David Albert - The Physics of Fine-Tuning
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 июн 2023
- Get free access to Closer To Truth's library of 5,000 videos: closertotruth.com/
The fine-tuning of the constants of nature, which seems required for the existence of stars and planets and certainly for life and mind, is a fascinating feature of our universe. But before grand metaphysical schemes are advanced by philosophers, theologians, and even scientists, proper understanding of the underlying assumptions and fundamental physics are needed.
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on the fine-tuning of the universe: rb.gy/ebq7l
David Z. Albert, PhD, is Frederick E. Woodbridge Professor of Philosophy and Director of the MA Program in The Philosophical Foundations of Physics at Columbia University in New York. He received his BS in physics from Columbia College (1976) and his doctorate in theoretical physics from The Rockefeller University (1981) under Professor Nicola Khuri. Afterwards he worked with Professor Yakir Aharonov of Tel Aviv University.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
What people don't seem to often remember (including myself) is how complicated and detailed science gets at the nuts and bolts level. Think of a single cell. It has hundreds of components. And there are groups of researchers publishing peer reviewed papers on just one of those components, while others may be looking at how this one component interacts with another. That leaves hundreds of other components and interactions being researched by other groups of researchers reporting findings in what become thousands of peer reviewed papers. Etc. Theorists and philosophers have a tough job keeping up with all that, I imagine.
They are discussing the fundamental physical processes that enable those particular cell components to even exist.
Deeper down, why do the elementary particles even exist? Why do they then form protons, neutrons, and atoms?
Our biochemistry doesn't occur without the structure of the periodic table of elements. Science doesn't know why those atoms exist, only that they do.
You may say "Who cares?!" However, MRI machines only work due to the peculiar magnetic property of protons that is tough to explain. Why do all protons have the excact same magnetic moment, and why that particular value?
I recently published a paper on this topic: "Ground state quantum vortex proton model" in Foundations of Physics on January 23, 2023.
The subject of fine-tuning is more basic than the actual chemistry of life, though, isn't it? Fine-tuning has to do with the free parameters in the equations of physics that make chemistry possible in the first place. For example, before you can have chemistry, you first have to have a periodic table. To get a periodic table, you first have to have star formation. To get star formation, there are constants that have to fall within a certain range of values.
I agree it's complicated at the nuts and bolts level, though. How do we know what a universe would look like if we tweaked the constants? There are so many equations of physics and so many free parameters, how can we possibly vary all the parameters through all the range of possible values of all the constants and solve each equation for every possible variation in order to construct a universe? We would need supercomputers to run simulations to be able to figure that out. Is anybody actually running these kinds of simulations?
*"Think of a single cell. It has hundreds of components. And there are groups of researchers publishing peer reviewed papers on just one of those components, while others may be looking at how this one component interacts with another."*
... And I see a prokaryote in more simplistic terms. Amongst all of the many processes you've mentioned, I simply see a single-strand nucleoid encased within a protective outer shell. The nucleoid represents "life," and the capsule shell is what protects it from "death." I also see a prokaryote as an evolution of a hydrogen atom's single positively charged proton and negatively charged electron. In other words, "positive and negative" evolved into "life and death," respectively.
To return to your point, we could be missing the forest from the trees by focusing more on all the components instead of what they represent as a whole.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC When I was at university, my mentor and I had a friendly ongoing debate. He, the researcher, was more than perfectly happy to be making the bricks and other components for the building; while I favoured explaining how all the components related together into one big theory of the building. As it turns out (I just looked him up) he is continuing to publish to this day in his 80s, while I never did figure out any grand theory; although, lol, I still seem to be pondering them. Of course, we both were right; both are needed.
@@philochristosPlease don't say that we Now know because we don't know anything at all .
Brain in a vat
Fish in a Tank
Having to invent an infinitum of universes to explain our one universe is suspect.
They said it wasn’t, that a multiverse derives on its own from math
Why ? What if this is the answer . Try telling someone 1000 years ago that the sun was just one of a 100billion stars in just one galaxy of hundreds of billions of galaxies . Science demonstrates that we are always much smaller than we imagine all the time
@@tonyatkinson2210 You prove my point. The progression of science shows that later science shows older science to be incorrect. Thus, there's no reason to believe it's correct now.
