Leonard Susskind - Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 янв 2013
- For more videos and information from Leonard Susskind click here bit.ly/1xAleZd
For more videos on whether the universe is fine-tuned for life and mind click here bit.ly/1F9IiM0
To buy episodes and seasons of Closer To Truth click here bit.ly/1LUPlQS
If the deep laws of the universe had been ever so slightly different human beings wouldn't, and couldn't, exist. All explanations of this exquisite fine-tuning, obvious and not-so-obvious, have problems or complexities.
I like this guy. He's very clear and straightforward with his explanation.
Susskind is a legend.
Lenny rules. Look up his lectures.
he is a troll
Lazar Otasevic - 😆🤣😂
Susskind is one of my favourites in the contemporary science space....his books are brilliantly written and his story from being a plumber to becoming a physicist is inspiring too
I don't care how weak Gravity is .It still gets me down
precisely
if gravity was anywhere near the strength of the other forces, earth would be a black hole
Because the earth is so fucking huge
+You don'T Say ? ets fun to toy w that idea, but I've never fully understood how gravity is weak. where do they get that from, in where do they view gravity stronger than et is now to know that gravity is actually weaker than et should be??
A small fridge magnet is enough to create an electromagnetic force greater than the gravitational pull exerted by planet Earth.
“Never get too attached to your current models/theories of reality, because new ones will be coming along soon that will alter/replace the old ones.”
That's true, but we're constantly getting closer and closer to the truth. *Flat earth* was very wrong, but it explained some basic things; then *Classical mechanics* and modern science explained much more, but was still incorrect in some things. The current *Theory of Relativity* and *Quantum theory* explain all of those things, and are more correct in other things, but still not quuuiitee perfect. But you'll notice we're always getting closer. So it's not like suddenly we can end up with a radically different theory that makes all of former science obsolete.
" Then we'll live in a black hole...you cant live in a black hole " .... 2019 now and the holographic principle just say that.... And well > L. Susskind its a strong suporter of the ideea now . How about that?
Darth Nixa relaivity and quantum theories are worse than flat earth
@@redhotbits Can you elaborate on that?
"Models and theories change but nature stays with what's real".
The interviewer (who is he?) does a very fine job both with Susskind and with the subject matter.
@Tony DC
And often has a more realistic and fundamental understanding of the science than the people he is interviewing. He's a very knowledgeable and scientifically literate individual. Closer to Truth is a fantastic program. His interviews with Paul Davies are fantastic.
Best science channel on youtube. Will also make a great archive for future generations.
Roq Steady
Agree 100%
The channel belongs to him
What a great scientist and thinker Leonard Susskind is. Easy to understand and follow very complex topics. Need I mention what a great science writer he also is.
@Donut dude it’s was sooo awesome while trump was POTUS. Now it’s boring
@Donut dude sleeeepy Joe
@@JoshuaMSOG7 keep your bullshit political comments to your self
@@JoshuaMSOG7 fuck trump and his cult of personality
Leonard is explaining the greatest miracle of life in a scientific manner.
Why would there be anything in the 1st place without a God. Even the creation of a single electron is a miracle.
Research the science and you will begin to understand why the universe came into existence without a god.
For a lazy mind everything is a miracle.
@@davidcotuit please do explain
@Nick While I can sit here in furious agreement with you, that answer will never satisfy many people and is simply incoherent to many. This should be no surprise to the person of faith. Unless God opened your mind to accept his reality, you would be no different. The person of faith must recognise this fundamental schism exists not because of any inherent wisdom or knowledge lest they become arrogant with pride. It also serves as a motivator for us to plead with the all powerful God to reveal himself to others - there is no other way.
Psalms 127:1 Unless the Lord builds the house, the builders labor in vain
@@davidcotuit the science makes no such claims. As Prof. Susskind so kindly articulated, there are currently 3 schools of thought and he was so generous as to accept Deity as one of them.
It's hard to believe we are all here by such a minute chance.
I've been EXTREMELY gifted multiple times by you guys ever since I came upon your channel. Just really phenomenal content. Seriously, phenomenal! Thank you!
Susskind and Penrose allways blow my mind. Thx for this great interview.
The fine tuning is special and so are you.
Exactly, just like everybody else.
Robert knows all this stuff as well as his guests, having studied their work before interviewing them. He knows how to get these brilliant people to talk to us so that we too can know. (Though mostly what they end up saying is that nobody knows anything for sure. Which I love. Cuz it makes me feel not quite so dumb.) I do very much enjoy these interviews. Thank you, folks.
This is the single most fundamental moment of a human being saying things I've ever heard. Thank you.
This guy came out of nowhere and is explaining things so well I’m learning about this stuff from a whole new perspective. I like him!
He's been a physics professor at Stanford for more than 40 years. Came out of nowhere?
You can watch hundreds of his lectures on stanford university's channel. He teaches many topics like classical mechanics, relativity, cosmology, quantum mechanics, string theory....he's a beast.
My favourite Professor in the world.
Greetings from Germany. I could listen to Leonard Susskind all day… every day. His ability to explain komplex processes understandably is simply uncanny! Grüße gen Stanford aus Göttingen.
This reminds me of the puddle of water who one day found itself existing in a pot hole. "Wow, this pothole seems to be absolutely perfect for me... its width and depth create the perfect size to contain me... not to big not to small... almost as if it was created with my existence in mind."
He continues to ponder this concept until a car drove over the pothole and splashed him out... splashed out of existence never to be remembered. Splashed out of awareness of its perfect universe. The most insignificant of experience.
