Susskind is one of my favourites in the contemporary science space....his books are brilliantly written and his story from being a plumber to becoming a physicist is inspiring too
What a great scientist and thinker Leonard Susskind is. Easy to understand and follow very complex topics. Need I mention what a great science writer he also is.
Robert knows all this stuff as well as his guests, having studied their work before interviewing them. He knows how to get these brilliant people to talk to us so that we too can know. (Though mostly what they end up saying is that nobody knows anything for sure. Which I love. Cuz it makes me feel not quite so dumb.) I do very much enjoy these interviews. Thank you, folks.
Greetings from Germany. I could listen to Leonard Susskind all day… every day. His ability to explain komplex processes understandably is simply uncanny! Grüße gen Stanford aus Göttingen.
That's true, but we're constantly getting closer and closer to the truth. *Flat earth* was very wrong, but it explained some basic things; then *Classical mechanics* and modern science explained much more, but was still incorrect in some things. The current *Theory of Relativity* and *Quantum theory* explain all of those things, and are more correct in other things, but still not quuuiitee perfect. But you'll notice we're always getting closer. So it's not like suddenly we can end up with a radically different theory that makes all of former science obsolete.
" Then we'll live in a black hole...you cant live in a black hole " .... 2019 now and the holographic principle just say that.... And well > L. Susskind its a strong suporter of the ideea now . How about that?
Leo- you have already won a loosing battle with gravity. You are gravitonless and timeless hero, an hugely intelligent and though-provoking scientist who can easilly get the matter across. Thanks Professor Susskind. Long live Leonard !!!
@Tony DC And often has a more realistic and fundamental understanding of the science than the people he is interviewing. He's a very knowledgeable and scientifically literate individual. Closer to Truth is a fantastic program. His interviews with Paul Davies are fantastic.
This guy once dealt with plumbing and now homes in on the nature of the universe. I once dealt with plumbing and finally made it up to the 17th century and home in on the nature of bagpipes. I love the way this guy forms premises. Of all the possible places, only the few places like have life "like" us.
@@commandvideo it’s the only logical conclusion. You guys stop at “I guess it’s always been there.” Theists go a step further and imagine what the implications of a self-existent entity would really mean. At least in my view. We’ll all find out, or not.
+You don'T Say ? ets fun to toy w that idea, but I've never fully understood how gravity is weak. where do they get that from, in where do they view gravity stronger than et is now to know that gravity is actually weaker than et should be??
This reminds me of the puddle of water who one day found itself existing in a pot hole. "Wow, this pothole seems to be absolutely perfect for me... its width and depth create the perfect size to contain me... not to big not to small... almost as if it was created with my existence in mind." He continues to ponder this concept until a car drove over the pothole and splashed him out... splashed out of existence never to be remembered. Splashed out of awareness of its perfect universe. The most insignificant of experience.
@@kinetic7609 except here on earth, we see life conform to every imaginable environment, no matter how harsh they may seem. And we see life not just existing, but thriving in places we'd never expect. Environments do not form to suit the life they support, rather life makes do with the environment it's provided.
for my self the same conclusion was made in first year Biology, i began to ask my professor questions on the origin of DNA, and the best thing he could do is point me to the Miller-Urey experiment. Evolution does a fantastic job of explaining how the DNA molecule works once it exists, evolution does not explain DNA's existence and the Fact that the earliest fossils records we have still have DNA as complex as it is today, even Anthony flew had the courage to admit this.
DNA is formed from stuff like nitrogenous base, molecules etc (stuff we can make easily) but it contains also adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine from which (as you already know from Miller-Urey experiment) we can create only adenine, but I see no reason why we shouldn’t one day be able to create cytosine etc also.
An Atheist Incorrect. Absolutely not. If you think the cosmological constant is small, what you are suggesting is trillions and trillions of times less likely.
You can watch hundreds of his lectures on stanford university's channel. He teaches many topics like classical mechanics, relativity, cosmology, quantum mechanics, string theory....he's a beast.
There's one thing people always forget - these (let's say) 30 constants are not completely independent of each other. It's not like you have 30 knobs on a machine and "someone" sets each one individually to a "perfect" setting and makes them all magically work toghether. One affects the possibilities and the range of others. It's more like 30 people in a line, one imagines a number, tells the number to the person next to them and adds "also, add 1-3 to my number as you wish and give similar instructions to the next person". Many of them are linked and why that's important is that some values EMERGE from the values of others. Some values are not an example of "let's carefully plan this to choose a value - ok, make it 3" but rather "ok, constant x is 8 and constant y is -5 so constant z is - 3". Oversimplification, yes, but just as an illustration. This changes everything enormously, it means you do not have to imagine an "almighty perfect creator" cause nobody else could decide on 30 values to make universe with life in it. It means you may need only a few initial values to be "right" (for OUR form of life), which you have to admit is incredibly different from the other proposal. Imagine baking a cake where you mix flour and water and you have to invent what you'll get and if you imagine wrong there's no cake. No, they do their thing and you get a new third thing - dough. It emerged, you didn't have to create it separately.
Leonard is explaining the greatest miracle of life in a scientific manner. Why would there be anything in the 1st place without a God. Even the creation of a single electron is a miracle.
@Nick While I can sit here in furious agreement with you, that answer will never satisfy many people and is simply incoherent to many. This should be no surprise to the person of faith. Unless God opened your mind to accept his reality, you would be no different. The person of faith must recognise this fundamental schism exists not because of any inherent wisdom or knowledge lest they become arrogant with pride. It also serves as a motivator for us to plead with the all powerful God to reveal himself to others - there is no other way. Psalms 127:1 Unless the Lord builds the house, the builders labor in vain
@@davidcotuit the science makes no such claims. As Prof. Susskind so kindly articulated, there are currently 3 schools of thought and he was so generous as to accept Deity as one of them.
For anything to be 'surprising' or 'unlikely' it has to be one 'event' that is different in a series of 'events'. We only have and ever will have one example of a 'universe' so have no other 'events' to compare it with so by definition it cannot be surprising or unlikely. He says 'we can only live where we CAN live' - end of story !
I like how he proves the existence of a grand creator here by explaining the statistics of life on earth.. btw I Love Lenny, one of my favorite living physicists!
If you truly remember your childhood, you will understand that you knew answers to all of these types of questions. The things is that the universe is not accidental by nature but rather incidental. This is something that children see very well because they have not yet been taught all the explanations of whatever timeline one happens to live in.
or maybe it’s because their brains aren’t developed and they’re given simple explanations by their parents. Children are curious-“why? Why? Why?” It’s the same reason scientists ask these questions about the universe.
I also found that interesting. All of the things that he concludes after discussing the "edge of the knife" are merely speculations that just beg further questions. I find it quite odd how, him being a scientist, puts so much faith in a mere "mathematical possibility" based on string theory. Its interesting how so many scientists hold to this theory that is a mere possibility, without much evidence. Then they are quick to conclude other mathematical possiblities like white holes don't exist.
This person is very special; the way he explains hard things in a way everybody can understand; I know he has many awards already; I would like he had a Nobel. He really deserves it.
Kudos to this educator, we need more like him! I'm with him and tend lean toward his 'reason #3', however, listen closely to his last words. "and, a way of populating those possibilities'. So we're back to where we started aren't we? I ask what is the 'prime mover' what started the whole thing? Maybe we should revisit explanation #1 and give thanks for our ability to comprehend such questions for the the 70-80 odd years we have physical existence on terra firma :)
I've thought about this. The existence of 'God' doesn't guarantee that the God knows we're here. Moreover, if we were created in his image we could use an analogy. If I create a soup I don't necessarily know what happened to each pea. Nor do I care. Maybe that pea was undercooked compared to the onion. I don't know that. I don't care. And I will happily eat it. (7/10 on that analogy, but you get it I'm sure). :)
"what is the 'prime mover' what started the whole thing?" There is no prime mover, life is an accident, it may have only happened once, here and now, or it may be something that happens regularly. The universe is not constant, it will disappear and another will start again from the energy left behind, but the next, and the one before this one, may have no similarity to this one. Life on Earth has lasted for the merest fraction of a fraction of a microsecond in the the time span of THIS universe, and even less in the infinity of universes that have been before this one. We are not important in space-time, all we can do is make life as good as possible for all life while we exist.
