I was thinking the same thing while watching this video. I love all Dr. Kuhns videos and how he engages at the level of all his guests, clearly grasping the concepts, extracting the essence and summarizing it back and at times challenging them. He has a badass brain and therefore brings out the best from his guests.
The point made early on in this interview by Mr. Kuhn is central to any understanding of this question. That being; science and truth are not co-identical. All science is wedded to the questionable notion that all reality can be cognitively assimilated. In other words all aspects of reality can be known by the human mind, but it can't, in my opinion. The inflexible dogma that states if it can't be weighed measured or observed then it has no possibility of existing is not a tenable explanation for manifold reality. This question of a "fine tuned" universe can never be adequately understood devoid of a spiritual conception of the universe and indeed all reality. I love Mr. Kuhn.s interviews. They always inspire intellectual curiosity.
@@kos-mos1127 You say "Spiritual conceptions have no explanatory power" This is not true. You have fallen into the intellectual trap of believing only that which can be verified can be considered real. You also say that spiritual conceptions have no explanatory power. This is also not true. The assertion that the universe is the product of mind explains how the universe is so perfectly designed for the long term stability needed for the emergence of sentient life. It explains why the universe is formulaic in its mathematically precise balance of interrelated properties. It also explains why the phenomenon of evolved emergent complexity is observed throughout the cosmos. A spiritual conception of the universe offers an explanation for "first cause". This traditional idea of what began our universe has never been credibly refuted. The problem is people in general have not yet formed an evolved conception of God and are still wedded to silly anachronistic bible based beliefs that are so ridiculous they do more to turn people away from any deeper understanding of transcendent spiritual reality.
@@michaelmckinney7240 Spiritual conceptions have no explanatory power. They explain away rather than explain. The spiritual explanation ends up empty. The assertion that mind explains how the universe is design does not explain anything and is not useful as an explanation. The first cause argument is based on manipulating language to argue for the need of a first cause. The definition of world is something composed of all categories of existence but is not itself a category of existence. The first cause argument redefines the definition of world to be a category of existence by changing the world from a whole to a part of the whole. Then state God is the one that brought the world into existence. To accept the First Cause assertion first a person has to ignore the meaning of words then play with language to make the first cause argument make sense.
@@kos-mos1127 You say "They explain away rather than explain" What can that possibly mean? You say, "The assertion that mind explains how the universe is design does not explain anything and is not useful as an explanation." Really? Anything that bears design, purpose or an intentional functionality must be the product of thought and mentality, in other words "mind." You say, "The first cause argument is based on manipulating language to argue for the need of a first cause." This is a wholly erroneous statement. If you notice, we are surrounded by something called the universe. It's not there because we "manipulate language" to make it appear that it's there. It exists independently of human existence. The question of how it came into being is the question of first cause and it's never been convincingly answered. It's not an illusion based on the manipulation of language. You State, "The definition of world is something composed of all categories of existence but is not itself a category of existence. The first cause argument redefines the definition of world to be a category of existence by changing the world from a whole to a part of the whole." This definition of the world is yours not mine. It's a confused and inadequate definition of "the world". What exactly do you mean when you use the word "world"? I use the currently accepted model of cosmology to posit the need for a first cause. We know from science that the Big Bang started with the original and first singularity that spawned both the Big Bang and the expanding universe that followed. What science cannot answer is what it was that initiated this first and ultimately violent event. That original singularity must have been stable for a certain amount of time even if minutely brief. Cosmology and the laws of physics asserts that nothing existed prior to this violent explosion, not even time or the laws of physics and yet something acted upon that original singularity to cause it to become unstable and produce the Big Bang, something that didn't yet exist in linear time, What could it have been? Whatever it was it had to exist prior to the emergence of time itself and that smacks of something eternal. This is in essence the question of "First Cause" If you think you can answer this mystery of first cause devoid of any reference to a transcendent agent of supernatural power, please do so. You will fail. I've had many exchanges with those offering an atheistic interpretation of how the universe came into being and they all fall well short of a cogent or convincing line of reasoning. They never consider the points I make and simply come back with some off the wall comment that holds no persuasive logic.
@@michaelmckinney7240 The problem with the first cause argument is it cannot be verified. At some level things would just have to happen. Appealing to the supernatural does not explain anything. In order for the supernatural to explain anything it would need to include the natural at some level. As far as the evidence is concerned the supernatural makes no testable predictions about the natural. Why even worry about a transcendent agent of supernatural power. If a supernatural being was powerful it would be trivial to make itself testable in a manner in which our tools would allow us the test it’s existence. Until then I put the first cause in the same category as unicorns and any other made up entity.
my thinking (such as it is) is that you have a situation somewhat akin to plato's forms that "stability" inclines to future stability and in fact biology is simply a progression of stability so when you add probability (improbability in smolin's terms) then any universe that is stable enough to exist, it will necessarily develop life and biology so i agree with lee smolin, you don't need a profusion of "almost universes" the continued existence of this one is enough and if you look at the time scales of biological development in relation to the development of the universe, that fits
There is no need for fine-tuning when you realize that the whole universe has a wave function, and it is described by the Schrodinger equation. There is no wave-function collapse, but there is a multi-verse. We just happen to be in a branch of the multi-verse that allows for life to exist.
This boils down to misplaced awe for the unlikeliness of a particular event happening. Reality being exactly how it needs to be for us to exist, doesn't make it mysterious. Chances are chances, however small. There was a chance and it happened. If I throw 3 different marbles in a 100 by 100 position raster, the chance of them ending up as they do is 1 in 999.700.020.000 (if my math is correct), yet no one would be in awe for what I just did. Perhaps the marbles themselves feel special. Like we do ... If you take into consideration the possibility of multiverses or an infinite sequence of big bangs or what not, the whole discussion renders mute.
How is it possible to answer if the Universe is fine-tuned for Life and Mind, as long as Mind escapes science no matter how much we try to include it, and even that the concept of Life is not well defined?
How does mind escape science? We study it using science all the time and are learning more and more about it. Without a physical brain there is no mind. Damage a part of the brain and the mind is damaged/changed.
There is an explanation for all of that and I already have it. I unambiguously solved this, including solving multiple long standing paradoxes. But people won’t let go of their assumptions and won’t listen. Because I am not a member of an institution and I left graduate school after 4.5 years to write a 700 page book because I didn’t agree with their paradigm. I absolutely love these interviews and Lee Smolin rocks. ❤️🔥🙏🏻👍🏻
I solved it in Jr high so I just left school in the 8th grade. Schools are for people that need to learn. I figured it all out one night after adult swim
@Kraig StClair we got it all wrong sending smart people ti elected universities. The dumb are the ones that need it. Like when I go to the gym and see all the jacked up dudes i always think “shouldn’t the skinny and fat fuckers be the ones that go to the gym?” So I’d only go back ta school if I got dumber. Now don’t go stealing my ideas and saying their yours
@Kraig StClair Lord I know… my student loans are off the charts. I repaid many times over, but interest on interest is killer. Also, I don’t care about anything but real, life-giving truth and I have already had massive impact on the world. And I am still an extremely revolutionary thinker. One day people will know my name. They are slowly getting there. People are as loathe as tree-sloths to relinquish their grasp on existing branches. 😂🤷♀️
@kraigstclair2841 ? This doesn’t even make any sense to me. But I appreciate the comment anyway and the effort of thought even though you don’t know me and I don’t know you. Thinking is good. Have a great day ❤️👍🏻
Sure we can look at the narrow scope of values that would permit life as we know it. But to be honest about it we then have to look at the ratio of life permitting space to non life permitting space. Looking at it that way, it doesn't seem so fine tuned for life anymore.
Robert this time you're going on the Suez Canal it seems? By the way I like to tell this Scientist that if nothing else our minds are fine tuned because he can understand all these tough problems. Gratitude.
is surely tuned to be incredibly rich .... btw why something would emerge from "time" ? What cando time+natural selection (something he gives for granted to be here, just like "time") if they start with one atom or a banana ? Smolin dont get the whole picture, just want something that is measurable.
I always had trouble with this fine tuning issue...They say the earths atmosphere has oxygen so mans lungs can breathe....Why not just say that mans lungs have developed so that they can breathe oxygen?
We are all fine tuned. Ever notice that our legs are all just long enough to reach the ground. An inch shorter and we would all be walking on air. I think the main issue here is the assumption that the universe was created . Fine tuning implies a tuner.
God loves is so much,, he put us on the earth, rather than on any of the other inhospitable planets. So we should go to Church every Sunday morning and sing songs about him. (and put some money in the collection box).
That anthropic reasoning has conscious observation, is an explanation of consciousness / subjective awareness needed for an explanation of fine tuning?
I think the "world of forms" is a useful fiction for thinking, and that possibilities do not exist "outside" of the contingent world. You can't disentangle the static from the dynamic and get something that exists in its own right. It exists only as a conceptual "end of infinity" of a temporalized process. The static can only be an impoverished description of what's really going on, because something intrinsic and essential is lost when you try to do away with time. The "timeless universe" is not a necessary precondition, in fact it is the ultimate contingent object, and what it requires as its precondition is a temporal process which might bring it about. "All of possibility" does not certainly exist; in fact, it has a 0% chance of ever being manifested, even if you could unroll each moment into a single frame, in the temporal world. Doesn't mean the concept can't be useful, it clearly already has been in the history of science and mathematics. But an idea doesn't have to be true to be useful. I personally agree with Lee that the "desire for the absolute" clouds our ability to consider the possibility of a world where we cannot take it for granted. All of this is just my opinion though.
(0:00) *LS: **_"Every claim that the anthropic principle has consequences for science rests on a logical fallacy."_* ... For anything to be considered *information,* it must first be structured in a way that allows for it to be communicated. What cannot be communicated has no order or structure by default (i.e., "chaos"). *Logic* is pure, unpolluted _information_ that can easily be communicated, and anything that does not meet a logical standard is _illogical_ by default. This being said, if information is necessarily structured and organized, then it is logical that it should expand and evolve within its own organizational structure. Chaos remains the same within its own unorganized, structureless arena, so no evolution or organization is required nor is it even possible. The moment chaos starts to become organized, it can no longer be considered chaos. When we ask why the universe seems "fine tuned," we are not really understanding what we're dealing with. The universe is *information* presented in an organized, structured way, and it is only *logical* that this information should expand and evolve to the point where it appears "fine tuned" to the ones standing on the business end of this ongoing evolution of information. For _logic-based information_ to move in any direction other than into greater complexity would be _illogical._
@@Chris_Sheridan *"Entropy destroys your stupid rant"* ... Evolution destroys your entropy rant. I have the universe starting out as a chaotic, unorganized, piping-hot quark-gluon soup, and after 13.7 billion years of *evolution* we now have billions of highly complex, self-aware humans peppering planet earth with brains that SCIENCE proclaims represent the most complex structure known to exist within the universe. ... _What do you have?_
@@Braun09tv *"The artificially created math laws have a common ancestor and so they are in fixed relations."* ... (1 + 1 = 2) is an axiomatic mathematical law. If I have an apple in my left hand and pick up another apple with my right hand, then I now have two apples. If my two apples empirically found within existence represent the same sum total produced through my mathematical equation .... then how is mathematics "artificially created?" Was (1 + 1 = 2) synthesized in a laboratory experiment?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Math is a language we use to communicate how may instances of a thing we have. An example is 1 instance of an apple + 1 instance of an apple = 2 instances of an apple. Math is not fundamental when taking that point of view it is how we describe instantiations of events.
