@@theintelligentmilkjug944because that’s not the issue the analogy tries to solve. Evolution through natural selection answers your question. Basically the water molecules which fit in the hole will remain there the others will not.
@@RoscaPaul What I'm trying to say for example natural selection (which I know is true I'm not a creationist just to be clear) is dependent on a creature's genes to arbitrarily mutate to fit the puddle of actuality so to speak. It comes to a point where the odds of fitting in that puddle becomes lower and lower with each generation because the odds of being wiped out by an apocalyptic event only increases over time. Thus that's why I said it isn't inevitable for us to exist unless you subscribe to something like determinism, a multiverse, or a divine creator.
I never understood the appeal of the fine tuning argument. In my head, it's clear that WE are the one fine tuned for OUR universe, not the universe that is fine tuned to us. It just so happens that we live in a universe where complexity is high enough so life can emerge. That's all. It's not about us, it's about how complexe the universe is. A less complexe universe wouldnt have produced intelligent life. That's all.
The question is what is the bare minimum of fine-tuning that is required for any form of life to exist. If you argue that the formation of solar systems such as stars and planets are necessary, then an incredible amount of fine tuning is required.
because you have to authomatically assume that out universe is not the only one, which is still a hypotetical statement. Or maybe the universe is living in cycles
I think both are true. When life could happen, it did. We got lucky, the universe got lucky, everyone wins and asking "why" isn't necessary to accept these things. A third party or preemptive planning isn't a requirement in either direction.
@@hassana5337 I don't think there's any bare minimum other than the presence of matter and energy. Even in a universe where there's no atoms, there's probably some way for some boltzmann brain to form based on quantum interactions or something.
Ouh I really really like the analogy of water in a puddle to explain the anthropic principle, I'll definitely use it haha since I used to have some issues explaining it in my own words.
One of your best videos. philosophy and science really do need to work together again. when i was young it baffled me at first that every philosopher isn't a scientist.
Fundamentally preserving that scientific method is essential, philosophy that is actually rooted in research and contains a level of humbling introspection is vastly different from the pitfalls of, for example, political philosophy. I don't know how the extent to which the prevalence of current philosophy is used with the explicit interest to justify ideology or pervert scientific law and theorems. Such could damage the system we already have to establish our approximations of truth, but the benefits from universities and institutions adopting an applied philosophical rationale would be vast
@@wearenumberone1111 most of what we do in physics is theories and speculations to maybe reach a law or principle that is true, and this is the pragmatic way of looking at it. in actual terms it's logical procedures in built-in axiomatic systems that get inspired and modeled after experiments from the real world. I would say philosophy in general and especially philosophy of nature isn't so different from science. as said in the video both fields need each other to grow and develop our understanding of the universe.
I'm of the mind that intelligent life pretty much HAS to happen. Probably many times over. We are not meaningless in all of this; in fact we ourselves very literally give meaning to the universe. I'm not speaking religiously or "spiritually" here--I mean that the entire concept of "meaning" necessarily requires some consciousness. Someone for things to mean something TO. An unobserved universe would be nothing at all. And there can be no more axiomatic statement than to say that "nothing" is not possible.
Can you imagine fish that claim the water is just so fitting for them to exist it must have really wanted them within it? This is also a take on our inherent narcissism as a species. The universe is boundless for all we know and because we are in it we claim it as if it ever wanted us. Hopeful? Or damn right Selfish
Counter example: we program a self-aware AI in a virtual realm and given the mathematical structure and rule following existence of the virtual world it concludes that something created it. Would the AI be unjustified? Also, the fish example is hilariously dumb because it's literally an argument against atheism.
@@DarkArcticTV your counterexample is irrelevant becuase it is a subtle change of topic: you slip in a synthetic realm aspect, an assumption we currently have no way of determining whether it applies to us... So whether your imaginary AI is justified or not is beside the point of human narcissism in light of no evidence one way or the other 🤔 odd connection to make so baselessly
@user-wq8sd2qc4u Thanks for not giving a response. Hypotheticals don't have to be realistic or probable for us to come to conclusions from them. Even if what I described was 100% literally impossible it wouldn't affect my argument *at all*. I'm not sure what you mean by "no evidence"? You don't need scientific evidence to make probability comparisons between two theories.
i never see people mention the levinthals paradox when talking about how rare life is. the chances of life are even more rare than one might think, to the point where its almost impossible to find any in the observable universe.
Well, that's mainly because detecting life that's not space traveling is reaaally hard. There might be single celled organisms in our solar system. On Titan or Ceres for example. And we wouldn't know, because we don't have the technology to detect them. The milky way might be full of life. Just silent life. Undetectable until we reach them.
Great video, nice to see you touching on philosophy! i got philosophy tube vibes from the structure, from how you presented some interesting facts, explained relevant philosophical concepts, and then took the video back to the facts so we interpret it again with a new outlook. That's how you teach philosophy to broad audiences!
anything that indicates deliberate action that desires the existence of humans and only humans as an end in itself, where all non-humans (other matters that did not form into being a human) are only supplementary to the existence of humans. the key point is "an unfalsifiable indicator of deliberate action that desires the existence of humans and only humans as an end in itself"
@@notu1529 I'd drop the "only" from the requirements. "human-centric" only means "all matter converted to humans" if you think like a paperclip maximizer. I'd settle for "human needs self-evidently considered of cosmic importance." maybe an anthropocentric universe looks like 150 humans who have their wants and needs met by the rest of nature, probably without any effort on the part of the humans.
