COMING SOON: A new way to engage with the top thinkers on the planet. Become a free Closer To Truth Member on April 21. Register in advance here: www.closertotruth.com/user/register
The Cosmological Constant is tuned to a level of 1/10^120. By definition, "a statistical impossibility is a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a rational, reasonable argument." Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more rational and reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a purely arbitrary, subjective materialistic ideology.
@@moses777exodus let alone the mathematical impossibility of just one simple protein evolving by chance. It would take a protein chain of 300 amino acids more random chances than there are atoms in the observable universe.
It is really awesome that there is enough audience on RUclips to make this channel work. Without it, I don't think we'd get the pleasure of hearing all these brilliant people discuss their area of expertise.
This channel is just an iteration of a TV Show on PBS, they upload clips here that's why the production value is so high on certain episodes. It's not your regular youtube channel.
Lawrence make the most of this, interview Penrose and Suskind at the same time via zoom so they talk to each other, they are friends and such an interview would be amazing!
Roger Penrose is the only rationalist anchoring other scientists in reality & reason. The current dilemmas in physics have spawned many outlandish theories & branches - Dinkum dinkum
good point about fine tuning. compared to a universe absolutely packed with all sorts of life, our universe is relatively empty and actually not that fine-tuned
The "one whole big Universe" might be part of an even larger structure at an even larger scale, a one whole big mega Universe, which in turn is just a single tiny fractal structure within an even larger fractal structure, etc., etc., through infinitely larger nested scales. It's enough to make a person want to say, "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!"
Unless other universes have space with properties different from this universe's space. Space is such a fundamental concept that we do not consider it can be something else in other universes. But what is considered "huge" here, might be something else there.
I believed a long time the multiverse was a very logical, elegant and plausible idea. Today I find it so tiresome how many there must be and there should be a way to get rid of them. Locally at each quantum event the world might split up very briefly though but then it all collapses again. Only the best path remains. The problem is what "the best" in this context means.
Hard for me not to buy in when Sean Carroll and Michio Kaku believe in them. But Penrose is in that league as well, nice to see variety of views on such a speculative topic.
Sean Carroll would be the main reason I wouldn't buy any of it. He's a snake oil salesman. He's a member and founder of the freedom from religion foundation and yet he makes lots of money selling his books and giving lectures about is Multiverse hypothesis that is untenable, unprovable, and unknowable, and flies in the face of the only concrete evidence.
The fine tuned constants, if different, would give rise to a universe without ATOMS, not just one without life. It’s difficult to imagine life without matter.
i've read one of his books - he's such a brilliant mathematician and a writer too, but here, his clumsy and vague refutations of multi-universe hypothesis are just baffling me. Even his claim that we have no idea how life formed is a bit of a stretch
Agree. Is mathematics are to restrictive. Also our math is still primitive. Its only true as far as we've evolved. That's why its restrictive. It's closed ended. Quantum mechanics is anything but closed ended. Theres too much hubris in his calculations.
Consciousness is producing the Universe. The Universe was being produced in the future by collective Consciousness. Material reality is emanating like radiation from something more fundamental, Consciousness.
I thought Penrose would go into his conformal cyclic cosmology idea but he finished up by simply saying he doesn't know. Was he saving time or has his commitment to CCC lessened?
2:29 Good point, Roger. Thought: If we were granted the opportunity to seed new life throughout the cosmos, would we seed (not yet fully evolved) violent and primitive precursors on planets that are too close to each other? Would we do such a thing knowing such creatures would begin taking the next step before mastering their nature and thereby fail to complete their mission? Maybe the best design is to establish a set distance to provide primitive creatures more time to learn and evolve before encountering their celestial cousins. 🤔
There are “alien mind” on different timescales. They have been working on trying to contact us for a long time. I learned to understand them. Some call it “reality” but it’s actually talking.
In this Universe, information is transported by matter and energy. I do agree that information plays important part in the fundamental essence of the Universe. However, it is one of several players. It is not accidental that information is defined as characteristic of something. The most basic binary information - 0 or 1 - stands for “being or not being.” It needs something else “to be or not to be.”
Inflation is wrong, it is not likely, it is awkward. If there is a better explanation, and there is, we should follow that better explanation. GR is wrong and everybody knows it is wrong, no surprise here. It is an approximation theory. If we realize that there is no time, we come to eons theory of Penrose and his singularum infinitum. It is energy conglomerate, energy structure, that is being passed from eon to eon. Energy structure and flow of entropy. There is no time so there is no "beginning" nor "end" (imagine a medusae and its transformations to get the picture) . Every possibility is out there but these possibilities are not spread across parallel universes, they are spread across vertically stacked eons. This theory will eventually be proven by examining MBR at a more detailed level.
Like every morning I come to my computer and every day it's a 'tiny winy' different without an update. Sun is shining middle of street yet the right side of street is on shadow. How would you technically make a virtual world without multi-server???? And what would come up if multi-server would have off-sync (Nokia Corp.)? Multi-universe????
Why use the term "multiverse" if the word "universe" already refers to everything that exists? Or does "universe" simply means a specific collection of galaxies? And these different sets of galaxies are separated in space.That's why it's supposedly possible for 2 "universes" to collide with each other and create a Big Bang that producies another "universe.."
A universe which has no conscious agents within (or even without) it to apprehend its existence Does Not exist, as a matter of definition. In this way, one might say epistemology gives rise to ontology (although this then gives rise to an infinite regress).
The universe is so finely tuned specifically for life on earth that more than 99 percent of all organisms that have ever lived on Earth are extinct. This will be changed to 100% in the future.
Hmmm, somewhat ironically in regards of Roger Penrose's aversion to multiple universes and his conformal cyclic theory: Years ago I wrote a computer program which oddly - as I wasn't looking - had some sort of inflationary transition, and seemed to imply grand unification coupling value was an optimum in terms of rate of production for certain universes... Anyways the evolution of any particular inflated universe looked a bit like Penrose's conformal cyclic thing, except there were multiple universes competing to complete a conformal like cycle, all in an endlessly scale similar pattern... LOL, sounds most dubious I know. Maybe this Roger is part of a Schrodinger's cat scenario, with conformal reality his preference in this reality and quantum multiversality in another, with my computer accidentally generating a "Penrosian supposition state" betraying a more general cyclical conformal multiverse...