Maybe fine tuning is the result of evolution/natural selection. All possible versions of natural laws randomly pop into existence, and the laws that successfully integrate survive. Seems rather simple.
Time can't be fundamental. Because it disappears when there are no clocks around to measure it, and it breaks down at very small sizes when the arrow of time vanishes. Almost nothing about our folk notions of time(and our concept of time is built up from those notions) makes sense. The biggest problem is the idea of the 'flow' of time. If time flows...what does it flow relative to? Ask yourself this: if somehow time everywhere were to slow by 50%...how would you be able to notice it? Or if it increased by 50%? The only way you could notice such a change would be if _your internal mind_ remained at the same speed but everything else changed. But if time itself changed everywhere it would be impossible to tell. And this is the scary bit: the same argument applies if time *stops.* If time were to simply stop, you wouldn't notice it for exactly the same reasons that you wouldn't notice it halving or doubling in speed. Indeed if time were to flow in reverse, you wouldn't notice that either. The reason is that there is only one way we can experience time, and that is because whatever moment in time(imagine a moment just hanging there, frozen, static, like a 3D frame of a film) we occupy we always have memories of the past and expectations of the future. And those moments can only 'fit together' in one way. Your memories at any second, along with the positions of every atom in the room, mean that the next 'frame' you experience must be one in which you have slightly memories of the previous 'frame' and expectations of the next. It would be psychologically, metaphysically nonsensical to experience things any other way. You could take those static moments and jumble them up...but the people in those moments would experience them in perfect order, ie. the order that involves a sequence of events we call experience. From this most scientists and philosophers conclude that the idea of the 'flow' of time is an illusion, and yes, sort of emergent. If time is so meaningless that the idea of running it in reverse would make absolutely no empirical difference to our experience then it seems reasonable to consign it to the junkheap of ideas we've outgrown. Smolin's conjecture doesn't really contradict any these conclusions as far as I can recall. It just states that the laws of physics can evolve from each temporally linear universe. He has a habit of exaggerating his claims, or at least overblowing their significance.
but what is the selective pressure then in other words what’s the advantage of having this type of universe. Why does the fundamental bedrock of reality tend to “want” to create this space time over any other.. kinda leaves us with the same conundrum as if we just said an intelligence arranged it so that it happened that way. Maybe im misunderstanding the argument
.. who says 'theologians' are precious? Nobody mentioned 'magic' either - fine tuning disproves random chance > turn a dial slightly off and the delicate balance of the Universe and life and all else means that NOTHING was the higher statistical option. Laws are proof of design - only fools deny the obvious conclusion - fools deny true science.
not entirely. His first refusal is to deny the idea that it just happened to be that way. He doesn't dismiss the idea of theology, he simply suggests that the anthropic idea is more comfortable in that area rather than science.
I think Smolin is a bit too partial to postmodernists like Feyerabend who claim that all scientific positions are basically political, and held only because of some personal biases. He doesn't grant that his opponents hold their beliefs entirely honestly, instead they have 'been captured by the myth of timelessness' or whatever. I find his reasoning a bit skewed, and I notice he doesn't attribute the same kind of biases to himself.
Could time / energy uncertainty in quantum wave / field mechanics be part of inflation dynamic, since inflation is hypothesized to come from quantum inflaton field? Maybe time and inflation can be reconciled through time / energy uncertainty of quantum mechanics?
Time can't be fundamental. Because it disappears when there are no clocks around to measure it, and it breaks down at very small sizes when the arrow of time vanishes. Almost nothing about our folk notions of time(and our concept of time is built up from those notions) makes sense. The biggest problem is the idea of the 'flow' of time. If time flows...what does it flow relative to? Ask yourself this: if somehow time everywhere were to slow by 50%...how would you be able to notice it? Or if it increased by 50%? The only way you could notice such a change would be if your internal mind remained at the same speed but everything else changed. But if time itself changed everywhere it would be impossible to tell. And this is the scary bit: the same argument applies if time stops. If time were to simply stop, you wouldn't notice it for exactly the same reasons that you wouldn't notice it halving or doubling in speed. Indeed if time were to flow in reverse, you wouldn't notice that either. The reason is that there is only one way we can experience time, and that is because whatever moment in time(imagine a moment just hanging there, frozen, static, like a 3D frame of a film) we occupy we always have memories of the past and expectations of the future. And those moments can only 'fit together' in one way. Your memories at any second, along with the positions of every atom in the room, mean that the next 'frame' you experience must be one in which you have slightly memories of the previous 'frame' and expectations of the next. It would be psychologically, metaphysically nonsensical to experience things any other way. You could take those static moments and jumble them up...but the people in those moments would experience them in perfect order, ie. the order that involves a sequence of events we call experience. From this most scientists and philosophers conclude that the idea of the 'flow' of time is an illusion, and yes, sort of emergent. If time is so meaningless that the idea of running it in reverse would make absolutely no empirical difference to our experience then it seems reasonable to consign it to the junkheap of ideas we've outgrown. Smolin's conjecture doesn't really contradict any these conclusions as far as I can recall. It just states that the laws of physics can evolve from each temporally linear universe. He has a habit of exaggerating his claims, or at least overblowing their significance.
I think you completely misunderstood what he was saying. Your argument boils down to 1) Here are my 3 paragraphs about time 2) Smolin's answer to a question about fine tuning doesn't contradict them and 3) A Non-sequitur statement of your own which Smolin didn't say or imply in the video 4) Therefore you conclude Smolin is exaggerating and overblown. What Smolin was asked by Robert is how do we explain the fine tuning? There are 3 broad philosophical categories, Multiverse, Strong anthropic and weak anthropic - how do you see it? Smolin's point was that the multiverse option boils down to infinite configurations and a probability distribution based on the anthropic principle. He thinks this will never explain why we have the fine tuning we observe. He suggests that a sequence of universes operating under natural selection is a much better way to get a specific and seemingly unlikely outcome and that the fine tuning we observe is better explained by that. I don't see how or why that makes him overblown - to me that is an interesting way of looking at it.
@@alex_madeira Originally my comment was part of a reply to someone else but it went on quite a bit and elucidated some opinions of mine that I didn't want to write out for a second time. So I copypasted it and posted it as a stand-alone comment. The first two paragraphs are a rebuttal of another commenter's claim that 'time must be an emergent phenomenon' and thus fundamental. Since Smolin also believes time to be fundamental(or at least leans that way), it's a rebuttal of his position too. I don't see what you have an objection to though. It's all related directly to Smolin's scientific and philosophical positions. As for why I think Smolin is overblown...well he often mischaracterises his opponents' positions and has a tendency to attribute their opinions to a kind of groupthink rather than accept that they arrived at them for much the same reasons he arrived at his; ie. because they think they're the most sound explanations for the data. And he does all this in order to make his own position seem both courageous and revolutionary by contrast. A paradigm shift. But Kuhn rightly points out that Smolin hasn't actually done anything different from the other proponents-of-the-multiverse-as-an-explanation-for-fine-tuning - all he's done is arrange his multiverse sequentially in time rather than simultaneously in space. Yet he consistently talks about things as though his approach is some kind of significant shift away from ordinary anthropic reasoning about the multiverse. He does this kind of thing in both of the books I've read: presents interesting but not earth shattering hypotheses as paradigm-altering. Which is overblown in my opinion. So next time just think before you tell someone they've 'completely misunderstood' something. It'd be nice if we could begin conversations on YT, especially under videos like this, by _not_ assuming the other person is an idiot and that we automatically know best.
So as here on Earth with Life, it is also with the greater universe just a process of natural selection no matter if time exist outside this universe or not or only because of time?
what would the fact of time being negative in causation equation, and either equal to or larger than space for causation to happen, mean for time in or beyond universe?
Apparently it is impossible for us to live in a world that didn't have very precise specifications. But according to Jesus, for God nothing is impossible (Matthew 19:26). And according to my biology teacher, we evolved to fit in the world.
No. This is the Puddle analogy. "Oh, look" says someone. "The water in that puddle fits the hole SO perfectly, it must have been fine-tuned for it!" Sigh. No. There is no "fine tuning" and there is no "supernatural".
The universe is fine-tuned for stars, planets, radiation, dust and and black holes. Most of these are extremely hostile to life, though. Much as I respect Lee Smolin, I think the fine-tuning argument is based on biological centrism. Sure, there's lots of carbon in the universe, and biology seems to need carbon, but so do planets with diamond rain. Maybethe universe is fine-tuned towards the production of diamond rain storm systems?
Good points. If you look at the universe on average I think it's something like 99.99999999999999999999999999 instantly fatal to human life. Even the earth is overwhelmingly dangerous to us. We go up a couple of miles we freeze to death. We go down a certain distance we get crushed by the pressure or melted by the temperatures. Most of the surface is covered in water that kills us within minutes. That's before we even get to natural disasters, viruses, deadly animals, the evolutionary game theoretical hostility of our fellow humans, etc.... The reasoning applies well for those proposing a multiverse because we'd _expect_ the conditions for life to arise to be as minimally tuned as probability would allow. Any more finely-tuned would be less probable. So we'd expect to find ourselves in the most probable tuned-universe. And the most probable one will definitely not be particularly well-tuned. But for the _religious_ people claiming fine-tuning...well the fact that the universe is so miniimally tuned for life is a big problem. Why didn't god just create a universe with NO fatal bits? Why is 99.99999999999999999999999999999 of the universe empty space? By contrast with the multiversal explanation for the tuning, the religious explanation makes little sense.
Religious people argue that the universe is fine tuned for life and specifically human life, but it is equally possible that life and intelligent life evolved to exist in the universe as it was made. Believing that life evolved to exist in our universe does not discount God instead of some invisible deity making the environment suit humanity perhaps God created us to adapt to our environment.