@@youtubetrailerpark im not sure how the fact that scientific findings are provisional proves you are right about the universe .
@@tonyatkinson2210 I never said I was right about the universe.
Love these videos
I also love these videos, they are a bit masterbatury though. Like, why do you breathe oxygen? Because that's the way it had to be for me to have this conversation. They didn't mention the anthropological argument at all...
Another explanation for fine tuning is that a retrocausal, feedback-loop is present that is constantly at work around the wave function collapse. A massive number of probabilities are spun out but reality emerges as the retrocasual, feedback-loop fixes on a single reality with the best probability of sustainability.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't we as life forms fine-tuned and slowly evolved to exist in our environment, rather than the environment fine-tuned _for us._
You don’t understand the fine tuning problem at all
Love this serie of videos. That's mean a lot to me, thank you for your existence
Thanks for watching!
@@CloserToTruthTV Are you doing this in other universes?
@@ronhudson3730 😂There's a Bizarro version of Robert Kuhn out there in some other universe doing a program called Closer to Untruth!
Setting universal fine tuning aside for a moment.. Many of us understand that SOLAR SYSTEMS are NOT fine-tuned for life. Instead, a very large number of randomly distributed values such as location in the galaxy, star properties, orbital mechanics, planetary characteristics, and much more will essentially ensure that SOME will be suited for life.. Of COURSE, we would therefore find ourselves located on one of THOSE planets wondering why things are so fine-tuned.. Peace.
Hopefully, that's an understandable metaphor for so-called "fine-tuned constants"
The fine-tuning of the whole universe involves numbers greater than the total number of particles in the visible universe. To suggest it might be just a random fact seems improbable.
@user-zc4yd9ss7h Of course, friend, but you get the analogy, right? There are roughly 50 billion trillion solar systems in OUR observable universe, with randomized values.. A multiverse with the same or more UNIVERSES that ALSO have randomized constants/values.. Get it, friend? Peace.
I think that most people either don't really realize how fine tuned the universe actually is or they just dislike the premise so much they refuse to address it. The universe is not just fine tuned to the degree of winning the lottery it's fine tuned to the extent of much greater than the odds of picking out one atom out of all the atoms in the universe. Fine tuned to a degree of impossibility! It is a very uncomfortable idea for most physicists.
how do you know this? is there a set of variables at some basic level that exist in a combinatorial space larger than the number of atoms in the universe? If so, where?
I interpret his comment as more of a rough analogy, than stating some mathematical fact, and as an analogy it strikes me as a pretty good one.
@@thomasbradley2916 The expansion rate of the early universe is fine tuned to the degree of 10 to the 120. If it were 10 to the 119 or 10 to the 121 the early universe would have either collapsed back unto itself or expanded to quickly for stars to form. To give you an idea how large this number is consider this. 10 to the 10 is 10 billion which is more than every person alive today on the planet. 10 to the 21 is the total number of all the grains on sands on Earth. 10 to the 82 is the total number of atoms in the universe. Just the expansion rate of the universe is fine tuned to a degree much greater than even one atom in the entire universe! This does not even take into account the multiple other factors fine tuned to a minute degree. It also does not figure all the factors that make the occurrence of advanced life on our planet extremely unlikely. I don't have the answer to why this is so but the question is valid and perplexing.
Here is answer to the total number of atoms in the universe.
planetariodevitoria.org/en/espaco/qual-o-numero-de-atomos-do-universo.html
Argument from ignorance fallacy . Saying you can’t think why the universe is the way it is - is not a probability calculation
@@tonyatkinson2210 Why does it have to be a" probability calculation"? If you can explain the science of the early Universe I wait with baited ears.
It's surprising that Lee Smolin's theory of Cosmological Natural Selection wasn't mentioned. Unlike the multiverse theory that Albert did mention, in which "eternal inflation" produces a huge number of universes with randomly selected fundamental constants, CNS doesn't need to appeal to the Anthropic Principle to explain how we're lucky enough to find ourselves in one of the tiny fraction of universes that are hospitable to life. According to CNS, (1) universes that are good at producing black holes have laws of physics and fundamental constants that are compatible with life as we know it, and (2) every black hole spawns another universe with laws & constants similar to (but not necessarily exactly the same as) the laws & constants of the universe in which the black hole was created. It then follows by the evolutionary principle of natural selection that, if at least one universe produces black holes, then eventually most universes will be good at making black holes, and compatible with life.
