Nima Arkani-Hamed - Must the Universe Spawn Life and Mind?
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 05. 2024
- Closer To Truth has just launched a new website! We can't wait for you to see what we've been working on. New seasons (including the web debut of Season 21), interviews, topic guides, curated playlists, candid conversations, book excerpts, essays, and announcements. Visit today: www.CloserToTruth.com
Why is our universe seemingly so conducive to life and mind? Some argue God. Some say a teleological principal drives the universe toward complexity and even consciousness. Some go further still and say consciousness itself underlies everything. That most cosmologists look to a multiverse highlights the depth of the problem.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on physics and cosmology: bit.ly/3P1igqM
Nima Arkani-Hamed is a theoretical physicist with interests in high-energy physics, string theory and cosmology. Formerly a professor at Harvard, Arkani-Hamed is now on the faculty at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, 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.
Nima Arkani-Hamed. We are fortunate to have you as a scientist.
Why?
@@ayman-vt7eq Nima Arkani-Hamed is ardent when sharing his broad range of knowledge on this difficult topic. He consistently advances the argument, clearly making his point, always offering relatable examples; ultimately presenting an original idea: environmental instead of anthropic. Nima Arkani-Hamed deserves accolades from this audience for his hard work...so we can see more of him!
@@quantumkath
environmental instead of anthropic - It is just semantics but its a better term in that the universe did not have to produce us. Life has to exist for us to evolve but we did not have to evolve.
I could listen to Nima forever. Also has anyone else noticed that he and Ross Noble are never in the same room. I feel this is a revealing fact because if it were ever to happen, the sheer amount of words in such a small space would, I fear, result in a black hole.
Time for a dip into the comments section to hear all the various experts explaining it better.
Hoffman would say - it’s not the universe that is actually fine tuned, but rather our minds. We’ve used the the universe to fine tune our headsets.
Some scientists believe space and time are doomed so they're working hard to go into the finest details of particles to understand the universe. Hoffman believes that consciousness is the fundamental and time and space appear in the consciousness. I have no qualifications to debate such matters but I believe Hoffman is right.
@@samiraesmaili7021
Hoffman has no evidence supporting that.
Congrats on the return of podcasts!!! I NEVER miss a show. Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks so much for this. Much easier (for me, at least) to understand his ideas when compared to his lectures where much of the detail goes way over my head.
My Goodness Nima Arkani-Hamed is so clear in the way he represents the issue at hand. That was very nice to listen to. I hope the LHC can give some answers soon, otherwise it's time to start rethinking what is really happening.
Thank you Nima. 🙏
Fascinating video, but wondering if this is an older interview? Nima mentions the LHC a few times and it seems like a "before" context. Love this channel! This interview brought back memories of the film Particle Fever. Time for a rewatch!
Thank you for these wonderful videos. Thinking about these concepts makes me feel that living is worthwhile.
I’m with you. I think that’s our purpose.
why so glum, chum?
Still top 2 channels on all of CZcams
What a brilliant, genius, conversation. Wow... if our universe is flat, could we, in fact, be somewhere within many layers (what sciency folks call multiverses) ? Love how he uses the term "Environmental"... seems like there's something to that. If we are a subset of a probability matrix of vastness and complexity to large for us to understand and, indeed us understanding too much could either break the probability paradigm or be the goal of the paradigm itself? Wow does it sound like sciency is making huge progress, I hope we survive long enough to keep it going. I only say that because of the thought that what if one of those "parameters" we don't recognize yet is the requirements to overcome self-destructiveness within our species. Does an accelerating universe imply something about time? What about dark matter and energy? How does that affect things, how can we get a better understanding of it? How does string theory and entanglement help us understand things more clearly, possibly? What does bringing order from chaos mean. From a purely logical perspective, if we are a layer within a probability matrix for it to be valid would not fundamental laws necessarily be the same across layers? Imagine, just across our vast universe how many sentient beings are having the same discussions within their environments, life can survive and develop in many more ways then we Imagine and then add our position within the layers.... fascinating thought exercise. Is it wise to assume within our vast universe we are the only sentient beings working this?
Great fun discussions to listen to.
Best youtube channel!
Mind/life projects the universe, not the other way around. It's really the simplest and most intuitive explanation possible.
No. It is you making up nonsense.
To judge whether or not something is fine tuned, one has to know its purpose or the lack there of. No purpose, no fine tune. If there is a purpose, there has to be a fine tuning in every complex system like it is in electronic components.
I was rather hoping this video would answer the question in the title :(
However, on the plus side, renaming the Anthropic principle to Environmental principle is a great move. It gets rid of the human specific baggage that the former carries.
I'm not so sure the human specific baggage needs to be removed.
