Peter van Inwagen - Does a Fine-Tuned Universe Lead to God?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 жов 2023
- Get free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
We human beings sit roughly midway between the sizes of atoms and galaxies, and both must be so perfectly structured for us to exist. It’s called ‘fine-tuning’ and it’s all so breathtakingly precise that it cries out for explanation. To some, fine-tuning leads to God. To others, there are non-supernatural explanations. Both are startling.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Peter van Inwagen is an analytic philosopher and the John Cardinal O’Hara Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame.
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.
I just wish a LOT more people in both ‘camps’ on this question were okay with saying “I don’t know.”
I get the sense that we might currently be working with 50 pieces of a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle. And maybe that’s a charitable reading of the actual knowledge acquired.
I do know. The person comes after the universe. "Other words", the person is tuned to live where it finds itself.
@@fjgiie True, but that doesn’t answer how the Universe came to be in the first place. In fact, the more we learn, the muddier the waters seem to become. At least we can say with a high degree of confidence it’s NOT 6,000 years old!
. . . nor any age at all. It will last a very long time, so perhaps it has been here forever.
As Sabine Hossenfelder observes, both the fine-tuning argument and the notion of the multiverse are nonscientific, largely because neither can be tested. Since there is no other approach to answering the question of why things are the way they are, it is entirely reasonable to ask which of these two particular notions about the subject is a better explanation. On the one hand, the notion of the multiverse is not just conjecture. As Max Tegmark correctly observes, the notion of the multiverse is a prediction made by established, scientific theories in physics. On the other hand, the notion of fine tuning is indeed just conjecture derived from religious scripture. I'd say, then, that of these two the notion of the multiverse is the much better explanation.
“fine tuning” is a loaded term which is open to debate, however the suppositions which underpin it are not. The universal constant is absolutely scientific and it demands explanation. We may not have a satisfactory answer but to ignore it’s significance would be a gross injustice to science.
@@SimonBrisbane Yes, the constants are scientific, and they are so because they have specific values which are calculated from observations. And yes, asking why they have the values they have is a valid pursuit. However, the true definition of "fine tuning" includes a fine tuner. Nobody argues that apparent fine tuning without a tuner is still fine tuning. It's not. This notion was invented by those who already believed there was such a being. Postulating that there is such a being is indeed unscientific since there is no way to verify such a being. This is not just a scientific measurement issue that we will some day solve. By definition such a being is beyond our us. Nobody is ignoring the fact that we have constants that have certain values, it's just that science in no way speaks to the notion that they have the values they have because a being set them that way.
I'm agnostic at best but the fine tuning issue is the most compelling of higher consciousness being involved. Hard evidence, no, compelling, yes.
You'd like Hume's Dialogues. Coolest thing I ever read, I think -- or at least, none is cooler.
Cant go beyond our limited human capacity..IQ + EQ + GUIDANCE = TRUTH..peace be upon us all
Fine Tuning is just one of many puzzles in science.
For example, what causes electrons to move ? Nobody knows.
Apparently, they never rest, even though they have a rest mass !
A fine-tuned universe might lead to God if the universe was really fine-tuned. But the ratio of living / conscious stuff to non-living stuff is so laughably tiny -- fractions of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction percent -- that evidence of intent becomes indistinguishable from chance.
"any given set of precise values is as improbable as any other".... that's the whole point!
?
Which side of that do you land on? Because I agree with what you've written and I'm an atheist
Why assume the universe is fine tuned? The only thing fine tuned is our minds as they have adapted to find significance in all things related to this niche in space time. Ultimately the orbit of the planets and math itself could be argued to be as significant and fine tuned as a mentally ill man seeing the word of God in a can of alphabetti spaghetti as its thrown in the air and spills out. That inner sense of significance we feel about anything is the great decider IMO.
I believe in provable science. But scientists are more willing to believe in multiple universes for which there is not even a shred of verifiable evidence over a common sense conclusion shows me that their belief system requires much more faith than a belief in a higher power as the explanation.
Science requires no faith. I'm sorry that you've been misled by people to think that. Good luck though
@@hadishstreet3066 Multiverse is not science.
I don't believe in a multiverse. What are you on about? I was commenting on the idiot who posted the tired cliché "It takes more faith to be an atheist" who was thinking he was a big smarty pants
@5:01 "If you unite 'multiple universes' with the laws of chance and assume that multiple universes can reset the laws of physics all the time..." I don't understand why this is considered a reasonable assumption, unless every universe has some kind of fully novel origin. That is, if you postulate a cyclical existence of each universe, or if you postulate that there's some origin invoking bubbles, then each universe has a common origin and one would (logically, in my opinion) think these all would exhibit the same properties.
The problem for philosophers is that they don't understand enough physics so that they can support and verify their arguments.
The problem with physicist is that they don't understand enough philosophy and apply enough meaning and hypothesize about the possibilities that exists between physical reality and potential meaning.
We need to bridge the gap between philosophy and physics.
You can't just be one or the other you have to be both.
Hmmm seems to me that poker game analogy can only work as an analogy when you presuppose agency behind the constants of nature. I'm not convinced...
it leads to an intellect.