Multi-verse theory is growing in strength. I personally believe there are eternal universes out there, and possibly eternal dimensions. I only wish I could visit them :(
Indeed, you believe in those universes, but, by simple logic your wish will never be fulfilled. If you listen to Sir Penrose you will know that such theories are closer to religious beliefs than to science.
@@crodrigue1 multi verse closer to religion? Do you want to say that scientists follow them as religion? Well done running is closer to God hypothesis (a reality for me though)
@@MercedeX7 No, I dont mean that. I meant that some scientists follow certain beliefs knowing that there is no possibility to have any empirical avidence about them. My analogy is in this level.
Maybe someone can tell me how a person died once and then months later died again on the timeline that is my life. It has happened a couple times. How can time march on and I end up experiencing events twice.
@@daddyelon4577 I have had events repeat twice. I have also had objects appear from thin air and also some disappear when no person did it or was near.
Gomez is she a ghost?..I'll tell you about a couple times. September 2015 in Hawaii I read in the newspaper about Natalie Coles death and her funeral at a church on MLK here in Los Angeles. She is the daughter of Nat King Cole. Then I moved from Hawaii and back to L.A. January 1. 2016 I opened up the newspaper and again read a death announcement that Natalie Cole died December 31st and that her funeral would be at a church on MLK. How can she die twice. Then in 2017 I was in Tampa a few months. I go back and forth from Los Angeles. I called and met with a Rabbi Adler at shul and told him a few things about God and about Natalie Cole. The next day the found her son dead in his L.A apartment. I have a son. In 2015 - 2016. He was caught at school with Marajuana and a little pepper spray. My mother called me because I was in L.A. I said put Wolf on the phone. He told me he was going to counseling at Phoenix House and had met a new girl named Stephanie. A couple months later I got a call from my mother and she told me he was caught at school with Marajuana and a little pepper spray. I said,again. She said what do you mean again this is the first time. I said, put Wolf on the phone. He told me again, I'm going to counseling ay phoenix house and met a new girl Stephanie. In Hawaii I met a surfer named the governor and hung out in his black surf van a few hours listening to music. I told him it wouldnt be so hot in the van if it wasn't black but white. A couple days later I saw him and his van was white. I said, Governor you painted the van white. He said, it's always been white.
There is no need to figure it all out. Its not a puzzle to solve. It's reality, and your consciousness is right here and now, an emergent part of it all. Just be! Consciousness emerges from void, and to void returns.
Given a convoluted vrs a shorter simplistic path to any process both in the lab and in nature, the resultant path will conserve energy and go the most simplistic route requiring the least amount of energy…so it seems unlikely that countless of universes are created due to countless superpositions or potential possibilities …but that does not rule out that mini universes are not created or replicated from the parent…it would follow that this might be as we experience life like this at our level and there is no reason that it would be otherwise at higher levels of existence. I believe that the universe is living.
with regard to the fine-funing of the constants uh i think okay there is a point there about how big a point it is i'm not sure partly because we have the remotest idea what gives rise to right rise to life i mean science fiction story due to fred hoyle where he introduced this idea of a black cloud which was completely different scale of things and nothing like how life evolved on the earth i had no idea how we could see that evolving but nevertheless it was an idea of conscious life utterly different from what we've seen another science fiction story which a very nice one worked out very very beautifully was by robert forward called dragon's egg in which he envisaged life on a neutron star and here it's completely different
Just don't. 'tho it works in the platonic realm of maths, but other maths may do work as well, including Feynman's multiple histories for some cases. That gap between classic and particle physics needs to get closed so we can access other equations which will also work, replacing MU. God bless Sir RP's lucidity and health. Keep objecting the standard views for a couple more decades.
We couldn't see the Higgs boson until 2012 but pure math proved its existence in 1964. Your ignorance affects what happens in your tiny mind and has no relevance outside your inflated opinion of yourself.
With all due respect to the gentlemanly and brilliant Sir Roger Penrose, to say that the scarcity of life implies that God didn’t do a very good job creating the universe is assuming to know the mind of God and that He ever intended to fill the universe with life. On the contrary, the scarcity and potential nonexistence of other life in the universe is not in conflict at all with many theistic worldviews.
Theistic worldviews do not explain this world nor the existence of life. They postulate there are supreme beings that understand the world, and humans only have to follow the will and rules established by the supreme beings and accept that the supreme beings' minds are beyond human comprehension.
@@ik1408 I wasn’t trying to argue for a theistic worldview (although, I must address that you presented your opinion as if it were fact; a theistic worldview can absolutely explain existence of everything, if it is true). I was merely pointing out that Sir Roger was using his own narrow view (and I say that with the utmost respect for him) of what the universe should have been like to argue against a theistic explanation. Again, I wasn’t trying to present a proof of God, only pointing out that his suggestion cannot be used to argue against the existence of God.
@@JabberW00kie A theistic worldview cannot explain the existence of everything. It only postulates the existence of supreme beings-creators and the existence of the world as by-product of their will and their existence. All the major theistic teachings are saying this: "There is a supreme being/beings. The supreme being/beings created this world. The supreme being/beings know and understand everything. The human mind is limited and not enough to comprehend the mind of the supreme being/beings. There are no explanations in theistic worldviews, only postulates and referrals to supreme beings that refuse to reveal themselves within the visible part of electromagnetic spectrum. This is further emphasized by many centuries of organized theists prosecuting those humans, who wished to study and understand this world. Giordano Bruno, Galileo, middle-centuries doctors prosecuted for attempting to study human physiology on human corpses. You are now using the fruits of the work and creativity - e.g., going to a hospital or using GPS on your phone - of those people who were prosecuted by theists.
@@ik1408 Actually theistic worlview are explanations for the state of affairs, given they were brought about potentially from an abstract being. Just another form of abstract truths that overcome the basic inference of sensory data. They are not explanatory towards sensory data because they are generalizations, not explicits. Anyone who looks at fluid motion and asks, where are the vectors? Has obviously missed the point. As for the persecution of scientists, who cares. If they were right, then they would be proven in time. Else their loss meant nothing except a disturbance to the state, b/c church can and will act as much as a governing authority as a social institution. Studying corps was outlawed by Galen actually back in Roman times. Bruno was a broken clock (and we know the saying), believing in many worlds because he thought God's omnipotence implied that...not because some experimental scientist. Same goes for Galileo. So he took Copernicus' idea, yea great job. He also thought comets were an optical illusion and called the idea that the moon could affect the oceans tide's as "childish". Yea great freaking creativity you admire right there. They had their memorable, just impressive state in history and thats it. Nothing else the church as a whole has still, continues to this day, be a more important player in world affairs than these outdated individuals you mentioned.