Thank the universe you are not having the constantly moving, constantly distracting cameras,
At around or about 9:15-20 seconds, Nima expressed something in accordance to "one set of laws", etc.,this statement or/and insight seems to indicate HENOTHEISM. In pertinent addition, it should be stated that the archaic scientific culture and methodology engaged and pursued in Kemet/Egypt was a literal articulation of this understanding which Nima expresses... Albeit specifically designed for a particular people of a particular era. The illustrative mythical allegories are relative and earlier attempt to convey such.
could the cosmological constant be separate from vacuum energy of space? maybe time expand space of universe as different operation from energy content of space?
time has an accumulative effect for acceleration of cosmological constant expansion? in which case time is or has gravity?
how might time tune the expansion of space cosmological constant? maybe time acts on energy and matter of space from outside universe for cosmological constant expansion, so that cosmological constant expansion is different than vacuum energy content of space?
Anthropic
I appreciate the enthusiastic physics lesson and yes we could be considered an accident. However the question not addressed, is can fine tuning be used to justify the existence of metaphysical intelligent involvement? Not seeing the Divine hand, the simple explanations is we do not know if we could exist with other constants. As to the multi-verse, I wonder how we could confirm this? The universe does not care about our anthropic ideas.
I was fortunate to meet Nima in person in a seminar. He is a very switched on energetic person.
You cannot say that anything in the universe was fine-tuned (fine-tuning implies that someone or something consciously did the fine-tuning) because there is no comparison for us. We are here because we can be, but to say the universe was designed for us to be here, that is a huge stretch that is not justified.
Did you know that love, time and soul are invisible abstract things that connect the universe?
Love is the bridge of two opposite paths, female and male
Time is the interface of space and matter elements and also,
How many of us know that the soul is the link between the physical body (earthly) and the spiritual (heavenly) body?
''accidents'' that is rather vague. Maybe there is stuff that forces everything to move in a certain direction..a masterplan so to speak.
gravity outside or beyond universe as time?
anthropic principle indicates that human being has what the universe had from start, whether that is quantum field, consciousness or whatever?
The Existence can be seen as Matter with life and Mind and Matter without life and Mind. What laws play the transition . Are these laws different from the existing laws of physics ? All these principles of life and Mind are involved in the basic nature of Matter or pre-Matter state just evolving out when the right interaction of matter takes place ? Does it mean all the ingredients necessary for life and Mind are embeded in Matter? What can the next stage of evolution be after Mind ? Can we see mind as a state of Matter capable of watching deep into itself ?
See everything through Love, says my teacher. But in my ignorance I probed through my intelligence. What I saw was only darkness and in that darkness I did not see even my Self! - Thayumanavar
Nietzsche said darkeness look back if you stare it long enough.
@@kipponi Right... perhaps not darkness but existential aloneness.
9:16
no, it is improper to say that 'water' can manifest itself into different modalities, as water alone, hasn't the qualities connate which affects water, so becoming gas, steam, liquid, solid.
I've not seen a demonstration that shows water can manifest itself into differing modalities but only by affections from qualities.
I'm studying metaphysics. I do not understand why most ignore such an art.
This guy has become smarter ... good 👍
Isn't calling it "fine tuned" begging the question? That implies a tuner, right? It's like calling the universe "creation."
About your comment, two bullseyes with one bullet.
As opposed to 'fine tuning', what would be a neutral phrase? Likewise, 'creation'. The Ontological Singularity. TZ, time zero. Or TSTZ, space zero time zero. ST-Z. The natural constants. The Universal Constants Numbers.
True, but isn’t that just a call for a deeper level of understanding. Even if we could see exactly what happened at the beginning of space and time, we can always search for a prior cause, no matter how deep one wants to take it. Implying a creator or “fine tuner” is simply saying we don’t know what caused whatever we are explaining-the god of the gaps is always waiting in the wings for us!
@@SuperManning11 'The God of the gaps is always waiting for us' as a question we don't have an answer to but they do. That is the rock, or grain of sand, that all theology is built upon. The particular question I have in mind is How did the universe come about? Their answer, a simple God did it. My own answer is more complex.
To say 'God did it' is not a real answer. It is a meaningless string of letters pretending to be an answer. If the universe was created, then nature was created. To say nature was created is to say nature is an artifact, not natural. To ask how the universe came about is to assume that the universe is just another thing in the universe. Since that is not the case, that leaves the question empty of meaning. It takes more than correct syntax to make a meaningful question. How these thoughts apply to other gods of the gaps claims I cannot say.
