Sean Carroll - Why Fine-tuning Seems Designed
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
- If all is random and our universe is the only universe, the chance existence of human awareness would seem incredible. Because the laws of physics would have to be so carefully calibrated to enable stars and planets to form and life to emerge, it would seem to require some kind of design. But there are other explanations.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on fine-tuning: bit.ly/3fdo27H
Sean Carroll is Homewood Professor of Natural Philosophy at Johns Hopkins University and fractal faculty at the Santa Fe Institute. His research focuses on fundamental physics and cosmology.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
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.
Given enough time and fine tuning, Kuhn will look exactly like Albert Einstein.
Anyone who becomes seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that there is a spirit manifest in the laws of the universe, a spirit vastly superior to that of man." - most famous physicist and philosopher Albert Einstein
I think that's his only goal. All these interviews are just an excuse. But he getting there though..
@@dongshengdi773 Einstein was using that statement in a poetic fashion. Einstein believed Nature was God.
As of recent he only looks like your mom 😘👍
@@kos-mos1127 I know the mind of Albert Einstein
sean Carroll is the best , I never get tired of listening to him
The universe exists, god is not an explanation of it's existence.
Yep. There is no reason for existence to require a cause.
@@con.troller4183 what is the cause for existence to reason?
A dungeon just like a sin, requires not but locking in, of everything that's ever been.
Carroll pretty much nailing this .. .
Not really, the multiverse theory he backs is inherently unscientific and yet he believes it provides the answers to these types of problems.
@@EvilMagnitude It's an idea he says he likes but is agnostic about. That's all. Scientists are allowed to speculate. It's one of the best things they do.
@@EvilMagnitudeSorry but you're wrong. It is not "inherently unscientific" at all and it's not a theory by itself. Quite the opposite, it is _predicted_ by Inflation theory, you don't get much more scientific. Just because it lacks evidence doe not make it unscientific. Black holes, Higgs Boson, gravitational waves all of these were predicted without evidence and then guess what, we found them. You should also bear in mind that Inflation theory has proved remarkably good at predicting many other features of the universe of which we can observe.
Thank you both! For this gift of a conversation to all of us. I watch these with my toddlers.
Mr Carol does a wonderful job here of showing the flaws with the fine-tuning argument. And at the end he does a masterful job of showing how presumptuous we are with the limited knowledge that we have. Very well done.
But then again, we should remember we are Earth bound Earthlings - Earth is the physical reality that created us. All this other deep universe stuff seems more a reflect of humans religious instincts, trying to comprehend the All behind it all.
It's only this Earth we know with any amount of reasonable certainty.
You misspelled blunderful job
*"And at the end he does a masterful job of showing how presumptuous we are with the limited knowledge that we have."*
... Although the odds for life existing inside a star are remote, it is still conceivable. Therefore, we cannot claim that this is impossible. However, LOGIC states that if all life that we've been able to observe requires certain parameters for it to exist, then we can safely conclude that life doesn't exist inside a star.
We don't have to allow for *all possibilities* whenever a question remains unanswered. *Example:* If I can't find my car keys, then I don't have to include _"Space aliens must have taken them!"_ as one possible explanation.
@@michaelperrin7801 *"Yeah, but that's just inductive logic based on the evidence of one planet."*
... Current science only yields a single planet that supports life. Like you, I believe there are more, but until we find another, we're the only one.
*"I would counter-argue: why can't we scientifically explain why feelings accompany clumps of atoms?"*
... Atoms don't express any emotion whatsoever. Atoms are to complex structure what letters are to words. Complex structure is to life what words are to sentences. Life is to nature what paragraphs are to chapters. Nature is to Existence what chapters are to a book.
You'll never have a single atom expressing any emotion nor will you ever have a single letter communicating all the information contained within a book.
*"We have to conclude that the question is too far beyond us (in the current era), and we cannot really answer either way on the question of fine tuning."*
... If we can determine that the rest of the universe is similar to the much smaller "observable universe," then I think we have enough information to draw an educated conclusion for what fine-tuning actually is.
BS.
Only an intelligence ... makes & fine tunes .... Functions.
The Universe is an Isolated Thermodynamic System.
All thermodynamic Systems are Functions ... and originate from the SURROUNDING System(s).
C'mon Provide your evidence that nature & natural processes can make the simplest physical Function 13.7 billions years ago? Good luck. lol.
Fine tuning does not require a Fine Tuner.
Given time, increasing complexity produces patterns. Some patterns persist and combine to become more complex. Patterns that work tend to repeat and ones that don't tend not to repeat. It's not tuning from outside but from undirected trial and error.
My guitar requires a tuner
2:21 - "It just happens ..." I like that explanation.😉
Yes. Some things may be just brute facts.
@@lrvogt1257 that seems lazy and simplistic, it's possible i guess?
@@jonathacirilo5745 : I'm not suggesting that the idea of a brute fact feels satisfying or that one should stop looking deeper. At some point something has to be fundamental.
@@lrvogt1257 i see.
@@lrvogt1257like
God
Who tuned the Tuner?
@@visancosmin8991 So why can't the Tuned tune itself?
And is it really tuned or is that just anthropomorphic projection?
My own common sense tells me that it's not the universe that is fine tuned but rather mother nature is "fine tuned" to find niches where life can exist. If you go to supremely hostile environments on earth you will find forms of life emerging under ice in the arctic regions or incredibly deep in the ocean or around volcanic vents etc. If those forms of life were sentient they might well believe that the earth is fine tuned for their existence but that is clearly not the case. I would like to believe that the universe was "fine tuned" so I could exist but that seems to me like believing in Santa Claus. Should we believe that a universe, 99.99 percent of which is hostile to life, was "fine tuned" for us?
=== is there such a thing as mother nature? Or is it " He who cause to become" responsible for the universes existence and life on earth? What does the evidence say if one is wiling to take the time to look for it. === Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible ====
If God exists then yes, it's kind of why it's such a big deal. It's when we remove God from the equation that we end up in disbelief that it could be fine tuned just for us.
I think Carroll Straw-man's what Robert calls the "theistic" view, mocking it as "the universe, is fine-tuned for life so that I can be here". It's easy to see that as ridiculous - but it's a misrepresentation. The suggestion is that the universe is the way it is, so that sentience can exist within a physical environment. To be clear, this isn't necessarily a theistic view (in any conventionally religious way). It's a teleological view, which postulates that consciousness itself is a fundamental feature of reality - and further, that consciousness has influenced the character of physical reality - in the interests of the flourishing of consciousness.
And like theism , is a view without evidence
@@tonyatkinson2210 yeah consciousness is not real.! beats me.!
to put it simply what factors in the universe that exist to make life possible? how improbable they are. !?
@@tonyatkinson2210 No, that's another misrepresentation. The evidence in question, however we interpret it, is fine-tuning. The logical alternatives are as follows: (1) there is no fine-tuning, it's all lies! (2) our universe is just one of infinitely many others, in the multiverse (3) consciousness and purpose are fundamental features of the universe and fine tuning is a consequence of this.