But we're special!! Hahaha
But why the puddle is sentient
@@kingdomofbird8174 doesn't much matter, does it?
Water will conform to the shape of any cavity, any hole will do for water.
Not the case with life.
This is where the analogy fails.
@@kinetic7609 except here on earth, we see life conform to every imaginable environment, no matter how harsh they may seem. And we see life not just existing, but thriving in places we'd never expect. Environments do not form to suit the life they support, rather life makes do with the environment it's provided.
Susskind is superb like a proper guy with the knowledge from downtown love it
With all his efforts to explain how things are as they are, I wonder how he would account for how these things began to exist at all.
Allah !
@@gireeshneroth7127 then who created allah ? Your answer sucks
@@commandvideo it’s the only logical conclusion.
You guys stop at “I guess it’s always been there.”
Theists go a step further and imagine what the implications of a self-existent entity would really mean.
At least in my view. We’ll all find out, or not.
Because, wizards!
Turtles!
I love lenny susskind. He speaks so well and has a very clear understanding of things.
It amazes me to listen to someone as academically distinguished and accomplished as Dr. Susskind descibe the infinitesimal liklihood of our existence because of the ultra-fine-tuned cosmological constant, then repeatedly subconsciously use words like "design" and "create" throughout this interview, but literally laugh off the existence of God as a possible reasonable explanation for the knife's-edge reality of our cosmological and biological existence. Yet he just validated the hand of God.
Consider the possibility that your concept of "creation" is tainted by the presupposition of god
Leo- you have already won a loosing battle with gravity.
You are gravitonless and timeless hero, an hugely intelligent and though-provoking scientist who can easilly get the matter across.
Thanks Professor Susskind. Long live Leonard !!!
Is this a praise or an irony?
If you truly remember your childhood, you will understand that you knew answers to all of these types of questions. The things is that the universe is not accidental by nature but rather incidental. This is something that children see very well because they have not yet been taught all the explanations of whatever timeline one happens to live in.
A man being is born ignorant, not stupid.. And he is made stupid through education
or maybe it’s because their brains aren’t developed and they’re given simple explanations by their parents. Children are curious-“why? Why? Why?” It’s the same reason scientists ask these questions about the universe.
Susskind... "we approaching the end of observation".. greatest statement ever!!
He seems like such a sage in his craft.
I want the information in this man's mind added to my own. My goodness, what a brilliant human specimen.
U can watch his lectures for free on here
Isn't it amazing that constants exist at all in a world where everything is constantly changing?
+LARRY Yea, they are like pillars by which everything emerges from. Kind of tells you something..
I like the way Leonard Susskind more or less leaves 'other universes' or 'multiple universes' as pockets within essential one universe with variable conditions - which in a way suggests that many of the constants, aren't so constant, and the laws of physics, broken or different in other regions of one universe. Great interviewing, too, by Steven Weinberg (am I spelling his name correctly?).
Similar to our elements on the periodic table , that create certain attributes when combing certain building blocks, other universes who, let's say dont have electrons, will create balancing atoms and create a different periodic table of elements.
It's very true that many people are too ignorant about other possibilities
Easy thumbs up. The most cogent exploration of fine-tuning yet.
Thanks for sharing and thanks Leonard Susskind for speaking with us.
for my self the same conclusion was made in first year Biology, i began to ask my professor questions on the origin of DNA, and the best thing he could do is point me to the Miller-Urey experiment. Evolution does a fantastic job of explaining how the DNA molecule works once it exists, evolution does not explain DNA's existence and the Fact that the earliest fossils records we have still have DNA as complex as it is today, even Anthony flew had the courage to admit this.
DNA is formed from stuff like nitrogenous base, molecules etc (stuff we can make easily) but it contains also adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine from which (as you already know from Miller-Urey experiment) we can create only adenine, but I see no reason why we shouldn’t one day be able to create cytosine etc also.
So, the conclusion is that DNA *most* likely formed from chemical soups from under the ocean.
An Atheist Incorrect. Absolutely not. If you think the cosmological constant is small, what you are suggesting is trillions and trillions of times less likely.
@@manofgod7622 yeah as if nature is the same as a controlled environment with pure chemical substances like a human lab, fuck off
@@manofgod7622 that's the point "able to "create" cytosine etc also." the word "create" implies a creator. amen!
What an incredibly intelligent and intelligible man Leonard is.
Anytime you Evaluate Something It loses Appreciation ! And the longer, You must keep It Fresh, totally unbiased .
This guy once dealt with plumbing and now homes in on the nature of the universe. I once dealt with plumbing and finally made it up to the 17th century and home in on the nature of bagpipes. I love the way this guy forms premises. Of all the possible places, only the few places like have life "like" us.
For anything to be 'surprising' or 'unlikely' it has to be one 'event' that is different in a series of 'events'. We only have and ever will have one example of a 'universe' so have no other 'events' to compare it with so by definition it cannot be surprising or unlikely. He says 'we can only live where we CAN live' - end of story !
I'd like to listen to this man talking for all day long.
The design argument is one of the most powerful argument that human being created . But its very deep to understand it in its different way
I think this argument (or the question, rather) has some big flaws. Why do we assume that a conscious observer or 'life' can only exist in the carbon based biological form we know?
If we assume life and consciousness (which we have no idea how it works btw) can exist in other forms then the question becomes pointless. The universe is simply always "fine-tuned" for the kind of life that can exist in it.