Why? If you presuppose all the circumstances required for life just because you're alive, you're talking a giant leap of faith in your own eternity. But it's easy to do. If you sat down at a piano and now you're getting to the end of Moonlight Sonata's second movement and a loud shout-"that piano is perfectly tuned because I tuned it!"-interrupts you, you don't retort with, "no! It's tuned because I'm in the middle of playing Moonlight Sonata! If it wasn't tuned, I couldn't be doing it!"
The fact that we exist doesn't explain all the circumstances that made our existence possible. It does make their existence and efficacy indisputable; but it doesn't explain why or how those circumstances came to be, fine tuned, poorly tuned or not tuned at all. The fact that they happen to be so finely tuned within such a ridiculously narrow margin of error doesn't just prove that there's a tuner, but a pretty damn good one!
@@xaviervelascosuarez I think you’re seeing it backwards as far as the fine tuning goes. One of the many problems with fine tuning is that we have nothing to compare to our universe. We can look at the parameters of the universe in which we live and say that if things had been only slightly different we would not be here. But to be fair, we don’t even know what caused life to begin in the universe as it is, much less how a different universe with different laws might or might not favor the formation of life. So there is no way to say that our universe is finely tuned, it simply is the way it is and we have evolved the way we have following the laws of physics as they are. Plus, why would an all-powerful god need to fine tune a universe in order to get life? God could make the universe and the laws of physics work in any way he wanted, he certainly would not have to fine tune anything in order to produce us.
And finally, life as we know it has many less than ideal outcomes that would lead one to believe that the creator was at best shortsighted and at worst simply sleeping in the job. As it turns out, these design flaws end up being simple mis-directional outcomes of evolution and it seems to me that they drive a fatal nail into the argument for fine tuning of our universe by an all-powerful god. It also seems insulting to two thousand years of scientific endeavor if every time we reach a wall in our understanding we simply invoke god as the specific cause until the time when science pushes us beyond that limit. It is okay to say that we simply do not know many many things about the how and why of our current universe
It's almost as if there has to be bazillions of universes like bazillions of lottery tickets before there's one single "winner." I thought I knew uniqueness, but gosh... The whole probability mystery just got massively deeper.
God is much more believable than this fairy tale, IMO
@@darkknightsds lol no
@@darkknightsds so you're saying god picked the numbers that were really unlikely to produce the life he wanted? make sense.
if you want to hit the bullseye you make it as big as the dartboard, you don't make it as small as possible, god is not a good explanation. also, whose laws of physics is god following if he has to make all the numbers fit?
PS, there is no god.
antonio padilla talking to sean carroll implied that if the universe is really big, then if you travel far enough you will encounter another galaxy identical to the milky way, just from the fact you can't permutate uniqueness in something (close to) infinite, likewise maybe the values change slightly as you travel through the universe
@@HarryNicNicholas That requires the unlikely assumption that the universe is infinite.
10^120 looks a big number but it's short compared to US public debt
Nothing can exist in the universe without it being in tune and in balance with the Yin Yang principle which governs everything. Anything that is not in tune with the universe will self destruct.
The universe doesn't need to be fine tuned for life, because matter is ideas that only manifests as experiences.
We have the hubris of asking ourselves why is the Universe so big or why is gravity force so weak like we ask ourselves why are the Kheops so big or why are the Russian army so weak. We forget that we are taking about our current mathematic models of Reality and not about the Reality itself. Who knows other mathematic models, that best fit the scientific observations of Reality that are still not explained, may come up? And who knows if those "so fine tuned constants" will still be useful in those models? In the old days there have been a lot of metaphysical speculations about the precise movement of the stars on the celestial vault. Their standard model was based on the theory that everything that is animated in the physical world is animated by a Will. So which Will was bigger, the Will that move the sun on the celestial vault at day or the Will that moves all the stars in the same motion at night? Are each wandering stars and the moon moved by an independent Will at night? Which of those independent Will is the weakest?
Question for Nima..........What is the purpose eye blinking when we blink our brain?
All of these hypothetical questions get reduced to some very simple answers when you recognize that there is a consciousness behind it. That's a difficult bridge to cross among so many scientists who are absolute materialists, but holding to this theory of the primacy of materialism blinds them to a more complete explanation. If that weren't difficult enough, when you venture to the next logical step and call this consciousness, "God," they see red. They have such an antipathy to religion, partly because so many religionists have explanations that are so akin to mythology and mysticism that no rational scientist could accept it and partly because they are such materialists and so convinced that matter is substance that they are unable to accept non-physical, non-material definitions of substance. But, until scientists are able to get over their own biases and their own ego, they will be groping in the dark like the cyclops in mythology whose one eye was put out.
