Multiverses are as unfalsifiable and hence as unscientific as believing in God. Even the inventor of the multiverse hypothesis at the end agreed to that. But just continue to insult others, this surely will solve the problem.
You're the superstitious one confirming your bias actually, this video is weak. In ignorance, we have no reason to assume that the probabilities aren't equal according to Occam's razor. Also, if there are factors that drive the probabilities of the physical constants being where they are very high, then you just post poned the problem : why is this external driver tuned to make the probability of life enabling physical constants very high and what is the probability that this external driver is tuned this way? This man is unfortunately coping and you people are trying to reassure yourselves to not challenge your beliefs, even if the arguments presented are illogical. The suit doesn't make the philosopher, the arguments do.
I wouldn't call this "truth" - at best it's more like an alternative hypothesis. But it actually isn't a hypothesis, so much as a kind of analogy. (Noone thinks the universe is a kind of jar with beans in it.) If you're looking for a pointer towards a possible non-theistic explanation behind fine tuning, and you don't care how probable or improbable it is, then it'll do for that. For someone who wants to be an atheist, yes, it's a possible epistemic escape hatch from the Fine Tuning argument.
Given the physical parameters of the beans, jar, and motion applied, there was not a 1/2^100 probability. But for the universe there was no matter, energy, time, nor space; so there could be no prior physical parameters. Wasn't this dude the intelligent agent behind this experiment? He chooses what to put in the jar. He chose to shake it. All for a purpose. His "jar universe" was designed.
@@ADAMgroup Name one,99,9% don't,stop getting ur info from supersimplified youtube videos and Google searches,I'm positive no scientist believes that the universe popped out of nowhere for no reason
Sorry but I'm not understanding how this Jar analogy debunks the fine-tuning argument. Surely if we shook around the constants and it somehow came within the exact space of values of a life-permitting universe this is still the fine-tuning problem but pushed one step back? Why is the most probable outcome in the extremely fine range of life-permitting constants?
the point is the argument assumes that undirected equals random, here is an example where undirected does not equal random. If you watch the entire film this clip is taken fro we give a cosmology that can achieve this.
@@Ultras743 there could be yes thats right . But also the confidence we have in probabilistic reasoning should be a function of our understanding of the underlying mechanisms that generate outcomes. In the case of a dice roll we understand the mechanisms and can be justified in being surprised at all 6's , but that isnt the case for the constants of nature
Although a good experiment, I do find a problem with it. There is a particular manner in which the jar's shaking must be done. If it were too vigorous, we wouldn't have been able to separate the beans. Thus, the experimenter has a conscious input to maintain such an optimal force, which is a point for the fine-tuning argument!
I dont see any evidence that that the shaking has to be done in some terribly narrow window of force. But I think yur missing the point entirely. The point is about the probabilities, the a priori probabilities are nothing like the actual probabilities. Thats the point .
@@PhilHalper1 that will help to solve the problem of why the red and black beans are so fine tuned that the black beans are always on top of the red beans.
@@PhilHalper1 to be honest with you for a man with a physics degree that was a ridiculous experiment he specifically chose those two types of beans so he get a desirable outcome for his experiment and that's supposed to be the argument against Fine tuning it sounds like an argument for fine-tuning.
If you specifically design an experiment bin a certain way using intelligence to demonstrate how an improbabilistic event can occur, that can't be anologous to the state of the naturalistic and directionless cosmos in the beginning. You didn't debunk the inductively verified notion that probabilistically implausible events are better explained by an intelligent agent ; rather, you reaffirmed it by intelligently designing the specific conditions of the experiment.
Damn..You struggle to understand the analogy. The shake means every event where it is possible to calculate the probability of the occurrence of the successful event. If you were to calculate the probability of surviving a plane crash, the shaking would mean the planes colliding
Oof... I'm not sure if you need to work on your articulation or if I need to work on my comprehension, but I have no idea what YOU are trying to communicate in your reply, my friend.@@matiascollado9926
This doesn't really add much to the "maybe there's a multiverse, we don't know" counterargument. The only thing it's really saying is "maybe there's some kind of natural selection process that optimises for our universe, meaning we only need 100 iterations of a universe rather than 2^100 of them, we don't know".
See, I think it's totally possible for there to be some naturalistic tendency for constants to look a certain way. But, I would not assign a higher (a priori) credence to the constants being predisposed to any particular value. There could totally be some natural thing that would predispose the gravitational constant, for example, to have a value of 6.67408 × 10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2). But why would you expect it to be predisposed to that, rather than 1 m^3/(kg s^2)? Basically, we go from P(G = 6.67408 × 10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2)) being small due to competing possibilities to P(G is disposed to 6.67408 × 10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2)) being small due to competing possibilities.
This has to be the stupidest excuse atheists came with, aside from the fact that the probability he calculated is based on one simple shake of the jar and not playing with it for some time until he INTENTIONALLY got the black beans on top ,the fact the he SHOOK the jar, implies INPUT! INTENTION! Get it ?
No intelligent agency? He literally disproved this point. He did not shake them. He stir them in a way where the black beans would rise to the top and the smaller ones with filter to the bottom. Shake them at random up and down side to side and a figure eight and we'll see if they filter the same. He plays God in the bean universe while simultaneously proclaiming that there is no god in the bean universe
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib what part? The confirming of willfully ignorant people's bias with cheap parlor tricks or using centrifugal force to sort out objects of different size and weight? I am of Mexican descent technically a beaner, so yeah I know my beans bro
1) shaking the beans randomly is a random action. 2) Having the black beans got to the top looks like order 3) After shaking the black beans go above the red beans C) randomness can create order. This is actually an example of the opposite. Order is implicit in the system by the symmetry of the black beans to each other and red beans to each other. It literally proves the opposite of what Phil is trying to prove. The beans in the jar are fine tuned to collect where they do given an event with a random variable (the shaking). But this doesn't prove order from randomness. This is much like evolution being constrained by the universal constants. You can see something similar if you have marbles in a box. Get a bunch of identical-sized marbles and shake the box randomly and as they settle in the box they form symmetrical hexagonal patterns. The order is implicit in the system, despite the random shaking, by the symmetry of the equal sized marbles to each other. This same order is in God's creation at the subatomic level. This is why you see symmetry in snow flakes and crystals.
you are missing the entire point of the video. The point of the video is to show that a prior assessment of probability that doesn't take account of mechanisms is unlikely to be trustworthy. That is well demsotrated here.
@@PhilHalper1 When you say probability that "That doesn't take account of mechanisms" you need to realize what is being said. When we're talking about the universe, the universal constants are those mechanisms. Those mechanisms are what we're talking about as being "finely tuned". There is nothing that makes them what they are, they are just givens: the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, the mass of an electron etc. Those are what are finely tuned. Taken to the analogy, it's not the final result of the beans that is finely tuned (though order does show up at the macro level since its implicit in the micro level), its the symmetry of the jar, the symmetries between the black beans and the red beans. The random shaking just brings out the order that was implicit in the design. In the same way you could apply this to the symmetry between up quarks, down quarks, and electrons, the charges of up quarks and down quarks etc.
@@PhilHalper1 There is nothing found on earth so far that makes them what they are. We just measure them and they have the measurements they have. If there were a deeper law that made them what they are, then that deeper law would then be fine-tuned. When I was attempting to get into law school, there was a test you had to take called the LSAT that included logic puzzles. In these tests you're often given a bunch of different variables and then you have to find a way for them to all exist with each other and sort the data. This is precisely what the universe appears to be doing with the constants. So then we have an inductive argument based on these three possibilities. 1) The universal constants are there by determinism, 2) They are there by randomness 3) They are there by design. The first one really just collapses into the other two. Why is something determined? Because a deeper more fundamental thing forces it to be that way. This just pushes the causal chain back a point. This leaves randomness as an option and design. Antony Flew was a life long atheist who became a deist partially because of the impossibility of fine tuning from true randomness. “I was particularly impressed with Gerry Shroeder’s point-by-point refutation of what I call the ‘monkey theorem.’ This idea, which has been presented in a number of forms and variations, defends the possibility of life arising by chance using the analogy of a multitude of monkeys banging away on computer keyboards and eventually ending up writing a Shakespearean sonnet. Schroeder first referred to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts. A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom!), the monkeys produced fifty typed pages- but not a single word. Schroeder noted that this was the case even though the shortest word in the English language is one letter (a or I). A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it. If we take it that the keyboard has thirty characters (the twenty-six letters and other symbols), then the likelihood of getting a one-letter word is 30 times 30 times 30, which is 27,000. The likelihood of getting a one-letter word is one chance out of 27,000. Schroeder then applied the probabilities to the sonnet analogy. ‘What’s the chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet?’ he asked. He continued: All the sonnets are the same length. They’re by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening line for, “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?” I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in that sonnet. What’s the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in the exact sequence as in “Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer’s Day?’? What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times- or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10, 10 to the 690th. [Now] the number of particles in the universe- not grains of sand, I’m talking about protons, electrons, and neutrons- is 10 to the 80th. Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. Ten to the 690th is 1 with 690 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you’d be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th. If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips- forget the monkeys- each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 488 trials at, say, a million times a second; if you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second [producing] random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of time would be 10 to the 90th trials. It would be off again by a factor of 10 to the 600th. You will never get a sonnet by chance. The universe would have to be 10 to the 600th times larger. Yet the world just thinks the monkeys can do it every time. After hearing Schroder’s presentation, I told him that he had very satisfactorily and decisively established that the ‘monkey theorem’ was a load of rubbish, and that it was particularly good to do it with just a sonnet; the theorem is sometimes proposed using the works of Shakespeare or a single play such as Hamlet. If the theorem won’t work for a single sonnet, then of course it’s simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance,” Antony Flew, There is a God, (Harper One: New York, 2007,) 75-8. Randomness is too improbable, this leaves design.
The problem with this argument is that it is employing already established Constants but where do these constants come from or laws? Laws don’t create them selves in the loss of cells are fine tuned to allow for life.
I think it's simple. Nothing cannot exist, therefore something exist. If something exist, then it have atributes. What we call constants or laws are those atributes And they do not vary abruptly and incoherently because they are the identity of the entity that must necessarily exist.
He proves his whole point wrong when he intelligently shook the jar of beans in a way that made them go to the top, yet he acts like there was no intelligent force behind the action. He was the intelligent force.
no becuase the intelligent being doesn't select the outcome.You can't do a scientific experiment without a intelligent person involved somewhere, so I guess you re saying every single thing any experiment shows proves a designer behind everything.? really|? More importantly the point of the excessive is to show the a prior probabilities are totally wrong and we do show that. Fine tuning relies on these sort of a priori probabilities and that's the point .
@@PhilHalper1 He designed a situation for those beans to go to the top of the jar using a swirling motion that accomplishes this. You said, "so I guess you re saying every single thing any experiment shows proves a designer behind everything.? really|?" No, I did not say that. You are putting words in my mouth in bad faith.
@@deathtilluspart4636 but the conclusion is the same if he didnt know if the beans would go to the top, so again the presence of the intelligent designer here is irrelavant. And I know you didnt say those words but what Im saying is they are implied by your argument.
@@PhilHalper1 My response is on the longer side, but I would be grateful if you gave me your rebuttal and tried to demonstrate how I’m wrong. I want to know the truth, so if I don’t have the truth, please give it to me, and I hope you aspire to do the same and would acknowledge the good points that I am giving if they are indeed good. For argument’s sake, let’s say there is no God or intelligent designer and let’s take a look at how the laws of physics operate in our universe and understand the many variables that would have to miraculously be in existence for biological life and sentience to occur. To name a few: If electrons were not attracted to protons, then atoms and molecules would not form, and neither would humans. If protons did not bond together in a nucleus of an atom, then there would be no atomic variation and nearly everything would be hydrogen molecules or neutrons. Or if there was no force that prevented electrons from getting too close to protons, then all protons would collide with electrons and form neutrons and these neutrons would have a neutral charge that would prevent the variety of atoms and molecules from forming the way they need to create the universe and us sentient beings, and without electrons orbiting protons, there would be no complex molecules or chemical reactions that allow for life to exist. The laws of physics just so happened to allow sub atomic particles to be able to form a perfect random variety of atoms, which then allow for a perfect variety of molecules that enable the formation of biological life, and then these biological life forms just so happened to randomly developed neurons and a neural network capable of creating consciousness. To put it simply, non-sentient physical matter randomly moved around and randomly created consciousness that is capable of logic and being able to sense, visually see, and understand the world. And then we could go step by step by discussing how each property of each different type of atom on the periodic table just so happens to miraculously form all the different kinds of “random” components to create life as we know it. Then we can discuss how this planet just so happened to have all of these chemical compounds and just so happened to be this perfect distance from the sun, and the cherry onto is that our moon can perfectly eclipse the sun, that these two circles in the sky just so happen to be at the perfect distance to do that, is that not fine-tuning to you? Is this all probable to you? Do we need to watch other universes being created with different laws of physics to understand that our universe is finely tuned? Of course not. It’s right in front of us and obvious. Therefore, it is less probable that God does not exist because it is improbable that our universe had all of these variables perfectly fine-tuned. It appears to be willful ignorance and intentionally trying to be unobservant and unintelligent to not see this obvious evidence. Based on how the laws of physics work in our universe, we can see how if some or one of these many variables were not present, then life would not exist - this is fine-tuning. What is more probable then, believing in the countless miracles of the countless random variables that are finely-tuned, or the one miracle that God exists? I assert that you and the guy in the video are making a false equivalency. The complexity of the universe is way more complicated then beans in a jar. That jar was artificially made by a sentient life form using silica and heat and molded into that shape and then a sentient life form placed the beans in that jar and then spun the jar in a certain way that caused the beans to rise to the top - that’s not randomness, that’s a finely tuned way to ensure that beans show up at the top of a jar, that’s all it demonstrates. It’s only demonstrating that it requires sentience and calculation to bring those beans up in a jar. The jar could have been shaken in a different way that would not cause the beans to jumble together, or he could have thrown the beans in the air, but he strategically swirled the jar to bring the beans to top. He’s only demonstrating that it takes sentience to do otherwise improbable things. No where in nature does a glass container form and two different beans show up inside of it and then are mechanically maneuvered in such a way to separate those two beans, this happened because of sentience. The complex and finely tuned variables that allow for sentient life forms to exist is not the equivalent to putting beans in a jar and giving it a swirl. And I suppose to answer your previous statement, all experiments are conducted by a sentient life form, so yes, in a way experiments do prove that sentience exist because because the humans who designed them are sentient. So, technically, experiments do prove a designer of the experiment, but I did not say that all experiments conducted therefore prove the existence of God; so no, the statement I made does not necessary demonstrate that it is logical to believe that all experiments demonstrate the existence of God and you were putting words in my mouth. I’m saying that this experiment is a bad demonstration to prove that the fine-tuning argument is wrong.
@@PhilHalper1 My response is on the longer side, but I would be grateful if you gave me your rebuttal and tried to demonstrate how I’m wrong. I want to know the truth, so if I don’t have the truth, please give it to me, and I hope you aspire to do the same and would acknowledge the good points that I am giving if they are indeed good. For argument’s sake, let’s say there is no God or intelligent designer and let’s take a look at how the laws of physics operate in our universe and understand the many variables that would have to miraculously be in existence for biological life and sentience to occur. To name a few: If electrons were not attracted to protons, then atoms and molecules would not form, and neither would humans. If protons did not bond together in a nucleus of an atom, then there would be no atomic variation and nearly everything would be hydrogen molecules or neutrons. Or if there was no force that prevented electrons from getting too close to protons, then all protons would collide with electrons and form neutrons and these neutrons would have a neutral charge that would prevent the variety of atoms and molecules from forming the way they need to create the universe and us sentient beings, and without electrons orbiting protons, there would be no complex molecules or chemical reactions that allow for life to exist. The laws of physics just so happened to allow sub atomic particles to be able to form a perfect random variety of atoms, which then allow for a perfect variety of molecules that enable the formation of biological life, and then these biological life forms just so happened to randomly developed neurons and a neural network capable of creating consciousness. To put it simply, non-sentient physical matter randomly moved around and randomly created consciousness that is capable of logic and being able to sense, visually see, and understand the world. And then we could go step by step by discussing how each property of each different type of atom on the periodic table just so happens to miraculously form all the different kinds of “random” components to create life as we know it. Then we can discuss how this planet just so happened to have all of these chemical compounds and just so happened to be this perfect distance from the sun, and the cherry onto is that our moon can perfectly eclipse the sun, that these two circles in the sky just so happen to be at the perfect distance to do that, is that not fine-tuning to you? Is this all probable to you? Do we need to watch other universes being created with different laws of physics to understand that our universe is finely tuned? Of course not. It’s right in front of us and obvious. Therefore, it is less probable that God does not exist because it is improbable that our universe had all of these variables perfectly fine-tuned. It appears to be willful ignorance and intentionally trying to be unobservant and unintelligent to not see this obvious evidence. Based on how the laws of physics work in our universe, we can see how if some or one of these many variables were not present, then life would not exist - this is fine-tuning. What is more probable then, believing in the countless miracles of the countless random variables that are finely-tuned, or that God exists?
As others have pointed out, if anything, the fine tuning argument proves we live in a naturalistic universe. The omnipotent god of the Abrahamic religions, if he is indeed all powerful, would not need any stinking “fine-tuning” to create an universe and make it work.
I hate to use these next three words, *but, not all* Abrahamic thought is so stuck in the idea of god as a separate entity - controlling the tool of his creation. Kinds of Abrahamic religions? Most of them I think, Practicers of them? Very few. Rather many of us understand God is just the natural order, beauty, chaos, horror, and magnificence of existence. You can only believe in the rougarou's and the tooth fairy's existence up until you have evidence to the contrary; but the older and wiser you get, you'll find the opposite is true of God. Evidence is everywhere. We silly homo sapiens just need to use better words to talk about science and religion.
William Lane Craig has defended claims against the universe being naturalistic by the fine tuning argument with his syllogism: either due to physical necessity, chance or design. If you argue that God doesn't need fine tuning than adding 'miracle' gives no weigh to the naturalist. The syllogism then thus becomes either due to physical necessity, chance, design or miracle. It is thus not due to physical necessity, chance, or miracle - it can still be construed as design.
What if God loves math, built the world on math, fractals, connected the golden ratio with the beauty of the universe? What if God wanted to experience life through your eyes and see if He could still guide you to the infinite passion of life?