@@UncannyRicardo You forgot Galileo. Does not fit in your scheme. Vectors are mathematical tools. No one claims vectors created the Universe. Abstract means existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence. You are basically saying gods are ideas without concrete existence. And when you are naming churches a governing authority as a social institution, this conversation is over. I will not waste a moment more on conversing with another homo sapiens, who wishes to get control over me on some organized false pretense of representing the will of some invisible superior abstract creatures.
I agree with Roger, three dimensions with one variable in the form of time is fundamental. These videos explain a simple three dimensional geometrical process with three dimensional space and time being emergent. We have the spontaneous absorption and emission of photon energy forming the movement of charge that has spherical 3D geometry with the two dimensional spherical surface forming a manifold for positive and negation charge. The outer spherical surface forms positive charge and the inner surface negative charge. Relative to the energy of an object this outward process forms the inward motion of gravity and is the reason why both gravitational fields and electromagnetic fields share the Inverse Square Law, representing the geometry of the process. The information of our three dimensions is continuously encoded on the two dimensional surface, using the holographic principle, as the future unfolds. An interior of a sphere is naturally three dimensional and the radiating energy will always be at right-angles to the surface. This can be seen with electromagnetic fields always being at right-angles. There is an infinite number of line symmetries with a sphere that can represent an infinite number of time lines. The extra dimensions of String theory are just future possibilities and opportunities in our 3D Universe. This theory explains the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics as the physics of ‘time’ with classical physics representing processes over a period of time as in Newton’s differential equations.
One day, a mud puddle became sentient. It thought to itself, "look at this hole I find myself in. It is the same exact shape that I am! Surely this hole was fine tuned for my existence!"
Why do dogs say wuf, and why do cats say meaw, why do some people believe, - can it have any thing to do with ability ? When You come to know the eternal nature of universes, You will know that there is endless number of universes.
The 'fine tuning' declaration is not compelling for me. It depends on interpretation. My question is, why isn't the universe better suited for life? The vast majority of the universe is cold, lifeless space. Our galaxy could be filled with messages from intelligent beings but it isn't. Of all the planets, moons, dwarf planets and asteroids in our solar system, our rock is the only one with life? This is a poor example of 'fine tuning' for life.
This universe is fine tuned for life. However, life has to actually develop which is related to evolution. Cellular life is probably common but the jump from cellular to intelligent life takes billions of years and has a high randomness factor.
@@JohnSmith-hn6kv The term "fine tuned" is ridiculous. The universe is poorly tuned for life because so many things could be different to make it more conducive.
The Cosmological Constant is tuned to a level of 1/10^120. By definition, "a statistical impossibility is a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a rational, reasonable argument." Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more rational and reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what many of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a purely arbitrary, subjective, materialistic ideology and who seem compelled to propagandize this worldview to the rest of academia and humanity.
I would argue against Mr. Penrose (greetings Roger), that Universe means (according to dictionaries) "ALL THAT EXISTS". So there is an IMPOSSIBILITY OF MULTIPLE UNIVERSE. There is just ONE ALL.
Language is contextual, so such an argument entirely misses the point. Just change the wording to bubbles in a bubbleverse and you should understand what is meant.
@@roqsteady5290 When we talk about a physical reality, something we can measure, feel, touch, a bubble is not something that defines our world. Especially, if multi-bubbles are BY DEFINITION outside of our experience.
@@theconsciousnutshell805 multiverse is not "by definition" outside our experience, we just currently can not make observations of one, assuming such a thing does indeed exist. Your difficulties are entirely semantic in nature and of your own making. Science is simple - we go out and look at stuff... if we see a footprint we speculate that there is some creature that made it and hope one day to detect that creature more directly. It is the same with multiverse, some cosmologists think a multiverse is the best explanation for our current observations, but haven't yet detected it empirically. Try not to make life more complicated than it needs to be.
@@roqsteady5290 Wrong! That is NOT science. Speculation is something very different. Science is just observation and experiments. Nothing to do with assuming "creatures". If a scientist sees a 1 meter footprint he UNFORTUNATELLY assumes it is a forgery or a natural formation but does not think for a moment it might have been created by a Giant. It is called Confirmation BIAS. Most of what people use to label as science is just such kind of interpretations (not direct observations or measurements, and even less experiments). By definition, anything outside our perception (3D world) is not to be explained by physics. It is the people talking about hyperdimensions, string theories and multiverse and many-world interpretations who make thinks ('life') complicated.
@@roqsteady5290 If you see a footprint (that's science). When you speculate that some creature made it these are assumptions and lucubration. Cannot make science about the past. We can ONLY EXPERIENCE OUR UNIVERSE (by definition "all what exists").
Based on what we know about our observable universe and the analysis of the cosmic microwave background maps, it is 100% logical that there is most likely to be unlimited number of other universes out there or our universe is unlimited.
Newsflash: science IS a religion in which the scientific method gives way to fixed paradigms such as MW theory in order to preserve reductionist physicalism rather than accept the empirically obvious fact that consciousness is somehow fundamental and space/time (and therefore “matter”)is emergent from the play of information and consciousness by which reality is derived.
Religion never work against science, the problem is both sides have theirs own interests at play... religion needs total obedience, if science find the explanation, religion lost power over the public, if science find then they become " we can do better" a battles of Ego and supremacy...our history after all
Universe is one. Universe is not expanding. Empty Time And creation in universe is expanding Infinity universal is here only one Universe we can't imagination how big it too.
Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.
@@byteme9718 In a vacuum, things are spreading. But void is neither extension nor contract. We are building houses in a vacuum, moving around in a vacuum, existing in the void. Earth, sun, galaxy, light, energy... everything exists in empty. Therefore the universe is not expanding. The only thing in the empty is expansion and contraction.
Hmm, they seem to be quick to dismiss the idea that God created the universe and the constants of nature that go with it. I favor this explanation. Maybe Robert will interview me. lol
But Higgs should it’s value to be 125 right between super symmetry and multiverse but I think their are multiverse , they depend on their respective entropy ! Entropy is nothing but arrangement.
The second reason..a finely balanced set of numbers making our universe suitable for life.. seems like endlessly throwing up a bunch of numbers and hoping for the winning lotto numbers. It's possible but it's a lot of useless universes! Clutching at straws really but... for want of a better reason?