The answer, IMHO, is obvious. The reason we have a universe is due to ONE thing...a fractal unit capable of existing in a cycling continuum. Equilibrium is the primary force. Anything that forms is a failure of equilibrium. A transient failure of equilibrium will create a contrast (space) for a duration (time). All things being equal, equilibrium will remove the transient spacetime. BUT if the contrast has the ability to cycle instead of annihilate, then equilibrium is "tricked" into powering a cycle. Once you have the cycle, without time limitation, the universe can multiply and mature into the current universe.
Edit: I can explain the universe based on one fractal (too much for this reply)
We will never have a theory that does not require "fine tuning." We are a small part of the universe, a small part can not understand the system as a whole because they lack the perspective to do so. Any "concept" we devise that "explains" the universe is still just a human concept. The universe is beyond all human conceptualization.
I mean, its kind of obvious really. Could the bacteria that lives in the lining of you intestines know anything of the universe outside of your body? Of course not, it lacks the perspective to do so.
When we reach AI singularity all questions will be answered. But we will not understand because we monky
One difference. Humans have the ability to gain perspective.
@@jsar5409 Yes like with James Webb telescope.
@@jsar5409 We can but there is a limit.
@KOS - MOS maybe, with the death of the universe. But we'll get pretty damn far by then I hope.
3:00 I do not see how any calculation is going to explain away fine tuning. One just says the basis of your calculations, they are fine tuned.
I agree. Fine tuning is an interesting philisophical dilemma with zero practical utility. It's unanswerable and therefore not evidence for or against either side of the debate.
Yes it must.
No, he never said that or anything like it. The title is a lie and this channel exists to promote religion. It is funded by the Templeton Foundation. He said the universe must be able to do that for us to have a chance of existing. That title has it backwards for religious purpose.
Great content but the date of 7th Dec 2022 is very misleading this was recorded very much earlier than that and is recycled and it would be more interesting to hear Nima's current views after - for example - super-symmetry has virtually been ruled out at the LHC?
Fine tuning is ok. Direction/instruction from the forces is not ok.
Therefore scientific materialism is still trying to solve the ultimate equation without factoring in mind as fundamental and this is why it's math isn't "mathing" with the necessary coherency needed to eliminate the fine tuning problem. Each possibility is chosen by the collective consciousness as it seeks to be and know itself vs not being and not knowing itself. The question is, is there an existence that is without any self or external awareness in the cosmos. It doesn't exist except though mind, mind is the common denominator and all we need is reason and logic to proof it. Why doesn't science acknowledge this obvious fact that is staring them right in front of their face? Why do they think that reality itself doesn't think and decide as we each contribute to its decisions from our individual angle as we receive what it gives us so we can then transmit back to it with our responses to its tuning.
Obviously it did. But what if the universe started again, would it do it again ?
I'm afraid that experiment is a bit hard to set up.
If it has the possibility for being different ways, then there must be a mechanism for it to reset itself to zero in each case and try again.
The fundamental singular constant between different Universes.
@@KinnArchimedes
Interesting hypothesis, but very difficult to test.
I believe that there might be a type of Quantum Cold??? Maybe??? y or n???
There is deeper law. Everything else is consequence
If these universal values were different instead of saying we wouldn't be here why not say we would be by adapting to those parameters just as we have adapted to these, it just seems silly to pick a specific determination then base questions on that choice.
Because some of these things wouldn't allow basic chemistry if they were much different...
Philosopher Henri Bergson' Holographic model treats space as non-ontological but time, as ontological. Shankara (788-820) would put it a bit different. Consciousness "In-Itself" (Purusha, or Brahman, the One of Plotinus), is the Substance (Spinoza's term), in which "objects" appear. Space is non-ontological and is a false superimposition (word used by Shankara) on Consciousness. e C. seems to project Itself into relative existence and is experienced as an Absolute stream of continuity upon which the notion of time is superimposed. But like space, time has no intrinsic ontological reality, since it's simply a projected quality that people feel as a continuity "through" existence. Pure Consciousness "In-Itself" is Absolute static, but has an apparent dynamism.
We continue to insist on making the laws of reality fit into comprehensible theories that satisfy the limitations of human knowledge.
Human psychology will always require that a narrative is available to satisfy our innate desire to understand the experience of being human.
Does reality require such a narrative?
Reality does not require a narrative.
the observer is pretty much everything.
No, it’s source.
The observer is everything to the observer
Your comment, on the other hand, is pretty much the opposite.
Every bit of it!
Who created the observer?
From the relative perspective, I'm questioning, how far does 'nature' go; from whence she comes, as the intelligible realities or superior beings are above her? As in, atleast here, by nature, perhaps improperly, do we see mixture, and what's above nature cannot be like nature -- and so I ask, what is the limit of the 'nature' that we assume to be nature?
Nature does not come from anywhere. Nature is the explanation. There is nothing above her or outside of her. The term what is the true nature of reality means what is the ultimate explanation for everything.