EDIT: leonard said it himself that countless possibilities are a prerequisite but he seems to disregard the possibility for countless forms of life and consciousness.
exactly what i thought (Y)
You need a stable molecule for anything to exist. It’s not about life. It’s about chemistry
@@theresachung703 so when does the mind arise in a molecule. Also dark matter is not made of molecules. Your point is moot.
@@fitnesspoint2006 Maybe your right. Maybe there's a weird-looking monster in another universe. If that's what you believe I recommend you right a book with Dr. Seuss. I don't see any evidence that something that doesn't have our DNA can be living or counciouslly observant until you have evidence its just a speculation.
@@leechybreeze I have that evidence. She served me yesterday in my local post office
Kudos to this educator, we need more like him! I'm with him and tend lean toward his 'reason #3', however, listen closely to his last words. "and, a way of populating those possibilities'. So we're back to where we started aren't we? I ask what is the 'prime mover' what started the whole thing? Maybe we should revisit explanation #1 and give thanks for our ability to comprehend such questions for the the 70-80 odd years we have physical existence on terra firma :)
I've thought about this. The existence of 'God' doesn't guarantee that the God knows we're here. Moreover, if we were created in his image we could use an analogy. If I create a soup I don't necessarily know what happened to each pea. Nor do I care. Maybe that pea was undercooked compared to the onion. I don't know that. I don't care. And I will happily eat it. (7/10 on that analogy, but you get it I'm sure). :)
"what is the 'prime mover' what started the whole thing?"
There is no prime mover, life is an accident, it may have only happened once, here and now, or it may be something that happens regularly.
The universe is not constant, it will disappear and another will start again from the energy left behind, but the next, and the one before this one, may have no similarity to this one. Life on Earth has lasted for the merest fraction of a fraction of a microsecond in the the time span of THIS universe, and even less in the infinity of universes that have been before this one. We are not important in space-time, all we can do is make life as good as possible for all life while we exist.
@@jonwolf7252 I Know God, and God's name is Pure Chance.
The fact that the universe could be any other way shows that it is dependent
"And He created everything and ordained it in full measure.” - Holy Quran
"Cosmological constant"; how fascinating...
I also found that interesting. All of the things that he concludes after discussing the "edge of the knife" are merely speculations that just beg further questions. I find it quite odd how, him being a scientist, puts so much faith in a mere "mathematical possibility" based on string theory. Its interesting how so many scientists hold to this theory that is a mere possibility, without much evidence. Then they are quick to conclude other mathematical possiblities like white holes don't exist.
Thank you professor for your time.
And space!
There's one thing people always forget - these (let's say) 30 constants are not completely independent of each other. It's not like you have 30 knobs on a machine and "someone" sets each one individually to a "perfect" setting and makes them all magically work toghether. One affects the possibilities and the range of others. It's more like 30 people in a line, one imagines a number, tells the number to the person next to them and adds "also, add 1-3 to my number as you wish and give similar instructions to the next person". Many of them are linked and why that's important is that some values EMERGE from the values of others. Some values are not an example of "let's carefully plan this to choose a value - ok, make it 3" but rather "ok, constant x is 8 and constant y is -5 so constant z is - 3". Oversimplification, yes, but just as an illustration. This changes everything enormously, it means you do not have to imagine an "almighty perfect creator" cause nobody else could decide on 30 values to make universe with life in it. It means you may need only a few initial values to be "right" (for OUR form of life), which you have to admit is incredibly different from the other proposal. Imagine baking a cake where you mix flour and water and you have to invent what you'll get and if you imagine wrong there's no cake. No, they do their thing and you get a new third thing - dough. It emerged, you didn't have to create it separately.
Wow, 11 years old video. Never knew this channel existed for so long. Been watching since last few years only. Great channel. Wondering how many such hidden gems are unknown until youtube algorithm recommends them.
"why gravity is so much weaker than the other forces...well we don't really know but here is we do know even if it was a little bit stronger...stars will burn out too quickly...they wouldn't live long enough for life to evolve.." if this is not fine tuning then what is fine tuning? 🤷🏻♂️
If you watch the whole video, Susskind suggests that there may simply be numerous random possibilities within what he calls the megaverse, and ours is just the one that happens to work.
@@tinetannies4637 I did watch the whole video actually. You're welcome to keep the notion that 'ours just happens to work' without any reason or its just a fluke?
@@tinetannies4637 Or it can also mean if it is not fine tuned find one example where you can say that look this planet also happens to have life. But you can't yet find any example and thus rely on other possibilities to prove it as an accident. And we are not even discussing the prime mover of all such possible megaverses
The beauty of this universe is that it does ask questions through us. It seems it would be an amazing waste of a bubble universe ( that is huge as ours ) if nobody was around to admire it... or a mindless empty universe. Aren’t we the mind of the universe?
Somebody says something like that in Werner Herzog's documentary 'Encounters at the End of the World'. That the universe created us to look at itself, we are the universe admiring itself. But frankly I think those UFOs zipping around the skies and oceans, defying all known laws of physics, I think those guys have some explaining to do. I think we need to know what's up with those guys, before we can claim to be the mind of the universe.
"Blueprints" are always created by an Architect.
I could listen to susskind all day and all night
This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' -Douglas Adams
ErgoCogita A perfect analogy in a few words that ime damn sure very few people got when reading:)
+ErgoCogita The weak anthropic argument has been solidly refuted, you didn't get the memo.
jonesgerard
I'm not sure how you think I disagree with you when the entire point to the quote above is too highlight the fact.
