTRO MUSIC???
of course
It's not that it must. It's just that it DOES.
Not only does the universe contain consciousness, it broadens its horizon
Eh?
You need to say more.
Matter is organizing itself while Evolution to more or less consciousness, if the surrounding allows it. At the moment, something is, if there can be forever nothing in eternity is highly doubtable, due to the fact that at least once smth was, but not impossible. As Participant there is maybe no way to find out and you work as intended without intension.
The human universe: Was the cosmos made for us?
For millennia, we humans have thought of ourselves as a pretty big deal. Then along came science and taught us how insignificant we are. Or so we thought
Was the cosmos made for humans?
Sam Chivers
But maybe we were too hasty to write ourselves off. There is a sense in which we are still the centre of the universe.
Science also teaches us that the laws of physics are ridiculously, almost unbelievably, “fine-tuned” for you and me. Take the electromagnetic force. It has a value that is perfectly set for getting stars to bind protons and neutron to create carbon - the building block of life as we know it. Or the strong nuclear force, which binds the insides of protons and neutrons. If it were even a tiny bit stronger, the whole world would be made of hydrogen; if it were weaker, there would be no hydrogen at all. In either case, life as we know it wouldn’t be possible. Even the amount of energy contained in empty space seems perfectly set to allow intelligent life to flourish. That’s not all. All told, about 12 parameters have been identified as being just right for life.
Why is the universe so perfect? Most physicists now argue that in some sense, it could not have been otherwise. That reasoning has given rise to several different answers known as “anthropic principles”.
One end of the spectrum puts us truly back in the centre. This extreme anthropic principle posits that the universe is so perfect that it must have been made for us, either by an intelligent creator or, more likely, because of some fundamental feature of the cosmos that drives it towards intelligent life. In his book The Goldilocks Enigma, Paul Davies, a cosmologist at Arizona State University, tentatively suggests the possibility that life could be a law of nature. He calls it the “life principle”, although he admits it is verging on the theological.
Most physicists have no time for ideas like this. “To say that this is all for us? That is just completely bizarre,” says Sean Carroll, a cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.
Perhaps, then, it is the other way round: according to another formulation of the anthropic principle, the universe only exists because we do. We conjure it up with our consciousness
Some less mind-bending versions of the principle are also available. They try to explain why the universe would appear perfectly made for us, even if it isn’t. In a nutshell, this weak anthropic principle says that given that we are around to observe the universe, it simply has to allow for our existence.
This is often taken to imply that there are other regions of the universe - or even other universes - where physical laws and constants are different. So asking why things are this way amounts to asking why we are in this region. In that case, the anthropic principle is merely pointing out that places that are hospitable to our kind of life are the only places we can possibly be.
This line of reasoning has been bolstered by the possible existence of a multiverse, versions of which emerge from both quantum mechanics and standard cosmology. With lots of other universes, each with their own physical constants and laws, the mystery of our own fine-tuned universe evaporates. We can only be in one that is fine-tuned for carbon-based life.
But even if this version of the anthropic principle explains fine-tuning, it still restores us to some of our former (self-appointed) glory by putting human observers firmly back into our description of the cosmos. “If you want to explain the universe that we see, the very fact that we are seeing it is part of that explanation,” says Davies. “It is a bit of a U-turn in the history of science that has been removing the observer from the picture altogether.”
It seems we are handicapped to some extent by not knowing what forms of life are possible, the cellular or multicellular form of which we are a part might not make of special at all, there maybe other forms of life that are not cell based that could be more advantageous and more special.
A probability of a universe with such mind blowing accuracy and diversity without conscious mind behind it
is like finding a boing plane with it's complexity in the desert thinking it's a product of chaotic nature actions ...
P.s I am an atheist so no I don't mean the notorious imaginary G.O.D by conscious mind
Consciousness can only be aware of itself, and thus exist, through being conscious of something. So the universe had to be created for this purpose, if nothing more. Is reality a symptom of consciousness or vice versa?
In fact, nothing could be said to "exist" were there not a consciousness there to register it
Could anthropic principle be more about time, with Copernican principle being more about space?
When the only lifeform in the universe was a form of algae, the universe was basically 1-d.
Yoooo that would be so less stressful! I wanna reincarnate into some algae!
@@mytandasouder4485 XXDDDD
Algae as we know it is 3 dimensional
Surely there exist universes without consciousness. But they will live and die, unknown and unknowable.
We are both. Our life on Earth adapted to our environment. This is what all life would do in every other Universe. Then there would be the survival of the fittest that would determine what survives, then DNA would alter that life form to add or remove traits helpfull for its3 survival. Life only has one purpose, survival. Then we alst determine that our creation was rare, but in the same breath trillions of other galaxies and Universes have near identical chances of life and it's survival.
Take notice he said " The Theory of Everything- (When we finally get it)
😉 ....Science is GOD!
