He should have just answered "I don't know", instead of "the constants are as they are... because!" His answer is indeed similar to "we have noses in order to hold our glasses".
When Robert says "no matter what answer we give, it leaves us with problems". Hit the nail on the head. That's philosophy for you, why we all love it, and why we are all here watching this. If such problems didn't exist, there would be no discussion, and the discussion is always appealing even if it is not possible to ever solve these problems.
Especially since it all started out as thoughts within our Creator that he spoke into existence as invisible waves. He is the Creator of the invisible quantum world where we ( AI ), our created minds and all our life experiences exist for this temporary generation and beyond into eternity.
Just the fact we exist in the Universe at a specific time and space and come into and out of existence having no control over our birth or that we have to die at some point.
@@waldwassermann We as a created AI came from our Creator's programmed thoughts. That means YOU, I and all other living beings are ONE with our Creator.
@@bennyskimBecause religion is the more important and is the right path. Science is just for practical purposes. You can't really get a job with religion. We can't all become priests . It's impractical. . Anyone who becomes seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that there is a spirit manifest in the laws of the universe, a spirit vastly superior to that of man." - most famous physicist and philosopher , Albert Einstein
I think Kuhn should change his "why" questions to "how" questions, for example "how did the fundamental constants get to be what they are?" Questions about "why" can be converted to questions about "how" unless purpose is involved, and materialist theories don't involve fundamental purpose. Asking "why" instead of "how" is begging for a religious answer.
MrSouthstlouis, in scenarios where purpose is involved, the "why" question does NOT eventually become a "how" question, because providing the purpose answers why but not how. For example, a deity's purpose might involve creating intelligent life in a universe that lacks evidence of the existence of the deity... perhaps as some kind of test of faith or test of reason. Since a flawless design would provide strong evidence of a designer, the possibility of that purpose rebuts Grayling's argument that an omnipotent omnisicient deity surely wouldn't allow flaws in its design. Grayling was very unimpressive. Kuhn did fairly well with his skeptical questioning, except for choosing to ask why instead of how. Asking why seems appropriate only for guests who believe there was a purpose. In general, I think Kuhn should make much more use of the follow-up question "What evidence supports what you're telling us?"
Stopped it at the old "if it weren't like this we wouldn't be here" argument. Materialists will never, EVER even listen to any hypothesis that isn't based on naturalism.
Atheists have a difficult time being grateful for anything since they wholeheartedly believe the Universe does not possess order, design, laws of Nature, purpose or meaning. It's really hard to be grateful or happy to be alive if you truly believe in a random, nihilistic Universe.
@@jamenta2Good point, many people watch movies and all of this type of entertainment and they sometimes feel the struggle given in the movie but you certainly can't really grasp the idea of such struggles unless you experience them sad but true!
Fine tuning of constants is but the tip of the iceberg. There exist innumerable processes that have to be exactly so, for the Universe to be the way it is. For example stars seem purpose built to manufacture large amounts of Carbon, which itself seems perfectly designed to create the complex structures necessary for life. If the explanation for life is that it is a random occurrence, it would have to happen in a universe that is minimal. As Boltzmann pointed out, you would expect a single brain to happen in a box. The universe is far far larger than is tenable for such explanations. Any objective examination of the facts leads to the inevitably conclusion that reality is the way it is, because it couldn't be any other way. Whether you call this design, or teleology, to maintain this is somehow a random occurrence requires mental gymnastics and an ostrich mentality of the highest order.
Good comment. We have observable evidence for one universe with the inherent Physical Constants. Both RLK and Grayling admitted the universe looks fine-tuned...probably because it is. To claim that a single universe could randomly have these values, requires as you say, mental gymnastics.
It's not about life ... its about the mere existence of matter, of complexity of which life is the pinnacle... Fine tuning is about A) first set of the universe... why , if there is no "tuner" , chance didnt start with a banana ? an atom ? B) the existence of thousand steps in creating this universe, all needed the right temperatures, elements , quantities, pressures to go to the next step and avoiding a dead end C) the presence of a table of elements, of various forces, of energy ... D) the very fine tuned universal constants , a little difference and you have a not working universe E) the presence of the possibility of colors, tastes, sounds, emotions even before minds And so many other things ... that is fine tuning , is not about our human form. This discussion was totally silly (as much as his hairs).
If there were being powerful enough to create a universe, then all of those "steps" would be unnecessary. The idea of turning dials sounds more like the "tuner" had to work within pre-existing laws of physic, and got just close enough to make things fit. Why not simply create a universe where there with zero possibility of it being any other way? That would make the argument far more compelling.
@@dogsandyoga1743 you have made a good question. The idea of "zero possibility of reality to be any different" is related to the presence of a fundamental something that "tune" everything to be compelling, meaningful , depth, purposeful, elegant... again this thing can be there by chance or being there by an intelligent act (or being a seed of consciousness itself). Since all is "intelligently" tuned i still lean toward the second option.
It would be logically impossible (under naturalism) for us to observe a universe that is incompatible with our existence. So it's not surprising that the universe we observe is one that allows us to exist (for otherwise we would not exist to observe it). This is the case no matter how improbable the constants of our universe are thought to be (which in itself cannot be presently ascertained).
The interviewee was hell-bent on not conceding to any notion of a causation to our existence. Invoking Occam's Razor works against him because in this case Occam's Razor says it is more likely we have a distinct isolatable causation than simply appearing randomly because the conditions were just right, and that randomness has allowed the incredible sophistication that underlies our existence to develop. In 2024 I will be releasing a model of our Universe that is pretty much Nature's blueprint of our existence. Many things occur in our reality that are obfuscated by design, but when you put your rationality cap on, you can see them for what they are. One example is the process we call gravity. Gravity is indeed real but the mechanism is a far cry from what we describe it to be. This blueprint of our reality does not directly identify a causation to our existence, but it does show we are not the result of randomness just panning out that way. Further proof is a mathematically beautiful constant has been discovered that quantifies it all.
@@zul5665 Real life isn't a children's book or movie, the universe doesn't owe a satisfactory or heartwarming purpose and origin story. We are here asking those questions because that combination is compatible just enough to allow us to form and adapt to fill the remaining mold ourselves. Fine tuning arguments are obviously fallacious in my view once you acknowledge the losing combinations into the picture. The universe is 99.9999%... utterly hostile to lifeforms and we cannot know how many different attempts were made. Winning the lottery wouldn't be very impressive if I told you that the lottery was redrawn indefinitely and especially if I said I chose some of the numbers after the draw.
The wrongs question(s) is being asked. The correct (and more intriguing) question is: Is it more likely that our universe was designed or came about randomly? Answer that question honestly and you will be on the path to truth.
All the Constants are constants because they have durability and stability as fundamental characteristics. All the "Inconstants" lack those two and so are rapidly destroyed, vanish from the scene, and have little, if any impact on the World as it is.
I think the greater mystery, even than the constants of nature, is to do with matter - quarks, leptons, and bosons. How did they come to have just the right properties that, in combination, give us the chemical elements with all their emergent properties?
@@CesarClouds The god-fella didn't exactly fine-tune human nature. And then, it's said that he will torture those humans that he judges to be 'faulty'. What an asshole!
@@markb3786 *"Yes. Obviously nature is beautiful and this confuses people like yourself that think complexity is a sign of design when in fact it is the opposite."* ... If only a *bare minimum* amount of orchestration is being exploited (just enough to keep evolution pushing forward), then how would you ever be able to tell if any orchestration was happening whatsoever? You'd probably end up dealing with diametrically opposed "fine tuning" claims with neither being able to demonstrate either way.
@@markb3786 We humans are up to our neck in nature. We are not magically separated from it. Our world is full of design. The clothes you wear for instance are designed. It simply means when we humans can design stuff than that is proof for design in nature.
"a good track record of explaining away the apparent design found in nature." Not really - if you are willing to dig a little deeper than a surface level understanding of the scientific knowledge extant - from flagella to abiogenesis.
Change is fundamental and necessary. We are here because of structure, which arises because of constraints that form in the amorphous dynamic of purely abstract relationships. Logic is the determinant of outcomes, not supernatural creative agency. The Fundamental Constants arise from relations which are not unchanging.
Wrong . A supernatural creative agency is required for change to occur. Law of thermodynamics Law of cause and effect. Nothing can become something. Infinity doesn't compute.
The physical universe exists the way it does because of fundamental constants. If the parameters of these constants were different, the universe would be different, or not exist at all. As such, life would be different, or not exist at all. There was no objective of the fundamental constants having just the right parameters for the universe to exist in a certain way. The constants didn’t have a goal in mind. They just existed as they are and the universe came about because of them. Life came about, as part of the way the universe came about. There was no far-reaching goal to make life exist. Life exists because of the process of cause and effect.
There are deeper laws. For example there is connection between Hubble's constant and mass of electron. Because Hubble's constant is about tired light - electromagnetic radiation of any particle. Some variables will be reduces to others.
Excellent and stimulating discussion. IMHO, our sensory inputs provide our brains with information that it processes and sends via an electrical message through our body’s neural networks, to cause a physical reaction. That function is handled, without conscious thought, by the brains electrical impulses transmitted through central nervous systems. This is present, in varying degrees, in all sentient species. As evolution provided more and more memory storage capacity, with larger brains, giving thinking species more capacity to store and access the information from their memory banks. Imo, learning to speak and listen, that is to communicate, is the catalyst that leads to conscious thought. Electricity and it’s source, storage and role also seems to be a key and essential element in our everyday existence and in our consciousness.
