Lee Smolin - Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 พ.ค. 2024
- Free access to Closer To Truth's library of 5,000 videos: closertotruth.com/
If the deep laws of the universe had been ever so slightly different human beings wouldn’t, and couldn’t, exist. All explanations of this exquisite fine-tuning, obvious and not-so-obvious, have problems or complexities. Natural or supernatural, that is the question.
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on fine-tuning of the universe: rb.gy/jrhpv
Lee Smolin is an American theoretical physicist, a researcher at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and an adjunct professor of physics at the University of Waterloo.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
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.
Another good one in one of the best popular science channels on yt.
That being said, please add some simple info on when the videos were first recorded. Would help a lot, maybe especially important if you're working in, let's say, some kind of a professional way with these questions. Thanks a lot!
How about every video you post you tell us the date it was recorded
You can guess it with the amount of air remaining on is head😂
@@alexlang2086 good one!!! I think it's still on the website
The multiverse theory, in my opinion, actually overcomplicates the whole issue.
I will give an example:
I do not understand how a loaf of bread is made, but in order to try and understand it, I now conjure up 100s of loaves of bread!!
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Hi, amazing, Lee Smolin and Lawrence, great talk.
Excellent discussion.
His fundamental distinction between "nostalgia for the absolute" and something more fluid, it reminds me of the difference between mathematical constructivism and traditional mathematics.
The forces are created . Every physical force is contingent on what is not contingent . You can't have an infinite regress of contingent physical forces .
.
"Existence itself is the upholding of value intensity." - Philosopher Alfred North Whitehead
.
PLATO was in fact essentially correct that the underlying nature of the universe is more mind-like than classically physical. And, that the true creative force of this reality is its value. Consciousness is the vehicle of all value, meaning and significance in the universe.
Without consciousness, nothing matters. Without consciousness, nothing exists.
I respect and enjoy listening to Lee.. I disagree with his rejection of the weak anthropic principle as a viable explanation for the illusion of "fine-tuning." Still, everything he says is worth considering.. Peace.
The constants of nature could be determined by some underlying physical theory that we have yet to discover. However, the question of who created these laws and theories, and who ensures their continuity, remains unanswered
The answer is The Creator, the First Cause, the Unmoved mover, the Designer, the Programmer, etc . (Has a thousand other names )
Who? My grandmother.
@@dongshengdi773GOD OF THE GAPS
These clips should really have the original interview date. This is old and scientists evolve their views over time.
One never heard of a multi-verse or "many worlds" theories until it became clear that our universe could not have happened by chance.
In my view the universe did not come about by chance. Nor did the universe come about by necessity. Nor even did it 'come about'. 'Chance', 'necessity', 'come about', all these concepts have meaning about things 'in' the universe, They have no meaning in terms of 'about' the universe. The universe is not just another thing in the universe. That is, the universe is not something that can be meaningfully spoken about as if it were just another thing in the universe.
Existence exists. Nature is natural. Those two sentences are, in my view, the bedrock of rationality. No fine-tuning required.
@@arthurwieczorek4894This is not a rational position, it's circular to the core. It's like Descartes defining motion by calling it a 'transfer' which presupposes some kind of motion to begin with. Either you have to adhere to Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason or fall back to a kind of Kantian transcendental idealism, within which you can freely dance around in circles, pretending to have found a secure foundation for rationality.
We need new episodes w Smolin on BioCosmology and Susskind on DeSitter Space Holography!
Lee, in order for you to understand correctly the true dynamic of the Universe, you have to give up the theoretical notion of "time". "Time", as a material aggregated quantity, doesn't exist. It is a highly artificial notion fabricated by the human brain in its dynamical activity, because that's the way the human brain ( animal brain ) works ( observing, sensing and recording, etc, ), through which the illusion of "something" passing is erroneously perceived and "interpreted" as being something real.
In reality, nothing "passes". The human brain records a snapshot of an iterated change of material position, namely the iteration that's possible in its entropic locality, which finally and in absence of any movement detected outside of itself, can even be its own thermodynamic activity ( hormonal changes, temperature, pressure of blood creating "chemical pain", etc, etc ).
Etc.
About "space" now.
"Space" by itself doesn't exist also. Space can be understood and defined only by what truly exists in a measured volumetric realm, by what entropic aggregate exists dynamically in a defined ( measured theoretically, experimentally, etc, with a measure tape ) volumetric realm.
Etc.
In this realm, without a physical "time" and "space" ( which none exists as real, individual and material quantities ) the real and simple dynamic of the Universe takes place.
I know what this universal dynamic is in reality and I delay the reveal of it because I continuously amuse myself of the general humongous ignorance that exists and parades as ( so-called ) Science of today.