I go along with Fred Hoyles common sense approach to the evidence that physics and chemistry has been monkeyed with by a super intellect.
"Fred Hoyle" denied Universal Expansion. He championed "The Steady State Model". He was, of course, WRONG. He also ASSumed that an "Intelligence" was involved. This is, of course, a "Personal Incongruity Fallacy" and a "God of the Gap" Fallacy.
It must be a clever monkey
"I go along with Fred Hoyles common sense approach to the evidence that physics and chemistry has been monkeyed with by a super intellect."
But it adds more questions than it answers. It still doesn't explain HOW that 'super intellect' was able to 'monkey' with physics and chemistry, and it fails to explain how that 'monkey' has the ability to do so. IOW it increases the need for explanation exponentially without actually answering any questions. Plus, it insidiously adds another problem in that if there is a monkey (god) that ever/regularly monkeys with the physics and chemistry of the natural world, of what can we be certain regarding laws of nature? ARE there any laws of nature? Is there actually gravity where mass warps time/space or is it, as Newton claimed' due to God's divine will? IE is everything we see merely a god making things happen? That should be dissatisfying to any scientist who wishes to be certain they are measuring nature vs just enjoying a god's endless intervention.
@@rizdekd3912 You have thought about these things that much is clear.
Does a fine-tuned person lead to a new planet for us to live on?
Oops, he made an error at the start concerning probabilities. He also took our experience of causality within the universe and presumed it exists externally to the universe. Hume gave this argument a superb analysis, he didn't dismiss it, but . . . Well. It's not that strong.
All it means is that Existence is cool enough to allow living creatures like ouselves to come into being. Unfortunately, it looks like we're headed towards an early extinction.😢
Man made man, so man will destroy man. Unless he knows the truth, and I have the truth the complete truth , some one has to know, I just happen to the some one who has the answer s to the impossible question s Man has been asking. I'm going to prove it ,of course, there has to be one complete truth. The God spirit soul has to be in a man , now I know this for a fact, I'm having trouble, how to reach the right persons.
So you’re saying this just happened to turn out the way they do? Existence cries out for a creator.
@TyrellWellickEcorp I know that just seems obviously true to you, but I ask you sincerely, why do you think that?
Lol
there's no actual "we" btw, there's only you and you're already dying as we speak
I don't understand the argument, why would God be a piano tuner 😂
The answer is Yes.
The reason why multiverse arguments are inferior is because they only kick the can further down the road. Where did they come from? Were their physical properties set by a creator?
And if you decide they were created, aren’t you kicking the can further down the road ? Where did the creator come from ? What are the physical properties of the creator ?
Looks to me like through us the universe can look at itself with there being a drive and conditions from the start moving towards conscious intelligent life. This would mean that there is something very intelligent involved that is a (supernatural)natural phenomenom. I think the big bang is a unique event and do not believe it happens all the time.
We are just the last survivor in a long list of upright walking apes. And there was no guarantee that it would be us that survived.
@@thomasridley8675 The universe is in us for like 100%..everything in the universe is the universe and is governed by its laws and so are we. If the universe wants to know itself/look at itself that only can be done through intelligent life that is why us being here is not just a accident. Also the universe is about sublimation and refinement which is why intelligent life like us is destined to popup at some point. We are likely the purpose of the universe.
@@fortynine3225 You're begging the question. (That means including the conclusion in the premises) Why on earth do you think you can assume that the "universe WANTS" anything. Thomas, is right, and there is no reason we "should" be here or that there "should" be any life at all.
@@fortynine3225
Why would the universe need us to know itself ? That's just our oversized human ego talking.
We are only temporary residents of this universe. It will exist long after we are gone. All of our accumulated knowledge will be lost with our demise. There won't even be a marker to note we were ever here.
Besides the more we know about how this universe operates. Our insignificance to this reality becomes even more apparent.
@@hadishstreet3066 I think you are over your head here. We are the universe since the universe is 100% inside of us, tru us the universe is expressing itself.
Why do people search for man in beard creating the Universe with his finger? The damage religion has done to humanity is irreparable. The problem is in the definition of God itself, God is not a man. The energy of what everything is made and its intelligent order - including the Universe and you reading this - is God itself. You wouldn't see a truck coming to hit you, would you?
If this fine tuner wanted life to exist, why did he make it so hard? And why has he use physical laws to do it?
If the universe emerged/universes emerge from an eternal natural background, then that could explain why the parameters are fine tuned. It may be that when this natural background fluctuates, only fluctuations with 'just so' parameters...ie 'fine tuned' parameters will actually expand and become a universe. Other fluctuations fail to emerge and another fluctuation occurs. Or a subset of this idea is that all universes begin to expand, but many immediately collapse back into the natural background because the parameters are not fine tuned. These 'attempts' all occur in a timeless state meaning an infinite number of attempts occur and every so often the parameters allow an expanding universe such as ours. Occasionally one leads to the formation of life and very rarely sentient life...and here we are trying to figure out how our universe could've had fine tuned parameters. That makes as much sense as assuming a god would even bother to create a natural/physical world at all if his goal is human life with whom he could commune. That could've easily been created in a spiritual world with no physical trappings.