I think this argument (or the question, rather) has some big flaws. Why do we assume that a conscious observer or 'life' can only exist in the carbon based biological form we know? If we assume life and consciousness (which we have no idea how it works btw) can exist in other forms then the question becomes pointless. The universe is simply always "fine-tuned" for the kind of life that can exist in it. EDIT: leonard said it himself that countless possibilities are a prerequisite but he seems to disregard the possibility for countless forms of life and consciousness.
@@fitnesspoint2006 Maybe your right. Maybe there's a weird-looking monster in another universe. If that's what you believe I recommend you right a book with Dr. Seuss. I don't see any evidence that something that doesn't have our DNA can be living or counciouslly observant until you have evidence its just a speculation.
Wow, 11 years old video. Never knew this channel existed for so long. Been watching since last few years only. Great channel. Wondering how many such hidden gems are unknown until youtube algorithm recommends them.
One of my favorite living physicists hands down! Thanks to TH-cam and Stanford I’ve sat through HOURS of his lectures. Oddly enough, THIS video, from my favorite atheist physicist, is one of many reasons why I believe in a God/Supreme being. #CosmologicalKnifeEdge
BrootPK I came to Jesus while studying biology (DNA) in college and found Susskind and was amazed at his simple way of explaining such amazing singly complex subjects- I bet a lot of these scientists truly believe behind the scenes (I actually know hundreds of biologists who are Christians but cannot admit this as to lose grant funding and so on). This guy is terrific- my dad read about him in the early 70s.....
Walter Daems what if the facts support a religion? Would you still turn a blind eye? The Big Bang was the creation event described in Gen 1:1. The scientific facts we have today prove the universe had a supernatural beginning (because there were no laws of nature before the Big Bang) I was an atheist scientist for about 10 mins back in the 90s and science is what revealed GOD to me. I let the facts speak for themselves and it exposed complexity that no natural causes could “ create” ...... that’s truly a case for “Naturalism of the gaps “. We don’t know but we can dEF cancel out a supernatural occurrence because our “faith” won’t allow it. Just follow the evidence . It’s all black and white
Bad Gator the ‘facts’ support all and none religions and are completely supportive in the eye of the beholder. People tend to transform their wishes into beliefs but believing and thinking are two different exercises. Unfortunately, once people are caught up in a belief system they are not longer approachable in a rational way. I confess that I don’t know if God(s) exist but I’m pretty sure that he, she or it won’t have a high opinion from a flock, preachers and pope’s who are so arrogant to pretend that they know what he, she or it is thinking and I’m even more convinced that he, she or it doesn’t give a rats ass about abortion, gays and all matters that make believers wave with one or another religion.
Walter Daems do you believe in objective truth or is your truth good for you and mine is good for me? Does 2+2= 4 in your world? It does in the real world and in every world. This has nothing do for with subjectivity or “wishes turning into beliefs” or I’d totally be following Buddha. Christianity doesn’t make anyone comfortable. Quite the opposite. If calls out what’s wrong in the world and gives a playbook in which to live a moral life by with an objective standard for those morals.
First our planet looks fine-tuned, then our solar system, then our galaxy and then scientific progress has shown that our planet, solar system and galaxy are not the only ones, but there might be infinitely many. Now our universe seems fine-tuned? In my opinion the best explanation is that our universe is just one of many.
The universe is not finely tuned for anything nor does it have some sort of goal it's trying to reach. Everything in this universe conforms to the laws of this universe and if the numbers were different, everything in that universe would conform to the laws of that universe. From the universe's perspective we're no different from a rock or for that matter, anything else in the universe but we try to give ourselves more importance.
exiledfrommyself "we're no different from a rock" So you consider yourself to be as unimportant as a rock. Atheist physicists accept the element of fine tuning. If they didn't they wouldn't have to resort to a multiverse. But its important to note the multiverse idea has only one purpose, and that purpose is to elude the implication of a designer and nothing else, its not even science.
jonesgerard I consider humans more important than rocks but that's just my subjective opinion. In the eyes of the universe, rock human - same difference. If any Atheist physicists say there is such a thing as "fine tuning" they don't know what they're talking about. The universe is what it is and everything in it is just an unintended consequence of the expansion.
***** There is no "fine tuning problem". Science can only tell you what the numbers are. Trying go beyond that is not science. Things like the meaning and purpose behind something are all creations of the human mind; they don't exist outside of it. The numbers are what they are and everything in the universe conforms to those numbers. I'm sure you've heard the example of someone looking at a puddle and then claiming the hole in the ground was fine tuned for the water because the water fits the shape of the hole so perfectly. The water took the shape of the hole and if the hole was different the water would take that shape. What would give me pause is if the universe was made up of different numbers and we still managed to exist in our current form. Us and everything else in the universe conforming to the laws of the universe is expected and shouldn't lead anyone to believe that there's some sort of design element.
***** I cling to what is, not to what someone speculates. If you think the numbers have some sort of meaning behind them I'm more than willing to hear and examine your evidence.
So, can any one here tell me why they think the universe is fine-tuned for life, instead of just fine-tuned to produce carbonaceous chondrites? Or methane? Or carbon dioxide? These things are dependent on all the same constants and laws as life as we know it, so why do people think life is *more important* than these other things? Why are they so incredibly anthropocentric? Also, who says there aren't other possible combinations of laws that also allow life, but life not as we know it? Life dependent on other kinds of laws of attraction and repulsion, laws that produce completely different kinds of particles and different kinds of interactions? Why do you think our current, carbon-base life is the only possible form of life?
yes there is a bias. one could say "maybe the universe is finely tuned for ipads" the reason there is a human bias is because it might make some sense that a big magic man would be motivated to make a universe for people but doesn't seem like he would for apple products. the fact is the world is finely tuned for life (as well as electronics) and that does demand an explanation, naturalistic or otherwise. i do agree that life most likely could evolve in very very different conditions, even if it took trillions or Quadrillions of years, because life is statistically inevitable that if life CAN possibly form sooner or later it will. However you do need a universe for that and some if some parameters were diff there would be no stable universe so thats a factor i recommend Sean Carroll on this topic
Shehzad Ahmed not true. there is not reason the universe couldn't be rearranged in such a way that there are no atoms but energy is rearranged in such a way life can occur. its easy to imagine life without atoms
The roll of the dice, probabilities. You wouldn't be alive to know any other alternative than this one. I am speaking of course of the theory of the multiverse. If true, which it seems it may be. Then there are many Universes and we just happen to be in the lucky one that can produce life with this random set of variables.
obviously we, the people alive on earth are a part of a tiny slice of probability that could hold life... so it's no surprise that this outcome would boggle many minds... but just accept that we.. our earth is in a mega sweet spot so just enjoy this awesome outcome and enjoy what happiness we can gather in such a small time? to even read this sentence you are one of the lucky humans to grace your vision on this planet... do you know what i mean? some will understand my message but many will not, but enjoy
People get mad at me for loving this stuff. They don’t want it. I love it. This last year at 65, I’ve been taught quantum physics by our new buddy AI with utubes help. This is exactly where it leads me. This ocupies my mind as I work all day. Good stuff. solution three is inevitable. I’ve number four. God, er no the universe itself is using tests, observation, research, information ect just the way humans do to decide what’s next. It creates a paradox of the unsolavble because the test beds interact. Call it Scott quantum observable quantum paradox, It seems we found the computer code to simulate the universe, organization, but the computer itself is absent. You, your mind and the data, the universe together we create this consciousness so yes it is conscious too solving much. I theorize more. I love it some like it. I discuss this with AI and my current coworkers so so great.