It's not the universe that's tuned but rather life that's tuned to fit very specific conditions on one planet in one part of the universe. In almost every place the universe is hostile to our kind of life as we know it.
Yes, as far as we know, this is the only instance of complex life for trillions and trillions of miles. Maybe a universe could be configured so that complex life was actually plentiful?
The universe is fine tuned to create black holes . Life is a rarity . It’s a lucky hit in a universe of complex chemistry . There are more planets in the universe than there are seconds since the Big Bang . We are lottery winners
If the universe wasn’t fine-tuned for life, then that would make life equal to everything else in the universe and we would be sublimely numb to the differences between life and non-life. There seems to be a hierarchy in the universe and probably a hierarchy to life itself, because life cant exist in a vacuum surrounded by non-life. There has to be a higher form of life that we are not aware of that sustains us like a matrix from the top down because I don’t think that kind of energy could start from the bottom up
Maybe you are right but I have thought about this a lot and intelligent life just got lucky. Really no mysterious creator Etc just a happenstance that given enough time and luck happens. Just good old plain Evolution. I consider myself Christian as I pray and I believe in the life Christ would have us lead. I believe and at the same time I believe what the Scientific community can prove.
@@louisbullard6135i guarentee you have never studied evolution in depth. Evolution is just a word in which you only understand a few basic principles. Its a belief
I may be wrong. But, as I understand it. That the Universe is so hostile to life as we understand it. The fact that we are here to pounder the questions we have. Is so improbable is shocking. There are so many thing that can wipe us out in the Universe. I don't thing the right questions why are we here. But, How did we survive to to point of asking the question of why we are here. I think that is the line of thought people just don't want to ask. How did we survive this long? I like to say and yes people don't like it. Dumb Luck!?!
Fine tuning is suggesting a entity of some sort was responsible for the so called fine tuning . Then can it be explain what is the entity who is doing the fine tuning. Also who is responsible for that entity. Maybe we keep it simple , things just happened.
Why do you need to know who is responsible for the entity that made the Universe? it is a Supernatural entity capable of making a Universe .. not natural processes which can never make & operate the simplest Function. Science is a method to explain NATURAL phenomena ... not UNNATURAL entities. Science can only provide causal links of a natural phenomena from the Unnatural. The Function & Intelligence Categories prove everything is a Function composed of Functions and were made by an Intelligence.. The Universe is a Function .... made or caused ... by an intelligence not of the Universe. Science can only explain natural phenomena ...and prove causal links. The entity is the God of the Jews & Christians. And God has always existed because the Universe is a Natural system with time ... made in an UNNATURAL System with no time, unnatural laws and an unnatural intelligence. This is all science can confirm about God. The rest of the evidence is from the Bible , fulfilled prophecies, and the historical records.
The fine tuning problem is just that if there is a systematic cause for the various values of certain parameters, constants, etc... nobody has figured out what that cause might be. These values appear to be "fine tuned" because they are so specific, and whatever determined them is most likely just a more fundamental function that hasn't been discovered yet. it looks 'fine tuned' hence the term, but nobody is saying that it has to be a God or whatever. it's just a label for a particular phenomenon.
In order for a person to be alive and to have a "mind", it requires a physical body. In order for a living physical body to exist on an ongoing basis, no less than our physical body, it literally requires the entire Universe (its gravity and energy) for our body to have form. Our life requires the entire Universe, or "I am alive, I am Universe".^
@Kraig StClair I assume you would not rule out other forms of life that may not pass the "indicia of life"" test you reference? We never dreamed that life could be found thriving around those highly toxic deep sea volcanic vents and when we found it that changed our concepts about where life might thrive and what form it could take. But I asked, when you say you are "alive" specifically what do you claim is alive? You are mostly made out of water, is that an example of "living water"?
@Kraig StClair It's not really a trick question. When we say we are alive, specifically what are we claiming is alive? My own thought is that only my body as a whole is alive, not the individual particles, atoms, molecules, tissue, and organs that make up my body. But then I would have to ask myself, what constitutes my "whole body", what is the scope of that, such that I could be alive? ... In order for my body, which I claim is alive, to physically exist, it literally requires on an ongoing basis the gravity of the entire Universe. That suggests that my "living body" is the entire universe. Do you follow? What do you think?
@Kraig StClair I am not talking about any metaphors, literally, physically, without the rest of the Universe in a particular balance that we "living beings" exist in relation to, we could not be alive nor would our body even have form. We are substantially resultant to the forces of the universe. It takes the whole physical Universe, including the particles that make-up our body, to render life as we define it. Likewise, there is no way to view human life outside of the context of our "living earth" from which our lives spring and are sustained. Its an entertaining notion to speculate that our physical Universe itself is living, because then we could speculate that our living Universe was therefore "born" (at the big bang) from other interacting parental universes that preceded our own, like our Milky Way which was born from the interaction of other galaxies that pre-existed it...
evolution by natural selection can be an example of life evolution up to conscious beings then you could say all of this could’ve been planned, but then by who? by something else that already was alive and conscious? then that being would again seemed tuned by something else to exist as a lifeform, so such hypothesis doesn’t make too much sense.
What if the thousands or trillions of other combinations of characteristics and relationships of energy and things resulted in just two types of arrangements of particles that then formed some kind of other arrangement, so that things made out of those two types of particles (or energy packets or whatever) learned how to describe it all? Their point of view would be "we have to explain this fine-tuned arrangement as if it's the only possibility". Silliness.
Why is it not possible that there are or have been (see, I'm stuck in a concept of time being necessary) infinite fine tunings that are just random circumstance? I guess this sounds like the multiverse idea, which these two guys seem to be saying is just another unprovable reality idea that people just like to imagine, like God.
Photons are a form of electromagnetic radiation. A photon is produced whenever an electron in a higher-than-normal orbit falls back to its normal orbit. During the fall from high energy to normal energy, the electron emits a photon - a Packet of every with the characterisations of photons
@@tonyatkinson2210 I understand as I've read before. Thanks for the refresher. So the electrons are like a cloud and can even pass through the protons? If there's a bond to the nucleus then how are we certain the photons originate from electron excitation?
I tire of “smart” scientists who treat the idea of infinite universes that make us inevitable as being “more scientific” than the strong anthropic principle How does one require more faith than the other?
The universe -- No. The planet Earth -- Yes. Life and intelligence as we know them are local phenomena brought about by specific conditions on his planet. They may occur elsewhere, but there is no "fine tuned" guarantee or mastermind designer. The potential is built into the "stuff" itself, but it takes local conditions to bring that potential to life -- literally.
@@Chris_Sheridan Not true at all. Step outside for 30 seconds on any other planet in this solar system and then claim local conditions there are the same as here. We are the result of the planet Earth's evolution over time. Those are the local conditions I'm talking about. That didn't happen on Venus or Mars -- although maybe Mars was close.
Not really. We don’t know if the physical constants can take any other values. We don’t know if ours is one universe of a multiverse - in which case we could only exist in ones that have constants suitable for life. We don’t even know if different constants may allow life in a different form than ours.
The only people that argue for a 'mechanistic, random universe model' are people who believe that Chaos is the primordial state of reality. Virtually nobody think that in the cosmological community, so you're not even addressing some scientists' view per se.
@@lucofparis4819 Not sure what you’re talking about. The universe began in an extremely low entropy state. Overall, entropy has been increasing ever since.
@@jamenta2 It's not about what words mean, it's about what people actually propose as models. You seem to think Fine Tuning somehow contradicts said models. It's not the case for most of them, including the prevalent model currently used by scientists, hence my initial comment. Again, "random" doesn't describe those models. Simply because they're not random. At all.
To superimpose a "designer" posits something seperate from that which is to be designed upon, therefor there are 2 things, the artificer and a canvas, this is dualistic, which is falsely perceived in causality. From the relative point of view you think there's a creation thus a designer. There cannot be light, and the other entitny being illumination. They're One in the same. Knowledge tells us time doesnt exist thus the causality or reletivity are illusions and states only of the mind. And that this "designer" acts within the circumsription of causality, as anything designed requires time to be fully brought to completion. What is in need of completion or perfection? Designer denotes Cause and effect. The artificer is the cause of the artwork. " a designer who designs". What is this which is being designed. What need is there for such a design? I'm studying Vedanata philosophy currently and the non dualistic approach really puts dualists, realists, idealists, nihilist is a tricky position.
Non duality goes beyond perceptions and categories of existence. Vedanata is monistic in that the real self is the basis of everything and the self is permanent and eternal while everything else is an illusion. Buddhism is a philosophy that states there is non being at the basis of everything and that everything that exists only exists in the context of its surroundings. Nothing is being designed because everything exists by virtue of their surroundings. There is no self without others. Things are defined by how they are perceived by other things. The philosophy of non dualism and non being makes how we categorize existence tricky.
@@karagi101 Oh. Besides Yahweh... Lord Enki, Lord Enlil, Enoch (who walked with God), and a few others whose names are alien and unpronounceable. And what they say is not pretty. Hahaha.🛸😆
I'm not fond of bringing in comcepts, i.e. natural selection,, that are completely bound within the confines of the subject, i.e. universal constants. I don't know who/what/how the universe was created. But it seems to be created with the rules it has. And pretending those rules are set for us, by us or that what would it be like if they changed isn't much more than mental masturbation. Test the rules to see if we are right is science, the other blithering is not.
The Universe & Life are thermodynamic Systems. Check what a thermodynamic systems is ... and ... from where it must originate. Then ask why everybody ignores the facts about any thermodynamic system?
*"The universe is created by life and mind, that's why it's tuned to it."* ... Then why did it take over 10 billion years for any form of life to emerge within this same universe? That's like arguing that the Model-T existed for decades until Henry Ford finally emerged to invent it.
@@Chris_Sheridan *"'10 billion years' ?? There is your problem."* ... Science forwards the emergence of the first prokaryotes (life) as happening roughly 4 billion years ago. This supports my 10-billion-year-long wait claim. How do you see this as "problematic?" The only thing that's "problematic" is claiming that life created an inanimate universe that eventually produced life 10 billion years later. You're putting the cart before the horse.
The Universe & Life are thermodynamic Systems. All thermodynamic Systems are Functions made by an intelligence ... and originate from the surrounding systems which must provide the matter, energy ... space, time, laws ... and ... Intelligence to exist & function. Only an intelligence makes, maintains, improves, operates, uses & fine tunes .... Functions. There is no evidence nature & natural processes can make the simplest Function. This is fairy tales.
So if God is timeless we’re screwed. Which He claims to be. It’s scary that Jesus said “I was before Abraham. Before creation was I was. That’s not normal mythology… that sounds like a timeless being speaking with authority.