This begs the question: why is there an "eternal natural background" that generates these different permutations? How does this background have the right tuning that creates universes with the right tuning.
@@matthewjett9070
"why is there an "eternal natural background" that generates these different permutations? How does this background have the right tuning that creates universes with the right "
Good question. I can answer it as well as you can answer why there is a god who/that can create universes.
IOW something that can create/generate/produce universes must exist or there wouldn't be a universe. On that we can agree. Many claim that thing must be a god and indeed that might be true. But they have no explanation for why a god would exist and has the ability/power/wherewithal/desire to actually create the universe as it is. The existence of a god is an assertion and its attributes must be defined 'just so' such that it can created a universe. But adding a god to the issue is complicating it unnecessarily....adding more than is needed to explain it. By simply assuming the natural world is eternal and can produce universes, I avoid the complication.
'begs the question' That's not what begging the question means BTW. Question begging: "The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it." You might say my assertion raises the question. And it's a valid question. But begging the question has a specific meaning.
@@rizdekd3912 Hmm, I’m using the phrase literally but I understand that it has a specific definition in a logical context.
That being said, if we’re wondering about what comes first and why things exist and such, then I think invoking God as an explanation is not much more unreasonable than any other theory. If what we mean by “nature” applies to the universe, then anything outside of the universe could be called “extra-natural”. What does natural mean specifically, and does a pre-universe state or space fit that definition? If so, why?
I think these questions are fascinating and there are a lot of philosophical angles to consider.
@@matthewjett9070 "That being said, if we’re wondering about what comes first and why things exist and such, then I think invoking God as an explanation is not much more unreasonable than any other theory. "\
And except for a few quibbles, I'd be inclined to say invoking a god or something similar to be a good explanation. But it's those quibbles that keep me from favoring that explanation.
But to me it's a fascinating, as you say, but essentially an academic exercise. Other than the philosophical ramifications, so what what we believe about it? Is it important to sort out our thoughts between a god creating the universe we think of as the natural world vs nature itself being eternal? I mean...when it comes right down to it...the natural world being eternal doesn't preclude the existence of a god. There could be a god that concerns itself with spiritual issues and other issues and there might also be an eternal natural world. Perhaps a god's prowess is his ability to work with the natural world and create things...like life and then see what it can do with the life it creates. That could explain why it seems god has to deal with/accomodate the natural world and its limitations...he can't change it as in change the basic properties/laws of nature, but he can make things with it like a craftsman or artist uses a medium/material to create things.
So many creationists/IDers and other who are proponents of a god having had to have done it (created the world) attach great significance to what one believes about such things...even moral significance. Why? How would I know that a god or other creator type being even cared what I believed about it or its creation? Certainly if in some way I became convinced there just has to be some sort of supernatural force that created the natural world, life, etc., it wouldn't change any of my other beliefs...I wouldn't be convinced a given religion was true vs others.
It is so obvious that darkness is the first of all space creativity and there is no denying it because there is so much space and creativity to enjoy watching from below and learning more about its total beautiful and well design.
I think every individual adult should look up and try to understand that life expands much further out than just here on this rock and the only way to these other worlds people have to work together, starting with NASA. opening up an inventor center for people with the gift and new ideas and creativity because the general public is not designed for new ideas on space creativities and will not work with you example; coming up with new ideas to help avoid radiation contamination and create better artificial gravitational fields and much more.
This universe is fine tuned for rocks. That's why there's so much of the stuff.
And wars
To “fine-tune” suggests that something made it to perfection. Humans are made to exist in the Cosmos. The latter does not need the former to exist. Therefore, the latter is providential for humans. Whether the Cosmos was created or became or is eternal, physics demonstrate cyclical change. Therefore, do not expect to always be. Be well.
Lets see now...The all knowing, all powerful, thing would have lot better chance other than blind belief (all religions have that...) if the "All knowing, all powerful" just made a public service announcement. The only time this occurred was in a Science Fiction story I read many years ago, titled "The Next Voice You Hear.." Despite all the media available now, not a word. The same logic applies to the "they're keeping "God" out of Schools thing years ago. The "All Knowing" couldn't figure out a School PA System...
nice parody
Islam doesn't have "blind belief" , especially not until an evidence base is established.
And why would an All knowing God even care about some Dumb PA situation?
Does too, unless their Deity has actually shown up. Send a "selfie" if so, can't wait to see it...
@@festeradams3972 why would God send a selfie?😭XD he's not your slave, you are his. Lol
That guy is pretty cool
Consciousness controls what we perceive time doesn't matter to this halo of consciousness it provides your birth that's unquestionably what life is your dealt reality
Multi verse probability given enough time and trys means God is even more likley the designer of many universes and your inadvertently giving more reasoning for an all powerful all creating designer of many universes .
Or a product of one of the other universes that creates the one finly tuned one we are in .
❤
we dont have a def answer... therefore lets make up a god... sad and it never ends
Comparing the 'odds' of the conststants being what they are to poker is just as obtuse, in my opinion. We can calculate the odds of card game outcomes. We have no idea what the probable or even possible values of the constants are or can be.