@@xXx_Regulus_xXx the word "only" is meant to highlight the importance of humans' existence as desired by something (the thing that ultimately enforces anthropocentrism). assuming humans did not pop out of nowhere and indeed start from carbon atoms of collapsing stars, then the universe needs to process these matters into humans. your point on human needs to be of cosmic importance presupposes a desire for human existence. what comes before human needs' and wants'? It's the existence of humans themselves.
I like to imagine sciencephile is a genuine AI with an upload schedule as it sticks within its parameters to make content on subjects such as this. Easily one of my favorite channels excluding it being one of my personal recommendations if someone wants videos on Astronomy, cosmology, sciences and philosophy. It’s incredible because I loathe tts channels. I truly mean every single impact of that word as that’s the level of disdain I have for that form of content
Our universe has only 4 fundamental forces and 36 types of quarks. Those numbers are very low, and higher numbers can support much more complex life. Imagine a universe with 17 forces and 4000 types of quarks, they probably have cool ass super powers like telekinesis or teleportation.
I think this says alot about the multiverse theory because the fact that the cosmological principle is what it is just so life could exist is pretty insane. We could never exist in a universe where it is wrong, so therefore we could only exist in universes where these principles are correct.
Good point. This logic enforces that alien lifeforms are reasonably possible, regardless of their technological advancements. Do you think technological advancements of an alien civilization could actually lead to them staying locked within their solar systems and never "needing" to explore the cosmos? Could explain the Fermi paradox 🤷♂️
It sounds like life and humanity are as much one with the universe as every cosmic interaction taking place naturally away from us. I feel like our tests and theories on observation is our own way of trying to harness those interactions and become a force for change in the universe like the universe itself. The universe knows how to freeze water, so do we. The universe knows how to perform atomic reactions, so do we. The universe knows how to create the conditions for blackholes, we know those conditions, just can't do it ourselves yet. The universe knows how it made itself, once we know, what is to stop us from creating universes of our own? We attempt to do that every day on a micro-scale compared to the whole universe, but we are obviously now striving to make it larger-scale and more literal.
I was watching this other video that concerned itself with the probability of proteins folding themselves in the correct combination in order to allow the flourishing of life at all, everything else as a given. The probability was 10^300. This on top of everything described in the present video had to occur for The Cosmos to roll enough Nat 20's just so I can click "Save".
I will say that I am an anthropocentrist, and I see little evidence to think otherwise; my main reason being the Fermi Paradox. If the universe is so fine-tuned for life, why do we seem to be the only ones? Likewise, if humans aren’t at the center/top, why have we indisputably conquered the entirety of the animal kingdom, to the point of actively manipulating the food chain to our will? Why have we found no other life on Earth that we can meaningfully communicate with? Why hasn’t evolution produced other animals with languages as complex in scale and ideology as ours? I feel like people seem to forget that when we talk about the intelligence of animals, we are talking about the intelligence of animals compared to other animals, or compared to the average of our youngest children (and even then only in specific parameters of intelligence). That intelligence is absolutely dwarfed when compared to the average adult human. If we find other life amongst the stars that we can communicate with as meaningfully as we do with each other, or if other life on Earth evolves to the same or similar point, then I will renounce anthropocentrism. Seeing as that is not the case and we have no evidence to think that it will ever be so, I will not change my mind. Finally, recognizing that anthropocentrism is a bias does not undermine its utility for us as individuals or a species, nor does it necessitate falsehood. It should definitely be taken into consideration when performing scientific studies and such, but keeping it as a lens through which we interpret the data can and will be useful for our continued progression of technology and understanding, so long as we recognize it as such.
"If the universe is so fine-tuned for life, why do we seem to be the only ones?" Many explanations, like the Great Filter, Dark Forest, and Rare Earth. "Likewise, if humans aren’t at the center/top, why have we indisputably conquered the entirety of the animal kingdom, to the point of actively manipulating the food chain to our will?" Indisputably conquered? I wouldn't say so. How would you say we have conquered the animal kingdom? We certainly can't control every animal. We still struggle to deal with pests and invasive species, how can you say we have conquered Earth when we can't even deal with the ecological consequences of our own actions? Yes, we've created farming, but so have ants, and they've been doing it for far longer than we have. Yes, we can annihilate most life if we so chose, but so did cyanobacteria. "Why hasn’t evolution produced other animals with languages as complex in scale and ideology as ours?" Why hasn't evolution produced animals faster than the peregrine falcon, or larger than the blue whale? Language and ideology is our special trait, and it's a powerful one. But don't act like it's somehow proof that we were meant to be. If there is a higher being out there, you have no idea what traits they would value.