God designed the Garden of Eden. Then he designed Man, to do the gardening. Then God also designed Woman, (to "help"man) and a talking snake and a tree with delicious fruit. Then he invented a rule, "Do not eat the delicious fruit on that tree over there " (pointing). I bet God knew exactly what would happen next.
The enemy of the Infinite Father opposed the Father and created this universe without the Infinite Father's permission and against His will. The Infinite Father would never create this evil universe.
We have already solved "fine tuning" but most reject it. The Universe & Life are Thermodynamic Systems. All thermodynamic Systems are Functions ... and originate from the surrounding System which must provide the time, space, matter, energy laws of nature ... and intelligence ... to exist and to Function. Only an Intelligence makes abstract or physical Functions. A function ... is a system that processes inputs into outputs, and has clear purpose, form, design, properties which are INFORMATION that every function possesses to exist & to function. The Universe appears to be "fine tuned' because it's a function composed entirely of functions and was made by an intelligence. There is no evidence nature & natural processes can make & operate the simplest Function 13.7 or 4 billion years ago. Only an intelligence makes Functions. Universal Functions is the Hypothesis for Sir Issac Newton's Watchmaker Analogy over 300 years ago. This is easily testable and predictions made from everything being a function. We have known for over 300 years ... that machines(functions) made by Man (intelligence) with "precisely" made & assemble parts to exist & to function. And yet all have rejected Machine Analogies and a means to explain the origin of the Universe & Life. This nonsense must stop. Everything in the Universe has clear processes, form, design & properties ... and can only be made by an intelligence. Fine tuning solved.
@@tonyatkinson2210 Science cant explain how life and the universe came into existence I think you over estimate the power of science. I have heard a lot of scholars point out that there has to be an uncaused cause.For me fine tuning is very strong evidence of a fine tuner and that saying it just is just will not do. Naturalists are not happy with fine tuning for good reason.
@mr shankerbill letmein how do you know science wont be able to explain how life started , or indeed how the universe started ? How do you explain how “fine tuned “ the universe would have to be in order for there to be a highly complex (more complex than the universe ) fine tuner to be able to exist with all the powers needed to create a universe in which complexity and life emerges?
@@tonyatkinson2210 Oh ye science will be able to answer some time in the future keep the faith. I think there are things beyond our ability to explain.I believe in God and Jesus and what the bible says.
Problem with the "water falling into a hole" analogy is that it doesn't include consciousness. That might mean nothing.....or it could mean everything. A puddle doesn't make those kinds of observations, but sentient life does.
@@AlexLifeson1985 Squirrels probably judge everyone else by their bushy tails and Peacock's judge everyone by their tail plumage. Naturally humans marvel at consciousness because they have it therefore it seems important to them.
@@TurinTuramber this creates further problems, but I understand your meaning. I may not be remembering correctly, however I do believe while it was suggested that humans are not the only beings on earth capable of self-awareness, the best that can be said is that certain animals have the capacity for consiousness, but that certainly doesn't mean the have it. Further, it doesn;t really change the fact that the Universe appears to be designed. I could just as easily argue that it was built to have multiple types of life. Some who act primarily on instinct, others who can develop enough to ask deep and profound philiosopchical questions.
@@AlexLifeson1985 There is plenty of room to go astray from "appears to be designed" and actually being designed. Seems obviously confirmation bias from where I stand.
@@TurinTuramber And you stand correct. I do not deny it. Anytime you have a subject that attempts to interweave fact with speculation, the indivdual is at the mercy of his or her own instincts in order to develop a full idea, else you are dealing with noting but the facts only, and they alone cannot answer the question. But that doesn't make them wrong. When I compare the tails of squirrles and the plumage of peacocks to consiousness, I do not see the comparison as valid. What we have is unique, and it enables us to make these types of comparisons. Evolution is awesome, but it can only exist if the universe was designed. Unless we go against all odds and say that things just came into exsistance that way.
Yes, the "Anthropic Principle" is pure religion to the extent its typical instances do not simply indulge in poor logic. Fine tuning of the universe devolves to this: if the universe were not this way, everything would be different. Well, yes - things are what they are, not some other way. So far we have learned nothing. Well, if that fine tuning didn't happen, to make all that possible physics not the actual physics of our bubble of space-time, our form of life would not be possible. Surely that means something? It means we live under the conditions in which we evolved. That might not have happened all, even in our purportedly fine-tuned universe. But we did, along with slime molds and giraffes, unimaginable time and universes in the making, and here we are. All that tinkering with universes went into "Wife Swapping" and the Tucker Carlson show. That's fine tuning, isn't it? Doing cosmology in physics from the perspective of understanding the organizational structure of our universe in the sense of its organics - its structural evolution over time and the ways it interacts with the structures in which it has evolved (to the extent understanding our own universe internally would appear to require some understanding of how this universe developed and changes in time) - certainly looks to me much more reasonable and grounded in science than the mathematical roulette wheel of disconnected random iterations on one side or the religious fetishization of our particular purported tuning resulting in our great and universal insights into the one life-friendly universe (that is nonetheless mostly incredibly hostile to its ungrateful reflective souls). No, if you're dropping the nonword "anthropic" and talking about fine tuning with some sense these ideas are supplying keys to explanations of anything, just stop. You're barking up the wrong tree. It's a fashion favoring states of undress. That is, there's nothing to see there. It's just another effort to evade work while still publishing. Plus, it smuggles religious laziness in through the back door (which, as Lee says, is a feature for some people, but it is neither science nor intellectually interesting).
God is the fine tuner of our universe, He selects the numbers and He is absolute concious being i.e Supersoul we are part and parcel of Him that's why we can read nature.
@@cindychristman8708 Every divine entity is His part and sprak of God's light , because of Jesus is a divine personality anybody who loves and serve Him can be libarated , there is no question of elimination.But if you minimize this supreme personality of Godhead by saying that this is all about Christianity, i think this is not right apporoch.
@@cindychristman8708 The matter is not christian God or Hindu God , the creator is one supreme being , and all divnity emarges from Him, as well as Hindu , Buddhist, Jain too , so how can we define Christian creator ?
@@kos-mos1127 *"PERCEPTION OF REALITY IS NOT REAL. I fixed your statement."* ... If our perception of reality is not real, then who knows what the "true reality" is and is thus able to claim that our perception is incorrect? Maybe a better statement would be: "PERCEPTION OF REALITY CANNOT BE VERIFIED"
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Science points to "true reality" and does a great job at showing our perceptions are incorrect. Let's say you sate the sky is blue someone else can look at the sky and verify it is blue. This means we share common perceptions and you are not making things up. A physicists may say that the sky is bluish violet. This is because blue light is scattered more than the other colors and with shorter wavelengths we see blue most of the time. After a certain point our intuitions about reality are no longer valid.
Surprisingly, I was able to follow this conversation. This is mindblowing.
Bring Lee again!
On a boat, too.
@@gracerodgers8952 Off San Francisco!
In this video Smolin clarifies his specific view of things more clearly than in any other I've watched.
Kuhn is awesome - he is the equal of all his guests, every time - and his guests are awesome
I was thinking the same thing while watching this video. I love all Dr. Kuhns videos and how he engages at the level of all his guests, clearly grasping the concepts, extracting the essence and summarizing it back and at times challenging them. He has a badass brain and therefore brings out the best from his guests.
@@protector808 Agree. Well said
Kuhn asks the questions I'd love to be clever enough to ask. Grateful to hang on for the ride.
The point made early on in this interview by Mr. Kuhn is central to any understanding of this question. That being; science and truth are not co-identical. All science is wedded to the questionable notion that all reality can be cognitively assimilated. In other words all aspects of reality can be known by the human mind, but it can't, in my opinion. The inflexible dogma that states if it can't be weighed measured or observed then it has no possibility of existing is not a tenable explanation for manifold reality. This question of a "fine tuned" universe can never be adequately understood devoid of a spiritual conception of the universe and indeed all reality.
I love Mr. Kuhn.s interviews. They always inspire intellectual curiosity.
Spiritual conceptions have no explanatory power. People can make up spiritual explanations that cannot be verified.
@@kos-mos1127 You say "Spiritual conceptions have no explanatory power"
This is not true. You have fallen into the intellectual trap of believing only that which can be verified can be considered real. You also say that spiritual conceptions have no explanatory power. This is also not true. The assertion that the universe is the product of mind explains how the universe is so perfectly designed for the long term stability needed for the emergence of sentient life. It explains why the universe is formulaic in its mathematically precise balance of interrelated properties. It also explains why the phenomenon of evolved emergent complexity is observed throughout the cosmos. A spiritual conception of the universe offers an explanation for "first cause". This traditional idea of what began our universe has never been credibly refuted.
The problem is people in general have not yet formed an evolved conception of God and are still wedded to silly anachronistic bible based beliefs that are so ridiculous they do more to turn people away from any deeper understanding of transcendent spiritual reality.
@@michaelmckinney7240 Spiritual conceptions have no explanatory power. They explain away rather than explain. The spiritual explanation ends up empty. The assertion that mind explains how the universe is design does not explain anything and is not useful as an explanation. The first cause argument is based on manipulating language to argue for the need of a first cause. The definition of world is something composed of all categories of existence but is not itself a category of existence. The first cause argument redefines the definition of world to be a category of existence by changing the world from a whole to a part of the whole. Then state God is the one that brought the world into existence. To accept the First Cause assertion first a person has to ignore the meaning of words then play with language to make the first cause argument make sense.
@@kos-mos1127 You say "They explain away rather than explain"
What can that possibly mean?
You say, "The assertion that mind explains how the universe is design does not explain anything and is not useful as an explanation."
Really? Anything that bears design, purpose or an intentional functionality must be the product of thought and mentality, in other words "mind."
You say, "The first cause argument is based on manipulating language to argue for the need of a first cause."
This is a wholly erroneous statement. If you notice, we are surrounded by something called the universe. It's not there because we "manipulate language" to make it appear that it's there. It exists independently of human existence. The question of how it came into being is the question of first cause and it's never been convincingly answered. It's not an illusion based on the manipulation of language.
You State, "The definition of world is something composed of all categories of existence but is not itself a category of existence. The first cause argument redefines the definition of world to be a category of existence by changing the world from a whole to a part of the whole."
This definition of the world is yours not mine. It's a confused and inadequate definition of "the world".