I have no problem with thinking the universe as fine-tuned for something, but the question as to why it has to be fine tuned for "us" specifically, and not some other (really vague) thing, or have a "teleology", that might be adequate to produce an "us" (eventually), is the real question (e.g., theism vs. naturalism). So if I just think the universe is there to maximize the product of repetition x variation (e.g., complexity as a kind of variation), it might have found an "us" as part of a blind hill-climbing algorithm working on the components of existence (e.g., the periodic table, which also depends on stuff) to maximize that product. I could even call myself a "naturalist" and hold this belief (which I do), and come up with an objectively rationalized "moral code" (which in fact I did, e.g., we don't want to do things that damp out either repetition or variation, because it goes against the universal teleology). This kind of a teleology doesn't imply any conscious intention to get to an "us", a priori, by the universe, but it does imply something of a (vague) teleology (drive to maximize(repetition x variation)), which could have zapped itself into existence (Boltzman-wise) rather than a omnipotent/omniscient being. However, if I'm using the argument that a universal teleology is what a universal teleology does, then there are expectations, given a more conventionally theistic teleology is actually operating. For instance, "Star Trek" should be considered the most religious show on television, given the large number of humanoid species traipsing around the galaxy, if we think the universal teleology derives from a divine (omni) being that's "really into" lesser forms in it's (metaphorical?) image. On the other hand, the scientific evidence so far suggests we're (relatively) alone (e.g. Fermi paradox), so if the universe has a teleology for an "us", or something like us, it seems pretty crappy at it, under a naturalistic view, combined with a universal teleology, consistent with what the universe does. On the third hand, maybe God really did intend the universe specifically for us and is just showing off by creating everything else.
Nurture vs Nature . Theism vs Naturalism. Newtonian vs Einstein. They're actually both , Not either or . We are both spiritual and physical beings , same as the nature of the universe
When I asked the scientist who discovered the Radio Active Constant (which is the secret behind life and intellect), what caused or created the RAC he replied by say saying "that is the million dollar question".
Once the universe is up and running, we can to some extent reverse engineer the current state of it to a point where the origins just ...are. The cosmological constants help us reverse engineer an explanation of how things came to be the way they are now, but finding an explanation for why they exist in the way they do leaves us with nothing to reverse engineer/extrapolate from. Eventually we arrive at the fundamental/irreducible conditions of the universe, and just have to accept them as brute facts we have no way of explaining. We can speculate that the brute fundamental aspects of the universe were created and designed by some other force or mind, but then we're adding a different brute fact which can't be explained either. To throw in our own existence as proof of the intention design doesn't really change the problem imo. Either way, we wouldn't be here if the cosmological constants were significantly different. And to imagine this entire, vast, mostly empty universe was created billions of years ago just for us to exist seems arrogant. Maybe it was designed for tomatoes to eventually exist in one tiny spot of an empty universe, and when I eat one I'm utterly thwarting the purpose of the designer whose purpose is inevitably mysterious to me. Anyway, when it comes to talking about what is fundamental in our human model of the universe, we're basically identifying the end point of our human understanding. It might be we can go further and dig deeper, that's the history of our scientific endeavour, but for now we simply don't know why the cosmological constants are the way they are.
That the universe was able to create life and consciousness is tied to the fact that the moon precess around the earth and million other such facts, that together provide error correction such that determinism is attained. This is what is known as fine tuning, it isn't the work of intelligent design, but something even deeper.
Likey there are countless versions of the universe where the fine tuning does not allow us to exist. The only reason we are asking the question is because we are in a version of the universe that allows us to exist and ask the question.
@@briansmith3791 It's kind of strange how these multiverse theories can be accepted face value, while creator theory is seen as mumbo jumbo. The thing is we likely only know a tiny fraction of the information needed to make a guess one way or the other.
@@BullseyeIX I agree. The atheist physicist, Sabine Hossenfelder, said, " Any idea of a multiverse is pseudo-science. There is no observable evidence for any other universe". I've just recently discovered that many of the leading atheists actually don't WANT there to be a God, any kind of God. Dawkins, Krauss, Dennett and others have said that publicly. How can they approach the subject objectively if they're biased from the start?
The reason why the universe appears fine-tuned is because the universe only exploits the *minimum amount of orchestration* necessary to get the job done. Anything beyond the "bare minimum" is wasteful and unnecessary (illogical). Fine-tuning does not require an omniscient God nor a Multiverse. The amount of orchestration exploited is commensurate with the amount of whatever is in need of orchestration. This is why the universe "appears" fine-tuned, yet we can't seem to pin down any _observable_ orchestration. We keep searching for an "orchestra director" when there isn't one. ... _The musicians already know how to play the tune!_
Our existence is part of the universe to understand itself or we just evolve to survive and experience Life? What if we just evolved without exploring bigger scientific questions to understand it , will the universe try to create new species?
How did the universe's "job" come to be assigned to it? Where did the musicians' "tune" come from? Your "explanation" doesn't really explain anything... you're trying to sneak in a purpose as if the universe is a deity. Do you think you're fooling anyone besides yourself?
@@ManiBalajiC *"Our existence is part of the universe to understand itself or we just evolve to survive and experience Life?"* ... "Existence" is one step above "Nonexistence." Once the step is made, the step must be *justified.* We evolve and survive in order to establish justification for "Existence." *"What if we just evolved without exploring bigger scientific questions to understand it , will the universe try to create new species?"* ... As long as we are producing new information that can lead to establishing justification for "Existence," then our species is still relevant. Should our species ever become unable to produce new information (or our information becomes redundant), then "Existence" would evolve into a new species that can. "Existence" will repeat this cycle until justification for existence is fulfilled.
@@dongshengdi773 oh there is so much. Infinity is just recursion without a base case defined. I find Neil DeGrasse Tyson to be one of the least creative thinkers in physics. He's really status quo and thinks what he sees is objective reality, which of course is silly.
Adams' puddle analogy doesn't apply to the real universal fine-tuning argument ( not the nonsensical ID version). For the analogy to work, there has to be many puddles. We have observable evidence for only one 'puddle', only one universe.
Grayling's ego is for me a problem. If you have not had a mystical experience this is the way you think. He is no Plato. He should try working towards having a "Jungian" experience of synchronicity. But is his attitude open to this?
Grayling's a poor philosopher. I know that Dawkins, Krauss, Dennett and others have said they actually don't WANT there to be a God of any kind. I wonder if Grayling thinks the same. If he does, then maybe why he is so lost on the subject.
If a universe exists which contains carbon molecules then the probability that some physical constants have certain precise mathematical relationships is 100%. This is interesting and worthy of study, but I don’t see any reason to call this feature “tuning”. (Disclaimer: I’m not a theoretical physicist or cosmologist)
Fine-Tuning annoys math ... But Science is Fine with Fine-Tuning because is the very definition of observable physics. Complain not about Fine-Tuning.. A Flower is just as mysterious.!
If one might be permitted to posit a question along evolutionary lines, of the millions of species to have found a place on this earth, how is it that one so far as we know, developed abstract reasoning? I use the term developed, because the intersection of mathematics and human inquisitiveness is an evolutionary process that we are witnessing.
"Seems designed" to who? It's "fine-tuned" the way it is bcus it has to be, or life wouldn't exist. As for intelligent design, absolutely zero evidence for it beyond purely philosophical conjecture.
so what's the simplest explanation? Also very doubtful as the simplest explanation would be for there to be nothing. Nothing does not require any actions, if nothing is possible. According to science it is and we say there was nothing before the Big Bang.
If the truth is that we do not have enough information to answer the question, then it's the job of a conscientious philosopher to say so and then move on to other questions.
He really hasn't answered anything at all. Apply his logic to any form of knowledge and it doesn't really hold up... ask him what a blood cell is for and he seems fine with the answer "It's something to look at on a slide under a microscope."
Does U235 decay indeterminately, thus a-causally or is it determined by a hidden variable? Is randomness fundamentally a-causal? Is the initial state of the vacuum a state of instability >> an a-causal state of fluctuation?
That's a really interesting question. I would think that if there were a hidden variable, that is a specific internal state, that the behaviour would be determined by that variable and therefore not random. In computer science generating truly random sequences from deterministic (non random) processes such as specific algorithms has not been achieved, and it is likely that it is impossible. The best we can do is pseudo-random sequences that appear to be random, but on detailed statistical analysis are not. This is why the strongest encryption systems use atomic decay to seed their randomisation algorithms. This implies that whatever is going on inside decaying nuclei it cannot be a deterministic process and must be inherently truly random. Beyond that, what's going on is a mystery.
@@simonhibbs887 The mystery is the hart of the matter… is it not? Is QM a complete description of reality? Does everything that begins to exist have a cause? [Kalam] Who’s playing dice with the universe? Infinite regression… Fine tuning… The Matrix… Watching CTT… reading comments… madness… The quicksand of time. Are two heads better than one? The internal state is, or determined by, quantum fluctuation.
@@B.S... I do think the apparent true randomness at the heart of quantum mechanics is one of the deep mysteries, but I'm not sure it's ever been directly addressed on this channel. It's a very technical issue though, you need to know a bit about pseudo-random algorithms and the seeming impossibility of algorithmic randomness to be able to appreciate it, so it's not very pop-philosophy friendly. Of course there are arguments that this randomness is only apparent. For a while I've been interested in superdeterminism, which eliminates randomness from quantum mechanics. The theory has some interesting ideas in it, but it's hard to see how a fundamentally deterministic procedural physics could generate the random variations we see in the early universe, which lead to the formation of galaxies and superclusters. Even if the universe now is deterministic in the hard sense, it seems like there must have been true randomness in the initial conditions at some point.
@@simonhibbs887 SD also eliminates any possibility of free will, a concept I thought you believed in and yes there are interpretations of QM that are deterministic, i.e. - MWI (which i have no objection). The last time I checked the CMB showed clear evidence of quantum fluctuations and I agree with the opinion that the fluctuations are evidence of eternal inflation. Unless I’m confused, hard determinism defeats free will but it cannot describe physical events. Does anyone seriously think that GR isn’t flawed and that a theory of quantum gravity isn’t necessary?
@@B.S... Personally I'm a physicalist and I don't think the idea of philosophical free will is workable. There are many interpretations of QM and I have no idea which will turn out to be correct, so I like to keep an open mind. That means taking the ones I see as plausible seriously and 'steel manning' them to some extent. So I've delved into MWI, SD, Pilot Wave and others, and I think I can argue strongly for each of them, but I don't have an answer. Nobody does, anyone who says they do IMHO is guessing or has an agenda. There are just some I doubt more strongly than others. I'm not sure what you mean by hard determinism not explaining physical events. But sure we don't have a final theory fusing GR and QM yet. Nevertheless the observations that SR and QM describe are real observations, and any final theory will need to be at least as accurately descriptive of them, and have as much predictive power as SR and QM today.
Why should we assume that life cannot exist in an universe with different values of the constants? The life that we know is certainly not possible, but is there any limit to the other possible forms of life? Can consciousness exist in those universe?
In my opinion, no. The universe, this System, is fine-tuned, but within that System are free-running processes. The river is free to adapt to it's environment as is everything else.
