Was the universe made for us?
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 05. 2024
- Check out the physics courses that I mentioned (many of which are free!) and support this channel by going to brilliant.org/Sabine/ where you can create your Brilliant account. The first 200 will get 20% off the annual premium subscription.
In this video I explain how the argument that the universe is finetuned for life works, why it's wrong, how the mistake happens, and what that means for the existence of god and the multiverse.
If you like our videos, please consider supporting us on Patreon:
/ sabine
Some references for constants of nature that are nothing like our own yet give rise to complex chemistry
Roni Harnik, Graham D. Kribs, and Gilad Perez
A universe without weak interactions
Phys. Rev. D 74, 035006 (2006)
journals.aps.org/prd/abstract...
arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0604027
Fred C. Adams, Evan Grohs,
Stellar helium burning in other universes: A solution to the triple alpha fine-tuning problem,
Astroparticle Physics, 87 (2017)
doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartph...
arxiv.org/abs/1608.04690
A. Loeb
The habitable epoch of the early Universe.
International Journal of Astrobiology, 13(4), 337-339 (2014)
doi:10.1017/S1473550414000196
arxiv.org/abs/1312.0613
Don N. Page
Preliminary Inconclusive Hint of Evidence Against Optimal Fine Tuning of the Cosmological Constant for Maximizing the Fraction of Baryons Becoming Life
arxiv.org/abs/1101.2444
#science #physics #philosophy
0:00 Intro
0:52 The finetuning argument
2:31 Why the finetuning argument is wrong
3:31 Where the mistake happens
4:44 Good vs bad finetuning arguments
5:54 Yelling "Bayes" doesn't help
6:48 What does this mean?
7:48 Sponsor Message - Věda a technologie
My cat thinks the house was created for him.
I’ve come to realize that the search for meaning is a waste of life. That all human life is just a cosmic accident, an arbitrary conglomeration of molecules evolved by chance into an organism with a brain stem, condemning it to ponder, futilely, the reason behind it all.
Frasier Crane
The last episode of cheers had a lasting impression on me in 2012
I have a game for you- it’s a treasure hunt. I’ll give the clue and you have to find the answers:
1.) Can you find the hidden cross in Numbers chapter 2? Hint, it’s pretty big.
2.) Genesis chapter 5- what do the names mean in Hebrew? Hint, Make a list from Adam to Noah on the left and on the right do the translation.
3.)Why did Jesus keep his miracles secret until the triumphal entry? Hint: 173,880.
1Cor6:9 - WE ARE ALL SINNERS. No one is better than the next. John 3:3 we must be BORN again. Jesus often says “Go, and sin no more”. Sinning after repentance is still sin- repent and be done with the world.
@@johnstown2451 copy pasta
@@johnstown2451 Consider the lilies...
Before enlightenment: Chop wood, carry water.
After enlightenment: Chop wood, carry water.
Your behaviour towards your cat has not given him any evidence to the contrary
Take your cat to various freind's houses. Feline multiverse confirmed.
I am a physicist (specialized in electronics). I find Sabine very impressive. She promised "Science without the gobbledygook" and she really does it. It is real science, not even diluted, and there is no (or very little) gobbledygook. I sure wish all teachers could be like that!
Yes, but when she says it [the multiverse] isn’t a scientific idea, it may not be proven or even well attested but surely it’s scientific, we know that our universe exists so it seems at least plausible that others may too.
@@thomascarroll9556 With that line of reasoning, I could also "scientifically" say that I am the universe. I have atoms in the body, the universe have atoms. Therefore I am the universe. Irrefutably logical.
@@boysteacher3818 no, that’s just nonsense.
@@thomascarroll9556 The issue IMHO, is not that there may or may not be a multiverse, but that there is effectively it is a 'guess' (it is a lot like religion but I would not quite classify it as a religion) which is not even supported by anything observable. This guess though is effectively the same as a faith in that you have no foundation, nothing to test to indicate it is true or false... effectively the same foundation as a religion or a faith. Someone stood out on the land and 'guessed' that there must be a some spirit that must have created the land and the sea because... which was another guess that became the foundation for a religion. So it is fine to believe something without anything observable -- but you should not give it any more credence than any other guess - and guesses by themselves should not be considered science.
@@CraigCruden Thank you for your comment. Would you agree with my following summary? A 'belief' is not able to be proven -thus not scientific, non observable, not experimental. If a scientist postulates an idea, it does not make the idea scientific, no matter how much we like the idea. If a Creationist says I believe in a God (so you should believe too) does not make the statement true or false; it is a belief! In both cases (scientist/creationist), I can not argue either way, I can only listen -believe in one, both, or reject one or both.
"Was water made for fish?" is a nice metaphorical way of framing it and it emphasizes our humble place in the whole thing.
@@patrickmulopo7957 Dinosaurs were around for 160 million years. It is just as relevant to say the universe was fine tuned for dinosaurs.
@@patrickmulopo7957 You've completely failed to grasp the basic argument of this video. Either that, or you've just suggested that, for all the trillions of planets in the universe, *YOU* (and you alone, apparently) know the probability distribution for planetary magnetic fields, gravitational coefficients, compositions, orbital distances and climate features that would be "just right for life." Because without that probability distribution, you can't even know wtf "just a coincidence" even *means* (and *that*, Einstein, is the basic argument of the video).
It looks like there is only one universe and we are the only intelligent life in it. So there is a high probablility that the universe was made for us.
@@patrickmulopo7957 why go through all the complications of having dinosaurs terraform the earth and not just have the earth be auto-magically terraformed?
@@patrickmulopo7957 so, basically you just think something is 100% true without any evidence nor a way to obtain evidence?? Completely unfalsifiable. Do you even entertain any other world view or do is that a nono
Btw, 'god' is a human term as well, considering the hundreds of thousands of different gods that are believed in, and supposedly they're all real too. What makes your god better or more real than any other? If 'god' does exist, it's as a concept within our heads
You are the first person I’m my experience on CZcams that doesn’t try to hype science up. You tell it how it is and nothing more. I’ve learned way more by watching your channel. Thank you!
She's another Jordan, a YTr of sorts.
Attributes of a critical thinker.
@@ThomasistheTwin exactly, and I appreciate that a lot 🎉
Peter Woit
Sabine was created for us, and we have plenty of videos as evidence.
How do you know the internet wasn't created for Sabine?
I'll second that.
Actually, Sabine (in this context, her videos) “Is” created for Us!!!
Brilliant! :-)
He made Sabine for us? Nice work!