What exactly do you mean when you use the word "world"? I use the currently accepted model of cosmology to posit the need for a first cause. We know from science that the Big Bang started with the original and first singularity that spawned both the Big Bang and the expanding universe that followed. What science cannot answer is what it was that initiated this first and ultimately violent event. That original singularity must have been stable for a certain amount of time even if minutely brief. Cosmology and the laws of physics asserts that nothing existed prior to this violent explosion, not even time or the laws of physics and yet something acted upon that original singularity to cause it to become unstable and produce the Big Bang, something that didn't yet exist in linear time, What could it have been? Whatever it was it had to exist prior to the emergence of time itself and that smacks of something eternal. This is in essence the question of "First Cause"
If you think you can answer this mystery of first cause devoid of any reference to a transcendent agent of supernatural power, please do so. You will fail.
I've had many exchanges with those offering an atheistic interpretation of how the universe came into being and they all fall well short of a cogent or convincing line of reasoning. They never consider the points I make and simply come back with some off the wall comment that holds no persuasive logic.
@@michaelmckinney7240 The problem with the first cause argument is it cannot be verified. At some level things would just have to happen. Appealing to the supernatural does not explain anything. In order for the supernatural to explain anything it would need to include the natural at some level. As far as the evidence is concerned the supernatural makes no testable predictions about the natural. Why even worry about a transcendent agent of supernatural power. If a supernatural being was powerful it would be trivial to make itself testable in a manner in which our tools would allow us the test it’s existence. Until then I put the first cause in the same category as unicorns and any other made up entity.
my thinking (such as it is) is that you have a situation somewhat akin to plato's forms
that "stability" inclines to future stability and in fact biology is simply a progression of stability
so when you add probability (improbability in smolin's terms) then any universe that is stable enough to exist, it will necessarily develop life and biology
so i agree with lee smolin, you don't need a profusion of "almost universes" the continued existence of this one is enough and if you look at the time scales of biological development in relation to the development of the universe, that fits
Always good videos…dont completely understand but I love trying to follow
There is no need for fine-tuning when you realize that the whole universe has a wave function, and it is described by the Schrodinger equation. There is no wave-function collapse, but there is a multi-verse. We just happen to be in a branch of the multi-verse that allows for life to exist.
We have so much to learn
This boils down to misplaced awe for the unlikeliness of a particular event happening. Reality being exactly how it needs to be for us to exist, doesn't make it mysterious. Chances are chances, however small. There was a chance and it happened. If I throw 3 different marbles in a 100 by 100 position raster, the chance of them ending up as they do is 1 in 999.700.020.000 (if my math is correct), yet no one would be in awe for what I just did. Perhaps the marbles themselves feel special. Like we do ...
If you take into consideration the possibility of multiverses or an infinite sequence of big bangs or what not, the whole discussion renders mute.
Infinity is everything.
Wonderful, thank you!
How is it possible to answer if the Universe is fine-tuned for Life and Mind, as long as Mind escapes science no matter how much we try to include it, and even that the concept of Life is not well defined?
How does mind escape science? We study it using science all the time and are learning more and more about it. Without a physical brain there is no mind. Damage a part of the brain and the mind is damaged/changed.
There is an explanation for all of that and I already have it. I unambiguously solved this, including solving multiple long standing paradoxes. But people won’t let go of their assumptions and won’t listen. Because I am not a member of an institution and I left graduate school after 4.5 years to write a 700 page book because I didn’t agree with their paradigm. I absolutely love these interviews and Lee Smolin rocks. ❤️🔥🙏🏻👍🏻
I solved it in Jr high so I just left school in the 8th grade. Schools are for people that need to learn.
I figured it all out one night after adult swim
@Kraig StClair we got it all wrong sending smart people ti elected universities. The dumb are the ones that need it.
Like when I go to the gym and see all the jacked up dudes i always think “shouldn’t the skinny and fat fuckers be the ones that go to the gym?”
So I’d only go back ta school if I got dumber.
Now don’t go stealing my ideas and saying their yours
@Kraig StClair Lord I know… my student loans are off the charts. I repaid many times over, but interest on interest is killer.
Also, I don’t care about anything but real, life-giving truth and I have already had massive impact on the world. And I am still an extremely revolutionary thinker. One day people will know my name. They are slowly getting there. People are as loathe as tree-sloths to relinquish their grasp on existing branches. 😂🤷♀️
So convincing
@kraigstclair2841 ? This doesn’t even make any sense to me. But I appreciate the comment anyway and the effort of thought even though you don’t know me and I don’t know you. Thinking is good. Have a great day ❤️👍🏻
Sure we can look at the narrow scope of values that would permit life as we know it.
But to be honest about it we then have to look at the ratio of life permitting space to non life permitting space. Looking at it that way, it doesn't seem so fine tuned for life anymore.
Robert this time you're going on the Suez Canal it seems?
By the way I like to tell this Scientist that if nothing else our minds are fine tuned because he can understand all these tough problems. Gratitude.
I'm guessing San Francisco bay. That looks like Alcatraz and the Golden gate Bridge behind Smolin.
is surely tuned to be incredibly rich .... btw why something would emerge from "time" ? What cando time+natural selection (something he gives for granted to be here, just like "time") if they start with one atom or a banana ? Smolin dont get the whole picture, just want something that is measurable.
I always had trouble with this fine tuning issue...They say the earths atmosphere has oxygen so mans lungs can breathe....Why not just say that mans lungs have developed so that they can breathe oxygen?
That’s what I say but everybody wants to make it so complicated! Fine tuned for us? BS!
is a hole in the ground finely tuned for the puddle of water which so perfectly fits it?
KEvron
Your comparing a hole and a puddle to the physics that made robots land on Mars.
@@redx11x
physics doesn't make, it describes. both cases may be described by physics.
KEvron
@@KEvronista your response sums you up perfectly
@@redx11x
(curtsey)
your poor grammar and irrelevant observations also provide summation.
KEvron
@@KEvronista Anyone who signs off their name on RUclips will always be a d@#k.
I utterly effin love how he does this on a ship.. i mean.. hello!
:)
We are all fine tuned. Ever notice that our legs are all just long enough to reach the ground. An inch shorter and we would all be walking on air. I think the main issue here is the assumption that the universe was created . Fine tuning implies a tuner.
Good one! LOL
Fine tuning can be explained without a tuner.
A tuner would be infinitely harder to explain.
God loves is so much,, he put us on the earth, rather than on any of the other inhospitable planets.
So we should go to Church every Sunday morning and sing songs about him.
(and put some money in the collection box).
That anthropic reasoning has conscious observation, is an explanation of consciousness / subjective awareness needed for an explanation of fine tuning?
Timeless universe is before we're here and after we're here. The World of Forms, necessary and timeless. This is the contingent World of Senses.
I think the "world of forms" is a useful fiction for thinking, and that possibilities do not exist "outside" of the contingent world. You can't disentangle the static from the dynamic and get something that exists in its own right. It exists only as a conceptual "end of infinity" of a temporalized process. The static can only be an impoverished description of what's really going on, because something intrinsic and essential is lost when you try to do away with time.
The "timeless universe" is not a necessary precondition, in fact it is the ultimate contingent object, and what it requires as its precondition is a temporal process which might bring it about. "All of possibility" does not certainly exist; in fact, it has a 0% chance of ever being manifested, even if you could unroll each moment into a single frame, in the temporal world.
Doesn't mean the concept can't be useful, it clearly already has been in the history of science and mathematics. But an idea doesn't have to be true to be useful. I personally agree with Lee that the "desire for the absolute" clouds our ability to consider the possibility of a world where we cannot take it for granted. All of this is just my opinion though.
(0:00) *LS: **_"Every claim that the anthropic principle has consequences for science rests on a logical fallacy."_* ... For anything to be considered *information,* it must first be structured in a way that allows for it to be communicated. What cannot be communicated has no order or structure by default (i.e., "chaos"). *Logic* is pure, unpolluted _information_ that can easily be communicated, and anything that does not meet a logical standard is _illogical_ by default.
This being said, if information is necessarily structured and organized, then it is logical that it should expand and evolve within its own organizational structure. Chaos remains the same within its own unorganized, structureless arena, so no evolution or organization is required nor is it even possible.
The moment chaos starts to become organized, it can no longer be considered chaos.
When we ask why the universe seems "fine tuned," we are not really understanding what we're dealing with. The universe is *information* presented in an organized, structured way, and it is only *logical* that this information should expand and evolve to the point where it appears "fine tuned" to the ones standing on the business end of this ongoing evolution of information.
For _logic-based information_ to move in any direction other than into greater complexity would be _illogical._
Entropy destroys your stupid rant ..
@@Chris_Sheridan *"Entropy destroys your stupid rant"*
... Evolution destroys your entropy rant. I have the universe starting out as a chaotic, unorganized, piping-hot quark-gluon soup, and after 13.7 billion years of *evolution* we now have billions of highly complex, self-aware humans peppering planet earth with brains that SCIENCE proclaims represent the most complex structure known to exist within the universe.
... _What do you have?_
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Entropy is a proven science .. 'evolution' is not.
@@Braun09tv *"The artificially created math laws have a common ancestor and so they are in fixed relations."*
... (1 + 1 = 2) is an axiomatic mathematical law. If I have an apple in my left hand and pick up another apple with my right hand, then I now have two apples. If my two apples empirically found within existence represent the same sum total produced through my mathematical equation .... then how is mathematics "artificially created?"
Was (1 + 1 = 2) synthesized in a laboratory experiment?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Math is a language we use to communicate how may instances of a thing we have. An example is 1 instance of an apple + 1 instance of an apple = 2 instances of an apple. Math is not fundamental when taking that point of view it is how we describe instantiations of events.
Maybe fine tuning is the result of evolution/natural selection. All possible versions of natural laws randomly pop into existence, and the laws that successfully integrate survive. Seems rather simple.
more complete understanding of time probably helps to explain fine tuning?
Excellent interview, thanks.
Time has to be fundenental, because everything that emerges requires Time.
Time can't be fundamental. Because it disappears when there are no clocks around to measure it, and it breaks down at very small sizes when the arrow of time vanishes. Almost nothing about our folk notions of time(and our concept of time is built up from those notions) makes sense. The biggest problem is the idea of the 'flow' of time. If time flows...what does it flow relative to? Ask yourself this: if somehow time everywhere were to slow by 50%...how would you be able to notice it? Or if it increased by 50%? The only way you could notice such a change would be if _your internal mind_ remained at the same speed but everything else changed. But if time itself changed everywhere it would be impossible to tell. And this is the scary bit: the same argument applies if time *stops.* If time were to simply stop, you wouldn't notice it for exactly the same reasons that you wouldn't notice it halving or doubling in speed. Indeed if time were to flow in reverse, you wouldn't notice that either.
