I seriously wince at why Graham even has a place in this talk. His 2005 paper with Mark Colyvan was easily refuted by Barnes who showed that their so called normalization problem of infinitesimal actually doesn't exist for all constants (some have Planck mass as upper limit). He knows jackshit.
I’m scratching my head thinking - How can theists avoid the problems that arise from theistic dualism? How is mind contingent on material constants? _"under theism life could exist under any conditions"_ - Sean Carroll
Even if we grant that life could exist under any condition as Carroll claims, it is still remarkable that the laws of physics allow us to exist. It is far more likely we would find ourselves in a dead universe rather than a life permitting one.
@@ManyDreams-cs9jq and what shows that its "less" likely? Because, we are here. So the likely hood we are here is 100% its like what is the likely hood that I exist? Or could have come into existance? When you rewind just about anything your going to get high numbers I'd suspect - but I've not seen anything like a computer model that would show that its more or less likely then any other result.
I always thought the fine tuning argument was akin to claiming that Victoria sponge is so finely crafted that the ingredients moving just a little would mean other cakes don’t exist.
We can only be sure of this: the universe is either fine-tuned or it appears to be fine-tuned based on our flawed limited observation and theory, to allow for life at least here on this one planet. And we and consciousness are here or appear to be here. Thanks for another provocative video.
Suggesting that the universe at least appears to be fine-tuned is more than a stretch. We have one universe to look at. What we would truly need to be able to determine if we had an appearance of fine-tuning would be a much bigger sample set. If we had hundreds (at least tens) of universes to compare and found that some of them produced life and some did not and we found that those with similar constants and conditions/physics to what is in our universe (the one universe we know of), then we'd have grounds to suggest that what we have is "fine-tuned." Without such comparisons it is just ridiculous speculation.
I respected Barnes and Goff at certain earlier times that I encountered their thoughts. I even brought up Barnes' arguments to people who dismissed fine-tuning on what I thought was an unfair or uninformed basis. I eventually discovered that Barnes was motivated by his theism rather than science. (I was so disappointed! I really thought it was an interesting scientific question why the constants are the values they are.) Seeing Goff's participation in the Capturing Christianity video made me more skeptical of his other ideas. That video prioritized theism over a dispassionate analysis of the facts. Do I know enough to critique their science? No. But I know enough to trust the scientists who are starting with the science, without a theological axe to grind, more. And again, I'm just really disappointed. Why can't interesting questions be explored without trying to turn it into a "therefore God" argument? You will never have a real "therefore God" unless God comes out and speaks for him (or her or it) self at some point. (And I mean without depending on telepathy to our minds. If a God wants to communicate to us, it has a lot of ways that could be independently confirmed.) The best you can get is "this seems unlikely" and when you're talking about universes, you don't know the landscape of possible universes and creators in the first place to know the likelihoods.
@@WolfLeib Not at all. I'm not saying I don't like his "work" on fine-tuning because of his bias. I'm saying his bias is disappointing because I thought he was doing unbiased scientific work and later discovered that he's like all the apologists -- cherry picks science to fit his bias rather than following the science. I actually scolded other people because I believed him to be following & exploring the science. Only to discover that he's doing the same disingenuous BS as Kent Hovind and Ken Ham, just more skillfully. That is, I assumed up front that his work on fine-tuning was true scientific work and later discovered how tainted it was by his bias. That's the opposite of ruling it out up front due to his beliefs.
@@WolfLeib No, that is not what I did. I started out thinking he was exploring the science honestly and probably also happened to be a theist. I found out he was doing apologetics. Apologetics is not science. Disappointing. He let his theism trump his science.
A total pleasure to spend time with smart people who treat a subject very seriously and still manage to make the arguments clear enough to follow for the layperson (even if i had to stop the video every now and then to totally get a certain point!) Thanks to all involved in producing this.
While I do believe that in actual fact the universe was fine tuned by an omniperfect agent, I always appreciate the counterarguments and various perspectives of well-respected experts in their fields. Love these videos!
my other (!) thought is, if god has to turn the dials to just the right values, whose laws of physics is he using? he should be able to use any value he feels like.
He is able to use any values or laws that are metaphysically possible, but this is a comparison between naturalism and theism (or naturalism and Goff's panpsychism) , so the argument doesn't require any assumption like the one you stated. Naturalism are committed to the view that the laws of physics are ultimate whereas theism and panpsychism are not.
@@dftknight lol no. if that were true physicists would just give up. even Barnes doesn't think that the laws of physics (used in the FTA) is ultimate (under theism and naturalism).
@@dftknight you swapped law of physics with nature, but almost none will say that *these* laws of physics are ultimate, just that nature bottoms out on the natural.
This was frustrating. Why not just have Goff and Barnes sit down and talk with Loewer and Priest (or whoever)? Having the conversation always one step removed makes it hard to get clear on where exactly the disagreements lie and why exactly each side lands where they do.
Yay, so excited to watch this! I'm also curious to see if Luke Barnes gets his 'real position' on fine tuning presented. He commented on the last one that we misunderstood him without him telling us what in the world he does think.
@@PhilHalper1 interesting to hear the rebuttals but really this whole debate is summed up nicely by Sean Carroll at 1:20:16. Simply put, an "omni" god doesn't need fine tuning. Luke's rebuttals don't make sense to me. Take 1:33:30, fine tuning for the purpose of life "is not something fine tuning proposes...it's just one of the purposes of fine tuning". What does that mean? Is that what the theist fine tuning is about or isn't it? Pick one Luke. In another place I can't remember where, that we don't have any reason to believe that different constants, being interdependent, wouldnt still produce a viable albeit different kind of universe. So many good arguments, fine tuning is just another term that's been hijacked like so many others to mean something that doesn't explain anything, certainly not the best explanation. Great video!
1:11:02 _"Then Alice goes to University to read physics and she learns that the probability for life is quite low, in that case Alice is rationally compelled either to lower the [prior] probability of God or to lower the probability of life given God"_ I like this response because it turns the claim of the "objective bayesianist" against himself. If the objective bayesianist want to claim that the problems of the principle of indifference don't apply for the FTA because in the context of the FTA they are talking about probabilities that are actual in _"physical reality"_ (1), then if we indeed think that the probability that the universe is life permitting in _"actual physical reality"_ , then it would clearly indicate that the theistic hypothesis in wrong ! (1) The following is a quote from Robin Collins 1999 on the FTA : _"The proportion given by the scale used in one's representation must directly correspond to the proportions actually existing in physical reality"_
1:08:34 Luke Barnes : _"It's not that there is this low probability that just exists there [...] the probability space changes entirely..."_ If Luke Barnes is an "objective bayesian" then yes, there is an objective probability that _"exists there"_ and objective probabilities cannot _"change entirely"_ . I know objective bayesianism was the position defended by Philip Goth, and not Luke Barnes. So I don't know if Luke Barnes is an objective bayesian. I guess this is more a response against Philip Goth than Luke Barnes.
The assertion that probabilities are invariant over the space of HYPOTHESES is not part of objective Bayesianism, but in what is objective. What is objective, however, varies with the hypothesis. There is no probability attached to the fitted universe that is the same under theism and under naturalism, even assuming objective Bayesianism. You are hallucinating. And the video's claim that "physicists make no claims under the assumption of atheism" is ridiculous. Physicists do this all the time, especially in theoretical physics and cosmology, which deals with the most fundamental stuff you can talk about. This does not mean, however, that it is not a substantial usable discovery (it is extremely relevant for everyone to know that naturalism is false).
Surely, if our universe needed to be fine tuned for us to exist, there must be someplace, some meta universe where God exists. Who fine-tuned that meta universe for God?
1:29:54 _"I'm suggesting is that you know so you realize that you're not a pulseman brain some of these hypotheses uh have balls and brains of predominate but and so those certainly take a hit"_ Godda love RUclips automatic transcription !
can god create life using only one particular set of constants? if yes then god is not all powerful. can god create life with any set of constants? if yes then why speak of fine tuning?
I completely agree with Loewer that objective Bayes is completely useless, which has been known in statistics for a few decades now. It's just a made up idea to make their argument seem more legitimate.
I've noticed you mention that a number of times. Perhaps you'd be interested in hashing that out with Trent Dougherty sometime soon? I know it's been offered to you several times, and I'd like to hear you hash it out in detail with him whenever you can. I know you've likely been really busy, and I respect that. Life is hectic. I think this would be an excellent conversation that might move the conversation forward, if you could make the time. ❤️🙏🏼 Much Love my friend. ☺️
@@DerivingLove It's been offered to me once, but it was 1) in bad faith, 2) based on mistaken identity (or miscommunication), and 3) I can't be associated with an alleged sexual offender. This was on top of being really busy, but apparently there was a lot of miscommunication that made him very hostile towards me, and I'm not interesting in that. Hopefully I can write a paper about this soon (but really, most of what I say can be found in statistics/decision theory textbooks), at which point I might be able to have a nice discussion with someone else.