It's amazing how a jar of beans is made of the elements created during the big bang. The quantum mechanics required to bring the molecules together, the nuclear force to bind them together. The information within its DNA. The computer-like accuracy of the coding of DNA. The functionality of beans to even possibly recode a new bean plant. Like wow
Debunk is a very strong word. While I don't necessarily agree with either the fine tuning theory itself or its possible implications (and I even believe Hitchcock's argument makes significant sense) this theoretical principle is just another tier of heavy speculation. What he does is saying we can't consider possibilities a priori if we don't understand the underlying system, but he neither provides any proof of the inherent characteristics of the system itself or of its existence. Ultimately, just like the fine tuning problem itself, it's still a leap of faith based on theory and a grain of belief.
why does he need, hes showing a clear example where if do the procedure that fine tuning advocates do, you will replica something is very unlikely when it isn't. The flaw in both cases is to make stamens about probability with insufficient knowledge.
The implication of Hitchcock's thesis is that likely there are inner mechanisms at work that we don't know of, which in turn make the fine tuning more likely than it seems. While once again that is indeed a possibility, his idea only adds a further layer of speculation, without any actual proof of said inner mechanisms existing (or how they work) we have once again the same likelyhood of them being more in favor or in disfavor of the current composition of the universe, hence it does not debunk anything, it just gives a clearly speculative interpretation of the phenomena, which is still great but it's not a mic-drop moment that disproves anything. It's a bit of the equivalent of the blackwater theory in response to the Fermi Paradox, it's a possible explanation but still pure speculation based on no kind of actual proof.
@@inaridefucc8904 its not that there is a hidden mechanism , its that theres total ignorance of the mechanism and we cantle confident about probabilities in that scenario. None of the apologies used to demonstrate fine tuning, whether its aces at poker or guessing a padlock number etc are therefore relevant.
A designer is the most likely explanation for the mind-bogglingly precise fine-tuning of the constants of nature. It doesn't prove it conclusively, but it is a strong suggestion of it. I think too many scientists and physicists are committed to the physicalist worldview, and they are too hostile to anything that could be perceived as a religious argument, to consider this with an open mind.
If the claim is that the cinstants are finely tuned (which hasn't been shown to be the case), then that necessarily means there is a designer. Fine tuning requires a tuner. Even if it was finely tuned, finely tuned for what? Certainly not life.
@thejabberwocky2819 Well the last stars are predicted to burn out in 100-200 trillion years (not counting any artificial stats a future advanced civilisation kighr create), so we are only 13.8 billion years into the lifetime of the galaxy. That means in the total pife cycle of the Universe (without any extra time gained with future technology), only about 0.01% of the time has passed. So it is a bit early to talk about the Universe not being habitable. 100 trillion years is ALOT of time to colonise, even terraform millions or even billions of planets. As for the vast, vast empty space between planets, well if hypothetically the Universe were designed, then you wouldn't really want any less empty space cos otherwise the planets would be too close and would be crashing into one another. So actually in the grand scheme of things it could fit life pretty well.
@skydivephil You never made a video " debunking " the argument which actually preceeded the kalam cosmological and is irrefutable. It was actually more popular in the medival period especially in the Islamic world and even Christian ones. This argument doesn't depend on the truths about infinite and the founder of the argument himself was an eternalist. You guys know you can't debunk the argument from contingency (espicially the one in islamic philosophy) or even any form of the argument. So you busy your audience with other useless arguments (fine tuning or kalam even)
By the mathematical laws of statistics and probability, as I understand it, SETI should have found the other sentient and intelligent ones by now. They haven't. There aren't any. So our existence is not a fluke, it's an impossiblity. Randomness could not have created us. Our existence has to be intentional.
The problem with this argument is that it is limited to a one dimensional single event. The fine tuning argument basically means that a collection of impossible events happened at the same time, and all of the events are mandatory. Yes, one single highly unlikely event can and do happen on occasion, but when 10 to 20 of them happen simultaneously you are no longer dealing with chance.
Phil, there are various constants under which we can be certain that useful probabilities can be generated. As long as a constant is dimensional (such as planks constant, speed of light or boltzmanns constant) or the cosmological constant which is bound (-plancklimit,+Plancklimit) we don't have a normalization issue.
@@ManyDreams-cs9jq its not just q eustiosn of nomrlissation, you have no idea what values of the CC or any other constants are allowed by nature. You have a theory of the CC, say QFT and it gets the value totally wrong and thats all you can say .
I just did. You would be right that some constants like the Higgs vev are bound by [0, infinity) which are dimensionless- but not all constants fall under this paradigm (such as the constants I have given examples of)
Saying 'Muh we don't know the probabilities so we can't make any claims about it' is so easy to ignore. Imagine if the universe was set up in a way such that the laws of physics made planets shaped in the letters 'GOD IS REAL' Would you then throw your hands in the air, and say that 'Oh well, we don't know the probabilities so we can't make any claims about it!' So stupid. This refutation is from Huemer, and even Oppy conceded to it. ALSO I am a HARDCORE atheist, but these trash refutations SUCK. PLEASE learn to critically think. @@PhilHalper1
So please help me understand: At the 2:14 time stamp, he admits there is an "Intelligent Agent" behind it. I wonder, did that "Intelligent Agent" choose the items being used (the beans of differing types, sizes, shapes, and weights), the vessel (the jar of a certain size and shape), or any other factors (such as amount of time to shake the container, and the amount of force used? Is this truly a good representation of how you think "Science" is done. It's laughable at best. Or did the red and black beans, and the jar all just happen upon one another, and of course we can't forget the lid sealed atop the jar after having screwed itself on? Seems to me, there is intelligence and a mind behind what is being shown here. Please don't deny the fact.
Can we still easily shake out the arrangement of black beans on the top layer from the glass bottle filled with beans if we take it to outer space without gravity? The answer is no! The example of this jar of beans is fundamentally different from the fine-tuning of the universe because you assume the existence of some physical laws outside the universe, but the universe already encompasses everything physical, so there wouldn't be other physical laws "fine-tuning" the universe.
just a question do hindus , shintoists , confusonist, buddhists use the same arguments that these abrahamic people use like the fine tunning argument and the kalam cosmological argument.
You'll need to be a bit more careful about that question. Most Buddhist schools and the nominally Hindu school of Non Dualism don't assume the existence of a creator at all.
@@thebelligerentbostonian7524 thats fine, we are only directing tis to those that do and assume fine tuning provides compelling evidence for their God.
@@thebelligerentbostonian7524 wait non dulistic i thought that dharmic religions like Hindu Buddhist Jains have the concept of a spirt like reincarnation and i thought that hindus believe in the existence of a creator called Brahma I am just asking a question out of curiosity i don't know much of these religions and there isn't much content about these religions on the internet I am just curious in learning what other people believe .
I'll watch the full documentary when I have more time (so this objection might be answered), but it seems to me that this example doesn't really hurt the fine-tuning argument (an argument that I don't really agree with!). The demonstration purports to show that we can't calculate probabilities a priori because there might be some unexpected bias or mechanism that would skew results, and then equates this with the constants of the universe. To use an example, perhaps the actual value of the cosmological constant is much more probable than other possible values, much like the 20 face on a d20 could be highly probable if the die is weighted. If this were the case, we shouldn't be surprised to find the cosmological constant with the value that it has. Assuming this is true, we must ask two questions: what is the nature of these mechanisms, and why are they biased the way they are? 1. Considering that these mechanisms govern the constants behind the laws of nature, we would consider them to be supernatural (outside the realm of nature). If the natural world is the most fundamental level of reality, then any deeper law would have to exist immaterially and supernaturally in order to have any force over the natural world. But then the natural world could not be the most fundamental level of reality. So if you want to have mechanisms that haver coercive power over the foundation of the natural world, then these mechanisms themselves can't be natural. An immaterial, supernatural mechanism that has coercive force over the laws of nature? Sounds like the G-word to me. To use an example, the natural laws that hold sway over the man's random shaking are not themselves random in nature. If they were random, then perhaps the law of gravitation would apply to one specific bean, and not to another, and the same with the laws of density, and then from random shaking you would get a random assortment of black and white beans. However, even though the jar undergoes a non-uniform disturbance, because there is a uniform application of uniform laws, you get a uniform result. 2. If the system has mechanisms that coerce certain results, we must ask: why are certain results favored? Even if it is a necessary feature of the universe that the gravitational constant has a probabilistically favored magnitude, and the same with all the other constants, it is still strange that the favored values of all these constants is conducive to life. Certainly if the favored value of the gravitational constant was 100x greater than it currently is, or 1000x greater, life would not exist. So postulating some hidden mechanism that makes constants that allows for life just kicks the can down the road.
It's very interesting and challenging idea. I am trying to challenge this idea. If we think about a mechanism that generates the laws, then, the most fundamental reality can only be behind this mechanism and we can't hope to grasp this more fundamental reality. We have always only be observing and describing a higher reality on top of the fundamental reality. I will express it differently : Science observes the laws. Possibly, science improves and discovers more fundamental laws but ultimately, it always remains the question : why these laws? Why these laws and not any other? And by essence, science can't answer this question. Science can only observe until a certain level of depth. Ultimately, science can't answer the question "why". Science can't hope to grasp the "why". It's just out of scope. Concerning the point 2, the thing is, we can't finally wonder "why this mechanism favoured life". Rather, we are left with : we can't know the mechanism behind the generation of our laws and we have only one universe to observe and so, we have no way to estimate a probability indicating how likely life is in our universe. We just don't know this probability. The fine tuning is resolved since we fall back to the point : we can't estimate a probability a priori without any knowledge of the mechanism behind. Other amusing points to consider : What if our current model of the universe (described as a set of constants and equations) was actually incomplete so that all constants were actually variables? And how can you evaluate the probability that it is the case or that it is not the case? Last idea : From our model, why allowing ourselves to play with the constants but not allowing ourselves to play with the equations as well? Why assuming that we can change the constants in reality, but not assuming that we can also change the whole set of equations as well? (Sure, it needs more imagination than modifying some constants in a computer simulation but why not?). If we want to be able to compute the probability of being in a universe allowing life, it first needs to figure out the whole set of possible universe, not just the subset of possible universe by only playing with the constants and not playing with the equations. Also, there are so many things that we don't know, it seems to me a bit adventurous to assume that we are able to accurately simulate a universe with different constants (assuming it's ever possible to do so). There might still be some laws that we didn't discover yet that could change the conclusion we make about the possibility of life or not on a universe. The way I see fine tuning is the addition of several adventurous assumptions : *First, the belief that we are able to know how our universe could have been different based on the fact that we can play to modify some constants on a computer simulation. *Then, based on this strong assumption, the assumption that our current model is complete and that we are able to accurately compute the conditions of life of all these "imaginary" universes *Finally, the assumption that the constants could have taken any value in an equiprobable way
@@raphaeljoly4126 Thanks for the thoughtful response. "Ultimately, science can't answer the question "why". Science can't hope to grasp the "why"." I agree, and this is why I'm not a scientist or a naive empiricist, or a follower of some other philosophical position that reduces reality to the things observed by science. These deeper questions exist and are serious questions, and a serious questioner must acknowledge that science can't provide a sufficient response to them. You need other modes of thought to approach the "why" questions. While it is true that we can't make definitive statements about the probability of our universe's current state without first knowing the conditions that led to its state, the fact that there could be governing conditions points to fine tuning. It seems to me that there are two possibilities for the apparent fine-tuning of the universe: 1. Our universe and its associate laws/constants/characteristics arose through random chance. 2. Our universe arose through non-random processes, which somehow favor the form it took. The first situation is a probabilistic monstrosity and probably helps the fine-tuner's case. The second case is more subtle, but the fact that there are laws/processes that operate outside of the universe or that govern the universe is quite mysterious. In my view, it is conducive to a belief in God, a belief I defended in more detail in my first post. The last thing I want to say is in regards to your belief: "we can't know the mechanism behind the generation of our laws and we have only one universe to observe and so, we have no way to estimate a probability indicating how likely life is in our universe." This point is the crux of the video's argument. This is true in the absolute sense (we can't pronounce with absolute certainty the probability of life in our universe), but I think it fails in the weaker sense (ie, we can guess the probability of life in our universe). EVERY specific event in our universe only happens once, and since we only have one universe that we have knowledge of, I could claim that the sample size of any particular event is one. For example, if we were playing poker, and I got five Royal Flushes in a row, you would be right to accuse me of cheating. I could respond, "It's just the case that in this particular universe that we live in, I get five Royal Flushes in a row. It might seem unlikely, but the only way you could observe me getting five in a row was if you lived in the universe in which it happened (essentially, the weak anthropic principle). Thus, you shouldn't be surprised at all. Further, you can't appeal to the probability of drawing from a deck of playing cards, because this was the first time in history that these cards were put in this configuration at this particular time in this particular place with me as the particular dealer shuffling it in this particular way to give the particular result of five royal flushes. This particular set of conditions has only been met once in the history of the universe, so your comparable sample size is one. Finally, we don't have an exhaustive grasp of the laws of nature. It could be the case that a necessary consequence of the third law of thermodynamics is that a human will be dealt five royal flushes in a row. That might sound ridiculous, but it's at least possible, and you can't rule it out until we solve physics and know every equation/constant/governing principle of the universe."
@@sablefang4330 Thank you for your answer. It's very interesting. My brain is overheating haha ^^ I meant, I am tempted to believe in an ever stronger statement : that we have only ever had science, our reasoning, to observe the world. I am tempted to say that there is no other way, at all, to try to answer the "why" and that, by essence, the "why" can only be beyond the scope of the human mind. "we can guess the probability of life in our universe" Rather, I would be tempted to say that we can IMAGINE the probability of our universe the same way a blind person can imagine colors. Sure, we can extrapolate and playfully modify the value of a few constants in a computer simulation. What kind of validity does it give to it? And once again, considering a model composed of a set of constants and equations, why assuming that we can freely change the values of the constants, but not the whole set of equations as well? And why assuming that the only possible shape of life would be the life as we know it on earth? And why assuming that our model would be complete enough to be able to accurately evaluate the possibility of life? All of these assumptions seem to go way, way, way beyond a reasonable extrapolation, or at least, it's my feeling. Put simply, the three assumptions are: 1) Life only exists the way we know it on earth 2) We know all the possible universes 3) Our model is complete enough so that we can accurately evaluate the possibility of life on each possible universe Anyway, if we reject the idea of deeper reality/laws/mechanism behind the laws that we observe, for me, it seems equivalent to say that the universe is how it is without a cause. From here, all further reasoning is vain. It's just out of the scope of the human mind and capacity to reason. Even saying "the universe arose" becomes kind of wrong. To arise, the universe would have to arise from somewhere, something that contains it, something that precedes it. Our minds tend to imagine an universe that would arise from the nothingness, with the nothingness being something with some kind of substance, being some kind of container, being some kind of random generator. But it's probably a tricky and erroneous image. We can just say nothing about a "no cause". Otherly said, It seems to me that it's a paradox to say that there is no cause, and then, say that because there is no cause, god could be the cause... We say "there is no cause", and then, we imagine a cause to explain something without a cause. We say "there is no cause" and then, we say "there is a cause (god)". Isn't there some kind of paradox here? If we accept the idea that there is no cause, our reason just can't go further, we cannot just say anything after that. The language can just go as far as "the universe is how it is". If we accept the alternative idea that there is an infinite causal chain behind the laws of our universe, we fall on similar kind of issue. Either way, either we imagine an infinite causal chain for the universe being how it is or a finite causal chain, i feel like we fall on an undefined case that our reason can't even hope to grasp. How to define the probability of something that has no cause, or how to define the probability of something that arises from an infinite causal chain? Does it even make sense to talk about probability in these cases? I feel a bit like if we are trying to divide by zero, without even knowing the numerator. Still, I guess, we can have the intuition, the feeling, the belief that an extrapolation can have some kind of validity, or not. My belief tends to be : There is something that our logical mind can't grasp, something that seems to transcend time, space, existence and non-existence. But, the same way a blind person can't talk about colors, I can't really say more. I can't attribute such property of "intention", "randomness", "intelligence", etc... I just don't know. And so, I am not comfortable with the word "god". I am way much more comfortable saying "The existence of our universe is a mystery that I don't understand and that I probably can't even hope to understand".
How does this not attempt to disqualify all use of using probability to reach any conclusion or theory of something that occurred in the past, while trying to use evidence, reasoning skills, and seeing the world around us to come to the most reasonable conclusion?
Yea… the multiverse explanation is totally like the same than the beans example. Just that we have proof that beans exist and know that gravity exist. While we have never seen any other universes nor any law that would select livable ones over non-livable one. And can even in theory not falsify there existence. But this is totally science nonetheless…Even the inventor of the multiverse hypothesis said it is as profable as supernatural entities but whatever.
Watch the Sean Carroll/WL Craig debate. Scientist Carroll doesn't let philosopher Craig get away with his usual confident assertions about the physics of fine tuning. 😊
in the example we used the same sort of probabilistic reasoning as in the fine tuning argument. It was shown that having all black beans go to the top was vastly improbable and then on the first tim it happened. The lesson is dont believe the sort of probabilistic reasoning used in the fine tuning argument. Ie trying to estimate probabilities when you know nothing about the underlying mechanics doesnt work. Is that clear?
@@PhilHalper1 Ok sure, but why does that underlying mechanics, which I agree we don't know yet, produce such precise constants which if varied by even, let's say an infitinitesimally small magnitude, make the life on the universe, or even the existence of the universe impossible? You could answer there is some more underlying mechanics behind that mechanics which produces very improbable fine constants, but then I would ask you again what makes that mechanics work. There are laws and processes which we don't know yet, but one thing we can know for sure is that they are unconscious, they don't have a will, and the improbability of those unconscious processes to produce such a highly organized universe stares you in the face. Atheists don't have an explanation for why that is. The only possibility is that there is an infinitely knowledgeable entity which knows these processes and directs matter to create this very organised universe cabale of sustaining life.
@@Himanshu_Khichar It is not that we do not know the underlying mechanisms. It is that they can be taken into account when calculating probabilities. If you do NOT know the underlying mechanisms, you cannot calculate probabilities. We do not know that tiny variations in the constants would produce NO life or even NO universe. We can hypothesise that life and the universe might look quite different if there were significant variations, but that is not the same as asserting that life and/or the universe would not exist. We do not know that. The universe is the way it is. We have applied our intelligence, through observation and testing, to create constants and "laws", but these are mere descriptions of what is. They are human inventions and it so happens they work, for the time being. What you are doing, I think, is trying to calculate the probability of the universe looking and working as it does a second time. I have no idea how one would go about tackling such a project. The universe is not fine-tuned. Fine-tuning is a human concept projected back onto the universe as a description based on observation and testing. Take a handful of sand, throw it into the air and let it land on a flat surface. You could then observe and describe in minute detail how your sandy "universe" works, and you could claim that it is "fine-tuned". That is what we have done to our universe.