If the universe is cyclical then it would happen eventually & infinity has lots of eventuallys in it lol & why would it matter how many "useless" universes preceeded ours? It would be very suprising to find ourselves in a universe whose laws shouldn't allow it.
It's damn obvious that if you have to use 'God' as a causal device to explain the creation of the Universe, then you MUST then use the same argument to ask what caused 'God'. It's really annoying that you religious fanatics use 'God' as the cause, but refuse to ask what caused 'God'. It's easier to use Occam's Razor' and remove the idea of 'God' in the first place. Why add complexity that's not necessary? It may as well be as Carl Sagan said, 'The Cosmos is all that is or ever was, or ever will be'. There's no need to invent other causal factors or anthropomorphic 'old men in the sky'. We don't need adult fairy stories in the 21st Century. We've come a long way in 2000 years.
It's annoying that you atheistic fanatics can't understand simple logic, like why something eternal can't have any cause. That's why it's called "necessary being", get it ?? In order for anything to exist at all, there has to be something that existed all the time and will exist forever. Nothing produces nothing. If you think nothing can produce something, then you're more religious then radical muslims and you belive in pure magic. "What caused God", hehe. What a stupid question.
@@este4955 Yeah, so basically you blew up your own argument. You say nothing produces nothing, and yet at the same time you claim God, quote 'in order to exist at all, there has to be something that existed all the time'. So something out of nothing. It's no different than having the Cosmos come into existence without a God. 'What caused God, is NOT a stupid question'. What is stupid is how you theistic fanatics so easily accept adult fairy stories of non-existent supernatural beings with zero evidence. It's just 'sheeple' mentality. Bah, bah, bah!
@@bipolarbear9917 Hahaha. You're so wrong. You don't even understand simple logic of "necessary being". If you wan't to belive that universe is pointless, or that life came into being by accident, then be my guest. It's nothing more then pure faith based on blind belief, but if that's what makes you happy, then follow this way. Your atheism is just like any other religious belief, but you're simply to proud of yourself to see that truth. Peace ;)
To be fair, scientific views also build on assumptions. Not to equate it to the belief in an anthropomorphic bearded man in the sky, but Scientism is more religion like than most atheists are willing to admit.
Darkness (business) exists so that stars (light and warmth) have a place to shine in heaven (joy, beauty and harmony). But the hostile alien vampires (greed) think that stars like US exist to be sucked out of heaven by a giant black hole in space called "greed" and it's ignorance (hate). Also, Love (god) spent billions of years creating this paradise planet lifeboat so that her miraculous works of fine art called "life" have a place to "be". Love didn't spend so much time creating this paradise planet lifeboat to be depreciated, hated, polluted and destroyed in a brief moment by hostile alien vampires (greed) and their ignorance (hate).
COMING SOON: A new way to engage with the top thinkers on the planet. Become a free Closer To Truth Member on April 21. Register in advance here: www.closertotruth.com/user/register
The Cosmological Constant is tuned to a level of 1/10^120. By definition, "a statistical impossibility is a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a rational, reasonable argument." Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more rational and reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a purely arbitrary, subjective materialistic ideology.
@@moses777exodus let alone the mathematical impossibility of just one simple protein evolving by chance. It would take a protein chain of 300 amino acids more random chances than there are atoms in the observable universe.
@@moses777exodus It is impossible to define a probability, it is but circular reasoning.
Useless channel
He is so humble , so cleaver , so well grounded and so open minded . Probably the perfect scientist .
He's an investment banker, like Jeffery Epstein ...
He's my fav.
Roger is a genius.
@@chrisc1257 Penrose ??
Cleaver? whitout a doubt! Well grounded? certainly with the best information acces in this world... Open minded? mmmh... well, yes! but... Humble?!!!!
It is really awesome that there is enough audience on RUclips to make this channel work. Without it, I don't think we'd get the pleasure of hearing all these brilliant people discuss their area of expertise.
This channel is just an iteration of a TV Show on PBS, they upload clips here that's why the production value is so high on certain episodes. It's not your regular youtube channel.
I can never get enough of listening to Roger Penrose.
Roger Penrose. The only man that can rock a comb over respectably.
Wow my favorite person Sir Roger Penrose 🌟
Lawrence make the most of this, interview Penrose and Suskind at the same time via zoom so they talk to each other, they are friends and such an interview would be amazing!
I second this
He was teaching at my college back in the day and he was known to be a sweetheart.
Roger Penrose is the only rationalist anchoring other scientists in reality & reason.
The current dilemmas in physics have spawned many outlandish theories & branches - Dinkum dinkum
Also my favorite interviewer 🌟
Yes. He really is incredibly competent and sympathetic.
good point about fine tuning. compared to a universe absolutely packed with all sorts of life, our universe is relatively empty and actually not that fine-tuned
Love Sir Rodger . He is his own man in a time when far to many physicists are jumping on bandwagons in the pursuit of rock star status.
Anything & everything is possible in the universe
Excepts Deities..
Finally, someone who made sense.
Why does the camera keep moving around?. It's very annoying.
Good for Sir Roger for "not jumping on the bandwagon"
Life is MUCH more common than anyone has been taught
Keep these coming I love your work 👌🏻❤️🇬🇧✌🏻
Life was meant to be lived not understood. We're simply not capable of doing so.
We need more people like Roger Penrose.
Go Bluejays!
With regards to sir roger penrose, when some ideas come to lives, weather we accept it or not , it will be somewhere, for the future.
I think Penrose might like the Wolfram physics project, which aims to explain the properties of nature on the basis of mathematical graphs...
This must have been recorded some years ago.
Multipled universe combined equals one whole big Universe *
The "one whole big Universe" might be part of an even larger structure at an even larger scale, a one whole big mega Universe, which in turn is just a single tiny fractal structure within an even larger fractal structure, etc., etc., through infinitely larger nested scales.
It's enough to make a person want to say, "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!"
what if even that big one keeps on splitting in half every time an electron arrives at a position where it has two possible paths? is it still "one" ?
Unless other universes have space with properties different from this universe's space. Space is such a fundamental concept that we do not consider it can be something else in other universes. But what is considered "huge" here, might be something else there.
AKA...Multiverse
The infinite One. Zero X Infinity = Any Number. The One/Many problem. LOF, The Laws of Form
I believed a long time the multiverse was a very logical, elegant and plausible idea. Today I find it so tiresome how many there must be and there should be a way to get rid of them. Locally at each quantum event the world might split up very briefly though but then it all collapses again. Only the best path remains. The problem is what "the best" in this context means.