The universe wasn't made for 'us.' It was made for me. And when I die, you're all fucked.
Wish me well - I'm already in my sixties.
You know nothing, JonFrum. You're really just a brain in a vat.
@@brothermine2292 Or a hologram.
Actually that’s kind of true, you collapse your own version of the multiverse and when you go it disappears with you. We will continue to collapse our own where you may actually still exist.
HAHAHAHA...
Jon Frum - get back to the island of Tanna! The natives have been missing you
This is the single best, most balanced, most intellectually honest and concise presentation on this topic l have ever seen. Thank you.
Great vid. IN a word (or few, really): A version of "survivor bias." Every other iteration of "everything" unsuited to propagate/exist isn't here to marvel at its own existence.
Nice!
It would be strange for us to find ourselves in a universe where we could not exist.
Spoiler: we wouldn’t exist.
@@kellydalstok8900 great. So I don’t have to wait for the movie then.
I live within one, and have done for 23891 days, but hopefully not much longer, as it's becoming more and more unbearable for every day with all its inconsistencies.
Either I change the universe, or I cease to exist!
PS. My plan is it save this reality, to make it sane.
yep true and we would not last long to cry or laugh about it either .
It would be impossible.
I have always intuitively known that there was something wrong with this argument, but just didn't have the vocabulary to say why. Thanks, Sabine.
@Sky Gardener what religists seem to actually be saying is that god chose the most unlikely numbers for the outcome he desired, fine tuning ought to be coarse tuning if you want to guarantee humans.
Sabine is my new favorite CZcams science educator. I love the no nonsense approach to bs
I really like when you summarize your point/answer at the end of a video, it helps a lot
I like a quote from Feynman:
"You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!"
I hate sarcasm ... in others !
And if it were ABC 123, you wouldn’t find that peculiar?
@@JohnBaskette IF ABC 123 was the only license plate I had ever seen, and I had no idea what process leads to the creation of license plates, I couldn't say that it is a peculiar coincidence
What am i missing here?
Logical Fallasy. It is not „any“ event, it is certain purposeful events that are relevant.
If he saw a plate with say his new password on the front and his old one on the back of the car- that would be amazinging.
Claiming that the universe was made to support life is quite weird, considering the fact that 99.99999% of the universe is extremely hazardous to life. Its like bacteria sitting in sterilised room claiming the room was fine tuned for it, just because it found a place that's not sterile.
I’ve come to realize that the search for meaning is a waste of life. That all human life is just a cosmic accident, an arbitrary conglomeration of molecules evolved by chance into an organism with a brain stem, condemning it to ponder, futilely, the reason behind it all.
Frasier Crane
The last episode of cheers had a lasting impression on me in 2012
I have a game for you- it’s a treasure hunt. I’ll give the clue and you have to find the answers:
1.) Can you find the hidden cross in Numbers chapter 2? Hint, it’s pretty big.
2.) Genesis chapter 5- what do the names mean in Hebrew? Hint, Make a list from Adam to Noah on the left and on the right do the translation.
3.)Why did Jesus keep his miracles secret until the triumphal entry? Hint: 173,880.
1Cor6:9 - WE ARE ALL SINNERS. No one is better than the next. John 3:3 we must be BORN again. Jesus often says “Go, and sin no more”. Sinning after repentance is still sin- repent and be done with the world.
Exactly.
@@johnstown2451 I would agree with you. However, I'm not sure the word "accident" was appropriate. It implies there was some other plan that didn't work out.
Correct, but you’re missing a few dozen 9s. If somebody drops you in a random place in the observable universe, the chances of you dying within seconds is practically 1. Even if you’re dropped within the volume that is occupied by Earth, your chances of surviving are worse than winning the jackpot in any existing lottery, because even if you‘re lucky to be placed within the Earth‘s atmosphere (instead of, say, somewhere in the core), being dropped from more than a few meters in altitude will also kill you. And if you‘re lucky to find yourself on the surface, you‘ll probably drown in the Pacific, die of thirst in the Sahara desert, or freeze to death in Antarctica. The universe is about as friendly to life as the surface of the sun is to a snowball.
@@johnstown2451 I prefer to remain more open minded, but only open minded. I don't think we know enough to characterize our existence as an "accident" (or any other term, to be honest). We simply DO NOT KNOW. And I for one am completely comfortable with that and with not attempting to assert some theory about how we got here that has no evidentiary basis supporting it. But if you're a theoretical physicist, reliant on gummint grants for your existence, it is far more expedient to just make things up.
Thank you for this, I might have too check out your book :) I'm fascinated by the fine tuning of the universe. Hopefully we get more videos in regard too it.
Sabine, your explanations and narrative on so many topics are sublime. I watch your videos with great interest. Please keep them coming.
I always felt the natural conclusion is that life has been fine tuned for this universe and not the other way around.
Ofcourse you are right! But this conclusion is not interesting enough.
The claim is if you alter slightly some of the constants life would not be possible in any form, no kind of life could emerge from it. Life tuned itself because the right conditions were present but if you alter the constants no conditions for anything would be possible. Anyway the claim is not certain because even if galaxies would not form it could be something at different scale an a much different time rate. For example the life of a lifeform would last like 10billion years but it could be equivalent to 1year. Or some totally different lifeforms may apear idk.
To me there is no meaning in however "narrow" range of constants that make life as we know it possible since the only way a life form can ponder these things is if that life form happened to develop in a system that allowed for it to develop in the first place. If there have been other universes or are other universes that this one doesn't interact with, then maybe it is quite expected that one of those would have just the right constants. But we can not know if this is the case, we don't know if this universe is the one and only or one in a vast sea of universes since we can't observe anything outside of the system we occupy. This I think make the entire discussion about how narrow these values are moot. My two cents =)
@Theunis de vierde van Brabant Thank you, I got that. Could you please clarify the nihilistic scientism bit? I did not mean to say there is no proof, I meant to say there can never be proof. We can only observe the system we occupy so (being it narrow world view or not) I find it to be an exercise for philosophers to ponder if this is the only universe or one in many. This would be relevant in order to determine if our constants are unlikely or not.
@Theunis de vierde van Brabant Thank you for clarifying, never heard nihilism being used specifically for science. I did not mean to give the impression that I take an absence of proof as evidence for absence of existence. My stance is that scientific discussions should not entertain things that can't be proven one way or another since it can't further science. It may be good material for philosophers or fiction writers, or it can simply be entertaining to entertain. But it is unproductive for scientific advancement.