It's a crackpot idea.
1) There is no actual reason to believe that black holes spawn new universes. This is only speculation
2) If black holes do spawn new universes, there's no mechanism for how they can keep the laws of physics mostly the same but not totally the same so that evolution could take place. Universes don't have DNA.
3) Our universe does not really look like the inside of a black hole. In particular, it's not rotating. And the cosmological event horizon is not the same kind of thing as a black hole event horizon.
4) Our universe is not actually extremely good at making black holes. It's just kind of so-so.
5) There's not really any reason to think that life is more likely in universes with lots of black holes. It isn't hard to construct hypothetical universes that are better at making black holes but worse or impossible for life. And most of the fine tuning needed for life doesn't make black holes easier.
6) You still need fine tuning because you have to assume some sort of progenitor universe that is capable of making black holes at all.
It's just really not a sound theory. The only plausible explanations are multiverse and God. And there's more evidence for God.
@@fluffysheap : I'll address some of your points:
2. Only the fundamental constants need to evolve. The laws can stay unchanged.
3. A universe spawned by a black hole shouldn't be assumed to BE the inside of a black hole. Penrose calculated that the singularity in a rotating black hole is ring-shaped, not a point, and traveling through the ring leads elsewhere.
6. The progenitor universe(s) may be the fraction of the "eternal inflation" random multiverse universes that produce black holes. There's no need to assume the earliest universe made black holes.
@@fluffysheapalso . Evolution might not require DNA. There may be other complex molecules and chemistry just in our own universe than could do it that we haven’t discovered yet, let alone the potential chemistry of other universes .
In a consistent VSL Model of gravity, where K is the refractive index of the vacuum at a given set of coordinates. The following variables are no longer constants, c/K, K*eps_0, K*mu_0, kg*K^3/2, G/K^4. The ones that remain constant for a VSL model are, h, alpha, e, and G/c^4. Maxwell's equations and Einstein's equations remain unchanged. Hence, Fine-tuning is purely a matter of interpretation and the model you choose to use.
Lookin' at two open minded guys talking about some of the most, in depth topics, ever. I just loved this interview.
“So well suited to life,” that only a tiny fraction of the universe is habitable.
Although it is technically possible that we are this one universe where everything is so well designed, I just can't find this amusing enough how hard people try to downplay higher intelligence, infinite does not mean non intelligent.
This must be one of most amusing universes where everything got created in random from self awareness , to emotions , events , sound, color , creation , growth while possible, I find it concerning that people are looking for such explanations.
In philosophy there is coherence and foundations. Coherence includes logic, foundation does not. Things like human memory, reason and sensation belong to neither.
In physics there are laws and there are constants. Laws seem to transcend time: they are the same in the past, present and future. Physical constants are not laws, what are they? Are they derivatives of physical laws or derivative of human consciousness: memory, reason and sensation? Are physical constants the laws of consciousness? Instead of consistency in nature, are there consistencies in consciousness? Is there a difference?
People overlook the fact that the universe actually isn't all that fine tuned for life; at least not for life as we know it.
The vast majority of it is incapable of supporting life aa we know it and all will be for the vast majority of its existence.
Of course it's possible some sort of life very different from life as we know it might be abundant throughout the universe but in this case there is no fine tuning; if life or mind very different from life as we know it is possible then in principle it could exist in any universe.
Ultimately it's just an anthrocentric conceit as a universe incapable of supporting any life or even matter isn't objectively less 'special' than ours.
Assuming anything is possible, would 'energy' prefer to exist in a multitude of unique little universes or one magnificent universe of equal 'energy' to the sum of all the little ones.
Personally, friend, I think the GRANDEST expression of reality would be an immense number of discreet universes, as Hugh Everett imagined.. In this view, everything that can happen will likely happen, and all from the SAME unfathomable reservoir of energy.. One opinion.