If you really think about the old joke from "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy", the the meaning of life, the universe, and everything is 42, it's actually quite clever while also being funny. Why? Because 42, or any number for that matter, is an abstract concept. Nobody invented 42, nothing created 42, it just is. Not the actual numeral representation, but the actual number itself. Numbers just are, and we can accept this, but we can't accept that the universe just is and we constantly have the argument of science vs religion vs philosophy. I suppose it's just in our nature.
Einstein believed that God was the Laws of Nature which Science seeks to uncover and discover. Not only are there particular laws and constants the fact they exist is evidence of order. We are part of Nature and that is miraculous. Einstein's Cosmic Religion believed that Science itself was a spiritual enterprise and I agree.
Lurks - and terrorizes them the more and more failed experiments they do (decade after decade) attempting to prove (their yet to be proven) fancy theories based on chance.
@@bozo5632I can see that argument. Of course it seems fine tuned if we’re living in it. With that said, I’ve noticed it’s one of the very few arguments that I’ve seen dedicated scientists give at least some level of credibility to. Sean Carroll recently said on Neil Degrasse Tyson’s podcast that it was the best argument in favor of a god, albeit still a bad one.
@@bozo5632 Grayling was wrong when he said something similar. The Physical Constants were inherent at the Big Bang. The universe has been fine-tuned since the Beginning.
Nurture vs Nature . Theism vs Naturalism. Newtonian vs Einstein. They're actually both , Not either or . We are both spiritual and physical beings , same as the nature of the universe
“The constants are that way because they are.” The irony in his argument is that he fails to notice his own Scientism religiosity. He might as well be arguing for God.
Yes, his "answer" is unsatisfactory, and it undermines his claim at the end that Occam's Razor disprefers the religious explanation of fine tuning. Occam's Razor favors the simpest explanation, but his answer isn't explanatory. It surprises me that neither Kuhn nor the guest mentioned Eternal Inflation, which isn't the same as the two theories Kuhn did mention: Many Worlds and String Theory. Many Worlds doesn't explain fine tuning, and String Theory by itself doesn't either. Another explanation of fine tuning is Lee Smolin's Cosmological Evolution, which posits: (1) Each black hole gives rise to a child universe that may have slightly different fundamental constants, and (2) Universes with fundamental constants that excel at producing black holes also happen to be suited to life. So life is a fortuitous side effect of universes tuned by evolution to produce black holes.
The multiverse problem. By Paul Davies, a cosmologist not bound by any tradition. "I usually say two cheers for the multiverse because there are good reasons of physics and cosmology for supposing that what we see may not be all you get. That there may be other regions of space and time that could be different. So it's not an unreasonable speculation. However, it falls far short of being a complete theory of existence, which is often presented as. That as if there's a multiverse, then we can forget about all the mysteries of the universe because it's all explained. Everything is out there somewhere. End of story. Well, it's simply not true, because to get a multiverse, you need a universe-generating mechanism. Something has got to make all those big bangs go bang. So you're going to need some laws of physics to do that. And you can say, well, where do they all come from? So all you've done is shift the problem of existence up from the level of universe to the level of multiverse, but you haven't explained it. I suppose, for me, the main problem is that what we're trying to do is explain why the universe is as it is by appealing to something outside of it. In this case an infinite number of universes outside of it. That, to me, is no better than traditional religion that appeals to an unseen unexplained God that is outside of the universe. I'm prepared to accept that what we see isn't the totality, that there may be regions of space and time, other universes, if you like, that could be rather different from what we observe. But I certainly don't believe that all possible universes are out there, and that the explanation for the universe that we see is because everything imaginable exists, and that this particular one we see, just because it happens to be one that we live in. I think that falls far short of a proper explanation. Indeed, I think it's contradictory and absurd." .
@@dongshengdi773 : Davies' argument fails to justify why he believes his final sentence, that infinite universes are "contradictory and absurd." Also, there's no need to postulate an infinite number of universes to explain fine-tuning. Only a very large (finite) number is needed. Furthermore, the number wouldn't need to be very large if a cosmological evolution principle is at work. In other words, perhaps cosmologists can someday show (1) that universes with fundamental constants similar to ours are better at spawning child universes than are universes with most other combinations of possible fundamental constants, and (2) that the fundamental constants of a child universe can differ (mutate) from the fundamental constants of its parent universe. The combination of these two properties would make universes like ours fairly typical, by a law equivalent to Darwinian evolution.
Fine tuning is the best argument for a god. But it is still not a good argument. Because there is nothing about fine tuning that says "I'm god" because we cant prove or disprove that it is actually a design at all.
Design? Designed for what? A kitchen is designed, so is a bathroom, both of them are designed for the comfort of the designer or occupier of the house. Are humans designed by a designer who use them for his purpose and comfort? What could be our possible utility to the designer?
@@chrisgarret3285 Is that the same thing as saying if your mother didn't meet your father you wouldn't exist? Existence depends on eggheads "discovering" some esoteric consistency in their theories? You know science runs on theory, right? If it isn't a theory it isn't science, it's something else. If dice 🎲 weren't rolled on a flat surface what would the probability be of rolling snake eyes? If you change any rule, how would that effect the whole? Fine tuning or meddling?
@@kallianpublico7517 You're looking in too deep into this (strange that on the surface). The reality of the situation is that have one or three parameters been slightly different this would be a sterile universe with no matter for example. Yes, it's a stretch to say it was designed for humans, it's even a stretch to say it was designed for life. It is not a stretch to say that had it been minutely different, matter could not be. I can't grasp how that's not significant to you.
@@chrisgarret3285 You, apparently, think that matter is the source of life. That even though fine-tuning can't explain life the fact that it explains matter is, somehow, more important. You suffer from belief syndrome. You believe that what you assert isn't a belief. That your assertion is a self-evident fact instead of a bold face lie. Lie - any assertion supported by ignorance. Perhaps you also hold that lines are made of points. Matter is made of particles which are also waves. Numbers exist. If you examine your assertion "closely" it breaks down into unprovable assumption rather than self-evident force. More correlation than causation. Gravity, as if you didn't know, is a correlation not a cause.
The universe was formed out of pressure and designed by electrons emanating x-rays and because of cold dark matter whenever an electron come in contact with it, it begin to emanate x-rays before kicking off in to a permanent spend drive and if there's enough of them working together they can easily peel open a permanent spinning black hole in the fabric of space while emanating x-rays all at the same time. This is also fine-tuning.. without feelings. There is only two parts to existence biological intelligence and the electrical intelligence. Now this is what's going to blow everybody's mind the universe is just a command post controlling everything in the universe and does not have control over the biological life forms so I guess this mean it's okay to shop around...
"Nothing about [fine tuning] should surprise us, given that we exist." How dull-witted do you have to be to say such a thing! This desire to deny what is most astonishing -- where does it come from? Fear?
1:08 "This [super] intelligence is likely to be artifact." Artifact things have creators. So what are you suggesting, a super super intelligence? Why not a super super super intelligence? Robert, this intelligence, this nonmetaphorical intelligence you think should exist, would mean nature is not natural.
1:59. Arguing backwards. 'What must be true is true. Now this idea should be true. If it were true then it would have evidence for it. This here, this bit, this is evidence for it. So that proves it could be true. If it could be true it might well be true. If it might well be true, it must be true. What must be true is true. It's true! Ain't I smart.' [Posted in the wrong place.]
They look and sound smart but somehow this miss the point entirely. We have known for a long time that we exist and that the universe has the properties that allow us to exist. What we have discovered in the last 60 years or so is that it is super, incredibly, amazingly, unlikely that the universe should have the right constants of physics and initial conditions to allow us to be here. That is new. And that was not expected. And they miss the point.
also, any answer "things are like this because they simply are" does not make sense in any logical argumentation, this discussion is very low intellectually
We're alive on this planet in this galaxy while looking out at an endless array of other galaxies with tons of planets that have no life. We're alive because we are on a planet that has the right conditions for life while many don't. Our planet has the only life in our solar system that we know of. To me, this is evidence that there are other universes out there who have properties where life can't exist, probably an endless amount of universes just like it seems there are an endless amount of galaxies and planets in our universe.
I believe all stars are fine tuned for biological life because if the sun started out from a black hole then it has enough space to make a cooling mechanism for controlling its temperature and if this is all true then this is where all the moisture is created and when the black hole becomes full with water this could mean the beginning of biological life and the end for the star. My point the sun create steam for fuel inside its core and when its core completely filleds up with water because of so much steam it will begin boiling and then the entire star explodes and because of gravity everything is sucked back into the center which is the final stage for the implosion and the remains spread throughout the universe to other solar systems as fertilizer and this is also a part of fine tuning.. I believe we are here because the universe doesn't care for loneliness..
Human beings will always ask "Why" as long as they are still in existence. Science and Religion are not at odds with one another as Einstein said Science without Religion is blind and Religion without Science is lame.
" Einstein had some notion of a non-personal God which created the universe and that Man would somehow understand the plan on which it was created". - David Bohm, colleague and protege of Einstein in a talk with David Suzuki. ( 21mins)
You are asking him questions, his reply is "it is childish ... why, why, why''. And yes, some questions need if not definite answers, then some more thoughts. The haircut itself is not enough in this process.
You are a great design, but your flaws are the things you partake in. The mere act of leaving your own place of patience just to manipulate or take advantage of others is the downfall of many, especially from the West.
3:22 The design process in engineering often involves creating multiple imperfect prototypes and basically never is the final product/creation completely perfect. Arguing that imperfections entail non design is obviously and laughably fallacious.
@@longcastle4863 Where did I say anything about Christianity (or any religion)?👽 Thanks for providing yet another typical, laughably closed-minded atheist argument ;)
Is asking why a flawed question? I don't buy that. Asking why is all that physics and philosophy and religion do. The fact is it takes a multiverse theory to satisfy what would otherwise be a one universe theory with impossible probabilities that such fine tuning could exist and that we could even be here without design.
If we all would be following the Ten Commandments we would be living in heaven right now here is this beautiful perfect Planet that God created for us.