Wrong person to ask the great question 🙄
Then are you?
The deeper, more relevant question is: "Must consciousness contain the universe?"
The answer is no.
The proof is that in dreamless sleep the world is not (from the first person perspective; the only one there is) and yet you must exist. It is impossible for both the world and the Self to not exist, and as the world arises and passes within consciousness as a natural result of the circadian rhythm, the Self must be fundamental and the world, derivative.
Death is simply a larger scale cycle of the same process. As is the upcoming extinction of the human species a larger scale than the ego death of a person.
All that deep knowledge must have come to you in a dream, or perhaps after eating too many fried potatoes.
I started out liking what you were seeming to say but it started to go downhill I think.
@@MarkLucasProductions Some people love to fantasize and present is as THE truth.
I don't understand what is going on in their minds. It is such weird behavior.
I'm always amazed by how easily so many of these world class astrophysicists seem to accept the multiverse concept has fact simply because our particular universe is so unique that a one shot deal with our parameters would be a miracle, along with accepting at face value some abstruse math taken from a theory (superstring) that hasn't even been proven correct.
Exactly.
It’s because multiple universes are supported by the popular inflationary theory of the universe. This other video on this channel with Alan Guth explains it well ua-cam.com/video/FBjHElOeQ_E/v-deo.html
I wonder if it is because they want to believe the concept I cant think of another reason why one would believe it
It’s not simply because of that fact. There’s a lot more reasons that are difficult to explain to the layperson.
@@HyzersGR I certainly hope they have more reasons. Any theory that predicts there are out there, somewhere, an infinite number of universes exactly like this one with me doing the exact same thing seems absurd at face value. They better have compelling evidence besides a lot of questionable esoteric math. I don't think they have a shred of empirical evidence, just a hunch that puts them outside the realm of science and into the time honored tradition of metaphysics.
#1
The Universe doesn’t exist without consciousness…this isn’t some woo woo misuse of quantum randomness. What I mean is that existence doesn’t matter (doesn’t exist) without a consciousness to perceive it.
absolutely true ...can we conceive a reality made of some rocks running around some balls of energy ...and ...no one even watching it ?
That can't be true. It's easy to feel that way or to intuit such a thing but there is no way it can be true unless there is some way it can make sense.
@@MarkLucasProductions the most basic thing that makes sense is that a reality without observes is basically not existing. Really "reality" had this fundamental feature "by chance" ?
Whatever the truth, it is impossible to believe it all came from nothing and created itself.
The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence-Nikola Tesla.
Woo woo
@@N0Xa880iUL Geology sounds woo woo to my 4 year old cute child. I tell him to grow up. So you do the same please;Grow up!!
@@soubhikmukherjee6871 Nonsense analogy
The science that does this is called "Meditation." Physics, by definition can't go there.
Since "non-physical" simply means "imaginary", I have been making tons of "progress" ever since I was born; so have everyone else.
The good thing is that I eventually realized how pointless such "progress" is, and quit wasting my time; hope others will come to the same conclusion. 😏
The universe is created, maintained and ultimately destroyed. Only consciousness can evolve... and devolve.
And the Bible doesn't call us both? you ain't taking this and getting this from the Bible at all? Special and not special, heaven and hell, pride and humbleness. To choose to be special or choose not to be special. Have a softened heart or a hardened heart.
We can onlu conclude that WE exist.....
Consciousness is the Universe! No Consciousness, no Universe.
Lol assumptions upon assumptions, are these the best minds of our time?😂
No, but they’re good at getting corporate and government grants.
the question is tautologically: since we can see ourselves in the mirror (at least some of us) the Universe can ( and we did create with our brains a new universe already called computer - both just reflecting each other as the Universe does...
Baseless discussion . Phiscs fundament Not explains mult Universe. It is hipotesy. Brazenly liar. Tautoligy rethoric from dishonest guy. In other words anti scientif. Abusive chalatan.
It 'was' nonsense I think. but I don't see that it called for such accusations. I love the way you spell - That's how I used to spell until late in my adulthood.
Also galaxies, stars and planets that do not have life
a painter cant immediately fill the canvas
The Cosmos could be a brain much like ours.
Lot's of mights happening here....
No
This doesn't say anything.
ah those times in which people believed in string theory and multiverses !!
This is so horribly mistitled it’s frustrating
Simple answer : no
DIFFERENT UNIVERSE TOTAL BS
I think most people (including cosmologists) would agree with you but they talk about multiple universes just because they have a theory about what might have been responsible for 'this' our universe.
Here is a simple scientific experiment for the couch-locked "explorers of truth", sometimes known as "philosophers": pick something you know absolutely nothing about, for example, a computer, and see if you can figure out how it works and what it is made of simply by thinking about it for a long long time.
Let me know how far you get, brainiacs. LOL
Best comment I've seen on any of the videos on this channel!
No. There was no consciousness in the universe for billions of years.