How do you suppose scientific practice survives without comparing probabilities of models, which depends on objective Bayesianism, then? There is not the slightest chance of formulating an alternative probability interpretation capable of dealing with this. Science relies on Bayesianism.
@@caiomateus4194 To clarify, there are certain occasions where we would use objective priors for analyses, but these priors aren't "objective," just priors that satisfy some condition which we call objective (matching with MLE, max KL, etc). Since these criteria are subjective, objective priors are subjective. (and flat priors are useless because 1. they are improper and 2. marginalization paradox making comparison impossible)
If your father never met your mother you would not exist. The fact that you do exist is not an argument that your father meeting your mother was fine tuned.
@Ava Stone also doesn't state it can't be fine tuned without life. Just that this one is fined tuned for life. Not that a non life bearing universe couldn't be fine tuned. But this is an arguement against anything. Just being captain obvious
@@williamthompson1455 Some theists argue that the universe is fine tuned. and the evidence for this is that life exists. My comment is not a refutation of the fine tuning argument but rather a refutation of the argument that as life exists the universe has to be fine tuned
What I recognize is that the exact definitions of the physics resides in the mathematical equations that relate physical attributes. In Newtonian Mechanics, the mathematical expressions are presenting relationships that are very close to our intuitive experience. So, when describing these in prose, in the colloquial language that everyone is familiar, not much gets lost and the language doesn't skew the meaning much from what the math is explaining. Quite to the contrary, for the more modern descriptions like quantum mechanics and GR, what is being described by the mathematics is far from anything intuitive, far from what our common experience presents. The words used to describe the meaning beneath the mathematics are, at best, presenting analogies. I cannot see that, in most cases, they can be taken literally. The reality of the physics is so far afield of our experience and language that no explanation presented in prose can be used as a starting point for inferring anything beyond what is stated. Indeed, what is stated is barely able to constrain the concepts to the exact meaning of the mathematical descriptions. As I listen to the apologists, what I see is that they continuously interpret the prose in a manner that is not what the math and the physicists intend and in a manner that is misleading and based on what they want it to mean to justify their a priori conclusion.
If the multiverse is real then one of two things is possible: 1. Universes all have different values of constants 2. Universes all have the same values of constants
Месяц назад+1
Why don't you invite Luke Barnes also to these discussions?
Took millions of years for life to even be a thing so how is it that the unverse is "tuned" for life again? Its so silly. Theists will say anything to get to the god they beleve in.
@@avastone5539 LOL yeah no. All you have in an appeal to ignorance. If things were different, they would be different. Here every single person in the video explains just how broken and wrong the argument is in both science and logic. FTA is broken, it doesn't tell you ANYTHING. Do you have some god belef or something? I don't I'm a skeptic. Are you? What is your stance and why do you have it? What is your argument? What is your proof? Provide evidence.
@@avastone5539 no that the so called "tuning" doesnt get to life until whenever - right you can pretend a god took its sweet time to get it right all you want. Yeah no FTA is for life on earth as we understand it - although the LIAR apologists have warped this to say "all life" - yeah as if we knew that all life is impossible. Nah, I'm not mad I'm just against nonsense like this rubbish god belief and other non-supported ideas like FTA in the first place oh its so tuned for life - no life is "tuned" to the unvierse duh. its so dumb.
when it comes to the multiverse - sean carroll was talking to antonio padilla about "really big numbers" where padilla suggested that if you travelled far enough for long enough, sooner or later you would encounter another milky way galaxy, pretty much identical to our own, because given the numbers and given the variations in galaxy formation, we will keep encountering duplicates of familiar places. this was interesting but kinda confused me, cos this is "the multiverse" but within the bounds of our own universe / cosmos, what am i missing?
@Harry “Nic” Nicholas, another galaxy identical to the Milky Way is NOT the multiverse. The multiverse afaik is the hypothesis that if our universe has been produced by a quantum fluctuation in a field, most likely there have been other fluctuations that have produced other numberless universes. Such universes may have different fundamental constants: never heard anyone claim they are mirrors of ours.
@@PhilHalper1 Hi Phil. To be really honest. Keep doing what you're doing. We are in different time zones sp I watched this in the middle of the night and missed quite a bit because I was falling asleep. So I'll watch it again. I enjoyed it a lot and also the break down of wlc response on bad apologetics was great. I was trying to get the guy who wants to see you together with Alex and majesty to think about what he would like you guys to talk about. He didn't respond unfortunately. But keep on going man. It's truly valuable what your doing. It's true you get to speak with some interesting people but it's also very pleasant for them that you give them a stage. I can't wait for your next project.
Vilenkin published a paper in 2021 ("Black holes and up-tunneling suppress Boltzmann brains") proving that Boltzmann brains are not more common than ordinary observers in the multiverse. So, I guess that settles it.
@@PhilHalper1 Well, I don't, but apologists do. So, apologists should stop using the Bolztmann brains argument against the multiverse. After all, their idol (Vilenkin) said they are wrong.
@@PhilHalper1 Yeah, but the problem is that it is not really nothing. As Jim Gott pointed out, Vilenkin's "nothing" is a zero-dimensional point. But a point is not nothing.
The flaw in vilenkins approach is time. Basing his ideas on the WDW to tunnel from nothing, the approach suffers from a variable problem where Hpsi=0 doesn't evolve in time and cannot be computed. There is no time evolution of the cosmic wave function.
If Dr. Linford is right about fine tuning in the physicist's sense when "fine" means something like exact or precise? Why not say that a theory is imprecisely or inexactly tuned? When Google quoted its Oxford dictionay's senses of that word, none of them suggested any flaw in anything. But Dr. Linford seems to think that in physics, any finely tuned theory is imperfect. "Fine" can also mean admirable as in "a fine opera-composer." The physicist's sene of "fine tuning" seems strange and unintuitive.
I tried to explain all this to Goff a while back but he just blocked me. Hopefully he respects you guys enough to get the point. He just couldn't catch on to the idea that if we are being indifferent towards the possibility of circumstances then we should be indifferent on the question of whether or not the universe could be different at all. It's like he won't let go of the idea that if he thinks something could have been different then it had to be able to, can't realize that conceivability isn't a direct indicator of real possibility.
If we make that assumption we wouldn't be able to do physics at all though and make judgements as to the probability of different cosmological models or theories.
@@dftknight Why would the idea that the universe can't have been different than it is keep us from doing physics at all? I sincerely doubt that anyone is making accurate scientific judgements on the probability (likelihood) of different cosmological models, especially given the fact that they can't run multiple trials to observe or directly investigate the lowest levels of the mechanics by which it does exist.
@@prophetrob If you want to compare 2 hypothesis/models you need to make a likelihood judgement of which is more likely to be true. We can't run multiple trials but we can make reasonable assumptions about possible universes compatible with each model.
@@dftknight how does one assess which of the following is more likely to be the case? The universe can only actually be one way by its own immutable nature, the way we see it. So accordingly, the likelihood that it would be the way we see it is 1, inevitable. If we knew entirely how the universe worked it wouldn't be a surprise at all that we exist. This is only one of many ways the universe could really have been so it is incalculably unlikely that it would be the way we see it. The likelihood of the existence of humans as we are is as close to zero as could be conceivable.
@prophetrob The only way to see everything that has happened is to believe it was inevitable, because all other scenarios can forever be nothing more than man's imaginings.
somebody should calculate the probability that the fine tuning defenders are all believers.A pretty big number that you should take in account for intellectual honesty.
Maybe if consciousness is understood this problem will go away because it will be understood that fine tuning results from consciousness. Consciousness means awareness so that cannot leave out a cosmic mind or intelligence which is generally referred to as god. So it happening without consciousness or mind is not easy to imagine or to even make sense.
Do you think you could do a similar video with philosophers and ethicists responding to this philosophical argument called "name-the-trait"? CosmicSkeptic, RationalityRules and Matt Dillahunty debated it and its a popular argument for vegan ethics online. It would be cool to see what professional philosophers and ethicists think of it.
@@PhilHalper1 Is engaging more with religious theodicies like Craig (I think you pretty conclusively refuted the neo-Cartesian theodicy in your previous video) or what non-religious philosophers have been saying on animal rights?
@@PhilHalper1 awesome. There has been a lot of cool talk on animal rights recently. If you can get any of them to respond to name-the-trait it would be cool.
As a theist myself the issue of animal suffering is perhaps the biggest obstacle to my faith. I admit even I sometimes get disgusted at my fellow humans for doing nasty practices like chicken culling. Sometimes get a crisis of faith from this. Veganism is the way people.
I agreed with Luke and Goff's point about the orginal title and I'm glad you changed it and made the purpose as a polemical film clear in your description. I wish you had titled your responses to Kalam a similar way tbh.
God really like phenomenon P. 99% of all universes have P, so God is happy. Unfortunately it so happens that life exists in the 1% of universes that do not have P. So God doesn't care about life at all. He cares about P
would it be fair to say that if we assume random distribution among the possible values of the constants, then we get such a low number that the assumption of random distribution among the constants is almost surely false. So there 'has' to be a connection between them (unless we take an infinite try approach like the multiverse). Either a conscious agent setting them or them being different representations of an underlying principle (kind of like electric and magnetic effects). So is it a good argument to show that their relative values is most likely not random? Or we can't even say that?