Those which appear in structural analogue or correspondence within micro and macro are different from the operations of those structures when naturally bound
Entire, energy of universe
If it go to metamorphic stage...one of this... Life 😊😊
*_"Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations."_* (Source: Wikipedia)
By definition, natural selection does not take effect until after the first replicating living organism has already come into existence. Natural selection, as a material natural mechanism, has not been observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated to have any effect on individual atoms and molecules in a per-biotic environment causing them to form into a DNA or RNA molecule and cannot, therefore, be used to explain the origin of the genetic code.
*_"The most popular proposal for the first self-replicating molecule is RNA - where life was first based upon RNA carrying both genetic information (akin to modern DNA) and performing catalytic functions (akin to modern enyzmes), in what is termed the RNA world [Hypothesis]."_* (Source: Evolution News)
*_“A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the Scientific Method requires that one can Test It … Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is Not the same as a scientific theory.”_* *Hypothesis is also referred to as a Hypothetical or Educated Guess.* (Source: Wikipedia)
*_"In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process Are Still Unknown, the prevailing scientific Hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event [i.e. spontaneous generation]... There are several principles and Hypothesis for how abiogenesis Could Have occurred."_* (Source: Wikipedia)
*_"The RNA world is a hypothetical stage in the evolutionary history of life on Earth, in which self-replicating RNA molecules proliferated before the evolution of DNA and proteins. The term also refers to the hypothesis that posits the existence of this stage."_* (Source: Wikipedia)
One of the reasons that abiogensis and RNA World are merely "hypotheses" and have not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theories", is that abiogenesis and RNA World hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis and RNA World Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.
Materialism has been debunked.
Abiogenesis has been debunked.
Evolution has started since the Big Bang , every fundamental particle evolving into atoms , into elements, into molecule, into compounds ...
From rocks eventually becoming simple organisms and then into complex organisms, plants and animals, and intelligence.
1. Every contingent fact has an explanation.
2. There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts.
3. Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact.
4. This explanation must involve a necessary being.
5. This necessary being is God. (Creator, Designer, Programmer, Initiato of the Big Bang, First Cause, Unmoved Mover)
.
The whole anthropic debate is totally specious. It’s a bit like asking why is the hundredth cog of this wristwatch a particular size with a certain number of teeth? Answer: because that is what is required for this timepiece to work. So apply that to the mass of the electron, the entire standard model and all the cosmological constant, they necessarily contribute to the working of the whole. There is no value imagining 99 non functional watches/universes to explain the one we perceive that does work. The Cosmos is a story to be enjoyed.
Good analogy. So the next question is how did the components come together and integrate to form a timepiece? Was it through natural selection or did it have outside help? If natural selection then I would expect the universe will one day happen to deposit a Rolex on my doorstep.
@@Roscoe0494 Well your Rolex will be in a shop window in the nearest town, that’s an easy fix. With regards to the assembly of the precise components for this Cosmos nobody has a clue. Eventually we run out of ‘becauses’. It just is.
I agree with what they say but the noitre of a time precision space entity encapsulated within a time reconsideration breaks down within the confines of a predictive resonance coupled within a universe of infinite par secs of individuality
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
Given that apparent physical constants may be the product of some kind of natural selection, from what does the selective pressure arise?
Of course it is. The first thing we need to show is that the Universe is a arising of Choice (Citta). The nature of Citta is to choose consistently and distinguish itself from Nothingness. Consistent choice is evolution by another name, within the frame of physical laws (prior choices). The evolution of the Universe and the idea of “separation from Nothingness” both arise from the same foundational principle - The Dharma of Nothing.
Attraction is truth we like truth and the science says what's up here
As someone noted at the end of the bizarre “Maggie Smith” comment thread - which inexplicably was still up as of 2023-07-08.09.20 EDT Sat - that thread was most likely a bot dialog intended to advertise.
It's a good example of why bots mimicking humans to fool and redirect them monetarily and politically should be a civil or criminal offense. _Every_ instance of such a bot uttering an assertion online or using synthesized voice should be a new count of the offense. That would add up quickly, which is the intent.
Avoiding such penalties would be simple: Every utterance made by the bot would be required, by international law, to begin with, something akin to: “I, a bot, say…” After that, the programmer or user responsible for the bot could have it say anything at all, with no fear of civil or criminal penalties.
It's not the content that's the issue, it's the deception.
Where was this filmed ? ❤❤
LoveLee. The methodology of natural selection is an alternative (albeit philosophical) to the three current anthropic principles because we can test it's predictability and explanatory powers. Other three arguments are flawed.
If time is the only emergent and the fine structure constant are the only reality of a dimensionless universe, doesn’t this imply a cyclical formation?
emergent from what? when?