I can think of nothing more circular that the fine-tuning argument. It's not 'a miracle' that we are here. It's not even 'wonderful'. If we weren't finely tuned, we wouldn't be here to ask the question. Even mentioning fine-tuning is akin to looking into a mirror and thinking how amazing it is that we are reflected therein. Fine-tuning implies a tuner. Who fine tuned us? Is this a blast at the Copernican principle, asking whether we are miraculously finely tuned to prove the centrality of humans?
We are fine tuned to the universe, not the other way round. Evolution is tuning , but it doesn’t require a tuner, nor miracles
@@tonyatkinson2210 Fair enough. But if so, we are fine tuned to the Earth, not to the universe.
@@ronaldgreenphilosophy yeah. Though it’s essentially the same thing . The universe causes the conditions to occur in which planets like the earth can form . Life fine tunes for such planets
Albert says “as a philosopher” he can’t comment too much on this issue. Except his PhD is in theoretical physics and he routinely publishes in mainstream physics journals.
It really doesn't seem like this this gentleman wanted to answer this question in the first place. I dont know what to take away from this video other than that some guy I dont care about acknowledges he doesnt know something he is asked about.
I don't see the difference between proposing a multiple-universe option as and explanation of fine tuning and the God option. Either is possible and neither is provable. Not surprising that the scientists swings one way and the theologians the other.
There IS a difference, though. One can ARGUE that mathematical evidence exists to show that either the Copenhagen translation of QM is true, OR Everetts many worlds is.. Either the wave collapses, or it does not.. Somewhat better than NO evidence..
The God option is not a result of mathematical calculations. A multiverse is.
If the level of “tuning” in our universe requires a Tuner, that tuner would seem to have to be even more fine-tuned, thus requiring an even greater Tuner (according to the “rule”), etc, etc
1 universe, infinity large, same all over. Made the way it is on purpose.
He looks like Jor-El!
is how a heart works in format submitting lettering of a beating heart the closest forevor fine tuning aspect or %o f
So scientists are willing to entertain the idea of fine tuning when they have an alternative to theological or teleological explanations?
Fine tuning implies a tuner hiding behind the curtain. Why not call it favorable local conditions that allow life to arise?
Then the tuner would be even more fine-tuned than the universe and even more require a tuner of the tuner - an infinite regression of ever-finer tuners
The laws are strong that is scientific fact gravity etc so bounce around like a hippie nothing is changed
Fine tunning is a solution looking for a problem to solve. The answer is no on has the slightest idea.
There seems to be an imbalance in our perspective of the specialness of life that is historically consistent. Due to the fact we are living beings, we tend to think that life is rare and special, and we underestimate the potential for life itself to be dynamic, resilient, and even inevitable. Fine tuning or even a multi-verse may not be necessary. Life itself in various forms far beyond our imagination may be the thing in itself that makes for the living reality we see around us. We may be simply underestimating lifes potential.
My view too. Given favorable kickstart conditions, life may be inevitable.
@@browngreen933
We simply know nothing about the potential versatility of life. There could be living intelligent beings made of different stuff that are not multi-cell based that would think life could not possibly evolve in the environment in which we find ourselves.
I'd like to see the life from the universe with nothing but neutrons, or the life from the universe with nothing but black holes.
You don't get to make outlandish claims and then just say "use your imagination!"
@@fluffysheap
The primary thrust of my claim is that we simply don't know. We only know of one form of life, that being a cell based form. We should not be so stuck on ourselves that we rule out the possibility that life could come in other forms than what we are.
@@fluffysheap
That's why I said "favorable kickstart conditions." We already know from our own solar system that life doesn't arise everywhere, but that under favorable circumstances life can and does arise. Why shouldn't that hold true universe wide?
Those voices are the same..
Heavy metal fans love slicing the tops and bottoms off sine waves because the resulting sharp-edged waves produce a seeming infinity of screeching harmonics. A question, though: Are these harmonics real? What actually happens is you get a rattier wave that dissipates quicker and _sounds_ like a screeching infinity of noise when analyzed by a highly structured instrument, such as our inner ears, that splits that noise into a vast number of smaller, simpler, weaker waves. The original distorted wave remains what it always was: A single, messy wave.