Hard for me not to buy in when Sean Carroll and Michio Kaku believe in them. But Penrose is in that league as well, nice to see variety of views on such a speculative topic.
Michio kaku is a Phd Idiot!
Sean Carroll would be the main reason I wouldn't buy any of it. He's a snake oil salesman. He's a member and founder of the freedom from religion foundation and yet he makes lots of money selling his books and giving lectures about is Multiverse hypothesis that is untenable, unprovable, and unknowable, and flies in the face of the only concrete evidence.
The fine tuned constants, if different, would give rise to a universe without ATOMS, not just one without life. It’s difficult to imagine life without matter.
We’ve got to say now : we are not alone in the universeS
i've read one of his books - he's such a brilliant mathematician and a writer too, but here, his clumsy and vague refutations of multi-universe hypothesis are just baffling me. Even his claim that we have no idea how life formed is a bit of a stretch
Agree. Is mathematics are to restrictive. Also our math is still primitive. Its only true as far as we've evolved. That's why its restrictive. It's closed ended. Quantum mechanics is anything but closed ended. Theres too much hubris in his calculations.
Consciousness is producing the Universe.
The Universe was being produced in the future by collective Consciousness.
Material reality is emanating like radiation from something more fundamental, Consciousness.
Who's consciousness am I emanating from?
Wish could follow arguments better, have to work on as the understanding is very advanced.
Ours may be a multidimensional universe amongst innumerable multidimensional universes.
I thought Penrose would go into his conformal cyclic cosmology idea but he finished up by simply saying he doesn't know. Was he saving time or has his commitment to CCC lessened?
How might physical constants and laws of nature, through mathematics, relate to a multiverse designed for vast amounts of different things?
The mystery of fine tuning, and consciousness seem to be organized around similar principles that might be explained mathematically?
Robert Shiller + Roger Penrose = Heaven
2:29
Good point, Roger.
Thought: If we were granted the opportunity to seed new life throughout the cosmos, would we seed (not yet fully evolved) violent and primitive precursors on planets that are too close to each other?
Would we do such a thing knowing such creatures would begin taking the next step before mastering their nature and thereby fail to complete their mission?
Maybe the best design is to establish a set distance to provide primitive creatures more time to learn and evolve before encountering their celestial cousins. 🤔
There are “alien mind” on different timescales. They have been working on trying to contact us for a long time. I learned to understand them. Some call it “reality” but it’s actually talking.
What will be the value of constants when if these Universes merge because now they have different values in different Universes as they are saying.
Sir Roger Penrose: let me tell you about the multiverse...
Kid on bike: can't be late again. EXCUSE ME, COMING THROUGH!
請問您做的 "中國脫貧" 影片為何見不到了? 我很喜歡那影片, 可以放上來嗎? 或是哪裡可以看到?
你为什么要用中文问？
中國脫貧: ruclips.net/video/RsnXnu-ISdg/видео.html
This British gentleman is just too kind. He is "afraid" not ot support these theories, instead of just calling out the bs.
My theory is that the only things that exists in the Universe are consciousness, information, and the interaction of consciousness and information.
how was consciousness formed?
In this Universe, information is transported by matter and energy. I do agree that information plays important part in the fundamental essence of the Universe. However, it is one of several players. It is not accidental that information is defined as characteristic of something. The most basic binary information - 0 or 1 - stands for “being or not being.” It needs something else “to be or not to be.”
Nice
Top 10 scientists Rick Sanchez is afraid to diss...
(lowering the brow a little (literally and figuratively), but I couldn’t resist)
How many roger penroses are we making now? Or are they on tiktok or playing PlayStation
Inflation is wrong, it is not likely, it is awkward. If there is a better explanation, and there is, we should follow that better explanation.
GR is wrong and everybody knows it is wrong, no surprise here. It is an approximation theory.
If we realize that there is no time, we come to eons theory of Penrose and his singularum infinitum. It is energy conglomerate, energy structure, that is being passed from eon to eon. Energy structure and flow of entropy. There is no time so there is no "beginning" nor "end" (imagine a medusae and its transformations to get the picture) . Every possibility is out there but these possibilities are not spread across parallel universes, they are spread across vertically stacked eons. This theory will eventually be proven by examining MBR at a more detailed level.
Like every morning I come to my computer and every day it's a 'tiny winy' different without an update. Sun is shining middle of street yet the right side of street is on shadow. How would you technically make a virtual world without multi-server???? And what would come up if multi-server would have off-sync (Nokia Corp.)? Multi-universe????
Why use the term "multiverse" if the word "universe" already refers to everything that exists? Or does "universe" simply means a specific collection of galaxies? And these different sets of galaxies are separated in space.That's why it's supposedly possible for 2 "universes" to collide with each other and create a Big Bang that producies another "universe.."
We chose those words when we didn't know about this possibly, exactly like the word atom means cannot be divided
A universe which has no conscious agents within (or even without) it to apprehend its existence Does Not exist, as a matter of definition. In this way, one might say epistemology gives rise to ontology (although this then gives rise to an infinite regress).
Penrose talks very rationally. I appreciate that over hype.
The universe is so finely tuned specifically for life on earth that more than 99 percent of all organisms that have ever lived on Earth are extinct. This will be changed to 100% in the future.
Woooo scary stuff. You must really get off with the fear mongering.
@@arnesaknussemm2427 Why be afraid? It’s a natural part of life for it to end.
@@arnesaknussemm2427 Fear mongering is those telling you that you will burn forever if you don’t share their beliefs.
Hmmm, somewhat ironically in regards of Roger Penrose's aversion to multiple universes and his conformal cyclic theory: Years ago I wrote a computer program which oddly - as I wasn't looking - had some sort of inflationary transition, and seemed to imply grand unification coupling value was an optimum in terms of rate of production for certain universes... Anyways the evolution of any particular inflated universe looked a bit like Penrose's conformal cyclic thing, except there were multiple universes competing to complete a conformal like cycle, all in an endlessly scale similar pattern... LOL, sounds most dubious I know. Maybe this Roger is part of a Schrodinger's cat scenario, with conformal reality his preference in this reality and quantum multiversality in another, with my computer accidentally generating a "Penrosian supposition state" betraying a more general cyclical conformal multiverse...