More apologetic nonesense.
The universe could have developed in any number of soacial dimensions but below 3 nothing could exist and above 3 nothing would be stable enough to exist above a mess of particles.
In that example the odd of it being 3 dimensions is 1 in Infinity. And that's just one variable.
The card game analogy was just a dumbed down apology but with an extremely consecutive bias on the odds as the odds on this universe, as I have demonstrated, is far greater.
@@ChrisJones-hs6nj Pressing X to doubt your assertions
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y I agree. We cannot honestly even begin to claim fine tunning until we can show that any of the values can be any different that what they are.
We know that lightning is extremely powerful and must have a cause.
Whoever is causing lightning must, himself, be even more powerful.
It follows, immediately, that only God could possibly do it.
We know what causes lightening . And it isn’t a creative , all powerful mind
@@tonyatkinson2210
Well, I'll be blowed.
Ya lerns summat evry day.
1:34 Cool. Now, suppose this stranger did all the same, but he said:
"Well obviously God told me He would give me four Royal Flushes in a row, but that I should leave after the fourth and not be greedy."
You would have no choice but to reply:
"Oh, fair point. Enjoy your righteously earned winnings. Have a nice night." ... Patently absurd.
Let's put the false dichotomy aside for a moment, and consider a third option; necessity. It could be that it is, by necessity, what had to come about eventually. Of all the poker games played throughout all of human card-playing history, *_eventually_* someone was going to come upon four Royal Flushes (with the assumption the used cards are shuffled back into the full deck each time), and this just happened to be the poker game where it happened. Of course, it is the natural human brain chemistry to assume intention where there is none, and so assuming that the stranger was cheating - or assuming that a god intended a life-supporting mote of dust in the universe to come about - where there actually was none is perfectly natural, despite how wrong an assumption it probably is.
Just live your life everyone, especially those who ? A lot.
Especially those who worry a lot.
The probability for the set of precise values the Cosmos has is 100%. That’s it, period. To invoke imaginary other (infinite) possibilities is not science it’s just fallacy. It is what it is, as they say and to suggest it could have been something else is the very definition of obtuse.
My boiled egg was made perfectly today. It was fine tuned to perfection. Not god
What are we really talking about with fine tuning? Is it the constants of Nature that we "discovered" and which seem puzzlingly precise; or the Nature of our understanding?
I think mathematics is a good rubric to try and weed out the quandary. Essentially the problem of duality; form and function; description and explanation; brain and mind.
I think form is very deceptive. It gives the impression of empirical reality, to what is, IN CURRENT FACT, conceptually dependent on coherence.
As an example look at the geometry. The old way of teaching geometry with its shapes and angles was filled with "self evident" axioms (not in the slightest) and theorems. With the advent of Cartesian Coordinates the field was transformed to algebraic equations. Wholly transformed: can everything calculated by geometric methods be, as simply, calculated by algebraic methods? I do not know.
With advances in fields such as calculus, Riemannian geometry, topology, knots and so forth, mathematics has come a long way from Euclidean Geometries. Does that mean that circles 🔵 and triangles 🔺️ and pi are obsolete? Perhaps it should mean that. Which I think is instructive of the constants of Nature. For what is pi? The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, or the sum of a Series of numbers?
Similarly the constants of Nature are explained by what? Seemingly empirical relationships that have their basis in "self-evident" measurement; or are modern scientific measurements nothing more than old fashioned, Euclidean, "self-evident" axioms?
Each person has their own sense of the 'self-evident'. The 'self-evident' is premise upon which further thought is based---often an unexamined premise.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 No. There is only one example of the "self-evident", all derived from consciousness. It is what Kant called "the thing in itself". It is everything in Nature that is revealed by the senses.
So the sun 🌞 a rock 🪨 and anything else that can be corroborated, independently, by human senses. An apple is self-evident, but hunger is not. Although I myself can feel hungry no one else can tell that I'm hungry. My hunger is not corroborateable through the senses. It can be corroborated through other means but not through the 5 senses.
Aristotle, I believe, defined them as "Substances". He would have defined the constants of Nature as potentials, not actuals: substances.
Thinking further on Aristotle he might have said that the Constants were Properties instead of Substances. That they were not "things in themselves", but, merely, a relationship between the actual, things in themseves. A relationship (property) like color, shape, weight, temperature, and other things which are "measured" by science. Thus color, like my hunger, is not "self-evident". Does that mean that "my hunger" is merely a relationship between my body and Nature? Yes, but, like color, it is a passing, temporary "thing". Not a "thing in itself". A property not a substance.
Just so, ask yourself what is an electron? A particle or wave? An actual, thing in itself or a potential, property. Like color an electron is a property not a substance, from my point of view. But, just like my hunger, it shouldn't be ignored. Similarly neither should truth, beauty or morality.
One problem with extrapolating a "fine tuner" is that the laws of physics in the fine tuner's realm would have to be set so the fine tuner could exist. So, by this logic, the fine tuner must have had a creator...and so on ad infinitem.