There is absolutely no objective evidence to distinguish (2) from (3). If we assume that all the universes are causally isolated, there can't possibly ever be any such evidence. Therefore, those who insist that (2) is the only option do so because, for philosophical (but not scientific) reasons, they refuse to acknowledge the possibility of (3). That doesn't seem rational to me. Furthermore, (2) is, literally, infinite in its ontological extravagance; it goes as far as you possibly can, in violating Occam's razor.
You may object that there is no evidence which supports (3) rather than (2). On the contrary, while there is, as yet, no decisive proof of (3), there is evidence to suggest its likelihood. Physicalist philosophers and cognitive scientists have conspicuously and utterly ailed to provide any account or description of the subjective, qualitative character and intrinsic value of conscious experience that is either remotely convincing or objectively sound, but let's put that to one side. A key point, often over-looked, is that the universe we observe is not only fine-tuned for the existence of life, but also very elegantly so. It is no more complicated than it needs to be, to meet the requirements of the anthropic principle. As the physicist Euan Squires put it, we appear to live in the "simplest possible interesting universe."
The multiverse hypothesis has no explanation for this, as far as I can see. On this view, our universe is one of infinitely many "fine tuned" universes in which physical laws and fundamental constants differ, in every possible way that is compatible with the existence of complex living organisms, capable of consciousness. Clearly, the vast majority of these universes will be complex, elaborate, untidy, messy variations on the fine-tuning theme. There is no reason to expect that, as conscious observers, we should happen to find ourselves in a supremely elegant and simple universe. Hypothesis (3) explains this quite straightforwardly. The universe we observe is beautifully elegant in its fine-tuning, because that's exactly what we should expect a consciously designed, engineered universe to look like.
@@andrewclifton429 I notice you didn’t provide an argument against 1.
And as for 3. Just because scientists have failed to give an account for consciousness , it doesn’t therefore follow that a magic man did it, is the only viable explanation for it .
Talk about violating Occam’s razor ! :
“Consciousness is weird and can’t be explained , therefore I get to claim an uncaused mind , more complex than the universe itself caused everything “
This dialogue is so epic.
Existence from value:
A possible connection between consciousness and the mystery of existence lies in the relationship of consciousness with value. Philip Goff (philosopher) is among the recent wave of philosophers defending the fundamentality of consciousness. Goff has also suggested that the animating force of reality may be mysteriously connected to its value.
He reminds us of an insight first made by the philosopher David Hume in the 19th century. Hume observed that we simply do not perceive causes in nature. While we perceive the flow of events. Our apparent perception of causes is an illusion.
Similarly, science does not actually reveal causes in the world. Goff points out that once we truly recognize this, we are Free to consider an alternative possibility, the natural necessity. The animating force of existence is not material or mechanical, but in fact follows from its value.
Goff considers that such a view might also help to explain why against all of the odds, the universe seems finally tuned to allow what he calls, "a universe of great value in which conscious value sensitive beings can evolve."
Among all of the intelligible arrangements of nature's laws, the probability of a life friendly universe is, in fact, trillions to one.
Fine tuning may actually be an indicator of the deeper significance and necessity of consciousness on the metaphysical landscape.
:
The cosmos may very well be nothing more than random wave functions producing interference patterns and our consciousness reveals a tiny slice of that reality.
Yea, I am sure that that darwinian rock and lightening thought all about that before deciding to fuse into a human being.
@@leawilliams8476 : What a strange idea. I've only heard creationists say that as a really, really weak straw-man argument... No one who knows anything about science would ever suggest such a nonsensical thing.
@@lrvogt1257 time for a darwinian rethink since the absurdity isn't panning out because it is becoming painfully obvious ie for darwinians, that this world is exceptional in its fine tuning for fitness of human life in particular.
@@leawilliams8476 Whether the world is exceptional for natural or supernatural reasons does not change how evolution through natural selection works.
Life is the universe experiencing itself
None of his sentences are ending the way I expect them to end. They start one way and end another. The premises don't match the conclusions.
This guy believes in an infinite array of multiverses as a sober, rational scientific theory, it's to be expected.
He should be evicted from the premises.
@@davidcopson5800 He also believes in a theory of matter with no evidential support. Then he poopoos actual evidence for a divine Engineer.
My car's license plate reads 187KNV: the odds of that happening by chance is astronomically unlikely, as there are ten Arabic numerals (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) and 26 Greek/Roman letters. My license plate therefore shows that the Motor Vehicle Department is God.
But there is nothing mindbogglingly amazing about 187KNV
@@lukew7343 ; Er, the odds of getting "187KNV" is many hundreds of millions to one: it is ASTOUNDING that I would get 187KNV.
@@Desertphile but what does 187KNV even mean? What's special about it?
Design…… impossible. Multiverse…… absolutely. I don’t see any bias 😂
He didn't say impossible, he said design is the worst choice. It's easy to see why he would say that because discussion about said belief is impossible. There is no way to reason about it, make calculations or have any logical conclusion. As he said the multiverse came out of calculations they weren't looking for it. That doesn't mean it's true but at least you can talk about it, try to prove/disprove it, etc.
Neither of those claims have been made.
Not distorting what Carroll had to say will help you to understand what he actually said.
If you insist on making up the opinions of others, then why watch the video at all?
@@andreasplosky8516 Did you even watch the video? He said design is the worst choice out of the three explanations for the finetuned universe, and that a multiverse wasn't postulated beforehand but was something that came out of calculations. If you insist on "correcting" others without cause, then why watch the video at all?
He said he is agnostic about the multiverse.
@@boremir3956 It is as if you people don't understand language at all. Perhaps theism has destroyed your mastery of precise language, as you have become used to making up fantastical magical god nonsense, whenever you feel like it.
Seems to me that the universe tuned itself along entropic states of energy as it cooled. Chaos gave way to order at certain temperatures setting the stage for the next tier of orderliness from apparent chaos. Pure energy gave way to orderly fields that interacted, creating mass. It looks tuned in retrospect, but when you play the film forward it was simply the condensation of energy along a path of entropy, giving way to a relativistic universe that only seems finely tuned until you heat things up in a supercollider, a black hole, or when viewed at the Plancke scale.
There have to be deeper laws that explain everything and all constant will follow from it. The same way C follows from Maxwell's equation. Why no such option?
Yes, there is this option. It is called the Laws of God.
@@leawilliams8476 god - discrete machine;)
Until we find out something radically new, we should just consider the laws, the constants of nature, to be brute facts.
@@leawilliams8476 : First you have to define and validate such a thing exists and only then can you even begin to make such a claim. Until then it's unscientific and unsupportable.
@@lrvogt1257 God can be defined and validated using the same parameters that are used to support the unscientific and increasingly unsupportable evolution theory of the big bang and macro-evolution etc etc etc. So lets be fair about it even if we cannot agree due to our ideological viewpoints. After all, science is more like a the cult of the materialist than actual science.