@@CurtOntheRadio A previous universe. We posit a singularity- why not a precursor? The thread is as thin as needed. Time and a ‘shadow’- the templates of space.
While I think that Smolin is on the right track when he looks to natural selection in order to solve the fine tuning problem, natural selection only works when the initial conditions and natural laws allow for certain potentialities to exist and be actualized at some point in the future.
Therefore we have to work with the initial conditions and natural laws. What are they? Why are they? Do these questions make sense?
What fine-tuning problem it's a religious right-wing load of nonsense postured with no evidence
Without time, the universe is imperceptible. Existence could never be. It is the fundamental creator of reality.
Maybe
The multiverse problem.
By Paul Davies, a cosmologist not bound by any tradition.
"I usually say two cheers for the multiverse because there are good reasons of physics and cosmology for supposing that what we see may not be all you get. That there may be other regions of space and time that could be different. So it's not an unreasonable speculation. However, it falls far short of being a complete theory of existence, which is often presented as. That as if there's a multiverse, then we can forget about all the mysteries of the universe because it's all explained. Everything is out there somewhere. End of story.
Well, it's simply not true, because to get a multiverse, you need a universe-generating mechanism. Something has got to make all those big bangs go bang. So you're going to need some laws of physics to do that. And you can say, well, where do they all come from? So all you've done is shift the problem of existence up from the level of universe to the level of multiverse, but you haven't explained it.
I suppose, for me, the main problem is that what we're trying to do is explain why the universe is as it is by appealing to something outside of it. In this case an infinite number of universes outside of it. That, to me, is no better than traditional religion that appeals to an unseen unexplained God that is outside of the universe.
I'm prepared to accept that what we see isn't the totality, that there may be regions of space and time, other universes, if you like, that could be rather different from what we observe. But I certainly don't believe that all possible universes are out there, and that the explanation for the universe that we see is because everything imaginable exists, and that this particular one we see, just because it happens to be one that we live in. I think that falls far short of a proper explanation. Indeed, I think it's contradictory and absurd."
12:40 “not because is not science does not mean is not true” Really man? Do you have a degree in Neuroscience? The face of Smolin: priceless. If something is an objective truth, is because Science have proved it to be truth.
Maybe time, consciousness and whatever it is that enabled life to form from more and more complex chemistry (self organizing molecules) arose because this universe came to exist and it could be no other way. All of these things are necessary, or we would not exist. No fine tuning, which to me, suggests outside influence.
There cant be an outside influence. Because if something influences the universe then it is part of the universe.
I think that is imposible understand the universe in another way than a human way... the reality is beyond our undertanding. Can anyone know from where came his own existence?
Is 2+2=4 a human thing?
When a mummy and a daddy love each other very much…
Fine tuning is not a problem because people have an incorrect view of the Universe. There are people that still view the Cosmos as a clockwork mechanism. This view has been chattered by Einstein's theory of relativity and Quantum Theory. The Cosmos is a dynamic entity that is closer to an organism rather than a mechanism. In this view their cannot be timeless laws of physics that are outside of the Universe and dictate how the Universe behaves. The laws of physics and constants themselves would have to evolve with the Cosmos.
The thing is we have no evidence the laws of physics have changed at any time since a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, and vast evidence that they haven’t.
Of course the Observable Universe is finely tuned. More over, it is, in my opinion, alive as a swarm intelligence made up of probably elementary particles following the Laws of Nature and that depending upon how you look at it, those elementary particles working together in swarms learned how to make the first elements, learned how to make the first stars, learned how to make heavier elements, learned how to make planets, learned how to make life as we know it and all of these things are systems of elementary particles working together.
That includes us. We are systems of elementary particles intelligently working together as a swarm.
The Observable Universe is finely tuned because if you changed some important values within the Laws of Nature everything would be different and maybe we could not exist as we do.
That does not mean some higher intelligence created the Observable Universe, but it is possible. It is also possible the finely tuned values for the Observable Universe came about to be the way they are through a number of other possibilities, like perhaps if you go far enough away from where we are those values are different in different locations.
With regard to a possible higher intelligence creating the Observable Universe, if there was one, it absolutely would not be the Biblical God, because the Biblical God just does not match reality.
Great Questions that have Absolutely no Answers.
Simple-mindedness and arrogance is the reason why this question arises.
I think the universe is definitely fine tuned!
The universe IS definitely finely tuned, the question is, by what means is the universe finely tuned?
The Universe is definitely not fine tuned.
@@James92028 is surely fine tuned for complexity ...
@@kos-mos1127 speak for yourself, im 100% fine tuned, by myself
Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability:
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)
Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness.
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)
What came first? The universe or life? The universe of course.
Therefore, life is fine-tuned for the universe, not the other way around.