Turtles all the way down
4305051- Nope. Asking "Who created the creator?", leads to infinite regress. The Bord, Guth, Vilenkin theorem holds that even a multiverse couldn't be infinite and would need an ultimate beginning.
That doesn’t follow. All it points to is that the fine-tuner would have to be all-knowing (and all-powerful to do it) = God.
This doesn’t say anything about the nature of God’s existence as a being and his eternality. God doesn’t begin to exist and therefore needs no cause.
@@ManForToday just miss out a step and say the universe is eternal and therefore needs no creator. We do not know the universe was "created" at the big bang.
@@willsumnall3499 All of modern physics tells us the universe cannot be eternal. It's philosophically absurd too.
Since if the conditions (cause) that would bring about the big bang had eternally existed, then the effect would have already happened. Yet time began at a finite point in the past.
As the BGV theorem shows, even if something existed prior to the big bang, any change in this state would be physically equivalent to a beginning.
You haven't escaped the problem.
The universe ISN'T "fine tuned". It simply IS the way the It is, regardless of whether or not that makes sense to us.
Just like four royal flushes in a row, right?
@willcd A royal flush (and, indeed, an unbroken sequence of four royal flushes) is an event IN the universe. It is not the universe itself, as a whole.
@@BLSFL_HAZEHow wonderful to hear someone echo my sentiments. The universe is not just another thing in the universe.
@@BLSFL_HAZE is God's existence still a question that sometimes occurs to you or do you consider the matter resolved completely? like your brain never gets triggered by a pattern you notice?
@@sefaaydemir8657 Which God?
A great conversation between two brilliant yet humble thinkers.
Fine tuning is a fact, but multiverse is just a speculation.
Why would a designer make a universe that has to be so fine-tuned or it will all fall apart? Why would a designer make the act of creation like threading a needle? What "intelligent" designer makes a house of cards instead of a house of bricks? Fine-Tuning is an argument against a designer.
I think that's only a credible argument if there is actually a chance that our universe could collapse in that way. We create huge, gorgeous paintings, and hang them in public galleries, that would be ruined with a casual toss of a pot of paint or can of drink.
@@simonhibbs887 It may not be a credible argument for any old run of the mill creator. But if you actually believe that the creator is some type of all knowing all powerful god then it is a very good argument because an all powerful god would not have designed his universe under such constraints. Only one who has limits
@@simonhibbs887 the fine-tuning argument is that all the constants need to be just so or the universe wouldn't exist. We protect paintings behind bullet proof glass, even display recreations instead of originals, but a designer would need to set up this fine-tuning fragility in his creation, rather than simply create what he wants without any tuning necessary. Better yet, why even bother with matter at all? We could just be concepts within the mind of God and he can accomplish all he wants that way. Designing a fine-tuned universe makes no sense for a designer to do.
@@markb3786 I'm not arguing for a creator, I'm an atheist, I just don't think this argument makes any sense. A creator god would create the universe however he liked fragile or not, tuned or not. To judge whether the universe as is makes sense as a creation you'd need to know the reasons behind and purpose of it's creation.
@@markb3786 I don’t even see what constraints you’re talking about. If some constants were slightly different it would be disastrous. Fine. But they aren’t. So what?
Saying some invisible being with incredible abilities designed the universe is not an explanation for human life. Humans evolved and evolution is a directionless process. Even in a finely tuned universe a human is not likely to evolve and having evolved once not likely to evolve again. The things that evolve are chance contingencies. They won't evolve again and weren't programed to evolve. It was chance. No external being was needed for it to happen.
That's to say, 'Humans are natural'.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 Dogs are natural but humans had something to do with how they look and behave. Humans being a social animal that evolved in groups has something to do with how they behave.
Behavior exploited by dictators for centuries and even now.
I think the end result would be a good FM radio signal....
I refuse to believe that the constants of physics give a dam about your obsession with baby jeebus ...
His analogy seems pretty poor. We know that, under some circumstances, it is possible to cheat in poker. The analogy grants that this person is able to manipulate the cards in his hand to be a royal flush (or maybe is working with the dealer, who is able to deal specific cards to this player) to achieve a desired outcome for the player. We also know that the probability of four consecutive royal flushes is very low given random selection. We know of no such mechanism by which the constants of physics may have been chosen or manipulated, and no such agent is in the picture. Positing an agent to explain the apparent fine tuning is not analogous because we don't know that there is an agent with something to gain by fine-tuning the universe. That's the conclusion of the argument, so it doesn't make sense as an analogy.
We wouldn't assume that someone had fine-tuned their poker hand if they got the exact same rubbish hand four times in a row, because we don't think they had anything to gain by it. But maybe they thought that would bring good luck tomorrow? We don't know their motivation. Similarly, we don't suspect someone unrelated playing Roulette a few tables down in the casino as being involved with a person getting 4 consecutive full houses because 1) we don't know a mechanism (except maybe interacting with the dealer) and 2) there is no apparent motivation (unless they know each other). Neither of these things are present for the idea of a God either. You can assert that God wants physical intelligent beings, but I can assert that the Roulette player has the belief that their crops will sell very well at tomorrow's farmer's market if this person wins at poker. You can say that God just has the ability to choose the constants of physics, but I can just say that the Roulette player has a coordinated set of nanobots that change the ink patterns on the cards in the deck such that the cards intended for one player always end up giving a royal flush (without leaving evidence that wr know how to detect). In either case, it's not a good analogy.
