Why a Fine-Tuned Universe? | Episode 107 | Closer To Truth
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 06. 2024
- How can so many numbers of nature, the constants and relationships of physics, be so spot-on perfect for humans to exist? Beware: there is more than one answer lurking here. Featuring interviews with John Leslie, Steven Weinberg, David Gross, John Polkinghorne, Robin Collins, and Paul Davies.
Season 1, Episode 7 - #CloserToTruth
Archive episode. First aired in 2008.
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
A puddle is incredibly "fine tuned" to its hole.
This thought tickles my brain cells : )
Good comment. So, the universe isn't really fine tuned?
Of course universe isn't fine tuned, just like the sun and stars we might be one of the multiple outcomes which comes out of the elements, consciousness might just be another feature of evolved brain. If it's fine tuned we should be existing right after the bigbang or something which makes not vulnerable to all the chaotic things universe , we are just to fragile just a small asteroid away from complete wipe.
Thank you for this amazing series of interviews ❤️ so enlightening and uplifting !
Getting warmer 🤠💓😉....God bless everyone 🙏.
If there are multiple universes, wouldn't there had to be something fined tuned so that universes could be born in the first place ?
Precisely. What makes universes, and more importantly, what would make one different from another?
That's just like saying, why is there something rather than nothing. It suggests nothing is the default which is probably incorrect. Still , the multiverse solution has one obvious glaring weakness. What mechanism can the creation of the universe use so that each universe is different? At that point, you're saying everything is kind of mathematical and unbound and universes can be anything and everything. Which is so radical that multi verse becomes less of an obvious solution
Not just multiple universes, but my understanding is that every time a decision is made, a new universe is created, over and over. Every possible thing that could happen will happen in some universe.
This seems ridiculous.
On the other hand when we say the universe is fine tuned for life, we mean
for intelligent human life designed by a Creator, but in the scope of things we are but a blip of thousands of years in a 14 billion year old universe.
It’s quite a stretch to postulate that the universe was created for us.
@@buddyrichable1 The meaning of life is for nature to marvel at itself. That is eternal bliss.
@@buddyrichable1 Exactly. We just don’t know. Putting a creator into the mix just makes the whole thing even more complex.
I've never felt more confused and farther from the truth
A segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'...
My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE...
Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave.
The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist.
For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is.
Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment.
The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing.
The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence.
The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists.
Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’.
On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication.
For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything.
NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.
Love the work you do here on this channel.
There are only two possible explanations:
1. The cosmological constants that result in the tendency towards life and intelligence and consciousness in the universe can only be what they are because of some deeper physical principle or property of the universe. Not too dissimilar from the accumulation of a pool of water at the bottom of a valley that ends up there because of the fundamental property of valleys and the downward gravitational pull on the water,by the very shape and nature of valleys.
2. There are multiple universes, each with varying and random cosmological constants (or maybe there are boundaries to they kinds of constants that can spring into existence, like integer multiples of smaller values, say). The universe we inhabit happens to be the one (and there may be more than one) that has just the right mix of constant values that produce a universe that behaves the way ours does and which supports the evolution of life, etc.
Same analogy: kind of like many different types of valleys, some convex (which don’t result in the pooling of water at all), some sloping at a steep angle (which means the water runs off and doesn’t pool anywhere), etc. etc.
There might be a way to test whether (2) is a feasible explanation. Model a universe that has different constants and see (theoretically / mathematically) if it can have a life-cycle or sustainable (even if briefly) existence at all. Or is there no combination of cosmological values possible that results in any kind of physical order? If the latter is provable then it would lead one to the likelihood that (1) is the correct explanation.
Update: the notion of a “god” or conscious “creator” is pure nonsense. Firstly, if there were a “god” then it’s certainly nothing at all what religious believers imagine God to be like. It would be entirely uncaring and cruel without any morals. Like identifying hot as good and cold as evil. Secondly, this “god” must exist in some way and have arisen from something, and is possibly conscious and intelligent (to have been able to “decide” what to create and how).
It may be that the “god” in question is some kind of creative force. We are created by our sun, for instance, at a deep atomic level. But we (now) don’t think of the sun as a sentient, interested, caring God with commandments. Granted, there are laws we need to obey in order to survive and thrive. We need the sun for sustenance, and if we “disobey” the sun’s laws, we will suffer or die (of burns or skin cancer or sunstroke).
But, like the sun, any such “god” or cosmic creative force is itself derived from somewhere or something. And so we are back to options 1 or 2.
Universe having life for me is far more trivial than why an universe occurred how could a energy increase exponentially than Gradually.
Because what else would it be??? Epistemologically speaking, without the foundation of physical law then the universe would simply collapse in on itself. A chaotic mess. Take elements for instance. They are just Lie groups maximizing complexity and minimizing time, thus confining energy to a given position in space and time at varying degrees. The principle of least action captures this notion perfectly. This geometric identity is found all throughout nature. Fibonacci Sequence and other such fractals, are all indicative of the same thing. We over complicate such notions which by virtue of occam's razor is entirely redundant. But thats what makes life interesting I guess. As long as such concepts are not proposed by egoist beings who merely want to name each distinction after themselves and claim some accolade or produce complexity for no other reason but reinforce their own dogmatism. It is all relative in the end: time, space, motion and perception! And why shouldn't it be? We are quantum beings. We have a geometry. What makes us unique is our will. That will with which we exert a force upon the universe is our conciousness.