On a nice day I like to get the Norton out, and go for a random ride. At each junction I'll choose to go hither and thither. I end up _somewhere_ . It does not require that all those possible alternative paths were taken, so no multiverse is required to explain why I ended at my destination - which as I arrived became a _particular_ somewhere. The probability that I will end up _somewhere_ is 1 - certainty. Had I _intended_ to reach a particular pub it would have been highly improbable, but that assumes an intended _somewhere_ . (As it happens, when I have randomly arrived at the originally non-intended but now particular somewhere, I get the satnav out and aim for a particular somewhere with a nice country pub.)
It is a misuse of statistics to suggest that the probability of getting to a _particular_ somewhere is tiny, while ignoring the fact that getting _somewhere_ is certain, unless one applies circular reasoning, assuming the particular somewhere in the premises.
David Berlinsky said the multiverse idea requires a whole new category of the absurd, I think so too..
*"David Berlinsky said the multiverse idea requires a whole new category of the absurd, I think so too.."*
... An infinitely existing Multiverse comprised of an infinite number of universes is science's way of offering yet another version of an infinite God. Neither construct is accurate.
It has also been said that the universe is very large and very old and very rare things happen all the time.
I don't think that there's anything inherently wrong with multiverse theory, it's just funny when people who pride themselves on being hyper-rationalist materialists treat multiverse theory as science and not as theology, which is what it actually is.
@@EvilMagnitude I don't think you understand the multiverse idea.
Who cares about what this religious propagandist/apologist thinks?
Exactly, given what we have known now, we would not possibly predict life appears and exits on Earth, so why calling our planet and our universe are fined tuning for "life"?
Would it be a wasted life if Robert dies asking the very same questions he was asking on day one of his lifelong quest for the truth?
No, because it's mostly the journey that matters, and even for the final result, he'll still have a lot better answers than he started out with!
Very honest interview and shared view points
It’s impossible to accurately assess the system from within the system. It looks fine tuned to us, and maybe it is, but of course if it was random (and it appears to be), we would only find ourselves in a place where we can exist. The other thing is even that doesn’t do it justice. That’s just talking about carbon based life forms on earth, then you have to get to us as a species, and then to you as an individual person. The odds seem astronomically against that, but we beat them. Even in an infinite multiverse situation, you are made up of physical materials that only exist right here and right now. It’s fucking nuts. If we were at all rational about it we’d just scream in terror and wonder from birth to death, but luckily we can distract ourselves with our phones I guess
Randomness is impossible at those odds....we exactly know how hard its to have 1) a complex universe 2) life. We know that because we know the infinity of other no working possibilities. Not because you find a pizza in your plate then you dont have to ask from where it comes from.
Douglas Adams famously posed a puddle that gains consciousness and marvels how the pothole was so perfectly fine-tuned to fit him.
@@lrvogt1257 is an analogy that does not work anymore... It looks like a cool example but is totally silly.
astronomers Geraint Lewis and Luke Barnes explain why this analogy fails.
""Consider more closely the puddle’s reasoning. Let’s name our puddle Doug. He has noticed a precise match between two things: 1) his shape and 2) the shape of the hole in which he lives. Doug is amazed! What Doug doesn’t know is that, given A) the fluidity of water, B) the solidity of the hole, and C) the constant downward force of gravity, he will always take the same shape as his hole. If the hole had been different, his shape would adjust to match it. Any hole will do for a puddle.
This is precisely where the analogy fails: any universe will not do for life. Life is not a fluid. It will not adjust to any old universe. There could have been a completely dead universe: perhaps one that lasts for 1 second before recollapsing or is so sparse that no two particles ever interact in the entire history of the universe""
Upon what do you base the assertion "it appears to be" random? This seems to be simply yet another presumption of materialism as the necessary default.
@@francesco5581 Life is not A fluid but life is fluid. "Fluid: adjective - b: subject to change or movement.
Saying what a universe could have been is just words because it wasn't. It is this universe. Increasing complexity in many trillions of galaxies over billions of years can produce a lot of potholes AKA niches for life to evolve.
We don't know yet so it's not wise to assume it must have been this way or that but until we have actual evidence that there is anything but naturally occurring phenomena we can't present the supernatural as a cause of anything.
Fine tuning or multi verse. Maybe the continuous battle of persistence verse change overshadows the situation to create the one and only one universe that we see. Since Change could create the universe multiple experinces as in the use of the future then it follows that persistence could restrict the universes experience or complementary past to none at all from the one we have eliminating the fine tuning feature. Fine tuning is a feature result of the dynamics of time and manifestation itself. The only thing that can happen does and will, others simply don’t.
But what if randomness is also somehow teleological?
Randomness is only a word that stands for human's inability to predict with certainty. We can't infere from that neither the existence nor non-existence of a teleology.
@@The-Wide-Angle I have some insights on teleology on my ch-annel.
@@visancosmin8991 Matter does not possess consciousness therefore there are things that do not possess consciousness. It is this very fact that makes darwins theory false.
@@leawilliams8476 you are made of matter
@@visancosmin8991 👆
Sean's description of the "theistic" explanation is an impoverished view of this position as well as attributing it to narcissism in the theist:'the universe is there for me'-Werner Heisenberg, Nobel Laureate in Physics, once commented 'science does not explain or describe nature, only nature as exposed to our tools of inquiry'-one needs more humility about what we know and what we don't know.
True humility is acceptance of a Creator God because it would mean that as a human you would have to submit to a greater being than yourself. And you would also have to answer to Him when you break His laws.
It is science that is telling us that the universe is finely tuned in order to exist and allow for life.
That is why we are having the debate. Those who think like you do and object to a Creator God but can no longer deny the intelligent design and supernatural forces that hold it all together, are now merging science and religion into a new cult that they can control and this is the purpose of this very channel. To gently usher you into the merging of The Global Philosophy of Science and Religion courtesy of Robert L Kuhn and others.
Science can only explore what is already in existence. Science has also known since the 1960s that there must be an intelligent designer due to the irreducible complexity of one living cell.
Of course, the pride of the atheists who want to be as gods themselves object to an intelligent designer that they have to answer to and they object to the idea that this earth exists for the purposes of this God and that He has made this purpose known to mankind through the person of Jesus Christ the Word of God. So much for narcissism.
@@leawilliams8476 : Submission to something for which there is no evidence is not a worthy goal. No one objects to you believing whatever suits you but a "creator" is unscientific. There is nothing to observe, quantify, or test. You can believe it if you like but, with no evidence for it, there is no rational reason to accept that it's factual. Even if it were true, you'd still need the science to learn what the mechanism was.
Irreducible complexity has been debunked for a very long time. You can look up how if you like.
There is no pride involved in rational inquiry and the willingness to accept what we don't know. It's rather arrogant to tell us that you know what you can't possibly know... It's just what you choose to believe.
@@Somniator7 : To be scientific there must be evidence that is quantifiable, testable, and falsifiable. There is no evidence for a creator so no study can be made. Faith may require humility but it doesn't require evidence; only belief.
@@Somniator7 No. It's either Ganesh or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Only they had the motive and opportunity. The rest are just posers.