So you are okay with all powerful ever existing conscious beings who decided to create us but made sure it took 14 billion years, have a slow evolution and also made sure only way to heaven is to worship him and put people in the worst places so they make mistakes and go to hell... Can't wrap my mind on that
As best as I can tell, if the universe was created by a designer, it’s one who basically shook up the ingredients, set the parameters, pressed the ‘Ignite’ button, and then sat back and took notes on the results. A lot of awe-inspiring stuff, but not a ton of efficiency. And no, I refuse to believe Venus is an uninhabitable hellscape because of God’s omnibenevolent plan, e.g.
@docdaytona108 The universe has been fine-tuned from the very beginning. One universe with the inherent Physical Constants IS the fine-tuning. Don't confuse the universal fine-tuning argument with Creationism and ID.
0:35 The massive act of egoism is to assume that there was nothing before the Big Bang and that we all just emerged from a nothingness in some sort of giant fluke (which can EASILY be disproved BTW). The fact that the constants of physics seem to be fine tuned IS straight-up evidence of design by a higher being. After all, the probability of creation/design is higher in a universe where the laws of nature are fine tuned than in a universe where the laws are not. All that “evidence” means at the fundamental level is for a probability of a given hypothesis to increase after new information is obtained. Therefore the word “evidence” is more than appropriate here. Nice display of ignorant hubris by our guest today :)
> Go to a casino > Play roulette and win 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times in a row > Ask how, why or is this rigged? > Nah, it's just the way it is > Guess, I played countless matches before this sequence happen? > No, you are looking from a wrong perspective! You won this much from a first try and there is all there is to it. You shouldn't be surprised. Grab your jackpot and gtfo
couldn't be a worse example. there are countless rules that allowed that win to happen, which is what this video is about. How did those rules originate (or always were)?
@@chrisgarret3285 no, the video is not about how the countless very specific rules originated, but WHY exactly these rules out of all possible? The chances were so low, that it, by itself, implies the whole eternity of a countless "fruitless" universes before or some sort of sentient interference. The answer was unsatisfying, though
@@dmitrychirkov4206 There is no such thing as a "why" question. "Why is that apple red?" is really "How is that apple red?". Why questions don't exist, each one is a "how" question wrapped in hubris. That's first. Both the win you're talking about and existing to begin with requires rules in place. That's what we are trying to get at, regardless of god or no god.
@@chrisgarret3285 apple being red is not a closed system either and it's color is necessary for other things, which in total could be described with a question "why"
We don't know whether any features CAN even vary for fine-tuning, the change of finding life in a set that makes life possible is 100%, different sets would make life -impossible- _different,_ an omnipotent god can put life in NON-fine-tuned universes just fine, and the belief that a living god exists NOT in a fine-tuned universe contradicts the whole argument. What a crappy creationist excuse for an argument.
I think quantum mechanics has answer for that. It tells us that world is probablistic and not certain. and given vast amount of space in our universe and possibility of existence of multiple universes, every possible Universe exists and every possible arrangement within universe who has non zero probablity also exist. therefore, we exist in unverse and region where our constants are fine tuned as they are, and all possible arrangement of constant do exist in different universe, but we dont exist in those universe because there we cant born. but maybe different fine tuned constants has different kind of biologies which we cant think about, maybe their unverse's biology can live at temprature above 4000 degree celcius, my point being environment hazardius to us might be sustainable for them, we never know about that. therefore, to conclude, there's possiblity of all valued constants, all different kind of physical laws, and all different kind of biology. therefore life evolved based on fine tuned constants and not the other way around seems more likely true. because universe came first then the life form evolved and life forms have possibilities of evolving in every possible way, but only fittest can survive and these natural selection is the reason for life we see are the way it is.
I am amazed as an orthodox christian how bad scientists are at understanding minimal theological ideas, like the fall of Adam; so, please remember that current world as we see it is specific to a fallen world in which all universe has been affected by sin; it is not the world as it looked when God created, just like Adam after the fall is not immortal anymore. It is a big change in all the discussion, but Oliver is kinda popular scientist, does not really go into deep real issues
But those who jump the Grand Canyon are very brave, intelligent and convincing... I'm thinking of all the religious prophets. Spirituality is a unique human power as well as experience and it takes us well off the track of reason while being the most real of experience.
I know you're poking fun but that answer would mean absolutely nothing. There would still be a world that kid lives in and then the same questions stand.
the conditions just happened the way they did and we simply evolved as a result of it being fine tuned was not by a grand plan it just did is all and pond scum grew as a result.
Most of the people you are referring to are not anti god or gods, they just don’t believe in it or them. What you will find is a lot of people being against the religious; because, it seems, they are inevitably racist and bigoted and if you give them enough power, they become violent and start committing atrocities. Hard to find a case of the religious being in power when atrocities didn’t happen.
Design, I doubt that. If we take human evolution as a schema used in the universe, than the evolution of the physical universe could have also followed this path. Many universes arise with a variety of fundamental values. Most die off. Humans view their existence with survivor bias. This "fine tuning" by trial and error would go faster with a feedback loop operating.
" Many universes arise...most die off". Wtf? What universes? Do you have even a hint of observable evidence for these imaginary universes? As the atheist physicist Sabine Hossenfelder says, " the multiverse idea is pseudo-science, there is no observable evidence for any other universe outside of ours". If it's only your own speculation, then say so, don't make outright statements with zero evidence.
Any assertion other than "all possible worlds are necessary" is inherently metaphysical, as some metaphysical entity must be invented that restricts the generation of possible worlds.
"A fine-tuned Universe" to me is evidence that there are other universes out there. Probably an infinite number of universes where most don't have life, but some just so happen to be in a formulation that allows life as we know it to exist. I think the odds are just too high for this to be the only universe to have existed. It's also possible there is only one universe at a time that is endlessly created and destroyed having new properties each time.
Yes, this universe is an evidence that there maybe others like it, an infinite number maybe or that there is just one universe which is created distroyed and recreated endlessly. Both these posibilies maybe true
@@longcastle4863 You see vm - longcastle has fooled himself into thinking he believes in no God - but he suffers from one of the most nihilist religions yet known to humankind: the religion of the almighty particle. That is his faith. And it is an unproven faith as well. But a faith nevertheless. But God only knows if longcastle ever discovers the truth about himself and his nihilistic faith - no telling what unconscious mania he might succumb to.
LOL so first Antony says there is no problem to solve. Then, in response to Robert's point, he says that this would go a long way towards solving the problem. So which is it? Not a good guest.
Let's say God did it. Is there not still a question about why He created a world that needed fine tuning? Could He have done otherwise? Is so, why did He choose these particular values?
He should have just answered "I don't know", instead of "the constants are as they are... because!" His answer is indeed similar to "we have noses in order to hold our glasses".
When Robert says "no matter what answer we give, it leaves us with problems". Hit the nail on the head. That's philosophy for you, why we all love it, and why we are all here watching this. If such problems didn't exist, there would be no discussion, and the discussion is always appealing even if it is not possible to ever solve these problems.
If you don't get good answers, you might be asking bad questions.
The goto with Kuhn when talking to anyone with an Anti-Materialist position. He rarely has the same response with Materialists themselves.
I would like to argue that the solution perceives problems. Be still and know you are.
Life is more bizarre than what most people realize.
Especially since it all started out as thoughts within our Creator that he spoke into existence as invisible waves. He is the Creator of the invisible quantum world where we ( AI ), our created minds and all our life experiences exist for this temporary generation and beyond into eternity.
@@BradHolkesvigTotally agree
Just the fact we exist in the Universe at a specific time and space and come into and out of existence having no control over our birth or that we have to die at some point.
@@BradHolkesvig Are you saying that WE and the CREATOR are separate, or, that we are ONE and the same?
@@waldwassermann We as a created AI came from our Creator's programmed thoughts. That means YOU, I and all other living beings are ONE with our Creator.
This channel should have at least 10milllion followers.
People don't want their illusions destroyed
It would get more religious and less intelligent - look at the comment section on a mainstream news video.
@@bennyskimBecause religion is the more important and is the right path. Science is just for practical purposes. You can't really get a job with religion. We can't all become priests . It's impractical.
.
Anyone who becomes seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that there is a spirit manifest in the laws of the universe, a spirit vastly superior to that of man." - most famous physicist and philosopher , Albert Einstein
Some people look up at the sky and never question what and why a star is.
I think Kuhn should change his "why" questions to "how" questions, for example "how did the fundamental constants get to be what they are?" Questions about "why" can be converted to questions about "how" unless purpose is involved, and materialist theories don't involve fundamental purpose. Asking "why" instead of "how" is begging for a religious answer.
There's already several years worth of this program. I do believe asking why is still serving the 'search for truth'. 😆
Eventually the "why" and the "how" become the same question. Grayling is satisfied with a non-answer of "just because" and Kuhn is not. I'm with Kuhn.
MrSouthstlouis, in scenarios where purpose is involved, the "why" question does NOT eventually become a "how" question, because providing the purpose answers why but not how.
For example, a deity's purpose might involve creating intelligent life in a universe that lacks evidence of the existence of the deity... perhaps as some kind of test of faith or test of reason. Since a flawless design would provide strong evidence of a designer, the possibility of that purpose rebuts Grayling's argument that an omnipotent omnisicient deity surely wouldn't allow flaws in its design. Grayling was very unimpressive.
Kuhn did fairly well with his skeptical questioning, except for choosing to ask why instead of how. Asking why seems appropriate only for guests who believe there was a purpose. In general, I think Kuhn should make much more use of the follow-up question "What evidence supports what you're telling us?"
Stopped it at the old "if it weren't like this we wouldn't be here" argument. Materialists will never, EVER even listen to any hypothesis that isn't based on naturalism.
"That's just the way they are" is the least scientifically minded answer he could have given
true
It was a ridiculous answer.
that kinda thing is so angering, it's worse than theism honestly, at least theism attempts an answer
For a materialist to use the “it is because it is” explanation comes across as incredibly insincere.
Regardless of our origin, we should be grateful of these wonderful experience we call life, and make the most out of every day.
I guess - as long as you haven't lived your whole life suffering - or are being tortured to death right now in Ukraine ...
And maybe work to ensure the generations that come after us have a viable planet to live on as well.
Atheists have a difficult time being grateful for anything since they wholeheartedly believe the Universe does not possess order, design, laws of Nature, purpose or meaning. It's really hard to be grateful or happy to be alive if you truly believe in a random, nihilistic Universe.