3:42 "A statement with no explanatory power could be true." How about this?: 'A statement that is so vague as to be meaningless could be true.' Does that hold water for you?
It's like 'water is fine tuned to quench our thirst.' They are complicating a simple issue. The universe cares a damn about life. Life is a product of the universe. The universe is not made for us.
Given that so many things have to be a certain way for there to be life, it seems appropriate to theorize that yes, the universe was made to produce life.
Y’all need to read the Book of Job
Right on !
I believe the universe is designed for the flesh but life is separate . If all we were were the flesh -then when we observe the universe it would be like the universe looking at itself , which is a vanity that requires intelligence. And the fact that our senses shape how we see the universe tells you that the mind must be immaterial, because the material senses are behaving for the sake of something other than themselves. They are creating a material feedback for the purposes of abstract meaning not 100% accurate representation. And there must be an “ agreement “ with the universe to allow itself to be shaped by the material senses that it created -if those senses are not 100% accurate
Designed?
@@CurtOntheRadio if there is no god, or metaphysical abstractions in the universe, then everything we are in the flesh had to be designed or created by the very universe- that we observe as separate . That includes subjective feelings, and or ideas of design and purpose. And in fact, in a purely material universe time can’t even exist, because our subjective feeling of time can be reduced to immovable physical parts All those phenomena have to be proprietary of the universe. And so too intelligence. But since anything material doesn’t seem to have subjective intelligence, the only thing you can conclude is that we are separate from the universe that we believe created us. Flesh is part of the universe, but life is separate from the design.
There is a wonderful phase by Eckart Tolle that sums this up: “You aren’t in the Universe, you ARE the Universe. A tiny point where the Universe becomes conscious itself. An amazing miracle”.
@@MrSanford65 I go with the theory that this entire thing is an experiment by something outside the experiment--the most extreme virtual reality. That really causes scientists to be flustered because all they know is to apply the scientific method to everything they observe. I'm perfectly fine with trying to determine how it all works and how it might have been put together. I go with designed over random chance.
Time may be the universal constant. No universe can exist without it
For me there has to be an infinite multiverse or an infinite space time with infinite big bangs/inflations
Even if you believe that there was nothing before the Big Bang and our universe literally came from nothing (which I don’t) then why would that happen only once?
I believe space time is infinite and there are infinite big bang/inflations throughout it and we obviously live in one where our existence was possible
I think the Multiverse is just a small fraction of much bigger structures and higher dimensions. Just as atoms forms molecules etc., so is the Multiverse such a part of something much bigger.
Can modernity have time types? Say rural and urban populations have a different sense of time. It shapes lifestyle, values etc.
Can we say the same could be for countries, whereby the cultural sense of time will differ in the generations for Tunisia compared to New York.
Then if at a larger scale time per nation cannot be violated due to cultural constraints etc but natural selection will at some point pick up on the new entanglement state ...
Therefore allowing Alice to update the non local information for Bobs time space spook? I know it's a tall one for sure. I should get paid for imagination at play.. seriously! 😊
1. Infinity does not compute philosophically and scientifically. You can't divide a number by zero.
Let’s apply the logic to your question. Seemingly ∞−∞=0 .
But suppose we remove the guests which are present in the rooms having an odd number(1,3,5…..) we still have infinite number of guests. So we get ∞−∞=∞ .
Let’s remove all the guests except the ones present in the first 50 rooms. So ∞−∞=50 . You see where I’m going with this?
Simply that ∞−∞ is indeterminable.
Infinity does not compute.
2. Materialism has been debunked.
Nothing can come from nothing.
Fallacy of infinite regress and materialism.
Infinite regress fails to explain existence.
There has to be a First Cause.
3. Free will.
Science has determined that we live in a determinist universe. Therefore, everything can be predicted according to all laws of physics.
But we have free will, therefore God exists.
Dennis Prager: Freedom is dependent upon a God who wants us to be Free .
Freedom is dependent on Free Will.
The one is the three things, fine-tuning, theistic evolution, and the fittest survival by selection of God.
Top 3 most intelligent human beings who ever lived ( as of 2023 ).
1. "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent being. And if the fixed Stars are the centers of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must all be subject to the dominion of One. [...] This Being Governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all: And on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God παντοκρατωρ, or Universal Ruler."
~ from General Scholium written by Sir Isaac Newton
2. "Anyone who becomes seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that there is a spirit manifest in the laws of the universe, a spirit vastly superior to that of man." - most famous physicist and philosopher , Albert Einstein
3. "There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the "particle" of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the MATRIX of all matter." - Max Planck, Father of Quantum Physics
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness."
Bonus:
"If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” - Niels Bohr, a Danish Physicist
。
“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.” “Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.”