Regarding the unlikeliness of the constants, without knowing if there have been more universes in the past or if there are other ones now, or without knowing what caused this one to form this way, we can't determine the likelihood. If you have some sort of foundation for this claim, please share it, I am always happy to widen my horizons.
In your analogy (which sounds quite nice!) we would be classifying a structure without knowing how structures are typically classified, without having an established foundation of definitions for temples and caves and it would be silly of us to try to classify it at all if that were the case. We could tell each other what we think of course but we could not put any merit to it. I agree with you and it is essentially my entire point to this debate. We can't know if these constants are likely or not and anything stemming from that does not belong in physics.
I will never get tired of Dr. Hossenfelder’s casual, deadpan dismantling of huge philosophical arguments
She didn't do a very good job here. For example, she doesn't seem to realize that fine-tuning includes parameters not just constants.
@@wadetisthammer3612 I liked her video here in some ways. Still, I agree that she did not sufficiently refute the claims she was trying to refute. Her reasoning also is based upon a lot of assumptions.
What are you talking about? She doesn't dismantle philosophical arguments. She clarifies them when they are improperly applied into scientific matters. Note that in the end of the video she said that her argument doesn't mean that it proves or disproves the existence of God or the multiverse, and that her issue is just with people incorrectly non-scientific methods in scientific arguments.
2:42 "There is no way ever to quantify this probability " . Similar argument in Indian philosophy has been dismissed with an analogy: If you cannot find an object in darkness, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
In other words, your limitations are not absolute limits.
Despite this was as far from philosophy one can ever imagine.
I'm astonished that Hossenfelder has rised this completely trivial argument which doesn't say anything, merely the opposite.
I recently found Frau Hossenfelder's channel and I've been bringing and taking notes! So much information delivered in such a simple yet interesting way! Thank you Frau Hossenfelder!
Completing a discussion of this in less than 10 minutes is really appreciated. Thanks
Please do discuss the possibility of “constants” that vary with time and/or space.
no seriously I've heard past rumblings that some of the constants are so constant; is this waffle or is there something in it?
Will take note of this!
@@kensho123456
Well, if they don't change during all the thought-experiment, then you can consider them as constants. What she meant was try different constants and see the results. A variable can change inside the "world" you're developing.
@@kensho123456
I'm not sure about the vocabulary there, I'm not good enough to certify that the analogy is the same with what you mentioned. But if it is what I think, then the answer is yes :)
@@the_hanged_clown sorry for that
Spike Miligan said that he liked to stare up at the night sky, look at all the stars and galaxies in the never ending darkness, and then marvel at just how insignificant the rest of the universe is.
Didn't he also go on to say "I thought what does it all mean - and then I thought - well it's bugger all to do with me so I went back to bed|"
As always a clear explanation that goes to the heart of the problem and, in this case, shows that there is no problem. Nice one Sabine!
Awesome presentation, thanks for posting, and sharing your knowledge.
“If you think this Universe is bad, you should see some of the others.” ― Philip K. Dick
LOL!!! Hahahahaa
Too good
@@nobrakes7247 Thank you!!! 👽
LMAO!!
Hahahahha
Cool. The old lady is like his 5th cousin
I love this channel. Thank you Sabine ! I am only a few videos into it but I'm so happy I found it. I stumbled upon it during work but I saved it. Don't worry watching CZcams examples was part of the job before I started editing my video work. Just wanted to say thank you! Keep up the great work! I really like how direct and clear you opinions are but also how you present the science. When you agree and especially disagree is very informative and entertaining. I watch to learn something but especially they way you specifically present the data or topic.
I feel so grateful for having discovered this channel. Sabine is great and I love her explanations 👏👏
@Jay Eifler yea totally. I love her non bullshit delivery. The accent adds some sort of touch, too, not gonna lie
As someone who is open to metaophysical comcepts, I love it how she always challanges my own worldview and makes me aware of the weak spots of my conclusions.
She didn't disprove that "the universe was made for us", but rather she pointed out the fact that we connot prove it scientifically. This doesn't implies that the statement is false.
The fine tuning argument is no other than yet another lazy attempt to smug a god without having to prove anything
@@Aguijon1982 prove what exactly?
@@iliasbk8886
Without having to prove that a god exists
@@Aguijon1982 what proof do you need to consider it a proof? In my view the fine tuning argument is an argument for the existence of God. One cannot use science to prove or to disprove God, so how the proof should be from your point of view?
"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."
-- Douglas Adams
Now, all we have to do is to find a conscious puddle...
Namely if the puddle is in the way of a bypass being built.
Great author, but I think he forgot about phase-transition:
"Water as a gas-vapor is always present in the air around us".
I'll leave it up to others to decide how powerful omnipresence is:-)
The universe has been finely tuned by the Easter Bunny so that the chocolate does not melt until you have it in your mouth.
That makes sense, my favorit explanation from now on.
@@Denis.Collins Don't you?
Thank goodness!
@@Denis.Collins So how do you explain chocolate?
It then makes sense, that's why wolf/dogs are killed by chocolate
Thank you.I love the input. I frequently thought about these things myself, but never came to this, quite logical, conclusion. But I also never had anyone to talk about these things with.
Yep, very good arguments. It indeed silently assumes that the constants of nature COULD be different, which is... something we might never know whether it is true
"Why are we here? Because we're here. Why does it happen? Because it happens." -- Neil Peart, drummer and lyricist for the band RUSH. RIP Neil.
Peart was a pretty shit person, to be honest.
Roll the bones.
@@TiagoMorbusSa just because he refused to let vapid admirers slobber all over him after concerts did not make him a "shit person" spitting on a dead man's legacy however makes you a steaming puddle of diarrhea.
@@kevint1910 Yep. He was a thoughtful and well-respected guy, and could not have cared less about CZcams trolls.
Neil Peart stands alone.
“I always thought something was fundamentally wrong with the universe“-hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy
"That's just normal paranoia, everyone has that."
I think the biggest argument for a “designer” or entity is that there is order from what seems to be chaos even at the most fundamental level. Order is something that we consider to be linked to consciousness. Error correcting codes in nature do seem to be a big factor towards aiding order but that begs the question where does it originate and what drives it. The fact that things in nature are quantised also indicate design but hey this is mere speculation and acute philosophical reasoning.
I love that you have a practicle mind with your scientific knowledge!! Awesome!!
We are finely tuned to operate and live in our universe, not the other way around.
I think even that isn't truly correct.
I would say that: we are roughly tuned to live in part of our universe.
@@greyjakson922 A valid point, since we can't observe the vast majority of the rest of the universe due to the cosmic horizon.