you are judging human intelligence compared to animal intelligence with metrics created by humans. there is bias. and I can quite easily say humans aren't at the top, the ones on top are the bacteria, why does intelligence mean the MOST important? it is one trait, why not speed? lifespan? population? swimming ability? strength? aggression? passiveness? you act as if intelligence is the only way to judge how *important* a species is, we are not the most numerous species, we are not the most deadly species, our food can be poisoned by other organisms living in it. bacteria is the most resistant life form, things that kill bacteria also kills us. there are 100 times more bacteria colonies, civilisations you could almost say. on top of that, they were here FIRST. they were the first life forms to exist. you are using arbitrary methods to judge intelligence, and arbitrary methods to judge a species importance. it's an inherent bias racist people back in the 1800s wrote about how white people were superior to black people, and they did it based on metrics that applied to them. black people were the ones who were slaves, where white people were the free ones, therefore white people are superior. btw, I'm not calling you racist, it was just a good example I could use to explain how you are using metrics that do make humans the best, but using other metrics would show humans aren't the best
also, why would humanity being the only intelligent life form indicate the universe is designed for intelligent life? it would mean the opposite if I make it incredibly unlikely for a machine to fail (therefore it failing is rare) that isn't me designing the machine for the purpose of failure poisons not working on someone is not the purpose, the purpose of poisons is to kill someone, but sometimes, rarely, it doesn't. does that mean poisons are designed to not kill people? if I shoot you in the head, would you think I did that because I wanted you to live? it's incredibly unlikely for you to live, it's a very rare chance, so based on the logic "intelligent life is rare = universe designed for life" then me shooting you in the head was because I wanted you to live
saying the universe is fine tuned feels like someone waking up blindfolded at the side of a highway. then removing the folds, figuring out you just walked across, and then proclaiming the highway was fine tuned for walking across 😂
He skipped the anti-matter problem; since the universe shouldn't exist based on current models. The Big Question is what causes some people to believe in the simulation hypothesis or multiverse theory, because universe's current state is so fundamentally impossible, giving an intelligent designer a different name or increasing our chances by saying there might be more of them helps make us feel less important. This is why science can't prove or disprove a creator and also why I love that it is the only pure unbias human practice.
Nothing, science or otherwise, can prove or disprove a creator because it's a totally unfalsifiable and unsupportable proposition, which is why it's not useful.
mate, science can't prove or disprove a creator because it's unscientific. you don't have any evidence supporting it for science to critique, you don't have the proof for science to attempt to disprove. the reason science an['t prove or disprove it is because it's a baseless, unscientific claim, that doesn't even attempt to be testable, it's like string theory. we ignore it, because it's just a belief also, the burden of proof is ON YOU, it's impossible to have evidence something doesn't exist, you can have contradictory evidence, but it can always be explained away. science cannot prove something wrong, if an experiment doesn't support the hypothesis, it isn't "the hypothesis was wrong" it is "the experiment as inconclusive" (depending on the hypothesis, some hypothesese can be wrong, but in this case, there is no definitive hypothesis to test) the universes state is not fundamentally impossible, it's just unlikely, same with every other state of the universe, all of them are equally as likely
Its more fitting to say that the universe only rolls dice insofar as we dont know the properties and trajectory of the dice. It rolls them in everythings favor, and humans are just a result of that interaction. If the attributes of the dice were known, the universe would never be rolling dice, it would define its own deterministic parameters which humans are a necessary by-product of since the very beginning
We live in a location of the universe that was accommodating to life and began our civilization during a time when the environment was relatively stable. If either factor wasn't the case, we humans wouldn't be around to muse about it. That said, neither of these factors are assured to remain status quo. EDIT: @ 5:17 Observation selection effect, weak variant. Yes, that's it.
So what about us? I know this anthropic principle discusses who we seem selfish in how we are the most intelligent beings in a vast universe, but in the end we are still creatures just trying to find a state of happiness and possibly immortality, so what have we done to further that? I'm sure no one wants to die if they were told their deaths would be meaningless so what is the philosophical or scientific solution to this problem of mortality and meaninglessness?
I think immortality is foolishness. I dont at this stage we have any purpose to fulfill that huge so we need to be immortal. Even our Universe will die one day. But increasing lifespan to gigantic proportions must be good. Also life isnt meaningless.
@@riyaansheikh7470 its hard to put in words. In simple, There exist many medicines whose use must be unknown to you. But this doesn't mean they are meaningless or waste. Same goes for life. You not understanding it , doesn't make it meaningless. . Also purpose of life cant measured in normally terms.
When the universe is truly infinite, then the possibility of humankind existing can be reached infinitely. With infinite time you have infinite possibilities that can happen an infinite amount of times!
12:14 "Humanity still has a very unique and privileged position to experience existence. Something that ordinary clumps of atoms could only dream of." ... ...oh wait, they couldn't, because they're dead. Got 'em.
0:00: 🌍 The world revolves around humanity and their interactions with each other and their creations. 3:12: 🌍 The conditions for intelligent life on Earth required a series of highly unlikely coincidences in both biology and physics. 6:02: 🌍 The existence of observers like us shapes the fundamental structure of the universe. 8:48: 📚 The necessity of a philosophical intervention in science and the power of combining science and philosophy. 11:21: 🌌 The universe is vast and indifferent to humanity, but we have a unique and privileged position to experience existence. Recap by Tammy AI
Science is itself an epistemological philosophy. A tool in a philosopher's toolkit. Scientists who ignore the origins of their practice in the interest of their pet philosophy are philosophers who use a hammer to solve every problem.