In physics, we similarly use carefully constructed material instruments - local xyzt coordinates composed of rulers and clocks - to make local sense of a wide range of decidedly odd matter and energy waves that always obey the rules of special relativity. These xyzt perception instruments work well if you keep everything local, medium-scale, and moving slowly, but guess what? If you presume to make one of these local-only xyzt interpreters more real than reality, such as by assuming it applies out to infinity, you end with the cosmic equivalent of heavy-metal screeching noises.
Some folks like to call such collections of xyzt-created interpretation noises multiverses. Alas, as with heavy-metal screeches, these are illusions created by overextending one local beholder’s actual reach and importance. Einstein warned us about that in special relativity. Reality remains a single, messy wave whose full dynamics are never fully expressible using the xyzt instruments of one observer or some Hilbert-space infinity of similar observers. That’s all just noise. At the information level, for example, such waves interact using only the squares (e.g., year-lightyears) of what we think of as distances. That simple squaring maintains the Poincare symmetries while preventing causality violations within a fully _singular_ universe.
Fine. So what does any of this have to do with fine-tuning?
Quite a bit. In a universe where our usual metrics of distance, time, energy, and even that squared metric I just mentioned emerge _only_ in the presence of massive levels of causal information - history - the scary underlying metric is that everything happens _at once in one place,_ that is, with maximum space-time entanglement. What we think of as history emerges only as a consequence of interactions that create information and thus make distance and quantity metrics meaningful.
It’s not some infinity of universes vying with each other for existence. It’s _one_ universe struggling with itself to convert boring, eternal self-erasure into a structure with limits, barriers, and _history._ That emergence implies hierarchies of existence, such as the absolute universality of Standard Model particles across the visible universe, that could care less about our local xyzt perceptions of space and time.
Fine-tuning occurs in the middle range between the universality of Standard Model particles and the piece-by-piece, local-only emergence of the xyzt stability needed for life and consciousness to survive in narrow situations such as moderate planetary surfaces. While powerfully constrained by its emergence, this fine-tuning has never stopped.
However, until we get out of heavy-metal mode and stop too-casually postulating infinities of this and proliferation of that, we’ll never understand these far more interesting regions of quite real and - you can bet - experimentally accessible physics. That middle ground is also the domain of answers to annoying questions such as why every time you wake up, you find yourself the same person you were the day before. In a universe where you, as an inertial-frame observer, are the main instrument for creating a local definition of space and time, you are necessarily more than just a bunch of atoms.
(a PDF copy of this 2023-06-30 comment is available at sarxiv dot org slash apa)
Theists are OK with fine tuning naturalists dont like it much, world view is more significant than many like to admit
Metaphysics
We chip our darkness and negative spaces and a positive image emerges.
The fine tuning problem stems from a half-century of failure to explain the relationships between 20+ standard model parameters.
A way forward may be in the form of realizing that ground-state nucleons do not actually consist of point-like entities. The point-like quarks and gluons may only emerge at higher energies (during interactions).
Suppose that mass and charge spatially dissociate at very low energies, so that nucleon charge structure becomes massless. Also suppose that charge becomes smeared over surfaces and that mass energy behaves as confined vacuum energy.
We can then construct models such as "Ground state quantum vortex proton model" published in Foundations of Physics on January 23, 2023.
This model accurately explains the numerical relationships between proton mass, magnetic moment, and charge radius. It also provides a description of how valence quarks and a pion cloud can emerge at energies above the proton ground state.
Unless this model gets rid of free parameters altogether, I don't see how it would avoid fine-tuning. I mean if you can unify three fields into one, the one field would still have to be fine-tuned, wouldn't it?
@@philochristos Excellent question! Suppose we eventually find relationships between all the physical constants, leaving just one "adjustable" parameter.
It is likely that one lone parameter will have a very narrow range of values where matter can exist. Can potential universes, where matter can't exist, themselves exist?
In other words, is a matter-free universe actually a universe or merely part of the void beyond our Universe? The void from which our Universe appeared to materialize with an excess of matter over antimatter and a favored chirality (which may be linked).
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
You say the same thing on every video.