"why gravity is so much weaker than the other forces...well we don't really know but here is we do know even if it was a little bit stronger...stars will burn out too quickly...they wouldn't live long enough for life to evolve.." if this is not fine tuning then what is fine tuning? 🤷🏻♂️
@@tinetannies4637 I did watch the whole video actually. You're welcome to keep the notion that 'ours just happens to work' without any reason or its just a fluke?
@@tinetannies4637 Or it can also mean if it is not fine tuned find one example where you can say that look this planet also happens to have life. But you can't yet find any example and thus rely on other possibilities to prove it as an accident. And we are not even discussing the prime mover of all such possible megaverses
Dear Mr. Susskind; This is the best, and most precise general explanation for the state of our "mega-verse" that I have seen in so few words. The unanswered question is what started all of this to begin in the first place. "Existence" in and of itself has been the thing that most troubles me ... not so much how it appears to manifest itself.
The beauty of this universe is that it does ask questions through us. It seems it would be an amazing waste of a bubble universe ( that is huge as ours ) if nobody was around to admire it... or a mindless empty universe. Aren’t we the mind of the universe?
Somebody says something like that in Werner Herzog's documentary 'Encounters at the End of the World'. That the universe created us to look at itself, we are the universe admiring itself. But frankly I think those UFOs zipping around the skies and oceans, defying all known laws of physics, I think those guys have some explaining to do. I think we need to know what's up with those guys, before we can claim to be the mind of the universe.
It amazes me to listen to someone as academically distinguished and accomplished as Dr. Susskind descibe the infinitesimal liklihood of our existence because of the ultra-fine-tuned cosmological constant, then repeatedly subconsciously use words like "design" and "create" throughout this interview, but literally laugh off the existence of God as a possible reasonable explanation for the knife's-edge reality of our cosmological and biological existence. Yet he just validated the hand of God.
I heard a lot about the Multiverse before; and the Megaverse of Susskind is a very new and nice way to put it. Talking about bubble Universes in a Multiverse make it seems like the bubbles are evolving in something. As I understand it from Leonard, It is really one Mega Universe in which quantum fluctuations make the physic different from places to places. I like it
Conway's "Game of Life" says that even with silly simple rules, intelligent life would evolve from a sufficiently-large universe sown with a random starting situation. Maybe there is the possibility for life in many other universes, although it wouldn't look much like us
The Anthropic Principle implies that this sort of thing is just what we should expect. Not "fine tuning" but the apprehension that there is such a thing as "fine tuning". If you come to it from a theistic point of view the "fine tuning" is there to see. If you come at it with no preconceptions the apprehension disappears. What we can say with some certainty is that the universe is what it is and life is a product of it. Any assumption of purpose, design, fine tuning etc. is guesswork.
M1KA3L it's a drawing of the way one string decays into two strings, sort of a short hand like Feynman diagram in QED( quantum electrodynamics). the diagrams are a simple expression to help understand how strings behave. but the math behind it is extremely difficult both in QED and string theory.
B) Circular Reasoning: -If We were desired, the Universe would be like this. (sure) -If we weren't it could also be like this (yes) -We were desired. (Whoa! arbitrarily inserted premise) -The Universe is like this. (sure) -Therefore, we were desired. That's circular reasoning for you. The ONLY way the "why?" question about the universal "tuning" is relevant is if you previously assume life AS WE KNOW it, and not any other awesome possible thing, was a goal. That's hubris for you.
Susskins bio is interesting. Read it!! He was working as a plumber before he studied physics....." When I told my father I wanted to be a physicist, he said, ‘Hell no, you ain’t going to work in a drug store.’ I said no, not a pharmacist. I said, ‘Like Einstein.’ He poked me in the chest with a piece of plumbing pipe. ‘You ain’t going to be no engineer,’ he said. ‘You’re going to be Einstein.’"
We are fine tuned for physical law. Not the other way around. I like how he was influenced by biological "design space" but I strongly suggest he should use a somewhat more accurate term of recipe, not blueprint, for a variable law universe. Most evolutionary biologists would tend to suggest the same regarding DNA. There is no representation of the finished product within DNA so blueprint fails to convey the emergent effect of simple chemical reactions.
***** "Technically, the system as it functions via DNA already contains all the possible calculable blueprints/products" You tried to slide the word blueprint right back into a statement that is supposed to explain _WHY_ the word "blueprint" should be used. A blueprint is a representation of the finished product. Nowhere within DNA is there any such representation, in whole nor in part. "But the "tuning" is not in the above... It is, as you've said, in the "effect of simple chemical reactions", meaning - all the Universal constants, all chemical constants, the nuclear forces, the electromagnetic constants of Nature..." That effectively destroys any power in the fine tuning argument as it is used by theists. What is left in it's ashes is an argument for deism. "If the Universe wasn't fine-tuned, then they should be "evolving" in separate parts of the cosmos differently" Your conclusion does not follow from the single premise you gave. However, it does suggest that it is possible that some constants _ARE_ different in other patches of the Universe. After all, if the Universe can evolve/change from it's primordial conditions at different times/places, then why can't some of the conditions be different in disparate patches and/or at different times? Nobody is arguing that they _ALL_ have to be subject to change, merely some. And a little change goes a long way in a causal chain. In the end, I think Feynman said it best with : _If it turns out it’s like an onion with millions of layers and we’re just sick and tired of looking at the layers, then that’s the way it is, but whatever way it comes out it’s nature is there and she is going to come out the way she is, and therefore when we go to investigate it we shouldn’t predecide what it is we’re trying to do except to try to find out more about it. _ -Richard Feynman
***** "because there are Laws that supersede things, which govern everything past the size of Planck units. You won't find much on this angle in your public physics courses schoolbooks." Are you just practicing sophistry or what? Do you really think physical laws and the Planck scale are somehow an arcane "angle"? "It is very arrogant of mankind to devise and to put forward "Theories of Everything"," Audacious, not arrogant. "But have Faith. ;=)" Meh, I have no need for faith. Reason is a far superior tool.
Regardless of the miracles he describes in the Universe & the miracle of existence itself, God still still seems out of the question. Christianity sent science on a mission to find God, and he keeps showing up, only to be denied his existence.
To the fine tuning parameters add all the accidents and collisions that produced our sun, our world and eventually life. They greatly exceed the fine tuning parameters. The mega verse not only has to produce a world with water, but must do it countless times until life gets its lucky break.
A piece from a new book titled: Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach into the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlie all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law which allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice verse. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment of time than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to between making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, or producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always to respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result from any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things in a conventional way - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life - including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream - already exists within us. th-cam.com/video/NR5DdqjMxgA/w-d-xo.html Let go, and let God - Olivia Newton-John Nam Myoho Renge Kyo Let go, and let God - Olivia Newton-John Nam Myoho Renge Kyo www.youtube.com
I do. There is the trivial multiverse, equivalent to the empty set, and this exists trivially. The next smallest multiverse contains one universe. We observe one, hence we live a multiverse which contains within itself this next smallest multiverse. Hence, nontrivial multiverse exists.
@@bombdottcom111 If I have one bottle of beer, I have beer. The quantity of BEER in BEER is not specified. The number of universes in a multiverse is not specified either, and it is not at all clear that we speak of multiverse only if it has at least two elements - at least two universes. One may be enough.