~ by Sir Isaac Newton
it was fined tuned for Dinosaurs 'Dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago (at the end of the Cretaceous Period), after living on Earth for about 165 million years' : )
All life forms are going to seem finely tuned to exist suitably within the environment they had originated in. No? I don’t think mankind is from here. We can adapt but we never seem comfortable like animals seem to. It’s either to hot or to cold. Very rarely is everything just 👌 It’s almost like we originated somewhere else.
His dimorphic neurophilosophical exposition of the biophysical composition of the universe seems to inform his understanding of the Quasar-Minothene Theory, which in turn presupposes the universal geno-quantical nature of life itself. (. . . And, yes, I made this nonsense sentence up. I would love to understand what Lee Smolin was saying, but, alas, it was way over my head. I guess I’ll slink out of the room now with my Berkeley educated arse in tow and go back to watching cat videos). 😂😢
His argument is just as dull, even if time would be this one thing that moves unmovable, again , chances that life would emerge so complex , everything would be so fine tuned, is like non existent chance, also if time would be constant that moves things along it would mean that most likely universe has certain laws it follows, it is limited in possible changes, which again goes back to original question.
I will make it clear, if I have to chose between possibility of higher intelligence creating this, or that this is just some impossible coincidence, idk who is the mad man here.
Roger Penrose likes to point out that e=hv and e=mc2 therefore dropping the constants v=m (frequency=mass). IMHO - We now know that space is not empty but consists of quantum field(s) that vibrate at discrete frequencies giving rise to "particles". This is consistent with v=m. The presence of frequency gives rise to what we humans call time. Therefore in my thinking, time is an emergent property of frequency/mass. Frequency/mass appears to be more fundamental than time. Perhaps space itself is an emergent property of frequency/mass. One last point, photons which are massless do not experience time since they travel at speed=c and because photons do not experience time photons can be anywhere instantaneously. This gives me the thought that photons do not experience space either.
Science is a religion of sorts. It takes great faith to believe in such varied and diverse theories and hypothesis about the origins of life with no more evidence than those who credit a God.
Babble.
I love how the best insult theists have is to call someone religious.
Ha ha ha
(8:00) *RLK: **_You need to solve the fine-tuning problem."_* ... And then _both agree_ that were not going to solve it with one ultimate theory. However, a single solution is possible if you can accept one simple premise: *Existence is logical.* Rudimentary logic is a foundational property of existence, and it makes itself manifest in everything that follows.
Existence started out simple and evolved into complexity via a logical process.
We see the beauty and grandeur of life and think that the universe must have been magically orchestrated ahead of time to facilitate life, ... _but why?_ That's like thinking a slab of marble must have known that one day it would end up shaped like Michaelangelo's "Pieta."
The best example for how the universe _appears_ to be fine-tuned is the "abacus" and "quantum computer." The only reason an abacus exists is because of logic. It's a rudimentary device used to processes logic (mathematics). After 5000 years of evolution, we now have quantum computers, ... but nobody is arguing that an ancient abacus was "fine-tuned" to facilitate a quantum computer emerging five millennia later.
"Logic" is at the core of both the universe and the abacus ... and neither had any idea of what would follow.
Compare a universe that is fine tuned for life and mind to one where life and mind just come to exist. Are you prepared to call both of those universes natural? Not in my book.
*_"Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind?"_* *For the Universe to be fine-tuned in the first place, Life and Mind would have to precede the existence of the Universe in order to fine tune it.*
And your point is?
Life and mind cannot precede the existence of the Universe.
@@kos-mos1127 why not ? the universe maybe was not the first thing "in being"
@@kos-mos1127 why not, how do you know what precedes the universe and if you say nothing explain how nothing became everything.
Only if the "tuner" has to be "life and mind". And who tunes the tuner?
No, the universe is not "fine-tuned" for the benefit of life. It is essentially infinite, which provides many chances for highly improbable things to occur.
Seems a lot more likely that the mind is fine tuned for the Universe.
Consciousness and the Mind .
Consciousness is a fundamental element of the universe
Well, obviously, or it wouldn't exist. Everything exists as a byproduct. The mind invents all things.
Life and mind are fine tuned for the universe, NOT the reverse !!
Eggs are soft and cool, chickens are tough and warm, it's not scientific. So the earth is hard, and there's magma, which is also unscientific.
How about this!!! North living can survive without the energy from the original "Big Bang" as humans we crave it devices,cars,food... All life is in a race to absorb that original force of energy
If there was a creator what would be the purpose of creating planets that have no purpose to us or rocks or comets Or places where humans cannot survive ! What is the purpose of that ! A waste of matter?
Life and mind struggle to survive in this dangerous universe.
They took a long time to evolve and in a blink can be extinguished.
Heaven, on the other hand, is infinitely better.