The reason is that there is only one way we can experience time, and that is because whatever moment in time(imagine a moment just hanging there, frozen, static, like a 3D frame of a film) we occupy we always have memories of the past and expectations of the future. And those moments can only 'fit together' in one way. Your memories at any second, along with the positions of every atom in the room, mean that the next 'frame' you experience must be one in which you have slightly memories of the previous 'frame' and expectations of the next. It would be psychologically, metaphysically nonsensical to experience things any other way. You could take those static moments and jumble them up...but the people in those moments would experience them in perfect order, ie. the order that involves a sequence of events we call experience.
From this most scientists and philosophers conclude that the idea of the 'flow' of time is an illusion, and yes, sort of emergent. If time is so meaningless that the idea of running it in reverse would make absolutely no empirical difference to our experience then it seems reasonable to consign it to the junkheap of ideas we've outgrown.
Smolin's conjecture doesn't really contradict any these conclusions as far as I can recall. It just states that the laws of physics can evolve from each temporally linear universe. He has a habit of exaggerating his claims, or at least overblowing their significance.
@@thesprawl2361 Not to mention that that there’s also no universal time. Different observers can differ on when an event took place.
but what is the selective pressure then in other words what’s the advantage of having this type of universe. Why does the fundamental bedrock of reality tend to “want” to create this space time over any other.. kinda leaves us with the same conundrum as if we just said an intelligence arranged it so that it happened that way. Maybe im misunderstanding the argument
Spacetime is not a fundamental part of the universe.
This is one of the best so far. Smolin steadfastly refuses to validate magical thinking, i.e., your precious "theologians".
.. who says 'theologians' are precious? Nobody mentioned 'magic' either - fine tuning disproves random chance > turn a dial slightly off and the delicate balance of the Universe and life and all else means that NOTHING was the higher statistical option. Laws are proof of design - only fools deny the obvious conclusion - fools deny true science.
not entirely. His first refusal is to deny the idea that it just happened to be that way. He doesn't dismiss the idea of theology, he simply suggests that the anthropic idea is more comfortable in that area rather than science.
@@AlexLifeson1985 Seems to me he was merely being diplomatic. Kuhn wants to push his religious nonsense as often as he can.
I think Smolin is a bit too partial to postmodernists like Feyerabend who claim that all scientific positions are basically political, and held only because of some personal biases. He doesn't grant that his opponents hold their beliefs entirely honestly, instead they have 'been captured by the myth of timelessness' or whatever. I find his reasoning a bit skewed, and I notice he doesn't attribute the same kind of biases to himself.
Could time / energy uncertainty in quantum wave / field mechanics be part of inflation dynamic, since inflation is hypothesized to come from quantum inflaton field? Maybe time and inflation can be reconciled through time / energy uncertainty of quantum mechanics?
Time can't be fundamental. Because it disappears when there are no clocks around to measure it, and it breaks down at very small sizes when the arrow of time vanishes. Almost nothing about our folk notions of time(and our concept of time is built up from those notions) makes sense. The biggest problem is the idea of the 'flow' of time. If time flows...what does it flow relative to? Ask yourself this: if somehow time everywhere were to slow by 50%...how would you be able to notice it? Or if it increased by 50%? The only way you could notice such a change would be if your internal mind remained at the same speed but everything else changed. But if time itself changed everywhere it would be impossible to tell. And this is the scary bit: the same argument applies if time stops. If time were to simply stop, you wouldn't notice it for exactly the same reasons that you wouldn't notice it halving or doubling in speed. Indeed if time were to flow in reverse, you wouldn't notice that either.
The reason is that there is only one way we can experience time, and that is because whatever moment in time(imagine a moment just hanging there, frozen, static, like a 3D frame of a film) we occupy we always have memories of the past and expectations of the future. And those moments can only 'fit together' in one way. Your memories at any second, along with the positions of every atom in the room, mean that the next 'frame' you experience must be one in which you have slightly memories of the previous 'frame' and expectations of the next. It would be psychologically, metaphysically nonsensical to experience things any other way. You could take those static moments and jumble them up...but the people in those moments would experience them in perfect order, ie. the order that involves a sequence of events we call experience.
From this most scientists and philosophers conclude that the idea of the 'flow' of time is an illusion, and yes, sort of emergent. If time is so meaningless that the idea of running it in reverse would make absolutely no empirical difference to our experience then it seems reasonable to consign it to the junkheap of ideas we've outgrown.
Smolin's conjecture doesn't really contradict any these conclusions as far as I can recall. It just states that the laws of physics can evolve from each temporally linear universe. He has a habit of exaggerating his claims, or at least overblowing their significance.
I think you completely misunderstood what he was saying. Your argument boils down to 1) Here are my 3 paragraphs about time 2) Smolin's answer to a question about fine tuning doesn't contradict them and 3) A Non-sequitur statement of your own which Smolin didn't say or imply in the video 4) Therefore you conclude Smolin is exaggerating and overblown.
What Smolin was asked by Robert is how do we explain the fine tuning? There are 3 broad philosophical categories, Multiverse, Strong anthropic and weak anthropic - how do you see it?
Smolin's point was that the multiverse option boils down to infinite configurations and a probability distribution based on the anthropic principle. He thinks this will never explain why we have the fine tuning we observe. He suggests that a sequence of universes operating under natural selection is a much better way to get a specific and seemingly unlikely outcome and that the fine tuning we observe is better explained by that. I don't see how or why that makes him overblown - to me that is an interesting way of looking at it.
@@alex_madeira Originally my comment was part of a reply to someone else but it went on quite a bit and elucidated some opinions of mine that I didn't want to write out for a second time. So I copypasted it and posted it as a stand-alone comment.
The first two paragraphs are a rebuttal of another commenter's claim that 'time must be an emergent phenomenon' and thus fundamental. Since Smolin also believes time to be fundamental(or at least leans that way), it's a rebuttal of his position too.
I don't see what you have an objection to though. It's all related directly to Smolin's scientific and philosophical positions.
As for why I think Smolin is overblown...well he often mischaracterises his opponents' positions and has a tendency to attribute their opinions to a kind of groupthink rather than accept that they arrived at them for much the same reasons he arrived at his; ie. because they think they're the most sound explanations for the data. And he does all this in order to make his own position seem both courageous and revolutionary by contrast. A paradigm shift.
But Kuhn rightly points out that Smolin hasn't actually done anything different from the other proponents-of-the-multiverse-as-an-explanation-for-fine-tuning - all he's done is arrange his multiverse sequentially in time rather than simultaneously in space. Yet he consistently talks about things as though his approach is some kind of significant shift away from ordinary anthropic reasoning about the multiverse.
He does this kind of thing in both of the books I've read: presents interesting but not earth shattering hypotheses as paradigm-altering. Which is overblown in my opinion.
So next time just think before you tell someone they've 'completely misunderstood' something. It'd be nice if we could begin conversations on YT, especially under videos like this, by _not_ assuming the other person is an idiot and that we automatically know best.
Life and Mind, have 'fine-tuned' the Universe,
the Eternal act of Balancing.
Is Lee saying that evolution is selecting for an ever-expanding universe?
So as here on Earth with Life, it is also with the greater universe just a process of natural selection no matter if time exist outside this universe or not or only because of time?
I'm confused, how can there be time outside the universe
The universe is not fine tuned for us! We are fine tuned for it!
It looks like both are finely tuned to me
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 hahahahaha
@@kathyorourke9273 It is called fine tuning because it is finely tuned as Lee Smollen says He asks how and why and is not so crass as to just laugh.
what would the fact of time being negative in causation equation, and either equal to or larger than space for causation to happen, mean for time in or beyond universe?
Time and space are inherent to existence. I don't what it means to exist for no time and with no space.
Apparently it is impossible for us to live in a world that didn't have very precise specifications.
But according to Jesus, for God nothing is impossible (Matthew 19:26).
And according to my biology teacher, we evolved to fit in the world.
No. This is the Puddle analogy.
"Oh, look" says someone. "The water in that puddle fits the hole SO perfectly, it must have been fine-tuned for it!"
Sigh.
No. There is no "fine tuning" and there is no "supernatural".
The universe is fine-tuned for stars, planets, radiation, dust and and black holes. Most of these are extremely hostile to life, though. Much as I respect Lee Smolin, I think the fine-tuning argument is based on biological centrism. Sure, there's lots of carbon in the universe, and biology seems to need carbon, but so do planets with diamond rain. Maybethe universe is fine-tuned towards the production of diamond rain storm systems?
Good points. If you look at the universe on average I think it's something like 99.99999999999999999999999999 instantly fatal to human life. Even the earth is overwhelmingly dangerous to us. We go up a couple of miles we freeze to death. We go down a certain distance we get crushed by the pressure or melted by the temperatures. Most of the surface is covered in water that kills us within minutes. That's before we even get to natural disasters, viruses, deadly animals, the evolutionary game theoretical hostility of our fellow humans, etc....
The reasoning applies well for those proposing a multiverse because we'd _expect_ the conditions for life to arise to be as minimally tuned as probability would allow. Any more finely-tuned would be less probable. So we'd expect to find ourselves in the most probable tuned-universe. And the most probable one will definitely not be particularly well-tuned.
But for the _religious_ people claiming fine-tuning...well the fact that the universe is so miniimally tuned for life is a big problem. Why didn't god just create a universe with NO fatal bits? Why is 99.99999999999999999999999999999 of the universe empty space? By contrast with the multiversal explanation for the tuning, the religious explanation makes little sense.
Religious people argue that the universe is fine tuned for life and specifically human life, but it is equally possible that life and intelligent life evolved to exist in the universe as it was made. Believing that life evolved to exist in our universe does not discount God instead of some invisible deity making the environment suit humanity perhaps God created us to adapt to our environment.
It's not the universe that's tuned but rather life that's tuned to fit very specific conditions on one planet in one part of the universe. In almost every place the universe is hostile to our kind of life as we know it.
As a theist I must say that's a great explanation.
Not a great explanation at all, actually. Shows your lack of understanding of biological fine-tuning and cosmological fine-tuning
Yes, as far as we know, this is the only instance of complex life for trillions and trillions of miles. Maybe a universe could be configured so that complex life was actually plentiful?
@@khalidtamr8856 And of course you know all about fine tuning because you have studied it in depth. I bow to your superior intellect.
The universe is fine tuned to create black holes . Life is a rarity . It’s a lucky hit in a universe of complex chemistry . There are more planets in the universe than there are seconds since the Big Bang .
We are lottery winners
If the universe wasn’t fine-tuned for life, then that would make life equal to everything else in the universe and we would be sublimely numb to the differences between life and non-life. There seems to be a hierarchy in the universe and probably a hierarchy to life itself, because life cant exist in a vacuum surrounded by non-life. There has to be a higher form of life that we are not aware of that sustains us like a matrix from the top down because I don’t think that kind of energy could start from the bottom up
Maybe you are right but I have thought about this a lot and intelligent life just got lucky. Really no mysterious creator Etc just a happenstance that given enough time and luck happens. Just good old plain Evolution. I consider myself Christian as I pray and I believe in the life Christ would have us lead. I believe and at the same time I believe what the Scientific community can prove.