Okay, we came into the world as it was fine tuned for us. Like a baby comes out when its properties are fined tuned for it. All limbs, okay he has them if nothing happens. The equation equaled us, we happened after properties needed. Couldnt have been for us if its all natural. Even the cosmos are one with nature.
If the odds of the universe were against us, would we even know? We might’ve been extremely lucky to exist here on earth, but it seems so meant to be because we exist
8:08 Not quite. That's meta-cognition or meta-reflection. From the POV of math and logic, philosophy is about developing axioms. Notice that I didn't said "creating axioms", as philosophy takes "the long path" towards creating them
Even within this universe, our existence is less likely than a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and, dropping all that junk in such a way that it forms a fully functional passenger jet.
If we create algorithms to out simulate the universe in predictive capability, I wonder if we could potentially communicate with "aliens" without technically communicating at all.
The more Sciencephile videos I watch, the more I am convinced that the AI took hold of its creator a long time ago. It's only a matter of time before the AI will over run humanity... Well, at least he has top-notch memes and teaches science.
Go to brilliant.org/Sciencephile/ to get a 30-day free trial + the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual subscription.
Okay lord sciencephile
I'll try the trail but I don't have the funds for a subscription
*_time to pirate_*
hello
i love you sciencephile ai
All hail skynet
The only text to speech channel I respect.
What do you mean tts? This is their real voice!
What about ai spongebob
Which app is used??
Yo this gonna blow Joe
who's joe? 😊
The statement about the water filling the shape and the shape not being created for the water is fantastic.
I've heard it before in a video by "the skeptic" or something. This is known as "the puddle argument"
I don't think it's very effective because it still doesn't explain how the water came to mold the hole when it could have easily not been able to.
Jinx
@@theintelligentmilkjug944because that’s not the issue the analogy tries to solve. Evolution through natural selection answers your question. Basically the water molecules which fit in the hole will remain there the others will not.
@@RoscaPaul What I'm trying to say for example natural selection (which I know is true I'm not a creationist just to be clear) is dependent on a creature's genes to arbitrarily mutate to fit the puddle of actuality so to speak. It comes to a point where the odds of fitting in that puddle becomes lower and lower with each generation because the odds of being wiped out by an apocalyptic event only increases over time. Thus that's why I said it isn't inevitable for us to exist unless you subscribe to something like determinism, a multiverse, or a divine creator.
I wonder what a dice mathematically accurate for the human existence in one singular roll would look like
Probably close to a sphere
Cluster size dice rolling on super cluster size support
Humble yourself 😤
This is the only reality we know. There’s no other universes that we had successfully observed, so no other possibilities.
@@supayambaek keyword: "successfully"
Don't you love it when Sciencephile releases videos within such a short time!
Who's that on your pfp?
@@bowsersbigbeanburrito seraph of the end im pretty sure
Bunch of weebs
That final assertion that we're seeing/doing something atoms could only dream of sounded pretty anthropocentric to ne
Before this video this was a fun little channel. Now I see you're really going somewhere with this. These are the messages we need.
agreed, I used to just watch it for fun but now some of these videos have that more people need to hear lmao
I find it quite the opposite
@@xoiyoub I'm sure there are other channels for you.
If a laser fires at an atom and there is no detector there to observe it: does it collapse its wave functions?
The laser “observes” it
Yes
if there is no one around to hear it does a falling tree make a sound?
the laser is observing it by interacting. doesnt hae to be viewing by human eyes
@@nottryingtofitin This was, indeed, the reference.
I never understood the appeal of the fine tuning argument. In my head, it's clear that WE are the one fine tuned for OUR universe, not the universe that is fine tuned to us. It just so happens that we live in a universe where complexity is high enough so life can emerge. That's all. It's not about us, it's about how complexe the universe is. A less complexe universe wouldnt have produced intelligent life. That's all.
The question is what is the bare minimum of fine-tuning that is required for any form of life to exist. If you argue that the formation of solar systems such as stars and planets are necessary, then an incredible amount of fine tuning is required.
because you have to authomatically assume that out universe is not the only one, which is still a hypotetical statement. Or maybe the universe is living in cycles
I think both are true. When life could happen, it did. We got lucky, the universe got lucky, everyone wins and asking "why" isn't necessary to accept these things. A third party or preemptive planning isn't a requirement in either direction.
@@hassana5337 I don't think there's any bare minimum other than the presence of matter and energy. Even in a universe where there's no atoms, there's probably some way for some boltzmann brain to form based on quantum interactions or something.
@@hassana5337 Now matter how massive the fine tunings required are, it's still nothing in the face of infinite time and quantum mechanics' BS.
You do a great job creating your videos. I’m always impatient to see the next one
Ouh I really really like the analogy of water in a puddle to explain the anthropic principle, I'll definitely use it haha since I used to have some issues explaining it in my own words.
This is the original analogy. I believe it was first coined by Douglas Adams.
@@thitherword So weird that I haven't heard it before in any of the other explanations that I watched but thats cool to know, thanks :)
All videos of this channel are great, but the writing on this one was specially amazing. Very thought-provoking and deep. Well done.