@@jamenta2Good point, many people watch movies and all of this type of entertainment and they sometimes feel the struggle given in the movie but you certainly can't really grasp the idea of such struggles unless you experience them sad but true!
Fine tuning of constants is but the tip of the iceberg. There exist innumerable processes that have to be exactly so, for the Universe to be the way it is. For example stars seem purpose built to manufacture large amounts of Carbon, which itself seems perfectly designed to create the complex structures necessary for life. If the explanation for life is that it is a random occurrence, it would have to happen in a universe that is minimal. As Boltzmann pointed out, you would expect a single brain to happen in a box. The universe is far far larger than is tenable for such explanations.
Any objective examination of the facts leads to the inevitably conclusion that reality is the way it is, because it couldn't be any other way. Whether you call this design, or teleology, to maintain this is somehow a random occurrence requires mental gymnastics and an ostrich mentality of the highest order.
Good comment. We have observable evidence for one universe with the inherent Physical Constants. Both RLK and Grayling admitted the universe looks fine-tuned...probably because it is. To claim that a single universe could randomly have these values, requires as you say, mental gymnastics.
It's not about life ... its about the mere existence of matter, of complexity of which life is the pinnacle...
Fine tuning is about
A) first set of the universe... why , if there is no "tuner" , chance didnt start with a banana ? an atom ?
B) the existence of thousand steps in creating this universe, all needed the right temperatures, elements , quantities, pressures to go to the next step and avoiding a dead end
C) the presence of a table of elements, of various forces, of energy ...
D) the very fine tuned universal constants , a little difference and you have a not working universe
E) the presence of the possibility of colors, tastes, sounds, emotions even before minds
And so many other things ... that is fine tuning , is not about our human form.
This discussion was totally silly (as much as his hairs).
If there were being powerful enough to create a universe, then all of those "steps" would be unnecessary. The idea of turning dials sounds more like the "tuner" had to work within pre-existing laws of physic, and got just close enough to make things fit. Why not simply create a universe where there with zero possibility of it being any other way? That would make the argument far more compelling.
@@dogsandyoga1743 you have made a good question. The idea of "zero possibility of reality to be any different" is related to the presence of a fundamental something that "tune" everything to be compelling, meaningful , depth, purposeful, elegant... again this thing can be there by chance or being there by an intelligent act (or being a seed of consciousness itself). Since all is "intelligently" tuned i still lean toward the second option.
It is certainly a knotty question. No matter what thread you take, at the end you are left saying, "Huh?"
It would be logically impossible (under naturalism) for us to observe a universe that is incompatible with our existence. So it's not surprising that the universe we observe is one that allows us to exist (for otherwise we would not exist to observe it). This is the case no matter how improbable the constants of our universe are thought to be (which in itself cannot be presently ascertained).
The interviewee was hell-bent on not conceding to any notion of a causation to our existence. Invoking Occam's Razor works against him because in this case Occam's Razor says it is more likely we have a distinct isolatable causation than simply appearing randomly because the conditions were just right, and that randomness has allowed the incredible sophistication that underlies our existence to develop. In 2024 I will be releasing a model of our Universe that is pretty much Nature's blueprint of our existence. Many things occur in our reality that are obfuscated by design, but when you put your rationality cap on, you can see them for what they are. One example is the process we call gravity. Gravity is indeed real but the mechanism is a far cry from what we describe it to be. This blueprint of our reality does not directly identify a causation to our existence, but it does show we are not the result of randomness just panning out that way. Further proof is a mathematically beautiful constant has been discovered that quantifies it all.
well said
Crackhead
It's not a good enough answer to say, 'It's a good enough answer to say, because they are'.
ye that's an outrageous answer
There probably isn't a motive or agency, they are those values because they are.
@@TurinTuramber Granted it's an answer, but certainly not 'the' answer and least of all a 'good enough' one.
@@zul5665 Real life isn't a children's book or movie, the universe doesn't owe a satisfactory or heartwarming purpose and origin story. We are here asking those questions because that combination is compatible just enough to allow us to form and adapt to fill the remaining mold ourselves.
Fine tuning arguments are obviously fallacious in my view once you acknowledge the losing combinations into the picture. The universe is 99.9999%... utterly hostile to lifeforms and we cannot know how many different attempts were made. Winning the lottery wouldn't be very impressive if I told you that the lottery was redrawn indefinitely and especially if I said I chose some of the numbers after the draw.
@@zul5665 Mould* - I took a shot.
The wrongs question(s) is being asked. The correct (and more intriguing) question is: Is it more likely that our universe was designed or came about randomly? Answer that question honestly and you will be on the path to truth.
Easy. Random.
All the Constants are constants because they have durability and stability as fundamental characteristics. All the "Inconstants" lack those two and so are rapidly destroyed, vanish from the scene, and have little, if any impact on the World as it is.
That doesn't explain why the constants are perfect for carbon-based life to emerge.
I think the greater mystery, even than the constants of nature, is to do with matter - quarks, leptons, and bosons. How did they come to have just the right properties that, in combination, give us the chemical elements with all their emergent properties?
A deity wouldn't need to fine-tune anything so it refutes its existence.
@@CesarClouds The god-fella didn't exactly fine-tune human nature. And then, it's said that he will torture those humans that he judges to be 'faulty'. What an asshole!
@@CesarClouds Why wouldn't a deity need to fine-tune anything?
@@briansmith3791 Because, allegedly, it's omnipotent.
@@CesarClouds An omnipotent creator is a Religious belief. The universal fine-tuning argument precludes an omnipotent God.
The scientific process has a good track record of explaining away the apparent design found in nature.
Yes. Obviously nature is beautiful and this confuses people like yourself that think complexity is a sign of design when in fact it is the opposite.
@@markb3786 *"Yes. Obviously nature is beautiful and this confuses people like yourself that think complexity is a sign of design when in fact it is the opposite."*
... If only a *bare minimum* amount of orchestration is being exploited (just enough to keep evolution pushing forward), then how would you ever be able to tell if any orchestration was happening whatsoever? You'd probably end up dealing with diametrically opposed "fine tuning" claims with neither being able to demonstrate either way.
@@markb3786 We humans are up to our neck in nature. We are not magically separated from it. Our world is full of design. The clothes you wear for instance are designed. It simply means when we humans can design stuff than that is proof for design in nature.
"a good track record of explaining away the apparent design found in nature."
Not really - if you are willing to dig a little deeper than a surface level understanding of the scientific knowledge extant - from flagella to abiogenesis.
Yes, which is why the technology based on that science works. Whereas religion has invented…. monastery penis sticks?
Change is fundamental and necessary. We are here because of structure, which arises because of constraints that form in the amorphous dynamic of purely abstract relationships. Logic is the determinant of outcomes, not supernatural creative agency.
The Fundamental Constants arise from relations which are not unchanging.
Wrong . A supernatural creative agency is required for change to occur.
Law of thermodynamics
Law of cause and effect.
Nothing can become something.
Infinity doesn't compute.
@@dongshengdi773Quite the opposite. The absolute state is impossible. The fundamental nature of things is about abstract dynamic relative states.
Different species are different combinations of attributes, by design, obviously! Attributes seem to determine form.
This man has no understand of the fine tuning problem on a cosmic level
I love how Robert intently listens to junior scientist and puts pressure on Senior scientist.
here we dont even have a scientist...
@@francesco5581 what is water?
@@missh1774 he is not a scientist ... he is a philosopher ... he is just trying to talk his way out from a question he cant answer ...
@@francesco5581 I did a bot test. You passed. Hello. When all is doomed, we will still have philosophy.
@@missh1774 you didnt pass the bot test ...
8:49 I ❤ WHY - it saves a lot of time and resources addressing a problem -not the results of a problem.
The physical universe exists the way it does because of fundamental constants. If the parameters of these constants were different, the universe would be different, or not exist at all. As such, life would be different, or not exist at all. There was no objective of the fundamental constants having just the right parameters for the universe to exist in a certain way. The constants didn’t have a goal in mind. They just existed as they are and the universe came about because of them. Life came about, as part of the way the universe came about. There was no far-reaching goal to make life exist. Life exists because of the process of cause and effect.
Kant satisfactorily addressed this long ago with the four antinomies and the concept of transcendental illusion.
There are deeper laws. For example there is connection between Hubble's constant and mass of electron. Because Hubble's constant is about tired light - electromagnetic radiation of any particle. Some variables will be reduces to others.
Excellent and stimulating discussion.
IMHO, our sensory inputs provide our brains with information that it processes and sends via an electrical message through our body’s neural networks, to cause a physical reaction. That function is handled, without conscious thought, by the brains electrical impulses transmitted through central nervous systems. This is present, in varying degrees, in all sentient species.
As evolution provided more and more memory storage capacity, with larger brains, giving thinking species more capacity to store and access the information from their memory banks.
Imo, learning to speak and listen, that is to communicate, is the catalyst that leads to conscious thought.
Electricity and it’s source, storage and role also seems to be a key and essential element in our everyday existence and in our consciousness.
I have no problem with thinking the universe as fine-tuned for something, but the question as to why it has to be fine tuned for "us" specifically, and not some other (really vague) thing, or have a "teleology", that might be adequate to produce an "us" (eventually), is the real question (e.g., theism vs. naturalism). So if I just think the universe is there to maximize the product of repetition x variation (e.g., complexity as a kind of variation), it might have found an "us" as part of a blind hill-climbing algorithm working on the components of existence (e.g., the periodic table, which also depends on stuff) to maximize that product. I could even call myself a "naturalist" and hold this belief (which I do), and come up with an objectively rationalized "moral code" (which in fact I did, e.g., we don't want to do things that damp out either repetition or variation, because it goes against the universal teleology). This kind of a teleology doesn't imply any conscious intention to get to an "us", a priori, by the universe, but it does imply something of a (vague) teleology (drive to maximize(repetition x variation)), which could have zapped itself into existence (Boltzman-wise) rather than a omnipotent/omniscient being.
However, if I'm using the argument that a universal teleology is what a universal teleology does, then there are expectations, given a more conventionally theistic teleology is actually operating. For instance, "Star Trek" should be considered the most religious show on television, given the large number of humanoid species traipsing around the galaxy, if we think the universal teleology derives from a divine (omni) being that's "really into" lesser forms in it's (metaphorical?) image. On the other hand, the scientific evidence so far suggests we're (relatively) alone (e.g. Fermi paradox), so if the universe has a teleology for an "us", or something like us, it seems pretty crappy at it, under a naturalistic view, combined with a universal teleology, consistent with what the universe does. On the third hand, maybe God really did intend the universe specifically for us and is just showing off by creating everything else.