Well, if you change the shape and size of the hole in your analogy, the water will still exist even if it's in another hole; however if you change the 'shape and size' (the numbers) of the cosmological constant even so slightly the universe itself wouldn't exist. So if the pond was conscious and had any sense at all, it should reason that 'hey, if someone used their pinky finger to move a bit of mud from my hole; then I, and the hole that shelters me, as well as any possible configuration of holes that could ever shelter me, would dissappear to nonexistence'. Unfortunately not all holes think this way though.
+ErgoCogita What is the consequence of the puddle fitting the hole.? nothing.
It doesn't produce a universe does it?
It does nothing. But you think its the same thing.
Conway's "Game of Life" says that even with silly simple rules, intelligent life would evolve from a sufficiently-large universe sown with a random starting situation. Maybe there is the possibility for life in many other universes, although it wouldn't look much like us
you're expanding the game of life to something much much more higher
"I have proof for the multi-verse!" said no one ever.
I do.
There is the trivial multiverse, equivalent to the empty set, and this exists trivially.
The next smallest multiverse contains one universe. We observe one, hence we live a multiverse which contains within itself this next smallest multiverse. Hence, nontrivial multiverse exists.
@@u.v.s.5583 interesting- what do you mean in layman's terms?
@@bombdottcom111 If I have one bottle of beer, I have beer. The quantity of BEER in BEER is not specified. The number of universes in a multiverse is not specified either, and it is not at all clear that we speak of multiverse only if it has at least two elements - at least two universes. One may be enough.
@@u.v.s.5583 yeah that's what's weird and mysterious about this theory.
@@u.v.s.5583 sounds like the ontological argument for God. Just as useful too.
This is the best thing i ever seen on some sort of monitor....
Very interesting talk. Thanks.
Backwards question.
Life & mind are tuned by the universe.
I'd really appreciate if someone explained the image on Mr Susskind's shirt....
M1KA3L it's a drawing of the way one string decays into two strings, sort of a short hand like Feynman diagram in QED( quantum electrodynamics). the diagrams are a simple expression to help understand how strings behave. but the math behind it is extremely difficult both in QED and string theory.
I'm pretty sure there are two snails crawling in that diagram
la creación es hermosa, saber que soy parte de ella me hace feliz, somos energia inteligente. somos luz. ramon.
Probably the best video I have seen on RUclips.
First our planet looks fine-tuned, then our solar system, then our galaxy and then scientific progress has shown that our planet, solar system and galaxy are not the only ones, but there might be infinitely many. Now our universe seems fine-tuned? In my opinion the best explanation is that our universe is just one of many.
The universe is not finely tuned for anything nor does it have some sort of goal it's trying to reach. Everything in this universe conforms to the laws of this universe and if the numbers were different, everything in that universe would conform to the laws of that universe. From the universe's perspective we're no different from a rock or for that matter, anything else in the universe but we try to give ourselves more importance.
exiledfrommyself "we're no different from a rock"
So you consider yourself to be as unimportant as a rock.
Atheist physicists accept the element of fine tuning. If they didn't they wouldn't have to resort to a multiverse.
But its important to note the multiverse idea has only one purpose,
and that purpose is to elude the implication of a designer and nothing else, its not even science.
jonesgerard I consider humans more important than rocks but that's just my subjective opinion. In the eyes of the universe, rock human - same difference.
If any Atheist physicists say there is such a thing as "fine tuning" they don't know what they're talking about. The universe is what it is and everything in it is just an unintended consequence of the expansion.
*****
There is no "fine tuning problem". Science can only tell you what the numbers are. Trying go beyond that is not science. Things like the meaning and purpose behind something are all creations of the human mind; they don't exist outside of it.
The numbers are what they are and everything in the universe conforms to those numbers. I'm sure you've heard the example of someone looking at a puddle and then claiming the hole in the ground was fine tuned for the water because the water fits the shape of the hole so perfectly. The water took the shape of the hole and if the hole was different the water would take that shape. What would give me pause is if the universe was made up of different numbers and we still managed to exist in our current form. Us and everything else in the universe conforming to the laws of the universe is expected and shouldn't lead anyone to believe that there's some sort of design element.
***** I cling to what is, not to what someone speculates. If you think the numbers have some sort of meaning behind them I'm more than willing to hear and examine your evidence.
Regardless of the miracles he describes in the Universe & the miracle of existence itself, God still still seems out of the question. Christianity sent science on a mission to find God, and he keeps showing up, only to be denied his existence.
the God hypothesis just replaces one problem with another
An enormously important and illuminating interview.
You are about as right as a wrong man ain't right.
People get mad at me for loving this stuff. They don’t want it. I love it. This last year at 65, I’ve been taught quantum physics by our new buddy AI with utubes help. This is exactly where it leads me. This ocupies my mind as I work all day. Good stuff. solution three is inevitable. I’ve number four. God, er no the universe itself is using tests, observation, research, information ect just the way humans do to decide what’s next. It creates a paradox of the unsolavble because the test beds interact. Call it Scott quantum observable quantum paradox, It seems we found the computer code to simulate the universe, organization, but the computer itself is absent. You, your mind and the data, the universe together we create this consciousness so yes it is conscious too solving much. I theorize more. I love it some like it. I discuss this with AI and my current coworkers so so great.
Susskins bio is interesting. Read it!! He was working as a plumber before he studied physics....." When I told my father I wanted to be a physicist, he said, ‘Hell no, you ain’t going to work in a drug store.’ I said no, not a pharmacist. I said, ‘Like Einstein.’ He poked me in the chest with a piece of plumbing pipe. ‘You ain’t going to be no engineer,’ he said. ‘You’re going to be Einstein.’"