I agree. Also, I like that you mentioned the FS and fractals, as in my view the universe is undoubtedly a fractal.
This is my argument to fine tuning. If we had a different universe, like, let's say we evolved with silicon instead of carbon; so a drastic world indeed. And the cosmological constants vastly different but good for life. We would more than likely say those are fine tuned aswell. So, my pondering is that the universe isn't fine tuned at all. Isn't it just how it is? We could easily say that many other universes that would be capable of supporting life be fine tuned. Know what I mean? It just so happens that we have those cosmic constants and not ones slightly or vastly different. Either way, we'd most definitely would say that any universe that we would happen to live in be fine tuned.
But is the universe really ever fine tuned? In my view, I don't think it is. How can it be. Outside of earth, the universe is extremely violent and uninhabitable. The only place we know as of now where life is safe is earth, everywhere else is just chaotic. But even on earth it is a struggle. In the past, out ancestors weren't living per say but rather just surviving in extremely harsh conditions. I find it quite odd that a lot of people think that the universe is fine tuned. But of course, I'm up for a change of mind if there is a good rebuttal. I must say that the Anthrophic Principle is extremely strange. It does seem improbable that we have been born into this chaotic universe by against high odds, almost miracle esque.
@@SpacePonder we are fine tuned in that we have evolved based on the proximal variables which have accumulated over time. Random and uncertain but fine tuned none the less. In evolutionary ecology one learns that evolution is not goal oriented. It is dynamic in that there is not one set path. Our planet, our solar system, our galaxy are all integrated systems of proximal variables which interact and reinforce themselves over time. Similarly, at the quantum level, energy will organize itself and takes geometric shape based on what what is permissible. Density, temperature, and duration are all proximal variables which have shaped the cosmos. The difference is there may be certain geometries which are permissible at higher rates. This is why certain elements are found at higher abundance. The proximal variables say for a heavier element which is stable are such that you will only find them in supernovae, which only form from the most massive stars, which were only possible in the earliest most dense regions of the universe.
Also, thanks for producing these videos!
It's amazing that there are exactly three feet to the yard everywhere in the universe.
That depends on your perspective 😃
I don't know if she had three feet.. I didn't even metre
@@GetawayFilms
May I use that joke, please! !
Perfect as always...
Awesome episode.
*An Overview of the Fine tuning argument*
For many, the regularity of the universe and the precision with which the universe exploded into being provides even more evidences for the existence of God. This evidence technically known as the Teleological argument, derives its name from the Greek word telos, which means "design." The Teleological argument goes like this:
1. Every design has a designer
2. The universe has high- complex design
3. Therefore, the universe has a designer
*The Anthropic Principle*
Scientists are finding the universe is like that watch ( anology of William Paley ), except even more precisely designed. These highly-precise and interdependent environmental conditions (called "anthropic constants") make up what is known as the "Anthropic Principle"-- a title for the mounting evidence that has many scientists believing the universe is extremely fine tuned (designed) to support human *_CONSCIOUSNESS_* on earth (Thats why some notorious atheists including Antony Flew later believed in God). Some Anthropic constants example include:
_birth date of the star-planetary system_
_if too early: quantity of heavy elements would be too low for large rocky planets to form_
_if too late: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; ratios of potassium-40, uranium-235, -238, and thorium-232 to iron would be too low for long-lived plate tectonics to be sustained on a rocky planet_
_flux of cosmic-ray protons (one way cloud droplets are seeded)_
_if too small: inadequate cloud formation in planet’s troposphere_
_if too large: too much cloud formation in planet’s troposphere_
_rotation period_
_if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great_
_if shorter: atmospheric jet streams would become too laminar and average wind speeds would increase too much_
_fine structure constant (a number, 0.0073, used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)_
_if larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses_
_if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields _
_if smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses_
_oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere_
_if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly_
_if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly_
_Jupiter’s mass_
_if greater: Earth’s orbit would become unstable; Jupiter’s presence would too radically disturb or prevent the formation of Earth_
_if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth_
For more evidence:
reasons.org/explore/blogs/tag/fine-tuning/page/2
reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/rtb-design-compendium-2009
*What are the chances?*
It's not there just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by chance. There are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an Intelligent Designer. Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, calculated the probability these and other constants would exist for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e, without divine design). To meet all conditions, there is 1 chance in 10^1038 (one chance in one with 1038 zeroes after it)-- essentially 0% chance.
According to probability theory, odds of less than 1 in 10^50 equals " zero probability" .
Check:reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth
It only proves that atheism is just a dogmatic belief. Nearly 2000 years ago, the apostle St Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans, *_" For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse"_*
_Important: The term “entropy” describes degree of thermodynamic “disorder” in a closed system like the universe. “Maximum entropy” would describe the “heat death” of the universe (which is the state it is slowly gravitating towards). Amazingly, our universe was at its “minimum entropy” at the very beginning, which begs the question “how did it get so orderly?” Looking just at the initial entropy conditions, what is the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?_
_Sir Roger Penrose, 2020 Nobel prize winner and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability of the initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang_
_According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10^123 to 1_
_It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10^123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms [10^79] believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10^10^123 zeros_
_It’s important to recognize that we're not talking about a single unlikely event here. We’re talking about hitting the jackpot over and over again, nailing extremely unlikely, mutually complementary parameters of constants and quantities, far past the point where chance could account for it_
Hi, are u a theist or deist?