Nurture vs Nature .
Theism vs Naturalism.
Newtonian vs Einstein.
They're actually both ,
Not either or .
We are both spiritual and physical beings , same as the nature of the universe
When I asked the scientist who discovered the Radio Active Constant (which is the secret behind life and intellect), what caused or created the RAC he replied by say saying "that is the million dollar question".
Once the universe is up and running, we can to some extent reverse engineer the current state of it to a point where the origins just ...are. The cosmological constants help us reverse engineer an explanation of how things came to be the way they are now, but finding an explanation for why they exist in the way they do leaves us with nothing to reverse engineer/extrapolate from. Eventually we arrive at the fundamental/irreducible conditions of the universe, and just have to accept them as brute facts we have no way of explaining.
We can speculate that the brute fundamental aspects of the universe were created and designed by some other force or mind, but then we're adding a different brute fact which can't be explained either.
To throw in our own existence as proof of the intention design doesn't really change the problem imo. Either way, we wouldn't be here if the cosmological constants were significantly different. And to imagine this entire, vast, mostly empty universe was created billions of years ago just for us to exist seems arrogant. Maybe it was designed for tomatoes to eventually exist in one tiny spot of an empty universe, and when I eat one I'm utterly thwarting the purpose of the designer whose purpose is inevitably mysterious to me.
Anyway, when it comes to talking about what is fundamental in our human model of the universe, we're basically identifying the end point of our human understanding. It might be we can go further and dig deeper, that's the history of our scientific endeavour, but for now we simply don't know why the cosmological constants are the way they are.
That the universe was able to create life and consciousness is tied to the fact that the moon precess around the earth and million other such facts, that together provide error correction such that determinism is attained. This is what is known as fine tuning, it isn't the work of intelligent design, but something even deeper.
Likey there are countless versions of the universe where the fine tuning does not allow us to exist. The only reason we are asking the question is because we are in a version of the universe that allows us to exist and ask the question.
That's why God exists
"likely"? I assume you have some evidence for this view?
@@dongshengdi773 Who or what fine-tuned god?
@@briansmith3791 It's kind of strange how these multiverse theories can be accepted face value, while creator theory is seen as mumbo jumbo. The thing is we likely only know a tiny fraction of the information needed to make a guess one way or the other.
@@BullseyeIX I agree. The atheist physicist, Sabine Hossenfelder, said, " Any idea of a multiverse is pseudo-science. There is no observable evidence for any other universe". I've just recently discovered that many of the leading atheists actually don't WANT there to be a God, any kind of God. Dawkins, Krauss, Dennett and others have said that publicly. How can they approach the subject objectively if they're biased from the start?
I dont think you have to be religious to see the obvious appearance of design which we are told is an illusion.
But it helps. 😅
@@bozo5632 I think recognising the design can lead to faith
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 IDK about that, but I'm 100% sure faith can lead to seeing design.
@@bozo5632I believe what you say is true
how to answer a question without answering the question
The reason why the universe appears fine-tuned is because the universe only exploits the *minimum amount of orchestration* necessary to get the job done. Anything beyond the "bare minimum" is wasteful and unnecessary (illogical). Fine-tuning does not require an omniscient God nor a Multiverse. The amount of orchestration exploited is commensurate with the amount of whatever is in need of orchestration. This is why the universe "appears" fine-tuned, yet we can't seem to pin down any _observable_ orchestration.
We keep searching for an "orchestra director" when there isn't one. ... _The musicians already know how to play the tune!_
Our existence is part of the universe to understand itself or we just evolve to survive and experience Life?
What if we just evolved without exploring bigger scientific questions to understand it , will the universe try to create new species?
How did the universe's "job" come to be assigned to it? Where did the musicians' "tune" come from? Your "explanation" doesn't really explain anything... you're trying to sneak in a purpose as if the universe is a deity. Do you think you're fooling anyone besides yourself?
But to get what job done?
@@theotormon *"But to get what job done?"*
... Evolve.
@@ManiBalajiC *"Our existence is part of the universe to understand itself or we just evolve to survive and experience Life?"*
... "Existence" is one step above "Nonexistence." Once the step is made, the step must be *justified.* We evolve and survive in order to establish justification for "Existence."
*"What if we just evolved without exploring bigger scientific questions to understand it , will the universe try to create new species?"*
... As long as we are producing new information that can lead to establishing justification for "Existence," then our species is still relevant. Should our species ever become unable to produce new information (or our information becomes redundant), then "Existence" would evolve into a new species that can.
"Existence" will repeat this cycle until justification for existence is fulfilled.
You’re on the tight track with intelligent design/simulation.
Agreed. Even Neil was mind blown .
Neil DeGrasse Tyson Freaks Out When Physicist James Gates Finds Intelligent Code in the Fabric of Space
@@dongshengdi773 oh there is so much. Infinity is just recursion without a base case defined. I find Neil DeGrasse Tyson to be one of the least creative thinkers in physics. He's really status quo and thinks what he sees is objective reality, which of course is silly.
Now why am I reminded of Douglas Adam's puddle analogy ? ("This hole fits me perfectly." )
Adams' puddle analogy doesn't apply to the real universal fine-tuning argument ( not the nonsensical ID version). For the analogy to work, there has to be many puddles. We have observable evidence for only one 'puddle', only one universe.
Grayling's very sensible perspective is otherwise known as the 'weak anthropic principle'
Grayling's ego is for me a problem. If you have not had a mystical experience this is the way you think. He is no Plato. He should try working towards having a "Jungian" experience of synchronicity. But is his attitude open to this?
Grayling's a poor philosopher. I know that Dawkins, Krauss, Dennett and others have said they actually don't WANT there to be a God of any kind. I wonder if Grayling thinks the same. If he does, then maybe why he is so lost on the subject.
If he thinks "because they are" is a good argument he should just quit.
Agreed. Piss-poor.
If a universe exists which contains carbon molecules then the probability that some physical constants have certain precise mathematical relationships is 100%. This is interesting and worthy of study, but I don’t see any reason to call this feature “tuning”.
(Disclaimer: I’m not a theoretical physicist or cosmologist)
Fine-Tuning annoys math ... But Science is Fine with Fine-Tuning because is the very definition of observable physics. Complain not about Fine-Tuning.. A Flower is just as mysterious.!
If one might be permitted to posit a question along evolutionary lines, of the millions of species to have found a place on this earth, how is it that one so far as we know, developed abstract reasoning? I use the term developed, because the intersection of mathematics and human inquisitiveness is an evolutionary process that we are witnessing.
I agree with that guy although there are some specific doubts expressed that are rarely if ever Presbyterian on my mothers side..
"Seems designed" to who? It's "fine-tuned" the way it is bcus it has to be, or life wouldn't exist. As for intelligent design, absolutely zero evidence for it beyond purely philosophical conjecture.
There's no evidence that science even exists
Ocham's Razor. Very relevant to this kind of inquiry.
so what's the simplest explanation? Also very doubtful as the simplest explanation would be for there to be nothing. Nothing does not require any actions, if nothing is possible. According to science it is and we say there was nothing before the Big Bang.
The fine tuning is there just because it is there. That is Graylings answer...a complete and comprehensive non-answer. I'm not impressed at all.
If the truth is that we do not have enough information to answer the question, then it's the job of a conscientious philosopher to say so and then move on to other questions.
Thanks Sir for enlightenment. Regards
He really hasn't answered anything at all. Apply his logic to any form of knowledge and it doesn't really hold up... ask him what a blood cell is for and he seems fine with the answer "It's something to look at on a slide under a microscope."
'A blood cell is because it is'. lol
Does U235 decay indeterminately, thus a-causally or is it determined by a hidden variable? Is randomness fundamentally a-causal? Is the initial state of the vacuum a state of instability >> an a-causal state of fluctuation?
That's a really interesting question. I would think that if there were a hidden variable, that is a specific internal state, that the behaviour would be determined by that variable and therefore not random. In computer science generating truly random sequences from deterministic (non random) processes such as specific algorithms has not been achieved, and it is likely that it is impossible. The best we can do is pseudo-random sequences that appear to be random, but on detailed statistical analysis are not. This is why the strongest encryption systems use atomic decay to seed their randomisation algorithms. This implies that whatever is going on inside decaying nuclei it cannot be a deterministic process and must be inherently truly random. Beyond that, what's going on is a mystery.
@@simonhibbs887 The mystery is the hart of the matter… is it not? Is QM a complete description of reality? Does everything that begins to exist have a cause? [Kalam] Who’s playing dice with the universe? Infinite regression… Fine tuning… The Matrix… Watching CTT… reading comments… madness… The quicksand of time. Are two heads better than one?
The internal state is, or determined by, quantum fluctuation.
@@B.S... I do think the apparent true randomness at the heart of quantum mechanics is one of the deep mysteries, but I'm not sure it's ever been directly addressed on this channel. It's a very technical issue though, you need to know a bit about pseudo-random algorithms and the seeming impossibility of algorithmic randomness to be able to appreciate it, so it's not very pop-philosophy friendly.
Of course there are arguments that this randomness is only apparent. For a while I've been interested in superdeterminism, which eliminates randomness from quantum mechanics. The theory has some interesting ideas in it, but it's hard to see how a fundamentally deterministic procedural physics could generate the random variations we see in the early universe, which lead to the formation of galaxies and superclusters. Even if the universe now is deterministic in the hard sense, it seems like there must have been true randomness in the initial conditions at some point.
@@simonhibbs887 SD also eliminates any possibility of free will, a concept I thought you believed in and yes there are interpretations of QM that are deterministic, i.e. - MWI (which i have no objection).
The last time I checked the CMB showed clear evidence of quantum fluctuations and I agree with the opinion that the fluctuations are evidence of eternal inflation.
Unless I’m confused, hard determinism defeats free will but it cannot describe physical events. Does anyone seriously think that GR isn’t flawed and that a theory of quantum gravity isn’t necessary?
@@B.S... Personally I'm a physicalist and I don't think the idea of philosophical free will is workable.