Rationality Rules, here on YT, pointed out that this argument also contradicts God's omnipotence. If God can really create anything, He can also produce life in any universe.
@@InternetDarkLord So, the short answer here is going to be "yes" - God can create life in any universe at all. I have a longer answer, but I'd be interested to see where you want to take this first.
Assigning probability of 1/2 to the black bean coming on top half is not correct because getting any black bean on top is *not an equally likely outcome* to any bean not coming on top half. It's like you can't say that on a very cloudy day, the probability that it will rain is 1/2, because raining or not raining in this case are not equally likely outcomes like tossing a coin which has equally likely outcomes of getting a head or tail, so each event's probability is 1/2.
Hey Skydivephil I am reading CTMU by Christopher Langan. He claims to have the prove for god. I don’t know it is trash or genius. Can you reply on that thanks 👍
@@daniel4492 mce to meet you Its not relevant because all we are trying to do is to establish that the probailities used in the fine tuning argument are dodgy and that's exactly what is established.
@@daniel4492 its not plausible to say something is improbable when you know nothing at all about the mechanisms that determine outcomes and have never seen multiple outcomes. You might as well say its really unlikely to get a number between 1 and 6 when you roll a dice because hey any number could come up , 1-6 is really unliley in the pace of all possible numbers. But when you learn something about normal dice you find 1-6 is not just unlikely but guaranteed .
Even when I was a child, and even as I believed i'm GOD, I knew the Universe is not finely tuned. Back then I called it "counting backwards" or "calculating backwards". I don't know of the concept of the anthropic principle.
I’m not sure in ultimate terms, that its a useful question. Ie one could begin with the inference that red is a powerful/immanent/divine colour, and seek to prove its existence, but colour is oerceived differently or even not at all by others. The question of “identity” remains unsolved by nearly everyone. There is causality, but there is also cessation of causality.
Wouldn't u need some1 to decide which type of beans to put into the jar for this experiment to work? Also, if it requires an agent to shake the bottles, then the beans aren't actually sorting by itself, is it?
@@PhilHalper1 I think u get wat the theists and ID ppl are saying but choosing to acknowledge the obvious. U ultimately need an agent to put stuff in a space for the stuff to work. Now even if u choose to ignore that, u can just let that jar with the beans in it sit there until it sorts itself. That would simulate an eternal matter if that's ur persuasion.
@@kwanxin9506 I think you are just missing the point.All scientific experiments have people conducting them and manipulating them, it doesn't that those interventions are relevant for the issue at hand. Consider an experiment that tries to determine if projectiles create impact craters. A scientist sets up a gun and shoots high-speed impacts to simulate rocks falling on terrain. They create impact craters, great. does that mean all impact craters are created by intelligent beings with guns? No of course not. The point of any experiment is to simulate something real to learn a lesson. Here the point is that the a prior probability was wrong.That trying to determine probability without understanding underlying mechanisms is fools errand.
@@PhilHalper1well the thing about that analogy is, nobody is claiming to be shooting the projectiles. Its different when the claim is that there IS an intelligent being at play.
@@dudd4171 again irrelevant. Suppose we saw a crater on the moon and had two hypotheses, one, God made the crater, and two, a meteorite made the crater. We then shoot a projective into a simulated moon and see fi we can recreate the features of the crater. And low and behold its a precise match . The metoer theory would now have evidence in favour of it. It doesn't matter than a person shot the meteor does it?
"There isn't an intelligent agency behind it" is false. I mean the fine-tuning argues about the origin of the fine-tuning. He (intelligent) shakes the jar and randomises the beans. The question is: Who or what is the best explanation for the mechanism that "shakes" the jar / tuned the constants.
@@mecky2927 irrelevant; he cannot by his decision, direct which beans goes where his shaking is just to simulate a random mix-up. All scientific experiments to simulate the natural world are done by people, but that doesn't mean the experiments can direct the outcome. if it did most science would be useless,
@@PhilHalper1 He knew that the black beans will rise up. So he intentionally put them to the other beans. There is a mechanism behind the experiment, which he used to produce this outcome.
@@mecky2927 the underlying mechanism is simply gravity, but if you didn't understand it you would incorrectly assume that it was vastly improbable to happen. That the lesson, we don't know the mechanisms behind the constants and so a prior guesses are not to be trusted.
If atheist believe the universe doesn’t exist for a reason and it’s just the results of mindless matter and random process, why wouldn’t the value of the constants be random? Why would the constants of nature be non random, selected values under naturalism?
This argument seems somewhat overworked to me. The immense age and inconceivably vast size of the universe have produced between them an infinite set of points in space and time. Any electrochemical process could have taken place at any of these points, so the fact that one happened to produce what we refer to as 'life' is utterly unremarkable. And, in passing, the fact is that rather than having 'life permitting values' most of the universe (including a large chunk of our own planet) is completely inimical to life, which is actually hanging on by the skin of its teeth in an infinitesimally small corner of the cosmos.
It seems that the universe, like Jackie Shane, just couldn't have had it "Any Other Way". That is, it could be that other outcomes for the universe were just not possible, it couldn't have been any other way, so the chances of the universe being as it is was not extremely remote but 100%, just like rolling loaded dice will always give you a 7 or 11. Theists might claim that if gravitation had just been a tiny bit stronger, then the universe would have collapsed into itself and stars wouldn't have formed. But just like it's not possible to roll Snake Eyes with loaded dice, so too it might not have been possible for gravitation to have ever been this tiny bit stronger. Jackie Shane, herself, said she could never ever be any other way than she was, no matter how much others wanted her to be.
Far from debunking, the speaker proves only that an intelligent agent, like himself, can set up artficial circumstances to produce a non-random outcomes. So basically the debunker admits to intelligent design. The hubris of atheism reveals itself so carelessly it seems.
@skydivephil Because probability indicates how likely an event is to occur. But this presumes that more than one event could occur. It is meaningless to use it to support the fine tuning argument because probabilities do not apply to a single example of a fine tuned universe. It is even more meaningless and extremely ironic to use it to refute the fine tuning argument because it has to invoke the idea that multiple other universes can exist to calculate a probability without any logical or scientific basis. When it comes this universe, and the constants that it has, this may not be a valid presumption. We would need to assume that other universes with other constants were possible. We don't know whether that is the case. What we do know is the single example we know of, be it the universe we live in, is fine tuned. Rightly so, the causes or the processes leading to this fine tuning are not understood, but we cannot invoke probabilities in this discussion. That's one. Two, even if we were to continue down the flawed probabilities path based on things that do not exist to make the causation argument attempted in the video, the fundamental constants are not similar in any way to macro particles acting in a gravitational field to be analogues. These values are universal in nature and have a constant value in time, and are not interdependent. The causal link between gravitational field and the sorting of lentils has a substantially lower barrier than a single cause needed to explain a multitude of unique constants. Third, the random shaking demonstration is very poor. Centrifugal motion shaking in the video to deliberately make the lentils separate based on density to establish a point makes the demonstration looks disingenious. I understand what he is trying to do, but the framing of the fine tuning argument and the response to it are both lacking, and a lot better can be done by someone at that academic level.
He could've also used an unfair coin, but that wouldn't be nearly so visual. We usually think a coin will be heads or tails an equal amount of times, given enough tosses. So the probability is 1/2 of either. But, if the coin is unfair, then there's a mechanism that keeps the coin from being 1/2 either way. Instead it'll be 9/10 heads or something like that (I almost wrote "depending on the maker's intentions" but that would be biased towards the existence of a God :) ). So perhaps the universe is this "unfair coin", and we expect the constants to be "fair coins", therefore we (or rather someone defending fine-tuning) expects the odds to be heavily against a life-permitting universe. Maybe another analogy would be to say "If I don't study, what are my chances of passing? 50-50?" Clearly, I can guess all answers (if it's a "pick from options A-D" kind of test), but I'm less likely to pass than to fail. So although my options are to fail or get a passing grade, that doesn't mean that my chances of passing are 50% if I'm just guessing. My chances of passing are to a big degree related to how much I study. If I know 90% of the material, I'm very likely to pass. So the chances of passing are over 50%. It's not enough to just count the options, because you have to consider the mechanisms that determine the outcome. That said, I'm still leaning towards theism, but this video has shown that it's a lot more complicated. Thank you!
@@LuisAldamiz True, but process and/or bias (i.e: cause) might possibly be experienced. The universe must be determined to exist, otherwise: "why something rather than nothing?" Even accidents have a (finite) cause.
@@31428571J - Ah, you don't mean this universe but the meta-universe (any universe, all universes if it applies). In any case it seems to be the same issue: assuminga blank state a priori, we can't know with our present knowledge which was the probability of anything at all (incl. a hypothetical Creator God) of existing, we can only know the a posteriori probability which for our known universe is certainly 1. It's a bit like quantum mechanics when the first spin was measured (Gerlach?): at that stage it could only be perplexity at the results, later came the calculations based on empirical data from many many measurements.... but we can only observe this one universe, we almost certainly will never be able to measure many universes to approximate a refined probabilistic conclusion.
@@LuisAldamiz "assuming a blank state a priori, we can't know with our present knowledge which was the probability of anything at all." Going slightly off tangent here, but there is a point: Its such a pity that science can't get to grips with metaphysical Nothing (rules are rules though I suppose). Once we can appreciate that A Universe from Nothing is impossible (obvious I would have thought, since its not even a 'state'*), we then have to accept the Universe (or multiverse, re your valid point), to be either past-eternal (my own position), or self-created - which doesn't make any sense, seeing as time would either have to create itself (emergent), or if fundamental, would then (in any other context other than past-eternal) have the many issues in relation to t=0 and t+0. *surprisingly, not even logic gets a look-in, seeing as it too can only deal with the finite. And saying that, therefore 'anything can happen' (again) is stating that anything 'finite'.. (the very opposite of non-finite). "but we can only observe this one universe, we almost certainly will never be able to measure many universes to approximate a refined probabilistic conclusion". Too true:-) Which reminds me of this: TIME REBORN - Lee Smolin - Notes: Chapter 18: Infinite Space or Infinite Time?: "When you set out to solve the equations of general relativity, you have to specify information about what’s happening at that boundary. You have to specify what is coming in from the boundary, and what is going out to it. The need to specify information about what’s happening at the boundary is not optional; it is required by the theory. (For the experts, the Einstein equations for a spatially infinite universe cannot be derived from a variational principal unless there are boundary terms added to the action and boundary conditions specified at spatial infinity). You cannot describe what’s in the universe without saying what’s coming into and what’s going out of the universe from the boundary, even if the boundary is infinitely far away. ….Consider a galaxy. In reality, it’s a small part of the universe, but for some purposes we might want to model it as isolated; for example, we might want to model the interaction of the black hole in the centre with stars in the galactic disk. So we draw a boundary around the galaxy and construct a solution of general relativity containing only what is within that boundary. But there are some technical hassles in dealing with information to be specified at a finite boundary. So, purely for technical convenience, we idealise the situation and push the boundary out to infinity. This greatly simplifies the description, because we can impose the condition that all the matter in that model is contained in the one galaxy. Nothing can come in or go out except gravitational waves and light, which we can use to observe the galaxy. This kind of use of infinite spaces is pragmatic, and there can be no objection to it. The fact that information must be specified coming in from the infinite boundary, reminds us that we are dealing with an idealization in which we cut out a part of the universe and describe it as if it were all there is. But it’s nonsensical to model the whole universe as having an outer boundary, which requires the specification of information coming in from outside the infinite universe. Yet this is what we must do if we use general relativity as our cosmological theory and take the universe to be spatially infinite”.
Fine tuning is horrible and falls apart inductively. Once you introduce possible worlds, it’s whole “ parameters “ point just gets thrown away. Because it’s simply a nomological law that can be changed. It isn’t a necessity.
He speaks of gravity( that's also fine tuned for the universe) as an explanation for his example of how randomness could bring about precise order (all randomly scattered black beads all gathered at the top) but he forgets that gravity was already fine-tuned for that to be possible and probable but having an already finetuned universe isn't answering the fine-tuning argument question of who fine tuned those constants of the universe like that of gravity he pointed. So the title of the video is wrong as the question remains unanswered by the atheistic Evolutionists on what best explains the fine-tuning constants of the universe like that of gravity used in the video with no better explanation than God.
What if we distinguish between whyness and howness? Why should we assume that describing its howness denies its whyness? I think scientific howness and philosophical whyness have different logical directions; if they had the same logical direction then their different results would constitute incompatibility between fine-tuning and science; but since one of them is top-down and the other is buttom-up, there is no dichotomy between fine-tuning and its scientific descriptions. Showing that how universe came into existence working with laws of physics and suggesting that it does not need a designer, is like showing how a computer came into existence working with laws of electricity and suggesting that it does not need a designer.
But we are not “predicting” a priori. We are looking backwards with the benefit of hindsight. Whatever forces directed us into the time and space we now exist can be seen to have been carefully worked out.
That is not what is happening in the fine-tuning argument. We don't look into the past, we make an assumption that there is a flat distribution over probability space and then say look how unlikely it is. Thats exactly what is happening in the beans in the jar case and look how wrong it is.
To say the universe is fine tuned for the production of living organisms suggests significance of living organisms, which hasn’t been established. There’s nothing we’re aware of that makes living organisms more special than anything else in the universe. Big deal if we can think. There’s no lofty purpose it seems we’re specifically needed for. Thus, of course the universe cleared a path for us. We wouldn’t be here otherwise. If a rock rolled down a mountainside and landed in one of 10,000 equal possible slots placed on the bottom, say slot number 3,459, that doesn’t make slot 3,459 more special than any of the other 9,999 slots it could’ve landed in. You wouldn’t look at the path the rock came down on and say every bump and crack that guided it to slot 3,459 must’ve been placed there by intelligent life. It just by chance landed in slot 3,459. As with life, it’s here by chance. The fine tuned universe argument for the existence of a higher power of just plain stupid.
With a sample size of one, regarding universes and a sample size of one, regarding life, calculating probabilities is virtually dead in the water. Intelligent design is an exceedingly poor argument from incredulity. Extending it not only to some illogical "prime mover" and yet again to a very specific and favoured one, is an irrational cascade of non-sequiturs that makes the premise of Intelligent design untenable.
It’s called the cosmological constant, not the cosmological variant. There cannot be a fined-tuned argument because it can’t be tuned. There are no tuning knobs to be tweaked. The physical universe exists the way it does because of fundamental constants. If the parameters of these constants were different, the UNIVERSE would be different, or not exist at all. As such, LIFE would be different, or not exist at all. There was no objective of the FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTS having just the right parameters for the UNIVERSE to exist in a certain way. The constants didn’t have a goal in mind. They just existed as they are and the universe came about because of them. LIFE came about, as part of the way the UNIVERSE came about. There was no far-reaching goal to make life exist. Life exists because of the process of cause and effect. I.E., The universe wasn't created for life. Life is a byproduct of the conditions of the universe. And if the parameters weren't right for life to exist, then life wouldn't be here. Or possibly life would exist under different conditions. Who knows? But to say that the universe was fine-tuned just for us requires the assumption that we're special and that the universe was geared toward creating us. It doesn't matter how improbable the current state of the universe is. You can't judge it based on looking at the current outcome as a goal. That's not the case.
We can say that the universe wasn't just finely tuned for "us", but that it was finely tuned in such a way that it brought about the existence of planets, along with the existence of heavy and light elements. Both things were necessary for the emergence of complex organisms, and both things were vanishingly unlikely if we assume that the universe was not intended to produce them. One advantage to supposing the constants can hold other epistemically possible values is that you can suppose there may be a multitude of universes with similar constants, enough that this universe could arise without being intentioned. If we suppose the constants could never be different, then it's not much less surprising that the constants would happen to produce planets, heavy and light elements, and complex organisms. But then we can't suppose a multiverse would make this universe more likely. All the universes would then just have the same constants, and it would be vastly more likely that they'd all have constants that didn't produce planets, etc.
@shaekybarky8370 I'll take this one. He used his intelligence to design a finely tuned experiment to have a certain outcome everytime. Hince, fine tuning by intelligent design. It does more to prove the existences of God than not. So yes, hilarious!
@@jeffbrewer7682 He literally mentions that there "is an intelligent agency behind it". If you left the jar the way it was before he should it then a 30 second earthquake happened with a sufficient magnitude, he is essentially saying that this would happen over and over again. If this Jar was somehow indestructible and you threw it into a tornado seemingly the same thing would happen, along with any other sufficient natural occurrence. He understands his agency was responsible for THAT example but the point was it doesn't NEED to be and more specifically it wouldn't matter if it was because this was not "directed" although there was an intelligent agency behind his demonstration, this would have happened through intelligent or non-intelligent means. There is a theologian though who covers this and I like the way he broke it down so although it's against my view I recommend watching it if you haven't already. Basically there are three options according to Dr. Craig, the fine tuning of the constants is due to either Necessity, Chance, or Design (he also ruled out the option of miracles as that wouldn't add anything to the design perspective) ua-cam.com/video/bGbbWyd4l7Q/v-deo.htmlsi=x9JN8BrZ_Lda6zHh
Theist want to give their god credit for creation but NONE of the blame. They have to delude themselves into thinking the universe isn't a brutal nihilistic bloodbath that isn't worth living. If it is fine tuned, it's fined tuned for suffering.
I don't see how this debunks fine-tuning. We may not know the range of possible numerical values for physical constants the "mechanism" could spit out. But we do know the number of values it could spit out IN PRINCIPLE. That number is infinite since the number of numerical values is infinite. So the question now is: What are the odds that this mechanism would have within its range of possible numerical values to spit out those values that allow life to exist? Since the number of numerical values is infinite, the answer is that the odds are microscopically small. To small to attribute this to chance.I don't think this man solved the problem of fine-tuning. I think he just sat it back a step.
Did you watch the longer video this clip is taken from? We go over this and it doesn't help the fine tuning argument but undermines it as even some Christian philosophers have admitted.
this jar of beans thing is ridiculous. Gravity, 2 types of beans with different density, a glass jar and some swirling action and we are to expect this mimics the conditions that formed the planet Earth and life-supporting molecules on Earth?! Maybe it's a mockumentary.
I’m all for debunking religious idiocy but how is the hand that shakes the jar in a specific way not like a deity putting every piece of the universal puzzle where it needs to be? I’m confused
becuase the hand isn't directing anyhing, its a random motion which if we didn't understand the underlying physics we would predict makes it very unlikely to create an organised state.