Quilted multiverse between cyclic universe and multiverse
Multi-verse theory is growing in strength. I personally believe there are eternal universes out there, and possibly eternal dimensions. I only wish I could visit them :(
indeed--indeed
Indeed, you believe in those universes, but, by simple logic your wish will never be fulfilled. If you listen to Sir Penrose you will know that such theories are closer to religious beliefs than to science.
@@crodrigue1 multi verse closer to religion? Do you want to say that scientists follow them as religion? Well done running is closer to God hypothesis (a reality for me though)
@@MercedeX7 No, I dont mean that. I meant that some scientists follow certain beliefs knowing that there is no possibility to have any empirical avidence about them. My analogy is in this level.
Kudos
Maybe someone can tell me how a person died once and then months later died again on the timeline that is my life. It has happened a couple times. How can time march on and I end up experiencing events twice.
wtf r u even tryna say
@@daddyelon4577 I have had events repeat twice. I have also had objects appear from thin air and also some disappear when no person did it or was near.
@@jacovawernett3077 me too my mom died 15 years ago but she keeps appearing in my kitchen
Gomez is she a ghost?..I'll tell you about a couple times. September 2015 in Hawaii I read in the newspaper about Natalie Coles death and her funeral at a church on MLK here in Los Angeles. She is the daughter of Nat King Cole. Then I moved from Hawaii and back to L.A. January 1. 2016 I opened up the newspaper and again read a death announcement that Natalie Cole died December 31st and that her funeral would be at a church on MLK. How can she die twice. Then in 2017 I was in Tampa a few months. I go back and forth from Los Angeles. I called and met with a Rabbi Adler at shul and told him a few things about God and about Natalie Cole. The next day the found her son dead in his L.A apartment. I have a son. In 2015 - 2016. He was caught at school with Marajuana and a little pepper spray. My mother called me because I was in L.A. I said put Wolf on the phone. He told me he was going to counseling at Phoenix House and had met a new girl named Stephanie. A couple months later I got a call from my mother and she told me he was caught at school with Marajuana and a little pepper spray. I said,again. She said what do you mean again this is the first time. I said, put Wolf on the phone. He told me again, I'm going to counseling ay phoenix house and met a new girl Stephanie. In Hawaii I met a surfer named the governor and hung out in his black surf van a few hours listening to music. I told him it wouldnt be so hot in the van if it wasn't black but white. A couple days later I saw him and his van was white. I said, Governor you painted the van white. He said, it's always been white.
There is no need to figure it all out. Its not a puzzle to solve. It's reality, and your consciousness is right here and now, an emergent part of it all. Just be! Consciousness emerges from void, and to void returns.
Given a convoluted vrs a shorter simplistic path to any process both in the lab and in nature, the resultant path will conserve energy and go the most simplistic route requiring the least amount of energy…so it seems unlikely that countless of universes are created due to countless superpositions or potential possibilities …but that does not rule out that mini universes are not created or replicated from the parent…it would follow that this might be as we experience life like this at our level and there is no reason that it would be otherwise at higher levels of existence. I believe that the universe is living.
with regard to the fine-funing of the constants uh i think okay there is a point there about how big a point it is i'm not sure partly because we have the remotest idea what gives rise to right rise to life i mean science fiction story due to fred hoyle where he introduced this idea of a black cloud which was completely different scale of things and nothing like how life evolved on the earth i had no idea how we could see that evolving but nevertheless it was an idea of conscious life utterly different from what we've seen another science fiction story which a very nice one worked out very very beautifully was by robert forward called dragon's egg in which he envisaged life on a neutron star and here it's completely different
Just don't. 'tho it works in the platonic realm of maths, but other maths may do work as well, including Feynman's multiple histories for some cases. That gap between classic and particle physics needs to get closed so we can access other equations which will also work, replacing MU. God bless Sir RP's lucidity and health. Keep objecting the standard views for a couple more decades.
Somehow Penrose is the only one who makes sense.
Like a real master
Plz be many universes 🤗
You need your own??.
i am confident there are eternal universes AND eternal dimensions.
Multiple universes, string theory, all that, it's bunk. We can't see the big picture because we are INSIDE the picture.
We couldn't see the Higgs boson until 2012 but pure math proved its existence in 1964. Your ignorance affects what happens in your tiny mind and has no relevance outside your inflated opinion of yourself.
Quantum wave function / field itself could be evidence of megaverse.
I have found that our lack of knowledge puts forward more and more absurd ideas...
With all due respect to the gentlemanly and brilliant Sir Roger Penrose, to say that the scarcity of life implies that God didn’t do a very good job creating the universe is assuming to know the mind of God and that He ever intended to fill the universe with life. On the contrary, the scarcity and potential nonexistence of other life in the universe is not in conflict at all with many theistic worldviews.
Theistic worldviews do not explain this world nor the existence of life. They postulate there are supreme beings that understand the world, and humans only have to follow the will and rules established by the supreme beings and accept that the supreme beings' minds are beyond human comprehension.
@@ik1408 I wasn’t trying to argue for a theistic worldview (although, I must address that you presented your opinion as if it were fact; a theistic worldview can absolutely explain existence of everything, if it is true).
I was merely pointing out that Sir Roger was using his own narrow view (and I say that with the utmost respect for him) of what the universe should have been like to argue against a theistic explanation. Again, I wasn’t trying to present a proof of God, only pointing out that his suggestion cannot be used to argue against the existence of God.
@@JabberW00kie A theistic worldview cannot explain the existence of everything. It only postulates the existence of supreme beings-creators and the existence of the world as by-product of their will and their existence. All the major theistic teachings are saying this: "There is a supreme being/beings. The supreme being/beings created this world. The supreme being/beings know and understand everything. The human mind is limited and not enough to comprehend the mind of the supreme being/beings.
There are no explanations in theistic worldviews, only postulates and referrals to supreme beings that refuse to reveal themselves within the visible part of electromagnetic spectrum.
This is further emphasized by many centuries of organized theists prosecuting those humans, who wished to study and understand this world. Giordano Bruno, Galileo, middle-centuries doctors prosecuted for attempting to study human physiology on human corpses. You are now using the fruits of the work and creativity - e.g., going to a hospital or using GPS on your phone - of those people who were prosecuted by theists.
@@ik1408 Actually theistic worlview are explanations for the state of affairs, given they were brought about potentially from an abstract being. Just another form of abstract truths that overcome the basic inference of sensory data. They are not explanatory towards sensory data because they are generalizations, not explicits. Anyone who looks at fluid motion and asks, where are the vectors? Has obviously missed the point.