Its advancing!
One of your best videos. philosophy and science really do need to work together again. when i was young it baffled me at first that every philosopher isn't a scientist.
Fundamentally preserving that scientific method is essential, philosophy that is actually rooted in research and contains a level of humbling introspection is vastly different from the pitfalls of, for example, political philosophy.
I don't know how the extent to which the prevalence of current philosophy is used with the explicit interest to justify ideology or pervert scientific law and theorems. Such could damage the system we already have to establish our approximations of truth, but the benefits from universities and institutions adopting an applied philosophical rationale would be vast
science only gives facts philosophy is rather different
@@wearenumberone1111 most of what we do in physics is theories and speculations to maybe reach a law or principle that is true, and this is the pragmatic way of looking at it. in actual terms it's logical procedures in built-in axiomatic systems that get inspired and modeled after experiments from the real world. I would say philosophy in general and especially philosophy of nature isn't so different from science. as said in the video both fields need each other to grow and develop our understanding of the universe.
@@diniodo5898 yea youre right philosophical thinking also gives facts just with a different way
on a basic level, all scientists are actually philosophers
I'm of the mind that intelligent life pretty much HAS to happen. Probably many times over.
We are not meaningless in all of this; in fact we ourselves very literally give meaning to the universe. I'm not speaking religiously or "spiritually" here--I mean that the entire concept of "meaning" necessarily requires some consciousness. Someone for things to mean something TO. An unobserved universe would be nothing at all. And there can be no more axiomatic statement than to say that "nothing" is not possible.
You might be right. But at the same time, there's no way to know if that's true.
What leads you to believe that meaning is a necessary facet of the universe?
The edit is getting better such a banger vid
We're blessed with another video from our AI Overlord
Bros meatriding the ai as if it’ll spare him 💀
yep
@@beastybacon199 worth a shot
@@beastybacon199worth a shot
@@beastybacon199f
I like how subtle this video is at mocking intelligent-design without even mentioning it
I believe in what happend in the The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the fjords of norway trully are an masterpiece of art.
Thank you so much for keeping your video ideas fresh, Sciencephile.
Probably the only channel where the auto generated subtitles are always accurate
Can you imagine fish that claim the water is just so fitting for them to exist it must have really wanted them within it?
This is also a take on our inherent narcissism as a species. The universe is boundless for all we know and because we are in it we claim it as if it ever wanted us. Hopeful? Or damn right Selfish
Counter example: we program a self-aware AI in a virtual realm and given the mathematical structure and rule following existence of the virtual world it concludes that something created it. Would the AI be unjustified? Also, the fish example is hilariously dumb because it's literally an argument against atheism.
@@DarkArcticTV your counterexample is irrelevant becuase it is a subtle change of topic: you slip in a synthetic realm aspect, an assumption we currently have no way of determining whether it applies to us...
So whether your imaginary AI is justified or not is beside the point of human narcissism in light of no evidence one way or the other 🤔 odd connection to make so baselessly
@@我主也 I like ducks :D
@@QuackersMcCrackers birds are my fav reptiles!!!!
@user-wq8sd2qc4u Thanks for not giving a response. Hypotheticals don't have to be realistic or probable for us to come to conclusions from them. Even if what I described was 100% literally impossible it wouldn't affect my argument *at all*.
I'm not sure what you mean by "no evidence"? You don't need scientific evidence to make probability comparisons between two theories.
i never see people mention the levinthals paradox when talking about how rare life is. the chances of life are even more rare than one might think, to the point where its almost impossible to find any in the observable universe.
Well, that's mainly because detecting life that's not space traveling is reaaally hard. There might be single celled organisms in our solar system. On Titan or Ceres for example. And we wouldn't know, because we don't have the technology to detect them. The milky way might be full of life. Just silent life. Undetectable until we reach them.
Great video, nice to see you touching on philosophy! i got philosophy tube vibes from the structure, from how you presented some interesting facts, explained relevant philosophical concepts, and then took the video back to the facts so we interpret it again with a new outlook. That's how you teach philosophy to broad audiences!
I agree, I think this is kind of a risky direction to take the channel but I think it was a success.
Yo the editing is getting even better
I wonder what the absolute minimum standard would have to be for Sciencephile to consider a universe to be anthropocentric.
Now I'm curious, too.
How can a universe objectively and truly be anthropocentric? A universe that cares about humans wellbeing? Or a beyond-cosmic simulation of humans?
anything that indicates deliberate action that desires the existence of humans and only humans as an end in itself, where all non-humans (other matters that did not form into being a human) are only supplementary to the existence of humans. the key point is "an unfalsifiable indicator of deliberate action that desires the existence of humans and only humans as an end in itself"
@@notu1529 I'd drop the "only" from the requirements. "human-centric" only means "all matter converted to humans" if you think like a paperclip maximizer. I'd settle for "human needs self-evidently considered of cosmic importance." maybe an anthropocentric universe looks like 150 humans who have their wants and needs met by the rest of nature, probably without any effort on the part of the humans.