@@PhilHalper1but the motion doesn’t look random to me in this video. The professor spins the jar a bit and then moves it in specific ways, at least so it seams to me. I understand the correlation between the movement and the result but how is that not causation as well? I mean if he just shook the jar upside down it wouldn’t end up like that would it? Am I missing the focal point here? I’m sorry 😂 I’m very passionate about this topic so I just want to understand this well
@@gmrad2456 It may seem that way to you but its not the case. The laws of gravity are causing the arrangement , we understand this. he could shake them up in anyway and thats the point.
@@PhilHalper1 oh ok so the movement is random and that’s what debunks the fine tuning argument. I get it now. I thought that movement he made wasn’t random Thank you very much for your help
I'd like the group's thoughts on something I was thinking about the other day. First, I fully comprehend the lesson in this video (using a priori probability for systems we don't understand could lead to incorrect conclusions) but my comment isn't really about this video. Instead, over the past few years of my amature UA-cam physics education, I've noticed there is a disdain for god/creation in science. I think that's a mistake and it could alienate a large number of folks who could otherwise be interested in casually learning. I don't personally believe in there being a creator and I'm not a fan of religion in general, but I struggle to see how the merit of a god theory is all that much different from other theories which are classified as 'scientific.' 'God' can't be tested and can likely never be proven or disproven. Is that really much different from the many worlds interpretation of the wave function? We'll never be able to test that, we'll never know if it's real or not real, yet Sean Carroll is featured on many channels including this one. Disclaimer: I'm putting my money on Sir Roger's CCC (which I suppose could still have been created by a god, but eh). And yes, I'm on a first name basis with Roger.
thanks for your comment, first off this video isn't saying God doesnt exist, only that the fine tuning argument is a bad argument for Gods existence. According to Carroll, the many world is just raw Quantum mechanics. So to test you test alternatives and they do make predictions . So thats how you test it.
If I set off on a walk and turn hither and thither then it would be highly unlikely that I would end up at a particular destination, but it is 100% certain that I would reach _somewhere_ . Only if I think that that _somewhere_ was intended would I be surprised. Life is not intentional, it just happened. Get over it.
Specious and sophistic: Your "somewhere" is implicitly not much different from any other "somewhere" - like various single-story house addresses in a suburb tract. That makes it a false analogy. The reality is that almost all probabilities ("somewheres") lead to non-life ("nowheres"), not merely to a different life. The so-called evolution (versus adaptation) of the eye alone is so fraught, not only with improbability but with the requisite for almost infinite simultaneity of events, that it is a de facto argument for what some now call intelligent design. Life is intended; it did not just happen. Get over it.
@@DanielByers-qf9qi "The reality is that almost all probabilities lead to non-life" I am very curious to know how are you able to compute such a probability. Please, explain to me how do you compute the probability of a physical law being the way it is, without having any knowledge of how is this law created or conceived and without the possibility to reproduce the experience? It seems to me that talking about such probability is similar to a blind person trying to talk about colors. Why the laws are the way they are? Science can only observe laws. Ultimately, science can discover more fundamental laws, but still, science, by essence, can't ultimately answer the "why". Why these laws? To compute a probability, you must either know the mechanism behind, or being able to reproduce the experience. So far, I have never seen science capable of creating laws and universes.
@@PhilHalper1 Then you don't have any argument. Because if it is not random than it must be planned. And planned by whom? The creator, The designer, The God
@@ArmanViews Thats where we disagree, the fact that something isn't random does not mean its planned by an intelligent person. If you drop pencil out of your hand, it doesnt go into a random trajectory does it? But it follows a path given by the laws pf physics, no intelligent person directing the outcome and no randomness either
@@PhilHalper1 Again you are proving my point only. If it is not random + it has design that means it has a designer. Let's come to the he example you gave for pencil. If you drop a pencil and it follows a path that's random. But if you drop and it takes a shape of elephant that is not random. Similarly when it comes to universe ,human. It has design which is complex. And as you already agree it is not random that means it has a intelligent designer.
@@ArmanViews Ive agreed no such thing at all. If you drop pencil it will not got in a random direction but will move towards the centre of the Earth. So its juts flash to assume a if it isn't random it must be designed. iT a pencil draws a shape of an elephant i would assume there intelligent person behind that becuase Ive seen pictures of elephants being made loads of times by intelligent beings and I use this background knowledge to inform my best guess about how pictures of elephants come about. But I have no such knowledge about how universes come about. I could also use the same background knowledge to assume the being behind the picture must be mortal, becuase very bingo that has ver drawn a picture of an elephant was mortal. Are you suggesting the universe must be designed by a mortal being? I doubt that.
This is a flawed argument presented in this video. The said outcome is only predictable because of the force of gravity. This doesn’t explain the origin of the force that is allowing the predictable outcome.
Not sure how this debunks the fine tuning argument. It’s basically the black beans have no chance of ending up on top unless there is some kind of ordering mechanism to make it happen.
@@PhilHalper1 What he is saying is that something that seems to have no chance of happening when you work out the mathematical probability turns out to be highly likely when you add in other parameters, in this case the other parameters being the size and mass of the beans, gravity and the gentle shaking of the jar. Is my understanding correct?
@@houstandy1009 I wouldnt focus on the addition of other parameters . Rather what he is saying is that you cant trust probability estimates when you know nothing about the mechanisms that determine outcomes. Or if we no have observations of repeated trials.
@@PhilHalper1 I agree that’s what he is saying which means he isn’t debunking anything. The religious people are saying, the probability that a universe would have values so in balance you can get life is so small there must me a mechanism that made the almost impossible possible. They believe that mechanism which they have no evidence for is God. The guy in the video through his jar of beans anology is saying, while the probability of these values being so finely balanced seems impossibly small there may be a mechanism that makes the almost impossible possible. He believes this mechanism there is no evidence for to be the natural. The only difference in the two positions is one has faith god organised the values , the other has faith nature did it.
@@houstandy1009 you don't need to appeal to any mechanism, instead what you can do is just I don't believe those probabilities And what the jar analogy does is demonstrate that a priori probabilities are unreliable. Since Fine tuning relies on these a priori probabilities he ahs debunked the fine tuning argument.
Surely in a universe where life exists it's always going to look like life was in some way bearing the odds. It's a bit like survivors bias. We're only here to observe the unlikely fact that we exist because we exist. It's a cyclic argument (if that's the right terminology). I've no issues with the idea that there may be an intelligence behind the universe (it is of course possible but is unfalsifiable so can't really be debated sensibly from a scientific perspective). I find that the attempts to reconcile faith in a creator with scientific theories to be pointless. Have faith? That's great but don't try to use the language of science to justify it, that just makes a mockery of if both. Mystery is a lovely thing. We'll never really know absolute truth on many things and that's fine by me. I'll read this back tomorrow (sober) and probably regret how I've phrased it but never mind. Please be kind to my fragile drunk ego.
Yep, that's the Anthropic Principle. A cold reality, or more charitably, we are the universe understanding itself. Personally I'm glad we exist, existence is neato :)
the anthropic principle needs a population to work and we may have that in a multiverse although its far from certain. Also Im to sure science is decided by falsifiability , more like a family resemblance.
I love it how people can assume that other universes exist without ever having seen any proof of that but bash people that believe in beings they have no true proof for. What is the difference between both? Beeings are more unlikely than things because you like things more than persons?
What? Where is the debunk, you literally took 2 substance which has different constant values (here mass of the beans) and shook it. Fine Tuning argument is about how these constants came into the exact value without which the universe wouldn't exist. Thank you for making me stronger believer in God's magnificence through this ridiculous video
Why would he have to be created? The fact that there's something rather then norhing shows that there's a fundament that just "is". If nothing could exist (which is even in language impossible because it's a contradiction) that's about it! I am not talking quantumfields because that's still something. So wether you like it or not, something must have been always here and since the meaning of always collapses, something just "is" and everything that we think truly exist can only be made of that fundament. Never ever can there something from a place called "out of existence" pop into existence. Something is or is not. Everything else that appear to come into existence can only be a modification or manifestation from what already was. That doesn't mean that there's a god. It could be that the universe just is. But whatever the fundament is, it can never be created. It just is. The ultimate reality so to say.
What if these values change over time and our universe only exists so long as the tuning is within a certain range and will eventually phase shift out of existence like, next Thursday or something.
This is equal with saying there are no predictable laws. In that case we can dig science because it‘s basically about finding such laws. Same for saying everything comes from random fluctuations. Random means in reality without (logical) cause.
Let me play the devil's advocate here. I suppose the religious apologist could say that the very fact that the system has some bias towards life-permitting values is evidence of intentional design.
Ok... explain to us how nothing can create something??? Last time a checked anything multiplied by nothing is alwsys nothing. I believe in a Creator and you can call me stupid but if you believe that nothing created such complex universe as the one we live in, then the word stupid cant define you enough.
I guess you know something all those brilliant scientists who say there is no higher power gods out there, like 93 percent of the members of the National Academy of Science, don’t. Yep, they’re all misinformed, but you know what’s going on. 😉 First of all, it appears everything is nothing. Energy has no time and mass, yet E=MC2 is proven, and equal portions of matter and anti-matter cancel each other out. Secondly, you can’t buy that something came from nothing, but an all powerful all knowing creator can? Oh, but he always existed, right? So things that we have confirmed actually exist, like the laws of nature, had to have a creator, and couldn’t just always have existed so long as there’s been time from our perspective, but something that only exists in ancient mythology can? lol…and I mean with extreme emphasis.😂
The often unspoken assumption of most formulations of the fine-tuning argument is "I can imagine the constants being different, therefore every value of the constants I can imagine is actually possible, and they all have equal probability." This falls into the same error that theistic arguments often slip into: it's the type of thinking that generally works pretty well in everyday life, but it gets generalized into a domain where it becomes egregiously wrong because the necessary assumptions are no longer valid.
@@dohpam1ne I agree. Btw we will be discussing related issues tonight here. Hope ua-cam.com/video/E7DVA1QisZI/v-deo.htmlsi=PjunBONy1FIH04P7 see you at the premier
Useless analogy There is gravity presents already We are here talking about Before the space time and matter how gravity formed 😂 Foolish analogy There must be an intelligent creator
no it isnt, I think your missing the point. The point is about determining probabilities wihtout nderstanding mechanisms. The person shaking the jar, does not chose the outcome .
As I understand there are two claims here: 1) A given state is incredibly unlikely if assuming randomness therefore it's not random 2) The given state can only be explained by an agent This jar analogy shows that assuming randomness, all beans on top is incredibly unlikely. Therefore it's reasonable to assume it's not random. In this situation it so happens that we know it's not random. So this analogy supports the first claim, right?
@@tobyk.woodard2602 the point isa priori probabilities are unreliable without understanding mechanisms. it does not matter if he shakes s the jar or a robot does or is done t randomly. Its iirrelevant Fine-tuning argument requires a priori probabilities to be reliable. , this is one of many examples that shows they aren't.
@@PhilHalper1 And where do the mechanisms come from? Or the robot shaking? Or the shaking? You continue to ignore the most basic facts of this little "experiment". Perhaps you simply don't wish to wrestle with the implications.
@@tobyk.woodard2602 its irrelevant. The shaking could be done by pa person or an earthquake. Makes no difference. Th point is the probability that you calculated a prior is totally wrong, that's all that matters.
This doesnt seem yo address the argument. He seems to be arguing that there is no probabilities here because the laws of physics aren't. However, that just brings us down one turtle, with the fine-tuning argument becoming "What are the odds that the predetermined laws of the universe would fit into the narrow limits that would allow for life?".
Those who believe in God think the following: I don't know how the universe works or how it originates so it must be God. And obviously my god. Ha, ha, ha.
You dont even mention what the flaw is , he does teach philosophy at Caltech so I imagine he does teach people how to think.Maybe you , like most people, don't even get what the argument is ?
@@PhilHalper1 Because someone teaches philosophy, particularly at Caltech, does not mean they teach people how to think. I get the argument. it is flawed. The primary flaw is coming in with a presupposition and then trying to torture the argument to get it to say what he wants rather than trying to understand the nature of the argument.
Hahaha, except that's completely false example. It has nothing to do with probability. It had intelligent interference... which is exactly the point of fine-tuning 😂😂😂 he actually made yhe exact opposite point of what he set out to make
@@PhilHalper1 but that’s all that the demonstration shows. If his point is that “perhaps there is no random chance and those incredibly specific factors are actually predetermined by some larger rule” then the demonstration has no significance because it doesn’t prove or deny that as it is using human intelligence as that ‘greater rule’. And even if that point is to be accepted, which is no more evidenced than the contrary, it doesn’t “debunk” anything. It just leaves the door open to other possible instigators of these rules. Which is not “debunking” fine-tuning because no one is saying that fine-tuning PROVES God. It just points to a supernatural origin of life. Something beyond nature, as we know it. Then the question becomes “okay, so what set those rules in that order”. And an agent capable of creating such a specific combination of factors is another entity which we then have to question “is it autonomous or is it intelligent?”. Which is the exact same question we are asking about the combination of probabilities anyway. And so the question continues to be (to summarise very basically) “so then what combination of astronomical phenomenon caused this… and what caused that… and what caused that…” and so on and so forth, where we continuously have to assume that probabilities stacked upon probabilities are what have caused each of these potentially infinite events to lead to this moment. Which is a huge assumption, I’m not saying it can’t be true. It has certainly not been disproven. However, the far more logical answer (based on our current understanding of phenomenon in our liveable experience), is that design is the most likely cause of otherwise unimaginable events. For example in his demonstration, it is far more obvious that all the beans will separate as they did IF THEY ARE INTERFERED WITH BY AN INTELLIGENT LIFEFORM than if they were just left to the laws of nature. So the point of fine-tuning still stands that whatever the final figure of the probability of life really is, the most logical explanation of reality being so different to our calculations… is that someone/something has interfered. Someone/something of higher intelligence than humans, most likely. TL;DR Fine-tuning is just pointing out that the most likely reason for reality and calculations to be so vastly incongruent, whether on a scale of spinning a jar of beans, shuffling a deck of cards or creating life… is intelligent interference/creation.
Love this! Truth speaks louder than superstition….each….and….every….time🤔🥳🤓💪🏼
This has to be the dumbest thing I have ever seen. Small beans shake to the bottom thus there is no God.
What in tarnation?
Multiverses are as unfalsifiable and hence as unscientific as believing in God. Even the inventor of the multiverse hypothesis at the end agreed to that. But just continue to insult others, this surely will solve the problem.
The FTP is a problem for a materialist world view, this was a weak point and ridiculous to call it FTP debunked lol
You're the superstitious one confirming your bias actually, this video is weak. In ignorance, we have no reason to assume that the probabilities aren't equal according to Occam's razor. Also, if there are factors that drive the probabilities of the physical constants being where they are very high, then you just post poned the problem : why is this external driver tuned to make the probability of life enabling physical constants very high and what is the probability that this external driver is tuned this way? This man is unfortunately coping and you people are trying to reassure yourselves to not challenge your beliefs, even if the arguments presented are illogical. The suit doesn't make the philosopher, the arguments do.
I wouldn't call this "truth" - at best it's more like an alternative hypothesis.
But it actually isn't a hypothesis, so much as a kind of analogy. (Noone thinks the universe is a kind of jar with beans in it.)
If you're looking for a pointer towards a possible non-theistic explanation behind fine tuning, and you don't care how probable or improbable it is, then it'll do for that.
For someone who wants to be an atheist, yes, it's a possible epistemic escape hatch from the Fine Tuning argument.
Given the physical parameters of the beans, jar, and motion applied, there was not a 1/2^100 probability. But for the universe there was no matter, energy, time, nor space; so there could be no prior physical parameters.
Wasn't this dude the intelligent agent behind this experiment? He chooses what to put in the jar. He chose to shake it. All for a purpose. His "jar universe" was designed.
you are going into the Kalam cosmological argument. You can't prove that the existence of a god is the only possible cause.
ur assuming universe was created or came into existance
@@srnova9486litteraly every scientist alive now believes the universe came into existence 🤷♂️
@@ADAMgroup Name one,99,9% don't,stop getting ur info from supersimplified youtube videos and Google searches,I'm positive no scientist believes that the universe popped out of nowhere for no reason
I agree. There isn't an intellegent agency shaking the jar.
Sorry but I'm not understanding how this Jar analogy debunks the fine-tuning argument. Surely if we shook around the constants and it somehow came within the exact space of values of a life-permitting universe this is still the fine-tuning problem but pushed one step back? Why is the most probable outcome in the extremely fine range of life-permitting constants?
the point is the argument assumes that undirected equals random, here is an example where undirected does not equal random. If you watch the entire film this clip is taken fro we give a cosmology that can achieve this.
@@PhilHalper1 Ah ok thank you. So the point is that there may be good reason to believe that the universe 'prefers' life permitting ones?
@@Ultras743 there could be yes thats right . But also the confidence we have in probabilistic reasoning should be a function of our understanding of the underlying mechanisms that generate outcomes. In the case of a dice roll we understand the mechanisms and can be justified in being surprised at all 6's , but that isnt the case for the constants of nature
What about the initial conditions of the universe - namely low entropy state. This "debunking" effort barely touches that notion.
@@ManyDreams-cs9jqAfter shaking, are the beans in a low or a high entropy state?
Although a good experiment, I do find a problem with it. There is a particular manner in which the jar's shaking must be done. If it were too vigorous, we wouldn't have been able to separate the beans. Thus, the experimenter has a conscious input to maintain such an optimal force, which is a point for the fine-tuning argument!
I dont see any evidence that that the shaking has to be done in some terribly narrow window of force. But I think yur missing the point entirely. The point is about the probabilities, the a priori probabilities are nothing like the actual probabilities. Thats the point .
Youu are drawing a conclusion without proof.
@@dannygjk I don't think so.. could you elaborate?
@@joelmathewjohn9955 Study molecular motion in a gas theory.
Hm.. I am not sure if understand your point.. are you referring to RMS speed different gases would have? How would that be relevant here?
The real question is how did the red beans and the black beans get in the jar ?
why is that relevant?
@@PhilHalper1 that will help to solve the problem of why the red and black beans are so fine tuned that the black beans are always on top of the red beans.
@@PhilHalper1 to be honest with you for a man with a physics degree that was a ridiculous experiment he specifically chose those two types of beans so he get a desirable outcome for his experiment and that's supposed to be the argument against Fine tuning it sounds like an argument for fine-tuning.
@@TheJackjack Your physics instructors also know the outcomes of experiments when they demonstrate them in class. Theres nothing wrong with that .
If you specifically design an experiment bin a certain way using intelligence to demonstrate how an improbabilistic event can occur, that can't be anologous to the state of the naturalistic and directionless cosmos in the beginning. You didn't debunk the inductively verified notion that probabilistically implausible events are better explained by an intelligent agent ; rather, you reaffirmed it by intelligently designing the specific conditions of the experiment.