@@lrvogt1257 To the contrary, there is overwhelming scientific evidence for the existence of God.
The first law of Thermodynamics and Conservation of Energy in a closed system dictates that there can be no increase or decrease of energy or matter. Atheists presume that there is no outside influence because science calls it a closed system while believers in a Creator God consider it an open system.
Science has 3 options: 1. the universe came into existence by itself which is proven scientifically impossible.
2. the universe always existed, also considered scientifically impossible due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
3. God created the laws and therefore is also able to violate those laws. This remains the only option that is logical and scientifically possible.
Since neither you or I were there when it happened you cannot prove that it happened by itself nor can I prove that God did it.
You are using faith ie belief in something that you cannot prove. I am doing the same except I have a logical and reasonable solution for the event whereas you do not. So believing in God is more sane than not.
And the position that should apply according to your own principles is that you and the godless scientist god-priests have no more right to foist your belief systems onto humanity than I and other believers in God do.
Bacterial flagella remain a mystery to scientists who recognize them as a marvel of machine-like precision. Harvard biophysicist, Howard Berg, has publicly described the bacterial flagellum as “the most efficient machine in the universe.”
Is God real? The bacterial flagellum is best explained by God’s existence as the Intelligent Designer of biological systems.
The Bacterial Flagellum as visualized in Michael Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box.
I've seen (mostly on religious videos such as Justin Brierley's Unbelievable channel) the claim that if the fundamental physical constants were different by, for example, one part in 10^55, that stars, planets, even atoms couldn't exist. None of the scientifically oriented videos I've seen ever seem to put a number on just how 'fine' fine tuning is. My question is, how credible are these claims from the religious side? Just how much could the fundamental constants vary before any kind of structure in the universe becomes impossible? I'd be grateful for any insight.
Most of the religious channels get the numbers wrong. But the fine tuning is very fine. I actually don't think it's possible to put a number on it. This is part of the confusion : people say fine tuning is an argument from probability, but it isn't really.
10^55 is about right for the cosmological constant, but there are 26 of those parameters!
The main issue with assigning a specific number is that there are multiple overlapping parameters, all of which fit together to make our universe. Some more flexible as to the specific number, some less.
@@visancosmin8991 there is no structure, remember, only your consciousness (apparently).
Did you forget your own story?
@@visancosmin8991 except there aren't any constants in your nonsense. If there is no brain, no skull, no matter, then what constants??
You don't believe your own Nonsensisms! 🤣
@@fluffysheap Scientists are finding the universe is like that watch ( anology of William Paley ), except even more precisely designed. 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 the universe is extremely fine tuned (designed) to support human CONSCIOUSNESS on earth (Thats why some notorious atheists including Antony Flew later believed in God).
Some Anthropic constants example include:
1. birth date of the star-planetary system
* if too early: quantity of heavy elements would be too low for large rocky planets to form
* if too late: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; ratios of potassium-40, uranium-235, -238, and thorium-232 to iron would be too low for long-lived plate tectonics to be sustained on a rocky planet
2. flux of cosmic-ray protons (one way cloud droplets are seeded)
* if too small: inadequate cloud formation in planet's troposphere
* if too large: too much cloud formation in planet's troposphere 3. rotation period
* if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great
* if shorter: atmospheric jet streams would become too laminar and average wind speeds would increase too much
4. fine structure constant (a number, 0.0073, used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)
* if larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses …
* if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields …
* if smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses
5. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere
* if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly
* if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly
6. Jupiter's mass
* if greater: Earth's orbit would become unstable; Jupiter's presence would too radically disturb or prevent the formation of Earth
* if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth
The religious claims are not very credible.
"seems" not good enough.
Just say, Theists, that you DON'T KNOW. Not just don't know, but don't know AT ALL!
Multiverse is literally a fantasy. No fine tuning? Non-starter.
This is the first video I’ve run across all month that has intelligent debate. Usually UA-cam comments are a dumpster fire. It’s encouraging to see that some people still do love intellectual curiosity and spirited debate. Perhaps I have found my community of likeminded people here? 🤔😊🙌📚
In other words I’d rather believe in countless universes. life capable of living inside of a 20,000 degree neuron star before I believe there’s a designer
And believe in something that can come from nothing .
@@dongshengdi773 it’s not nothing
A designer is possible yes but not necessarily a world religion type of god
@@dongshengdi773 The philosophical nothingness, that religious people frequently talk about, is not a thing in science. As far as we know, even vacuum has potential and while our universe might have a beginning, existence itself probably doesn't.
@@zacatkinson3926 Please remember: religion is man made. God as in Jesus Christ is beyond world religions since He actually created everything. We are the ones who turn Him into something He is not.
Nature brings about all possibilities consistent with itself?
God created it all!!
@@visancosmin8991 of your world yes.....jeejeje
6:00 that proves that they do not understand what they have stolen !
The philosopher John Leslie explored this possibility in his 1979 book, Value and Existence.
Because of the problem of infinite regress, no physical mechanism will ever be adequate to explain the universe's existence.
To solve this mystery, we must go beyond materialism and consider There's something very different, more akin to value is the animating force of reality.
.
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 .
.
"Existence itself is the upholding of value intensity." - Philosopher Alfred North Whitehead.
PLATO was in fact essentially correct that the underlying nature of the universe is more mind-like than classically physical. And, that the true creative force of this reality is its value. Consciousness is the vehicle of all value, meaning and significance in the universe.
Without consciousness, nothing matters. Without consciousness, nothing exists.
:
"To solve this mystery, we must go beyond materialism and consider There's something very different, more akin to value is the animating force of reality. "
Does that "solve" anything or is it just rationalization to satisfy a desire for an answer? I think the latter because there is no way to evaluate or test it any of it. It's also far too anthropomorphic. It's the way primitive humans viewed everything because that was the only experience they had to draw from.
I agree that without consciousness nothing "matters" That's what we do and we have no idea if it matters to someone else on one of the many trillions of other planets in the universe.
I've been looking for this book for a while, Seems hard to come by.
You have no evidence that suggests you can go beyond materialism. Produce the Creator, THEN you can start investigating how it was created. If you constantly and completely ignore the question of how, you're being dishonest about your imagination of creation. And you have no basis by which you can definitively rule out "infinite anything". You're completely satisfied with the current state that "science isn't adequately explaining things to my satisfaction". Whereas I, as someone who hasn't bought into the idea of a creator (God, what have you) actually existing, I won't say the God doesn't explain it all. I will say that the proposed God, which can't be demonstrated, explains nothing at all the people who believe in it don't even try.
@@lrvogt1257 We could test the hypothesis by checking nature for functional utility. Indeed it's there, all over nature, in thousands of different forms of life and in the inorganic environment of which bears much integrated functional utility for life. There also appears to be negative functionality in nature, but it appears to be evolutionarily selected against. Furthermore evolution itself may well be a manifestation of some underlying metaphysical bias towards the expression of collective and aggregate subjective motivational fulfilment.