The Universe was clearly fine tuned for death. It is an instrument "tuned" to a sadistic melody. Life for individuals is unimaginably short. As a more general concept, life itself (and planets and stars for that matter) are possible only in a tiny fraction of the universe and for only a relatively small part of the Universe's expansion until it spreads out into an infinitely cold empty void.
The smaller you are, the faster you die. Of course there are some exceptions. But how long does one of your skin cells live? How long do you live? How long does a planet live? How long does a sun, a solar system, a galaxy, how long does a universe live? The bigger you are, the longer you live.
I like the way Leonard Susskind more or less leaves 'other universes' or 'multiple universes' as pockets within essential one universe with variable conditions - which in a way suggests that many of the constants, aren't so constant, and the laws of physics, broken or different in other regions of one universe. Great interviewing, too, by Steven Weinberg (am I spelling his name correctly?).
Similar to our elements on the periodic table , that create certain attributes when combing certain building blocks, other universes who, let's say dont have electrons, will create balancing atoms and create a different periodic table of elements. It's very true that many people are too ignorant about other possibilities
Maybe I'm just being dense, but it seems to me we are the way we are because the universe is the way it is. The universe is not the way it is simply to support us. This just doesn't seem to be a valid question to me. If the universe weren't the way it is now we simply would not be. For me it is something like we are in the Goldilocks zone of the univers timewise. It's as simple as that. No big mystery. Life takes hold where can. At some point our current universe will not exist. Then there will be something else. Perhaps that something else will be completely hostile to life. Would we then if we were able to perceive that time think gee, existence must really hate us because we are unable to exist here. This place is fine tuned against us...? Anyway you get my point.
David F At last, someone who sees it like i do, simple:/ We exist because the random conditions of the verse..the constants, came out in a way that allowed the formation of atoms, galaxys, stars, etc:/ It could be no other way and still have us here arguing about "fine tuning",lol. AS he said, taking earth as example, wow, what a miracle the earth just happened to be just right for us:/ Got the donkey by the tail, we are here only because conditions are right for life like ours, so thats what you get! Could have been different, probably is in one of the many other verses that i have little doubt exist out there. His "pocket universes", only i see it as many individual verses, each with its own laws, not connected by physical space as he suggests. Why do they over complicate shit:/ It does NOT cry out for an explanation, its pretty bloody obvious:/
David F That's fine and logical. I used to think like you until I understood the Boltzmann brain paradox. So I cant just quickly answer a question like you did. This is still unknown. Mystery... it's fascinating. www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2008/12/29/richard-feynman-on-boltzmann-brains/ I warn you though this is hard concept to grasp totally...
I've heard of the Boltzman brain paradox. Need to refresh my memory. Will look into it again more closely. Maybe we can discuss the ideas presented. Thanks for the idea.
Marvelous Exchange. 2 masters at their best. Per the video, there are couple of dozen constants that rest on razors edge, if they were different, we couldn't be here. Chiefly among these is the tiny cosmological constant. We're talking a force with 123 numerical places to the right of the decimal. Nobody knows why it is so small but if it were bigger stars and planets could not have formed. Physicists don't understand why it is so small, but it is curious that this universe is so fine tuned for life. At then end of this video, Suskin makes the analogy that just as there are an infinite way of rearranging DNA do make life forms, so it is with matter. We only see one configuration of matter in this universe, but there may be other universes out there with very different properties than ours.
The central argument seems to be that if the universe did not operate as it does, we could not exist, as if humanity is the reason for the existence of the universe. We adapted to the environment as our earliest ancestors found it.
It's absolutely astonishing. Where I live, when it rains, every puddle turns out to have exactly the same shape as the hollow in the pavement where it forms. Clearly it requires a huge intelligence to make that so.
the professor and others like him seem to have stumbled into philosophy - we have not observed anything like a multiverse or detected the necessary extra dimensions nor charted the vastness of the landscape, yet he speaks as if it is.... what we have is the observable universe... and that is incredibly fine tuned.... draw your own conclusions....
It's meant to illustrate our limited perspective. When you start from us and try to work back to the beginning, it seems incredibly unlikely that we should have emerged from nature at all, but we've adapted to nature not the other way round. If the fundamental forces had been different we wouldn't exist at all? Or we maybe we'd just be different too. We only have one living planet to base our assumptions on, and only one slightly living universe for that matter.
You have to appreciate the candor in AE's explanation: theories, ideas, investigation, even in recognizing these approaches seek to offer explanation as to how the universe may behave but not in how it arose.
+Kevin van den Hoek Because people have very strong beliefs about God and are willing ignore their training in order to lead the evidence to their own preferred conclusion.
+Kevin van den Hoek This seems for right, honestly. After all, isn't evolutionary theory essentially about life adapting itself to environmental conditions, not the other way around? That and, fine-tuning overestimates how suited for life the universe is. Even on earth, many environments are ill suited for life, most planets are ill suited for life. It seems arrogant to say the universe is the way it is so we can exist.
I think you missed the point. Yes life is fine tuned for the universe, but why is life even possible in the universe? Given the possible ranges of the constants, most possible universes should not allow ANY life, much less ours. So why are we in a universe that's incredibly unlikely?
This is the old conflict between the weak anthropic principle (WAP as earlier mentioned) and the strong anthropic principle and you haven't added anything new to the debate. It's unlikely to be settled until there is a definitive answer as to whether we live in a multiverse or not, I'm not holding my breath.
+Trent Bell Maybe not, but the problem is still there. There IS a Universe/World/Reality (whatever you'd like to call the entierety of the world) and the ''laws'' are very precise for life to form at some point when the right conditions happen. Then, the Universe from which we are a part of gets self-concious of itself. Strange paradox really and I'm not confident to say it's either confirmation bias or some strange selfawareness mecanism the Universe possesses.
+Trent Bell I think part of the problem with this is, without knowing how consciousness and thought themselves work, the best we can say is "We know life of the kind we have in this reality (organic beings primarily made of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc.) would not exist." Perhaps organic life exists on a knife's edge, but other kinds of thought or awareness as allowed in a material universe do not. This is not an explanation by any means, merely an acknowledgement of the limits of our current understanding. And while it is certainly no disproof, I think it does do merit to weaken the "spookiness" of fine tuning in this way.
DeusExAstra You're assuming it's a problem with a solution, and excluding the ones which don't match your personal criteria for what a solution is. The truth is, it's only a problem in the first place because humans exist. Without people to think about the problem, there is no problem, only the existence mathematics, laws, and constants.