A better analogy would be to take an observation of a particular phenomenon that was exceedingly uncommon. For example, an extremely long and very noticeable meteor shower. That is something that doesn't tend to happen, and it has never been observed to happen to anywhere close to this extent. According to our distribution of how often this occurs, the probability that it would occur this time is 10^-60. Therefore, there must be an agent that wanted this meteor shower to occur. In this case, it doesn't even have to be God. It could just be a private company who are testing their ability to move small meteors into Earth's atmosphere for mining purposes.
This still has the problem that we really don't know the probability distribution of the fundamental constants at all, where we at least have other data about meteor showers to inform us of the likelihood of this event.
Inference to the best explanation is helpful, but don't be afraid to consider that the best explanation is that you don't know enough to have a good explanation. People 200 years ago didn't know how magnets worked, but they knew that magnets did generally work. Should they have just guessed, and assumed they were correct? If they didn't know how to investigate it, should they have just assumed that magnets worked because God wanted them to work? It's okay to acknowledge an observation and get on with your life not knowing the answer. Pretty much everyone has to do this for some things. Those who make progress are typically those who find the unknowns that are the easiest to study, and focusing on those.
very long comment but worth the read.. well thought out
Not necessarily
This guy has no spine. Why even interview him? He doesn't take a stand on anything. The closest stand he takes is saying the fined-turned universe is a philosophical argument, but then he said that argument is no worse than any other aurgment, and the theological argument is just as good as any argument.
The only thing he does is compare arguments without saying what he believes and why.
This interview needs to be fine tuned. Everything is fine tuned in nature.
If it is, then it is fine tuned BY nature, itself. We can regard nature, as a whole, as the untuned tuner.
@@BLSFL_HAZE Nature is never untuned. It's the human who needs to be tuned to his own nature.
Or maybe God created the multiverse, knowing what it took to produce intelligent life.
Then God is of limited power because of this constraint and that makes the Christian God false.
To the producer/director/cameraman, try the top down helicopter in motion ocean view for the intro next time. 😂 no blur!
this same ridiculous question over and over and over. the present moment does not follow fr9m the past. it 8s pulled from the future. there. does that help?
Nice transformation.
The fact is science can never prove or disprove intelligent design as said designer by necessity would exist outside of the uni/multiverse period. That said the fact that something exists instead of nothing AND that this universe is fine tuned to a degree most can’t even comprehend leads to the logical conclusion that it came about by design…anything else is magic which is the same argument atheists make about God, pick your poison but logic suggests a designer.
But your logic is only valid for the one true creator of the universe, Super Smelly Farty Monkey who got a D minus on his universe project in his universe creation class because most all of his universe is inhospitable to carbon based life. I wish I was in a better universe more suited for carbon based life than this failure by Farty Monkey
>"The fact is science can never prove or disprove intelligent design"
I think it's generally true that it's not possible to prove the nonexistence of a creator god, however the world exists or works someone could always argue that a god created it to be so.
What we can, and have done is disprove more specific and contingent acts of divine creation. We all now you can't prove a negative, but what we can do is dispense with pretty much all of the positive claims of theism. Intelligent design was first kicked out of the physical design of organisms by environmental natural selection. Then it was kicked out of designing intentional behaviour, by the natural selection of behavioural adaptations. It's been kicked out of fine tuning a steady state universe as envisioned by Hoyle. The gaps in which god supposedly hides have, one by one been illuminated by rigorous investigation. Only a few of the deepest, darkest gaps remain. So sure, faith will endure I'm sure, no matter how many times it's fervent claims are proven to be ephemeral until only an impotent absentee desist version remains.
@@markb3786 it’s not about a so called god of the gaps, the arguement for intelligent design is from the aspect that there has to be a reason that anything exists at all.
None of mankind’s discoveries have disproven a creator we simply progress in our understanding of how things work.
BS.
Science is a method (Function) .. "designed" by Man (function) ... to explain natural phenomena (functions) of the Universe (function) composed of space, time, Laws of Nature, matter & energy which are all ... Functions ... with purpose,properties, processes & design.
There is only evidence. that anything that is clearly a Function ... can only be made by an intelligence ... due to the information every function possesses.
Information is an abstract construct from the Mind of an intelligence.
Christians ... are mostly responsible for the develop of the Sciences to day ... not Muslims, Hindus or Atheists .. and are still the majority of Nobel Prize winners.
There is zero evidence ... that nature & natural processes .. can make, operate & improve the simplest Function 13.7 billion years ago ... or ... today.
Evolution of the Species from common ancestors by natural selection .. is complete Humanist BS devised by a racist British Biologist ... who was convince the white race was biologically superior due to "natural processes" and the black races were closer to the baboons, monkeys & apes ... due to skull & facial features.
Again. Christians developed the sciences were have today .. not muslims, hindus or atheists. And Christians scientists from Newton to now .. have been continuously using ... Machine Analogies ... to explain the origin of the Universe & life.