WOW It makes one feel like someone wanted us around
Marvelous Exchange. 2 masters at their best. Per the video, there are couple of dozen constants that rest on razors edge, if they were different, we couldn't be here. Chiefly among these is the tiny cosmological constant. We're talking a force with 123 numerical places to the right of the decimal. Nobody knows why it is so small but if it were bigger stars and planets could not have formed. Physicists don't understand why it is so small, but it is curious that this universe is so fine tuned for life. At then end of this video, Suskin makes the analogy that just as there are an infinite way of rearranging DNA do make life forms, so it is with matter. We only see one configuration of matter in this universe, but there may be other universes out there with very different properties than ours.
Wow. The term Megaverse was on my mind even before I knew about the Multiverse concept. Not exactly same but my term was "Mega-Universe"
So, can any one here tell me why they think the universe is fine-tuned for life, instead of just fine-tuned to produce carbonaceous chondrites? Or methane? Or carbon dioxide? These things are dependent on all the same constants and laws as life as we know it, so why do people think life is *more important* than these other things? Why are they so incredibly anthropocentric? Also, who says there aren't other possible combinations of laws that also allow life, but life not as we know it? Life dependent on other kinds of laws of attraction and repulsion, laws that produce completely different kinds of particles and different kinds of interactions? Why do you think our current, carbon-base life is the only possible form of life?
yes there is a bias. one could say "maybe the universe is finely tuned for ipads" the reason there is a human bias is because it might make some sense that a big magic man would be motivated to make a universe for people but doesn't seem like he would for apple products.
the fact is the world is finely tuned for life (as well as electronics) and that does demand an explanation, naturalistic or otherwise.
i do agree that life most likely could evolve in very very different conditions, even if it took trillions or Quadrillions of years, because life is statistically inevitable that if life CAN possibly form sooner or later it will. However you do need a universe for that and some if some parameters were diff there would be no stable universe so thats a factor
i recommend Sean Carroll on this topic
Shehzad Ahmed
not true. there is not reason the universe couldn't be rearranged in such a way that there are no atoms but energy is rearranged in such a way life can occur. its easy to imagine life without atoms
The roll of the dice, probabilities. You wouldn't be alive to know any other alternative than this one. I am speaking of course of the theory of the multiverse. If true, which it seems it may be. Then there are many Universes and we just happen to be in the lucky one that can produce life with this random set of variables.
One word answer... ego.
This fine-tuning sounds like the one miracle physicists need in order to explain everything else by natural laws.
Nope. Can't have it!
Go pray some more
@@jamesgrey7031
Non-sequitur. Off topic. Come back when you have something relevant to add.
I heard a lot about the Multiverse before; and the Megaverse of Susskind is a very new and nice way to put it. Talking about bubble Universes in a Multiverse make it seems like the bubbles are evolving in something. As I understand it from Leonard, It is really one Mega Universe in which quantum fluctuations make the physic different from places to places. I like it
Must be God's work right?
inelegant and ridiculous right; but I dont expect more than that from a guy named AnarchoRepublican.
The fact that the universe could be any other way shows it’s dependency… requiring a necessary being
Wow such an interesting topic.
What was the name of this interview? I really enjoyed it, want more!
One of my favorite living physicists hands down! Thanks to RUclips and Stanford I’ve sat through HOURS of his lectures. Oddly enough, THIS video, from my favorite atheist physicist, is one of many reasons why I believe in a God/Supreme being. #CosmologicalKnifeEdge
BrootPK I came to Jesus while studying biology (DNA) in college and found Susskind and was amazed at his simple way of explaining such amazing singly complex subjects- I bet a lot of these scientists truly believe behind the scenes (I actually know hundreds of biologists who are Christians but cannot admit this as to lose grant funding and so on). This guy is terrific- my dad read about him in the early 70s.....
Go ahead as long as you don’t attach a religion to it
Walter Daems what if the facts support a religion? Would you still turn a blind eye? The Big Bang was the creation event described in Gen 1:1. The scientific facts we have today prove the universe had a supernatural beginning (because there were no laws of nature before the Big Bang) I was an atheist scientist for about 10 mins back in the 90s and science is what revealed GOD to me. I let the facts speak for themselves and it exposed complexity that no natural causes could “ create” ...... that’s truly a case for “Naturalism of the gaps “. We don’t know but we can dEF cancel out a supernatural occurrence because our “faith” won’t allow it. Just follow the evidence . It’s all black and white
Bad Gator the ‘facts’ support all and none religions and are completely supportive in the eye of the beholder. People tend to transform their wishes into beliefs but believing and thinking are two different exercises. Unfortunately, once people are caught up in a belief system they are not longer approachable in a rational way. I confess that I don’t know if God(s) exist but I’m pretty sure that he, she or it won’t have a high opinion from a flock, preachers and pope’s who are so arrogant to pretend that they know what he, she or it is thinking and I’m even more convinced that he, she or it doesn’t give a rats ass about abortion, gays and all matters that make believers wave with one or another religion.
Walter Daems do you believe in objective truth or is your truth good for you and mine is good for me? Does 2+2= 4 in your world? It does in the real world and in every world. This has nothing do for with subjectivity or “wishes turning into beliefs” or I’d totally be following Buddha. Christianity doesn’t make anyone comfortable. Quite the opposite. If calls out what’s wrong in the world and gives a playbook in which to live a moral life by with an objective standard for those morals.