@@steveforks9698 catholic
@@steveforks9698 Clearly a theist, in order to engage in such elaborate mental gymnastics and self deception.
Your argument begs the question!
I'm a Pantheist who believes God is Nature & the Multiverse & that we're a part of God having a conscious experience. Love this series, thank-you.
“Tailored so exquisitely…” showing only things we like, ignoring that only an infinitesimal part of the universe is amenable to life.
the faster one's thinking ability is in respect to its surroundings the most harmonious and perfect that experience might be when compared to the oposite... just like an experience in the open sea, it all feels beautiful and harmonious when environmental factors are not exceeding our responsive abilities(a calm day in the sea is perfect and a stormy day is to chaotic)...
Fine Tuning or as we call it the puddle marvels at how this hole was made perfectly to fit it. 🙄
That's deep man, I like it
At first I liked it. But then I realized puddles aren’t conscious or alive which is the problem this video is trying to solve.
@@Daniel-qy9mb yeh i spose also why any puddle at all 🤷🏽♂️
@@Daniel-qy9mb how does that refute the analogy?
@@mike-Occslong this argument has a major understated premise. That being that the parameters of “fine tuning” are capable of being different.
There is a third option besides multiverse and gods, simulation. If it were a simulation we would expect things just as we find them, finely tuned to allow the simulation stability and continued function. I am agnostic on the whole subject, I don't think we are anywhere near being capable of answering such a profoundly difficult question.
Simulation would be equivalent to what we have already discovered in that there is something that creates a simulation just as there is something that creates something real. Those inside can't tell the difference.
Simulation Theory is to me, the same as believing in a creator god. Something or someone is simulating us in some giant algorithmic quantum computer, but the question redirects to a familiar "who created the simulator?" Just like the old "Who created God?" paradox. To me, Theism is Stronger than Simulation Theory and I'm a devout atheist
The simulation hypothesis is an exciting idea. Nick Bostrom's trilemma cannot be logically refuted. But even if we live in a simulation, the problem only shifts to the meta-level. The reality in which we are simulated must also have an origin. And if their physics has been simulated realistically, then they have a fine-tuning problem there, too. Perhaps because, they are simulated, too. 😀
@@thomashartl8073 yes it can. It assumes that there is someone or something out there that can and is able to make the simulation. No reason for such an assumption. It also assumes that even if it were possible, there is no reason to believe someone would want to. Also simulating the laws of nature assumes that there is another, greater and more complicated version of the "laws of nature" allowing for ours to be calculated and manifest somehow. His arguments are silly. He offers no reasons why we should scientifically agree with the premise.
@@AlexLifeson1985 Bostrom postulates three alternatives in his hypothesis. Only in one of these alternatives do we live in a simulation. He also makes no statement about the probability of the three possibilities. Anyone can interpret this for themselves. I don't think you will find a fourth alternative, but try it.
Thank you
The universe is a dream. That is the simplest answer that can explain everything.
The universe is God having a conversation with Himself, trying to make sense of everything.
It certainly wouldn’t explain who is doing the dreaming, where the dream is taking place, what built the brain that is doing the dreaming, and sort of everything else that needs explaining really. It only explains the ending of a rubbish film.
@@jackrabbitism "... what built the brain ..." What built the universe? God only need have thoughts arise in an infinite void, mere fluctuations in the vaccuum. The universe needs much greater power. Dreaming is not necessary, but conscious thought is. The universe being God's purposeful thoughts takes much less energy per inch than a universe popping out of nowhere.
If you say that it takes the same amount of energy, then ask where God gets the energy? A thought can track a position with no energy at all. in an infnite void from which God's thoughts would arise, they act collectively to imagine and remember particles. If the universe popped out of nowhere, then the energy required is magnitudes greater than thought.
@@Graewulfe 🙂 I don’t know that series but that does sound pretty clever I must say.
@@durosempre4470 Well if he does exist he’s clearly a bit mad then.
Some evidence this interview took place in 2007, so there's more solid science to be pondered now.
Would be good to have a date to compare rate of progress.
change nothing ... Fine tuning is due to an intelligent act or is for good luck .
Not entirely true, if scientists have detected another universe since 2007 that would be helpful :-)
Nothing fundamental or sub fundamental had change in last 25 years at least
This is my argument to fine tuning. If we had a different universe, like, let's say we evolved with silicon instead of carbon; so a drastic world indeed. And the cosmological constants vastly different but good for life. We would more than likely say those are fine tuned aswell. So, my pondering is that the universe isn't fine tuned at all. Isn't it just how it is? We could easily say that many other universes that would be capable of supporting life be fine tuned. Know what I mean? It just so happens that we have those cosmic constants and not ones slightly or vastly different. Either way, we'd most definitely would say that any universe that we would happen to live in be fine tuned.