No silly! Your logic is wrong. We couldn't exist at all in any other universe. Create a different environment in a lab...and watch as you CAN'T get life from it ACCIDENTALLY!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🙄
Create a different environment? How? In the context of this video, when people refer to fine-tuning we are talking about the constants of nature which are by definition impossible to change. It is literally impossible for you to know whether life can exist in a "different environment" or not.
@@TokyoTraveller No it's even worse than that. Given the constants of the universe, we are only adapted to live on a thin layer around one tiny speck of dirt. Anywhere else and we would die from suffocation.
We are not even tuned to live in almost any part of our universe.
What would be really unlikely if the constants turned out to be incompatible with human life.
Best joke this week!!
Perfect !
> Scientists calculate human existence is mathematically impossible.
> Humans everywhere cease to exist.
@@Kurushimi1729 I was a Monty Python fan also.
Great explanation. Thanks for your good work
I think the probability argument is a little more complicated than that. We have two possibilities, (1) that the only values that these constants can have are the ones they have now, which are the ones necessary for life or (2) that they can be any value from a set of numbers that contain only a narrow range of values that are necessary for life. In this second case this branches again into two options, (2a) That there is only a shallow range of possible values for the constants, which means which means that there is some mechanism which selects these possible values, which means their is evidence that the mechanism itself favours, to a degree, a set of life necessary values, or (2b) There is an arbitrarily large number of values with only a narrow range which is necessary for life, which leads to the simplified way in which the probability argument is presented. This leaves us with case (1) and (2a) which present some evidence to support the expectation of a universe with some form of life focused teleology, and (2b) which is the probabilistic argument, which can be used to provide evidence either for the aforementioned teleological expectations (in the case of 'fine tuning'), or for a multiverse system (in the case of 'infinite possible worlds'.)
The universe is finely tuned for death, life is just a prerequisite.
Or the universe is fine-tuned for the worst substance in the universe. All animals produce a very bad substance which is even the worst substance.
It seem the universe is just a cyclical creative, destructive and recycling process.
@Clash Clan wow you sound super intelligent I wish I was as smart as you hahaha
I can relate to this fully as true .
@Clash Clan no some dummy like you recommend this crap
I was just thinking to myself "where is Sabine?" and suddenly there she is.
Must be a superpower. Can you teach me how to do it?
I would like to answer this question _"Where is all the money on my bank account?"_
Me too! Evidence she is made for us.
Excellent video as always! Thank you so much for spreading science and logical thinking into world!
I am but a lowly liberal arts major, but I want to say, thank you, thank you, thank you, for using the logical term “begging the question” in the proper way. It doesn’t mean, as it’s popularly used, “it makes one want to ask” it’s just a fallacy where you sneak in your conclusion as one of the premises of your argument. Thank you. And, btw, I really enjoy your series, thank for that, as well.
Interestingly enough, people that claim that life on other planets is likely because the universe is extremely large are in a way commiting the same fallacy. We cannot measure probability of life because we only have one example, which is us and even here life was generated exactly once and only once (specially when talking about inteligent life).
Yes it is true that the sample of planets is tremendously huge, but there is no known limit on how small can the hypothetical probability of life be. It might just as well be so small that we could be considered lucky to even exist, we don't know, there are no measurements.
This argument tends to be based on assumptions about similarities to humans. We absolutely can test how many earth like world's there are, how many are in the goldilocks zone, how many probably hold water and carbon.
So in reality these calculations are more estimates of the likelihood that human-like life exists elsewhere in the universe.
But yeah there's so much uncertainty in many parts of the calculations that I would be reluctant to say we could even be confident that there was another from of intelligent life in out whole observable universe.
But that's no to say we can't refine the numbers and get some useful bounds out of them.
There is no reason to think the beginning of life was generated exactly and only once. It likely happened many times, but needed many attempts for the circumstances to be correct for it to survive long enough to sustain and spread. It likely happened many times after, but with the earth already being full of life with a huge evolutionary advantage it would be extremely unlikely for it to survive long.
Estimating the probability of life existing on a planet is tough, but we do have data to base it on, there is just a very large uncertainty because of many unknown variables. Based on the variables we know it seems life had a high probability of eventually existing on earth, by extension this means planets very similar to earth also has a high probability of life existing on it. We can also do rough estimates of how many planets are similar to earth. This is a fair amount of data to base it on.
Whats different between existence of life and the constants of the universe is that we have a good idea of what the requirements for life to exists are, while we have no idea if the constants of the universe could have been different.
@@avon8794 and Sabine. This is a massive matter to talk scientiically. You didnt mention intuition or consciousness. Multiverse only tosses the can down the road, and a very long one at that. I am a former atheist turned Jehovahs witness an you did not mention the Bible which is universally misunderstood. Leaving the Bible, (a book that has seen fulfilled 100s of prophecies without fail, some in our day) I shall keep to the empirically known facts in the field of biochemistry, keeping intuition in mind. All cells average 25 nanometres in diameter. It is not disputed DNA in the human nucleus has at least 90 TRILLION bits of info in the CODED form of 4 different molecules . It has 5 repair mechanisms that inspect and repair copying errors, splicing them out and inserting the correct info. Also in the nucleous is a machine (nucleolus) that makes Ribosomes Protein factories, in the 100s of 1000s that are distributed , scattered thoughout the cell, most going to an organelle located alongside the cell nucleous. I am 77 and forget its name "rough something) Ill look it up later. You probably know it Sabine). There are 3 main RNA macro molecules that are essential to produce protein. In every ribosome
2 of the RNAs do their thing out there in the cells plasma, asociated with a specific Ribosome The 3rd is Messenger RNA. When a protein of a cell wears out the Messenger RNA to enter the cell nuclous is selected and it enters the nucleous the the precise spot on the DNA ladder and copies the info in the form of CODONS. This an extremely complex process as it has to read backwards and forwards since the basepairs of the molecules on the ladder requires. After another process the MRNA leaves via one of the nuclear pores and heads to the selected Ribosome in the cell plasma. The ribosome RNA translates the codons and the TRANSFER RNA either seconds or makes the 20 DIFERENT AMINO ACIDS and takes them to the Ribosome and they form a peptide that stretches out to one side of this 54 proteined machine (the Ribosome). Smaller strands self fold into a 3 dimension shape. Larger strands of ribosmes some times have over a1000 a acids and the average is about 600 are fed into a mysterious machine and folded therein. It is not know how it does so, all that is know is out comes the protein ready for transport to where in the cell it was requested. This an extra brief description of how proteins of all life are made and these machines continue 24/7. If I were to type out it all I would be up all night. I finish with a quote from Paul Davies who since he wrote this has escaped into the multiverse of which you well know has not a shred of evidence to support. Continued
Each amimo acid has its own transfer RNA that makes i, or seconds it ,as it floats in the cell. The storage reservoir of the ribosome is called the "rough reticulum". An important fact about codons is that their mo;ecules must be in perfect sequence or it will get tossed out. There can be no 3 dimensional shape so that the protein will fit exactly as it must. Their are numerous other processes that must be carried out in order to make one protein. I did type out Paul Davies quote, not going to repeat it. To sum it up everything in the cell depends on everything else. Not 5 parts of a mousetrap, but 1000s of parts interdependent.