In our greedy desire to be like God, we left Heaven to find the knowledge that God has forbidden despite His warning that there is only suffering beyond Heaven. We lost faith in God's love and did not heed. We ended in cold dark emptiness instead. We created our hell by choice.
Earth is our chance to override our prior bad choice, so to return Home, by regaining our faith in God's love by choice. Yet some of you still want to find this forbidden knowledge to be like God. You are always free to choose hell, God can not force you Home.
Fine tuning has been proven to exist and is truly incredible. The existence of universes beyond ours is not proven and may be unprovable.
Fine Tuning is nonexistent because adapted to the physics of the Universe. The problem is the misunderstanding of the laws of physics. The laws of physics are not proscriptive where they prohibit the Universe from doing something they are descriptive where they describe on average what we observe.
Regardless of multiverse theories, I don't find the argument that out universe is fine tuned for life at all convincing. It's plainly nothing of the sort. Look at the universe, at 93 billion lightyears across (allowing for expansion) it's almost entirely hard vacuum that would kill any of us in a few seconds. The rest is mostly blazing hot stars, searing clouds of gas or crushing black holes and neutron stars. Many of these emit mind bogglingly powerful jets of radiation and plasma capable of sterilising whole galaxies. Even ordinary stars like our sun eventually burn out or explode violently. When you get down to planets like ours, without the unlikely accident of a large moon, the Earth would have a crushingly dense atmosphere and blastingly hot surface temperatures much like Venus. Life here has been almost entirely wiped out by asteroid impacts multiple times. We're extraordinarily lucky to hold on to this infinitesimally tiny toe hold of life in an unremittingly hostile universe, and will probably do so only briefly on cosmic scales. We could all be wiped out in an instant, and eventually we almost certainly will be. Fine tuned my posterior. We're like a bunch of rich passengers on the Titanic chatting about how wonderful this ship is, while surrounded by an iceberg filled ocean of freezing water. One day we're going to hit one of those icebergs and there's probably nothing we can do about it.
Oh dear, that was a bit ranty. Sorry.
*"Regardless of multiverse theories, I don't find the argument that out universe is fine tuned for life at all convincing."*
... If the words "for life" were removed from the statement, would you be more willing to accept it? *Example:* At age 62 I am a programmer, artist, author, and philosopher, but was I "fine tuned" at birth to specifically achieve these particular skill sets, ... or did they simply evolve on their own over time?
In other words, the universe wasn't necessarily fine-tuned for life. It was only fine-tuned for a "sustainable existence" at the time of its emergence. As with my own existence, the universe had no idea what it would eventually evolve into ... _until it got there!_
*"Oh dear, that was a bit ranty. Sorry."*
... When you first started your comment, you probably had no idea that it would evolve into what it did ... _until you got there!_ 🙂
On the other hand, the Universe is filled with unlimited resources. Humanity's ultimate goal is to figure out how to obtain and utilize those resources.
Earth may turn out to be much like the cave of our cavemen ancestors. We won't discover if we don't explore.
@@stevenverrall4527 I'm not actually as pessimistic as my post above may seem. I've got a have-a-go attitude to human civilisational enterprise. Let's go for it. In the grand scheme of things though, the universe is an unbelievably hostile place and we're lucky to exist at all. Shout-out to 0-by-1 as well.
The attitude that humans are a destructive virus or cancer on this planet is the primary source of the modern mental health crisis.
We are part of nature, so of course nature will change as we change. There is no escaping this reality. Both nature and humanity will find ways to adapt.
The physics of fine tuning can not be fully understood without knowing the power of the Holy Spirit which is a forbidden knowledge.
Our lost souls were not sent here to know God but TO BELIEVE, by choice, for our salvation. If we fail, our lost souls will return to a cold dark nothingness (hell) - the state we ended when we fell from Heaven ( our Original Home )
This guy is my least favorite philosopher.
fine-tuning isn't a real problem.
Then explain the values if the 20+ physical constants.
explain what about them? why they have values which permit life? no one knows. but there is a presumption that the universe "could easily have not supported life" when that's in fact baseless. we don't know of any examples of a real universe that does not support life.