But is the universe really ever fine tuned? In my view, I don't think it is. How can it be. Outside of earth, the universe is extremely violent and uninhabitable. The only place we know as of now where life is safe is earth, everywhere else is just chaotic. But even on earth it is a struggle. In the past, out ancestors weren't living per say but rather just surviving in extremely harsh conditions. I find it quite odd that a lot of people think that the universe is fine tuned. But of course, I'm up for a change of mind if there is a good rebuttal. I must say that the Anthrophic Principle is extremely strange. It does seem improbable that we have been born into this chaotic universe by against high odds, almost miracle esque.
This channel is awesome it inspired me to make my CZcams channel, to ponder.
The problem with evolution is that in order to have a big-bang theory the explanation is singularity. However, how did the singularity begin? At this point the reasoning for existence goes on for eternity. Unless you have an independent mediating force to start the universe. Otherwise a universe cannot be self-existent unless it’s functionally attributable to a God.
@@empyrean9712 Agree. Personally, I think the Universe could have been causeless. It's a difficult concept to ponder but maybe a beginning didn't happen and I believe "nothingness" doesn't exist cause I've never seen nothing, only somethings. When physicists talk about nothing, it's not truly nothing, rather almost nothing, quantum fluctuations but it's not nothing completely. Have you ever heard of CCC theory by Roger Penrose, its so fascinating and features eternity.
It's so strange to contemplate eternity, though. Like, just why!?!? Its so mind boggling. Maybe eternity could explain dejavu? Maybe we've already had this conversation lol
@@SpacePonderI like the eternal cyclical universe model as well and I’ll definitely look into ccc model by Roger Penrose. Hindu cosmology definitely gets into this expansion and contraction. I think the problem with the theory however; is you can’t have self-generating causal mechanisms. It’s like saying 0 + 0 = 1
@@DATo_DATonian I agree with your. It is just how it is. And that's funny lol. True aha. A lot of ppl tend to forget about the insane amount of time there was to go through so much trial and error.
@@empyrean9712 I subscribe to parts of Hinduism as it is interesting. I'll need to check out its explanation on eternity thnx. Good to chat with you.
In the financial system there's a saying, "follow the money" and you'll understand, you'll find the answer.
In understanding the true dynamic of the "Universe" ( it is only one so-called "Universe" which is only one continuous, uninterrupted, natural and real process ), meaning "from where, how, to where, etc", you just have to follow very closely ( and to deeply think and understand ) the natural, uninterrupted and real "material" "cause and effect".
That's all one has to do in order to understand correctly everything about the so-called "Universe".
Well by virtue of what you just said that's what the big bang theory is predicated on.
Ikenna Madueke / Are you sure? Does the so-called ( = non-existent ) "Big Bang" predicate to you the real cause of its own creation?
Where do I see here your understanding of the neverending, material, uninterrupted and real chain of "cause and effect"?
What's the real "material" cause of the so-called, non-existent, "Big Bang"?
@@mikel4879 I dont know and nobody knows..was just pointing that out.
Ikenna M / Don't stress yourself too much. I know by the way you answer that what I write is not for the ones like you.
It is for the ones who are passionate about finding the real and true phenomena of the Universe.
Do you really believe that the texts addressed to you are only for you? 😏 /
The non-existent "Big Bang" doesn't have any cause, because it has NEVER EVER EXISTED !
@@mikel4879
Correct!
What you write is for the frightened theists that make claims and assertions they cannot prove.
Could laws of nature for universe(s) come about in a way similar to planck constant energy levels, only multiples of the constant to the next energy level?
I think perhaps people are trying to read more into it than there possibly is.
It seems whatever answer they may come up with or discover may never be enough because we will always then question why that answer is the way it is.
When it comes to fine tuning, it seems to me that it's more of a natural balance.
If you average out all of the universe in some way, all of the energy that it begins with then it seems understandable that over a given amount of time, things would balance out, like water needing to settle flatness, a level.
Nine perspective. But what if natural balance is the result of fine tuning?
With an infinity universe, one can assume that they are infinite possibilities. So the question of 'why' will always remain. We'll find an answer and then we'd want to know why over and over and over again
No final solution my man
Muktiverse js pretty absurd
What needs to be considered here is not something like the fine structure constant, but that we are here because of what has been ordained by nature, that we need to fit to.
Possibility: multiple universes are also within the scope of fine tuning. Symmetry, balance, beauty, harmony are all qualities of the primary fields, ie. Planets in orbit, stars that don't immediately collapse, life striving for knowledge.
The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgement, is overwhelming.
The belief that there is something behind it all, is one that I personal share with a majority of scientist
A. Einstein
Yes, it is tempting. Pattern recognition can lead people down one rabbit hole after the other. I wish more people could simply say that they want to believe something to be true and wait for the evidence instead of selling it as fact.
Why didn't you include Einstein's refutation of a personal god? Cherry picking is dishonest.
@@berunto8186 Hear hear. This series endlessly churns on this theist pap.
Mud-puddle analogy, people. It's not hard.
Atheist triggered.😁
Taking your post at face value and not as a put-on, the "something behind it all" is an invisible man who makes miracle. Just say it.
Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all of it 25:51
if creator where did creator come from, who created the creator??? im still waiting for answers. is there more than one creator?we are just one tiny species on one tiny planet in one of billions or more galaxies. might just be possibilities are infinite within universe
As a muslim I believe in multiverse, one is visible universe that contains carbon based life and other universe the after life contains in different dimension of reality.
Is the energy of space used for something in addition to cosmological constant expansion?
Interesting debates. There is another fin tuning problem: Why are all the Earth's parameters right for higher life to be possible? Distance from the sun, magnetic field, atmosphere, planetary tectonics, a big moon and more fit exactly. Since we know that almost all stars have planetary systems, it is clear that in the huge number of planets, some must have the right preconditions. Similarly, a multiverse also fits the fin tuning of our universe. Postulating a God for this is pointless, because then the question would have to be answered as to who created the preconditions for a God to exist. This does not bring us one step closer to the truth.
You’re right but with this difference and I assume you already know this and it’s in this episode anyway. Just the cosmological constant alone is tuned to 10 to the 123. There are only as a comparison, 10 to the 86 atoms in the entire observable universe. It’s mind blowing compared to why you pointed out, which in itself is mind blowing. To your point, I believe this is why the Drake equation is worthless. Few laypersons understand that the far majority of even habitable planets would have one side facing their sun 100% of the time. And so it goes, plate tectonics, iron core resulting in a magnetic field that keeps the sun’s cosmic rays from blowing the atmosphere away, such as it did in Mar’s history, on and on.
Postulating a nearly lifeless multiverse gets you nowhere, because there is no evidence for it and no explanation for its existence. However, following the obvious existence of meaning leads to concluding that the ultimate reality is a supreme person. Like in dreams, everything in human experience can be created from meanings, when the Supreme Person is the original meaning.
@@martinm1231, I'm interested in reality. What's the point of making absurd postulates? The ultimate reality must be a complete, self-reliant personality, and a student doesn't fit that description.
@@PaulHoward108 «However, following the obvious existence of meaning leads to concluding that the ultimate reality is a supreme person.» - A person may conclude that the ultimate reality is a supreme person. However, persons have only existed for the blink of an eye in history. And only on one planet out of hundreds of billions. For any other entity, meaning is something quite different from what it is for us, and the term 'person' too. A 'supreme person' is therefore the ultimate anthropism.
@@martinm1231 For the sake of conjecture, let's say this universe is the handiwork of a student in a higher realm, and he's thoroughly indifferent to our ultimate fate. Or worse, as you suggest, he plans to discard us when his experiment is done. Would that rule out a more-perfect being having created him, and that being IS worthy of adulation -- almost in the way a noble ancestor is praised by descendants. And further, if we in this realm appeal to him loudly enough and long enough, he will intercede with the student, and convince him to make us more permanent?
Can we apprehend causation without intention? In other words is it necessary to be an intending lifeform before causation can be postulated? Not just an "understanding" being or an "evolutionary" lifeform: an avoider or a fighter; but a capitalizing being - one who uses understanding to benefit his evolutionary fight?
The fight for survival provides the impetus to turn the observer into a predictor. To turn the understander into an intender. Whether intention creates a new memory or is the source of memory itself is to be argued. For if the memory of the understander is the same as that of the predictor, then what cognitive function must be postulated to differentiate the understanding being from the capitalizing being?
This is a fascinating series! But it confuses me when the universe is described as fine-tuned for life. 99.9999 9999999%+ of the universe is uninhabitable to carbon-based life-forms. In fact, we only know of one tiny, tiny place in the entire universe where such life can exist so far.
And on that one spot life forms show up and disappear again, and in the last minute intelligent life shows up only to, as it seems, mess it all up...? Confuses me too. Maybe in the far future there will be some other intelligent species worthy of this 'plan'. If there was ever one
No there are 7 planets in 7 heavens and each planet have intelligent life on them and our earth is one of them!
This is how it is written in the scripture.
@@hammadshami6423 Verse?
@@hammadshami6423 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@Lmaoh5150 quran 65:12
Can the cosmological constant be explained by this universe only, or is something external to universe needed for cosmological constant? Might something external to universe, maybe inflation, counterbalance the theoretical value of cosmological constant down to the observed value?
Cosmological constant is I don't know part or equation.
Having to invent an infinitum of universes to explain our one universe is suspect.
The surprise factor is analogous to the Monty Hall Problem
Still many problems with our understanding and applications of quantum mechanics. The multiverse seems weak . . . Answers might be found as we learn more about dark matter, dark energy and black holes . . . Still in the dark ages . So greatful that you share this journey with us all .
If all the forces we're just one force in the beginning, is it possible that they all remain connected in a way that only allows for a certain amount of drift in their parameters?
Walking towards your home, eyes closed, no idea where you're. Would you ever drift to your house? Well slap your face
Long Castle / What "force"? "Force" of what, by what? "Force", as a general principle, is only a theoretical abstraction.
In order to understand everything correctly you have to think in real terms, with real "matter" and real phenomena.
Not with abstractions.
You can think with abstractions but risk to understand exactly nothing correctly.
In the so-called "Universe" ( it is only one, not the stupidity called "multiverses" ) is only one fundamental real phenomenon, one fundamental real dynamic.
@@mikel4879 The Strong Force, the Weak Force, the Electromagnetic Force and Gravity.