@@bobbabai ^^^ Ive got some evidence for partial teleology in nature.
The universe and life are so complex, unique and amazing. I respond, "Compared to what?"
Compare to void and nothing. compared to pure noise.
You see Mathematics in nature But I see poetry.
DNA molecule has the same property of “sequence specificity” that characterizes codes and language. DNA sequences do not just possess “information” in the strictly mathematical sense described by pioneering information theorist Claude Shannon. Shannon related the amount of information in a sequence of symbols to the improbability of the sequence (and the reduction of uncertainty associated with it). But DNA base sequences do not just exhibit a mathematically measurable degree of improbability. Instead, DNA contains information in the richer and more ordinary dictionary sense of “alternative sequences or arrangements of characters that produce a specific effect.” DNA base sequences convey instructions. They perform functions and produce specific effects. Thus, they not only possess “Shannon information,” but also what has been called “specified” or “functional information.”
Like the precisely arranged zeros and ones in a computer program, the chemical bases in DNA convey instructions by virtue of their specific arrangement - and in accord with an independent symbol convention known as the “genetic code.” Thus, atheist-biologist Richard Dawkins notes that “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” Similarly, Bill Gates observes that “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” Similarly, biotechnologist Leroy Hood describes the information in DNA as “digital code.”
And a computer programme requires a programmer therefore God must exist.
You have a bad case of mistaking the metaphor for the thing.
@@leawilliams8476 Physicist Dr. James Gates, Jr. has discovered this intelligent error-correcting computer code which coincidentally is exactly the Same as what Claude Elwood Shannon wrote in the 1950s. As for the interpretation of his discovery, the evidence suggests that we are living in a simulated universe . The many-worlds interpretation is just a consequence of the simulated universe theory, so we don't even have to go beyond that . And this is exactly what he and his colleagues have been pondering for the last 20 years.
If Neil deGrasse Tyson was mind blown by this discovery, you should be too .
@@dongshengdi773 It astonishes me when someone thinks they have discovered something found in creation and just because they think they found something this must disprove the existence of God when in fact it actually only serves to confirm the fact. Really myopic. And no, I am not blown away by what humans do since most the time they either get it wrong or they mess it up. I am blown away by the sheer magnitude and astounding fitness of creation for life on this planet all designed by an awesome God.
Why is it so hard to understand " PLANNED RANDOMNESS "
It's not really all that fine tuned. Sure, we know of life in one incredibly small pocket of the universe, but not anywhere else. When I look at the universe it looks more inhospitable to life than anything else.
When you look at the photo that Voyager took of the earth 3,750,000,000 miles away the earth looks inhospitable. So yeah put the Jesus card back in your pocket
the universe has to be cold and dark in order for it to be as it is here.
@@gerardjones7881 Huh? Based on what did you come to that conclusion? So for life to exist in a sliver of the universe the majority of the universe needs to not support life? That doesn't sound like fine tuning to me
Fine Tuned...
... FOR DEATH !!!
@@con.troller4183 exactly!
*Texas sharp-shooter fallacy?* 🎯
That may be the wrong name.
The fine-tuning argument for god(s) paints the bullseye over the bullet holes.
Any combination of narrow physical laws will result in some things peculiar to that combination of laws. Just because one set has produced us does not make that set statistically special.
If you shuffle a deck of cards thoroughly and end up with four suits all in order, you have merely shuffled it into one of of the many equally possible arrangements. No one arrangement is more or less likely than any other. The ordered result has meaning to us, just as life does. People may like FT mostly for self-referential reasons. We see ourselves as meaningful and non-us as less so.
It doesn't seem designed it is designed
Put your evidence on the table.
Please look up the logical fallacy called, Begging The Question.
There is a 4th hypothesis : consciousness is at the core of the universe and because it is in its nature to know (itself), it does naturally everything it can to build organic machines that can think and (try to) know themselves.
Fluff & Puff consciousness stuff. Dismissed.
@@NeverTalkToCops1 It never ceases to be funny to me how willing "rationalists" are to dismiss consciousness, the foundation for all of their rationalist thought, as "woo" or "fluff & puff", etc, despite the fact that we still don't have the faintest understanding of what it really is or how it arises.
Why does consciousness need organic machines at all? It seems they would be a burden and a limitation to consciousness understanding itself.
The world is not what one should expect from a consciousness-based reality.
@@scienceexplains302 Just like wetness is a property of water, so is knowing a property of consciousness. It may not need to know, it just wants to, it would be in its nature to do so. And how could you know something if you are everything that is? if you can't differentiate anything from yourself? That would explain why there is something instead of nothing, and why that something tends to organize itself and becomes more and more complex. Donald Hoffman, professor of cognitive science at the University of California, did some impressive work based on the hypothesis that consciousness would be a given, not a byproduct of matter, and the models that came even stunned him ; the universe seems to make more sense this way.
@@FortYeah I disagree, starting from “and how could you know”?
I am not saying there ever was anything that was everything. That is what Abrahamic theists say about their god(s) -potential plural because of Trinitarianism. You’ll have to take it up with them how their god could know anything.
If this consciousness can’t distinguish anything from itself, then how would it know to create separate bodies? So, no, that would neither explain how nor why there is something rather than nothing. Consciousness that can create matter is already something.
I don’t see logic or consistency in your position.
This guy clearly watched one too many Star Trek episodes 😂
I think his dismissal of theism was pretty weak.
Why start with a statement thinking that God created everything for us?
Biblically God didn’t created anything for us He created everything for his glory and because he felt like it.
You need to rethink your idea of fine-tuning. You looking at it from the wrong angle.
Perhaps He did create it all for us. We appear to be the centre of the universe for on intents and purposes.
@@leawilliams8476 Biblically no… but i can see why you say that.
Sorry Sean, but the cosmological constant? Tuned anywhere from 58 to 120 zeros followed by a 1 and a 2. So something like .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000012 or more and take away or add several zeros and stars don’t exist, galaxies, and life itself?? The universe immediately collapses following the Big Bang…I like Sean but I believe he’s coming up short on this one. There are 10 to the 84 power of atoms in the entire known universe?
"I know why it [the universe] is like that, it is like that so I can be here"
That's a strawman Sean.
Here is what I know. the only known planet that harbor life is the one that we live in. the only universe that we know this kind of planet exist, is the one that we are inhabiting. Not discounting the possibility of any other planet harboring life that we can find yet. !? nor discounting the possibility of any other universe may exist, further more finding a planet in that universe (granting their is any other universe) that can harbor life. Just comprehend this moment the only parameter that we can exist in this universe that is amazing. how random is that ? that this be just the natural force of nature and physical laws?
Maybe it's a strawman for YOUR argument but it accurately reflects the views of many fundamentalist thesists out there...
It is the point of the fine-tuning argument. It is the theistic explanation for us.
@@amac9044 Show me an article from any respectable theistic apologetics website or videos saying that this is the EXACT argument. Emphasis on "SO 'I' can be here"
@@SupremeSkeptic ua-cam.com/video/19Ei-kek4VY/v-deo.html
It is so all can be!