It's not the same fallacy at all. The probability of life can be tested (even if not right at the moment), the existence of universes where we, by definition, cannot exist cannot be tested.
This makes me think of one of my favorite artists of all time. Due to his passion and study of science, physics, and poetic expression. ~[Written By: Eyedea]: If someone grew up in a cubicle as Plato once suggested
They would only know the cubicle and not the world outside it
And they wouldn't view the cubicle as something geometric
We only know it's a cubicle because we live outside it
Now the one inside the cubicle can't comprehend his measurements
'Cause measurements are models made up for and by observers
Relative to their position on the outside of the cubicle
They understand objectively so they can study further
If I grew up in a cubicle the walls are limit my universe
I have no knowledge of the entirety like the outsiders do
If you follow what I say and can swallow the powerdered water
Close your eyes and open your minds, this one's for you
And the brain equals a cubicle we'll never think outside it
Now inside wanna try to tie a diagram to modify them
I'm a man as a hybrid of a body of a pirate
Of a soul that can fly without control
Realizing the brain takes in six billion signals per second
And most which of hidden and not given to the senses
Whether to do a few futile primitive tools to perception
livin in a universal pool of first hand deception
The mind's job is to recieve the signals
And block the ones out that don't coincide with imprinted symbols
That way the information you obtained is recognized
Reality is thinkable and comparable to space and time
It makes a map of the territory that gives us the gives us
The topic of the Copenhagen interpretation of modern quantum
Physics which states we dont know the meal
We only know the menu that our brains tell us is real
We dont know the rules of our heads
From inside these cubicles we cant see the truth
No one really knows exactly what happens when we think
Therefore we can never really ever know anything
This is the consciousness revolution
You got the right to think
Don't think about it just do it
(repeats stanza til fade out)
I guess you're referring to Plato's cave. I am not sure his concept was equivalent to the cubicle example.
I believe that the constants mentioned are all as they are currently, because they all interact with one another. Is not that "someone" had to tune them up to meet our universe unique form and nature. Let me explain myself: suppose a thinking organism can exist only in the surface water inside a glass. The water level is just perfect aligned with the edge of the glass, so that air, light and surface are in optimal condition for this thinking organism to thrive. More water would spill and kill the organism, less water would starve it from air,light etc. Is all perfect balance. The organism might think this balance has to be intentional, with a creator. However, from our point of view the water is at that level simply because of the glass is that tall. Water is contained by the glass, the glass shields it and don't allow water to spill. One affects the other one, and all together provides conditions (constants) necessary for the organism to thrive.
It was made for me. Not you. Not “us”. Just me. It’s MY universe. Now you get out of MY universe. I OWN this universe. - Jeff Bezos.
Jeff who?
"hold my beer" - Elon Musk
Seriously though, the universe was not made for any of us; we are just part of it.
Wait, I'm a bot?
dont he and musk give like no money to charity? douchelies
This question just reveal how our superiority complex is infinite
I would say our egocentricity but superiority complex is pretty close
Works both ways.
i don't think looking for something bigger than you shows ego
What I appreciate most about Sabine is that she only communicates facts and leaves out the propaganda
Thanks for pointing out the use of the phrase "begging the question" as a specific concept in traditional logic arguments. Today the use of the phrase has devolved into its literal meaning.
As in would you please please please ask that question again?
you really explain everything so clearly. all popular sci books fail in front of your logical and precise statements. ❤❤💐🌷
Clear but wrong.
@@virgiliustancu9293 Oh my goodness sounds like you have a plan to earn a nobel prize! Please explain her wrongness, I'd love to hear it.
@@6502Assembler Not only me but also many other smart people.
Example: Cosmological constant (which controls the expansion speed of the
universe) refers to the balance of the attractive force of gravity with a
hypothesized repulsive force of space observable only at very large size
scales. It must be very close to zero, that is, these two forces must be
nearly perfectly balanced. To get the right balance, the cosmological
constant must be fine-tuned to something like 1 part in 10 at power of 120. If it
were just slightly more positive, the universe would fly apart; slightly
negative, and the universe would collapse.
1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.... 1 is too small
There are many such constants that are fine tuned and a little change would make impossible our Universe.
This can lead to the logical conclusion of the Multiverse or other constructs that impose that our form of Universe is one of many others.
In her videos she always explains her point of view by: "It is what it is and any question why it is like that is irrelevant."
@@virgiliustancu9293 in essential Science, Physics explain How the universe works, and Religion/Philosophy try to find Why universe exists.
I think the scientists community already found proof of God, but it's not their goal to declare that statement. Mankind has been always debating what's his place in the universe, but it's clear that it has been designed for us.
Emptiness, chaos, null never could create something with logical, organized, consciousness and same time beautiful... life and universe is just perfect.
@@brunoricciardone2158 If any scientist has found proof of gods that scientist has done a really good job of hiding it from other scientists. As someone with a Ph.D. in physics myself, I found that most of the people that think that we found proof of the existence of one or more gods are neither physicists , nor scientists of any other kind. I think the problem is that people that are religious have is that they are desperate to find evidence for their wholly unsupported beliefs. I personally doubt that any homo sapiens will ever find out why the universe exists. As to our place in the universe, that is easy to understand, we are animals that, like all animals and other forms of life, are the product of a blind evolutionary process. There is no evidence that there is any guiding hand nor that our existence has any special significance.
The last 13.8 billion years have led up to this point: Us talking about the universe.
Assuming you believe time has never changed which goes against Einstein.
I’ve come to realize that the search for meaning is a waste of life. That all human life is just a cosmic accident, an arbitrary conglomeration of molecules evolved by chance into an organism with a brain stem, condemning it to ponder, futilely, the reason behind it all.