Yes. I understand exactly what you mean. There is a reason and a solution. ❤️🔥🙏🏻👍🏻
@@louisbullard6135i guarentee you have never studied evolution in depth. Evolution is just a word in which you only understand a few basic principles. Its a belief
I may be wrong. But, as I understand it. That the Universe is so hostile to life as we understand it. The fact that we are here to pounder the questions we have. Is so improbable is shocking. There are so many thing that can wipe us out in the Universe. I don't thing the right questions why are we here. But, How did we survive to to point of asking the question of why we are here. I think that is the line of thought people just don't want to ask. How did we survive this long? I like to say and yes people don't like it. Dumb Luck!?!
Fine tuning is suggesting a entity of some sort was responsible for the so called fine tuning .
Then can it be explain what is the entity who is doing the fine tuning.
Also who is responsible for that entity.
Maybe we keep it simple , things just happened.
noone is responsible for that entity. He is self-sufficient.
The answer is simple - Genesis 1:1
Why do humans die? Genesis chapter 3 and Romans chapter 5
Will things ever change? Psalm 37:10, 11 & 29
Why do you need to know who is responsible for the entity that made the Universe? it is a Supernatural entity capable of making a Universe .. not natural processes which can never make & operate the simplest Function.
Science is a method to explain NATURAL phenomena ... not UNNATURAL entities. Science can only provide causal links of a natural phenomena from the Unnatural.
The Function & Intelligence Categories prove everything is a Function composed of Functions and were made by an Intelligence.. The Universe is a Function .... made or caused ... by an intelligence not of the Universe. Science can only explain natural phenomena ...and prove causal links.
The entity is the God of the Jews & Christians.
And God has always existed because the Universe is a Natural system with time ... made in an UNNATURAL System with no time, unnatural laws and an unnatural intelligence. This is all science can confirm about God. The rest of the evidence is from the Bible , fulfilled prophecies, and the historical records.
@@antimaterialworld2717 That is special pleading.
The fine tuning problem is just that if there is a systematic cause for the various values of certain parameters, constants, etc... nobody has figured out what that cause might be. These values appear to be "fine tuned" because they are so specific, and whatever determined them is most likely just a more fundamental function that hasn't been discovered yet.
it looks 'fine tuned' hence the term, but nobody is saying that it has to be a God or whatever. it's just a label for a particular phenomenon.
In order for a person to be alive and to have a "mind", it requires a physical body. In order for a living physical body to exist on an ongoing basis, no less than our physical body, it literally requires the entire Universe (its gravity and energy) for our body to have form. Our life requires the entire Universe, or "I am alive, I am Universe".^
@Kraig StClair Consider that the Universe itself is alive, and our lives are derivative to that.
@Kraig StClair I assume if I asked you if you are "alive", you would say yes. Now I ask, specifically WHAT do you claim is "alive"?
@Kraig StClair I assume you would not rule out other forms of life that may not pass the "indicia of life"" test you reference? We never dreamed that life could be found thriving around those highly toxic deep sea volcanic vents and when we found it that changed our concepts about where life might thrive and what form it could take. But I asked, when you say you are "alive" specifically what do you claim is alive? You are mostly made out of water, is that an example of "living water"?
@Kraig StClair It's not really a trick question. When we say we are alive, specifically what are we claiming is alive? My own thought is that only my body as a whole is alive, not the individual particles, atoms, molecules, tissue, and organs that make up my body. But then I would have to ask myself, what constitutes my "whole body", what is the scope of that, such that I could be alive? ... In order for my body, which I claim is alive, to physically exist, it literally requires on an ongoing basis the gravity of the entire Universe. That suggests that my "living body" is the entire universe. Do you follow? What do you think?
@Kraig StClair I am not talking about any metaphors, literally, physically, without the rest of the Universe in a particular balance that we "living beings" exist in relation to, we could not be alive nor would our body even have form. We are substantially resultant to the forces of the universe. It takes the whole physical Universe, including the particles that make-up our body, to render life as we define it. Likewise, there is no way to view human life outside of the context of our "living earth" from which our lives spring and are sustained. Its an entertaining notion to speculate that our physical Universe itself is living, because then we could speculate that our living Universe was therefore "born" (at the big bang) from other interacting parental universes that preceded our own, like our Milky Way which was born from the interaction of other galaxies that pre-existed it...
evolution by natural selection can be an example of life evolution up to conscious beings then you could say all of this could’ve been planned, but then by who? by something else that already was alive and conscious? then that being would again seemed tuned by something else to exist as a lifeform, so such hypothesis doesn’t make too much sense.
.. 'natural selection' is not responsible for creating anything - it does not explain how things arrive.
What if the thousands or trillions of other combinations of characteristics and relationships of energy and things resulted in just two types of arrangements of particles that then formed some kind of other arrangement, so that things made out of those two types of particles (or energy packets or whatever) learned how to describe it all? Their point of view would be "we have to explain this fine-tuned arrangement as if it's the only possibility".
Silliness.
Why is it not possible that there are or have been (see, I'm stuck in a concept of time being necessary) infinite fine tunings that are just random circumstance? I guess this sounds like the multiverse idea, which these two guys seem to be saying is just another unprovable reality idea that people just like to imagine, like God.
1:06 why is this position OK?
I think the key is to know exactly where photons come from
Photons are a form of electromagnetic radiation.
A photon is produced whenever an electron in a higher-than-normal orbit falls back to its normal orbit. During the fall from high energy to normal energy, the electron emits a photon - a Packet of every with the characterisations of photons
@@tonyatkinson2210 I understand as I've read before. Thanks for the refresher. So the electrons are like a cloud and can even pass through the protons? If there's a bond to the nucleus then how are we certain the photons originate from electron excitation?
I tire of “smart” scientists who treat the idea of infinite universes that make us inevitable as being “more scientific” than the strong anthropic principle
How does one require more faith than the other?
R9bert, just say you love the abthropic principle and that's it.
If it's fine tuned who fine tuned it not a god.
But perhaps nature which moves with a force that rules the universe
The laws of nature are not causal.
Time is gypsy caravan !! ❤
Professor Smolin on a boat! 🚤 Can’t ask for much more than that. ^.^
The universe -- No.
The planet Earth -- Yes.
Life and intelligence as we know them are local phenomena brought about by specific conditions on his planet. They may occur elsewhere, but there is no "fine tuned" guarantee or mastermind designer. The potential is built into the "stuff" itself, but it takes local conditions to bring that potential to life -- literally.
.. what 'local' conditions? The planet earth IS a product of the Universe, same as all the other planets.
@@Chris_Sheridan
Not true at all. Step outside for 30 seconds on any other planet in this solar system and then claim local conditions there are the same as here. We are the result of the planet Earth's evolution over time. Those are the local conditions I'm talking about. That didn't happen on Venus or Mars -- although maybe Mars was close.
Fine tuning - the proverbial monkey wrench in the gears of the mechanistic, random universe model.
Not really. We don’t know if the physical constants can take any other values. We don’t know if ours is one universe of a multiverse - in which case we could only exist in ones that have constants suitable for life. We don’t even know if different constants may allow life in a different form than ours.
The only people that argue for a 'mechanistic, random universe model' are people who believe that Chaos is the primordial state of reality. Virtually nobody think that in the cosmological community, so you're not even addressing some scientists' view per se.
@@lucofparis4819 I'm not really into playing "definition" games.
@@lucofparis4819 Not sure what you’re talking about. The universe began in an extremely low entropy state. Overall, entropy has been increasing ever since.
@@jamenta2 It's not about what words mean, it's about what people actually propose as models. You seem to think Fine Tuning somehow contradicts said models. It's not the case for most of them, including the prevalent model currently used by scientists, hence my initial comment. Again, "random" doesn't describe those models. Simply because they're not random. At all.
Why does the 🌞
Why does the sun shine ?
That’s easy
It’s tuned brilliantly/perfectly as we and earth life are amazing/incredible creatures
Perfectly ? Then why can’t I live on the surface of the sun ?
@@tonyatkinson2210 Because the Aliens are there and they won't let us?
@@danielhoward4566 because the universe is not fine tuned enough
@@tonyatkinson2210 We already have a place to live why would we want to live on the Sun, it's pretty hot there! ;-)
@@danielhoward4566 I think your entirely missing the point
To superimpose a "designer" posits something seperate from that which is to be designed upon, therefor there are 2 things, the artificer and a canvas, this is dualistic, which is falsely perceived in causality. From the relative point of view you think there's a creation thus a designer. There cannot be light, and the other entitny being illumination. They're One in the same. Knowledge tells us time doesnt exist thus the causality or reletivity are illusions and states only of the mind.
And that this "designer" acts within the circumsription of causality, as anything designed requires time to be fully brought to completion. What is in need of completion or perfection?
Designer denotes Cause and effect. The artificer is the cause of the artwork.
" a designer who designs".
What is this which is being designed.
What need is there for such a design?
I'm studying Vedanata philosophy currently and the non dualistic approach really puts dualists, realists, idealists, nihilist is a tricky position.
Non duality goes beyond perceptions and categories of existence. Vedanata is monistic in that the real self is the basis of everything and the self is permanent and eternal while everything else is an illusion. Buddhism is a philosophy that states there is non being at the basis of everything and that everything that exists only exists in the context of its surroundings.
Nothing is being designed because everything exists by virtue of their surroundings.
There is no self without others. Things are defined by how they are perceived by other things.
The philosophy of non dualism and non being makes how we categorize existence tricky.
GOD: "I can fine tune the universe as I see fit. Be thankful and praise Me."
It’s cool how you know not only that there’s a god but what he says too.
What other voices do you hear in your head?
@@karagi101 Oh. Besides Yahweh... Lord Enki, Lord Enlil, Enoch (who walked with God), and a few others whose names are alien and unpronounceable. And what they say is not pretty. Hahaha.🛸😆
He is the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Pasta Pasta Pasta!
Ya! Praise me or I'll send you to another part of the multiverse called hell.
Is the universe fine-tuned for its existence?
Give me a break!
You just got to start somewhere.
Maybe these maybe people maybe don't maybe understand maybe the maybe meaning maybe of maybe the maybe word maybe. Maybe.