The irony is that it took a human to shake the jar in order for the laws of nature to work in the scenario, haha.
Damn..You struggle to understand the analogy. The shake means every event where it is possible to calculate the probability of the occurrence of the successful event. If you were to calculate the probability of surviving a plane crash, the shaking would mean the planes colliding
Oof... I'm not sure if you need to work on your articulation or if I need to work on my comprehension, but I have no idea what YOU are trying to communicate in your reply, my friend.@@matiascollado9926
A lot of jar shaking goes on in nature all the time.
This doesn't really add much to the "maybe there's a multiverse, we don't know" counterargument.
The only thing it's really saying is "maybe there's some kind of natural selection process that optimises for our universe, meaning we only need 100 iterations of a universe rather than 2^100 of them, we don't know".
See, I think it's totally possible for there to be some naturalistic tendency for constants to look a certain way. But, I would not assign a higher (a priori) credence to the constants being predisposed to any particular value. There could totally be some natural thing that would predispose the gravitational constant, for example, to have a value of 6.67408 × 10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2). But why would you expect it to be predisposed to that, rather than 1 m^3/(kg s^2)?
Basically, we go from P(G = 6.67408 × 10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2)) being small due to competing possibilities to P(G is disposed to 6.67408 × 10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2)) being small due to competing possibilities.
This has to be the stupidest excuse atheists came with, aside from the fact that the probability he calculated is based on one simple shake of the jar and not playing with it for some time until he INTENTIONALLY got the black beans on top ,the fact the he SHOOK the jar, implies INPUT! INTENTION! Get it ?
No, the intention is irrelevant. , its gravity doing the work, shake it longer and it will be the same.
@@PhilHalper1 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
No intelligent agency? He literally disproved this point. He did not shake them. He stir them in a way where the black beans would rise to the top and the smaller ones with filter to the bottom. Shake them at random up and down side to side and a figure eight and we'll see if they filter the same. He plays God in the bean universe while simultaneously proclaiming that there is no god in the bean universe
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib what part? The confirming of willfully ignorant people's bias with cheap parlor tricks or using centrifugal force to sort out objects of different size and weight? I am of Mexican descent technically a beaner, so yeah I know my beans bro
1) shaking the beans randomly is a random action.
2) Having the black beans got to the top looks like order
3) After shaking the black beans go above the red beans
C) randomness can create order.
This is actually an example of the opposite. Order is implicit in the system by the symmetry of the black beans to each other and red beans to each other. It literally proves the opposite of what Phil is trying to prove. The beans in the jar are fine tuned to collect where they do given an event with a random variable (the shaking). But this doesn't prove order from randomness. This is much like evolution being constrained by the universal constants.
You can see something similar if you have marbles in a box. Get a bunch of identical-sized marbles and shake the box randomly and as they settle in the box they form symmetrical hexagonal patterns. The order is implicit in the system, despite the random shaking, by the symmetry of the equal sized marbles to each other.
This same order is in God's creation at the subatomic level. This is why you see symmetry in snow flakes and crystals.
you are missing the entire point of the video. The point of the video is to show that a prior assessment of probability that doesn't take account of mechanisms is unlikely to be trustworthy. That is well demsotrated here.
@@PhilHalper1 When you say probability that "That doesn't take account of mechanisms" you need to realize what is being said.
When we're talking about the universe, the universal constants are those mechanisms. Those mechanisms are what we're talking about as being "finely tuned". There is nothing that makes them what they are, they are just givens: the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, the mass of an electron etc. Those are what are finely tuned.
Taken to the analogy, it's not the final result of the beans that is finely tuned (though order does show up at the macro level since its implicit in the micro level), its the symmetry of the jar, the symmetries between the black beans and the red beans. The random shaking just brings out the order that was implicit in the design.
In the same way you could apply this to the symmetry between up quarks, down quarks, and electrons, the charges of up quarks and down quarks etc.
@@christiangadfly24 " There is nothing that makes them what they are," how on earth do you know that?
@@PhilHalper1 There is nothing found on earth so far that makes them what they are. We just measure them and they have the measurements they have. If there were a deeper law that made them what they are, then that deeper law would then be fine-tuned.
When I was attempting to get into law school, there was a test you had to take called the LSAT that included logic puzzles. In these tests you're often given a bunch of different variables and then you have to find a way for them to all exist with each other and sort the data.
This is precisely what the universe appears to be doing with the constants. So then we have an inductive argument based on these three possibilities. 1) The universal constants are there by determinism, 2) They are there by randomness 3) They are there by design.
The first one really just collapses into the other two. Why is something determined? Because a deeper more fundamental thing forces it to be that way. This just pushes the causal chain back a point. This leaves randomness as an option and design.
Antony Flew was a life long atheist who became a deist partially because of the impossibility of fine tuning from true randomness.
“I was particularly impressed with Gerry Shroeder’s point-by-point refutation of what I call the ‘monkey theorem.’ This idea, which has been presented in a number of forms and variations, defends the possibility of life arising by chance using the analogy of a multitude of monkeys banging away on computer keyboards and eventually ending up writing a Shakespearean sonnet.
Schroeder first referred to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts. A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom!), the monkeys produced fifty typed pages- but not a single word. Schroeder noted that this was the case even though the shortest word in the English language is one letter (a or I). A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it. If we take it that the keyboard has thirty characters (the twenty-six letters and other symbols), then the likelihood of getting a one-letter word is 30 times 30 times 30, which is 27,000. The likelihood of getting a one-letter word is one chance out of 27,000.
Schroeder then applied the probabilities to the sonnet analogy. ‘What’s the chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet?’ he asked. He continued:
All the sonnets are the same length. They’re by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening line for, “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?” I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in that sonnet. What’s the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in the exact sequence as in “Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer’s Day?’? What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times- or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10, 10 to the 690th.
[Now] the number of particles in the universe- not grains of sand, I’m talking about protons, electrons, and neutrons- is 10 to the 80th. Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. Ten to the 690th is 1 with 690 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you’d be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th.
If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips- forget the monkeys- each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 488 trials at, say, a million times a second; if you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second [producing] random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of time would be 10 to the 90th trials. It would be off again by a factor of 10 to the 600th. You will never get a sonnet by chance. The universe would have to be 10 to the 600th times larger. Yet the world just thinks the monkeys can do it every time.
After hearing Schroder’s presentation, I told him that he had very satisfactorily and decisively established that the ‘monkey theorem’ was a load of rubbish, and that it was particularly good to do it with just a sonnet; the theorem is sometimes proposed using the works of Shakespeare or a single play such as Hamlet. If the theorem won’t work for a single sonnet, then of course it’s simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance,” Antony Flew, There is a God, (Harper One: New York, 2007,) 75-8.
Randomness is too improbable, this leaves design.
@@christiangadfly24@christiangadfly24 Did you watch the whole film this was taken from?
The problem with this argument is that it is employing already established Constants but where do these constants come from or laws? Laws don’t create them selves in the loss of cells are fine tuned to allow for life.
To be frank we have no clue what laws are. Some physicist say if you believe in laws than you are already a dualist.
I think it's simple. Nothing cannot exist, therefore something exist. If something exist, then it have atributes. What we call constants or laws are those atributes And they do not vary abruptly and incoherently because they are the identity of the entity that must necessarily exist.
He proves his whole point wrong when he intelligently shook the jar of beans in a way that made them go to the top, yet he acts like there was no intelligent force behind the action. He was the intelligent force.
no becuase the intelligent being doesn't select the outcome.You can't do a scientific experiment without a intelligent person involved somewhere, so I guess you re saying every single thing any experiment shows proves a designer behind everything.? really|? More importantly the point of the excessive is to show the a prior probabilities are totally wrong and we do show that. Fine tuning relies on these sort of a priori probabilities and that's the point .
@@PhilHalper1 He designed a situation for those beans to go to the top of the jar using a swirling motion that accomplishes this. You said, "so I guess you re saying every single thing any experiment shows proves a designer behind everything.? really|?" No, I did not say that. You are putting words in my mouth in bad faith.
@@deathtilluspart4636 but the conclusion is the same if he didnt know if the beans would go to the top, so again the presence of the intelligent designer here is irrelavant. And I know you didnt say those words but what Im saying is they are implied by your argument.
@@PhilHalper1 My response is on the longer side, but I would be grateful if you gave me your rebuttal and tried to demonstrate how I’m wrong. I want to know the truth, so if I don’t have the truth, please give it to me, and I hope you aspire to do the same and would acknowledge the good points that I am giving if they are indeed good.
For argument’s sake, let’s say there is no God or intelligent designer and let’s take a look at how the laws of physics operate in our universe and understand the many variables that would have to miraculously be in existence for biological life and sentience to occur.
To name a few: If electrons were not attracted to protons, then atoms and molecules would not form, and neither would humans. If protons did not bond together in a nucleus of an atom, then there would be no atomic variation and nearly everything would be hydrogen molecules or neutrons. Or if there was no force that prevented electrons from getting too close to protons, then all protons would collide with electrons and form neutrons and these neutrons would have a neutral charge that would prevent the variety of atoms and molecules from forming the way they need to create the universe and us sentient beings, and without electrons orbiting protons, there would be no complex molecules or chemical reactions that allow for life to exist.
The laws of physics just so happened to allow sub atomic particles to be able to form a perfect random variety of atoms, which then allow for a perfect variety of molecules that enable the formation of biological life, and then these biological life forms just so happened to randomly developed neurons and a neural network capable of creating consciousness. To put it simply, non-sentient physical matter randomly moved around and randomly created consciousness that is capable of logic and being able to sense, visually see, and understand the world.
And then we could go step by step by discussing how each property of each different type of atom on the periodic table just so happens to miraculously form all the different kinds of “random” components to create life as we know it. Then we can discuss how this planet just so happened to have all of these chemical compounds and just so happened to be this perfect distance from the sun, and the cherry onto is that our moon can perfectly eclipse the sun, that these two circles in the sky just so happen to be at the perfect distance to do that, is that not fine-tuning to you? Is this all probable to you? Do we need to watch other universes being created with different laws of physics to understand that our universe is finely tuned? Of course not. It’s right in front of us and obvious. Therefore, it is less probable that God does not exist because it is improbable that our universe had all of these variables perfectly fine-tuned. It appears to be willful ignorance and intentionally trying to be unobservant and unintelligent to not see this obvious evidence. Based on how the laws of physics work in our universe, we can see how if some or one of these many variables were not present, then life would not exist - this is fine-tuning. What is more probable then, believing in the countless miracles of the countless random variables that are finely-tuned, or the one miracle that God exists?
I assert that you and the guy in the video are making a false equivalency. The complexity of the universe is way more complicated then beans in a jar. That jar was artificially made by a sentient life form using silica and heat and molded into that shape and then a sentient life form placed the beans in that jar and then spun the jar in a certain way that caused the beans to rise to the top - that’s not randomness, that’s a finely tuned way to ensure that beans show up at the top of a jar, that’s all it demonstrates. It’s only demonstrating that it requires sentience and calculation to bring those beans up in a jar. The jar could have been shaken in a different way that would not cause the beans to jumble together, or he could have thrown the beans in the air, but he strategically swirled the jar to bring the beans to top. He’s only demonstrating that it takes sentience to do otherwise improbable things.
No where in nature does a glass container form and two different beans show up inside of it and then are mechanically maneuvered in such a way to separate those two beans, this happened because of sentience.
The complex and finely tuned variables that allow for sentient life forms to exist is not the equivalent to putting beans in a jar and giving it a swirl.
And I suppose to answer your previous statement, all experiments are conducted by a sentient life form, so yes, in a way experiments do prove that sentience exist because because the humans who designed them are sentient. So, technically, experiments do prove a designer of the experiment, but I did not say that all experiments conducted therefore prove the existence of God; so no, the statement I made does not necessary demonstrate that it is logical to believe that all experiments demonstrate the existence of God and you were putting words in my mouth. I’m saying that this experiment is a bad demonstration to prove that the fine-tuning argument is wrong.
@@PhilHalper1 My response is on the longer side, but I would be grateful if you gave me your rebuttal and tried to demonstrate how I’m wrong. I want to know the truth, so if I don’t have the truth, please give it to me, and I hope you aspire to do the same and would acknowledge the good points that I am giving if they are indeed good.
For argument’s sake, let’s say there is no God or intelligent designer and let’s take a look at how the laws of physics operate in our universe and understand the many variables that would have to miraculously be in existence for biological life and sentience to occur.
To name a few: If electrons were not attracted to protons, then atoms and molecules would not form, and neither would humans. If protons did not bond together in a nucleus of an atom, then there would be no atomic variation and nearly everything would be hydrogen molecules or neutrons. Or if there was no force that prevented electrons from getting too close to protons, then all protons would collide with electrons and form neutrons and these neutrons would have a neutral charge that would prevent the variety of atoms and molecules from forming the way they need to create the universe and us sentient beings, and without electrons orbiting protons, there would be no complex molecules or chemical reactions that allow for life to exist.
The laws of physics just so happened to allow sub atomic particles to be able to form a perfect random variety of atoms, which then allow for a perfect variety of molecules that enable the formation of biological life, and then these biological life forms just so happened to randomly developed neurons and a neural network capable of creating consciousness. To put it simply, non-sentient physical matter randomly moved around and randomly created consciousness that is capable of logic and being able to sense, visually see, and understand the world.
And then we could go step by step by discussing how each property of each different type of atom on the periodic table just so happens to miraculously form all the different kinds of “random” components to create life as we know it. Then we can discuss how this planet just so happened to have all of these chemical compounds and just so happened to be this perfect distance from the sun, and the cherry onto is that our moon can perfectly eclipse the sun, that these two circles in the sky just so happen to be at the perfect distance to do that, is that not fine-tuning to you? Is this all probable to you? Do we need to watch other universes being created with different laws of physics to understand that our universe is finely tuned? Of course not. It’s right in front of us and obvious. Therefore, it is less probable that God does not exist because it is improbable that our universe had all of these variables perfectly fine-tuned. It appears to be willful ignorance and intentionally trying to be unobservant and unintelligent to not see this obvious evidence. Based on how the laws of physics work in our universe, we can see how if some or one of these many variables were not present, then life would not exist - this is fine-tuning. What is more probable then, believing in the countless miracles of the countless random variables that are finely-tuned, or that God exists?
As others have pointed out, if anything, the fine tuning argument proves we live in a naturalistic universe. The omnipotent god of the Abrahamic religions, if he is indeed all powerful, would not need any stinking “fine-tuning” to create an universe and make it work.
"God didn't do what I wanted Him to do therefore He doesn't exist." Do I need to point out the flaw in your logic?
@@PQRXYZ433
You look awful goofy tryna prove a moot point. 😇
I hate to use these next three words, *but, not all* Abrahamic thought is so stuck in the idea of god as a separate entity - controlling the tool of his creation. Kinds of Abrahamic religions? Most of them I think, Practicers of them? Very few.
Rather many of us understand God is just the natural order, beauty, chaos, horror, and magnificence of existence.
You can only believe in the rougarou's and the tooth fairy's existence up until you have evidence to the contrary; but the older and wiser you get, you'll find the opposite is true of God. Evidence is everywhere. We silly homo sapiens just need to use better words to talk about science and religion.
William Lane Craig has defended claims against the universe being naturalistic by the fine tuning argument with his syllogism: either due to physical necessity, chance or design. If you argue that God doesn't need fine tuning than adding 'miracle' gives no weigh to the naturalist. The syllogism then thus becomes either due to physical necessity, chance, design or miracle. It is thus not due to physical necessity, chance, or miracle - it can still be construed as design.
What if God loves math, built the world on math, fractals, connected the golden ratio with the beauty of the universe? What if God wanted to experience life through your eyes and see if He could still guide you to the infinite passion of life?
It's amazing how a jar of beans is made of the elements created during the big bang. The quantum mechanics required to bring the molecules together, the nuclear force to bind them together. The information within its DNA. The computer-like accuracy of the coding of DNA. The functionality of beans to even possibly recode a new bean plant. Like wow
Big bang LOL
What is your point? The jar and all the elements that you mentioned are just part of the analogy
Debunk is a very strong word. While I don't necessarily agree with either the fine tuning theory itself or its possible implications (and I even believe Hitchcock's argument makes significant sense) this theoretical principle is just another tier of heavy speculation. What he does is saying we can't consider possibilities a priori if we don't understand the underlying system, but he neither provides any proof of the inherent characteristics of the system itself or of its existence. Ultimately, just like the fine tuning problem itself, it's still a leap of faith based on theory and a grain of belief.
why does he need, hes showing a clear example where if do the procedure that fine tuning advocates do, you will replica something is very unlikely when it isn't. The flaw in both cases is to make stamens about probability with insufficient knowledge.
The implication of Hitchcock's thesis is that likely there are inner mechanisms at work that we don't know of, which in turn make the fine tuning more likely than it seems. While once again that is indeed a possibility, his idea only adds a further layer of speculation, without any actual proof of said inner mechanisms existing (or how they work) we have once again the same likelyhood of them being more in favor or in disfavor of the current composition of the universe, hence it does not debunk anything, it just gives a clearly speculative interpretation of the phenomena, which is still great but it's not a mic-drop moment that disproves anything. It's a bit of the equivalent of the blackwater theory in response to the Fermi Paradox, it's a possible explanation but still pure speculation based on no kind of actual proof.
@@inaridefucc8904 its not that there is a hidden mechanism , its that theres total ignorance of the mechanism and we cantle confident about probabilities in that scenario. None of the apologies used to demonstrate fine tuning, whether its aces at poker or guessing a padlock number etc are therefore relevant.
A designer is the most likely explanation for the mind-bogglingly precise fine-tuning of the constants of nature. It doesn't prove it conclusively, but it is a strong suggestion of it. I think too many scientists and physicists are committed to the physicalist worldview, and they are too hostile to anything that could be perceived as a religious argument, to consider this with an open mind.
If the claim is that the cinstants are finely tuned (which hasn't been shown to be the case), then that necessarily means there is a designer. Fine tuning requires a tuner.
Even if it was finely tuned, finely tuned for what? Certainly not life.
@@thejabberwocky2819 why do you say "definitely not life"?
@@dave4deputyZX 99.99999999999% of the universe is hostile to life.
@thejabberwocky2819
Well the last stars are predicted to burn out in 100-200 trillion years (not counting any artificial stats a future advanced civilisation kighr create), so we are only 13.8 billion years into the lifetime of the galaxy.
That means in the total pife cycle of the Universe (without any extra time gained with future technology), only about 0.01% of the time has passed.
So it is a bit early to talk about the Universe not being habitable.