So you are confident about your assertions, without having sufficient information to base those assertions upon ?😁
Most people are. That’s what 99% of all religion is. Belief without sufficient proof.
3:10 perfect match with that video ! why !
here for the triggered christian comments 🙄 🍿
You could be here for that without announcing it.
Carroll keeps conflating the issues. It's not about plate tectonics and its not about the universe being fine-tuned for human life. Its not about space being perfect for humans, cos we all know most planets are dead rocks.
It is about the constants of nature, a number of which appear to be on an extraordinary mind-bogglingly narrow razor's edge value that if any of them were slightly different there would be no galaxies, no chemistry, no complexity.
Like the cosmological constant which has the value of 10 to the minus 120 of the plank scale. Or 10 followed by 120 zeros. A brain-melting, head-explodingly tiny value which if it were slightly different then no complex life could exist.
There are many, many "coincidences" required for us to be here. Ok. But then, you wouldn't expect to find other coincidences on top of those coincidences. For instance, the moon shouldn't be the same size as the Sun when viewed from Earth. There's no reason for that. Also, you wouldn't expect to find the size of the Earth to be exactly 77 x 1500 miles cubed. There's no reason for that either. It's not like you are digging through hundreds of variables here, looking for the coincidences.
The moon wasn’t always the same size as the sun when viewed from earth. In the past it was closer and blocked the sun and more. In the future it will move farther away and block even less of the sun. Completely unremarkable and not at all any indication of design.
@@visancosmin8991 The moon is currently moving away from the earth 3.78cm each year so yes to your question. When I was a child the moon was closer than it is now.
@@visancosmin8991 Have you lived in the past to know Jesus walked the earth and raised people from the dead? Will you live in the future to see a rapture take people up to heaven?
@@visancosmin8991 who is the “designer” you are referring to then?
@@visancosmin8991 There is something going on with the cube in the Abrahamic faiths. The Kaaba, Islam's holiest site, is a large black cube, circled 7 times by the faithful. The book of Revelation chapter 21 speaks of the new Jerusalem as being a cube 1500 miles on a side (Roman Catholic bible). The number 7 is prominent throughout Revelations (scrolls, seals, angels, and all that). Also, the room in the First Temple where the Ark of the Covenant was held was built with cubic dimensions. The number 7 probably dates back to the Sumerians or earlier, as this was the number of visible moving bodies in the heavens. Anyway, if you take the average radius of Earth (recent survey in year 2000 accounts for oblateness and geography), do the math, and divide by the size of the New Jerusalem, you get 77.000.... Everyone has a different number of trailing zeros needed to take note of this. For some, a hundred zeros would not be enough.
I look out and see a super nova nebula and think I'm here now cause I'm not there, or they wish they were here right at that last min.......maybe
There is a deep irony in hearing this coming from Mr. Carroll, a staunch proponent of the untestable, unverifiable multiverse theory which is, at the end of the day, simply a form of materialist theology.
No, I think he would say it's a strong hypothesis that's supported by the math and some evidence. I also think he would say there's no test devised so far to demonstrate it. No theology required. All of it is evidence-based.
@@bobbabai Not. Multiverses is a theory, much like darwins theory that has been successfully disproven.
@@leawilliams8476 I wasn't aware of any theory of Darwin's at all. He didn't have a theory. He had a hypothesis that was starting to become supported by evidence by the time he died. Other scientists over 60+ years have made it a theory. Your unsupported dismissal of whatever idea you have an objection to isn't convincing. And the idea of multiverse is not a theory in the scientific sense. Maybe in your nonsense, it is.
Multi-verse is a falsifiable proposition.
God is not. God is an assertion, nothing more.
@@bobbabai Only an idiot is unaware of the scientific facts that prove that there cannot be a world without a creator. Science itself has is coming to this conclusion therefore we have this channel which is actually about The Global Philosophy of Religion. They are herding you into a new worldview that will overlook all these tedious matters towards "conscious evolution" where you can upgrade yourself.
The evidence is not there to support Darwin. Variations and micro evolution is nothing close to macro evolution. The evidence that did arise has been found to be false, where so called scientists LIED and DECEIVED the world deliberately. Even the geologic column is absurd.
A hypothesis is the same thing as a theory. You appear to be guilty of your own projections.
It is only the bottomfeeders who still believe there can be no Creator God. However the elite experts do know and are now herding you into their next deception ie a religion of their particular kind and if you were even slightly more conscious, then you would know that it is towards destruction.
The universe fine tuned for life? Just try living in another planet in our own neighborhood, or get into space with no special suit.
Life is a reproducing creation that cannot create itself. There are great rewards for those who get things right.
Nice imagination with your rewards
Presumptuous was a good word used in this video
"Life is a reproducing creation that cannot create itself."
This is a baseless assertion that cannot support itself.
@@con.troller4183 You can’t support magical matter or magical morphing monkeys.
@@allthingsconsideredaa Evolutionism is presumptuous.
Multiverse...? And other Universes and, what? - other timelines and space/times? Without any proof or evidence, would this also be categorized as just a 'belief'..?? 🤔
Is Sean Caroll a scientist or a theologian? he sounds like a preacher not a scientist, welcome to the Sean Caroll Atheist Church everyone, enjoy the sermon! 😄
Apparently you think there is something wrong with being a priest. Have you told your preacher?
He is a believer in multiverse/MWI, which is fundamentally impossible to test or prove, so yes, he is a theologian.
I agree. I have been training an AI assistant to help me with data, I had to really slow down on my assumptions.
(0:30) *SC: **_"I think that the theistic explanation, you will not be surprised to hear, for fine-tuning is the worst of the three."_* ... Terms such as "fine-tuning" and "consciousness" are temporary descriptors we've assigned to phenomena yet to be explained. Until these phenomena are fully explained, we simply go with whatever seems the most obvious.
Because we are alive, intelligent, self-aware, and create things, we _logically deduce_ that we are byproducts of a universal intelligence that also creates things. That's why theism forwards an all-knowing God. ... _because It makes sense!_
However, logic is only as reliable as the *information* you have available. It was once perfectly logical to believe that the Earth was flat based on the *information* available during that time. Today we have enough *information* to know that the Earth is round and that there is no all-knowing God, yet we still struggle with phenomena such as fine-tuning and consciousness.
The truth is that Existence is entirely comprised of *information* which emerged as the smallest logically conceivable fragment of *information.* This minimal bit of *information* has been evolving for over 13.7 billion years, and we are merely byproducts of this ongoing quest do obtain and generate more and more *information.*
What we call "fine-tuning" is just a logical progression of *information,* and "consciousness" is simply *"information processing information"* so that we can generate even more *information* in the form of our "value judgments." Yes, humans are the newly emerged arbitrators of _value_ for Existence!
You can either accept this *information* or not. Either way, ... _"Existence" keeps pushing forward!_
@@visancosmin8991 God knowing itself?
@@visancosmin8991 Yeah in the bible God went to rest on the seventh day so God dreaming and we exsist in his dream knowing one day we will be gone?