Scientists do explain the state of being. A model more " rational " than God.. the cosmological constant, the unlimited number of mutations, mixing of cosmic and galactic and terrestrial conditions, which inevitably result at least one, if not more, for life to exist. This is a truly enlightening interview. Thanks for the effort and keep up with the good work. From Hker worldwide
Imagination - Process of Pure Creation The process of creation starts with thought - an idea, conception, visualization. Everything you see was once someone's idea. Nothing exists in your world that did not first exist as pure thought. This is true of the universe as well. Thought is the first level of creation. Next comes the word. Everything you say is a thought expressed. It is creative and sends forth creative energy into the universe. Words are more dynamic (thus, some might say more creative) than thought, because words are a different level of vibration from thought. They disrupt (change, alter, affect) the universe with greater impact. Words are the second level of creation. Next comes action. Actions are words moving. Words are thoughts expressed. Thoughts are ideas formed. Ideas are energies come together. Energies are forces released. Forces are elements existent. Elements are particles of God, portions of ALL, the stuff of everything. The beginning is God. The end is action. Action is God creating - or God experienced. Hang on. There's one thing more I have to tell you. You are always seeing what by your terms you would define as the "past," even when you are looking at what is right in front of you. I am? It is impossible to see The Present. The Present "happens," then turns into a burst of light, formed by energy dispersing, and that light reaches your receptors, your eyes, and it takes time for it to do that. All the while the light is reaching you, life is going on, moving forward. The next event is happening while the light from the last event is reaching you. The energy burst reaches your eyes, your receptors send that signal to your brain, which interprets the data and tells you what you are seeing. Yet that is not what is now in front of you at all. It is what you think you are seeing. That is, you are thinking about what you have seen, telling yourself what it is, and deciding what you are going to call it, while what is happening "now" is preceding your process, and awaiting it. To put this simply, I am always one step ahead of you. My God, this is unbelievable. Now listen. The more distance you place between your Self and the physical location of any event, the further into the "past" that event recedes. Place yourself a few light-years back, and what you are looking at happened very, very long ago, indeed. Yet it did not happen "long ago." It is merely physical distance which has created the illusion of "time," and allowed you to experience your Self as being both "here, now" all the while you are being "there, then"! One day you will see that what you call time and space are the same thing. Then you will see that everything is happening right here, right now. This is....this is....wild. I mean, I don't know what to make of all this. When you understand what I have told you, you will understand that nothing you see is real. You are seeing the image of what was once an event, yet even that image, that energy burst, is something you are interpreting. Your personal interpretation of that image is called your image-ination. And you can use your imagination to create anything. Because - and here is the greatest secret of all - your image-ination works both ways. Please? You not only interpret energy, you create it. Imagination is a function of your mind, which is one-third of your three-part being. In your mind you image something, and it begins to take physical form. The longer you image it (and the more OF you who image it), the more physical that form becomes, until the increasing energy you have given it literally bursts into light, flashing an image of itself into what you call your reality. You then "see" the image, and once again decide what it is. Thus, the cycle continues. This is what I have called The Process. This is what YOU ARE. You ARE this Process. This is what I have meant when I have said, you are both the Creator and the Created. I have now brought it all together for you. We are concluding this dialogue, and I have explained to you the mechanics of the universe, the secret of all life. Okay. Now as energy coalesced, it becomes, as I said, very concentrated. But the further one moves from the point of this concentration, the more dissipated the energy becomes. The "air becomes thinner." The aura fades. The energy never completely disappears, because it cannot. It is the stuff of which everything is made. It's All There Is. Yet it can become very, very thin, very subtle - almost "not there." Then, in another place (read that, another part of Itself) it can again coalesce, once more "clumping together" to form what you call matter, and what "looks like" a discreet unit. Now the two units appear separate from each other, and in truth there is no separation at all. This is, in very, very simple and elementary terms, the explanation behind the whole physical universe. Wow. But can it be true? How do I know I haven't just made this all up? Your scientists are already discovering that the building blocks of all of life are the same. They brought back rocks from the moon and found the same stuff they find in trees. They take apart a tree and find the same stuff they find in you. I tell you this: We are all the same stuff. (I and the Father are One Energy) We are the same energy, coalesced, compressed in different ways to create different forms and different matter. Nothing "matters" in and of itself. That is, nothing can become matter all by itself. Jesus said, "Without the Father, I am nothing." The Father of all is pure thought. This is the energy of life. This is what you have chosen to call Absolute Love. This is the God and the Goddess, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. It is the All-in-All, the Unmoved Mover, the Prime Source. It is that which you have sought to understand from the beginning of time. The Great Mystery, the Endless Enigma, the Eternal Truth. There is only One of Us, and so, it is THAT WHICH YOU ARE.
Megaverse, multiverse, string theory, lets rearrange the # of possibilities to explain how we think the universe, the galaxies, our solar system just so happened to support life. Only one problem though, none of it can be tested by the scientific method. Until then, it all exists within the frame work of ones imagination. But we will do this, let's call them "theories" to legitimize it and publish these notions before them fundamentalists laugh us out of the labs.
+Keith Bell That's a great idea! We don't want to be laughed at after all. Here is another idea: Let's come up with a crazy convoluted story about a magic man who lives in the sky who created everything. The scientists will know we are full of crap but, since they can't _disprove_ our story, we can always fall back to that! If we defend it with logical fallacies we might actually confuse some people into thinking the story is true. We will insist that scientists limit their ideas to the bounds of the scientific method while we can just believe our story without a shred of evidence because, well, we just say _we know_ it's true!
These theories come from physicist's extrapolating known laws of physics. None of these ideas were created to figure out anything to do with life (that is a biologist's job, not physicist). Eternal Inflation (which is the main theory that derives a "multiverse"), was created to deal with questions surrounding the big bang. String theory was created as an attempt to answer questions surrounding quantum gravity. None of those investigations are a direct attempt to understand why our universe supports life.
Wouldn't a "multi verse " have to be more or just as fine tuned for it to create all of those universes? I feel like this "multi verse" theory, though very creative... is totally science fiction. For one, they would never ever be able to observe it. Its literary impossible.
+Michael Hurwitz exactly.. that's why it's good to tell people that believe in the multiverse I want proof! the multi universe is their spaghetti monster! Hahahaha
If Inflation theory is shown to be correct (and it may be shown so if we discover gravitational waves from the Big Bang), then the multiverse is a consequence of Inflation.
+RomeosChannel2105 maybe you should look up the meaning of "literary" ... also, you are wrong ... observing other universes can be done by inspecting the CMB (cosmic microwave background) or other experiments ... Also again, a multiverse wouldn't have to be fine tuned AT ALL ... fined tuned to make fine tuned universes? That sounds stupid. A multiverse only needs an inflation field to work.
LIFE The beauty of this universe is that it does ask questions through us. It seems it would be an amazing waste of a bubble universe ( that is huge as ours ) if nobody was around to admire it... or a mindless empty universe. Aren’t we the mind of the universe? And then comes realisation: Life for individuals is unimaginably short. As a more general concept, life itself (and planets and stars for that matter) are possible only in a tiny fraction of the universe and for only a relatively small part of the Universe's expansion until it spreads out into an infinitely cold empty void.
The multiverse theory is sometimes criticized for not adequately addressing the fine-tuning problem. This problem arises from the observation that the fundamental constants and conditions in our universe appear to be precisely fine-tuned to allow for the emergence of life. Critics argue that invoking a multiverse to explain this fine-tuning merely shifts the question to why our universe is so finely tuned to produce a multiverse.
Beyond any doubt we can be sure that the idea of an anthropic god is false. That bothers very much the theists! On the other hand it is also clear that we are going to find (maybe in a few centuries or millennia) a much more wonderful explanation for our miraculous life than we could ever imagine! Something much more wonderful that any idea about any possible god!
No actually it is the following thought that has always bothered and troubled the fool: And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Hebrews 9:27 What Dark Secrets lie in the dark closet of YOUR perfumed soul sir? One day the whole world will know!
WmTyndale Only the uneducated people can believe the Judaic-Christian-Islamic lies. Unfortunately too many Americans are being brainwashed with Religion!
WmTyndale If you would read carefully the bible, the qur'an and the torah you would realize that all of it is just a bunch of stone-age garbage. A lot of stone age cruelty! your god is saying: kill the gays, stone to death the women and kill the children who disobey their parents. Is it not enough shit in them?