An Analogy is simply an observation ... not a proof. The scientific method is: observe, hypothesis, test & predict, conclude & refine relying on fixed laws of nature.
A Machine ... is a Function ... with purpose, form, properties, processes & design which is INFORMATION.
And everything in the Universe from the quantum to the cosmic level ... has clear purpose, properties, processes, function & design ( INFORMATION).
Information is an abstract construct ... from the Mind of an intelligence.
Only an intelligence makes things (functions) with information.
Only an intelligence can extract the information from things (functions) made by an intelligence.
Science relies on the fixed Laws of nature. Only an intelligence makes Laws & rules for things to obey or follow.
Science only supports the Universe being made by .... God ... of the Jews & Christ.
If god exist, then why he/she need the "fine tuned" physical laws to create the universe? Isn't he/she all powerful ?
ive used the same argument many times... if this entity can create whatever it wants
then it makes all the rules and whatever it wants to be will be...
absolutely no need for any fine tuning of any kind...
@davenchop Thank you for commenting. Now I know I'm not crazy.
Just recently, I came across this argument in a video of Sam Harris, and it really makes sense.
@@sahilx4954 nah, it's just already determined to be made sense for you from the bigbang
@@davenchop it's your own physical body that needs to constantly rely on physical constants, or else there's no physical body as we know it
and God is the sustainer of all, including the value of constants in our universe
science is just a toy, God provided for us in the world of living
if laws of nature keep changing every 5 minutes, you have no toy (science) to play with
I suspect I am getting on your nerves now.
So unlike an electron, I will now give it a rest.
Van Inwagen puts this pretty well. Arguments don't have the weight people usually think they have.
Theory is always prior to arguments.
No
As usual, another interesting video from one of the very best channels for popular science here on yt.
And as many times before, kind of "your guess is as good as mine".
Not necessarily a bad thing.
How many times do we have to go over this ? The only thing we can say with any certainty is that the god you want to exist doesn't.
Teach us
@@S3RAVA3LM
Teach you what ?
The obvious shouldn't have to be taught.
Thank God, the Universe isn't a quiz with just one right or wrong answer that my life or happiness here depends on. Its a multiple choice quiz with many choices and answers. If I want or choose to believe in God like Einstein and Carl Sagan and my definition of Ultimate Reality or God is Nature with its set of physical laws and displaying a certain amount of order, beauty, and harmony, then what harm is there?
Obviously there is a Creator who loves Me. Not much evidence that She loves You. The Creator made Pudgy Philosophers out of a desire to frustrate everyone else. Ergo Ipso Facto Habeus Corpus Ad Nauseum Amen Hallelujah.
Has anyone considered that life arose in a universe that has the values our universe has and that if the universe had very different values, life would have developed very differently so that those different values would be the ones we would see as the requirement for life.
It has been said before but you said it particularly well.
As we all know, pi has an infinite number of decimal places.
Only God has enough time to write them all down on a piece of paper.
Therefore God exists !
If god is writing down and infinite list of numbers, how will he have time to do anything ?
@@tonyatkinson2210
Mmm. You may be write. Apparently, he is timeless. He ain't got de time.
@@tedgrant2 you are aware that pi is an irrational number . What makes you think that anyone can write it down . It’s computable , but nobody could write the number down because it’s not a root of a polynomial function with two rational coefficients .
And as for time . As far as we can tell , time did not exist prior to T=0
@@tonyatkinson2210
"With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible".
(Matthew 19:26 but also see 17:20 for an alternative saying)
@@tedgrant2 can god lie ?
Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.)
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree.
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
=====================
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length )
The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
.
Purely brilliant position!
According to Aristotle, things move because somebody is pushing.
That could be a man or a dung beetle or even a hedgehog.
If we don't know, then the default is God. 😂.
And what is pushing god ?
@@tonyatkinson2210
His own good pleasure.
(That's what I read somewhere... I forget now)
@@tedgrant2 your argument is that everything needs a cause apart from your special case . My argument is that if your special case doesn’t need a cause then why doesn’t mine ?
@@tonyatkinson2210what’s your special case if I may ask?
@@slade8863 that the universe could exempt from cause and effect because cause and effect are temporal .
Possibilities also include that it’s eternal and therefore didn’t have first cause , that it caused itself (both cause and effect simultaneous) , that there is no cause - the universe is just a brute fact and asking fir an explanation of this brute fact is meaningless.
There are plenty more . But what theists are asking me believe is that the emergent complexity of the universe was created by a mind infinitely more complex than the universe itself and that this mind doesn’t itself require being designed .
Does a fine tuned universe lead to God? Yes, by definition. I ask you, what would fine tuning be without a God? So, does that make my point or not? 'Fine-tuning' is not a neutral term. It's loaded dice.
Nope. The universe isnt tuned for life. Life is tuned for the universe.
That's literally the same thing
@@luminar2 nope.
Thank you Peter. Multiple universes is a laughable excuse to get rid of a designer. There is less proof for multiverses than a designer - that is scientism.
nah. no proof for either. stop wishin and hopin
God may have adjusted the values, but the question remains: why are the values necessary in the first place?