Long Castle / Those "forces" are exactly what I said, just theoretical imagination of people who don't understand the real phenomena.
You are one of the parrots who are parroting something that you don't even understand.
A force is not something in itself. It is a real action done by something upon something.
There's always a real cause that creates a real effect. The real material chain of cause and effect is uninterrupted and it is a real chain that the impotent theoretical models do not understand.
For example, the so-called "Gravity" as an attractive effect doesn't exist anywhere in the Universe. The real effect in what is called "gravity" is repulsive, not "attractive". Everything "pushes" dynamically and naturally everything. That's the fundamental dynamic of the Universe.
@@mikel4879 Theoretical imagination enough to make your smart phone work?
Do physical constants of nature fine tuning of universe alone bring about subject observers, such as human beings, or even biological life?
In their theory yes. If you accept the theory.
Whatever exists inside a universe does so because that universe is suitable for its existence. That doesn't point to fine tuning any more than it points to randomness.
okay this was a beautiful and thought provoking episode. Thank you!
Robin Collins come out as an excellent contender for the most inept analogy in the history of philosophy aka the Welcome Robins sign under the moutains analogy
Attack the man, rather than the man's argument! This says nothing about the man's argument.
@@rdhallmansr I am saying his "Welcome Robin sign under the mountain" analogy is inept.
Are the laws of nature related to quantum fields?
Where did the multiple universes come from?
14:10... _A Universe hospitable to life..._ Maybe. But also indifferent.
it leads me to my favorite question- why is there something instead of nothing?
Formula: make up nonsensical questions and then propose God as the answer. "I can answer that profound question so I am a person of wisdom. So here are some of my thoughts on other matters."
God makes excellent click-bait and boosts the algorithm.
@@con.troller4183 God, for and against, makes....
*Robin Collins’ Surprise Principal*
Starting about 19:00, Collins provides a bad analogy. The laws of physics don’t spell an explicit message to a specific person in a specific language.
It is an absurd analogy in that we *skeptics* would be saying that rocks arranged to spell such a long specific message would indicate that his brother probably arranged them. The *theists* would be saying, “God did it.”
Collins and Kuhn ignore that if the vague combination of laws of physics requires a creator, then all the more would that creator with muuuuch narrower parameters require a creator, and an infinite regression of ever-greater creators.
Collins also assumes that we would not be surprised by a creator creating a vague set of laws that would eventually lead to life billions of years in the future. That scenario fails Collins’ own Surprise Principal in two ways:
1. if life is a goal, we should expect it to be created immediately
2. If the creator is omnipotent, it already has a perfect universe in itself. I would not expect it to create anything.
So let me get Robin's reasoning straight regarding his rock analogy. He says that we would be far less likely to expect to see an earthquake cause the rocks' formation to spell out his brother's name. Yet, his counterargument is far more unexpected: an unseen, unproven (or unprovable) benign being outside of our laws of physics being responsible for this message. There may be many more explanations for such a random arrangement that have not been vetted. This is the classic God of the gaps argument that fundamentally doesn't address the issue but instead resorts to wild speculation regarding the existence of supernatural entities.
Well you answer your own question, un unexpected being outside of laws of physics. That's exactly what God is he doesn't have to obey laws of physics since He is the one who created it. So it's the only plausible explanation and Robin reasoning is valid. Moreover you say it's unproven. This fine tuned universe don't you think is proof enough.
Does biological life and human mind need certain characteristics of planet earth, and maybe more, in addition to physical constants and laws of nature that fine tune universe?
Every time I hear “ god did it “ all I hear is; it was magic.
That is what modern society has conditioned you to think when in fact it is a perfectly reasonable answer to so many questions
100% correct the applicability of god has almost completely faded
just another ..we dont know so insert some kind of god... even if true why do all christians just assume its
their god... talk about confirmation bias...
What's wrong with saying it was magic? Are you implying an all powerful god is not capable of "magic"? However you define magic, why couldn't God do that? Magic usually seems to defy physics, time, or matter, which explains god quite well. What's wrong with saying magic? I think you're just using the word "magic" in this context, as a way to poke fun at the possibility of god, without any substantive argument to delegitimize the argument of God.
@@-JSLAK Precisely. If one is laying out a list of possibilities for a cause, it is perfectly legit to say that something may have designed this. Sometimes, after more information is gathered, it may not be the case. But in others, it remains in play.
Once these theoretical physicists figure out that pure, clear, consciousness is the noumenon there will be no need for these discussions.
What formed the cosmological constant at start of universe?
Answer that and you've got yourself a few Nobel Prizes.
Isn't the "surprise principle" just maximum likelihood in another form?
Could a multiverse measure physical constants and laws of nature into a universe?
Hello how are you All Thank you so much for this lovely program I love things like this Don't forget there's another world that is right in front of you You may call it heaven if you wish I only know that I have been there I am a new deaf I am in the UF experiencer I have seen I have seen that other world If you think this world is real wait to see the next one Please reply back Thank you so much sir
One thing about the Theism view I have a problem with is; if we are so unique and exclusive, what’s the point of the rest of the universe? Is just laboratory given to us by the same deity? The vast expanses and complexities suggest science to me, even if that science is beyond our current comprehension. Theism seems to discount all of this, or try to incorporate it in a way that still leads to the question I lead with.