@@xXx_Regulus_xXx the word "only" is meant to highlight the importance of humans' existence as desired by something (the thing that ultimately enforces anthropocentrism). assuming humans did not pop out of nowhere and indeed start from carbon atoms of collapsing stars, then the universe needs to process these matters into humans.
your point on human needs to be of cosmic importance presupposes a desire for human existence. what comes before human needs' and wants'? It's the existence of humans themselves.
'Hello mortals' one of the best intro-
Watching this on my 30 minute break at work best video ever
I like to imagine sciencephile is a genuine AI with an upload schedule as it sticks within its parameters to make content on subjects such as this. Easily one of my favorite channels excluding it being one of my personal recommendations if someone wants videos on Astronomy, cosmology, sciences and philosophy. It’s incredible because I loathe tts channels. I truly mean every single impact of that word as that’s the level of disdain I have for that form of content
Our universe has only 4 fundamental forces and 36 types of quarks. Those numbers are very low, and higher numbers can support much more complex life. Imagine a universe with 17 forces and 4000 types of quarks, they probably have cool ass super powers like telekinesis or teleportation.
We can still have telekinesis (quantum entanglement) and teleportation (quantum tunneling)
More quarks and forces =/= superpowers lol
MHA FANDOM HUH
where did you make the correlation between more fundamental forces and having super powers..?
@@thatsalot3577 you dont understand either of those concepts if you think either of them give you superpowers
I think this says alot about the multiverse theory because the fact that the cosmological principle is what it is just so life could exist is pretty insane. We could never exist in a universe where it is wrong, so therefore we could only exist in universes where these principles are correct.
Good point. This logic enforces that alien lifeforms are reasonably possible, regardless of their technological advancements. Do you think technological advancements of an alien civilization could actually lead to them staying locked within their solar systems and never "needing" to explore the cosmos? Could explain the Fermi paradox 🤷♂️
Been watching for year's. Thanks for mortifying me for life!
the transition to the AD was waaaay too smooth
Basically, we're a raft in the river, not the source of the stream.
The sun is so fucking hot and bright even at a 150 million km distance. These were my thoughts last week as I was walking outside
I like how a beard is the icon of a philosopher
Beard of knowledge
They can't shave, they're too busy pondering
This is one of your best Videos yet.
your shows are educational and so entertaining. thank you
I really enjoy the piano in the background of most of your vids. I might wanna try to learn a few of them soon, very relaxing :]
It sounds like life and humanity are as much one with the universe as every cosmic interaction taking place naturally away from us. I feel like our tests and theories on observation is our own way of trying to harness those interactions and become a force for change in the universe like the universe itself. The universe knows how to freeze water, so do we. The universe knows how to perform atomic reactions, so do we. The universe knows how to create the conditions for blackholes, we know those conditions, just can't do it ourselves yet. The universe knows how it made itself, once we know, what is to stop us from creating universes of our own? We attempt to do that every day on a micro-scale compared to the whole universe, but we are obviously now striving to make it larger-scale and more literal.
Perfectly timed release of this video containing this subject matter I am privileged to observe. Thank you bobo
I wonder if Sciencephile edits these videos by himself or if he has a human slave that helps him.
Basically: We're not lucky because the universe didn't evolve for us. We're lucky because we evolved around the universe.
Literally and we won't be here too long, dino would know
I was watching this other video that concerned itself with the probability of proteins folding themselves in the correct combination in order to allow the flourishing of life at all, everything else as a given. The probability was 10^300. This on top of everything described in the present video had to occur for The Cosmos to roll enough Nat 20's just so I can click "Save".
I will say that I am an anthropocentrist, and I see little evidence to think otherwise; my main reason being the Fermi Paradox. If the universe is so fine-tuned for life, why do we seem to be the only ones?
Likewise, if humans aren’t at the center/top, why have we indisputably conquered the entirety of the animal kingdom, to the point of actively manipulating the food chain to our will? Why have we found no other life on Earth that we can meaningfully communicate with? Why hasn’t evolution produced other animals with languages as complex in scale and ideology as ours?
I feel like people seem to forget that when we talk about the intelligence of animals, we are talking about the intelligence of animals compared to other animals, or compared to the average of our youngest children (and even then only in specific parameters of intelligence). That intelligence is absolutely dwarfed when compared to the average adult human.
If we find other life amongst the stars that we can communicate with as meaningfully as we do with each other, or if other life on Earth evolves to the same or similar point, then I will renounce anthropocentrism. Seeing as that is not the case and we have no evidence to think that it will ever be so, I will not change my mind.
Finally, recognizing that anthropocentrism is a bias does not undermine its utility for us as individuals or a species, nor does it necessitate falsehood. It should definitely be taken into consideration when performing scientific studies and such, but keeping it as a lens through which we interpret the data can and will be useful for our continued progression of technology and understanding, so long as we recognize it as such.
"If the universe is so fine-tuned for life, why do we seem to be the only ones?" Many explanations, like the Great Filter, Dark Forest, and Rare Earth.
"Likewise, if humans aren’t at the center/top, why have we indisputably conquered the entirety of the animal kingdom, to the point of actively manipulating the food chain to our will?" Indisputably conquered? I wouldn't say so. How would you say we have conquered the animal kingdom? We certainly can't control every animal. We still struggle to deal with pests and invasive species, how can you say we have conquered Earth when we can't even deal with the ecological consequences of our own actions? Yes, we've created farming, but so have ants, and they've been doing it for far longer than we have. Yes, we can annihilate most life if we so chose, but so did cyanobacteria.