There are many interpretations of QM and I have no idea which will turn out to be correct, so I like to keep an open mind. That means taking the ones I see as plausible seriously and 'steel manning' them to some extent. So I've delved into MWI, SD, Pilot Wave and others, and I think I can argue strongly for each of them, but I don't have an answer. Nobody does, anyone who says they do IMHO is guessing or has an agenda. There are just some I doubt more strongly than others.
I'm not sure what you mean by hard determinism not explaining physical events. But sure we don't have a final theory fusing GR and QM yet. Nevertheless the observations that SR and QM describe are real observations, and any final theory will need to be at least as accurately descriptive of them, and have as much predictive power as SR and QM today.
It's called probability not design. He's right, Why is nonsensical question
Finally, someone talking with common sense. This is the future of cosmology and physics in particular.
Why should we assume that life cannot exist in an universe with different values of the constants? The life that we know is certainly not possible, but is there any limit to the other possible forms of life? Can consciousness exist in those universe?
because with small changes even molecules couldn't exist, let alone planets and worlds
@@chrisgarret3285 We know this based on the laws of physics of this universe only.
@@syz911 This is the ONLY universe we have observable evidence for. Any talk of other universes without evidence is pseudo-science.
@@syz911 we don't know of any other universe.
Are rivers fine tuned ?
Considering that H20 could not exist if the Strong Force was slightly different, yes. Unironically.
In my opinion, no. The universe, this System, is fine-tuned, but within that System are free-running processes. The river is free to adapt to it's environment as is everything else.
If you really think about the old joke from "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy", the the meaning of life, the universe, and everything is 42, it's actually quite clever while also being funny. Why? Because 42, or any number for that matter, is an abstract concept. Nobody invented 42, nothing created 42, it just is. Not the actual numeral representation, but the actual number itself. Numbers just are, and we can accept this, but we can't accept that the universe just is and we constantly have the argument of science vs religion vs philosophy. I suppose it's just in our nature.
Einstein believed that God was the Laws of Nature which Science seeks to uncover and discover. Not only are there particular laws and constants the fact they exist is evidence of order. We are part of Nature and that is miraculous. Einstein's Cosmic Religion believed that Science itself was a spiritual enterprise and I agree.
The fine tuning argument lurks in the back of the minds of a lot of atheists. I believe Hitchens said that it gave him pause.
It doesn't bother me. I don't think fine tuning is a real thing. I think it's like shooting an arrow then drawing the bullseye after it lands.
Lurks - and terrorizes them the more and more failed experiments they do (decade after decade) attempting to prove (their yet to be proven) fancy theories based on chance.
Isn’t it rather that bigotry and racism fill the minds of Christians? Which is why we are now all starting to despise them so much. I know I do.
@@bozo5632I can see that argument. Of course it seems fine tuned if we’re living in it. With that said, I’ve noticed it’s one of the very few arguments that I’ve seen dedicated scientists give at least some level of credibility to. Sean Carroll recently said on Neil Degrasse Tyson’s podcast that it was the best argument in favor of a god, albeit still a bad one.
@@bozo5632 Grayling was wrong when he said something similar. The Physical Constants were inherent at the Big Bang. The universe has been fine-tuned since the Beginning.
Great clarity of thought, putting aside all the theist nonsense that begs to irrationality instead of deduction.
theism is wrong but far more scientific than "it's like that because it is". This guest couldn't be more wrong.
Nurture vs Nature .
Theism vs Naturalism.
Newtonian vs Einstein.
They're actually both ,
Not either or .
We are both spiritual and physical beings , same as the nature of the universe
“The constants are that way because they are.” The irony in his argument is that he fails to notice his own Scientism religiosity. He might as well be arguing for God.
Constants change as the universe evolves, the current value allows our existence..
Yes, his "answer" is unsatisfactory, and it undermines his claim at the end that Occam's Razor disprefers the religious explanation of fine tuning. Occam's Razor favors the simpest explanation, but his answer isn't explanatory.
It surprises me that neither Kuhn nor the guest mentioned Eternal Inflation, which isn't the same as the two theories Kuhn did mention: Many Worlds and String Theory. Many Worlds doesn't explain fine tuning, and String Theory by itself doesn't either.
Another explanation of fine tuning is Lee Smolin's Cosmological Evolution, which posits: (1) Each black hole gives rise to a child universe that may have slightly different fundamental constants, and (2) Universes with fundamental constants that excel at producing black holes also happen to be suited to life. So life is a fortuitous side effect of universes tuned by evolution to produce black holes.
The multiverse problem.
By Paul Davies, a cosmologist not bound by any tradition.
"I usually say two cheers for the multiverse because there are good reasons of physics and cosmology for supposing that what we see may not be all you get. That there may be other regions of space and time that could be different. So it's not an unreasonable speculation. However, it falls far short of being a complete theory of existence, which is often presented as. That as if there's a multiverse, then we can forget about all the mysteries of the universe because it's all explained. Everything is out there somewhere. End of story.
Well, it's simply not true, because to get a multiverse, you need a universe-generating mechanism. Something has got to make all those big bangs go bang. So you're going to need some laws of physics to do that. And you can say, well, where do they all come from? So all you've done is shift the problem of existence up from the level of universe to the level of multiverse, but you haven't explained it.
I suppose, for me, the main problem is that what we're trying to do is explain why the universe is as it is by appealing to something outside of it. In this case an infinite number of universes outside of it. That, to me, is no better than traditional religion that appeals to an unseen unexplained God that is outside of the universe.
I'm prepared to accept that what we see isn't the totality, that there may be regions of space and time, other universes, if you like, that could be rather different from what we observe. But I certainly don't believe that all possible universes are out there, and that the explanation for the universe that we see is because everything imaginable exists, and that this particular one we see, just because it happens to be one that we live in. I think that falls far short of a proper explanation. Indeed, I think it's contradictory and absurd."
.
@@dongshengdi773 : Davies' argument fails to justify why he believes his final sentence, that infinite universes are "contradictory and absurd."
Also, there's no need to postulate an infinite number of universes to explain fine-tuning. Only a very large (finite) number is needed.
Furthermore, the number wouldn't need to be very large if a cosmological evolution principle is at work. In other words, perhaps cosmologists can someday show (1) that universes with fundamental constants similar to ours are better at spawning child universes than are universes with most other combinations of possible fundamental constants, and (2) that the fundamental constants of a child universe can differ (mutate) from the fundamental constants of its parent universe. The combination of these two properties would make universes like ours fairly typical, by a law equivalent to Darwinian evolution.
Grayling is a poor philosopher as regards this subject. "..they are that way because they are," means nothing.
Fine tuning is the best argument for a god. But it is still not a good argument. Because there is nothing about fine tuning that says "I'm god" because we cant prove or disprove that it is actually a design at all.
Design? Designed for what? A kitchen is designed, so is a bathroom, both of them are designed for the comfort of the designer or occupier of the house.
Are humans designed by a designer who use them for his purpose and comfort? What could be our possible utility to the designer?
Dude. If the strong force was slightly different molecules couldn't exist.
@@chrisgarret3285 Is that the same thing as saying if your mother didn't meet your father you wouldn't exist?
Existence depends on eggheads "discovering" some esoteric consistency in their theories? You know science runs on theory, right? If it isn't a theory it isn't science, it's something else. If dice 🎲 weren't rolled on a flat surface what would the probability be of rolling snake eyes? If you change any rule, how would that effect the whole? Fine tuning or meddling?
@@kallianpublico7517 You're looking in too deep into this (strange that on the surface). The reality of the situation is that have one or three parameters been slightly different this would be a sterile universe with no matter for example. Yes, it's a stretch to say it was designed for humans, it's even a stretch to say it was designed for life. It is not a stretch to say that had it been minutely different, matter could not be. I can't grasp how that's not significant to you.
@@chrisgarret3285 You, apparently, think that matter is the source of life. That even though fine-tuning can't explain life the fact that it explains matter is, somehow, more important. You suffer from belief syndrome. You believe that what you assert isn't a belief. That your assertion is a self-evident fact instead of a bold face lie. Lie - any assertion supported by ignorance. Perhaps you also hold that lines are made of points. Matter is made of particles which are also waves. Numbers exist.
If you examine your assertion "closely" it breaks down into unprovable assumption rather than self-evident force. More correlation than causation. Gravity, as if you didn't know, is a correlation not a cause.
@@kallianpublico7517 lol so you're on here claiming thay you would have life in this universe with no matter? That's absurd and a delusion.
The *First Cause* is the reason.
The universe was formed out of pressure and designed by electrons emanating x-rays and because of cold dark matter whenever an electron come in contact with it, it begin to emanate x-rays before kicking off in to a permanent spend drive and if there's enough of them working together they can easily peel open a permanent spinning black hole in the fabric of space while emanating x-rays all at the same time. This is also fine-tuning.. without feelings.
There is only two parts to existence biological intelligence and the electrical intelligence. Now this is what's going to blow everybody's mind the universe is just a command post controlling everything in the universe and does not have control over the biological life forms so I guess this mean it's okay to shop around...
Arrogant scientists have no real argument against fine tuning
"Nothing about [fine tuning] should surprise us, given that we exist." How dull-witted do you have to be to say such a thing! This desire to deny what is most astonishing -- where does it come from? Fear?
1:08 "This [super] intelligence is likely to be artifact." Artifact things have creators. So what are you suggesting, a super super intelligence? Why not a super super super intelligence?
Robert, this intelligence, this nonmetaphorical intelligence you think should exist, would mean nature is not natural.
1:59. Arguing backwards. 'What must be true is true. Now this idea should be true. If it were true then it would have evidence for it. This here, this bit, this is evidence for it. So that proves it could be true. If it could be true it might well be true. If it might well be true, it must be true. What must be true is true. It's true! Ain't I smart.'
[Posted in the wrong place.]
They look and sound smart but somehow this miss the point entirely. We have known for a long time that we exist and that the universe has the properties that allow us to exist. What we have discovered in the last 60 years or so is that it is super, incredibly, amazingly, unlikely that the universe should have the right constants of physics and initial conditions to allow us to be here. That is new. And that was not expected. And they miss the point.
also, any answer "things are like this because they simply are" does not make sense in any logical argumentation, this discussion is very low intellectually
We're alive on this planet in this galaxy while looking out at an endless array of other galaxies with tons of planets that have no life. We're alive because we are on a planet that has the right conditions for life while many don't. Our planet has the only life in our solar system that we know of. To me, this is evidence that there are other universes out there who have properties where life can't exist, probably an endless amount of universes just like it seems there are an endless amount of galaxies and planets in our universe.