Am I wrong in thinking that there is no computer model for our universe let alone any other universe - that is something where you could play with the "tuning" (of whatever) and see what sort of universe would be produced? If they had actual data to look at, you would think they would show it.
@@PhilHalper1 No idea but is there a computer model for our universe that shows how it did what it did to the best of our knowlege? If so like - we could turn these "dials" and see what would happen if gravity was stronger or whatever.
needs to be a curve over the space of options and the integral of the probability dist needs to be 1, simple. or you have a deterministic situation where probabilities are just not there really, but can be estimated for some sort of dist you sample or something. who cares? in terms of empirical knowledge we have an uncountable set of things we could measure and at most a countable infinity of things we end up measuring so we are shit out of luck with respect to getting 100% confidence in anything except datapoints not coinciding with a certain model.
The universe isn’t fine tuned. Life is fine tuned to the universe through evolution. If the physics of the universe were different then a different kind of life would evolve
By just accepting a parameter can vary, you’re letting the idea of a multiverse in. Either there’s a degree of freedom and that’s a form of multiverse or there isn’t and the probability of our universe is 1.
Dan linford has a wise face in addition to his wise mind. 😊 I liked the point he made when he said "small relative to what?" Actually I am writing a book that kind of has an answer to it.
I like the fine tune argument. It comes down to the universe being too special, so something must be responsible. Of course objection to the special means that the something responsible can't be too special 🙃
If the level of order in the universe requires an intelligent agent, that intelligent agent would have to be so highly ordered as to also require an intelligent creator by the logic of theistic fine-tuning. Theistic fine-tuning implies *an infinite regression of ever-greater gods.* They try to extricate themselves with special pleading, e.g. “I define my god in way that it is the exception to order requiring an intelligent creator.”
@@avastone5539 You can claim whatever you like. But you have not shown any bias. I have shown why FTA is not evidence for an intelligent creator. Your only counter so far is that your concept of a creator includes “infinite”. In other words, you’re adding a characteristic to the god you’re trying to prove in an argument that doesn’t include infinity. FTA argued our universe must have been created based on its complexity. Finiteness has nothing to do with it.
@@avastone5539 Yes, I did respond to the wrong person specifically, but you seem to agree generally with the other person. Finiteness is only tangential to FTA. If FTA took infinity into account, it would have to allow for the possibility of an infinite number of universes, in which case, it would be guaranteed that some would allow for life. FTAG is arguing for a creator, not for complexity or infinity. It claims complexity as a premise.
@@avastone5539 Disagree. Not knowing where the multiverse came from is not part of the logic of FTA. FTA isn’t about knowing the origins, it is about the likelihood of life-permitting complexity. FTA argues for an intelligent creator(s), specifically that would care that life is created. (And FTA has chosen life as the goal of this creator)s) without any evidence.)
@@avastone5539 That argument is separate from FTA. A multiverse based on naturalism would be one way *some* universes could have seemingly fine-tuned characteristics without seeming unlikeliness being an issue, because there would be many more that would not allow for life, just as when you roll dice, it may seem planned that double sixes come up repeatedly. But whenever you roll an infinite number of dice, there will almost certainly be at least two sixes. Positing that all universes, even those without “fine-tuning” for life, require a creator, is outside of FTA. I’d be happy to have that argument in the appropriate place and I can probably find one quickly
fine tuning has nothing to do with the universe, just a theory space, and assigning probabilities in an absence of such a space is meaningless and assigning probabilities for expectations in absence of a model of the world and taking data points from the world is also arbitrary :P. there is nothing wrong with a universe with only fixed dice that come up only 6 and 3, but in the world we find dice that equally distribute roughly speaking over each side. i think people are just confused about what probabilities are in relation to the world and to theory really, we can build distributions for anything we like and then see if we can find analogs in the real world, its kind of boring to reify the models outside some sort empirical inquiry, or in some sort of systematic inquiry into the mathematics of possible distributions, well defined ventures are nice, but mixing the two without any clear guidelines seems just to be a kind of numerology as metaphysics. what i argue is possible in terms of dynamics being fully dependent on the state of the world in a concrete way is a completely deterministic situation where you have no choice what so ever in the laws of nature or the state if you represent any subsystem in a completely accurate way, but it is also not necessarily possible to do so faithfully, so any partial expression might just be like an effective theory anyway, so the choice of how to define an effective theory is free, as long as it gives definite results for experiments, however as a metaphysical foundation you can argue about the structure of a fully state dependent law of nature and what it means for effective theories, one thing that is immediately obvious is that if there is such a faithful description of nature, one would expect all the different scales to have some aspects of almost irreducible probabilistic nature as if they originate in stochastic processes even if the processes can be structured in a such a way that subsystems can be correlated in a contextual way. but whatevs :)
How do we know that any of these "thinkers" are competent? Has anyone ever asked an artificial intelligence if what they're saying makes linguistic sense?
The question is why is there complexity! Proposing a greater complexity in the form of a god is a logical failure, particularly when complexity can be seen to arise naturally; in stellar fusion, biological evolution, or as a simple example, in Conway's game of life.
which is why science is in the business of proving shtuff wrong not right, but anyway we can find a theory that explain everything in a self consistent way, without options in that manner of description and then find it is always in agreement with measurements, and then we have a sort of system, that is not necessarily correct but as close at possible. we are not there yet, we still have options. but its quite boring to talk about metaphysics outside such a model with no ambiguity and that we cant poke holes in theoretically. seems to me its okey to have effective theories that have as few holes as possible, but its also okey to have attempts at final theories that really cant have any holes as long as you admit it has to do the job in a way where you cant poke any holes in it theoretically or empirically, my view is that the dynamics of a final theory has to be encoded in the state of the system, such that the exact laws and state of nature is restricted to one and only one configuration, thereby making the theory completely free of tuning, meaning with the right principles with respect to how all subsystems relate to each other you only have one choice for the entire thing as long as you define any part of any subsystem faithfully. for example a traditional classical theory postulates that all matter follows the same laws of nature, meaning the action for one trajectory has the same dependence on the environment as any other path, this leaves the only ambiguity as the state of the whole universe with respect to each subsystem, at least approximately and in special cases you can get substitutions of other subsystems that will have the same effects on another subsystem. for an action that is defined by the state of the whole and the subsystem itself by proxy you would get something equally well defined without any defined action in mathematical terms other than the effect of the exact state of the system/subsystem in question, but then you need the relationship between the different subsystems to be related as strongly or more so than in the case of fundamental entities subject to the same physical law, or different physical laws even. the point is you need each subsystems evolution to be perfectly defined by its relation to other subsystems, such that picking an exact state gives you exact dynamics as well, this isn't the case for fundamental entities subject to arbitrary laws of nature, you need to specify laws for each type entity or a set of different laws for each subsystem, but in either case you have a free choice of evolution that is independent of the initial condition, and you can put together a theory that has no such free choice, and then you have a completely self consistent and un-tune-able representation of the world. if you can figure out how to do that it might still be the case that this one allowable state that satisfy the constraints you need for realism has different subsystems that look more or less similar at a point in time, and so you will not be able to know in which part you are just by knowing the approximate state, lets imagine you could search for segments of history to pop up, or some long sequence of random ups and downs you got in an experiment, maybe look up the lottery numbers from all the lotteries you have ever gotten or something, you might then get some solution close to the world we live in and maybe after checking more and more historical facts you can predict the future more or less at all scales accurately until next Tuesday but then even the cases that share your past almost exactly might diverge chaotically. whether we get some description with no choice or not, we will still have trouble with probabilities because quite likely the description in full will contain subsystems that do just about anything remotely sensible. we will probably stay in the realm of effective theories is my guess in terms of practical physics, but as a metaphysical system there is nothing wrong with asking whether such a description even if not expressible is still faithful to the world as it is. the main point of arguing for such a thing anyway, is to say that we should be really careful about treating laws of nature that might be effective as fundamental, thats all.
And i'm sorry but subsystems being perfectly correlated in some way with all other subsystems by the state on its own and that defining the dynamics is a sensible idea whether you think so or not. might not be practical to express anything in that form, but given that it could easily be true without being in conflict with any empirical points of data or theorems in mathematics, nor is logically inconsistent in any way i have heard of, its the case that our metaphysics so to speak should take this into account as a non necessary but possible way to get laws of nature and so we should be careful about arguing about the foundations of physics so liberally as if saying something not effective. this picture for example can contain all the features of many worlds without a single branching, and no objective probabilities with room for correlations between subsystems being as weird as you like when viewed from an effective point of view.
Eternal Inflation Theory is still the leading candidate as the choice among a large plurality of credentialed theoretical physicists. The only remaining significant problem besides observational evidence, is the so called measurement problem. It is well on its way to being overcome. Reference: Alan Guth. The theist argument for fine tuning? It always was & will always remain, a circular argument
Agreed inflation is the leading candidate for early unvivers.e agree dit s likely eternal. The measure problem has plausible solutions but finding the one true measure remains elusive.