I see a feedback loop at work on entanglements. This fine-tunes one evolving universe into a single reality. A Causal Set Theory based on quantum entanglement and probabilities. The next causet forming in the path of the greatest probability. A universe flowing toward the most options.
Nature seems to be tuned, but the whole universe...not sure... can't really test the whole universe.
10:00 LS: _“Maybe time is the only thing that doesn't emerge. Maybe space is emergent, maybe the properties of elementary particles are emergent…”_ Lee Smolin, you are a brilliant fellow, but what you said cannot be true due to time having no definition without clocks- and clocks require matter.
Also, a challenge to Lee Smolin: Can you give an example of an experimentally meaningful definition of time that does not invoke (a) at least one rest-mass (that is, non-neutrino) fermion, and (b) an inertial frame attached to the rest-mass of that fermion, thus making that definition frame dependent?
Invoking mathematical abstractions does not qualify since those require stupendous quantities of human neural fermionic matter to implement.
The universe within which we live is obviously fine-tuned for everything - up to and including life and intelligent life. The reason why is up for debate. The multiverse answer seems to me to be an attempt to get around the idea that there is one "designed" universe and that it is fine tuned for the emergence of life. All time, from the inception of it until the end of it is real and coexistent. The underlying structure of quantum reality gives rise through increasingly complex structure to emergent properties and eventually life - the course of which is shaped over the millions of years - by natural selection. So what do we have? An underlaying quantum bedrock that gives rise, ultimately to us. A block-time existence that only seems sequential because of the way our brains are structured. I doubt that rocks "feel" the passage of time. The quantum bedrock is as good as God. The block universe may as well be felt as a sequential timeline only because of the way we perceive it. We are literally of the universe, or "God". All thinking self-aware lifeforms created over time to "see" and experience the universe and life. Lifeforms that are almost certainly as common through the universe as dandelions in springtime. Allowing the universe to experience itself. The Bible and other religious texts are at their core, simple guidebooks that societies have written to guide the harmonious coexistence of contentious beings, driven by ego. Nothing more, or less. Written by people, inspired by an underlaying sense of "rightness". We are born, live and die - in the same time-space, forever. We are 0 and 97 simultaneously over our life time. Our essential essence and our uniqueness, continue on after our physical death into a different type of existence. That's it, that's all. Scientist who will not believe in an organizing impetus, come up with the wildest ideas to avoid confronting these truths. One final thought. How can two people of equal intelligence have such polar opposite views and opinions on reality? How can one search for any shaky theory to avoid admitting the possibility of an organizer? Why does the theologian who is equally well-versed in the science of existence hold the certainty of that same organizing principal? The simplest answers are usually the correct ones.
How is god did it the most simple answer? Just look at the variables it took to get to intelligence. If one less asteroid hit the planet there would be no intelligence and dinosaurs would still rule the earth. If the earth/universe was designed for life why do we not see it everywhere? I see more random than design. I may very well be wrong but this is where the evidence points me.
I think you have a fundamental assumption that is not as solid as you make it out to be - this "quantum bedrock" has no particular reason to be the way it is, and in fact, it seems that the constants that govern this bedrock may indeed be tunable (and those constants may not even be constant over time in our own universe), just as likely as it is to be a true "bedrock" in the way you seem to be assuming things. What you say about the universe being god is just as valid of an interpretation of the evolution of multiple universes. That is the fundamental aspect of the debate they're having, as I understand it, and it cannot be dismissed so flippantly because you think one explanation is "simpler".
> How can two people of equal intelligence have such polar opposite views and opinions on reality?
Because we are only aware of us a an "N of 1" experiment, and the slice of space and time we are able to observe is so narrow that it leaves open so many things to interpretation. Your seeming insistence in shutting down one side of the debate based on your opinion comes off just the same as what you accuse the person who searches for an alternative to a designer.
Several points in response, if I may. My opinion is just that. I could care less if you or anybody else shares them. I don’t want to shut anybody down. I do think it’s a valid observation to make that many physicists etc. work very hard to downplay the option of more than we perceive or can perceive or imagine. They sometimes opine that everything that is outside the current purview of science is unworthy of discussion - then they’ll go on to discuss it. Presumably science will catch-up to what some today speculate upon and the purview
will widen and today’ dismissed speculation will become tomorrows accepted fact. That has been the pattern throughout history. I don’t look for reasons just comment on what seems to be. That the quantum level of reality exists seems to be an increasing accepted fact. That it is at the bottom of the very near bottom of everything seems accepted as well. That everything above is emergent from that, must be correct. That the universe has developed through process that are well understood is a fact. That we and other life on earth have developed by natural selection seems incontrovertible. That we are self-aware and literally of the universe is equally inarguable. So, what are we left with? A universe that is optimized to produce through understandable means - us - and whatever follows us. Point final.