If you believe that the universe was orchestrated by the highest conceivable level of intelligence, ... then that leads to God. If you believe that there is no orchestration to the universe, ... then that leads to nihilistic purposelessness. However, if you believe that the universe was orchestrated using the absolute minimum amount of intelligence necessary to facilitate its orchestration, ... _then that leads to _*_logic!_*
Since the controversial concept of an "intelligent designer" is being used here without anything exploding, I will assume we soon can expect to see interviews on this brilliant channel with people like Dr Stephen Meyer, professor Michael Behe, Professor james Tour, professor John Lennox, Dr. David Berlinski, professor Eric hedin etc etc.
Everything is created and there is a creator of the universe.
This is absurd because any evidence is showing honestly. Instead rambling gibberich.
Fine-Tuned Universe means the Almighty Fine-Tuner exists. Here's the reason why the Universe was fine-tuned for our survival :
We lost Heaven (our original Home) because we lost faith in God. We can only return Home if we can regain our faith in a loving God..
..this is the very reason why our lost souls were sent here NOT to know God (the ultimate reality) but to regain our faith or simply TO BELIEVE for our salvation.
..and this is also the very reason why our senses are limited to only detect what is physical but not beyond because the ultimate reality (who is God) is a forbidden knowledge so not to compromise our free will to regain faith by knowing.
Again, our souls' salvation relies on regaining our faith so to override our prior bad choice of losing faith that ended us all in cold dark emptiness (hell). If we fail to override through regaining this faith, our prior bad choice will remain in effect to return to emptiness or hell. God always respects our choice because we are not His robots nor slaves but free.
So who or what "fine-tuned" Him,Her, or a Cosmic Committee??? And why would this all-knowing, all perfect entity create non-perfect life forms. Maybe as a joke perhaps...
@@festeradams3972 God has no fine-tuner because He has no beginning and no end...
...God knows what you believe now because it is an available info...but God does not know what you will believe next because not only that the info is NOT AVAILABLE yet but also you are free to believe anything for any reason... An omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God is how imperfect men describe God but has nothing to do with who God really is...The truth out there is independent from man's opinion.
..God brilliantly and perfectly created not only perfections in this Universe but also imperfections so for mankind to understand what is bad, good, better, and best to hopefully believe that there is a better place or worse place out there (heaven or hell) so to hopefully find faith in God for souls' salvation.
@@evaadam3635 Do you just make up this nonsense on the fly or do you get it from somewhere?
@@tomjackson7755 It is my best reading of the light that I believe was shared to me because of my strong faith in our loving Creator.
Many believers or faithfuls of God from all over the world may also have had received the same light but have different interpretations that has led to the emergence of many religions but all points to the same faith in an Almighty SOURCE or God.
If you are a strong believer of a loving God, you may receive the light someday to understand God better that may inspire you to share it to the world...
@@evaadam3635 Ok you just make it up yourself as you go along. What make you think what you make up is right over what anyone else makes up? What makes you think any of you have it right?
"Does a Fine-Tuned Universe Lead to God?" What god? The Judeo Christian god of the bible? He doesn't exist. Man made like all other gods.
Jesus, hear my prayers these past three years have been difficult on me I am weak. Give me guidance. Please come back soon I don’t know how much longer I can hold on. As a single parent things are hard on me both of my sons are autistic and my hours to work are limited because I’m now homeschooling them. I’m constantly struggling to provide the basic necessities for them I’m so ashamed. I suffered an heart attack and I’m battling lupus I’m overwhelmed. Lord heal me. Father God hear my prayers. I constantly struggle to pay my bills and struggle to provide groceries. BUT I KEEP FAITH. Even though I want to give up. Jesus please take the fear from my heart. Father God it is you that gives me the strength to keep going. I praise you Father even as I fear homelessness please continue to give me strength.
People thought he was coming back 2000 years ago and ever so be then people have thought he'd be back within their lifetime. They have ALL been wrong. Find help in the people around you, try therapy. Don't give up. You are strong and your life is worth living. People need you and people love you. You don't need to cling on to the hope of a coming end of the world. You got this, girl
Hahahahahahahaha!
The universe is of course all about me me me of course it's fine tuned for my beauty and of course god is behind the whole thing.
Any who deny the ONE, the Divine, should be ignored. Any who preclude Reason, Logic, Dialectic when regarding the ONE, should be ignored. Those who talk quantum nonsense, wise is one who avoids such endless measure jargon. They who value control, manipulation, exploitation for existential results over Truth, Justice, Wisdom, are to be avoided. They who sell a dogma as Truth, or a methodology as a guide in life, are to be ignored.
99% of the problems are now negated. Real enquiry can begin!
Great you should be ignored, as you do 2 of the 4.
@tomjackson7755 what's known is only through the mode of the knower.
@@S3RAVA3LM Oh look a meaningless statement that should be ignored.
Universe is just particles, chance and necessity. Read Victor Stenger, P.W. Atkins, Will Provine and Jacques Monod. There is no fine tuned. No god.
This supposed thinker reeks of intellectual dishonesty