Like all inflation theories, I bet Guth didn't tell you that we have no clue what the inflaton is. That is the problem with inflationary cosmological - all of the models give the same results.
@@PhilHalper1 The problem is that transitioning from an Inflationary state to a Lorezenian space-time requires near infinite fine-turning. Eternal Inflation implies that the universe will grow for ever - it is still geodesic incomplete to the past. Of course all this still assumes that Inflation is real.
We have to *assume that there is no omni god or that it isn’t interactive* in order to have meaningful conversations If there is an Omni god, these discussions are pointless, because it can change our minds, the evidence, and what we hear others saying. And the god(s) of the Bible does similar things.
It's all speculation if we can't reproduce these conditions some sentient being did it for us and we have to understand what is thought that's right the mind
1:08:34 Luke Barnes : _"It's not that there is this low probability that just exists there [...] the probability space changes entirely..."_ If Luke Barnes is an "objective bayesian" then yes, there is an objective probability that _"exists there"_ and objective probabilities cannot _"change entirely"_ . I know objective bayesianism was the position defended by Philip Goth, and not Luke Barnes. So I don't know if Luke Barnes is an objective bayesian. I guess this is more a response against Philip Goth than Luke Barnes.
Biological cells exist that are extremely complicated and are based on established chemistry and physics. The existence of cells can only be explained by Intelligent Design.
Modern cells could have evolved from more simple entities. There are several perfectly scientifically hypothesis about that. We don’t know how it happened but it is perfectly possible
Religion, real arguments? That just ain't possible. Religion has never been based on anything real. If one needs to base arguments on religious books, there can be no true argument.
I mean... god, who is god (almighty I say, not peanuts) created a universe in its almost total entirety cold, deadly, uninhabitable, but in which in certain rather rare circumstances life can develop naturally? In short, a smart guy... (If he is omnipotent he is at least an a smart guy... he I say, I didn't say who believes him eh...). I wrote 'naturally', but maybe those guys are saying that god created the stage first and then had to intervene again to create life? Are we still talking about science? Nh... ok o_0 :| :* :] ^^
Sorry but there never was real good case anyway.. actually you could with equal arguments say that the universe was fine tuned for neutron star collisions.. or supermassive black hole mergers etc...
@@avastone5539 that is wrong. You don't need consciousness. Fine tuning arguement has nothing to do with consciousness. There are arugements out there that universe is fine tuned for black whole. So you're wrong. . .
Why stop at the multiverse why not trillions of multiverses each with trillions of universes. I am calling it the megametaverse there could be trillions of megametaverses call it the multimegametaverse we should look at the bigger picture.
@@avastone5539 that doesn't stregthen. FTA or shows it as more true. You're irrational if you think that. . . Probability doesn't equate to how correct you are. . . That is assine. A cope out.
@Ava Stone that only adds more probability. It doesn't strengthen anything. That is opinion based. Unless you're defining strength with probability. Sure. Whatever. Start with your simple assertion. Of course you can make it some your proposition ends up with a higher probability. . . .I'm not arguing against fine tuning with fine tuning. So you're already making assumptions. It's also a joke. So again no point. Bascially all you're telling me is FTA is useless in terms of explaining or getting to the point of the universes creation. Only the probability of it being created by a creator. Which in itself is a weak argument. Strength a weak arguement up all you want. Just because you can't point one way or another with certainty. Doesn't mean it had to be FTA or not FTA. Doesn't matter what number you get in the end.
I do not understand why this discussion is necessary. There is nothing "fine-tuned" about our world. Our world - and every thing in it - is a happy result of the physical/natural forces that exist. No "designer" required.
@@PhilHalper1 Thanks. I take the point that it is worth addressing because people find it intuitively persuasive. I suppose what I am saying is that by taking it seriously enough to address it as it stands, in detail, one is lending it a degree of credibility it hardly deserves, almost assuming that it really IS a good argument. It seems to me that we would do better simply to point out that theists are looking at the whole thing through the wrong end of the telescope, as it were, and leave it at that. This is not to say that I do not enjoy the discussion, of course, up to a point. I think you all do a good job. There is a simple way to put the theistic argument to bed; just tell them that life is not a destination, merely a stopping point along the way. Perhaps I am missing the point ...
I think the whole point to it all is we don't know. Before Planck time we simply don't know. We got some inferences, wild guests and hypothese but we don't know. The key difference is that in science that is perfectly okay, we accept that we don't know a we look at each other's ideas to determine plausibility. In religion we say we don't know so God. Why? Because you cannot demonstrate that it's not god and if it wasn't god science would have been able to explain it. That is the thing I cannot understand..
I began looking at the response on cc. I watched untill Phillip used the unfounded words "intellectual dishonesty" i mean on the channel of CC where Intellectual dishonesty is invented. That was a deal breaker.
@@PhilHalper1 Yes I heard you say so. I did enjoy his work with Sean Carroll all though I don't think he is right I like to hear the other side as well..I think he was wrong there so it's kind of him to apologize. Thnx for your response. Truly appreciated
@@dennisbailey6067 How is it that someone like you is watching this video? Shouldn’t you be watching right-wing media with the rest of the uneducated base?
I do not subscribe to the notion that any refutation of fine tuning has occurred here. Here is an interesting look at the fine tuning argument: Ever played the game Riven? At the start of the game there is a rotating chamber that rotates a cycle when you press a button. It reveals a door, a slit where you can see the interior ,or most of the time, you just see a wall. My view of fine tuning goes a similar way. Although it is possible that an omnipotent God could create life anywhere, it dismisses the statistical significance that life has occurred within a narrow range of values. So while you are not given access to the room, you can still see the inside via the slit!
Great to hear from some exceptional minds in the different fields!
thanks
I seriously wince at why Graham even has a place in this talk. His 2005 paper with Mark Colyvan was easily refuted by Barnes who showed that their so called normalization problem of infinitesimal actually doesn't exist for all constants (some have Planck mass as upper limit). He knows jackshit.
I’m scratching my head thinking - How can theists avoid the problems that arise from theistic dualism? How is mind contingent on material constants?
_"under theism life could exist under any conditions"_ - Sean Carroll
then you dont need a universe fine tuned for life! :D
Even if we grant that life could exist under any condition as Carroll claims, it is still remarkable that the laws of physics allow us to exist. It is far more likely we would find ourselves in a dead universe rather than a life permitting one.
@@ManyDreams-cs9jq based on what?
Because we can do theoretical physics!
@@ManyDreams-cs9jq and what shows that its "less" likely? Because, we are here. So the likely hood we are here is 100% its like what is the likely hood that I exist? Or could have come into existance? When you rewind just about anything your going to get high numbers I'd suspect - but I've not seen anything like a computer model that would show that its more or less likely then any other result.
I always thought the fine tuning argument was akin to claiming that Victoria sponge is so finely crafted that the ingredients moving just a little would mean other cakes don’t exist.
We can only be sure of this: the universe is either fine-tuned or it appears to be fine-tuned based on our flawed limited observation and theory, to allow for life at least here on this one planet. And we and consciousness are here or appear to be here. Thanks for another provocative video.
You are welcome
Suggesting that the universe at least appears to be fine-tuned is more than a stretch. We have one universe to look at. What we would truly need to be able to determine if we had an appearance of fine-tuning would be a much bigger sample set. If we had hundreds (at least tens) of universes to compare and found that some of them produced life and some did not and we found that those with similar constants and conditions/physics to what is in our universe (the one universe we know of), then we'd have grounds to suggest that what we have is "fine-tuned." Without such comparisons it is just ridiculous speculation.
I respected Barnes and Goff at certain earlier times that I encountered their thoughts. I even brought up Barnes' arguments to people who dismissed fine-tuning on what I thought was an unfair or uninformed basis. I eventually discovered that Barnes was motivated by his theism rather than science. (I was so disappointed! I really thought it was an interesting scientific question why the constants are the values they are.)
Seeing Goff's participation in the Capturing Christianity video made me more skeptical of his other ideas. That video prioritized theism over a dispassionate analysis of the facts. Do I know enough to critique their science? No. But I know enough to trust the scientists who are starting with the science, without a theological axe to grind, more.
And again, I'm just really disappointed. Why can't interesting questions be explored without trying to turn it into a "therefore God" argument? You will never have a real "therefore God" unless God comes out and speaks for him (or her or it) self at some point. (And I mean without depending on telepathy to our minds. If a God wants to communicate to us, it has a lot of ways that could be independently confirmed.) The best you can get is "this seems unlikely" and when you're talking about universes, you don't know the landscape of possible universes and creators in the first place to know the likelihoods.
indeed
Litterally ad personam fallacy. Barnes' motivation are irrelevant to his scientific work on fine-tuning.