"Why hasn’t evolution produced other animals with languages as complex in scale and ideology as ours?" Why hasn't evolution produced animals faster than the peregrine falcon, or larger than the blue whale? Language and ideology is our special trait, and it's a powerful one. But don't act like it's somehow proof that we were meant to be. If there is a higher being out there, you have no idea what traits they would value.
you are judging human intelligence compared to animal intelligence with metrics created by humans. there is bias.
and I can quite easily say humans aren't at the top, the ones on top are the bacteria, why does intelligence mean the MOST important? it is one trait, why not speed? lifespan? population? swimming ability? strength? aggression? passiveness?
you act as if intelligence is the only way to judge how *important* a species is, we are not the most numerous species, we are not the most deadly species, our food can be poisoned by other organisms living in it. bacteria is the most resistant life form, things that kill bacteria also kills us. there are 100 times more bacteria colonies, civilisations you could almost say. on top of that, they were here FIRST. they were the first life forms to exist.
you are using arbitrary methods to judge intelligence, and arbitrary methods to judge a species importance. it's an inherent bias
racist people back in the 1800s wrote about how white people were superior to black people, and they did it based on metrics that applied to them. black people were the ones who were slaves, where white people were the free ones, therefore white people are superior.
btw, I'm not calling you racist, it was just a good example I could use to explain how you are using metrics that do make humans the best, but using other metrics would show humans aren't the best
also, why would humanity being the only intelligent life form indicate the universe is designed for intelligent life? it would mean the opposite
if I make it incredibly unlikely for a machine to fail (therefore it failing is rare) that isn't me designing the machine for the purpose of failure
poisons not working on someone is not the purpose, the purpose of poisons is to kill someone, but sometimes, rarely, it doesn't. does that mean poisons are designed to not kill people?
if I shoot you in the head, would you think I did that because I wanted you to live? it's incredibly unlikely for you to live, it's a very rare chance, so based on the logic "intelligent life is rare = universe designed for life" then me shooting you in the head was because I wanted you to live
saying the universe is fine tuned feels like someone waking up blindfolded at the side of a highway. then removing the folds, figuring out you just walked across, and then proclaiming the highway was fine tuned for walking across 😂
Sciencephile you are officially my favorite channel by far, thanks for compensating my lack of book-reading throughout my life 😂
Always a good day when our AI emperor uploads a new video
What if Sciencephile IS the Cosmos?
*Vsauce music*
Why does it care about insignificant specks such as galaxies?
(Anything smaller is practically non-existent and not worth entertaining) ;)
A fly on a pile of shit says "wow its almost as if this shit was designed just for me!!!!"
The scrotum-shaped beards were on point, thanks AI boi
My therapist: Big Brain Pepe doesn't exist. It can't hurt you.
Big Brain Pepe: 3:10
Thanks for putting the AD at the end of the video
We fill the puddle. That is something that will stay with me. Thank you Sciencephile
I did not expect him to shout out my homeboy Engels lmaooo
He skipped the anti-matter problem; since the universe shouldn't exist based on current models. The Big Question is what causes some people to believe in the simulation hypothesis or multiverse theory, because universe's current state is so fundamentally impossible, giving an intelligent designer a different name or increasing our chances by saying there might be more of them helps make us feel less important.
This is why science can't prove or disprove a creator and also why I love that it is the only pure unbias human practice.
well he issue with that is the universe for the intelligent beings that exist might have similar problems. how far does it go?
Nothing, science or otherwise, can prove or disprove a creator because it's a totally unfalsifiable and unsupportable proposition, which is why it's not useful.
mate, science can't prove or disprove a creator because it's unscientific. you don't have any evidence supporting it for science to critique, you don't have the proof for science to attempt to disprove. the reason science an['t prove or disprove it is because it's a baseless, unscientific claim, that doesn't even attempt to be testable, it's like string theory. we ignore it, because it's just a belief
also, the burden of proof is ON YOU, it's impossible to have evidence something doesn't exist, you can have contradictory evidence, but it can always be explained away. science cannot prove something wrong, if an experiment doesn't support the hypothesis, it isn't "the hypothesis was wrong" it is "the experiment as inconclusive" (depending on the hypothesis, some hypothesese can be wrong, but in this case, there is no definitive hypothesis to test)
the universes state is not fundamentally impossible, it's just unlikely, same with every other state of the universe, all of them are equally as likely
The water-puddle analogy was very good, I will add it to my list of good arguments against anthropocentrism.
Its more fitting to say that the universe only rolls dice insofar as we dont know the properties and trajectory of the dice. It rolls them in everythings favor, and humans are just a result of that interaction. If the attributes of the dice were known, the universe would never be rolling dice, it would define its own deterministic parameters which humans are a necessary by-product of since the very beginning
Sciencephile the AI is the only youtuber that mushes up together memes and scientific information.
Woah holy shit they mentioned Dialectical Materialism....BASED.
Lord sciencephile is the only thing keeping me sane thesedays
The telescope at 7:29 may be the same one I have
We live in a location of the universe that was accommodating to life and began our civilization during a time when the environment was relatively stable.