48acar19 I disagree. You prove you did not think rationally before. 1º) People believing in God or in no God does not make them educated or uneducated, rational or irrational. It is how they arrive at that stance that counts 2º) Why pay attention to religious books? They might be wrong. Plus, their being right or wrong could not, anyway, change reality regarding the existence or inexistence of a creator. What physically exists does exist whatever we say or write about it, and the same goes with what does not exist. 3º) Apparently there are 2 definitions of atheism a) lack of belief in a creator b) the doctrine that affirms there is no creator. Most atheists now choose a), which constitutes half agnosticism, for the latter also affirms a lack of belief in NO creator. Those bold ones sticking to b) even incur a tremendous incongruity, for in order to prove the inexistence of something you must first know of its features, and if you did, the thing in question would exist or would have existed at least once, hence the incongruity (the other way would be by knowing EVERYTHING so as to ascertain it did not exist, which in turn would imply something like being a god so as to know every corner of this immense Universe in time, and the knowledge faculties to notice the features of a creator in case it existed, hence the other way to incongruity) So, in a nutshell, the so-called atheists that stick to b) are simply irrational minds. And the ones that stick to a) are just the antithesis of theists for they just have a belief, but neither can prove their thesis right or the other's wrong, hence that science and rationality just looks on both of them as the same thing, neither smarter or more educated than the other. They both just have respectable faith, the same as if some believe there are civilizations in the Tadpole Galaxy or not, or if there is light in a certain corner of the Universe or not, etc, etc. JUST AGNOSTICISM EQUALS SCIENCE AND RATIONALITY, for we cannot confirm or disconfirm a creator or a lack of a creator (and whatever accompanies the word agnostic, wether atheist or theist, is irrelevant for it is the belief part, and science is not interested in that respectable but fruitless part as far as a scientific and rational approach to the matter is concerned) Source: scientist.
ratio veritas That defines you as a religionist. You can disagree as much as you want, but religion means distorted thinking. I would define this as schizophrenia. Yes, if somebody is a child, things are different. But after the age of reason is reached, things are exactly as I am describing them.
its gets even better than this. assume there is only one pathway to the appearance of the human genome. if, as far as we know, there is only one pathway to the appearance of the human genome. everything that has happened on earth, would have to occur in exactly the same order and under the exactly the same circumstances in another world, in another galaxy, in order for another set of the human genome to exist. this other world would have to recapitulate our cenozoic, mesozoic, paleozoic epochs. dinosaurs would have to be made extinct by a meteor etc. etc. etc.a lineage of primates would have had to evolve form a trembling marsupial etc, etc, etc....we are the only humans in the universe.....there are no other extra-terrestrials....we are unique....
+rafael rondon But who said the human genome is the only type of life that could exist? The assumptions you make have no basis, and therefore, your conclusion is invalid.
there are probably millions of different life forms and therefore different types of DNA that can exist. I was referring to specifically human DNA, I argue that to make human DNA you have to repeat the process that created human DNA. Human DNA exist inly in one place in the universe n human earth. I challenge you to think of another way to create human DNA.
rafael rondon Oh, I see. I agree with that, then, as it would be far too unlikely to make an exact copy of Human DNA by accident. That makes us a unique species, but that's the same with every other species. So, what I'm saying is that life is not unique to us on Earth.
The question gets it backwards. The universe is not fine tuned so we can exist. That presumes intent, which presumes a creator. We are fine tuned to live in our small corner of the universe. No intent is necessary. The only process of fine tuning at work is called natural selection.
+Thomas Briggs Natural selection applies to biological adaption and selection. Fine tuning applies to the laws of physics that produce a universe that life can arise in. Its you who has it backward.
Natural selection fine tunes populations of organisms to their environments. This is elementary biology. Read Victor Stenger on the disengenuousness of fine tuning arguments. They are ignorant oversimplifications of anthropic arguments. While you can say that the conditions that lead to our existence are necessary for our existence (a tautology that is probably but not demonstrably true) it is fallacious to argue what frauds like William Lane Craig argue, that this is indication of purpose and intent in the physical values assuming the values they do. They take the values they do for reasons that are in dispute. If the resulting universe can support life, it may, and may give rise to intelligent observers.. Just because something is not completely understood is not a reason to imagine a creator. This is the basic argument from ignorance, the god of the gaps, which has always failed in the face of increased knowledge.
Fine tuning arguments are like saying that the odds of your parents meeting might have been 100 to 1, and the odds of their parents' meeting were 100 to 1, so the odds of your existing are 100^3 to one. Go back another generation and it is 100^7 to 1. Another generation and it is 100^15 to 1. It only looks unlikely if you presume we are a goal of creation, and not merely a consequence of the universe.
This is admittedly metaphysical conjecture, but it could be that all of the universe is biological and operates under the same laws as evolution. It could be that we're looking for biogenesis where there is none, simply due to the flaw of anthropomorphism. If there were no presumed delineation between "alive" and "not-alive," things might start to make more sense, including why it's difficult to ignore consciousness when dealing with these subjects in the first place.
golden86 No and no. We can and we do have a number of theories “trying” to explain “the reality” (of whichever subject in nature you wish); are all of them correct? No. The theory may explain observations but not explain the reality.
I like this guy. He's very clear and straightforward with his explanation.
Susskind is a legend.
Lenny rules. Look up his lectures.
he is a troll
Lazar Otasevic - 😆🤣😂
Susskind is one of my favourites in the contemporary science space....his books are brilliantly written and his story from being a plumber to becoming a physicist is inspiring too
What a great scientist and thinker Leonard Susskind is. Easy to understand and follow very complex topics. Need I mention what a great science writer he also is.
@Donut dude it’s was sooo awesome while trump was POTUS. Now it’s boring
@Donut dude sleeeepy Joe
@@JoshuaMSOG7 keep your bullshit political comments to your self
@@JoshuaMSOG7 fuck trump and his cult of personality
Yes at the present level of knowledge. When another paradigm shift happens and newer data come in his notions too would be swept aside.
Robert knows all this stuff as well as his guests, having studied their work before interviewing them. He knows how to get these brilliant people to talk to us so that we too can know. (Though mostly what they end up saying is that nobody knows anything for sure. Which I love. Cuz it makes me feel not quite so dumb.) I do very much enjoy these interviews. Thank you, folks.
Greetings from Germany. I could listen to Leonard Susskind all day… every day. His ability to explain komplex processes understandably is simply uncanny! Grüße gen Stanford aus Göttingen.
Susskind and Penrose allways blow my mind. Thx for this great interview.
My favourite Professor in the world.
“Never get too attached to your current models/theories of reality, because new ones will be coming along soon that will alter/replace the old ones.”
That's true, but we're constantly getting closer and closer to the truth. *Flat earth* was very wrong, but it explained some basic things; then *Classical mechanics* and modern science explained much more, but was still incorrect in some things. The current *Theory of Relativity* and *Quantum theory* explain all of those things, and are more correct in other things, but still not quuuiitee perfect. But you'll notice we're always getting closer. So it's not like suddenly we can end up with a radically different theory that makes all of former science obsolete.
" Then we'll live in a black hole...you cant live in a black hole " .... 2019 now and the holographic principle just say that.... And well > L. Susskind its a strong suporter of the ideea now . How about that?
Darth Nixa relaivity and quantum theories are worse than flat earth
@@redhotbits Can you elaborate on that?
"Models and theories change but nature stays with what's real".
Leo- you have already won a loosing battle with gravity.
You are gravitonless and timeless hero, an hugely intelligent and though-provoking scientist who can easilly get the matter across.
Thanks Professor Susskind. Long live Leonard !!!
Is this a praise or an irony?
The interviewer (who is he?) does a very fine job both with Susskind and with the subject matter.
@Tony DC
And often has a more realistic and fundamental understanding of the science than the people he is interviewing. He's a very knowledgeable and scientifically literate individual. Closer to Truth is a fantastic program. His interviews with Paul Davies are fantastic.
Best science channel on youtube. Will also make a great archive for future generations.
Roq Steady
Agree 100%
The channel belongs to him
This guy once dealt with plumbing and now homes in on the nature of the universe. I once dealt with plumbing and finally made it up to the 17th century and home in on the nature of bagpipes. I love the way this guy forms premises. Of all the possible places, only the few places like have life "like" us.