The ongoing trouble with our expectations for the physics of a living universe is we continue to believe that life and individuality are defined by the host form. Individuality is in fact defined by a position-of-view (POV) in space-time instantiated to any viable hosting entity that may arise, naturally or not, in any given universe or location therein by its indigenous laws of physics. In fundamental hosts, ergo cells, the POV is an instantiated antenna state maintained within every living cell by the natural entanglement between its cellular entanglement molecules (EM) with a nonlocal type of matter particle called meta-matter. All living QE channels, ergo; POV's are established at unique degrees of freedom of the QE spectrum. These DOF are called the quantum entanglement frequency (QEF). It is the unique QEF that most fundamentally defines individuality and its universal mobility. Further, meta-matter is as necessary to life as dark matter is to galaxy formation. Certain DOF of the instantiated cellular QE channel is shared among cellular organelles to establish life in inanimate matter. In complex hosts, an emerged POV is established by specialized cells called entanglement cells (EC) which have evolved to heterodyne or combine their own unique QE channels to establish a new unique POV, your POV, established at unique values of the degrees of freedom of the QE spectrum. The POV is the most fundamental target of a living being for whatever telemetry any host form is capable of producing. Your instantiated POV places you where you are in space-time. Wherever viable host may emerge in nature you may be instantiated by this mechanism regardless of distance or host form. The physics that underpins this natural mechanism are completely compatible with the physics of this universe. www.amazon.com/dp/B07JHFDLSC
Great Discussion ...👍👍👍
Maybe I'm just being dense, but it seems to me we are the way we are because the universe is the way it is. The universe is not the way it is simply to support us. This just doesn't seem to be a valid question to me.
If the universe weren't the way it is now we simply would not be. For me it is something like we are in the Goldilocks zone of the univers timewise. It's as simple as that. No big mystery.
Life takes hold where can. At some point our current universe will not exist. Then there will be something else. Perhaps that something else will be completely hostile to life. Would we then if we were able to perceive that time think gee, existence must really hate us because we are unable to exist here. This place is fine tuned against us...?
Anyway you get my point.
David F I sure do, and so it goes...
David F finally a brain.... YAY! You are correct sir!
David F At last, someone who sees it like i do, simple:/ We exist because the random conditions of the verse..the constants, came out in a way that allowed the formation of atoms, galaxys, stars, etc:/ It could be no other way and still have us here arguing about "fine tuning",lol. AS he said, taking earth as example, wow, what a miracle the earth just happened to be just right for us:/ Got the donkey by the tail, we are here only because conditions are right for life like ours, so thats what you get! Could have been different, probably is in one of the many other verses that i have little doubt exist out there. His "pocket universes", only i see it as many individual verses, each with its own laws, not connected by physical space as he suggests. Why do they over complicate shit:/ It does NOT cry out for an explanation, its pretty bloody obvious:/
David F That's fine and logical. I used to think like you until I understood the Boltzmann brain paradox.
So I cant just quickly answer a question like you did. This is still unknown. Mystery... it's fascinating.
www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2008/12/29/richard-feynman-on-boltzmann-brains/
I warn you though this is hard concept to grasp totally...
I've heard of the Boltzman brain paradox. Need to refresh my memory. Will look into it again more closely. Maybe we can discuss the ideas presented. Thanks for the idea.
The Anthropic Principle implies that this sort of thing is just what we should expect. Not "fine tuning" but the apprehension that there is such a thing as "fine tuning".
If you come to it from a theistic point of view the "fine tuning" is there to see. If you come at it with no preconceptions the apprehension disappears.
What we can say with some certainty is that the universe is what it is and life is a product of it. Any assumption of purpose, design, fine tuning etc. is guesswork.
Good statement sir.
@Jon. We don't. That response is provoked by the same anthropocentric bias that gives us the fine tuning illusion.
Life is the flexible component.
That rather depends on what you mean, or seek to convey by,or how you define," the universe", which appears to be no more than of vague generalisation, that can*Never be focussed clarified or defined, without reference to cognates synonyms, circularity, descriptions and psychological algebra
You have to appreciate the candor in AE's explanation: theories, ideas, investigation, even in recognizing these approaches seek to offer explanation as to how the universe may behave but not in how it arose.
Other life could live in more extreme conditions, not just where water is present....even if it's a single cell organism. Extremities.
It can, any examples?
The Universe was clearly fine tuned for death. It is an instrument "tuned" to a sadistic melody.
Life for individuals is unimaginably short. As a more general concept, life itself (and planets and stars for that matter) are possible only in a tiny fraction of the universe and for only a relatively small part of the Universe's expansion until it spreads out into an infinitely cold empty void.
The smaller you are, the faster you die. Of course there are some exceptions. But how long does one of your skin cells live? How long do you live? How long does a planet live? How long does a sun, a solar system, a galaxy, how long does a universe live? The bigger you are, the longer you live.
Aaron Shure evil comes from somewhere I m sure if you dig deep enough you ll be able to figure it out.
Mike Subban it comes from the shadowy parts of human imagination
Aaron Shure LMHO!!
The more I learn about these topics the more thankful I am to have experienced life and consciousness. No matter how painful and short it can be.
Fined. Tuned to me means perfect music that this Earth and occupants only hear November 2019 sound comes first then movement occurs
Very interesting! Thanks.