I can help you....you see in the after life we will live forever and will reproduce and this earth is not big enough those other planets will be activated and be like earth and 1 man will populate a whole galaxy
@@trapsoulbeats3074 So no more asteroids taking out whole planetary ecosystems then?
@@longcastle4863 no when god sets up the kingdom of heaven it will unlock the planets and they will be habitable to live on this is why the galaxy is so vast because we will still reproduce but nobody will die
Perhaps he's just showing off. It's better than just a single star and a single planet with a single moon.
@@longcastle4863 Asteroid control will be one of the chores these Galactic Godlings will need to do.
Physical constants and laws of nature fine tune galaxies and star systems, while life and mind need something in addition?
To think of the universe as being fine tuned is to assume the possibility of a universe out of tune. Imagining other such universes, will they will be fine tuned for any intelligent life that happens to evolve there?
If in one of these alternative universes life arises but does not reach the level of intelligence, is that universe biothropic?
Is anyone considering the possibility that the universe we Inhabit functions under the black-hole-thropic principle?
I think the universe is like a building which from the beginning was ''planned'' by an ''architect'' that is why it only could end up as it ended up. The main mystery here is to me what ''planned'' and ''architect'' actually is since we deal here with (super) natural world phenomena.
Robin took a big leap from Deism to Theism.
He jumped in the wrong direction.
yooo Robert what's your bench
i thought he looked like a body builder too....😉
The question assumes aspects of an answer. Until you have a basis of comparison, the phrase "fine tuned" is wholly inappropriate.
NOT defining terms prior to debating them is Kuhn's bread and butter. Equivocation is his vocation.
Stop overthinking . Get out and live children. Surf, climb, love…
Just love
Tune by wave resonance of big bang
Is the universe fine tuned for life? Or is the universe what it is and the chemical reactions necessary for life part of the physics and chemistry of the universe?
How are physical constants and laws of nature measured into universe?
Uni or multi verses.... everything is information in one conscious mind. The moment one goes asleep there is no more universe. Is this not illusion but then what is the true truth behind the conscious mind?
So the Universe pops in and out of existence at the rate of my nightly bathroom breaks?
@@longcastle4863 not necessarily in and out of existence rather Our consciousness stops taking in information while sleeping therefore the universe may as well not exist. What do you remember before you were born? Just because the answer is nothing doesn’t mean there was no universe rather it means there was no system which could observe the information of the universe.
Because you asked at this particular moment , in an ever changing universe...
You have the Horse before the cart.
The universe and the earth did not know how an animal was going to be. The Earth was made first, and then the microbes developed into many other things that could live on earth. We do not make a cart and then turn a fish into a horse. We have the horse because fish do not need a cart. Then we make a horse cart and place him behind the cart.
But a designer would be looking ahead. That's why it remains a possibility.
@@ronaldmorgan7632 Evolution has no plan. The stronger leave more children and the weak designers die out. I cannot fight with Dr. Kuhn, because I am like a child to him, but programs about impossible things like gods are wasteful.
Fred. If you choose the dark-side I see a bright future in apologetics for you.
@@con.troller4183 Sounds wonderful, if I knew what Apologenets were.
I'm perplexed why there's information at all
Looking at a result without the precise understanding of the processes and laws that caused it is poor hindsight: this is why the question posed makes no sense.
Once the tuning exists, with a proper topology there is no worry again about it getting off track.
Neutron decay cosmology is inevitable
Transcendent, all powerful God. For fine-tuning, this is the best he could do?
Well, this wasn't biased at all..
Does fine tuning also include the question that the laws of nature are sufficient; such as for consciousness, mind or life; as well as necessary to allow consciousness, mind or life?
What else would it be after a few billion years
👍👏👍👏👍👏👍
To answer the fine tuning of the universe by claiming God did it just pushes the problem back one more level. You then must account for God‘s existence. Of course, theists avoid this by claiming God is eternal, but why can‘t we use this same solution for the universe itself, namely that the universe together with all its fine tuning is eternal? Of course, in that case the universe would have to be cyclic in nature as in Penrose‘s CCC -Conformal Cyclic Cosmology- proposal.
Spot on!
Because God is not temporal
Could quantum fields bring life and mind on earth?
Does difficulty in explaining fine tuning say anything about fine tuning? A universe fine tuned for intelligent life would be explainable by intelligent life?
Not necessarily.
It may be that no matter how intelligent a being gets, there emails no method for obtaining an answer.
There is no difficulty explaining fine tuning by Theists.
Only the Atheists/Agnostics are struggling for ways to discredit FT as they know it clearly supports an intellect behind all the tweaking.
Everything makes sense ... when everything is a FUNCTION.
The Theory of Universal Functions ... is the science behind the OBSERVATION that the Universe & Life are like a machine and requires a machine maker to exist & to .... F U N C T I O N.
There is not & never will be any evidence proving the Universe & Life have a NATURAL origin 14 or 4 billion years ago. All functions are unnaturally made by an intelligence who must provide at least information for a function to exist & operate.
A functions are "fine tuned" by an intellgect.