Frasier Crane
The last episode of cheers had a lasting impression on me in 2012
I have a game for you- it’s a treasure hunt. I’ll give the clue and you have to find the answers:
1.) Can you find the hidden cross in Numbers chapter 2? Hint, it’s pretty big.
2.) Genesis chapter 5- what do the names mean in Hebrew? Hint, Make a list from Adam to Noah on the left and on the right do the translation.
3.)Why did Jesus keep his miracles secret until the triumphal entry? Hint: 173,880.
1Cor6:9 - WE ARE ALL SINNERS. No one is better than the next. John 3:3 we must be BORN again. Jesus often says “Go, and sin no more”. Sinning after repentance is still sin- repent and be done with the world.
If events are causally anteceded by the events that precede them in time, how would it support the idea that our existence is therefore inevitable or necessary?
@@proximacentaur1654 Exactly, it doesn't. We just "are", as everything "is". More fascinating to me is what else is out there pondering the same, or has moved past its seeming irrelevance.
Congratualtions! You made it
That's an awful lot of space time for a youtube video. Not very efficient video production system.
She's straightforward NOT brutal. Love
I really enjoy these talks. I think you manage to get your messages over without all the guff. Thanks.
Just came here a few days ago: This channel is truly a treasure trove!
Maybe a quite late question: The constants of nature which are referred here - isn't it necessarily the way that we have admit an uncertainty with which we measure them? This feels like it is enough to think about the possibility if those constants can have a spectrum of values which could create different environments.
Btw. I love that dry, german humor an the quite reduced presentation - truely no blah of any kind.
Certainty is contextual, a product of a mind focused onto reality, not a property of reality or "God" beyond the mind. When all the evidence implies a conclusion and there is no counter-evidence, that is certainty. One may be wrong, w/new evidence, but the original certainty remains valid in its context. A is true in context B.
The universe was made special for me. Now get off my front porch
I've been hooked on Sabine since I first saw and listened; a few months ago. Fantastic woman!
Very thought provoking and informative. I would love to learn more about Bayesian vs. Frequentist models of probability though.
I will have to watch this again because I have to reflect some more on the arguments but this was a great illustration of the situations where though we would love to have science answer all teh questions we have, sometimes science just isn't equipped to answer them one way or the other.
you: "we would love to have science answer all teh questions we have, sometimes science just isn't equipped to answer them one way or the other."
Science is the study of Natural world.
What questions "science just isn't equipped to answer them one way or the other." ?
Sabine, is there a chance we could ever find you on lex Fridman podcast? Would love to hear your ideas in a 2-3 hour format.
Thanks for all the complex knowledge made accessible to us casuals!
Why does she need to go on a podcast to talk about her ideas when you're on her youtube channel where she talks about her ideas?
Tbh Lex is a terrible host for people who want to hear serious in-depth discussions. He's always asking these completely esoteric, philosophy-bro questions and redirecting the discussion away from the stuff the person wants to talk about. I think of him as basically Joe Rogan for the kind of people who "fucking love science."
@@avialexander so, I don't listen to lex because I have a life, but youtube used to spam me his clips.
Did he seriously spend a podcast talking about aliens because one guy thought he saw one?
@@iseriver3982 No? I mean, maybe? I wouldn't know, the last time I listened to one of his podcasts all the way through was the first geohot one. I've tried a few times since then because the guests sounded cool but I cannot get over how insufferable his questions are and how he pulls the discussion up to the lay level constantly, negating the whole point of talking to his brainiac guests.
Yes!
You are helping an astrophysics master get his knowledge and reasoning skills up to a new level. I love the no B.S. approach in your videos, where the subject is made important and not the way of presenting it to the audience. The internet has too little of that.
I know some other subjects have this, physics just has a bit of an issue with this I guess.
brilliant and nailed argumentation, Sabine on top
You certainly got my attention. You have a gift for explaining thing so even I find it easy to understand. So thank you. 😊🎸🇩🇰
Yeah, it would be great to hear about changing over time and space parameters.
I'd be particularly interested in a video on theories where constants are replaced by parameters that can change with place and time. In particular but not only the cosmological constant changing over time.
I don't think Sabine has noticed your interest in the theme.
So like maybe our lives my change or something like that ?😐 also I wonder could some of them repeat ?🤔or I’m I just thinking about trash 😑
You mean hypotheses, not theories. And they're just mind games - the constants are constant in the only universe we have any knowledge of or ability to test.
I absolutely loved her take down of FTA against a proponent, Luke Barnes. Sabine was so casual after she opened with, "It's not scientific...absolutely no point". Watching Luke try not to imply any science for the rest of the debate looked awkward. Go Sabine!
I enjoy Sabines videos and am a physicist. I haven't read all 6000 comments, not even a good percentage of them, but I didn't hear her say that she's talking about the "anthropic principle" here. I first encountered that mentioned in Hawking's "A brief history of time" and the point is that we have constants that permit our existence precisely because we are indeed here to measure them. Nothing more to say
"Man has created god in his own image..." -Voltaire
yup🔥
Man has personified God in his own image. Big difference.
Blasphemy! ;)
Umm, that sound sexist to me...
@@eljcd as in huMANity. There is MALE and feMALE.
I haven't heard it this well explained before.
I always just found the "fine tuning" or "intelligent design" approach untestable, self-serving, self-supporting and conveniently flattering (see how special we are?). The multiverse theory is similarly untestable. Both also seem to depend on a lot of assumptions.
Omg. Please speak more about this. You are the greatest.
The way I see it, the Universe doesn't suit the way we are, we are suited to the way the Universe is.
I love this woman's ability to evicerate the "gobbledygook" logic of other physicists and do it without being mean spirited -- just logical.
I agree! She was almost explaining it as if Spock were explaining. I like her style!
That puts her in a small club with Richard Philips Feynman...
@@benheideveld4617 Love Feynman. I watched him explain gravity once. Before I watched it I said to myself "Good luck, this is going to be stupid". After I watched it i said to myself "Holy shit, he just explained gravity!"
I could be mixing up gravity and magnetism though, but the same thought process I had.
@@6502Assembler Live long and prosper
"And why is that? It's because they are constant!" 3:08
Hilarious!
2:57
This is exactly the analogy I came up with the first time I taught seriously about the fine tuning argument.
This objection was so obvious to me that I never understood why people didn't present it almost at all.
I like how Sabine is very open to this topic.
She saying that, among the evidences and light we acquired while living in this world.
We are free whether we believe and trust an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent God or not.
It's just that the universe is giving each and everyone of us the opportunity, whether to believe in God we do not know, or live a life like there's no tomorrow.