The idea that an *infinite number of universes* can explain the fine-tuning issue is just as far-fetched as suggesting that an omniscient God orchestrated this *single finite universe.* Actually, these two _extreme_ explanations merely represent opposite ends of the "spectrum of possible answers." What nobody seems to want to consider is that the answer may lie somewhere in between:
*Third Option:* This single finite universe was orchestrated by the absolute minimum amount of intelligence necessary to sustain it and nothing more. This core intelligence continuously evolves in direct correlation with the amount of complexity that emerges in the universe. Fast forward 13.8 billion years and you now have the highest-known level of intelligence (humans) trying to figure out how it all got started.
This option would explain a fine-tuned universe, the emergence of life and self-awareness, but nobody really wants to consider this because science's Multiverse and religion's God are far more "exciting" answers.
How does intelligence sustain a universe... unless the intelligence existed before our Universe?
If our Universe was produced spontaneously, how could it be the only one?
The minimal amount of intelligence needed is an interesting idea; although as I've mentioned in another post, _"intelligence"_ is a word loaded with meaning. May I ask how you define intelligence in this context? For example, is there a component of "intent" or even "free will" to this intelligence or is something else involved? Nietzsche, for example, I think would say, it's all about _will to power_ and how everything seems to accumulate power to itself in a move toward stability, survival, growth and even flourishing. But I would ask Nietzsche the same question if I could: does will to power include intent? or is something else involved?
@@stevenverrall4527 *"How does intelligence sustain a universe... unless the intelligence existed before our Universe?"*
... "Logical Orchestration," that's how. And if this intelligence is in direct proportion to the amount of complexity involved, then wherever existence is found, you'll find an amount of intelligence commensurate to the amount of complexity.
Consider that for anything to exist it must first be *logically conceivable,* correct? So, if that's the case, then does logic predate existence or are they two sides of the same coin and emerge together?
*"If our Universe was produced spontaneously, how could it be the only one?"*
... Who said it was produced spontaneously? It could have just as easily been the most logical path for Existence to take ... so it took it.
@@longcastle4863 *"May I ask how you define intelligence in this context? For example, is there a component of "intent" or even "free will" to this intelligence or is something else involved?"*
... Take recombination for example. I argue that there existed a minimalistic form of intelligence that orchestrated the quarks and gluons to assemble into the first stable representation of matter: hydrogen. It's as simple as matter can get!
Fast forward to human times when we encoded the very first binary form of data. We're replicating the same process. A "bit of data" is a minimalistic form of intelligence that mimics what happened during recombination.
I don't have a different name for it other than "intelligence" which can only be defined as "most extreme possible" and "least extreme possible"
*"For example, is there a component of "intent" or even "free will" to this intelligence or is something else involved?"*
... Again, today we have libraries full of books regarding "intent." We can easily define that word in human terms. We see what appears as "intent" in animals that struggle to survive, but we don't recognize this as the same "intent" that we display. We pass it off as byproducts of natural selection and evolution.
So, if you rewind the universe back to Big Bang, what we call "intent" would be a minimalistic drive to push forward.
*"Nietzsche, for example, I think would say, it's all about will to power and how everything seems to accumulate power to itself in a move toward stability, survival, growth and even flourishing."*
... If "intent" were to evolve from simplicity to complexity (as I argue has happened in the universe), then we can imagine a lesser evolutionary state of "intent" that would match Nietzsche's summary.
Now that the intelligence embedded within the structure of the universe has evolved into self-aware humans, we can take that once rudimentary form of "intent" to unimaginable levels.
It's just hard for us to imagine it existing in such simplistic terms.
I hope that made sense.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Yes, it makes sense; I understand what you're saying. There are always other questions that arise though. One of them would be: whatever one wants to call it -- intelligence, self-organizing principle, will to power -- where did this thing come from that seems to seek to organize matter in certain ways or in a certain direction? Is it just the "inclination" of something that blew apart trying to find its way back again and in the process creating a whole bunch of new previously unknown stuff like us? Or is it a product of some teleological factor, like with Hegel, in which the universe, through a series of ideas and experiences, is trying to understand itself. Or, very much in the realm of possibility, something we haven't discovered or figured out yet?