100 trillion years is ALOT of time to colonise, even terraform millions or even billions of planets.
As for the vast, vast empty space between planets, well if hypothetically the Universe were designed, then you wouldn't really want any less empty space cos otherwise the planets would be too close and would be crashing into one another.
So actually in the grand scheme of things it could fit life pretty well.
@@dave4deputyZX At what point do you imagine that the vacuum of space will magically become hospitable to life? Do tell
You guys are running away from the argument of ibn sina (avicenna) which is a contingency type argument
how are we running away fro it?
@skydivephil
You never made a video " debunking " the argument which actually preceeded the kalam cosmological and is irrefutable.
It was actually more popular in the medival period especially in the Islamic world and even Christian ones.
This argument doesn't depend on the truths about infinite and the founder of the argument himself was an eternalist.
You guys know you can't debunk the argument from contingency (espicially the one in islamic philosophy) or even any form of the argument.
So you busy your audience with other useless arguments (fine tuning or kalam even)
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib
absolutely not, operates with totally different premises and principles.
By the mathematical laws of statistics and probability, as I understand it, SETI should have found the other sentient and intelligent ones by now. They haven't. There aren't any. So our existence is not a fluke, it's an impossiblity. Randomness could not have created us. Our existence has to be intentional.
The problem with this argument is that it is limited to a one dimensional single event. The fine tuning argument basically means that a collection of impossible events happened at the same time, and all of the events are mandatory. Yes, one single highly unlikely event can and do happen on occasion, but when 10 to 20 of them happen simultaneously you are no longer dealing with chance.
but how do you know they are unlikely?
Phil, there are various constants under which we can be certain that useful probabilities can be generated. As long as a constant is dimensional (such as planks constant, speed of light or boltzmanns constant) or the cosmological constant which is bound (-plancklimit,+Plancklimit) we don't have a normalization issue.
@@ManyDreams-cs9jq its not just q eustiosn of nomrlissation, you have no idea what values of the CC or any other constants are allowed by nature. You have a theory of the CC, say QFT and it gets the value totally wrong and thats all you can say .
I just did. You would be right that some constants like the Higgs vev are bound by [0, infinity) which are dimensionless- but not all constants fall under this paradigm (such as the constants I have given examples of)
Saying 'Muh we don't know the probabilities so we can't make any claims about it' is so easy to ignore.
Imagine if the universe was set up in a way such that the laws of physics made planets shaped in the letters 'GOD IS REAL'
Would you then throw your hands in the air, and say that 'Oh well, we don't know the probabilities so we can't make any claims about it!'
So stupid. This refutation is from Huemer, and even Oppy conceded to it.
ALSO I am a HARDCORE atheist, but these trash refutations SUCK.
PLEASE learn to critically think. @@PhilHalper1
So please help me understand: At the 2:14 time stamp, he admits there is an "Intelligent Agent" behind it. I wonder, did that "Intelligent Agent" choose the items being used (the beans of differing types, sizes, shapes, and weights), the vessel (the jar of a certain size and shape), or any other factors (such as amount of time to shake the container, and the amount of force used? Is this truly a good representation of how you think "Science" is done. It's laughable at best. Or did the red and black beans, and the jar all just happen upon one another, and of course we can't forget the lid sealed atop the jar after having screwed itself on? Seems to me, there is intelligence and a mind behind what is being shown here. Please don't deny the fact.
there isn't an agent directing the outcome, that's the point you seem to be missing.
He literally says “This process is random in the sense that it’s not directed, there isn’t an intelligent agency behind it.”
Can we still easily shake out the arrangement of black beans on the top layer from the glass bottle filled with beans if we take it to outer space without gravity? The answer is no!
The example of this jar of beans is fundamentally different from the fine-tuning of the universe because you assume the existence of some physical laws outside the universe, but the universe already encompasses everything physical, so there wouldn't be other physical laws "fine-tuning" the universe.
Di you watch the whole video this clip is taken from? , we went over that
@@PhilHalper1 Yes, I have watched the whole video. It builds on the wrong analogy
just a question do hindus , shintoists , confusonist, buddhists use the same arguments that these abrahamic people use like the fine tunning argument and the kalam cosmological argument.
ive not seen them do so , but be intersted if anyone else has.
You'll need to be a bit more careful about that question. Most Buddhist schools and the nominally Hindu school of Non Dualism don't assume the existence of a creator at all.
@@thebelligerentbostonian7524 thats fine, we are only directing tis to those that do and assume fine tuning provides compelling evidence for their God.
@@PhilHalper1 No, I got that; and you've done an admirable job.
I'm just trying help make OP's question as precise as possible.
@@thebelligerentbostonian7524 wait non dulistic i thought that dharmic religions like Hindu Buddhist Jains have the concept of a spirt like reincarnation and i thought that hindus believe in the existence of a creator called Brahma I am just asking a question out of curiosity i don't know much of these religions and there isn't much content about these religions on the internet I am just curious in learning what other people believe .
I'll watch the full documentary when I have more time (so this objection might be answered), but it seems to me that this example doesn't really hurt the fine-tuning argument (an argument that I don't really agree with!).
The demonstration purports to show that we can't calculate probabilities a priori because there might be some unexpected bias or mechanism that would skew results, and then equates this with the constants of the universe. To use an example, perhaps the actual value of the cosmological constant is much more probable than other possible values, much like the 20 face on a d20 could be highly probable if the die is weighted. If this were the case, we shouldn't be surprised to find the cosmological constant with the value that it has.
Assuming this is true, we must ask two questions: what is the nature of these mechanisms, and why are they biased the way they are?
1. Considering that these mechanisms govern the constants behind the laws of nature, we would consider them to be supernatural (outside the realm of nature). If the natural world is the most fundamental level of reality, then any deeper law would have to exist immaterially and supernaturally in order to have any force over the natural world. But then the natural world could not be the most fundamental level of reality. So if you want to have mechanisms that haver coercive power over the foundation of the natural world, then these mechanisms themselves can't be natural. An immaterial, supernatural mechanism that has coercive force over the laws of nature? Sounds like the G-word to me.
To use an example, the natural laws that hold sway over the man's random shaking are not themselves random in nature. If they were random, then perhaps the law of gravitation would apply to one specific bean, and not to another, and the same with the laws of density, and then from random shaking you would get a random assortment of black and white beans. However, even though the jar undergoes a non-uniform disturbance, because there is a uniform application of uniform laws, you get a uniform result.
2. If the system has mechanisms that coerce certain results, we must ask: why are certain results favored? Even if it is a necessary feature of the universe that the gravitational constant has a probabilistically favored magnitude, and the same with all the other constants, it is still strange that the favored values of all these constants is conducive to life. Certainly if the favored value of the gravitational constant was 100x greater than it currently is, or 1000x greater, life would not exist. So postulating some hidden mechanism that makes constants that allows for life just kicks the can down the road.
It's very interesting and challenging idea.
I am trying to challenge this idea.
If we think about a mechanism that generates the laws, then, the most fundamental reality can only be behind this mechanism and we can't hope to grasp this more fundamental reality.
We have always only be observing and describing a higher reality on top of the fundamental reality.
I will express it differently :
Science observes the laws.
Possibly, science improves and discovers more fundamental laws but ultimately, it always remains the question : why these laws? Why these laws and not any other?
And by essence, science can't answer this question. Science can only observe until a certain level of depth. Ultimately, science can't answer the question "why". Science can't hope to grasp the "why".
It's just out of scope.
Concerning the point 2, the thing is, we can't finally wonder "why this mechanism favoured life".
Rather, we are left with : we can't know the mechanism behind the generation of our laws and we have only one universe to observe and so, we have no way to estimate a probability indicating how likely life is in our universe.
We just don't know this probability.
The fine tuning is resolved since we fall back to the point : we can't estimate a probability a priori without any knowledge of the mechanism behind.
Other amusing points to consider :
What if our current model of the universe (described as a set of constants and equations) was actually incomplete so that all constants were actually variables?
And how can you evaluate the probability that it is the case or that it is not the case?
Last idea :
From our model, why allowing ourselves to play with the constants but not allowing ourselves to play with the equations as well?
Why assuming that we can change the constants in reality, but not assuming that we can also change the whole set of equations as well? (Sure, it needs more imagination than modifying some constants in a computer simulation but why not?).
If we want to be able to compute the probability of being in a universe allowing life, it first needs to figure out the whole set of possible universe, not just the subset of possible universe by only playing with the constants and not playing with the equations.
Also, there are so many things that we don't know, it seems to me a bit adventurous to assume that we are able to accurately simulate a universe with different constants (assuming it's ever possible to do so). There might still be some laws that we didn't discover yet that could change the conclusion we make about the possibility of life or not on a universe.
The way I see fine tuning is the addition of several adventurous assumptions :
*First, the belief that we are able to know how our universe could have been different based on the fact that we can play to modify some constants on a computer simulation.
*Then, based on this strong assumption, the assumption that our current model is complete and that we are able to accurately compute the conditions of life of all these "imaginary" universes
*Finally, the assumption that the constants could have taken any value in an equiprobable way
@@raphaeljoly4126 Thanks for the thoughtful response.
"Ultimately, science can't answer the question "why". Science can't hope to grasp the "why"."
I agree, and this is why I'm not a scientist or a naive empiricist, or a follower of some other philosophical position that reduces reality to the things observed by science. These deeper questions exist and are serious questions, and a serious questioner must acknowledge that science can't provide a sufficient response to them. You need other modes of thought to approach the "why" questions.
While it is true that we can't make definitive statements about the probability of our universe's current state without first knowing the conditions that led to its state, the fact that there could be governing conditions points to fine tuning. It seems to me that there are two possibilities for the apparent fine-tuning of the universe:
1. Our universe and its associate laws/constants/characteristics arose through random chance.
2. Our universe arose through non-random processes, which somehow favor the form it took.
The first situation is a probabilistic monstrosity and probably helps the fine-tuner's case. The second case is more subtle, but the fact that there are laws/processes that operate outside of the universe or that govern the universe is quite mysterious. In my view, it is conducive to a belief in God, a belief I defended in more detail in my first post.
The last thing I want to say is in regards to your belief: "we can't know the mechanism behind the generation of our laws and we have only one universe to observe and so, we have no way to estimate a probability indicating how likely life is in our universe." This point is the crux of the video's argument. This is true in the absolute sense (we can't pronounce with absolute certainty the probability of life in our universe), but I think it fails in the weaker sense (ie, we can guess the probability of life in our universe). EVERY specific event in our universe only happens once, and since we only have one universe that we have knowledge of, I could claim that the sample size of any particular event is one. For example, if we were playing poker, and I got five Royal Flushes in a row, you would be right to accuse me of cheating. I could respond,
"It's just the case that in this particular universe that we live in, I get five Royal Flushes in a row. It might seem unlikely, but the only way you could observe me getting five in a row was if you lived in the universe in which it happened (essentially, the weak anthropic principle). Thus, you shouldn't be surprised at all. Further, you can't appeal to the probability of drawing from a deck of playing cards, because this was the first time in history that these cards were put in this configuration at this particular time in this particular place with me as the particular dealer shuffling it in this particular way to give the particular result of five royal flushes. This particular set of conditions has only been met once in the history of the universe, so your comparable sample size is one. Finally, we don't have an exhaustive grasp of the laws of nature. It could be the case that a necessary consequence of the third law of thermodynamics is that a human will be dealt five royal flushes in a row. That might sound ridiculous, but it's at least possible, and you can't rule it out until we solve physics and know every equation/constant/governing principle of the universe."
@@sablefang4330
Thank you for your answer.
It's very interesting.
My brain is overheating haha ^^
I meant, I am tempted to believe in an ever stronger statement : that we have only ever had science, our reasoning, to observe the world. I am tempted to say that there is no other way, at all, to try to answer the "why" and that, by essence, the "why" can only be beyond the scope of the human mind.
"we can guess the probability of life in our universe"
Rather, I would be tempted to say that we can IMAGINE the probability of our universe the same way a blind person can imagine colors.
Sure, we can extrapolate and playfully modify the value of a few constants in a computer simulation. What kind of validity does it give to it?
And once again, considering a model composed of a set of constants and equations, why assuming that we can freely change the values of the constants, but not the whole set of equations as well? And why assuming that the only possible shape of life would be the life as we know it on earth? And why assuming that our model would be complete enough to be able to accurately evaluate the possibility of life?
All of these assumptions seem to go way, way, way beyond a reasonable extrapolation, or at least, it's my feeling.
Put simply, the three assumptions are:
1) Life only exists the way we know it on earth
2) We know all the possible universes
3) Our model is complete enough so that we can accurately evaluate the possibility of life on each possible universe
Anyway, if we reject the idea of deeper reality/laws/mechanism behind the laws that we observe, for me, it seems equivalent to say that the universe is how it is without a cause.
From here, all further reasoning is vain. It's just out of the scope of the human mind and capacity to reason.
Even saying "the universe arose" becomes kind of wrong.
To arise, the universe would have to arise from somewhere, something that contains it, something that precedes it.
Our minds tend to imagine an universe that would arise from the nothingness, with the nothingness being something with some kind of substance, being some kind of container, being some kind of random generator. But it's probably a tricky and erroneous image.
We can just say nothing about a "no cause".
Otherly said, It seems to me that it's a paradox to say that there is no cause, and then, say that because there is no cause, god could be the cause...
We say "there is no cause", and then, we imagine a cause to explain something without a cause.
We say "there is no cause" and then, we say "there is a cause (god)".
Isn't there some kind of paradox here?
If we accept the idea that there is no cause, our reason just can't go further, we cannot just say anything after that. The language can just go as far as "the universe is how it is".
If we accept the alternative idea that there is an infinite causal chain behind the laws of our universe, we fall on similar kind of issue.
Either way, either we imagine an infinite causal chain for the universe being how it is or a finite causal chain, i feel like we fall on an undefined case that our reason can't even hope to grasp.
How to define the probability of something that has no cause, or how to define the probability of something that arises from an infinite causal chain?
Does it even make sense to talk about probability in these cases?
I feel a bit like if we are trying to divide by zero, without even knowing the numerator.
Still, I guess, we can have the intuition, the feeling, the belief that an extrapolation can have some kind of validity, or not.
My belief tends to be :
There is something that our logical mind can't grasp, something that seems to transcend time, space, existence and non-existence.
But, the same way a blind person can't talk about colors, I can't really say more. I can't attribute such property of "intention", "randomness", "intelligence", etc...
I just don't know.
And so, I am not comfortable with the word "god".
I am way much more comfortable saying "The existence of our universe is a mystery that I don't understand and that I probably can't even hope to understand".
How does this not attempt to disqualify all use of using probability to reach any conclusion or theory of something that occurred in the past, while trying to use evidence, reasoning skills, and seeing the world around us to come to the most reasonable conclusion?
did you watch the full film this was taken from ,? its all explained there ua-cam.com/video/jJ-fj3lqJ6M/v-deo.html
Yea… the multiverse explanation is totally like the same than the beans example. Just that we have proof that beans exist and know that gravity exist. While we have never seen any other universes nor any law that would select livable ones over non-livable one. And can even in theory not falsify there existence. But this is totally science nonetheless…Even the inventor of the multiverse hypothesis said it is as profable as supernatural entities but whatever.
wow even Chris knows the argument sucks. :D
Watch the Sean Carroll/WL Craig debate. Scientist Carroll doesn't let philosopher Craig get away with his usual confident assertions about the physics of fine tuning. 😊
yep thats a very good debate
So what's the point of your analogy? How does it "debunk" the fine-tuning argument. I don't see how that happens.
in the example we used the same sort of probabilistic reasoning as in the fine tuning argument. It was shown that having all black beans go to the top was vastly improbable and then on the first tim it happened. The lesson is dont believe the sort of probabilistic reasoning used in the fine tuning argument. Ie trying to estimate probabilities when you know nothing about the underlying mechanics doesnt work. Is that clear?
@@PhilHalper1 Ok sure, but why does that underlying mechanics, which I agree we don't know yet, produce such precise constants which if varied by even, let's say an infitinitesimally small magnitude, make the life on the universe, or even the existence of the universe impossible? You could answer there is some more underlying mechanics behind that mechanics which produces very improbable fine constants, but then I would ask you again what makes that mechanics work. There are laws and processes which we don't know yet, but one thing we can know for sure is that they are unconscious, they don't have a will, and the improbability of those unconscious processes to produce such a highly organized universe stares you in the face. Atheists don't have an explanation for why that is. The only possibility is that there is an infinitely knowledgeable entity which knows these processes and directs matter to create this very organised universe cabale of sustaining life.
@@Himanshu_Khichar It is not that we do not know the underlying mechanisms. It is that they can be taken into account when calculating probabilities. If you do NOT know the underlying mechanisms, you cannot calculate probabilities.
We do not know that tiny variations in the constants would produce NO life or even NO universe. We can hypothesise that life and the universe might look quite different if there were significant variations, but that is not the same as asserting that life and/or the universe would not exist. We do not know that.
The universe is the way it is. We have applied our intelligence, through observation and testing, to create constants and "laws", but these are mere descriptions of what is. They are human inventions and it so happens they work, for the time being. What you are doing, I think, is trying to calculate the probability of the universe looking and working as it does a second time. I have no idea how one would go about tackling such a project.
The universe is not fine-tuned. Fine-tuning is a human concept projected back onto the universe as a description based on observation and testing. Take a handful of sand, throw it into the air and let it land on a flat surface. You could then observe and describe in minute detail how your sandy "universe" works, and you could claim that it is "fine-tuned". That is what we have done to our universe.
Rationality Rules, here on YT, pointed out that this argument also contradicts God's omnipotence. If God can really create anything, He can also produce life in any universe.
Yes, have you seen the full fim this is taken from? We do discuss this and many othere related points. ua-cam.com/video/jJ-fj3lqJ6M/v-deo.html
I don't see how it contradicts God's omnipotence.
If God can create any universe, that isn't contradicted by God creating a specific universe.
@@MatthewFearnley Can God create life in any universe at all?
@@InternetDarkLord So, the short answer here is going to be "yes" - God can create life in any universe at all.
I have a longer answer, but I'd be interested to see where you want to take this first.
@@MatthewFearnley No universe can be "fine tuned" for life is life can exist in any universe. Hence the entire argument is self-contradictory.
Great argument... So is this the way you check probability....
this is a way we can show the a priori probabilities without knowing mechanisms can be misleading.
Assigning probability of 1/2 to the black bean coming on top half is not correct because getting any black bean on top is *not an equally likely outcome* to any bean not coming on top half. It's like you can't say that on a very cloudy day, the probability that it will rain is 1/2, because raining or not raining in this case are not equally likely outcomes like tossing a coin which has equally likely outcomes of getting a head or tail, so each event's probability is 1/2.
but this exactly the sort of reassign in the fine tuning argument. We talk about this in more detail in the full film , did you watch it?