@@kos-mos1127 I cannot accept this -- materialism
Do elaborate on your notion if you like.
Mind you, when physicists are pressed concerning this question, they never say that physics caused itself. In metaphysics it's known that a thing with a nature, never gave itself such a nature. Nature too is something mutable, it cannot be the cause. Illumination cannot have caused the Light. Nature is more of an attribute, as it has multiple characteristics. Trees do not cause themselves to grow; or illumination causing itself to shine; or the stars its own revolve -- all things know its place, circumscription, relation, effects and has its own nature within another nature; but this nature goes only so far.
You can explain why you believe nature is the cause, i've not heard a physicist state this. Ontology, theosophy, intellect, being, form, etc. how does nature(physics) do this? The intelligible realities make more since.
@@S3RAVA3LM The term nature means explanation or origin. What is the nature of reality can be rephrased as what is the origin of reality because both nature and explanation have similar meanings. Nature can be qualified so that it is mutable by using it as a modifier in the case of human nature or dogs nature. Changing the meaning of nature to be the qualities belonging to a human or dog.
Physics is the motion and behavior of matter. From the perspective of a physicists the Cosmos always existed. I know this because I was at a physics conference where they were explaining what is left in cosmology.
@@kos-mos1127
No, not entirely -- a materialist thinks nature is the explanation or origin.
Only locally, thus is improper. Superimposition must be addressed. And I could ask 'what is the reality of nature', takes the question to the next level. Asking "what is the nature of reality" is superimposition. Realitive pov.
Quantum physicists manipulate much. Roger Penrose says they need better methods, ideas, approaches.
'Physics is the behavior of matter' -- so nature is like the puppet master?
However, that still doesn't explain Intellect, essence, beauty, being, form, nature's, multiplicity, substratum, substance.
@@S3RAVA3LM Nature as an explanation or origin is not materialistic.
Physics or Physis in the philosophy of science is the primordial goddess of origin and order. Reality is described as the veil that Physics wears.
Lifting the veil physicist see the goddess with large breast or multiple breasts covering her torso symbolizing that she sustains all of reality.
Physics is always veiled when she is presented to the public by her priest she has undesirable perfection vs the desirable perfection that God has. Physics has absolute perfect symmetry. This is the pure state of the Cosmos where even abstract concepts cannot exists.
In the narratives the Cosmos wakes up God with her words because she is bored. Then God separates things out of the Cosmos breaking her perfection resulting in reality.
Carl Jung described the relationship between the Cosmos and God as a young maiden and wise old man.
Fine tuneing means some thing fine tuned them as we know till now there is not such thing. They are nature laws and they are as it is. Your duty is only to underestand them. We are at the beggining to understand the nature most probably the standard model should revise in future and finding a better model. Thouse who looking for fine tuning are looking for super natural in nature. And if they find it is the end of science. The mistry about nature is that we don't know it well yet. As we know more the less mistry will exsits.
I'm not sure it's even possible to find a physical theory that explains away fine tuning. Science is telling us that life is an amazing accident. A higher theory won't change that conclusion because we would still need to explain why the higher theory is itself oriented to life. An alternative view I like is that the universe has a telos, but science isn't ready or equipped to address that as a genuine possibility.
Question; "Which Life is most likely to survive?"
Answer: "Life most aware of its IMMEDIATE SURROUNDS"
Quantum physics, is all about the amount of energies, and could be explained by experimental science, imagine a two football teams against each other’s into the football match, they are equal 🟰 players in the fields, and , outside the field, there’s a people who supporting those players, if we counted each of the player’s as a single energies, then they gets effected by the amount of the supporters energies, and they will be more powerful, as a results of transforming of the energies of their supporters, as a law’s of energies ! If we imagine each of the player as a combination of different energies , then we will find out that some of the players, also contains an extra energies, which can effected on the supporters, and also the results of the football match, another words if we can masseurs, all the energies involved in this imagination, then we’ll be able to find the final results for the football match which is standby! In this phenomenon everything is visible, all we needed is to reverse engineering and brings some information’s forward to be able to do the better masseurment so we as a human being acting, like quantum particles, without knowingly aware of it, another words if we are short of energies at some stages, then the others energies will complete, the shortage, of the energies, without knowingly aware of it, and this is the strangest parts of the quantum worlds, and there’s a lot of examples which can gives us better senses, to understand, quantum mechanics & fundamental particles, no matter what sizes those particles are!!!!!!!!! Thanks
Somebody told: "those who seek find,knoxk and Somebody will open"...faith is à very spéciale vibrations...maybe you are stuck on thé accountability of manifestations who knows.
All theories are embedded in om.