@@WolfLeib Not at all. I'm not saying I don't like his "work" on fine-tuning because of his bias. I'm saying his bias is disappointing because I thought he was doing unbiased scientific work and later discovered that he's like all the apologists -- cherry picks science to fit his bias rather than following the science. I actually scolded other people because I believed him to be following & exploring the science. Only to discover that he's doing the same disingenuous BS as Kent Hovind and Ken Ham, just more skillfully. That is, I assumed up front that his work on fine-tuning was true scientific work and later discovered how tainted it was by his bias. That's the opposite of ruling it out up front due to his beliefs.
@@Cat_Woods Sorry, but you are the one who is biased: you literally began to refuse his works when you learned that he was a theist. Shame on you.
@@WolfLeib No, that is not what I did. I started out thinking he was exploring the science honestly and probably also happened to be a theist. I found out he was doing apologetics. Apologetics is not science. Disappointing. He let his theism trump his science.
A total pleasure to spend time with smart people who treat a subject very seriously and still manage to make the arguments clear enough to follow for the layperson (even if i had to stop the video every now and then to totally get a certain point!)
Thanks to all involved in producing this.
Thank you for doing this reply. I was hoping you all would respond to that critique! Thanks!
you are welcome
Thank you Phil for this amazing video! 🙏
You are welcome
That's cool! I'm adding this video to my counter-apologetics playlist.
thanks
While I do believe that in actual fact the universe was fine tuned by an omniperfect agent, I always appreciate the counterarguments and various perspectives of well-respected experts in their fields. Love these videos!
thanks , that's very kind of you
my other (!) thought is, if god has to turn the dials to just the right values, whose laws of physics is he using? he should be able to use any value he feels like.
I think thats pretty similar to what Hans Halvorson is arguing
He is able to use any values or laws that are metaphysically possible, but this is a comparison between naturalism and theism (or naturalism and Goff's panpsychism) , so the argument doesn't require any assumption like the one you stated. Naturalism are committed to the view that the laws of physics are ultimate whereas theism and panpsychism are not.
@@dftknight lol no. if that were true physicists would just give up. even Barnes doesn't think that the laws of physics (used in the FTA) is ultimate (under theism and naturalism).
@@dr.shousa Sean Carroll says the laws of nature are ultimate under naturalism and many other naturalists do.
@@dftknight you swapped law of physics with nature, but almost none will say that *these* laws of physics are ultimate, just that nature bottoms out on the natural.
I think it's funny how Graham is just sitting there nearly through the whole thing😂
This was frustrating. Why not just have Goff and Barnes sit down and talk with Loewer and Priest (or whoever)? Having the conversation always one step removed makes it hard to get clear on where exactly the disagreements lie and why exactly each side lands where they do.
Yay, so excited to watch this! I'm also curious to see if Luke Barnes gets his 'real position' on fine tuning presented. He commented on the last one that we misunderstood him without him telling us what in the world he does think.
let me know what you think
@@PhilHalper1 interesting to hear the rebuttals but really this whole debate is summed up nicely by Sean Carroll at 1:20:16. Simply put, an "omni" god doesn't need fine tuning. Luke's rebuttals don't make sense to me. Take 1:33:30, fine tuning for the purpose of life "is not something fine tuning proposes...it's just one of the purposes of fine tuning". What does that mean? Is that what the theist fine tuning is about or isn't it? Pick one Luke.
In another place I can't remember where, that we don't have any reason to believe that different constants, being interdependent, wouldnt still produce a viable albeit different kind of universe. So many good arguments, fine tuning is just another term that's been hijacked like so many others to mean something that doesn't explain anything, certainly not the best explanation. Great video!
1:11:02 _"Then Alice goes to University to read physics and she learns that the probability for life is quite low, in that case Alice is rationally compelled either to lower the [prior] probability of God or to lower the probability of life given God"_
I like this response because it turns the claim of the "objective bayesianist" against himself.
If the objective bayesianist want to claim that the problems of the principle of indifference don't apply for the FTA because in the context of the FTA they are talking about probabilities that are actual in _"physical reality"_ (1), then if we indeed think that the probability that the universe is life permitting in _"actual physical reality"_ , then it would clearly indicate that the theistic hypothesis in wrong !
(1) The following is a quote from Robin Collins 1999 on the FTA :
_"The proportion given by the scale used in one's representation must directly correspond to the proportions actually existing in physical reality"_
1:08:34 Luke Barnes : _"It's not that there is this low probability that just exists there [...] the probability space changes entirely..."_
If Luke Barnes is an "objective bayesian" then yes, there is an objective probability that _"exists there"_ and objective probabilities cannot _"change entirely"_ .
I know objective bayesianism was the position defended by Philip Goth, and not Luke Barnes. So I don't know if Luke Barnes is an objective bayesian.
I guess this is more a response against Philip Goth than Luke Barnes.
The assertion that probabilities are invariant over the space of HYPOTHESES is not part of objective Bayesianism, but in what is objective. What is objective, however, varies with the hypothesis.
There is no probability attached to the fitted universe that is the same under theism and under naturalism, even assuming objective Bayesianism. You are hallucinating.
And the video's claim that "physicists make no claims under the assumption of atheism" is ridiculous. Physicists do this all the time, especially in theoretical physics and cosmology, which deals with the most fundamental stuff you can talk about. This does not mean, however, that it is not a substantial usable discovery (it is extremely relevant for everyone to know that naturalism is false).
Surely, if our universe needed to be fine tuned for us to exist, there must be someplace, some meta universe where God exists. Who fine-tuned that meta universe for God?
And is this'god',hands on,or did he/ she/it,use a App to make it all??And what is it's main type of employment??
1:29:54 _"I'm suggesting is that you know so you realize that you're not a pulseman brain some of these hypotheses uh have balls and brains of predominate but and so those certainly take a hit"_
Godda love RUclips automatic transcription !
Really appreciate all the videos on this, thanks all!
you are welcome
can god create life using only one particular set of constants? if yes then god is not all powerful.
can god create life with any set of constants? if yes then why speak of fine tuning?
I completely agree with Loewer that objective Bayes is completely useless, which has been known in statistics for a few decades now. It's just a made up idea to make their argument seem more legitimate.
I've noticed you mention that a number of times. Perhaps you'd be interested in hashing that out with Trent Dougherty sometime soon?
I know it's been offered to you several times, and I'd like to hear you hash it out in detail with him whenever you can.
I know you've likely been really busy, and I respect that. Life is hectic.
I think this would be an excellent conversation that might move the conversation forward, if you could make the time. ❤️🙏🏼
Much Love my friend. ☺️
@@DerivingLove It's been offered to me once, but it was 1) in bad faith, 2) based on mistaken identity (or miscommunication), and 3) I can't be associated with an alleged sexual offender. This was on top of being really busy, but apparently there was a lot of miscommunication that made him very hostile towards me, and I'm not interesting in that.
Hopefully I can write a paper about this soon (but really, most of what I say can be found in statistics/decision theory textbooks), at which point I might be able to have a nice discussion with someone else.
How do you suppose scientific practice survives without comparing probabilities of models, which depends on objective Bayesianism, then?
There is not the slightest chance of formulating an alternative probability interpretation capable of dealing with this. Science relies on Bayesianism.
@@caiomateus4194 Yes, we use Bayesianism. No, we do not use objective Bayesianism.
@@caiomateus4194 To clarify, there are certain occasions where we would use objective priors for analyses, but these priors aren't "objective," just priors that satisfy some condition which we call objective (matching with MLE, max KL, etc). Since these criteria are subjective, objective priors are subjective. (and flat priors are useless because 1. they are improper and 2. marginalization paradox making comparison impossible)
If your father never met your mother you would not exist.
The fact that you do exist is not an argument that your father meeting your mother was fine tuned.
@Ava Stone also doesn't state it can't be fine tuned without life. Just that this one is fined tuned for life. Not that a non life bearing universe couldn't be fine tuned. But this is an arguement against anything. Just being captain obvious
@@williamthompson1455 Some theists argue that the universe is fine tuned. and the evidence for this is that life exists.
My comment is not a refutation of the fine tuning argument but rather a refutation of the argument that as life exists the universe has to be fine tuned
Great Video! Would love to see the video about the Mentaculus come about. Barry is not only funny but super interesting.
couldn't agree more
Omg a new skydivephil vid!
ahh, thats very kind
What I recognize is that the exact definitions of the physics resides in the mathematical equations that relate physical attributes. In Newtonian Mechanics, the mathematical expressions are presenting relationships that are very close to our intuitive experience. So, when describing these in prose, in the colloquial language that everyone is familiar, not much gets lost and the language doesn't skew the meaning much from what the math is explaining. Quite to the contrary, for the more modern descriptions like quantum mechanics and GR, what is being described by the mathematics is far from anything intuitive, far from what our common experience presents. The words used to describe the meaning beneath the mathematics are, at best, presenting analogies. I cannot see that, in most cases, they can be taken literally. The reality of the physics is so far afield of our experience and language that no explanation presented in prose can be used as a starting point for inferring anything beyond what is stated. Indeed, what is stated is barely able to constrain the concepts to the exact meaning of the mathematical descriptions. As I listen to the apologists, what I see is that they continuously interpret the prose in a manner that is not what the math and the physicists intend and in a manner that is misleading and based on what they want it to mean to justify their a priori conclusion.