All moot if those the universe was fine-tuned for commit ecocide and are long gone before they get a chance for God to reveal itself through knowledge.
Guys doest understand phich. He keep out fundamental phich that are necessary in Universe picture. He are psedu scientist.
@@tongacortez8111: Are you sure that "phich" translates to "facts?" I think "physics" is more likely.
Inventing a multiverse only to escape the idea of a creator to our universe.
That's so not logical to me.
Inventing a creator to try to escape reality. That's so not logical to me.
The improbable fine tuning is a problem for those who do ot want to admit this powerfull evidence of a fine tuner
What calculation, using what priors, are you using to conclude that the universe we live in is improbable?
@@simonhibbs887 The speaker here covers this very well I hink that things such that stars and galaxies are able to form that if things were slightly different this would not be the case
But there is no evidence of fine tuning. Fine tuning assumes that life, especially human life, is somehow centrally important. Why assume that? It begs the question.
If things were different and life didn't exist - then so what?
If you can't answer the "so what?" (Intelligently), then you can't defend fine tuning.
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 That is true, but all that means is that this particular universe requires these conditions within a certain range. There could be any number of reasons why these conditions are inevitable, or conversely there could be any number of combinations of conditions that would lead to other universes equally or even more complex but different. Or there could be multiverses of different conditions, etc, etc. we have absolutely no idea and have no way to evaluate the probability of any of these.
@@bozo5632 This channel spends more time on this subject than most others many scholars comment on it because they take it seriously.
.If life did not exist there would be no life but there is the universe is life permitting many say it is more probable it would not be that it is fine tuned
"That doesn't mean it's not true."
Also known as the Fallacy fallacy.
And it's impossible to prove a negative. Ipso facto, stop being an unsufferarable troll during these interviews!
"The first thing we have to do is solve the fine tuning problem." No. At the very least you first have to state exactly what the fine-tuning problem is. Without equivocation OR with stipulated equivocation. Can it only be started in terms of 'fine-tuning' or does the very phrase 'fine-tuning' prejudice the case in a direction. You can't truly understand things at this level of abstraction with a casual everyday sense of language.
My take is, it's a scam. It's scientific mysticism. Let's find an illegitimate question, make out it must have a real answer and make the search for that answer an opportunity for aggrandizement and comeratory. Where at the start there is one question let's consider answers the implications of which have a thousand questions. Keeps the parade going.
Existence exists. Nature is natural. The universe IS the laws of nature and all the specific numerical values. Maybe I got that last one wrong. Maybe a universe could exist without any specific nature----an unnatural nature, so to speak.
"Fine tuning" is nonsense. We are just reacting to natural processes and pretending there's a consciousness.
Now I understand why love has mass and is made out of atoms and particles plus is sentient 🤔
"Fishing" has no mass or particles or location. Boredom, height, weight, trouble - none of those real things has any physical presence. So love isn't special.
@@bozo5632 you are 100% right fishing is all about free will.
@@playpaltalk Oh yuck.
Is water fine tuned for wetness?
Whatever drives Existence lies within Existence itself, not an outside force, entity, designer, or fine tuner.
Now what is this thing called science? Thomas Kuhn had some interesting words on this subject. Science has a very narrow view, a limited view, of what is true or real, i.e., not just an appearance. Just because it is called science doesn't mean it is the final word especially when we are concerned with the all inclusive whole that is a whole and one that when viewed from a relative vision is seen as this or that. Still it is only facets of the One and the facets can't be well understood without some direct sense of non-relative vision, a vision of the whole that is one and excludes nothing. Within it is all and everything. Time is the changing face of the invisible wholeness or essence of all and everything. Time is not the most fundamental thing but we need not try to deny the relative realness of time. Falsifiability is fine but leads no where unless we understand what a sustained presence of mind is. In fact what is looking is what you are looking for. Our ordinary perception or the knowing substance of consciousness needs to be distilled until it is no longer just a collection of contradictory states to which we say automatically say "I". We can verify this or know this has occurred when what we call the body is filled with a more subtle energy that allows seeing that is not just limited to the point of view of separation which is generally called subject that is separate knowing an object that is separate. Our capacity for knowing is greater than being limited to just this subject-object way of knowing. In fact all insights are a flash of this non-relative knowing that is not limited to subject-object knowing; yet we need to be sustained in this, it is the coherence of a sustained presence of mind aka being itself that can bear this kind of energy that reveals the nature of reality itself rather than pursuing it through a glass darkly. The 'glass darkly' is simply the lack of complete or total insight sustained as long as need be. Lawrence please interview Bernardo Kastrup even if it has to be done electronically and not face to face. He doesn't claim to have all the answers yet he is pointing in the right general direction we need to investigate. Science as we know it is in need of a clear view of itself. Science doesn't recognize its limitations and that is its blind spot. Let's get to work on this many people are breaking new ground in a needed direction. Our time together is limited so lets get to it day by day, please. Mankind needs it. Thanks be.