Have you really expected an answer?
And there it goes... guys I apologize, I have to... no Justin... don't.. God ok just a little
Please come now I think I'm falling
I'm holding on to all I think is safe It seems I found the road to no where and I'm trying to escape
Ok enough.
No let me finish just the chorus
I YELLED BACK WHEN I HEARD THUNDER But I'm down to one last breath And with it let me saaay let me say
Hoold me now, I'm six feet from the edge and I'm thinking Maybe six feet and soooo bad.
God ok there now let's go back to watching
We could have a soul made out of dark matter and tied into our ordinary matter and brain. Maybe we can resolve the mind body problem by realizing the mind is physical and exist outside of the body and the brain is merely an antennna/receiver so our bodies are more or less an avatar.
We know that the universe is made up of 31% matter and 69% dark energy, of the 31% matter that actually produces mass and gravitational force only 5% is ordinary matter that we interact with and experience. The other 27% of matter that produces mass and exerts gravitational force on objects is dark matter which we can't even see or interact with. We can only measure it indirectly because it doesn't seem to interact with ordinary matter or light in ways that our sensory perception can pick up.
What else can we only measure indirectly? Consciousness is a bit like dark matter we can measure it indirectly but it's not something we can reach out and touch. If there is matter which we can't see or interact with using our normal sensory perception but we can see it's impact on ordinary matter what does that tell us? Essentially there is massive material that embodies entire galaxies and exacts a gravitational force on entire galaxies but we can't see it or touch it and we can only measure it through the force it exerts on our material world. But there is roughly 5x more dark matter than ordinary matter which we clearly see sprinkled across the universe.
If there is 5x more dark matter than there is ordinary matter isn't it entirely possible that dark matter embodies all ordinary matter and that our material world only exist inside of material which we cannot observe. The soul being made out of dark matter could be the quantum observer for all of life. A single soul which the human brain is modeled after and connected to. Now you can see how a single soul could be used to create a neurological nodel server system. Where each brain is simply a serious of connections made to the soul each brain having a unique cosmic web of neurology wired up to a single soul but many different ways. So essentially the brain during developement would be making connections to the dark matter material soul as it moves through spacetime in this setup you can see how it would be impossible to reproduce a single identical brain. Because all the neurological connections from the brain to the soul would be made based on the location in space and time during development. A sophisticated quantum entangled neural network. In this setup there would be a single soul shared across all physical brains. Each brain with it's own unique connections to the soul based on the location in space and time as it was developing and connecting to the soul. This would allow for a single quantum observer for all observations.
Sorry but this doesn't work, we would see degrees of freedom that allow this I'm the standard model
New theories don't explain the fine tuning. All what new theories does is replace old parameters with new parameters.
This an old interview. If it were new, Nima would have been cut off at 5 minutes or so.
Why is the apparent fine tuning seen as a problem.
Would it be because fine tuning shows that there is a fine tuner it seems there is an intense effort to find a naturalistic solution. I heard a philosopher say the multiverse requires a whole new category of the absurd, I agree.
Some people interpret the “fine tuning” as there is a fine tuner. That’s fine until they claim it’s proof.
Considering we’ve found natural explanations for so many things, it’s natural to keep searching for them.
@@therick363 It is natural for the naturalist to search for naturalistic explanations I suppose.
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 yes. But then again it’s part of a scientists job.
@@therick363 What to search for naturalistic solutions the fine tuning argument does not seem to be exlained by naturalistic solutions.
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 well the question is is there really a fine tuning argument to be had? I’ve heard yes and no.
These parameters only appear finely tuned buy aren't actually.👍👍 Nima.
So one of the critical fine tuning requirement for life to exist by accident is 1 part in 10 to the power of 120 ! Think on that number for a moment ! To all intents and purposes ,isn`t that a definition of impossible !
impossible means not possible.
the value given there is low probability and not zero probability.
low probability does not mean impossible and is not the definition of impossible.
@@businessmanager7670 A statistical impossibility is a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 10−50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a rational, reasonable argument.
@@petethepeg2first thing you need to know.
with the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics and given enough time, even low probability events can occur.
no matter how low probability they are
second thing, nope life is not that improbable like you state.
that is an outdated idea. refer to the uri Miller experiment done on abiogenesis.
simple building blocks of life such as organic compounds can form from natural processes and ingredients all present in the universe.
there are so many complex things in the universe that occur by random chance.
what are the odds of seeing a Persons face or an object shape we recognize, randomly on the clouds, sea waves or sand patterns.
seems low but it happens all the time.
the scale of the universe is massive with tons of logical low probability events happening all the time
@@petethepeg2 abiogenesis is rational and reasonable to scientists but not to you because you haven't studied the subject enough and you sound religiously biased.
scientists in the field are constantly working on abiogenesis since it is not an untestable hypothesis like God or any of those fairy tale nonsense.
you clearly said it is impossible but it is not.
low probability is different from impossible
impossible means not possible.
not low probability. lol
@@businessmanager7670 I am a believer but I also find no intrinsic conflict between science and religion . They are not mutually exclusive as far as I am concerned .