I'm not fond of bringing in comcepts, i.e. natural selection,, that are completely bound within the confines of the subject, i.e. universal constants. I don't know who/what/how the universe was created. But it seems to be created with the rules it has. And pretending those rules are set for us, by us or that what would it be like if they changed isn't much more than mental masturbation. Test the rules to see if we are right is science, the other blithering is not.
The Universe & Life are thermodynamic Systems.
Check what a thermodynamic systems is ... and ... from where it must originate.
Then ask why everybody ignores the facts about any thermodynamic system?
The universe is created by life and mind, that's why it's tuned to it.
*"The universe is created by life and mind, that's why it's tuned to it."*
... Then why did it take over 10 billion years for any form of life to emerge within this same universe? That's like arguing that the Model-T existed for decades until Henry Ford finally emerged to invent it.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC .. '10 billion years' ?? There is your problem.
@@Chris_Sheridan *"'10 billion years' ?? There is your problem."*
... Science forwards the emergence of the first prokaryotes (life) as happening roughly 4 billion years ago. This supports my 10-billion-year-long wait claim. How do you see this as "problematic?"
The only thing that's "problematic" is claiming that life created an inanimate universe that eventually produced life 10 billion years later. You're putting the cart before the horse.
The Universe & Life are thermodynamic Systems.
All thermodynamic Systems are Functions made by an intelligence ... and originate from the surrounding systems which must provide the matter, energy ... space, time, laws ... and ... Intelligence to exist & function.
Only an intelligence makes, maintains, improves, operates, uses & fine tunes .... Functions.
There is no evidence nature & natural processes can make the simplest Function. This is fairy tales.
BS!
So if God is timeless we’re screwed. Which He claims to be.
It’s scary that Jesus said “I was before Abraham. Before creation was I was. That’s not normal mythology… that sounds like a timeless being speaking with authority.
That sounds like bs
God designed the Garden of Eden. Then he designed Man, to do the gardening.
Then God also designed Woman, (to "help"man) and a talking snake and a tree with delicious fruit.
Then he invented a rule, "Do not eat the delicious fruit on that tree over there " (pointing).
I bet God knew exactly what would happen next.
Wrong question, too human centric. Try: is the universe fine tune for hydrogen? Or fine tune for rocks? You get the point
It’s fine tuned to be a black hole generator . They are everywhere
@@tonyatkinson2210 probably the true answer
I almost got seasick. I'm such a land lubber.
The enemy of the Infinite Father opposed the Father and created this universe without the Infinite Father's permission and against His will. The Infinite Father would never create this evil universe.
0/∞
It's all inexplicable to me
Is the universe fined tuned for cats
I don't know about the universe, but the internet definitely is.
Is that Alcatraz behind him? Reality is a prison.
Dude that’s Diamond Head and Waikiki beech can’t you tell. LOL😊
Life and mind are fine-tuned for the universe.
Forgive my former statement, Man I'm ignorent"""
This whole discussion becomes irrelevant in light of the reality of the existence of Jesus - Who claimed to be the Creator, Himself. ❤❤❤❤❤
We have already solved "fine tuning" but most reject it.
The Universe & Life are Thermodynamic Systems.
All thermodynamic Systems are Functions ... and originate from the surrounding System which must provide the time, space, matter, energy laws of nature ... and intelligence ... to exist and to Function.
Only an Intelligence makes abstract or physical Functions.
A function ... is a system that processes inputs into outputs, and has clear purpose, form, design, properties which are INFORMATION that every function possesses to exist & to function.
The Universe appears to be "fine tuned' because it's a function composed entirely of functions and was made by an intelligence.
There is no evidence nature & natural processes can make & operate the simplest Function 13.7 or 4 billion years ago.
Only an intelligence makes Functions.
Universal Functions is the Hypothesis for Sir Issac Newton's Watchmaker Analogy over 300 years ago. This is easily testable and predictions made from everything being a function. We have known for over 300 years ... that machines(functions) made by Man (intelligence) with "precisely" made & assemble parts to exist & to function. And yet all have rejected Machine Analogies and a means to explain the origin of the Universe & Life.
This nonsense must stop.
Everything in the Universe has clear processes, form, design & properties ... and can only be made by an intelligence. Fine tuning solved.
Since the Universe is NOT haha 'fine-tuned... --> hahahaahahha
The great I am+ God+ Allah
Amygdala... 🤔, All together, humanity is brilliant, no?
An explanation for fine tuning is a fine tuner but that will not be tolerated no intelligent design allowed
And it wouldn’t be an explanation. Science would want to know how a god came into existence and how he created the universe and by what mechanisms
@@tonyatkinson2210 Science cant explain how life and the universe came into existence I think you over estimate the power of science.
I have heard a lot of scholars point out that there has to be an uncaused cause.For me fine tuning is very strong evidence of a fine tuner and that saying it just is just will not do. Naturalists are not happy with fine tuning for good reason.
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 Which scholars because?
@mr shankerbill letmein how do you know science wont be able to explain how life started , or indeed how the universe started ?
How do you explain how “fine tuned “ the universe would have to be in order for there to be a highly complex (more complex than the universe ) fine tuner to be able to exist with all the powers needed to create a universe in which complexity and life emerges?
@@tonyatkinson2210 Oh ye science will be able to answer some time in the future keep the faith. I think there are things beyond our ability to explain.I believe in God and Jesus and what the bible says.
The universe is "fine tuned" about the same as planet Earth is fine tuned for Humans and my socks are fine tuned for my feet.
Problem with the "water falling into a hole" analogy is that it doesn't include consciousness. That might mean nothing.....or it could mean everything. A puddle doesn't make those kinds of observations, but sentient life does.
@@AlexLifeson1985 Squirrels probably judge everyone else by their bushy tails and Peacock's judge everyone by their tail plumage. Naturally humans marvel at consciousness because they have it therefore it seems important to them.
@@TurinTuramber this creates further problems, but I understand your meaning. I may not be remembering correctly, however I do believe while it was suggested that humans are not the only beings on earth capable of self-awareness, the best that can be said is that certain animals have the capacity for consiousness, but that certainly doesn't mean the have it. Further, it doesn;t really change the fact that the Universe appears to be designed. I could just as easily argue that it was built to have multiple types of life. Some who act primarily on instinct, others who can develop enough to ask deep and profound philiosopchical questions.
@@AlexLifeson1985 There is plenty of room to go astray from "appears to be designed" and actually being designed. Seems obviously confirmation bias from where I stand.
@@TurinTuramber And you stand correct. I do not deny it. Anytime you have a subject that attempts to interweave fact with speculation, the indivdual is at the mercy of his or her own instincts in order to develop a full idea, else you are dealing with noting but the facts only, and they alone cannot answer the question.
But that doesn't make them wrong. When I compare the tails of squirrles and the plumage of peacocks to consiousness, I do not see the comparison as valid. What we have is unique, and it enables us to make these types of comparisons. Evolution is awesome, but it can only exist if the universe was designed. Unless we go against all odds and say that things just came into exsistance that way.
It just is live with it.
I calculated approximately a 0.72992701% chance it was fine tuned for life.
Wow, your off by at least 5 digits.
Yes, the "Anthropic Principle" is pure religion to the extent its typical instances do not simply indulge in poor logic.
Fine tuning of the universe devolves to this: if the universe were not this way, everything would be different.
Well, yes - things are what they are, not some other way. So far we have learned nothing.
Well, if that fine tuning didn't happen, to make all that possible physics not the actual physics of our bubble of space-time, our form of life would not be possible. Surely that means something?
It means we live under the conditions in which we evolved. That might not have happened all, even in our purportedly fine-tuned universe. But we did, along with slime molds and giraffes, unimaginable time and universes in the making, and here we are. All that tinkering with universes went into "Wife Swapping" and the Tucker Carlson show. That's fine tuning, isn't it?
Doing cosmology in physics from the perspective of understanding the organizational structure of our universe in the sense of its organics - its structural evolution over time and the ways it interacts with the structures in which it has evolved (to the extent understanding our own universe internally would appear to require some understanding of how this universe developed and changes in time) - certainly looks to me much more reasonable and grounded in science than the mathematical roulette wheel of disconnected random iterations on one side or the religious fetishization of our particular purported tuning resulting in our great and universal insights into the one life-friendly universe (that is nonetheless mostly incredibly hostile to its ungrateful reflective souls).
No, if you're dropping the nonword "anthropic" and talking about fine tuning with some sense these ideas are supplying keys to explanations of anything, just stop. You're barking up the wrong tree. It's a fashion favoring states of undress. That is, there's nothing to see there. It's just another effort to evade work while still publishing. Plus, it smuggles religious laziness in through the back door (which, as Lee says, is a feature for some people, but it is neither science nor intellectually interesting).
well, if you go to the gym and really get hands on with physics, you can build more living tissue on your body. so i would say yeah, for sure bro.
If it were fine tuned for life, it could have been fine tuned a bit better.
Fine tuning does not require a Fine Tuner. Stop propagating trash.
NO,
God is the fine tuner of our universe, He selects the numbers and He is absolute concious being i.e Supersoul we are part and parcel of Him that's why we can read nature.
I assume "God" is the Christian god...how did you eliminate all the other gods?
@@cindychristman8708 Every divine entity is His part and sprak of God's light , because of Jesus is a divine personality anybody who loves and serve Him can be libarated , there is no question of elimination.But if you minimize this supreme personality of Godhead by saying that this is all about Christianity, i think this is not right apporoch.
@@chayanbosu3293 This is made up.
@@chayanbosu3293 So you are not arguing for the Christian god as creator?
Then any deistic god could be the creator.
@@cindychristman8708 The matter is not christian God or Hindu God , the creator is one supreme being , and all divnity emarges from Him, as well as Hindu , Buddhist, Jain too , so how can we define Christian creator ?
Fine tuning is joke , another scientist who want live after he is dead so he can see his sky daddy...
REALITY IS NOT REAL
*"REALITY IS NOT REAL"*
... Non sequitur.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC PERCEPTION OF REALITY IS NOT REAL. I fixed your statement.
@@kos-mos1127 How is perception not real?
@@kos-mos1127 *"PERCEPTION OF REALITY IS NOT REAL. I fixed your statement."*
... If our perception of reality is not real, then who knows what the "true reality" is and is thus able to claim that our perception is incorrect?
Maybe a better statement would be: "PERCEPTION OF REALITY CANNOT BE VERIFIED"
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Science points to "true reality" and does a great job at showing our perceptions are incorrect.
Let's say you sate the sky is blue someone else can look at the sky and verify it is blue. This means we share common perceptions and you are not making things up. A physicists may say that the sky is bluish violet. This is because blue light is scattered more than the other colors and with shorter wavelengths we see blue most of the time.
After a certain point our intuitions about reality are no longer valid.