@@visancosmin8991 I completely understand you now why i never thought of it before makes sense thanks man/women?
@@visancosmin8991 Soo when is God's (i am) wake up update going to happen?
@@visancosmin8991you are confusing me alot just explain the damn thing lazy!
Da Nile’s not just a river in Egypt.
In other words, "I'm going to disregard everything that people propose because they can't prove it."
or i've to look like a wise guy so i dont want questions that bother me ...
No. Not "disregard" but rather "not accept as factual".
@@lrvogt1257 Disregard, and in "not even look into as a possibility."
@@ronaldmorgan7632 the "possibility" of God has been investigated for 2,000 years and has provided zero evidence. It's time to come up with a better explanation.
@@ronaldmorgan7632 ""not even look into as a possibility.""
Everything is "possible". Few things are "probable".
Gawd isn't one of the probable things, given that there has never been any credible evidence of a single supernatural event ever.
Semantic is a terrible drug.
That asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago and cleared the way for mammalian ascendency; is that a part of the fine tuning argument too?
All fine tuning arguments are just a form of intellectual laziness. Technically in physics we don't even need it because the question is not one of tuning but one of hierarchy and scaling. One can find rather trivial models in quantum field theory that take care of those problems... but they will require a much bigger boat... errrr.... particle accelerator. :-)
@@lepidoptera9337 My thing is language. Hierarchy of concept, yes. Scale; what comes to my mind is continuum. But a hierarchy is a continuum of a kind.
This Lee's Elucidation has got me in a hall of mirrors. LE: A finite number of words must be made [ is being made ] to represent an infinite number of things and possibilities.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 The hierarchy problems in physics are question like why the weak interaction is so much stronger than gravity or why the vacuum-self energy is so small compared to the mass of the massive lightest field. All of these can be addressed with a number of theoretical solutions. IMHO they also disappear completely in models like conformal cyclical cosmology. The large gaps are simply required to stabilize the universe on some scale. Take the hierarchy away and we wouldn't even be here. The universe would simply not have enough time to form interesting structures. There most certainly are eras like that in CCC... but they look like inflation and they are over very quickly. So, yeah. none of this calls for tuning. What it does call for is common sense.
@@lepidoptera9337 My take. Existence exists, and nature is its character. Or its character is nature, natural. The idea of fine tuning is a ambiguous phrase that is an attempt to sneak an unnamed God into science. Or pretend some scientific justification for said. Would a physicist uses that term to refer to the exactness of all those measurements upon which the universe as we know it depends? The measurements are what they are, the exactness being in the work establishing them. Any other 'exactness' is a projection of thought that 'has an ax to grind'. Mystics think that both the natural and the supernatural can co-exist in the world. I believe in the Bible so far as 'No man can serve two masters. 'The fact that one can imagine any of these number measurements being different doesn't mean that they could have been different.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 Fine tuning is always being invoked when we lack a microscopic explanation for a set of facts. To me that lack of explanation calls for further investigation and nothing else. Physics had a century long dry spell between the discovery of spectral lines and the development of quantum mechanics already. We are looking at pretty much the same phenomenon here. Nature has given us some facts that lack explanation. That's just a new level of the puzzle. It's not some distinguished class of unsolvable problem that calls for magical explanations.
Useless words of deluded "professors" ...
so says a youtube “commenter”
So if you want to refute something, do so. What you are doing instead is just looking very bad and uninformed from you.
@@visancosmin8991
What things are Not material.?
If not material; what then are then made of..?
@@oskarngo9138 What are thoughts made of?
What are images (vision) your brain generates made of?
What is information made of?
What are mathematical and logical rules made of?
What is consciousness made of?
@@electricity2703
Thoughts (all the other stuff that you listed) are:
... “Specific/Discrete” packets of energy “Material” passed between brain cells (using electricity material or Calcium atom material....)
..Energy is very dilute matter material (E=mc2)...
Everything is Material..!
....because if it is not “material” it can not “physically” “interact” with your brain cells .....
...therefore you cannot understand it...
...therefore anything you say is Literally Nonsense...!
Your move-!
I always tended to discount Sean Carroll as being short sighted, and narrow in his viewpoints, but this particular series of questions from Dr. Kuhn, has changed my opinion of him completely. Anthropocentrism, is understandably a hindrance to true universal understanding... we're only human after all.
@@visancosmin8991 no - unconsciousness also exists - is what happens when someone is under general anesthetic
For some people belief is improbable
Prof David Block would disagree.
The only plausible theory here, in terms of statistics, is the multiverse. Everything else here is pretty much speculation and just words. It's easy to make arguments like this that sound good but when you actually look at the facts, the fine-tuning argument is pretty solid.
I also don't think the "universe was taylor-made for Man here on planet earth" idea is a good one. It's too far-fetched. But if you consider that the universe may be full of life on other planets (and there are plenty of UFO sightings to back this up) then the universe being "fine-tuned for life" becomes more reasonable. I also think the hollow-earth theory has a lot going for it. Just because the surface of Venus is roasting hot and full of poisonous gas doesn't mean that it can't support life. Maybe the life is INSIDE the planet.
whatever happened.....worlds and creatures and peoples are able to function....why?
We just don't know. Could be anything.
Life was supposed to not exist in places on earth that it does now, the issue I think, is how do we search for something that we don't know what we are looking for?
Inflation predicts much more than the multiverse. It predicts many features of the early cosmos that the singularity big bang couldn't. Inflation is now widely accepted, it's our best fit for the early universe.
Inflation is part of the big bang theory.
@@blarglemantheskeptic *"Inflation is part of the big bang theory."*
I know, that's why I said "singularity big bang", referring the original "Hot Big Bang" theory that contained the singularity placeholder. Inflation theory does away with this singularity, and is far better at predicting the early universe because of it.
@@johnyharris The Big Bang is still happening now. Inflation is what set up the Big Bang.
The universe is not finely tuned for life. It IS life. If you gno, you gno. :)
by the way: it is possible that life did or does or could exist with different so-called fine tuning but be sure that they have stolen that from that video (goes back to the same period of time)
by chance !
even the date of the apes' stolen idea goes to the same period of time, that is by chance too !
Very well said. What proportion of physical theories are conducive to life may be the most interesting meta-question in science.
is this guy saying that if there wasn t there would t be?
Sean Carroll and his cucuverse theory
Tuning may be a highly misleading metaphor. Makes me think of the old-fashioned dials on the car radio. Could there be any such analogous things for a god to twiddle to produce our universe? Can't even imagine...
In one universe, Robert grows a turtleneck.
Free will in nature sets physical constants and laws, maybe in multiverse?
I love theoretical physics but cannot STAND Carrol, me not being able to just block him is my biggest argument against God 😂
Cellular based living organisms don't appear to be so good at detecting their own bias, we have no idea of what other types of life forms are possible that are not cell based at all. We only know of cell based life and thats pretty much all we consider.
Before talking on this subject using complex terminology why people revisit the basic premise and recheck.