There is life, because life is possible.
Yes!
Not because of Yahweh or Allah, and others of their kind of NOTHING.
If the multiverse is real then one of two things is possible:
1. Universes all have different values of constants
2. Universes all have the same values of constants
Why don't you invite Luke Barnes also to these discussions?
He's got plenty of air time. Credible critics haven't
The universe isn't "Fine tuned for us"
The universe is what it is,
& we are what grows under these conditions.
Thank you for those words.
Life is fine tuned for our Universe. 🧐
Took millions of years for life to even be a thing so how is it that the unverse is "tuned" for life again? Its so silly. Theists will say anything to get to the god they beleve in.
*Billions of years. ;)
@@pansepot1490 million billion, lots of zeros! :D
@@avastone5539 yes and that proves nothing other then that.
@@avastone5539 LOL yeah no. All you have in an appeal to ignorance. If things were different, they would be different. Here every single person in the video explains just how broken and wrong the argument is in both science and logic. FTA is broken, it doesn't tell you ANYTHING. Do you have some god belef or something? I don't I'm a skeptic. Are you? What is your stance and why do you have it? What is your argument? What is your proof? Provide evidence.
@@avastone5539 no that the so called "tuning" doesnt get to life until whenever - right you can pretend a god took its sweet time to get it right all you want. Yeah no FTA is for life on earth as we understand it - although the LIAR apologists have warped this to say "all life" - yeah as if we knew that all life is impossible. Nah, I'm not mad I'm just against nonsense like this rubbish god belief and other non-supported ideas like FTA in the first place oh its so tuned for life - no life is "tuned" to the unvierse duh. its so dumb.
when it comes to the multiverse - sean carroll was talking to antonio padilla about "really big numbers" where padilla suggested that if you travelled far enough for long enough, sooner or later you would encounter another milky way galaxy, pretty much identical to our own, because given the numbers and given the variations in galaxy formation, we will keep encountering duplicates of familiar places. this was interesting but kinda confused me, cos this is "the multiverse" but within the bounds of our own universe / cosmos, what am i missing?
This is known as a cosmic hall of mirrors. George Ellis labels this the 'small universe' theory.
@@ManyDreams-cs9jq I call it pseudo=mathematics. An infinite sequence does not have to include every permutation.
@Harry “Nic” Nicholas, another galaxy identical to the Milky Way is NOT the multiverse. The multiverse afaik is the hypothesis that if our universe has been produced by a quantum fluctuation in a field, most likely there have been other fluctuations that have produced other numberless universes. Such universes may have different fundamental constants: never heard anyone claim they are mirrors of ours.
I am waiting for Alex(CosmicSkeptic) and Joe(Majesty of Reason) and Phil to get together in one frame! That’s my dream hopefully one day!🙏🏽
Seems you just want them in a frame, what would make that so special? Anything specific you want them to talk about?
@@Carlos-fl6ch I have a picture of me with Alex ,will that do ? he is a friend of mine. But I dont know how to post pics here on youtube comments.
@@PhilHalper1
Hi Phil. To be really honest. Keep doing what you're doing. We are in different time zones sp I watched this in the middle of the night and missed quite a bit because I was falling asleep. So I'll watch it again.
I enjoyed it a lot and also the break down of wlc response on bad apologetics was great.
I was trying to get the guy who wants to see you together with Alex and majesty to think about what he would like you guys to talk about. He didn't respond unfortunately.
But keep on going man. It's truly valuable what your doing. It's true you get to speak with some interesting people but it's also very pleasant for them that you give them a stage. I can't wait for your next project.
Vilenkin published a paper in 2021 ("Black holes and up-tunneling suppress Boltzmann brains") proving that Boltzmann brains are not more common than ordinary observers in the multiverse. So, I guess that settles it.
Lol, if you follow the Vilenkin said it so it must be true doctrine of Craig yes.
@@PhilHalper1 Well, I don't, but apologists do. So, apologists should stop using the Bolztmann brains argument against the multiverse. After all, their idol (Vilenkin) said they are wrong.
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco he also think the universe came from noting without a cause so ...
@@PhilHalper1 Yeah, but the problem is that it is not really nothing. As Jim Gott pointed out, Vilenkin's "nothing" is a zero-dimensional point. But a point is not nothing.
The flaw in vilenkins approach is time. Basing his ideas on the WDW to tunnel from nothing, the approach suffers from a variable problem where Hpsi=0 doesn't evolve in time and cannot be computed. There is no time evolution of the cosmic wave function.
If Dr. Linford is right about fine tuning in the physicist's sense when "fine" means something like exact or precise? Why not say that a theory is imprecisely or inexactly tuned? When Google quoted its Oxford dictionay's senses of that word, none of them suggested any flaw in anything. But Dr. Linford seems to think that in physics, any finely tuned theory is imperfect. "Fine" can also mean admirable as in "a fine opera-composer." The physicist's sene of "fine tuning" seems strange and unintuitive.
I tried to explain all this to Goff a while back but he just blocked me. Hopefully he respects you guys enough to get the point.
He just couldn't catch on to the idea that if we are being indifferent towards the possibility of circumstances then we should be indifferent on the question of whether or not the universe could be different at all.
It's like he won't let go of the idea that if he thinks something could have been different then it had to be able to, can't realize that conceivability isn't a direct indicator of real possibility.
If we make that assumption we wouldn't be able to do physics at all though and make judgements as to the probability of different cosmological models or theories.
@@dftknight Why would the idea that the universe can't have been different than it is keep us from doing physics at all?
I sincerely doubt that anyone is making accurate scientific judgements on the probability (likelihood) of different cosmological models, especially given the fact that they can't run multiple trials to observe or directly investigate the lowest levels of the mechanics by which it does exist.
@@prophetrob If you want to compare 2 hypothesis/models you need to make a likelihood judgement of which is more likely to be true. We can't run multiple trials but we can make reasonable assumptions about possible universes compatible with each model.
@@dftknight how does one assess which of the following is more likely to be the case?
The universe can only actually be one way by its own immutable nature, the way we see it. So accordingly, the likelihood that it would be the way we see it is 1, inevitable. If we knew entirely how the universe worked it wouldn't be a surprise at all that we exist.
This is only one of many ways the universe could really have been so it is incalculably unlikely that it would be the way we see it. The likelihood of the existence of humans as we are is as close to zero as could be conceivable.
@prophetrob The only way to see everything that has happened is to believe it was inevitable, because all other scenarios can forever be nothing more than man's imaginings.
My first response upon learning that Trump was going to be president was to intuitively exclaim, “There is no god!” 😂
somebody should calculate the probability that the fine tuning defenders are all believers.A pretty big number that you should take in account for intellectual honesty.
Maybe if consciousness is understood this problem will go away because it will be understood that fine tuning results from consciousness. Consciousness means awareness so that cannot leave out a cosmic mind or intelligence which is generally referred to as god. So it happening without consciousness or mind is not easy to imagine or to even make sense.
I daw Barry in Newark airport some months ago, wanted to say hi but couldn’t get myself to do it😂
hes very friendly
Do you think you could do a similar video with philosophers and ethicists responding to this philosophical argument called "name-the-trait"? CosmicSkeptic, RationalityRules and Matt Dillahunty debated it and its a popular argument for vegan ethics online. It would be cool to see what professional philosophers and ethicists think of it.
I am planning a video on animal suffering and have already shot quite a lot of it
@@PhilHalper1 Is engaging more with religious theodicies like Craig (I think you pretty conclusively refuted the neo-Cartesian theodicy in your previous video) or what non-religious philosophers have been saying on animal rights?
@@dftknight im not sure the final form of the video yet but we have hours of stuff i the can
@@PhilHalper1 awesome. There has been a lot of cool talk on animal rights recently. If you can get any of them to respond to name-the-trait it would be cool.
As a theist myself the issue of animal suffering is perhaps the biggest obstacle to my faith.
I admit even I sometimes get disgusted at my fellow humans for doing nasty practices like chicken culling. Sometimes get a crisis of faith from this. Veganism is the way people.
Why does this sound just like modern politics/news?
becuase its a about a controversial issue?
I would like an artificial intelligence to try to make sense of some of these questionable arguments.
I agreed with Luke and Goff's point about the orginal title and I'm glad you changed it and made the purpose as a polemical film clear in your description. I wish you had titled your responses to Kalam a similar way tbh.
God really like phenomenon P. 99% of all universes have P, so God is happy. Unfortunately it so happens that life exists in the 1% of universes that do not have P. So God doesn't care about life at all. He cares about P
"God loves boltzmann brains".
Love it!
indeed, maybe he does
Am I the only one who sometimes feels like I am a Boltzmann Brain? 🧠
@@ElGatoMarcus i hope you aren't about to vanish
would it be fair to say that if we assume random distribution among the possible values of the constants, then we get such a low number that the assumption of random distribution among the constants is almost surely false. So there 'has' to be a connection between them (unless we take an infinite try approach like the multiverse). Either a conscious agent setting them or them being different representations of an underlying principle (kind of like electric and magnetic effects).