Bingo it could be truth oh here we go back to universes he doesn't want god in the picture
The universe is absolutely amazing! The physical universe is a (real) fabrication of contracted time and distance in our perception where we are because of the gravity of the matter that was formed. Moving matter through time and space also has the same effect, at least in one dimension. Light travel for the photon through this fabrication is instant. (It takes no time to travel no distance no matter the time or distance.) Everything is local in quantum physics. We don't exist at the speed of light. We are local because we exist in the fabrication of limited measurable time and distance. We exist in slow motion and we see light in slow motion with the collapse of the wave function but it doesn't mean that light is in slow motion. There is no time or distance at the speed of light.
Gravity drops off exponentially the farther away it is from the mass of a galaxy. That means that technically time runs exponentially faster and distance is expanded exponentially the farther away it is from the mass of the galaxy. This is observed with superluminal motion being seven times the speed of light according to our projected measures of time and distance. The reality is that the measures of time and distance are not the same as ours the farther away it is from the mass of the galaxy. This is a confirmation that it is the mass of matter that slows down time and distance for us with the collapse of the wave function. It is also the reason we are able to see distant starlight within several thousand years since time speeds up exponentially and distance is expanded exponentially the farther away from the mass of the galaxy it is in our line of sight. Not only does time pass by much faster through the lagrange areas between galaxies, the distance is actually much less exponentially throughout the areas in our lines of sight between galaxies. This eliminates any need for imaginary inflatons or dark matter particles. Redshift is due to the expanded distance between galaxies and the faster movements of the outer spiral arms and such are due to the faster rates of time and less actual distances. The vacuum of space is linked to black holes that are growing in size regardless of the amount of matter they absorb since they absorb blocks of time and distance (frames of reference).
Go directly to Gödel. Do not collect $200.
It’s fine tuned for heterosexuality
Jesus is LORD ❤❤❤
X-Files
Metaphysics
Love spent billions of years creating this paradise planet lifeboat so that her miraculous works of fine art called "life" have a beautiful place to "be".
Good (god) didn't spend so much time creating this paradise planet lifeboat to be depreciated, polluted and destroyed in a brief moment by "bloodthirsty" alien vampires (greed) and their ignorance (hate).
Total bollox 😂
I find the attempt at raising charges of unscientificity towards speculative approaches, while at the same time speculating over the same topic through the lense of other preexisting methodologies, a tiny bit disingenuous.
It's possible to make a bunch of cogent arguments to support the idea that this methodology would be somehow scientific and the others not, but any such attempt eventually collapses from the same pure, concentrated unscientific assumptions baked into the very question of cosmological Fine-Tuning...
Remember, the values that are so systematically repeated day and night to be so improbably 'fine-tuned', are the very values that actual scientific literature admits as fundamental _constants_ of the cosmos.
Now, go ahead, square that circle and pretend that constants are variables that have been tuned specifically for life to exist, without ever addressing the science denying elephant in the room pretending that the term 'fundamental constants of the cosmos' somehow means 'incidental variables on the cosmos' settings'.
Last but not least, there's nothing wrong with *speculating* about the *would-be* variability of these constants which may or may not be fundamental to reality, but at this point it becomes *childish* to pretend that one is doing science, while the others are somehow just speculating, when the whole topic itself is part and parcel of the realm of metaphysics, which translates into speculative physics in the scientific side of things. Speculative physics _isn't_ science, that's kind of the whole point: probing the unknown through sheer guesswork and extrapolations of known physical theories, applied to metaphysical topics, and hoping that testing falsifiable predictions from this guesswork will lead to serendipitous discoveries. In other words, this guy is doing the exact same thing the others are doing. He just happens to think he has a better approach. Well, duh! He wouldn't pursue this particular avenue if he didn't think it has a better chance of leading to something new and interesting to begin with.
Our logic ends when our body becomes fertilizer, brain my find place (like Einstein) in the jar on shelf in one of US Universities.
Bury your Ego, start praying for Grace and wisdom ( King Solomon) did to understand Universe on the deeper level.
'fine-tuning' is a meaningless pseudoproblem.
is an actual fact, as Smolin says too
….thus spoketh maxwellthusthra!!!!…..
Fine tuning is a meaningfull question
@@juanluisllacer-oficial4840
It may or may not be meaningful, we just don't know yet.
Why, pray tell, is it a meaningless question?
Just become religious. You want so badly to believe the universe was created with you in mind.
Your bias is showing. Again.