Dr Hossenfelder, thank you again.
A very unnecessary comment:
Descartes: To Do Is To Be
Sartre: To Be Is To Do
Sinatra: Do Be Do Be Dooooo
Love your videos btw.
What you really talked about in all of your videos is what I have always been curious about. This is amazing.
Please explain if the spirit really exists or we were just a bunch of cells created like a bio-robot powered by the Mitochondrial source and disappeared eternally after we die.
Thank you for putting into simple words what I've been trying to say about the fine-tuning argument. I argue that, in order to estimate a probability, one must first define a sample space (similar to Sabine's probability distribution). Of course, defining a sample space on the physical constants is statistical nonsense; there is no hypothetical bag from which physical constants are randomly drawn. Because constants are not random variables, they're constants. They are what they are because that's what they are. Frankly, I don't understand why so many brilliant physicists don't understand this.
As Sabine points out, defining a probability distribution on the physical constants is absurd. One could arbitrarily choose the Dirac delta distribution centered on the constant, in which case the probability of the constant would be 1... fine-tuning problem solved!
Can't believe I just found this channel! This is great!
Yes, I would love further discussion of the idea that physical constants could change over time or by place across the universe -- and also what ideas we have for how to test if this has happened!
I would like this also and wouldn't mind if it went deep on math.
I don't think that the "changing constants" idea is a testable idea. Why do we call them "constants"? Because we HAVE TO consider them constant. If they changed rapidly, we wouldn't call them "constants", but "values" of some variables. Since they appear to be stable, we MUST assume they are constants, to have a reliable and stable playground for further investigations.
If we assume that they are not constant, then we can't say anything about the past and the future anymore.
@@andsalomoni Fair comment, but items such as the 'cosmological constant' are under serious review. There is quite a lot of evidence that it may be changing. There are questions also as to whether the fine structure constant is changing. I think it is useful to remember that constants are decided in the here and now. Only when we can investigate much earlier times can we really test for constancy.
The constants of physics are fine-tuned for us to constantly need larger particle accelerators.
I will just link to this video whenever I run into these sorts of simplistic fine-tuning arguments. 100x better than I could ever do.
I haven’t heard of Sabine before seeing this. But on the strength of this video, I’ve decided that I like Sabine and I therefore subscribed. I will even check out her book.
you gotta get on the sabine bus, she answers the big and interesting questions as best is known to humans
Also check out her music videos.
I would have liked to hear a discussion on the impact of how changing ranges of the constants would affect the universe. Some suggest that the ranges can be larger than what the popular discussion has postulated. Also the strong and weak anthropic principals and the Boltzmann Brain are captivating philosophical ideas that could use a scientific context. Being too dismissive isn't useful. There are fundamental problems in these ideas that should be brought out for discussion. Thanks for your hard work.
Boltzman Brain is exactly kind of thought experiment you should leave to the moment you go to take a crap.
Apparent randomness in particular part of system or in multilevel system doesn't mean chaos in other parts/levels of that same system.
"Being too dismissive isn't useful. T"
Quite the contrary, nonsensical philosophical arguments should be dismissed at hand so we wouldn't concentrate into useless questions.
"There are fundamental problems in these ideas that should be brought out for discussion. "
No, they aren't fundamental problems. Probably for some philosophical mind but not for physicists.
"I would have liked to hear a discussion on the impact of how changing ranges of the constants would affect the universe."
Why exactly? Into what basis this discussion would have?
@@markiv2942 Sabine brought up a philosophical discussion. So it is important to consider the components of that discussion. This isn't physics of course. If you have the chance to read up on these things, they are captivating none the less. The context that I use is to explain these ideas to religious people who are, like yourself, caught up on answers without considering the questions.
Astro-Physics Community (with 12,541 likes) has now given the following three writings the thumbs up. TOTAL PERFECTION:
E=MC2 AS F=MA CLEARLY PROVES (ON BALANCE) WHY AND HOW THE PROPER AND FULL UNDERSTANDING OF TIME (AND TIME DILATION) UNIVERSALLY ESTABLISHES THE FACT THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY:
A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Indeed, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Indeed, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA. Great. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. I have mathematically unified physics/physical experience, as I have CLEARLY proven that E=mc2 IS F=ma in what is a truly universal and BALANCED fashion.
By Frank DiMeglio
Mr. Boris Stoyanov is a super bright and an HONEST physicist. He has agreed that the following post is "crystal clear":
ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is proven by F=ma AND E=mc2. Accordingly, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. "Mass"/energy involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance consistent with/as what is balanced ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL force/energy, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Gravity IS electromagnetism/energy. That objects fall at the same rate (neglecting air resistance, of course) PROVES that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Think about it.
By Frank DiMeglio
THE SIMPLE, PROPER, FULL, AND BALANCED UNDERSTANDING OF THE SHAPE, FORM, AND RELATIONAL MOTION OF WHAT IS THE MOON IN UNIVERSAL ACCORDANCE WITH THE FACT THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA:
What is THE MOON is moving AND not moving IN BALANCED RELATION to the Earth AND the Sun AS a linked AND BALANCED opposite in accordance with the UNIVERSAL fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma. THEREFORE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON necessarily matches it's revolution; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the shape AND form of the Moon is basically constant or invariant. The Moon is a BALANCED MIDDLE DISTANCE manifestation or form that is in fundamental accordance with the Earth/Sun BALANCE pursuant to the fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma. GREAT !!! Therefore, the Moon is electromagnetically/gravitationally extended AND contracted ON BALANCE in true agreement with the fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravitational force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/AS what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy.
By Frank DiMeglio
Hossenfelder is knowingly and deceitfully lying about physics.
Great episode Sabine!
Thank you, very straight forward and very integer
Thanks. Your videos comfort me so much. I always come up with the arguments you show, and it's so annoying that these things get passed as "intellectual" thing that supposedly intelligent people believe and spend SO MUCH TIME discussing. Then I wish I could make them hear this, but I just don't have the proper channel. You do, and you explain it magnificently.
These are things intelligent people discuss, it´s just that they´re philosophers, not physicists. She´s coming from the point of view of a scientist. The idea isn´t uninteresting, you just can´t give it more scientific merit than it has based on data.
Could be that you are suffering of group think. Just reset your mind and start to think again. Maybe you wouldn’t suffer so much about others stupidity.
Great explanation again. I understand why they say "Intelligent is the new sexy".
Cringe.