So is it a good argument to show that their relative values is most likely not random? Or we can't even say that?
No
As an empirical observation it is axiomatic that the universe is conscious. Not by outside agency but inherant .
Thanks for bringing big people.
NUMERO UNO!
Who fine tuned the fine tuner?
1:12:28 Law of excluded middle.
Am I wrong in thinking that there is no computer model for our universe let alone any other universe - that is something where you could play with the "tuning" (of whatever) and see what sort of universe would be produced? If they had actual data to look at, you would think they would show it.
you can make a model in a computer but all models have implications and assumptions , so the questions is to what extent do you trust it?
@@PhilHalper1 No idea but is there a computer model for our universe that shows how it did what it did to the best of our knowlege? If so like - we could turn these "dials" and see what would happen if gravity was stronger or whatever.
needs to be a curve over the space of options and the integral of the probability dist needs to be 1, simple. or you have a deterministic situation where probabilities are just not there really, but can be estimated for some sort of dist you sample or something. who cares? in terms of empirical knowledge we have an uncountable set of things we could measure and at most a countable infinity of things we end up measuring so we are shit out of luck with respect to getting 100% confidence in anything except datapoints not coinciding with a certain model.
They are just trying to suggest they happen to be naturally ugly guys, and that God could not have done that.
What is the point of studying all this knowledge if, on the most important question, your going to say, "I don't have a clue!"
The universe isn’t fine tuned. Life is fine tuned to the universe through evolution. If the physics of the universe were different then a different kind of life would evolve
No it ain't. If we changed the cosmological constant for example, we wouldn't have any structure, let alone life.
@@ManyDreams-cs9jq but we only know the physics of about 5%
if the chances of life are so incredibly unlikely, that seems and odd route for god to take, surely god's odds are 1:1 not bzillions to one.
By just accepting a parameter can vary, you’re letting the idea of a multiverse in. Either there’s a degree of freedom and that’s a form of multiverse or there isn’t and the probability of our universe is 1.
Where a constant varies - it is known as as a Tegmark type 2 multiverse.
Dan linford has a wise face in addition to his wise mind. 😊 I liked the point he made when he said "small relative to what?" Actually I am writing a book that kind of has an answer to it.
I like the fine tune argument. It comes down to the universe being too special, so something must be responsible. Of course objection to the special means that the something responsible can't be too special 🙃
If the level of order in the universe requires an intelligent agent, that intelligent agent would have to be so highly ordered as to also require an intelligent creator by the logic of theistic fine-tuning. Theistic fine-tuning implies *an infinite regression of ever-greater gods.* They try to extricate themselves with special pleading, e.g. “I define my god in way that it is the exception to order requiring an intelligent creator.”
@@avastone5539 Better yet, we can know part of the truth- that perceived Fine Tuning does not imply there is an intelligent creator(s)
@@avastone5539 You can claim whatever you like. But you have not shown any bias.
I have shown why FTA is not evidence for an intelligent creator. Your only counter so far is that your concept of a creator includes “infinite”. In other words, you’re adding a characteristic to the god you’re trying to prove in an argument that doesn’t include infinity.
FTA argued our universe must have been created based on its complexity. Finiteness has nothing to do with it.
@@avastone5539 Yes, I did respond to the wrong person specifically, but you seem to agree generally with the other person.
Finiteness is only tangential to FTA. If FTA took infinity into account, it would have to allow for the possibility of an infinite number of universes, in which case, it would be guaranteed that some would allow for life.
FTAG is arguing for a creator, not for complexity or infinity. It claims complexity as a premise.
@@avastone5539 Disagree. Not knowing where the multiverse came from is not part of the logic of FTA. FTA isn’t about knowing the origins, it is about the likelihood of life-permitting complexity.
FTA argues for an intelligent creator(s), specifically that would care that life is created.
(And FTA has chosen life as the goal of this creator)s) without any evidence.)
@@avastone5539 That argument is separate from FTA.
A multiverse based on naturalism would be one way *some* universes could have seemingly fine-tuned characteristics without seeming unlikeliness being an issue, because there would be many more that would not allow for life, just as when you roll dice, it may seem planned that double sixes come up repeatedly. But whenever you roll an infinite number of dice, there will almost certainly be at least two sixes.
Positing that all universes, even those without “fine-tuning” for life, require a creator, is outside of FTA.
I’d be happy to have that argument in the appropriate place and I can probably find one quickly
17:14
Doesn't Swineburne treat theism as a scientific hypothesis?
Of course there is a designer, just concider the fine tuning of the female body. It’s an absolutely brilliant design
fine tuning has nothing to do with the universe, just a theory space, and assigning probabilities in an absence of such a space is meaningless and assigning probabilities for expectations in absence of a model of the world and taking data points from the world is also arbitrary :P. there is nothing wrong with a universe with only fixed dice that come up only 6 and 3, but in the world we find dice that equally distribute roughly speaking over each side. i think people are just confused about what probabilities are in relation to the world and to theory really, we can build distributions for anything we like and then see if we can find analogs in the real world, its kind of boring to reify the models outside some sort empirical inquiry, or in some sort of systematic inquiry into the mathematics of possible distributions, well defined ventures are nice, but mixing the two without any clear guidelines seems just to be a kind of numerology as metaphysics. what i argue is possible in terms of dynamics being fully dependent on the state of the world in a concrete way is a completely deterministic situation where you have no choice what so ever in the laws of nature or the state if you represent any subsystem in a completely accurate way, but it is also not necessarily possible to do so faithfully, so any partial expression might just be like an effective theory anyway, so the choice of how to define an effective theory is free, as long as it gives definite results for experiments, however as a metaphysical foundation you can argue about the structure of a fully state dependent law of nature and what it means for effective theories, one thing that is immediately obvious is that if there is such a faithful description of nature, one would expect all the different scales to have some aspects of almost irreducible probabilistic nature as if they originate in stochastic processes even if the processes can be structured in a such a way that subsystems can be correlated in a contextual way. but whatevs :)
How do we know that any of these "thinkers" are competent? Has anyone ever asked an artificial intelligence if what they're saying makes linguistic sense?
The question is why is there complexity!
Proposing a greater complexity in the form of a god is a logical failure, particularly when complexity can be seen to arise naturally; in stellar fusion, biological evolution, or as a simple example, in Conway's game of life.
They dont want god forever thy will be
Done
which is why science is in the business of proving shtuff wrong not right, but anyway we can find a theory that explain everything in a self consistent way, without options in that manner of description and then find it is always in agreement with measurements, and then we have a sort of system, that is not necessarily correct but as close at possible. we are not there yet, we still have options. but its quite boring to talk about metaphysics outside such a model with no ambiguity and that we cant poke holes in theoretically. seems to me its okey to have effective theories that have as few holes as possible, but its also okey to have attempts at final theories that really cant have any holes as long as you admit it has to do the job in a way where you cant poke any holes in it theoretically or empirically, my view is that the dynamics of a final theory has to be encoded in the state of the system, such that the exact laws and state of nature is restricted to one and only one configuration, thereby making the theory completely free of tuning, meaning with the right principles with respect to how all subsystems relate to each other you only have one choice for the entire thing as long as you define any part of any subsystem faithfully. for example a traditional classical theory postulates that all matter follows the same laws of nature, meaning the action for one trajectory has the same dependence on the environment as any other path, this leaves the only ambiguity as the state of the whole universe with respect to each subsystem, at least approximately and in special cases you can get substitutions of other subsystems that will have the same effects on another subsystem. for an action that is defined by the state of the whole and the subsystem itself by proxy you would get something equally well defined without any defined action in mathematical terms other than the effect of the exact state of the system/subsystem in question, but then you need the relationship between the different subsystems to be related as strongly or more so than in the case of fundamental entities subject to the same physical law, or different physical laws even. the point is you need each subsystems evolution to be perfectly defined by its relation to other subsystems, such that picking an exact state gives you exact dynamics as well, this isn't the case for fundamental entities subject to arbitrary laws of nature, you need to specify laws for each type entity or a set of different laws for each subsystem, but in either case you have a free choice of evolution that is independent of the initial condition, and you can put together a theory that has no such free choice, and then you have a completely self consistent and un-tune-able representation of the world. if you can figure out how to do that it might still be the case that this one allowable state that satisfy the constraints you need for realism has different subsystems that look more or less similar at a point in time, and so you will not be able to know in which part you are just by knowing the approximate state, lets imagine you could search for segments of history to pop up, or some long sequence of random ups and downs you got in an experiment, maybe look up the lottery numbers from all the lotteries you have ever gotten or something, you might then get some solution close to the world we live in and maybe after checking more and more historical facts you can predict the future more or less at all scales accurately until next Tuesday but then even the cases that share your past almost exactly might diverge chaotically. whether we get some description with no choice or not, we will still have trouble with probabilities because quite likely the description in full will contain subsystems that do just about anything remotely sensible. we will probably stay in the realm of effective theories is my guess in terms of practical physics, but as a metaphysical system there is nothing wrong with asking whether such a description even if not expressible is still faithful to the world as it is. the main point of arguing for such a thing anyway, is to say that we should be really careful about treating laws of nature that might be effective as fundamental, thats all.