@@PhilHalper1No I have not. But I would like to watch it.
@@Himanshu_Khichar have a watch of that and come back to me.
@@PhilHalper1 Alright
Hey Skydivephil I am reading CTMU by Christopher Langan. He claims to have the prove for god. I don’t know it is trash or genius. Can you reply on that thanks 👍
what's the argument ?
@@PhilHalper1 Do you know what the physics community say about the CTMU? Thx
@@yodafluffy1282 I dont think they have any interest whatsoever
@@PhilHalper1 ok sorry to hear but thank you very much 🙂
What made the black beans and the red beans?
irrelevant
Hi irrelevant. Nice to meet you
@@daniel4492 mce to meet you Its not relevant because all we are trying to do is to establish that the probailities used in the fine tuning argument are dodgy and that's exactly what is established.
@@PhilHalper1I get the counter arguments but the claim for fine tuning is plausible
@@daniel4492 its not plausible to say something is improbable when you know nothing at all about the mechanisms that determine outcomes and have never seen multiple outcomes. You might as well say its really unlikely to get a number between 1 and 6 when you roll a dice because hey any number could come up , 1-6 is really unliley in the pace of all possible numbers. But when you learn something about normal dice you find 1-6 is not just unlikely but guaranteed .
Even when I was a child, and even as I believed i'm GOD, I knew the Universe is not finely tuned. Back then I called it "counting backwards" or "calculating backwards". I don't know of the concept of the anthropic principle.
I’m not sure in ultimate terms, that its a useful question.
Ie one could begin with the inference that red is a powerful/immanent/divine colour, and seek to prove its existence, but colour is oerceived differently or even not at all by others.
The question of “identity” remains unsolved by nearly everyone.
There is causality, but there is also cessation of causality.
Im sorry I dont understand this comment could you clarify ?
Wouldn't u need some1 to decide which type of beans to put into the jar for this experiment to work? Also, if it requires an agent to shake the bottles, then the beans aren't actually sorting by itself, is it?
any experiment is done by a person but that doesn't it cant simulate conditions without the person. Thats kind of the point of a lot of experiments.
@@PhilHalper1 I think u get wat the theists and ID ppl are saying but choosing to acknowledge the obvious. U ultimately need an agent to put stuff in a space for the stuff to work.
Now even if u choose to ignore that, u can just let that jar with the beans in it sit there until it sorts itself. That would simulate an eternal matter if that's ur persuasion.
@@kwanxin9506 I think you are just missing the point.All scientific experiments have people conducting them and manipulating them, it doesn't that those interventions are relevant for the issue at hand. Consider an experiment that tries to determine if projectiles create impact craters. A scientist sets up a gun and shoots high-speed impacts to simulate rocks falling on terrain. They create impact craters, great. does that mean all impact craters are created by intelligent beings with guns? No of course not. The point of any experiment is to simulate something real to learn a lesson. Here the point is that the a prior probability was wrong.That trying to determine probability without understanding underlying mechanisms is fools errand.
@@PhilHalper1well the thing about that analogy is, nobody is claiming to be shooting the projectiles. Its different when the claim is that there IS an intelligent being at play.
@@dudd4171 again irrelevant. Suppose we saw a crater on the moon and had two hypotheses, one, God made the crater, and two, a meteorite made the crater. We then shoot a projective into a simulated moon and see fi we can recreate the features of the crater. And low and behold its a precise match . The metoer theory would now have evidence in favour of it. It doesn't matter than a person shot the meteor does it?
"There isn't an intelligent agency behind it" is false. I mean the fine-tuning argues about the origin of the fine-tuning. He (intelligent) shakes the jar and randomises the beans. The question is: Who or what is the best explanation for the mechanism that "shakes" the jar / tuned the constants.
Your missing the point. The person shaking the jar isn't directing the outcome.
@@PhilHalper1 But he causes the „mechanism“ which directs the outcome
@@mecky2927 irrelevant; he cannot by his decision, direct which beans goes where his shaking is just to simulate a random mix-up. All scientific experiments to simulate the natural world are done by people, but that doesn't mean the experiments can direct the outcome. if it did most science would be useless,
@@PhilHalper1 He knew that the black beans will rise up. So he intentionally put them to the other beans. There is a mechanism behind the experiment, which he used to produce this outcome.
@@mecky2927 the underlying mechanism is simply gravity, but if you didn't understand it you would incorrectly assume that it was vastly improbable to happen. That the lesson, we don't know the mechanisms behind the constants and so a prior guesses are not to be trusted.
If atheist believe the universe doesn’t exist for a reason and it’s just the results of mindless matter and random process, why wouldn’t the value of the constants be random? Why would the constants of nature be non random, selected values under naturalism?
This argument seems somewhat overworked to me. The immense age and inconceivably vast size of the universe have produced between them an infinite set of points in space and time. Any electrochemical process could have taken place at any of these points, so the fact that one happened to produce what we refer to as 'life' is utterly unremarkable. And, in passing, the fact is that rather than having 'life permitting values' most of the universe (including a large chunk of our own planet) is completely inimical to life, which is actually hanging on by the skin of its teeth in an infinitesimally small corner of the cosmos.
It seems that the universe, like Jackie Shane, just couldn't have had it "Any Other Way". That is, it could be that other outcomes for the universe were just not possible, it couldn't have been any other way, so the chances of the universe being as it is was not extremely remote but 100%, just like rolling loaded dice will always give you a 7 or 11. Theists might claim that if gravitation had just been a tiny bit stronger, then the universe would have collapsed into itself and stars wouldn't have formed. But just like it's not possible to roll Snake Eyes with loaded dice, so too it might not have been possible for gravitation to have ever been this tiny bit stronger. Jackie Shane, herself, said she could never ever be any other way than she was, no matter how much others wanted her to be.
Far from debunking, the speaker proves only that an intelligent agent, like himself, can set up artficial circumstances to produce a non-random outcomes. So basically the debunker admits to intelligent design. The hubris of atheism reveals itself so carelessly it seems.
But the agent does not determine the outcome and thats the point you are missing.
I get what he's trying to say but the analogy is poor.
why is it poor?
@skydivephil Because probability indicates how likely an event is to occur. But this presumes that more than one event could occur. It is meaningless to use it to support the fine tuning argument because probabilities do not apply to a single example of a fine tuned universe. It is even more meaningless and extremely ironic to use it to refute the fine tuning argument because it has to invoke the idea that multiple other universes can exist to calculate a probability without any logical or scientific basis. When it comes this universe, and the constants that it has, this may not be a valid presumption. We would need to assume that other universes with other constants were possible. We don't know whether that is the case.
What we do know is the single example we know of, be it the universe we live in, is fine tuned. Rightly so, the causes or the processes leading to this fine tuning are not understood, but we cannot invoke probabilities in this discussion. That's one.
Two, even if we were to continue down the flawed probabilities path based on things that do not exist to make the causation argument attempted in the video, the fundamental constants are not similar in any way to macro particles acting in a gravitational field to be analogues. These values are universal in nature and have a constant value in time, and are not interdependent. The causal link between gravitational field and the sorting of lentils has a substantially lower barrier than a single cause needed to explain a multitude of unique constants.
Third, the random shaking demonstration is very poor. Centrifugal motion shaking in the video to deliberately make the lentils separate based on density to establish a point makes the demonstration looks disingenious.
I understand what he is trying to do, but the framing of the fine tuning argument and the response to it are both lacking, and a lot better can be done by someone at that academic level.
And who is shaking the Jar?
You missed it into the equation.
No we didn't its irrelevant if you understand the argument
He could've also used an unfair coin, but that wouldn't be nearly so visual. We usually think a coin will be heads or tails an equal amount of times, given enough tosses. So the probability is 1/2 of either. But, if the coin is unfair, then there's a mechanism that keeps the coin from being 1/2 either way. Instead it'll be 9/10 heads or something like that (I almost wrote "depending on the maker's intentions" but that would be biased towards the existence of a God :) ). So perhaps the universe is this "unfair coin", and we expect the constants to be "fair coins", therefore we (or rather someone defending fine-tuning) expects the odds to be heavily against a life-permitting universe. Maybe another analogy would be to say "If I don't study, what are my chances of passing? 50-50?" Clearly, I can guess all answers (if it's a "pick from options A-D" kind of test), but I'm less likely to pass than to fail. So although my options are to fail or get a passing grade, that doesn't mean that my chances of passing are 50% if I'm just guessing. My chances of passing are to a big degree related to how much I study. If I know 90% of the material, I'm very likely to pass. So the chances of passing are over 50%. It's not enough to just count the options, because you have to consider the mechanisms that determine the outcome. That said, I'm still leaning towards theism, but this video has shown that it's a lot more complicated. Thank you!
So how can we trust science then
who shakes the beans tho?
irrelevant, as
the shaker of the beans is not directing the outcome to anything they favour,
The probability of the universe existing must be 1.
A priori? Not at all.
i think the point we are making here is a priori probabilities can be misleading. the you dont know about the mechanism that determines outcomes.
@@LuisAldamiz True, but process and/or bias (i.e: cause) might possibly be experienced. The universe must be determined to exist, otherwise: "why something rather than nothing?" Even accidents have a (finite) cause.
@@31428571J - Ah, you don't mean this universe but the meta-universe (any universe, all universes if it applies). In any case it seems to be the same issue: assuminga blank state a priori, we can't know with our present knowledge which was the probability of anything at all (incl. a hypothetical Creator God) of existing, we can only know the a posteriori probability which for our known universe is certainly 1.
It's a bit like quantum mechanics when the first spin was measured (Gerlach?): at that stage it could only be perplexity at the results, later came the calculations based on empirical data from many many measurements.... but we can only observe this one universe, we almost certainly will never be able to measure many universes to approximate a refined probabilistic conclusion.
@@LuisAldamiz "assuming a blank state a priori, we can't know with our present knowledge which was the probability of anything at all."
Going slightly off tangent here, but there is a point:
Its such a pity that science can't get to grips with metaphysical Nothing (rules are rules though I suppose). Once we can appreciate that A Universe from Nothing is impossible (obvious I would have thought, since its not even a 'state'*), we then have to accept the Universe (or multiverse, re your valid point), to be either past-eternal (my own position), or self-created - which doesn't make any sense, seeing as time would either have to create itself (emergent), or if fundamental, would then (in any other context other than past-eternal) have the many issues in relation to t=0 and t+0.
*surprisingly, not even logic gets a look-in, seeing as it too can only deal with the finite. And saying that, therefore 'anything can happen' (again) is stating that anything 'finite'.. (the very opposite of non-finite).
"but we can only observe this one universe, we almost certainly will never be able to measure many universes to approximate a refined probabilistic conclusion".
Too true:-) Which reminds me of this:
TIME REBORN - Lee Smolin - Notes: Chapter 18: Infinite Space or Infinite Time?:
"When you set out to solve the equations of general relativity, you have to specify information about what’s happening at that boundary. You have to specify what is coming in from the boundary, and what is going out to it. The need to specify information about what’s happening at the boundary is not optional; it is required by the theory. (For the experts, the Einstein equations for a spatially infinite universe cannot be derived from a variational principal unless there are boundary terms added to the action and boundary conditions specified at spatial infinity). You cannot describe what’s in the universe without saying what’s coming into and what’s going out of the universe from the boundary, even if the boundary is infinitely far away.
….Consider a galaxy. In reality, it’s a small part of the universe, but for some purposes we might want to model it as isolated; for example, we might want to model the interaction of the black hole in the centre with stars in the galactic disk. So we draw a boundary around the galaxy and construct a solution of general relativity containing only what is within that boundary. But there are some technical hassles in dealing with information to be specified at a finite boundary. So, purely for technical convenience, we idealise the situation and push the boundary out to infinity. This greatly simplifies the description, because we can impose the condition that all the matter in that model is contained in the one galaxy. Nothing can come in or go out except gravitational waves and light, which we can use to observe the galaxy. This kind of use of infinite spaces is pragmatic, and there can be no objection to it. The fact that information must be specified coming in from the infinite boundary, reminds us that we are dealing with an idealization in which we cut out a part of the universe and describe it as if it were all there is. But it’s nonsensical to model the whole universe as having an outer boundary, which requires the specification of information coming in from outside the infinite universe. Yet this is what we must do if we use general relativity as our cosmological theory and take the universe to be spatially infinite”.
Fine tuning is horrible and falls apart inductively. Once you introduce possible worlds, it’s whole “ parameters “ point just gets thrown away. Because it’s simply a nomological law that can be changed. It isn’t a necessity.
He speaks of gravity( that's also fine tuned for the universe) as an explanation for his example of how randomness could bring about precise order (all randomly scattered black beads all gathered at the top) but he forgets that gravity was already fine-tuned for that to be possible and probable but having an already finetuned universe isn't answering the fine-tuning argument question of who fine tuned those constants of the universe like that of gravity he pointed. So the title of the video is wrong as the question remains unanswered by the atheistic Evolutionists on what best explains the fine-tuning constants of the universe like that of gravity used in the video with no better explanation than God.
What if we distinguish between whyness and howness? Why should we assume that describing its howness denies its whyness? I think scientific howness and philosophical whyness have different logical directions; if they had the same logical direction then their different results would constitute incompatibility between fine-tuning and science; but since one of them is top-down and the other is buttom-up, there is no dichotomy between fine-tuning and its scientific descriptions. Showing that how universe came into existence working with laws of physics and suggesting that it does not need a designer, is like showing how a computer came into existence working with laws of electricity and suggesting that it does not need a designer.
But we are not “predicting” a priori. We are looking backwards with the benefit of hindsight.
Whatever forces directed us into the time and space we now exist can be seen to have been carefully worked out.
That is not what is happening in the fine-tuning argument. We don't look into the past, we make an assumption that there is a flat distribution over probability space and then say look how unlikely it is. Thats exactly what is happening in the beans in the jar case and look how wrong it is.
To say the universe is fine tuned for the production of living organisms suggests significance of living organisms, which hasn’t been established. There’s nothing we’re aware of that makes living organisms more special than anything else in the universe. Big deal if we can think. There’s no lofty purpose it seems we’re specifically needed for. Thus, of course the universe cleared a path for us. We wouldn’t be here otherwise. If a rock rolled down a mountainside and landed in one of 10,000 equal possible slots placed on the bottom, say slot number 3,459, that doesn’t make slot 3,459 more special than any of the other 9,999 slots it could’ve landed in. You wouldn’t look at the path the rock came down on and say every bump and crack that guided it to slot 3,459 must’ve been placed there by intelligent life. It just by chance landed in slot 3,459. As with life, it’s here by chance. The fine tuned universe argument for the existence of a higher power of just plain stupid.
With a sample size of one, regarding universes and a sample size of one, regarding life, calculating probabilities is virtually dead in the water. Intelligent design
is an exceedingly poor argument from incredulity. Extending it not only to some illogical "prime mover" and yet again to a very specific and favoured one, is an irrational cascade of non-sequiturs that makes the premise of Intelligent design untenable.
It’s called the cosmological constant, not the cosmological variant. There cannot be a fined-tuned argument because it can’t be tuned. There are no tuning knobs to be tweaked.
The physical universe exists the way it does because of fundamental constants. If the parameters of these constants were different, the UNIVERSE would be different, or not exist at all. As such, LIFE would be different, or not exist at all. There was no objective of the FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTS having just the right parameters for the UNIVERSE to exist in a certain way. The constants didn’t have a goal in mind. They just existed as they are and the universe came about because of them. LIFE came about, as part of the way the UNIVERSE came about. There was no far-reaching goal to make life exist. Life exists because of the process of cause and effect.
I.E., The universe wasn't created for life. Life is a byproduct of the conditions of the universe. And if the parameters weren't right for life to exist, then life wouldn't be here. Or possibly life would exist under different conditions. Who knows? But to say that the universe was fine-tuned just for us requires the assumption that we're special and that the universe was geared toward creating us.
It doesn't matter how improbable the current state of the universe is. You can't judge it based on looking at the current outcome as a goal. That's not the case.
We can say that the universe wasn't just finely tuned for "us", but that it was finely tuned in such a way that it brought about the existence of planets, along with the existence of heavy and light elements.
Both things were necessary for the emergence of complex organisms, and both things were vanishingly unlikely if we assume that the universe was not intended to produce them.
One advantage to supposing the constants can hold other epistemically possible values is that you can suppose there may be a multitude of universes with similar constants, enough that this universe could arise without being intentioned.
If we suppose the constants could never be different, then it's not much less surprising that the constants would happen to produce planets, heavy and light elements, and complex organisms.
But then we can't suppose a multiverse would make this universe more likely.
All the universes would then just have the same constants, and it would be vastly more likely that they'd all have constants that didn't produce planets, etc.
Whoever doesn't think his beans argument is ridiculous doesn't know anything 😂😂 I'm dying here
why is it ridiculous?
@shaekybarky8370 I'll take this one. He used his intelligence to design a finely tuned experiment to have a certain outcome everytime. Hince, fine tuning by intelligent design. It does more to prove the existences of God than not. So yes, hilarious!
@@jeffbrewer7682 He literally mentions that there "is an intelligent agency behind it". If you left the jar the way it was before he should it then a 30 second earthquake happened with a sufficient magnitude, he is essentially saying that this would happen over and over again. If this Jar was somehow indestructible and you threw it into a tornado seemingly the same thing would happen, along with any other sufficient natural occurrence. He understands his agency was responsible for THAT example but the point was it doesn't NEED to be and more specifically it wouldn't matter if it was because this was not "directed" although there was an intelligent agency behind his demonstration, this would have happened through intelligent or non-intelligent means. There is a theologian though who covers this and I like the way he broke it down so although it's against my view I recommend watching it if you haven't already. Basically there are three options according to Dr. Craig, the fine tuning of the constants is due to either Necessity, Chance, or Design (he also ruled out the option of miracles as that wouldn't add anything to the design perspective)
ua-cam.com/video/bGbbWyd4l7Q/v-deo.htmlsi=x9JN8BrZ_Lda6zHh
Well, at least your comment is the best proof that there was no ‘intelligent’ creation :)
Theist want to give their god credit for creation but NONE of the blame. They have to delude themselves into thinking the universe isn't a brutal nihilistic bloodbath that isn't worth living.
If it is fine tuned, it's fined tuned for suffering.