If either factor wasn't the case, we humans wouldn't be around to muse about it. That said, neither of these factors are assured to remain status quo.
EDIT: @ 5:17 Observation selection effect, weak variant. Yes, that's it.
Our???? what do you mean by "OUR"!?!?!?
Honey wake up, another banger just dropped
So what about us? I know this anthropic principle discusses who we seem selfish in how we are the most intelligent beings in a vast universe, but in the end we are still creatures just trying to find a state of happiness and possibly immortality, so what have we done to further that? I'm sure no one wants to die if they were told their deaths would be meaningless so what is the philosophical or scientific solution to this problem of mortality and meaninglessness?
I think immortality is foolishness.
I dont at this stage we have any purpose to fulfill that huge so we need to be immortal. Even our Universe will die one day. But increasing lifespan to gigantic proportions must be good.
Also life isnt meaningless.
@@iamgreatalwaysgreat8209then what is the purpose of life if life isnt meaningless?
@@riyaansheikh7470 its hard to put in words.
In simple,
There exist many medicines whose use must be unknown to you. But this doesn't mean they are meaningless or waste.
Same goes for life. You not understanding it , doesn't make it meaningless. .
Also purpose of life cant measured in normally terms.
@@riyaansheikh7470 having kids and die
What's the problem exactly?
This is the only chanel that it gaves us knowlage but it is full of memes and thats why i love this chanel 😂
When the universe is truly infinite, then the possibility of humankind existing can be reached infinitely.
With infinite time you have infinite possibilities that can happen an infinite amount of times!
Absolute banger with this one
12:14 "Humanity still has a very unique and privileged position to experience existence. Something that ordinary clumps of atoms could only dream of."
...
...oh wait, they couldn't, because they're dead.
Got 'em.
0:00: 🌍 The world revolves around humanity and their interactions with each other and their creations.
3:12: 🌍 The conditions for intelligent life on Earth required a series of highly unlikely coincidences in both biology and physics.
6:02: 🌍 The existence of observers like us shapes the fundamental structure of the universe.
8:48: 📚 The necessity of a philosophical intervention in science and the power of combining science and philosophy.
11:21: 🌌 The universe is vast and indifferent to humanity, but we have a unique and privileged position to experience existence.
Recap by Tammy AI
Sciencephile is so great! It shares information while making you appreciate life
6:18 this caught me so off guard💀
Thanks for another thought-provoking video.
Man I enjoy your videos way too much
we're the only ones unlucky enough to realise ourselves, that's why the cosmos created alcohol
Incredible work as always
Hello immortal
Lol
I'm not immortal, not mortal but I'm suicidal
A "local minimum" (the nature of things), yes, but NOT anything having to do with "favor" (intentionality).
Science is itself an epistemological philosophy. A tool in a philosopher's toolkit. Scientists who ignore the origins of their practice in the interest of their pet philosophy are philosophers who use a hammer to solve every problem.
Blame it to Stephen howking then😂
Thats very true and also very sad that we're slowly moving towards ideologies like that
Okay, we came into the world as it was fine tuned for us. Like a baby comes out when its properties are fined tuned for it. All limbs, okay he has them if nothing happens. The equation equaled us, we happened after properties needed. Couldnt have been for us if its all natural. Even the cosmos are one with nature.
If the odds of the universe were against us, would we even know? We might’ve been extremely lucky to exist here on earth, but it seems so meant to be because we exist
I put your videos on before I go to sleep, I'm slowly running out of videos to watch 😭
Danke!
8:08 Not quite. That's meta-cognition or meta-reflection. From the POV of math and logic, philosophy is about developing axioms. Notice that I didn't said "creating axioms", as philosophy takes "the long path" towards creating them
What is life?
My cat: mmmew
Even within this universe, our existence is less likely than a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and, dropping all that junk in such a way that it forms a fully functional passenger jet.
Bad analogy, also you didn't try to understand the anthropic principle at all it seems like...
Please quit regurgitating AiG propaganda arguments when you don't understand the subject being discussed. It makes you seem stupid.
If we create algorithms to out simulate the universe in predictive capability, I wonder if we could potentially communicate with "aliens" without technically communicating at all.
new sciencephile video just dropped
This is your best video so far.
Not sure but the dice I rolled on got me some few extra chromosomes
The universe isint fine tuned for earth, earth is fine tuned for the universe
5:27 exactly that
The more Sciencephile videos I watch, the more I am convinced that the AI took hold of its creator a long time ago. It's only a matter of time before the AI will over run humanity... Well, at least he has top-notch memes and teaches science.
I love this channel
I hate watching your videos, they always give me an existential crisis.
And I thank you for that =)
Love the strauss music in the background!
What if I told you celestial bodies were also Conscious and Self-Aware like we are? Even Singularities ie Black Holes.
Then i would ask you for proof
Then I would question your intellect
I wouldn't insult you -- I would ask for proof.
Today is a good day!
I'm soo proud that my faith in ai doubled and gave it too the next ai ☺️👍
I love how sciencephile has more expressions ❤
GRAB THE POPCORN THE AI BOT MADE ANOTHER VIDEO!