And i'm sorry but subsystems being perfectly correlated in some way with all other subsystems by the state on its own and that defining the dynamics is a sensible idea whether you think so or not. might not be practical to express anything in that form, but given that it could easily be true without being in conflict with any empirical points of data or theorems in mathematics, nor is logically inconsistent in any way i have heard of, its the case that our metaphysics so to speak should take this into account as a non necessary but possible way to get laws of nature and so we should be careful about arguing about the foundations of physics so liberally as if saying something not effective. this picture for example can contain all the features of many worlds without a single branching, and no objective probabilities with room for correlations between subsystems being as weird as you like when viewed from an effective point of view.
In a moment of crisis of physics like we're are now into physicists really need to sit around a table and discuss some good philosophy
Eternal Inflation Theory is still the leading candidate as the choice among a large plurality of credentialed theoretical physicists. The only remaining significant problem besides observational evidence, is the so called measurement problem. It is well on its way to being overcome. Reference: Alan Guth. The theist argument for fine tuning? It always was & will always remain, a circular argument
Agreed inflation is the leading candidate for early unvivers.e agree dit s likely eternal. The measure problem has plausible solutions but finding the one true measure remains elusive.
Science isn't a democracy
Like all inflation theories, I bet Guth didn't tell you that we have no clue what the inflaton is. That is the problem with inflationary cosmological - all of the models give the same results.
@@PhilHalper1 The problem is that transitioning from an Inflationary state to a Lorezenian space-time requires near infinite fine-turning. Eternal Inflation implies that the universe will grow for ever - it is still geodesic incomplete to the past. Of course all this still assumes that Inflation is real.
21st century god of the gaps
*God wouldn’t create anything* if it wants perfect morality, obedience, etc, because it already has all those things in itself
We have to *assume that there is no omni god or that it isn’t interactive* in order to have meaningful conversations
If there is an Omni god, these discussions are pointless, because it can change our minds, the evidence, and what we hear others saying. And the god(s) of the Bible does similar things.
It's all speculation if we can't reproduce these conditions some sentient being did it for us and we have to understand what is thought that's right the mind
1:08:34 Luke Barnes : _"It's not that there is this low probability that just exists there [...] the probability space changes entirely..."_
If Luke Barnes is an "objective bayesian" then yes, there is an objective probability that _"exists there"_ and objective probabilities cannot _"change entirely"_ .
I know objective bayesianism was the position defended by Philip Goth, and not Luke Barnes. So I don't know if Luke Barnes is an objective bayesian.
I guess this is more a response against Philip Goth than Luke Barnes.
You should start hosting debates, get luke Barnes or craig on one side and someone else on the other. It will be really nice
if you check my channel you will see some debates already but they are slightly different to what you suggest which has been done by others.
Biological cells exist that are extremely complicated and are based on established chemistry and physics. The existence of cells can only be explained by Intelligent Design.
Modern cells could have evolved from more simple entities. There are several perfectly scientifically hypothesis about that. We don’t know how it happened but it is perfectly possible
Please do not speed up "quoted" videos: it makes it difficult for older people to follow.
you can always slow them back down , click on settings then playback speed
@@PhilHalper1 I do, but it's irritating to switch back and forth.
Whatever happened to critical thinking?
if you know which door a fella might open, then well anything could happen.
1:00:00
Religion, real arguments?
That just ain't possible.
Religion has never been based on anything real.
If one needs to base arguments on religious books, there can be no true argument.
Poor audio
I mean... god, who is god (almighty I say, not peanuts) created a universe in its almost total entirety cold, deadly, uninhabitable, but in which in certain rather rare circumstances life can develop naturally? In short, a smart guy... (If he is omnipotent he is at least an a smart guy... he I say, I didn't say who believes him eh...).
I wrote 'naturally', but maybe those guys are saying that god created the stage first and then had to intervene again to create life? Are we still talking about science? Nh... ok o_0
:| :* :]
^^
Sorry but there never was real good case anyway.. actually you could with equal arguments say that the universe was fine tuned for neutron star collisions.. or supermassive black hole mergers etc...
You could, but you can't run an argument based on that.
@@avastone5539 that is wrong. You don't need consciousness. Fine tuning arguement has nothing to do with consciousness. There are arugements out there that universe is fine tuned for black whole. So you're wrong. . .
@@dftknight yes you can. And it has been done.
Physics becoming the new metaphysics. Multiverse or God. Both are metaphysics aproaches to reality.
Most cosmologists reject the idea of the multiverse and the idea of God
Why stop at the multiverse why not trillions of multiverses each with trillions of universes.
I am calling it the megametaverse there could be trillions of megametaverses call it the multimegametaverse we should look at the bigger picture.
@@avastone5539 Perhaps its my English sense of humour that makes you misunderstand me so badly.
@@avastone5539 that doesn't stregthen. FTA or shows it as more true. You're irrational if you think that. . . Probability doesn't equate to how correct you are. . . That is assine. A cope out.
@Ava Stone that only adds more probability. It doesn't strengthen anything. That is opinion based. Unless you're defining strength with probability. Sure. Whatever. Start with your simple assertion. Of course you can make it some your proposition ends up with a higher probability. . . .I'm not arguing against fine tuning with fine tuning. So you're already making assumptions. It's also a joke. So again no point. Bascially all you're telling me is FTA is useless in terms of explaining or getting to the point of the universes creation. Only the probability of it being created by a creator. Which in itself is a weak argument. Strength a weak arguement up all you want. Just because you can't point one way or another with certainty. Doesn't mean it had to be FTA or not FTA. Doesn't matter what number you get in the end.
@Ava Stone so yes your arguemnt is simple. Simple to understand how its asserted and weighted.
I do not understand why this discussion is necessary. There is nothing "fine-tuned" about our world. Our world - and every thing in it - is a happy result of the physical/natural forces that exist. No "designer" required.
its necessary becuase a lot of people fin the FTA compelling. Even Dawkins says its the one argument that gives him pause
@@PhilHalper1 Thanks. I take the point that it is worth addressing because people find it intuitively persuasive. I suppose what I am saying is that by taking it seriously enough to address it as it stands, in detail, one is lending it a degree of credibility it hardly deserves, almost assuming that it really IS a good argument. It seems to me that we would do better simply to point out that theists are looking at the whole thing through the wrong end of the telescope, as it were, and leave it at that.
This is not to say that I do not enjoy the discussion, of course, up to a point. I think you all do a good job. There is a simple way to put the theistic argument to bed; just tell them that life is not a destination, merely a stopping point along the way. Perhaps I am missing the point ...
@@avastone5539 there are a lot of videos arguing for the FTA, that necessitates the critics to do the same if we are to have a healthy debate.
we just got lucky to exist in a universe like this, i guess...
I think the whole point to it all is we don't know. Before Planck time we simply don't know. We got some inferences, wild guests and hypothese but we don't know.
The key difference is that in science that is perfectly okay, we accept that we don't know a we look at each other's ideas to determine plausibility.
In religion we say we don't know so God. Why? Because you cannot demonstrate that it's not god and if it wasn't god science would have been able to explain it. That is the thing I cannot understand..
I began looking at the response on cc. I watched untill Phillip used the unfounded words "intellectual dishonesty" i mean on the channel of CC where Intellectual dishonesty is invented. That was a deal breaker.
@@Carlos-fl6ch he has apologised for that comment to me
@@PhilHalper1 Yes I heard you say so. I did enjoy his work with Sean Carroll all though I don't think he is right I like to hear the other side as well..I think he was wrong there so it's kind of him to apologize. Thnx for your response. Truly appreciated
@@Carlos-fl6ch you are welcome
I don't take advice from anyone who says God should not have made Trump.
Here come all the MAGA snowflakes trying to cancel anyone who disparages their idol. 😂
@@ElGatoMarcus Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump trump trump trump trump and trump.Did ya brain explode yet?!?!?
@@dennisbailey6067 How is it that someone like you is watching this video? Shouldn’t you be watching right-wing media with the rest of the uneducated base?
all of this having nothing to do with bob gob or god really :P
Principle of indifference: either it happens or it doesn't, so the probability is 50/50
It will or it wont.
Still luk for anser fill. So sad.
The religious,want there to be a god.To justify their fantasy of there being one.
I do not subscribe to the notion that any refutation of fine tuning has occurred here. Here is an interesting look at the fine tuning argument:
Ever played the game Riven? At the start of the game there is a rotating chamber that rotates a cycle when you press a button. It reveals a door, a slit where you can see the interior ,or most of the time, you just see a wall.
My view of fine tuning goes a similar way. Although it is possible that an omnipotent God could create life anywhere, it dismisses the statistical significance that life has occurred within a narrow range of values.
So while you are not given access to the room, you can still see the inside via the slit!
I’m don’t believe in atheism
Speak louder