As for the persecution of scientists, who cares. If they were right, then they would be proven in time. Else their loss meant nothing except a disturbance to the state, b/c church can and will act as much as a governing authority as a social institution. Studying corps was outlawed by Galen actually back in Roman times. Bruno was a broken clock (and we know the saying), believing in many worlds because he thought God's omnipotence implied that...not because some experimental scientist. Same goes for Galileo. So he took Copernicus' idea, yea great job. He also thought comets were an optical illusion and called the idea that the moon could affect the oceans tide's as "childish".
Yea great freaking creativity you admire right there. They had their memorable, just impressive state in history and thats it. Nothing else the church as a whole has still, continues to this day, be a more important player in world affairs than these outdated individuals you mentioned.
@@UncannyRicardo You forgot Galileo. Does not fit in your scheme. Vectors are mathematical tools. No one claims vectors created the Universe. Abstract means existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence. You are basically saying gods are ideas without concrete existence. And when you are naming churches a governing authority as a social institution, this conversation is over. I will not waste a moment more on conversing with another homo sapiens, who wishes to get control over me on some organized false pretense of representing the will of some invisible superior abstract creatures.
I agree with Roger, three dimensions with one variable in the form of time is fundamental. These videos explain a simple three dimensional geometrical process with three dimensional space and time being emergent. We have the spontaneous absorption and emission of photon energy forming the movement of charge that has spherical 3D geometry with the two dimensional spherical surface forming a manifold for positive and negation charge. The outer spherical surface forms positive charge and the inner surface negative charge. Relative to the energy of an object this outward process forms the inward motion of gravity and is the reason why both gravitational fields and electromagnetic fields share the Inverse Square Law, representing the geometry of the process. The information of our three dimensions is continuously encoded on the two dimensional surface, using the holographic principle, as the future unfolds. An interior of a sphere is naturally three dimensional and the radiating energy will always be at right-angles to the surface. This can be seen with electromagnetic fields always being at right-angles. There is an infinite number of line symmetries with a sphere that can represent an infinite number of time lines. The extra dimensions of String theory are just future possibilities and opportunities in our 3D Universe. This theory explains the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics as the physics of ‘time’ with classical physics representing processes over a period of time as in Newton’s differential equations.
nice set of playlists you've created, particularly about space-time, gonna give it a listen. thanks.
To answer the caption, because someone is paying you to believe in multiple universes.
One day, a mud puddle became sentient. It thought to itself, "look at this hole I find myself in. It is the same exact shape that I am! Surely this hole was fine tuned for my existence!"
Why do dogs say wuf, and why do cats say meaw, why do some people believe, -
can it have any thing to do with ability ?
When You come to know the eternal nature of universes, You will know that there is endless number of universes.
Check out the girl at 2:16! Oh.., the Universe(s) and all that stuff, yes, yes, interesting too...
Looked like the famous Bigfoot sighting walk.
@@timterrell8678 lol I thought the exact same, came back to comment & here you are!
@@helphelpimbeingrepressed9347 😂 LOL
The 'fine tuning' declaration is not compelling for me. It depends on interpretation. My question is, why isn't the universe better suited for life? The vast majority of the universe is cold, lifeless space. Our galaxy could be filled with messages from intelligent beings but it isn't. Of all the planets, moons, dwarf planets and asteroids in our solar system, our rock is the only one with life? This is a poor example of 'fine tuning' for life.
This universe is fine tuned for life. However, life has to actually develop which is related to evolution. Cellular life is probably common but the jump from cellular to intelligent life takes billions of years and has a high randomness factor.
@@JohnSmith-hn6kv The term "fine tuned" is ridiculous. The universe is poorly tuned for life because so many things could be different to make it more conducive.
God or String Theory? Both are omnipotent and have many acolytes.
The Cosmological Constant is tuned to a level of 1/10^120. By definition, "a statistical impossibility is a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a rational, reasonable argument." Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more rational and reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what many of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a purely arbitrary, subjective, materialistic ideology and who seem compelled to propagandize this worldview to the rest of academia and humanity.
We are Marching headlong torward biomarkers.
UNIverse=one ,MULTIverse=greater than one.Is it possible to have multi-inflation hence multi-big-bangs?
Conformal cyclic cosmology is in some sense multi-big-bangs over time, one universe giving birth to the next.
I would argue against Mr. Penrose (greetings Roger), that Universe means (according to dictionaries) "ALL THAT EXISTS". So there is an IMPOSSIBILITY OF MULTIPLE UNIVERSE. There is just ONE ALL.
Language is contextual, so such an argument entirely misses the point. Just change the wording to bubbles in a bubbleverse and you should understand what is meant.
@@roqsteady5290 When we talk about a physical reality, something we can measure, feel, touch, a bubble is not something that defines our world. Especially, if multi-bubbles are BY DEFINITION outside of our experience.
@@theconsciousnutshell805 multiverse is not "by definition" outside our experience, we just currently can not make observations of one, assuming such a thing does indeed exist. Your difficulties are entirely semantic in nature and of your own making. Science is simple - we go out and look at stuff... if we see a footprint we speculate that there is some creature that made it and hope one day to detect that creature more directly. It is the same with multiverse, some cosmologists think a multiverse is the best explanation for our current observations, but haven't yet detected it empirically. Try not to make life more complicated than it needs to be.
@@roqsteady5290 Wrong! That is NOT science. Speculation is something very different. Science is just observation and experiments. Nothing to do with assuming "creatures". If a scientist sees a 1 meter footprint he UNFORTUNATELLY assumes it is a forgery or a natural formation but does not think for a moment it might have been created by a Giant. It is called Confirmation BIAS. Most of what people use to label as science is just such kind of interpretations (not direct observations or measurements, and even less experiments). By definition, anything outside our perception (3D world) is not to be explained by physics. It is the people talking about hyperdimensions, string theories and multiverse and many-world interpretations who make thinks ('life') complicated.
@@roqsteady5290 If you see a footprint (that's science). When you speculate that some creature made it these are assumptions and lucubration. Cannot make science about the past. We can ONLY EXPERIENCE OUR UNIVERSE (by definition "all what exists").
Roger Penrose really should read Stephen Baxter.
Infinity fits inside itself and beyond itself...... and therefore multitudes are very favorable. nesting doll universes.
Based on what we know about our observable universe and the analysis of the cosmic microwave background maps, it is 100% logical that there is most likely to be unlimited number of other universes out there or our universe is unlimited.
What?