It is what it is despite our best efforts to explain it…enjoy!
That's a given but it's just sort of giving up. It doesn't satisfy our curiosity or scientific exploration.
@@lrvogt1257 What I mean is that we exist because we find ourselves in a universe where we can exist. It is kinda screwy to presume that some sort of mystical tuner dialed in the perfect numbers so our universe could yield life…narcissistic actually! Whether we are a lucky one off throw of the cosmic dice or we an inevitability based upon an infinite number of throws will most likely remain an eternal mystery.
@@quantumdave1592 : Agreed.
Wow. Excellent perspective!
To paraphrase his last sentence: Just because we wouldn't be here doesn't mean life wouldn't be here. Amazing how obvious that is, yet how novel it seems compared to most of the arguments we hear from creationists.
Well creationist view is even a single organism is act of intelligent creation and require fine tuning
the part of the point that he rhetorically leap frogs is the fact that fine tuning says, YES, basically nothing would be here. no stars, no molecules, no carbon atoms. too much energy or too little. to make anything close to what we'd consider material "life" forms. At multiple points in the so-called evolution of the universe nothing comes together.... unless multiple parameters in physics are set exactly... collectively and sequentially.
There'd be NO chemistry.
What "life" is Carol talking about? Spiritual?
I like this quote from Sean "I don't think our ability to reason from a physical theory to the existence of life is at all well established"
And that's exactly the problem, there is nothing within the laws of physics that explains the information in life. Nucleotides can be arranged in any order, no law of physics or forces a particular sequence. Just like letters in a book.
=== The evidence for design is overwhelming. === === Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible ====
but the letters in the book are arrange by the author fine tuned by the editors. and if you randomly ramble the letters of the books the sense and coherence of the book will be lost.
@@alfonstabz9741 === Of course. ==== Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible =====
@@kennethbransford820 you can add to that the self assembling cell made from different chemical compound that don't hook up together but accidentally hook up together.! and the that consist first form of life called bacteria (microbes). a very smart bacteria he knows where to find nutrition they must have advance GPS then.! the DNA wow amazing it appears and sequence together this is making me feel extremely lucky i'm goin to sell my house and bet powerball tomorrow.!
@@alfonstabz9741 === How does something that accidentally hooked up, happened? You don't know what you are talking about. You do not have enough knowledge in that brain of yours to understand what is going on here. You don't know enough to know that you don't know any better. Ignorance is at play here in people not knowing any better. They just believe, that it all happened by accident out of nothing. How did chemistry cause your brain, an organic thinking computer to happen from dirt? During your terrible analogy of atoms hooking up, how did they stop from hooking up with everything else all around them? How do you stop and start chemical reactions? How do you keep them separated from other chemicals? How do you even get to the correct chemicals to begin with? How did amino acids from without decaying at the molecular levels? You know none of this. How did a so-called simple bacterium, able to self replicate and perform equilibrium with its surrounding using complex metabolic pathways? Is there such a thing as a partially built bacterium? How about a cell that contains 100 trillion atoms? Is there such a thing as a half a cell existing? No such thing as a partially built anything in this world. Solar panels on top of your house happened how? The leaf of a tree or organic solar panel that can split atoms happened how by accident? What do you know about the micromolecular machinery the DNA/RNA coding sequencing design? What is the ribosome so important? What do you know about the folding protein. The origin of the big bang? The laws of physics and chemistry? Our planet earth that once was a floating ball of and toxic gases with no breathable air. Nothing but volcanoes and a runaway green house or carbon dioxide gases. What happens when the DNA sequencing of amino acids has one wrong letter? CANCER. See. You know nothing of how the way things works and by default, you shouldn't even be commenting here on this thread with your limited little knowledge of what is involved for life to exist. Learn about abiogenesis and folding protein molecules and come back and make your argument. You talking about GPS and power ball and DNA not even understanding how stupendously complex the DNA/RNA replicating machine is. See how your ignorance is showing? === Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible =====
Why does it seem that Sean Caroll was having a conversation in this video? 🤔
You can’t equate inflation and string theory. One is provable, the other is decidedly not. To extrapolate from unproven theories is a lot like sitting in a room and saying “what if?” as if in a 100 level philosophy course. There is not a single shred of concrete evidence for any of this. In order to do so, you would need to invent some new form of arithmetic that wasn’t bound by the fact that it’s designed specifically to encapsulate and make finite, and the very idea of encapsulation is a paradox when speaking about the infinite. There is as likely to be a God/creator as there is a fine tuned multiverse.
Sean Carrolls opinion seems to be fine tuned to satisfy the research money gods.
@@visancosmin8991 Yes: also everyone practices a type of religion. Some peoples gods exists within the creation and others God exist outside the creation.
We don't know.. the fact that we have nor found other intelligent life but also the random nature of advanced life forming.. even if you don't believe in fine tuning.. the mere odds against advanced life at the very least seems that multi cellular life is engineered.
Our kind of life in particular would certainly not exist if the universe were even a bit different.
you don't need a multiverse if the universe expands and collapses infinitely
It doesn't seem to collapse, though. It might be expanding all the time.
Excellent discussion!
Fine-tuning just means that an arrangement has been made for life to exist and continue. But what is it that made that arrangement, something conscious or unconscious? I would thing it is something conscious.
That's the crux of the argument. There is no evidence of anything that has or could have intended anything. It's just speculation by those who think the universe has to behave like a human would. If a human must decide to make a watch a supernatural entity must make a decision to create a universe. That is just extrapolating our own experience beyond reason.
@@lrvogt1257 The way I see it, we could say the universe itself is a living thing with a intelligence that produces the fine-tuning that makes life possible to exist but I think Karma ( the right or wrong way to live your life ) and how it relates to humans only makes me think that human life carries with it a special significance that leads to the spiritual.
@@williamburts5495 : You could say that but until there is some evidence for it, it would be pure speculation... which is fine as long as it's labeled as such.
@@lrvogt1257 Fine-tuning is more a perception than a speculation, we could say life is governed there is no such thing as chaos, only order and balance exist. Life and death is a part of fine-tuning because death in it's own way maintains life. Evidence depends on observation so the truth about anything depends on consciousness on it being known so observing the balance in nature to me is the evidence of fine-tuning.
@@williamburts5495 : Believing is seeing.
There's order, but uninformed order...
The universe has us living on planet Earth looking at itself for the same reason you have eyes where you can see best
the garden in the forest theory. forest are arrange randomly trees rivers etc. but if you find a will pave garden in the middle of the forest neatly cut grass and will groom and arrange flowers planted it is probably not random part of the forest.!
The Virgin Mary is very present in the Holy Trinity, she is just behind the scenes ***The Virgin Mary is the Bride of the Holy Spirit ****The Spirit and the Bride of the last chapter of the Revelation ,Revelation 22:17 the Virgin Mary has important role in the book of Revelation****
Even if that were factual it doesn't explain anything about the mechanism involved. How the supernatural affects the real world. And I've never understood the cult of Mary. It's not Biblical at all.