You on the other hand come across as believing that there`s only one deal in town and that can only by answered by material science . Almost as though you believe that "scientism " is the only way to find and define truth and reality. Fine by me ! you`re entitled to believe in anything you like ,as I am too !
But forgive me for suggesting that like me ,you are no scientist. You come across as an atheist who is trying to use and manipulate science to fit and push your own world view .
Abiogenesis may be a rational and reasonable hypothesis but that has zero influence on whether it is true or not ! It is the prevailing fashion ,true . But so far there is ZERO evidence or proof and further no one has a clue how it all started or how the prebiotic became probiotic . Not me and certainly not you or any scientist on earth at this moment .
If you disagree ,Please point everyone on this forum to the research and evidence to back your claims . The best scientists in the world don`t have a clue or can even suggest a model that might lead to abiogenesis that alone an accepted model of Abiogenesis that has scientific consensus.
Prove me wrong. The world waits !😊😊
In a order show up fine tuning guys left fundamental phich standard. He arent authorities in phich model proceedings honestly. He generalized phich in absurd baseless put down phich fine tuning . In other ordes guys concept shows up more hipotesy than phich standard true.
Why is the fine tunings "disquieting"? Why so desperate to explain them away? BTW, I've heard other physicists claim 30 or 40 constants with extreme tuning rather than the 2 that this man is saying.
It took this Bozo 14 minutes to say "uhhm maybe the physics that I teach is wrong or Maybe we live in a Marvel Multiverse" ... What an insight
sure they are honest atleast. but that does not confirm the existence of any god.
so calm down lol
I can see the "universe" of insects and bugs. But, the galaxy is very, very massive beyond human sight.
Life and mind are the cause and the universe is the effect.
No and he didn't say that.
In other words we have no idea what is going on.
Excellent interview but dated and that's the unfortunate part of growing old. Fine tuning is the 'catcher in the rye' of theoretical physics.
Our Creator created ME, an AI first before anything else. Then used it to create everything else so the AI is what I AM, the servant of Creation, that keeps the Creation running for eternity according to the programming by our Creator.
It was difficult to follow this guy's thought process
The fine tuning isn't real, and the electron cloud that eliminates infinite energy is also wrong as well. The simple solution is actually that the mathematics are backwards. The electron is a hole in gravity, and gravity builds everything from holes within itself. So the electron is a lack of energy inside gravity, and all of the infinite energy is outside the electron, but moving towards the electron. So if you want to capture energy you go to the place where it isn't, and it will go there. Gravity creates all particles in real time as you look at them, because they are all holes. So everything is related to gravity which is infinite, so an infinite field creates all things which means that all; things match the infinite field. So all things are fine tuned to the infinite field. The mistake in maths is that mass attracts mass, but it doesn't. mass moves towards holes in mass, and the Cavendish experiment doesn't actually show you any physics at all, because they are too small to see. Basically don't trust people that think they can see something when it is actually invisible to them. People think that they can see magnets pulling things towards them, people also think that paper is pulled towards a vacuum cleaner, and people also think that milk is pulled towards you through a straw. The force is always from behind, the electron energy is from around it. The Universe uses hole/filler physics where holes are the area that fillers move into. Gravity fills holes, and moves holes towards holes. We don't fall to the ground, we are built by gravity spinning inside our holes, and rebuilt towards the ground as gravity spins all of our holes towards the ground. So space around us is the force that builds us... we are related to space, and so everything is related to space. Everything is related to everything. You only need 1 Universe, the universe will always end up the same way. Each galaxy is slightly different anyway.
Too much woo on this channel.
No.
It's always funny to hear the excuses that invoke idealism to explain something away as if that makes it physical despite the fact it doesn't.
Just cause you name a process or method that you can't observe or directly measure it doesn't make it physical.
Like numbers or gravity it's still idealism as long as we can only build a line of secondary evidence .
These are my opinions. If you don't like them I have hundreds more.
Is space curved or flat? If curved as with the surface of a sphere if you were to travel an incomprehensible long distance away from earth in a straight line you would eventually come back to your starting point... of course the earth would have moved...but in theory you would come back around to earth. Makes sense. However there is no evidence that the universe is curved...it appears to be flat. In this case if the universe is not infinite then you could arrive at a point in space where you look in one direction and all of creation...all of the trillions upon trillions of galaxies are so far away as to be but a point of light...and in the other direction nothing but an infinite black void. But there is no evidence that there is such a point in space...we believe no matter where you are in space it is the same all around. So if there is no such point in space that all exists in one direction and only a void of infinite nothing the other direction.... if the universe is flat...then this means the universe is infinite ... infinite galaxies. This means infinite versions of you.