I love this guy
the professor and others like him seem to have stumbled into philosophy - we have not observed anything like a multiverse or detected the necessary extra dimensions nor charted the vastness of the landscape, yet he speaks as if it is.... what we have is the observable universe... and that is incredibly fine tuned.... draw your own conclusions....
obviously we, the people alive on earth are a part of a tiny slice of probability that could hold life... so it's no surprise that this outcome would boggle many minds... but just accept that we.. our earth is in a mega sweet spot so just enjoy this awesome outcome and enjoy what happiness we can gather in such a small time? to even read this sentence you are one of the lucky humans to grace your vision on this planet... do you know what i mean? some will understand my message but many will not, but enjoy
In addition to the huge number of possibilties you would need sentient observers the mechanism for selection bias. But this would mean sentient observers might have selected a different universe pocket except for this bias...which implies that observers can not be simply another feature of the bubnle universe.
We are fine tuned for physical law. Not the other way around. I like how he was influenced by biological "design space" but I strongly suggest he should use a somewhat more accurate term of recipe, not blueprint, for a variable law universe. Most evolutionary biologists would tend to suggest the same regarding DNA. There is no representation of the finished product within DNA so blueprint fails to convey the emergent effect of simple chemical reactions.
***** "Technically, the system as it functions via DNA already contains all the possible calculable blueprints/products"
You tried to slide the word blueprint right back into a statement that is supposed to explain _WHY_ the word "blueprint" should be used. A blueprint is a representation of the finished product. Nowhere within DNA is there any such representation, in whole nor in part.
"But the "tuning" is not in the above... It is, as you've said, in the "effect of simple chemical reactions", meaning - all the Universal constants, all chemical constants, the nuclear forces, the electromagnetic constants of Nature..."
That effectively destroys any power in the fine tuning argument as it is used by theists. What is left in it's ashes is an argument for deism.
"If the Universe wasn't fine-tuned, then they should be "evolving" in separate parts of the cosmos differently"
Your conclusion does not follow from the single premise you gave. However, it does suggest that it is possible that some constants _ARE_ different in other patches of the Universe. After all, if the Universe can evolve/change from it's primordial conditions at different times/places, then why can't some of the conditions be different in disparate patches and/or at different times? Nobody is arguing that they _ALL_ have to be subject to change, merely some. And a little change goes a long way in a causal chain.
In the end, I think Feynman said it best with :
_If it turns out it’s like an onion with millions of layers and we’re just sick and tired of looking at the layers, then that’s the way it is, but whatever way it comes out it’s nature is there and she is going to come out the way she is, and therefore when we go to investigate it we shouldn’t predecide what it is we’re trying to do except to try to find out more about it. _ -Richard Feynman
***** "because there are Laws that supersede things, which govern everything past the size of Planck units. You won't find much on this angle in your public physics courses schoolbooks."
Are you just practicing sophistry or what? Do you really think physical laws and the Planck scale are somehow an arcane "angle"?
"It is very arrogant of mankind to devise and to put forward "Theories of Everything","
Audacious, not arrogant.
"But have Faith. ;=)"
Meh, I have no need for faith. Reason is a far superior tool.
It is Doubtful whether you have even reached the ERGO!
Thank God for Fine Tuning.
God was fine tuned to meet our primitive needs.
God is the point where you stop asking.
Yes, thanks to the Great Moogly Googly for the universe. And thanks to him for tuning this .00000000000000000001% that we can survive in, just for us.
What if he's a an asshole?
@@zagyex WHAT?! God is the point where you start asking!
We try to describe as accurately as possible what is the case. We come up with a model that describes (certain aspects of) it very well. We notice that if we would change certain constants in that model, slightly, then it would describe a universe that would not have us... This does not say anything about what is the case. It just shows that our theories are very specifically aimed at describing what is the case in the universe that does have us.
So, possibility three paraphrased is "bubble universes" or "pocket universes" with the anthropic principle. I choose three, without the unnecessary assumption of pocket multiverses.
If anything, the thought that there are so many possibilities for how the universe could be structured without complex conscious observers (complexity being somewhat relative, of course) is more astounding to me than the observation that we are in one of the few that supports complex conscious observers, since that is easily explainable via the anthropic principle.
Perhaps one could explain the plethora of possibilities with a sort of meta-anthropic principle, that would say something like "more possibilities entails more of a chance that one of those possibilities will work". This sort of principle would be dealing with the idea of other systems of logic and other structures of existence, though, so any meta-anthropic principle would be making the assumption right off the bat that the other structures of existence it tries to explain are very similar to the structure of existence in our universe.
That still leaves a lot of gray area in a meta-anthropic theory, though. For instance, any such theory would have to define how much the other structures of existence it considers have in common with our own. Once a sufficient number of restrictions have been made, though, I imagine that such a theory could lead to some interesting statistical results. It would still be only a soft meta-anthropic theory, though, as not all possibilities would be accounted for (at least we assume that to be the case).
Sorry if this isn't a very clear comment. It's written more for my own understanding than for that of other fleshy walnuts.
How about this: life is fine tuned for the universe. I really dont get it why scientists keep debating its the other way around
+Kevin van den Hoek
Because people have very strong beliefs about God and are willing ignore their training in order to lead the evidence to their own preferred conclusion.
+Michael Hurwitz copout or not it may still be correct
+Kevin van den Hoek
This seems for right, honestly. After all, isn't evolutionary theory essentially about life adapting itself to environmental conditions, not the other way around?
That and, fine-tuning overestimates how suited for life the universe is. Even on earth, many environments are ill suited for life, most planets are ill suited for life. It seems arrogant to say the universe is the way it is so we can exist.