@O. M. When men who want to oppress women take over they ban sexualizing of women and make women cover their bodies. Communist China under Mao should have been a feminist paradise by the no sexualization theory with its' unsex body covering garments but despite proclamations of women's equality it remained a very male dominated system with very few exceptions. Same of the rest of communist countries with no sexualization of women in media and body covering clothing.
Thus sexualizing of women actually gives them power. It the countries that sexualize women who have the most freedom overall. Many things are counter intuitive this is one of them. Not as clear in tropical climates but even there if a dictator takes over women are forced into traditional garb and porn and sex restricted.
The sexualization argument is actually a Victorian argument redone from men will not respect you if your sexy. The Victorian period very oppressive to women clearly more so than sexually loose times before it even if those times of course don't make modern standards.
I heard a really good analogy for what you're saying. Saying the constants are fine-tuned for our world to exist is like saying a hole is finely tuned for the puddle that fits in it. I think that's a clever analogy, until you realize that if the hole's shape were off by about one atom the universe would cease to exist...
you: "if the hole's shape were off by about one atom the universe would cease to exist..."
You didn't get the analogy.
The point of the puddle fitting a hole is : there is no fine-tuning, what is possible and what is probable is not the same.
The difference in point of view between classic probability theory and sampling theory is, roughly, that probability theory starts with the given parameters of a total population to deduce probabilities that pertain to samples. Statistical inference, however, moves in the opposite direction-inductively inferring from samples the parameters of a larger or total population.
I am one with you on this. The Ego of Humankind never ceases to disappoint me .
You had 8 Billion chances not to exist and some still want more they want to be the Special Creation of an all Knowing all powerful Being who Created an Entire Universe for us
What ego?
I love this thinking. Clear. Logical. No nonsense. Usefulness.
I like her. She's thinky!
Great talk. I am glad you made clear that you assume a frequentist view of probability, and I was thinking of Bayesian probability as an objection to your argument. I was left least impressed with your account of Bayesian probability not affording any inference to an explanation for the cosmological constants however.
Your example of the coronavirus as being unlikely, only considered prior probability but with the Bayesian equation we also need to consider the posterior probability -- given that covid did happen, what explains it?
I am not sure if you are assuming a 0.5 prior probability for life-permitting constants, or whether you are saying they are absolutely necessary, or affirming ignorance. Since you argue that we can not know the probability without a frequency sample, I suppose you would affirm that prior probability is unknown.
I think you are right that a study of our physics is limited to our universe, though it does seem hasty to imply we can not estimate the probability of the rate of inflation given initial conditions. I think a scientist would be open to the possibility of such knowledge, which would undermine your argument here.
It'd be interesting if we some day found out that it's simply not possible to have other values for the constants. Just because we can think of other values doesn't necessarily mean they can exist.
Thank you!!!! I've been trying to put this very concept into words but you've explained it PERFECTLY!!!
No...she explains NOTHING. She didn't even TRY to answer!!! She used word games...not SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
OK... so do you think the universe exists specifically for us here on earth?
@@5678efgh3
No. I think the universe exists because the SUPERGENIUS that created it..wanted it to be here. We can't even acknowledge that the smallest things are too amazing for the ACCIDENT OF THE GAPS FALLACY...like DNA CODE. HOW THEN...do we focus on things we CAN'T EVEN REACH???
@@thegreatbehoover788 So you're accusing her of not basing her statements on scientific evidence while you think that a "super-genius" creator spoke it all into existence? She's not even saying that this is not the case, she's merely pointing out that there is no scientific evidence that points to such being the case... whatever a person wants to believe is up to them, but if you say "it's objectively true" then you'll need to provide proof that indeed a super-being "did it" if you wish for your proposition to be taken seriously...
@@5678efgh3
DNA CODE PROVES DESIGN SILLY BOY!!! DNA CODE is the MOST SOPHISTICATED and COMPLEX and VOLUMINOUS CODE ever assembled. It's hypercomplex 4x4x4x4 3-dimensional CODE makes all MANMADE CODE COMBINED look like child's play...a joke comparatively. Microsoft CODE is a small, linear 1x2 code that has no self replicating technology, inferior error CORRECTION features, it needs a storage medium to reside on, and doesn't make anything live. DNA CODE is now being used as the MOST EFFICIENT DIGITAL DATA STORAGE SYSTEM...EVER. It is estimated that the data on the ENTIRE INTERNET could fit on a single vial of DNA....THEY'VE ALREADY PUT ALL OF WIKIPEDIA ON IT!!!
That's why Bill Gates admits it is "far, far MORE ADVANCED" than anything mankind has ever done. Only a SUPER-INTELLECT could do this....before mankind existed. THINK!!!!!!!!
So 100% of observed universes are the same as the one we have observed.
You can not compare statistics in the case of the universe constants but you can certainly analize statistics about the molecules needed for life and what is the proportion of aminoacids combined in precise way for the formation of proteins which are essential for life. So there is still a whole lot of arguments for the fine tuning of the universe in other fields of science. It would be nice to hear you debate someone like Stephen Meyer on this subject
At two universities, i asked to teach the statistics course (in Biology and Nursing schools respectively) because i think understanding statistics is SO important. Her explanation here is a great example. If you didnt have a feel for the prob. distribution, her excellent argument would be confusing. As usual, she concisely explains what a probability distr is, and why therefore it is pointless to make claims about the "probability" of a unique constant. (I think I'm a good stats prof because I had trouble learning it and can understand the stumbling blocks students can have in understanding)/ Thanks again Sabine!
In short, the video is trying to evade the question which asks where did the constants of nature come from. It is a valid question you know and it begs for an answer even if we don’t have statistics to infer probabilities.
Well, I think the question would be more accurately if asked in the form of "why are the constants the way they are", and not "where do they come from". Why do you think the video is about evading the question?
It’s an interesting question, but it’s a question which belies no answers. This question assumes that there is a “where” to have come from, an origin separate from our universe. It is like any other belief which assumes that something higher than this method of existence exists, and we have no way of observing it. Why ask a question if it gives no answers?
@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763
Because it is evading the question...just like you evaded mine elsewhere. It's a COP-OUT! The logic of this folly is...WELL, WE'RE HERE AREN'T WE???🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@lovecraftscat5044
Because ANSWERS EXIST for the question. You just don't like the EVIDENCE.
@@thegreatbehoover788 I talk to a lot of people. I don't remember you. Your "🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣" suggests that you are a troll and not interested in an actual discussion. As long as that is the case, putting any more effort into finding out what you are talking about or writing a longer comment would be a waste of time. If you are ever interested in an honest respectful talk, let me know.