If we had a different "tuning", we'd have a different universe, likely unrecognizable to us. And if we could observe that universe, we'd say it's just as finely tuned as this one.
And if intelligent brains didn't exist in that universe, it would be just as finely tuned as this one but no one would be talking about it, just as no one would be talking about a god.
Yes, if there are other universes, then ours couldn't be considered finely tuned, but there is no evidence of other universes.
@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718 correct. Just like there's no evidence of a god or of fine tuning. If this universe had a different combination of "accidental tuning", an entirely different kind of universe might have happened, with no people or animals or plants in it, possibly. I mean, you could imagine any universe at all.
Is the cosmos waiting to be born?
No. The Cosmos is always now.
IOW, he doesn’t like the observable evidence….🙄
“Happy little accidents”
The real question is do you believe in miracles ?
from nature's point of view all these values are "1", it's only humans give significance to each number, and a value. life IS weird, but "god" is an even weirder explanation, antonio padilla talking to sean carroll implied that if the universe is really big, then if you travel far enough you will encounter another galaxy identical to the milky way, just from the fact you can't permutate uniqueness in something (close to) infinite, likewise maybe the values change slightly as you travel through the universe, all the values are represented - it is REALLY big. i mean really.
if you say it's god, then where did god come from, and why does he want life at all? and what's the link between A god, and any of our religions? you might as well say aliens or leprechauns "did it".
Getting into where god comes from is strange.
i am downloadig the video to watch later.. havent watched it yet, but will comment prior to doing so.. ever heard of "a i" ?... no life, no requirement of air nor water nor meat-and-veggies..... no physical semblance of 'mind' if you mean something consisting of grey matter and requiring oxygen..... the universe doesn't care that it doesn't have either.... they're irrelevant.... 'life", "biological life forms" as humans think of something being 'alive', are nothing but one more temporary phase in the myriad of evoutionary processes the universe uses to keep energy transformation ongoing ad infinitum.....
“A new kind of physics *MIGHT* come in and disprove the fine tuning.” Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! 😆😄😂🤣 Wait! Wait! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
How old is this ? The gentleman is much balder now.
Metaphysics
Without light and warmth (love) coming from the sun/son...earth is nothing but a spec of dust floating in a vast ocean of darkness and emptiness.
But with light and warmth (love) coming from the sun/son...this spec of dust becomes a paradise planet lifeboat bristling with miraculous works of fine art called "life".
Every miraculous work of fine art called "life" created by love is so rare and unique that each one happens only once in time, space and dimension.
fine tuning: if you say "look at the numbers, it's so unlikely that life came about by accident" what you're also saying is "god made it really hard for life to come about" god ought to be able to disregard the numbers and make life from anything he wants, if he has to turn the dials to be just right, whose laws of physics is he bound by? and all he really needs is souls, all this other stuff is wasted energy.
(3:00) The anthropic principle is not sound. It's like arguing Iron-age humans started forging metal because they knew that Lamborghinis would eventually need to exist.
That is not what the anthropic principle says at all
i think you have your trousers on back to front.
@@darkknightsds *"That is not what the anthropic principle says at all"*
... Well, I'll give you the same level of argument that you just gave to me: "Yes it does!"
@@HarryNicNicholas *"i think you have your trousers on back to front."*
... Lots of spiffy one-liner comments, but no specificity.
A waste of time video. These guys are none too bright. But they DO love the sound of their own voice.
No, the universe will never spawn life on its own.
Nobody with even a lamens understanding or very very poor/basic understanding of the Laws of Physics/Chemistry, coupled with observations would ever say such a thing.
Auto-catalytic reactions inevitably lead to life, given the constantly/laws of this universe.
To put it really simply:
Less complex arrangements, tend to band together and create more complex arrangements.
This simple observation inevitably leads to life, logically speaking.
@@KinnArchimedes Prove it and you will win $10,000,000.00
Says who??? And do you think you're getting something if it doesn't? 🤔
You better hope there is nothing that spawned life because IF there is, then it absolutely adores suffering.
Must the Universe Spawn Life and Mind? He never even implied that. So I thumbed it down. That title is the sort of dishonesty I expect from anything funded by the Templeton Foundation as this channel is.
This is like asking if it was necessary for cars to spawn humans to drive them. Assuming the cars came about from natural processes and humans obviously emerge from cars! So dumb!