Yes, did you see the full film this was taken from? ua-cam.com/video/jJ-fj3lqJ6M/v-deo.html we go into this in more detail
I don't see how this debunks fine-tuning. We may not know the range of possible numerical values for physical constants the "mechanism" could spit out. But we do know the number of values it could spit out IN PRINCIPLE. That number is infinite since the number of numerical values is infinite. So the question now is: What are the odds that this mechanism would have within its range of possible numerical values to spit out those values that allow life to exist? Since the number of numerical values is infinite, the answer is that the odds are microscopically small. To small to attribute this to chance.I don't think this man solved the problem of fine-tuning. I think he just sat it back a step.
Did you watch the longer video this clip is taken from? We go over this and it doesn't help the fine tuning argument but undermines it as even some Christian philosophers have admitted.
@@PhilHalper1 No, I just responded to what was shown in the clip. I figured that was all there was to it. I'll watch the whole thing later on.
Ah well that bean bias , god did it ;)
No one informed disputes that the universe is fine tuned. The question is if it's intentional.
Fine tuning implies intention.
And you are wrong, fine tuning is not supported by evidence.
this jar of beans thing is ridiculous. Gravity, 2 types of beans with different density, a glass jar and some swirling action and we are to expect this mimics the conditions that formed the planet Earth and life-supporting molecules on Earth?! Maybe it's a mockumentary.
I’m all for debunking religious idiocy but how is the hand that shakes the jar in a specific way not like a deity putting every piece of the universal puzzle where it needs to be? I’m confused
becuase the hand isn't directing anyhing, its a random motion which if we didn't understand the underlying physics we would predict makes it very unlikely to create an organised state.
@@PhilHalper1but the motion doesn’t look random to me in this video. The professor spins the jar a bit and then moves it in specific ways, at least so it seams to me. I understand the correlation between the movement and the result but how is that not causation as well? I mean if he just shook the jar upside down it wouldn’t end up like that would it?
Am I missing the focal point here? I’m sorry 😂 I’m very passionate about this topic so I just want to understand this well
@@gmrad2456 It may seem that way to you but its not the case. The laws of gravity are causing the arrangement , we understand this. he could shake them up in anyway and thats the point.
@@PhilHalper1 oh ok so the movement is random and that’s what debunks the fine tuning argument. I get it now. I thought that movement he made wasn’t random
Thank you very much for your help
Oh my god (what a irony) i think in the same response for the fine tunning but using the water and oil separation process
love this content
thanks
I'd like the group's thoughts on something I was thinking about the other day. First, I fully comprehend the lesson in this video (using a priori probability for systems we don't understand could lead to incorrect conclusions) but my comment isn't really about this video. Instead, over the past few years of my amature UA-cam physics education, I've noticed there is a disdain for god/creation in science. I think that's a mistake and it could alienate a large number of folks who could otherwise be interested in casually learning. I don't personally believe in there being a creator and I'm not a fan of religion in general, but I struggle to see how the merit of a god theory is all that much different from other theories which are classified as 'scientific.' 'God' can't be tested and can likely never be proven or disproven. Is that really much different from the many worlds interpretation of the wave function? We'll never be able to test that, we'll never know if it's real or not real, yet Sean Carroll is featured on many channels including this one. Disclaimer: I'm putting my money on Sir Roger's CCC (which I suppose could still have been created by a god, but eh). And yes, I'm on a first name basis with Roger.
thanks for your comment, first off this video isn't saying God doesnt exist, only that the fine tuning argument is a bad argument for Gods existence. According to Carroll, the many world is just raw Quantum mechanics. So to test you test alternatives and they do make predictions . So thats how you test it.
@@PhilHalper1 interesting! I’ll have to look for information around those tests. Thank you for the reply!
If I set off on a walk and turn hither and thither then it would be highly unlikely that I would end up at a particular destination, but it is 100% certain that I would reach _somewhere_ . Only if I think that that _somewhere_ was intended would I be surprised.
Life is not intentional, it just happened. Get over it.
Specious and sophistic: Your "somewhere" is implicitly not much different from any other "somewhere" - like various single-story house addresses in a suburb tract. That makes it a false analogy. The reality is that almost all probabilities ("somewheres") lead to non-life ("nowheres"), not merely to a different life. The so-called evolution (versus adaptation) of the eye alone is so fraught, not only with improbability but with the requisite for almost infinite simultaneity of events, that it is a de facto argument for what some now call intelligent design.
Life is intended; it did not just happen. Get over it.
@@DanielByers-qf9qi You are assuming purpose. Are you going to prove that such purpose exists or existed?
@@DanielByers-qf9qi "The reality is that almost all probabilities lead to non-life"
I am very curious to know how are you able to compute such a probability.
Please, explain to me how do you compute the probability of a physical law being the way it is, without having any knowledge of how is this law created or conceived and without the possibility to reproduce the experience?
It seems to me that talking about such probability is similar to a blind person trying to talk about colors.
Why the laws are the way they are?
Science can only observe laws. Ultimately, science can discover more fundamental laws, but still, science, by essence, can't ultimately answer the "why". Why these laws?
To compute a probability, you must either know the mechanism behind, or being able to reproduce the experience.
So far, I have never seen science capable of creating laws and universes.
You yourself agreed in the video that perhaps universe is non random.
and ?
@@PhilHalper1 Then you don't have any argument. Because if it is not random than it must be planned. And planned by whom? The creator, The designer, The God
@@ArmanViews Thats where we disagree, the fact that something isn't random does not mean its planned by an intelligent person. If you drop pencil out of your hand, it doesnt go into a random trajectory does it? But it follows a path given by the laws pf physics, no intelligent person directing the outcome and no randomness either
@@PhilHalper1 Again you are proving my point only. If it is not random + it has design that means it has a designer. Let's come to the he example you gave for pencil. If you drop a pencil and it follows a path that's random. But if you drop and it takes a shape of elephant that is not random. Similarly when it comes to universe ,human. It has design which is complex. And as you already agree it is not random that means it has a intelligent designer.
@@ArmanViews Ive agreed no such thing at all. If you drop pencil it will not got in a random direction but will move towards the centre of the Earth. So its juts flash to assume a if it isn't random it must be designed. iT a pencil draws a shape of an elephant i would assume there intelligent person behind that becuase Ive seen pictures of elephants being made loads of times by intelligent beings and I use this background knowledge to inform my best guess about how pictures of elephants come about. But I have no such knowledge about how universes come about. I could also use the same background knowledge to assume the being behind the picture must be mortal, becuase very bingo that has ver drawn a picture of an elephant was mortal. Are you suggesting the universe must be designed by a mortal being? I doubt that.
This is a flawed argument presented in this video. The said outcome is only predictable because of the force of gravity. This doesn’t explain the origin of the force that is allowing the predictable outcome.
its not trying to do so, it just trying to demonstrate that a prior probability determined without knowing mechanisms is unreliable.
Not sure how this debunks the fine tuning argument. It’s basically the black beans have no chance of ending up on top unless there is some kind of ordering mechanism to make it happen.
dont focus on the beans focus on the probability then maybe you'll get it
@@PhilHalper1 What he is saying is that something that seems to have no chance of happening when you work out the mathematical probability turns out to be highly likely when you add in other parameters, in this case the other parameters being the size and mass of the beans, gravity and the gentle shaking of the jar.
Is my understanding correct?
@@houstandy1009
I wouldnt focus on the addition of other parameters . Rather what he is saying is that you cant trust probability estimates when you know nothing about the mechanisms that determine outcomes. Or if we no have observations of repeated trials.
@@PhilHalper1 I agree that’s what he is saying which means he isn’t debunking anything.
The religious people are saying, the probability that a universe would have values so in balance you can get life is so small there must me a mechanism that made the almost impossible possible. They believe that mechanism which they have no evidence for is God.
The guy in the video through his jar of beans anology is saying, while the probability of these values being so finely balanced seems impossibly small there may be a mechanism that makes the almost impossible possible. He believes this mechanism there is no evidence for to be the natural.
The only difference in the two positions is one has faith god organised the values , the other has faith nature did it.
@@houstandy1009 you don't need to appeal to any mechanism, instead what you can do is just I don't believe those probabilities And what the jar analogy does is demonstrate that a priori probabilities are unreliable. Since Fine tuning relies on these a priori probabilities he ahs debunked the fine tuning argument.
I thought it was by “Jar Jar Binks”
lol
Intelligence selected what beans to put in the jar. It wasn't random selection. In the beginning a man put beans in a jar! Sound familiar?
its irrelevant, the point is the same.
Surely in a universe where life exists it's always going to look like life was in some way bearing the odds. It's a bit like survivors bias. We're only here to observe the unlikely fact that we exist because we exist. It's a cyclic argument (if that's the right terminology). I've no issues with the idea that there may be an intelligence behind the universe (it is of course possible but is unfalsifiable so can't really be debated sensibly from a scientific perspective). I find that the attempts to reconcile faith in a creator with scientific theories to be pointless. Have faith? That's great but don't try to use the language of science to justify it, that just makes a mockery of if both. Mystery is a lovely thing. We'll never really know absolute truth on many things and that's fine by me.
I'll read this back tomorrow (sober) and probably regret how I've phrased it but never mind. Please be kind to my fragile drunk ego.
Yep, that's the Anthropic Principle. A cold reality, or more charitably, we are the universe understanding itself. Personally I'm glad we exist, existence is neato :)
the anthropic principle needs a population to work and we may have that in a multiverse although its far from certain. Also Im to sure science is decided by falsifiability , more like a family resemblance.
I love it how people can assume that other universes exist without ever having seen any proof of that but bash people that believe in beings they have no true proof for. What is the difference between both? Beeings are more unlikely than things because you like things more than persons?
Simple magic trick. Bad faith arguments abound in the absence of working rebuttal.
What? Where is the debunk, you literally took 2 substance which has different constant values (here mass of the beans) and shook it. Fine Tuning argument is about how these constants came into the exact value without which the universe wouldn't exist. Thank you for making me stronger believer in God's magnificence through this ridiculous video
If there's a god/s (take your pick of which religion or culture's god/s you like) that created the universe, what created the god/s?
Why would he have to be created? The fact that there's something rather then norhing shows that there's a fundament that just "is". If nothing could exist (which is even in language impossible because it's a contradiction) that's about it! I am not talking quantumfields because that's still something. So wether you like it or not, something must have been always here and since the meaning of always collapses, something just "is" and everything that we think truly exist can only be made of that fundament. Never ever can there something from a place called "out of existence" pop into existence. Something is or is not. Everything else that appear to come into existence can only be a modification or manifestation from what already was. That doesn't mean that there's a god. It could be that the universe just is. But whatever the fundament is, it can never be created. It just is. The ultimate reality so to say.
Where does the “bias” come from?
Gravity
mb, argument debunked because a jar containing 2 types of beans was shaken
What if these values change over time and our universe only exists so long as the tuning is within a certain range and will eventually phase shift out of existence like, next Thursday or something.
This is equal with saying there are no predictable laws. In that case we can dig science because it‘s basically about finding such laws. Same for saying everything comes from random fluctuations. Random means in reality without (logical) cause.
@@Rakscha-Sun Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize the fundamental structure of the universe is oriented around your sense of certainty.
Now add about a billion other kinds of beans with billions of external forces doing the "mixing." Not so simple now, is it Phil?
I think you've missed the point; the point is if we do probabilities without knowing mechanisms, we can get easily misled.
Let me play the devil's advocate here. I suppose the religious apologist could say that the very fact that the system has some bias towards life-permitting values is evidence of intentional design.
but house that different to saying life exists therefore God exists?
Ok... explain to us how nothing can create something??? Last time a checked anything multiplied by nothing is alwsys nothing. I believe in a Creator and you can call me stupid but if you believe that nothing created such complex universe as the one we live in, then the word stupid cant define you enough.
Why do think I think nothing created something?
I guess you know something all those brilliant scientists who say there is no higher power gods out there, like 93 percent of the members of the National Academy of Science, don’t. Yep, they’re all misinformed, but you know what’s going on. 😉 First of all, it appears everything is nothing. Energy has no time and mass, yet E=MC2 is proven, and equal portions of matter and anti-matter cancel each other out. Secondly, you can’t buy that something came from nothing, but an all powerful all knowing creator can? Oh, but he always existed, right? So things that we have confirmed actually exist, like the laws of nature, had to have a creator, and couldn’t just always have existed so long as there’s been time from our perspective, but something that only exists in ancient mythology can? lol…and I mean with extreme emphasis.😂
Shake a few beans debunks Nothing. You can't do better than that?
maybe you didnt get what was being said?
The often unspoken assumption of most formulations of the fine-tuning argument is "I can imagine the constants being different, therefore every value of the constants I can imagine is actually possible, and they all have equal probability."
This falls into the same error that theistic arguments often slip into: it's the type of thinking that generally works pretty well in everyday life, but it gets generalized into a domain where it becomes egregiously wrong because the necessary assumptions are no longer valid.
@@dohpam1ne I agree. Btw we will be discussing related issues tonight here. Hope ua-cam.com/video/E7DVA1QisZI/v-deo.htmlsi=PjunBONy1FIH04P7 see you at the premier
Useless analogy
There is gravity presents already
We are here talking about
Before the space time and matter how gravity formed 😂
Foolish analogy
There must be an intelligent creator
Fine tuning implies intent. Exactly
Great video!
thanks
That is the dumbest analogy I have ever seen, and he is supposed to be an expert in probability.
how so?
I thought all they bargained on to begin with was one half?
I don't follow. Can you clarify?
@@PhilHalper1 I mean it’s triangles isn’t it?
If sphere packing relies on triangles then it’s relying on triangles if you can’t use 2 and 3
@@brendawilliams8062 eh?
It's somehow funny how he presents this to us by taking the role of an creator him selfe in his demonstration, somehow ironic isn't it ?
no it is not
🤷🏻♂️
no it isnt, I think your missing the point. The point is about determining probabilities wihtout nderstanding mechanisms. The person shaking the jar, does not chose the outcome .
As I understand there are two claims here:
1) A given state is incredibly unlikely if assuming randomness therefore it's not random
2) The given state can only be explained by an agent
This jar analogy shows that assuming randomness, all beans on top is incredibly unlikely. Therefore it's reasonable to assume it's not random. In this situation it so happens that we know it's not random. So this analogy supports the first claim, right?
wow I like this explanation so much!!
but with miss all the other options like maybe life like the beans in the bottom or on the side!
have you seen the longer film this clip was taken from?
@@PhilHalper1 I didn't, link?
@@romekin
Seems lots of ppl are missing the point... I am not surprised 😊
Yeah every theist that comments on this just doesn't get it
He's missing the fact that he is the one shaking the jar. So...some outside agency. 🤔
No that totally misunderstands the point
@@PhilHalper1 No, I'm afraid you did, as did he.
@@tobyk.woodard2602 the point isa priori probabilities are unreliable without understanding mechanisms. it does not matter if he shakes s the jar or a robot does or is done t randomly. Its iirrelevant Fine-tuning argument requires a priori probabilities to be reliable. , this is one of many examples that shows they aren't.
@@PhilHalper1 And where do the mechanisms come from? Or the robot shaking? Or the shaking? You continue to ignore the most basic facts of this little "experiment". Perhaps you simply don't wish to wrestle with the implications.
@@tobyk.woodard2602 its irrelevant. The shaking could be done by pa person or an earthquake. Makes no difference. Th point is the probability that you calculated a prior is totally wrong, that's all that matters.
This doesnt seem yo address the argument. He seems to be arguing that there is no probabilities here because the laws of physics aren't. However, that just brings us down one turtle, with the fine-tuning argument becoming "What are the odds that the predetermined laws of the universe would fit into the narrow limits that would allow for life?".
Those who believe in God think the following: I don't know how the universe works or how it originates so it must be God. And obviously my god. Ha, ha, ha.
Sigh. His approach is so flawed. But then the mantra is we tell you WHAT to think. Not HOW to think.
You dont even mention what the flaw is , he does teach philosophy at Caltech so I imagine he does teach people how to think.Maybe you , like most people, don't even get what the argument is ?
@@PhilHalper1 Because someone teaches philosophy, particularly at Caltech, does not mean they teach people how to think. I get the argument. it is flawed. The primary flaw is coming in with a presupposition and then trying to torture the argument to get it to say what he wants rather than trying to understand the nature of the argument.
@@mxracer1999@mxracer1999 It certainly is better evidence than what you have provided, which, as far as I can see, is none.
Hahaha, except that's completely false example. It has nothing to do with probability. It had intelligent interference... which is exactly the point of fine-tuning 😂😂😂 he actually made yhe exact opposite point of what he set out to make
you missing the point, the agent isnt deciding the outcome.
@@PhilHalper1 but that’s all that the demonstration shows. If his point is that “perhaps there is no random chance and those incredibly specific factors are actually predetermined by some larger rule” then the demonstration has no significance because it doesn’t prove or deny that as it is using human intelligence as that ‘greater rule’.
And even if that point is to be accepted, which is no more evidenced than the contrary, it doesn’t “debunk” anything. It just leaves the door open to other possible instigators of these rules. Which is not “debunking” fine-tuning because no one is saying that fine-tuning PROVES God. It just points to a supernatural origin of life. Something beyond nature, as we know it. Then the question becomes “okay, so what set those rules in that order”. And an agent capable of creating such a specific combination of factors is another entity which we then have to question “is it autonomous or is it intelligent?”. Which is the exact same question we are asking about the combination of probabilities anyway. And so the question continues to be (to summarise very basically) “so then what combination of astronomical phenomenon caused this… and what caused that… and what caused that…” and so on and so forth, where we continuously have to assume that probabilities stacked upon probabilities are what have caused each of these potentially infinite events to lead to this moment. Which is a huge assumption, I’m not saying it can’t be true. It has certainly not been disproven. However, the far more logical answer (based on our current understanding of phenomenon in our liveable experience), is that design is the most likely cause of otherwise unimaginable events. For example in his demonstration, it is far more obvious that all the beans will separate as they did IF THEY ARE INTERFERED WITH BY AN INTELLIGENT LIFEFORM than if they were just left to the laws of nature.
So the point of fine-tuning still stands that whatever the final figure of the probability of life really is, the most logical explanation of reality being so different to our calculations… is that someone/something has interfered. Someone/something of higher intelligence than humans, most likely.
TL;DR
Fine-tuning is just pointing out that the most likely reason for reality and calculations to be so vastly incongruent, whether on a scale of spinning a jar of beans, shuffling a deck of cards or creating life… is intelligent interference/creation.
Creation is not just a jar of beans though thats the problem
Im not is get your point, maybe you can explain
CutRate etc: The fact that you use the term "creation" tells me that you have a presupposed conclusion. That is the problem.
Thank you for this video . Please release short videos like this more often 🥰
thanks for your comment. Almost finished a new video , stay tuned for more