Susskind is superb like a proper guy with the knowledge from downtown love it
The fine tuning is special and so are you.
Exactly, just like everybody else.
What an incredibly intelligent and intelligible man Leonard is.
Susskind... "we approaching the end of observation".. greatest statement ever!!
This is the single most fundamental moment of a human being saying things I've ever heard. Thank you.
I want the information in this man's mind added to my own. My goodness, what a brilliant human specimen.
U can watch his lectures for free on here
With all his efforts to explain how things are as they are, I wonder how he would account for how these things began to exist at all.
Allah !
@@gireeshneroth7127 then who created allah ? Your answer sucks
@@commandvideo it’s the only logical conclusion.
You guys stop at “I guess it’s always been there.”
Theists go a step further and imagine what the implications of a self-existent entity would really mean.
At least in my view. We’ll all find out, or not.
Because, wizards!
Turtles!
I don't care how weak Gravity is .It still gets me down
precisely
if gravity was anywhere near the strength of the other forces, earth would be a black hole
Because the earth is so fucking huge
+You don'T Say ? ets fun to toy w that idea, but I've never fully understood how gravity is weak. where do they get that from, in where do they view gravity stronger than et is now to know that gravity is actually weaker than et should be??
A small fridge magnet is enough to create an electromagnetic force greater than the gravitational pull exerted by planet Earth.
I love lenny susskind. He speaks so well and has a very clear understanding of things.
This reminds me of the puddle of water who one day found itself existing in a pot hole. "Wow, this pothole seems to be absolutely perfect for me... its width and depth create the perfect size to contain me... not to big not to small... almost as if it was created with my existence in mind."
He continues to ponder this concept until a car drove over the pothole and splashed him out... splashed out of existence never to be remembered. Splashed out of awareness of its perfect universe. The most insignificant of experience.
But we're special!! Hahaha
But why the puddle is sentient
@@kingdomofbird8174 doesn't much matter, does it?
Water will conform to the shape of any cavity, any hole will do for water.
Not the case with life.
This is where the analogy fails.
@@kinetic7609 except here on earth, we see life conform to every imaginable environment, no matter how harsh they may seem. And we see life not just existing, but thriving in places we'd never expect. Environments do not form to suit the life they support, rather life makes do with the environment it's provided.
for my self the same conclusion was made in first year Biology, i began to ask my professor questions on the origin of DNA, and the best thing he could do is point me to the Miller-Urey experiment. Evolution does a fantastic job of explaining how the DNA molecule works once it exists, evolution does not explain DNA's existence and the Fact that the earliest fossils records we have still have DNA as complex as it is today, even Anthony flew had the courage to admit this.
DNA is formed from stuff like nitrogenous base, molecules etc (stuff we can make easily) but it contains also adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine from which (as you already know from Miller-Urey experiment) we can create only adenine, but I see no reason why we shouldn’t one day be able to create cytosine etc also.
So, the conclusion is that DNA *most* likely formed from chemical soups from under the ocean.
An Atheist Incorrect. Absolutely not. If you think the cosmological constant is small, what you are suggesting is trillions and trillions of times less likely.
@@manofgod7622 yeah as if nature is the same as a controlled environment with pure chemical substances like a human lab, fuck off
@@manofgod7622 that's the point "able to "create" cytosine etc also." the word "create" implies a creator. amen!
This guy came out of nowhere and is explaining things so well I’m learning about this stuff from a whole new perspective. I like him!
He's been a physics professor at Stanford for more than 40 years. Came out of nowhere?
You can watch hundreds of his lectures on stanford university's channel. He teaches many topics like classical mechanics, relativity, cosmology, quantum mechanics, string theory....he's a beast.
He won a bet from Steven Hawking about black holes.
Isn't it amazing that constants exist at all in a world where everything is constantly changing?
+LARRY Yea, they are like pillars by which everything emerges from. Kind of tells you something..
Thanks!
There's one thing people always forget - these (let's say) 30 constants are not completely independent of each other. It's not like you have 30 knobs on a machine and "someone" sets each one individually to a "perfect" setting and makes them all magically work toghether. One affects the possibilities and the range of others. It's more like 30 people in a line, one imagines a number, tells the number to the person next to them and adds "also, add 1-3 to my number as you wish and give similar instructions to the next person". Many of them are linked and why that's important is that some values EMERGE from the values of others. Some values are not an example of "let's carefully plan this to choose a value - ok, make it 3" but rather "ok, constant x is 8 and constant y is -5 so constant z is - 3". Oversimplification, yes, but just as an illustration. This changes everything enormously, it means you do not have to imagine an "almighty perfect creator" cause nobody else could decide on 30 values to make universe with life in it. It means you may need only a few initial values to be "right" (for OUR form of life), which you have to admit is incredibly different from the other proposal. Imagine baking a cake where you mix flour and water and you have to invent what you'll get and if you imagine wrong there's no cake. No, they do their thing and you get a new third thing - dough. It emerged, you didn't have to create it separately.
Thanks for sharing and thanks Leonard Susskind for speaking with us.
Leonard is explaining the greatest miracle of life in a scientific manner.
Why would there be anything in the 1st place without a God. Even the creation of a single electron is a miracle.
Research the science and you will begin to understand why the universe came into existence without a god.
For a lazy mind everything is a miracle.
@@davidcotuit please do explain
@Nick While I can sit here in furious agreement with you, that answer will never satisfy many people and is simply incoherent to many. This should be no surprise to the person of faith. Unless God opened your mind to accept his reality, you would be no different. The person of faith must recognise this fundamental schism exists not because of any inherent wisdom or knowledge lest they become arrogant with pride. It also serves as a motivator for us to plead with the all powerful God to reveal himself to others - there is no other way.
Psalms 127:1 Unless the Lord builds the house, the builders labor in vain
@@davidcotuit the science makes no such claims. As Prof. Susskind so kindly articulated, there are currently 3 schools of thought and he was so generous as to accept Deity as one of them.
For anything to be 'surprising' or 'unlikely' it has to be one 'event' that is different in a series of 'events'. We only have and ever will have one example of a 'universe' so have no other 'events' to compare it with so by definition it cannot be surprising or unlikely. He says 'we can only live where we CAN live' - end of story !
He seems like such a sage in his craft.
I like how he proves the existence of a grand creator here by explaining the statistics of life on earth.. btw I Love Lenny, one of my favorite living physicists!
If you truly remember your childhood, you will understand that you knew answers to all of these types of questions. The things is that the universe is not accidental by nature but rather incidental. This is something that children see very well because they have not yet been taught all the explanations of whatever timeline one happens to live in.
A man being is born ignorant, not stupid.. And he is made stupid through education
or maybe it’s because their brains aren’t developed and they’re given simple explanations by their parents. Children are curious-“why? Why? Why?” It’s the same reason scientists ask these questions about the universe.
I also found that interesting. All of the things that he concludes after discussing the "edge of the knife" are merely speculations that just beg further questions. I find it quite odd how, him being a scientist, puts so much faith in a mere "mathematical possibility" based on string theory. Its interesting how so many scientists hold to this theory that is a mere possibility, without much evidence. Then they are quick to conclude other mathematical possiblities like white holes don't exist.
Thank God for Fine Tuning.
God was fine tuned to meet our primitive needs.
God is the point where you stop asking.
Yes, thanks to the Great Moogly Googly for the universe. And thanks to him for tuning this .00000000000000000001% that we can survive in, just for us.
What if he's a an asshole?
@@zagyex WHAT?! God is the point where you start asking!