I think you missed the point. Yes life is fine tuned for the universe, but why is life even possible in the universe? Given the possible ranges of the constants, most possible universes should not allow ANY life, much less ours. So why are we in a universe that's incredibly unlikely?
This is the old conflict between the weak anthropic principle (WAP as earlier mentioned) and the strong anthropic principle and you haven't added anything new to the debate.
It's unlikely to be settled until there is a definitive answer as to whether we live in a multiverse or not, I'm not holding my breath.
Susskind tells it how it is.
He tells it from his very limited mind, which of course will have limited answers to what he can comprehend.
kasparov9 - Oh, poop on you! 💩🖕
Third option blows my mind to this day.
No, I watch all his lectures, his points are usually pretty well articulated, you seemed to be making the assumption I was critiquing Susskind's explanations.
What I said is true
QED
If my street was just two houses shorter, my house wouldn't fit in it.
I guess I'm just lucky.
Painting the bulls eye where the arrow landed
@@patgabo9686
I don't think the moon was fine tuned for life.
If that is an example of God's amazing work, then I am not impressed.
If I could work miracles and had billions of years to perfect my work, I think I would do better.
What exactly is the purpose of toenails and why do they keep growing ?
@@tedgrant2 lol....never have I heard a better atheist argument!
@@patgabo9686
I've got hair growing in places that I don't want hair growing.
What was God thinking when he decided to give me a hairy arm pits ?
And why did he give us canine teeth.
We are not dogs !
Megaverse, multiverse, string theory, lets rearrange the # of possibilities to explain how we think the universe, the galaxies, our solar system just so happened to support life. Only one problem though, none of it can be tested by the scientific method. Until then, it all exists within the frame work of ones imagination. But we will do this, let's call them "theories" to legitimize it and publish these notions before them fundamentalists laugh us out of the labs.
+Keith Bell
That's a great idea! We don't want to be laughed at after all.
Here is another idea: Let's come up with a crazy convoluted story about a magic man who lives in the sky who created everything. The scientists will know we are full of crap but, since they can't _disprove_ our story, we can always fall back to that! If we defend it with logical fallacies we might actually confuse some people into thinking the story is true. We will insist that scientists limit their ideas to the bounds of the scientific method while we can just believe our story without a shred of evidence because, well, we just say _we know_ it's true!
*****
How can it be tested?
These theories come from physicist's extrapolating known laws of physics. None of these ideas were created to figure out anything to do with life (that is a biologist's job, not physicist). Eternal Inflation (which is the main theory that derives a "multiverse"), was created to deal with questions surrounding the big bang. String theory was created as an attempt to answer questions surrounding quantum gravity. None of those investigations are a direct attempt to understand why our universe supports life.
No how deep it gets, no matter how completely physics can describe existence there will always be at least one fact it all depends on. Maybe that fact is some fundamental equation from which everything can be derived. Even then someone is going to ask: why that equation?
This is a good explanation of the anthropoid principle.
This is just confirmation bias. If we were not in a universe able to foster life we wouldn't be able to ask the question...
+Trent Bell The anthropic principle encapsulated .
+Trent Bell Maybe not, but the problem is still there. There IS a Universe/World/Reality (whatever you'd like to call the entierety of the world) and the ''laws'' are very precise for life to form at some point when the right conditions happen. Then, the Universe from which we are a part of gets self-concious of itself. Strange paradox really and I'm not confident to say it's either confirmation bias or some strange selfawareness mecanism the Universe possesses.
+Trent Bell
I think part of the problem with this is, without knowing how consciousness and thought themselves work, the best we can say is "We know life of the kind we have in this reality (organic beings primarily made of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc.) would not exist." Perhaps organic life exists on a knife's edge, but other kinds of thought or awareness as allowed in a material universe do not. This is not an explanation by any means, merely an acknowledgement of the limits of our current understanding. And while it is certainly no disproof, I think it does do merit to weaken the "spookiness" of fine tuning in this way.
Saying that doesnt solve the problem, it just ignores it.
DeusExAstra
You're assuming it's a problem with a solution, and excluding the ones which don't match your personal criteria for what a solution is. The truth is, it's only a problem in the first place because humans exist. Without people to think about the problem, there is no problem, only the existence mathematics, laws, and constants.
its gets even better than this. assume there is only one pathway to the appearance of the human genome. if, as far as we know, there is only one pathway to the appearance of the human genome. everything that has happened on earth, would have to occur in exactly the same order and under the exactly the same circumstances in another world, in another galaxy, in order for another set of the human genome to exist. this other world would have to recapitulate our cenozoic, mesozoic, paleozoic epochs. dinosaurs would have to be made extinct by a meteor etc. etc. etc.a lineage of primates would have had to evolve form a trembling marsupial etc, etc, etc....we are the only humans in the universe.....there are no other extra-terrestrials....we are unique....
+rafael rondon But who said the human genome is the only type of life that could exist? The assumptions you make have no basis, and therefore, your conclusion is invalid.
there are probably millions of different life forms and therefore different types of DNA that can exist. I was referring to specifically human DNA, I argue that to make human DNA you have to repeat the process that created human DNA. Human DNA exist inly in one place in the universe n human earth. I challenge you to think of another way to create human DNA.
rafael rondon Oh, I see. I agree with that, then, as it would be far too unlikely to make an exact copy of Human DNA by accident. That makes us a unique species, but that's the same with every other species. So, what I'm saying is that life is not unique to us on Earth.
I like this interviewer he is tough and demanding for complicated explanations, i seen several other interviewers.
it’s really not fair that anyone should be that good at math AND that good at explaining abstruse concepts to laymen