Religion has always opposed science,in a crippling sense.
Newsflash: science IS a religion in which the scientific method gives way to fixed paradigms such as MW theory in order to preserve reductionist physicalism rather than accept the empirically obvious fact that consciousness is somehow fundamental and space/time (and therefore “matter”)is emergent from the play of information and consciousness by which reality is derived.
Religion never work against science, the problem is both sides have theirs own interests at play... religion needs total obedience, if science find the explanation, religion lost power over the public, if science find then they become " we can do better" a battles of Ego and supremacy...our history after all
Religion relies upon faith which is Anti Scientific. Science relies upon facts. Only Science matters and Science doesn't care what you believe.
@@makeracistsafraidagain sadly, even your science is not ready to explain the why of the new????
@@msimp0108 Newsflash: back is white and white is black. Remind me, where did i see that tactic before?
I love him he is my idol.
Yes black hole exist. 💗
Stanislav Lem - Solaris - about alien intelligent ocean capable of screening human mind.
Unless life can exist in stars God screwed the pooch making our universe.
Given an infinite number if universes I would be god and ban religions.
Universe is one.
Universe is not expanding.
Empty
Time
And creation in universe is expanding
Infinity universal is here only one Universe we can't imagination how big it too.
Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.
@@byteme9718 In a vacuum, things are spreading.
But void is neither extension nor contract.
We are building houses in a vacuum, moving around in a vacuum, existing in the void.
Earth, sun, galaxy, light, energy... everything exists in empty.
Therefore the universe is not expanding.
The only thing in the empty is expansion and contraction.
@@ujjwalbhattarai8670 In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
@@byteme9718 Ask the meaning of the universe before people get angry.
@@ujjwalbhattarai8670 42
Quit moving the camera back and forth, please.
Tough crowd
Hmm, they seem to be quick to dismiss the idea that God created the universe and the constants of nature that go with it. I favor this explanation. Maybe Robert will interview me. lol
What about an advanced alien species that created God? Take your pick of whatever 12,000 Gods we have come up with.
@@timterrell8678 Who created the advanced alien species?
@@daves2520 the advanced aliens came about naturally and didn’t require creation.
@@timterrell8678 How do you create life out of inert materials? It has been tried experimentally; but to date all efforts have failed.
@@daves2520 you don’t do it by magic or the supernatural. The conditions on our early earth allowed it to happen naturally.
But Higgs should it’s value to be 125 right between super symmetry and multiverse but I think their are multiverse , they depend on their respective entropy ! Entropy is nothing but arrangement.
He is 90
without the multiverse we are stuck with somr religiouse idea for fine tuning wow that was actually said
We are lacking a proof of fine tuning, because we ignore the structure of the Universe, if only it has one.
@@clmasse We are not lacking proof of fine tuning it is self evident
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 So what are the fine tuned parameter?
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 The proof is model dependent, thus it isn't a proof.
@@clmasse You are well aware I am sure of the great debate among scientists and philosophers regarding the apparent fine tuning
The second reason..a finely balanced set of numbers making our universe suitable for life.. seems like endlessly throwing up a bunch of numbers and hoping for the winning lotto numbers. It's possible but it's a lot of useless universes! Clutching at straws really but... for want of a better reason?
If the universe is cyclical then it would happen eventually & infinity has lots of eventuallys in it lol & why would it matter how many "useless" universes preceeded ours? It would be very suprising to find ourselves in a universe whose laws shouldn't allow it.
Because it explains blackholes and how time works
Penrose is very much able to explain black holes and time, also within his conformal cyclic cosmology model
It's damn obvious that if you have to use 'God' as a causal device to explain the creation of the Universe, then you MUST then use the same argument to ask what caused 'God'. It's really annoying that you religious fanatics use 'God' as the cause, but refuse to ask what caused 'God'. It's easier to use Occam's Razor' and remove the idea of 'God' in the first place. Why add complexity that's not necessary? It may as well be as Carl Sagan said, 'The Cosmos is all that is or ever was, or ever will be'. There's no need to invent other causal factors or anthropomorphic 'old men in the sky'. We don't need adult fairy stories in the 21st Century. We've come a long way in 2000 years.
It's annoying that you atheistic fanatics can't understand simple logic, like why something eternal can't have any cause. That's why it's called "necessary being", get it ?? In order for anything to exist at all, there has to be something that existed all the time and will exist forever. Nothing produces nothing. If you think nothing can produce something, then you're more religious then radical muslims and you belive in pure magic. "What caused God", hehe. What a stupid question.
@@este4955 Yeah, so basically you blew up your own argument. You say nothing produces nothing, and yet at the same time you claim God, quote 'in order to exist at all, there has to be something that existed all the time'. So something out of nothing. It's no different than having the Cosmos come into existence without a God. 'What caused God, is NOT a stupid question'. What is stupid is how you theistic fanatics so easily accept adult fairy stories of non-existent supernatural beings with zero evidence. It's just 'sheeple' mentality. Bah, bah, bah!
@@bipolarbear9917 Hahaha. You're so wrong. You don't even understand simple logic of "necessary being". If you wan't to belive that universe is pointless, or that life came into being by accident, then be my guest. It's nothing more then pure faith based on blind belief, but if that's what makes you happy, then follow this way. Your atheism is just like any other religious belief, but you're simply to proud of yourself to see that truth. Peace ;)
To be fair, scientific views also build on assumptions. Not to equate it to the belief in an anthropomorphic bearded man in the sky, but Scientism is more religion like than most atheists are willing to admit.
💗💗💗💗
I was expecting more from Penrose. But I guess the theme is kind of etherial.
biological forces of nature have senses function control universal being
A materialistic Robert just cannot sleep at night thinking the undeniably truth of multiverse .
You are right! multiverse beliefs are UNDENIABLE! that makes them unscientific, though
☁️❤️😌🙏🙏🙏💜☁️❤️❤️❤️The greatest channel ⛅☀️💓
Darkness (business) exists so that stars (light and warmth) have a place to shine in heaven (joy, beauty and harmony).
But the hostile alien vampires (greed) think that stars like US exist to be sucked out of heaven by a giant black hole in space called "greed" and it's ignorance (hate).
Also, Love (god) spent billions of years creating this paradise planet lifeboat so that her miraculous works of fine art called "life" have a place to "be".
Love didn't spend so much time creating this paradise planet lifeboat to be depreciated, hated, polluted and destroyed in a brief moment by hostile alien vampires (greed) and their ignorance (hate).