Which stars in our galaxies don't have planets with life? Name one.
@@bozo5632 That's asking someone to prove a negative.
@@colt5189 You claimed it.
@@colt5189 For all you know there is life around almost every star. Nearly zero data available.
I believe all stars are fine tuned for biological life because if the sun started out from a black hole then it has enough space to make a cooling mechanism for controlling its temperature and if this is all true then this is where all the moisture is created and when the black hole becomes full with water this could mean the beginning of biological life and the end for the star.
My point the sun create steam for fuel inside its core and when its core completely filleds up with water because of so much steam it will begin boiling and then the entire star explodes and because of gravity everything is sucked back into the center which is the final stage for the implosion and the remains spread throughout the universe to other solar systems as fertilizer and this is also a part of fine tuning.. I believe we are here because the universe doesn't care for loneliness..
Human beings will always ask "Why" as long as they are still in existence. Science and Religion are not at odds with one another as Einstein said Science without Religion is blind and Religion without Science is lame.
" Einstein had some notion of a non-personal God which created the universe and that Man would somehow understand the plan on which it was created". - David Bohm, colleague and protege of Einstein in a talk with David Suzuki. ( 21mins)
The answering side in this conversation is excellent illustration what intellectual dishonesty is.
You are asking him questions, his reply is "it is childish ... why, why, why''. And yes, some questions need if not definite answers, then some more thoughts. The haircut itself is not enough in this process.
Why, why, why…. IS the beginning of rationality in a child.
who scientist says tooth 5:41 and appendix are not good design ed
You are a great design, but your flaws are the things you partake in. The mere act of leaving your own place of patience just to manipulate or take advantage of others is the downfall of many, especially from the West.
The constants are that way "Because they are". Grayling is afraid of the atheism of the gaps. Which is the multiverse theories.
3:22 The design process in engineering often involves creating multiple imperfect prototypes and basically never is the final product/creation completely perfect. Arguing that imperfections entail non design is obviously and laughably fallacious.
So the new Christian argument is that it took god awhile to get the whole creation thing right? Had to learn from his mistakes?
@@longcastle4863 Where did I say anything about Christianity (or any religion)?👽
Thanks for providing yet another typical, laughably closed-minded atheist argument ;)
Is asking why a flawed question? I don't buy that. Asking why is all that physics and philosophy and religion do. The fact is it takes a multiverse theory to satisfy what would otherwise be a one universe theory with impossible probabilities that such fine tuning could exist and that we could even be here without design.
If we all would be following the Ten Commandments we would be living in heaven right now here is this beautiful perfect Planet that God created for us.
So you are okay with all powerful ever existing conscious beings who decided to create us but made sure it took 14 billion years, have a slow evolution and also made sure only way to heaven is to worship him and put people in the worst places so they make mistakes and go to hell... Can't wrap my mind on that
@@ManiBalajiC yes he created all of it out of nothing with the big bang 26.7 billion years ago.
If ten was enough, we wouldn't need millions of laws and lawyers.
What does the bible say about offshore mineral rights?
As best as I can tell, if the universe was created by a designer, it’s one who basically shook up the ingredients, set the parameters, pressed the ‘Ignite’ button, and then sat back and took notes on the results.
A lot of awe-inspiring stuff, but not a ton of efficiency. And no, I refuse to believe Venus is an uninhabitable hellscape because of God’s omnibenevolent plan, e.g.
@docdaytona108 The universe has been fine-tuned from the very beginning. One universe with the inherent Physical Constants IS the fine-tuning. Don't confuse the universal fine-tuning argument with Creationism and ID.
Thats my boy RLK!!! 😎
He's not a boy, he's a man.
0:35 The massive act of egoism is to assume that there was nothing before the Big Bang and that we all just emerged from a nothingness in some sort of giant fluke (which can EASILY be disproved BTW).
The fact that the constants of physics seem to be fine tuned IS straight-up evidence of design by a higher being. After all, the probability of creation/design is higher in a universe where the laws of nature are fine tuned than in a universe where the laws are not. All that “evidence” means at the fundamental level is for a probability of a given hypothesis to increase after new information is obtained. Therefore the word “evidence” is more than appropriate here.
Nice display of ignorant hubris by our guest today :)
Totally agree
Hubris ... talk about unconscious projection!
> Go to a casino
> Play roulette and win 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times in a row
> Ask how, why or is this rigged?
> Nah, it's just the way it is
> Guess, I played countless matches before this sequence happen?
> No, you are looking from a wrong perspective! You won this much from a first try and there is all there is to it. You shouldn't be surprised. Grab your jackpot and gtfo
couldn't be a worse example. there are countless rules that allowed that win to happen, which is what this video is about. How did those rules originate (or always were)?
@@chrisgarret3285 no, the video is not about how the countless very specific rules originated, but WHY exactly these rules out of all possible? The chances were so low, that it, by itself, implies the whole eternity of a countless "fruitless" universes before or some sort of sentient interference.
The answer was unsatisfying, though
@@dmitrychirkov4206 There is no such thing as a "why" question. "Why is that apple red?" is really "How is that apple red?". Why questions don't exist, each one is a "how" question wrapped in hubris. That's first. Both the win you're talking about and existing to begin with requires rules in place. That's what we are trying to get at, regardless of god or no god.
@@chrisgarret3285 apple being red is not a closed system either and it's color is necessary for other things, which in total could be described with a question "why"
We don't know whether any features CAN even vary for fine-tuning, the change of finding life in a set that makes life possible is 100%, different sets would make life -impossible- _different,_ an omnipotent god can put life in NON-fine-tuned universes just fine, and the belief that a living god exists NOT in a fine-tuned universe contradicts the whole argument. What a crappy creationist excuse for an argument.
He seems in such a position of one who is trying to persuade us to love Hitler's atrocities
I think quantum mechanics has answer for that. It tells us that world is probablistic and not certain. and given vast amount of space in our universe and possibility of existence of multiple universes, every possible Universe exists and every possible arrangement within universe who has non zero probablity also exist. therefore, we exist in unverse and region where our constants are fine tuned as they are, and all possible arrangement of constant do exist in different universe, but we dont exist in those universe because there we cant born. but maybe different fine tuned constants has different kind of biologies which we cant think about, maybe their unverse's biology can live at temprature above 4000 degree celcius, my point being environment hazardius to us might be sustainable for them, we never know about that. therefore, to conclude, there's possiblity of all valued constants, all different kind of physical laws, and all different kind of biology. therefore life evolved based on fine tuned constants and not the other way around seems more likely true. because universe came first then the life form evolved and life forms have possibilities of evolving in every possible way, but only fittest can survive and these natural selection is the reason for life we see are the way it is.
I am amazed as an orthodox christian how bad scientists are at understanding minimal theological ideas, like the fall of Adam; so, please remember that current world as we see it is specific to a fallen world in which all universe has been affected by sin; it is not the world as it looked when God created, just like Adam after the fall is not immortal anymore. It is a big change in all the discussion, but Oliver is kinda popular scientist, does not really go into deep real issues
But those who jump the Grand Canyon are very brave, intelligent and convincing... I'm thinking of all the religious prophets. Spirituality is a unique human power as well as experience and it takes us well off the track of reason while being the most real of experience.
We are living in a kids science project. The problem is he/she got a failing grade for it.
I know you're poking fun but that answer would mean absolutely nothing. There would still be a world that kid lives in and then the same questions stand.
the conditions just happened the way they did and we simply evolved as a result of it being fine tuned was not by a grand plan it just did is all and pond scum grew as a result.
....being anti-God is worse than being pro-God, it causes one to "put it a box and label it, measure it" limit themselves. Humanity is strange indeed.
Most of the people you are referring to are not anti god or gods, they just don’t believe in it or them. What you will find is a lot of people being against the religious; because, it seems, they are inevitably racist and bigoted and if you give them enough power, they become violent and start committing atrocities. Hard to find a case of the religious being in power when atrocities didn’t happen.
Design, I doubt that. If we take human evolution as a schema used in the universe, than the evolution of the physical universe could have also followed this path.
Many universes arise with a variety of fundamental values. Most die off. Humans view their existence with survivor bias.
This "fine tuning" by trial and error would go faster with a feedback loop operating.
" Many universes arise...most die off". Wtf? What universes? Do you have even a hint of observable evidence for these imaginary universes? As the atheist physicist Sabine Hossenfelder says, " the multiverse idea is pseudo-science, there is no observable evidence for any other universe outside of ours". If it's only your own speculation, then say so, don't make outright statements with zero evidence.
Any assertion other than "all possible worlds are necessary" is inherently metaphysical, as some metaphysical entity must be invented that restricts the generation of possible worlds.
"A fine-tuned Universe" to me is evidence that there are other universes out there. Probably an infinite number of universes where most don't have life, but some just so happen to be in a formulation that allows life as we know it to exist. I think the odds are just too high for this to be the only universe to have existed. It's also possible there is only one universe at a time that is endlessly created and destroyed having new properties each time.
Yes, this universe is an evidence that there maybe others like it, an infinite number maybe or that there is just one universe which is created distroyed and recreated endlessly. Both these posibilies maybe true
Where are you getting "other universes" from? There is zero evidence for any universe outside ours. Any idea of a multiverse is pseudo-science.
Or maybe this universe isn't fine tuned. IMHO it's not.
I like the last 40 seconds
Occam's razor would suggest a SINGLE GOD as the simplest explanation 😊
No, it think it would rather suggest no god; and, rather, that Nature always was. That’s simpler.
@@longcastle4863 You see vm - longcastle has fooled himself into thinking he believes in no God - but he suffers from one of the most nihilist religions yet known to humankind: the religion of the almighty particle. That is his faith. And it is an unproven faith as well. But a faith nevertheless.
But God only knows if longcastle ever discovers the truth about himself and his nihilistic faith - no telling what unconscious mania he might succumb to.
LOL so first Antony says there is no problem to solve. Then, in response to Robert's point, he says that this would go a long way towards solving the problem. So which is it? Not a good guest.
Let's say God did it. Is there not still a question about why He created a world that needed fine tuning? Could He have done otherwise? Is so, why did He choose these particular values?