@@abelincoln8885 Theist also once had no difficulty explaining the fine tuning in homosapiens and other animals or the geological features of the Earth or why there were seashell fossils atop tall mountains etc etc etc. And in every case their knee-jerk fallback response, _God did it_ has been shown to be premature, useless and unnecessary.
@@longcastle4863 please expand on
Oh so closer
How might God and meaning manifest in quantum fields?
Why not? Is a better question
@@martinm1231 who mentioned entities?
@@martinm1231 Your question is a non sequitur. I never mentioned anything about "entities"
@@martinm1231 Which god?
The universe is fine tuned so that unitary evolution of Schrodinger's wave function can create the universe containing life and consciousness. Implying infinite axiom algorithm simulating Maldacena's quantum computing function.
Good day. The universe is not fine tuned, it is exactly the contrary, life is exactly adapted to the universe constants.
Fine-tuned for black holes maybe
Exaxtly!
Oh wow haha your ignorance is laughable. Yes it IS fine tuned. Whether this fine tuning is best explained by god or by chance is another question.
That does make the problem significantly less complicated. But to some extent the Universe must sit between certain parameters in order for any kind of life to exist. The anthropomorphic principle sets pretty strict parameters for human life, but even if we're imagining some kind of exotic silicone based lifeform the Universe would still have to satisfy particular boundary conditions. If the constants of nature were changed too dramatically then liquid matter could not exist. No amount of adaptation could ever lead to human life in a Universe that contianed no liquid.
@@acetate909 Exactly, I have no clue why this is so difficult for people to understand and accept. Perhaps it is a typical philosophical commitment to methodological naturalism.
Every dynamic physical and relational system, including life must evolve according to natural laws interacting with the environnement.
Yes, and then we need something to fine-tune the conditions for the fine-turner, and then we need something to fine-tune the conditions for the fine-tuner of the fine-tuner, and then we need something to fine-tune the conditions for the fine-tuner of the fine-tuner of the fine-tuner... ad infinitum...
If this universe was really fine-tuned, it would not be such a hostile mess, and 99.999999999999999999999 % of it would not kill life instantly.
If anything, this universe seems to be fine-tuned to murder us at some point, so far its success rate is 100%.
From the human perspective the universe is quite amazing and rather hard to understand more fully. A more intelligent and powerful species may have it all explained and the explanation may be trivial. For example, they could have knowledge that this is just a simulation and that our particular instance of it was produced by some junior software engineer as a joke.
You just finished The Matrix 4 didn’t you…
@@Daniel-qy9mb I didn’t see it but I did major in philosophy. I love these types of videos and discussions
Robin Collins's 'Surprise Principle' is just the Watchmaker Argument dressed up. Two things that demonstrate careful arrangement such his rock message "Welcome to the mountains Robin Collins" and the Universe having fine tuned constants must come from an intelligent mind is a false analogy. Just because two thing are alike in some respect does not mean they are alike in another respect. Otherwise the following would be true:
The rock message is carefully arranged.
The rock message is in the English language
The many constants of the universe are carefully arranged.
The many constants of the universe are written in the English language.
Also Paul Davies assertion (along with many other apologists) that the multiverse is just sciences way of doing without God is also false. The leading theory is a prediction of inflation. It is not for science to go out of its way to disprove/prove Gods existence, that is religions remit.
I really found Robin Collins' argument one of the most sophist and glib I've heard in a while. Would he try to apply the surprise principle to homosapiens then as well?
Your argument is not only weak, it’s unfalsifiable, just as the multiverse is. It’s also still a circular argument so, who created the creator, sentient designer, God(s) or otherwise? This is why, “we’re here by chance” knowing what we know so far is the leading argument. So save the pontification. Occam’s Razor applies.
His argument was trying to demonstrate that some things are obvious, and that some are enough to make you wonder, "In which ways could this occur?"
Surprise! Theists still have nothing!
How might God measure or cause the physical constants and laws of nature into universe? Maybe God used a multiverse to measure or cause the physical constants and laws of nature into the universe?
I don't discount Intelligent Design Hypothesis for the cosmos it's a possibility but I feel a small possibility among a multitude of possibilities Random Natural Processes is another possibility pre existing universes multi universes infinite space eternal so much we still don't know I separate the Cosmology field from the Manmade Theological Mythologies which many people confuse the theist is out to prove the atheist is out to disprove I'm neither out to prove nor disprove whatever is is whatever is not is not
"I lift weights" ..yep
😂😂🤔
Literally rolling around on the floor crying... You got me
Still, the multiverse solution has one obvious glaring weakness. What mechanism can the creation of the universe use so that each universe is different? At that point, you're saying everything is kind of mathematical and unbound and universes can be anything and everything. This is so radical that the multiverse becomes less of an obvious solution
«What mechanism can the creation of the universe use so that each universe is different?» - Quantum mechanics. That is the only source of real randomness. It knows no determinism, only probability distribution. This explains the diversity of universes.
By the way, randomness is also necessary in our universe. Otherwise you would have to explain why not all galaxies are the same, or all planetary systems.
A mechanism was found in Nature to make each creature s little bit different than the next
Why do they assume we wouldn't be here instead of we could be by taking on another adaptive form.
Why "fine tuned" for misery and death? No clue.
I have to say, a scientist who uses the term "fine tuned" is NOT a scientist.
But, but, but.... muh lab-coat!!