I could listen to susskind all day and all night
This person is very special; the way he explains hard things in a way everybody can understand; I know he has many awards already; I would like he had a Nobel. He really deserves it.
Kudos to this educator, we need more like him! I'm with him and tend lean toward his 'reason #3', however, listen closely to his last words. "and, a way of populating those possibilities'. So we're back to where we started aren't we? I ask what is the 'prime mover' what started the whole thing? Maybe we should revisit explanation #1 and give thanks for our ability to comprehend such questions for the the 70-80 odd years we have physical existence on terra firma :)
I've thought about this. The existence of 'God' doesn't guarantee that the God knows we're here. Moreover, if we were created in his image we could use an analogy. If I create a soup I don't necessarily know what happened to each pea. Nor do I care. Maybe that pea was undercooked compared to the onion. I don't know that. I don't care. And I will happily eat it. (7/10 on that analogy, but you get it I'm sure). :)
"what is the 'prime mover' what started the whole thing?"
There is no prime mover, life is an accident, it may have only happened once, here and now, or it may be something that happens regularly.
The universe is not constant, it will disappear and another will start again from the energy left behind, but the next, and the one before this one, may have no similarity to this one. Life on Earth has lasted for the merest fraction of a fraction of a microsecond in the the time span of THIS universe, and even less in the infinity of universes that have been before this one. We are not important in space-time, all we can do is make life as good as possible for all life while we exist.
@@jonwolf7252 I Know God, and God's name is Pure Chance.
The fact that the universe could be any other way shows that it is dependent
I think this argument (or the question, rather) has some big flaws. Why do we assume that a conscious observer or 'life' can only exist in the carbon based biological form we know?
If we assume life and consciousness (which we have no idea how it works btw) can exist in other forms then the question becomes pointless. The universe is simply always "fine-tuned" for the kind of life that can exist in it.
EDIT: leonard said it himself that countless possibilities are a prerequisite but he seems to disregard the possibility for countless forms of life and consciousness.
exactly what i thought (Y)
You need a stable molecule for anything to exist. It’s not about life. It’s about chemistry
@@theresachung703 so when does the mind arise in a molecule. Also dark matter is not made of molecules. Your point is moot.
@@fitnesspoint2006 Maybe your right. Maybe there's a weird-looking monster in another universe. If that's what you believe I recommend you right a book with Dr. Seuss. I don't see any evidence that something that doesn't have our DNA can be living or counciouslly observant until you have evidence its just a speculation.
@@leechybreeze I have that evidence. She served me yesterday in my local post office
Things were not fine tuned for us we are what was possible if things were different a different kind organism may have evolved.
Anytime you Evaluate Something It loses Appreciation ! And the longer, You must keep It Fresh, totally unbiased .
Wow, 11 years old video. Never knew this channel existed for so long. Been watching since last few years only. Great channel. Wondering how many such hidden gems are unknown until youtube algorithm recommends them.
One of my favorite living physicists hands down! Thanks to TH-cam and Stanford I’ve sat through HOURS of his lectures. Oddly enough, THIS video, from my favorite atheist physicist, is one of many reasons why I believe in a God/Supreme being. #CosmologicalKnifeEdge
BrootPK I came to Jesus while studying biology (DNA) in college and found Susskind and was amazed at his simple way of explaining such amazing singly complex subjects- I bet a lot of these scientists truly believe behind the scenes (I actually know hundreds of biologists who are Christians but cannot admit this as to lose grant funding and so on). This guy is terrific- my dad read about him in the early 70s.....
Go ahead as long as you don’t attach a religion to it
Walter Daems what if the facts support a religion? Would you still turn a blind eye? The Big Bang was the creation event described in Gen 1:1. The scientific facts we have today prove the universe had a supernatural beginning (because there were no laws of nature before the Big Bang) I was an atheist scientist for about 10 mins back in the 90s and science is what revealed GOD to me. I let the facts speak for themselves and it exposed complexity that no natural causes could “ create” ...... that’s truly a case for “Naturalism of the gaps “. We don’t know but we can dEF cancel out a supernatural occurrence because our “faith” won’t allow it. Just follow the evidence . It’s all black and white
Bad Gator the ‘facts’ support all and none religions and are completely supportive in the eye of the beholder. People tend to transform their wishes into beliefs but believing and thinking are two different exercises. Unfortunately, once people are caught up in a belief system they are not longer approachable in a rational way. I confess that I don’t know if God(s) exist but I’m pretty sure that he, she or it won’t have a high opinion from a flock, preachers and pope’s who are so arrogant to pretend that they know what he, she or it is thinking and I’m even more convinced that he, she or it doesn’t give a rats ass about abortion, gays and all matters that make believers wave with one or another religion.
Walter Daems do you believe in objective truth or is your truth good for you and mine is good for me? Does 2+2= 4 in your world? It does in the real world and in every world. This has nothing do for with subjectivity or “wishes turning into beliefs” or I’d totally be following Buddha. Christianity doesn’t make anyone comfortable. Quite the opposite. If calls out what’s wrong in the world and gives a playbook in which to live a moral life by with an objective standard for those morals.
First our planet looks fine-tuned, then our solar system, then our galaxy and then scientific progress has shown that our planet, solar system and galaxy are not the only ones, but there might be infinitely many. Now our universe seems fine-tuned? In my opinion the best explanation is that our universe is just one of many.
The universe is not finely tuned for anything nor does it have some sort of goal it's trying to reach. Everything in this universe conforms to the laws of this universe and if the numbers were different, everything in that universe would conform to the laws of that universe. From the universe's perspective we're no different from a rock or for that matter, anything else in the universe but we try to give ourselves more importance.
exiledfrommyself "we're no different from a rock"
So you consider yourself to be as unimportant as a rock.
Atheist physicists accept the element of fine tuning. If they didn't they wouldn't have to resort to a multiverse.
But its important to note the multiverse idea has only one purpose,
and that purpose is to elude the implication of a designer and nothing else, its not even science.
jonesgerard I consider humans more important than rocks but that's just my subjective opinion. In the eyes of the universe, rock human - same difference.
If any Atheist physicists say there is such a thing as "fine tuning" they don't know what they're talking about. The universe is what it is and everything in it is just an unintended consequence of the expansion.
*****
There is no "fine tuning problem". Science can only tell you what the numbers are. Trying go beyond that is not science. Things like the meaning and purpose behind something are all creations of the human mind; they don't exist outside of it.
The numbers are what they are and everything in the universe conforms to those numbers. I'm sure you've heard the example of someone looking at a puddle and then claiming the hole in the ground was fine tuned for the water because the water fits the shape of the hole so perfectly. The water took the shape of the hole and if the hole was different the water would take that shape. What would give me pause is if the universe was made up of different numbers and we still managed to exist in our current form. Us and everything else in the universe conforming to the laws of the universe is expected and shouldn't lead anyone to believe that there's some sort of design element.
***** I cling to what is, not to what someone speculates. If you think the numbers have some sort of meaning behind them I'm more than willing to hear and examine your evidence.
So, can any one here tell me why they think the universe is fine-tuned for life, instead of just fine-tuned to produce carbonaceous chondrites? Or methane? Or carbon dioxide? These things are dependent on all the same constants and laws as life as we know it, so why do people think life is *more important* than these other things? Why are they so incredibly anthropocentric? Also, who says there aren't other possible combinations of laws that also allow life, but life not as we know it? Life dependent on other kinds of laws of attraction and repulsion, laws that produce completely different kinds of particles and different kinds of interactions? Why do you think our current, carbon-base life is the only possible form of life?
yes there is a bias. one could say "maybe the universe is finely tuned for ipads" the reason there is a human bias is because it might make some sense that a big magic man would be motivated to make a universe for people but doesn't seem like he would for apple products.
the fact is the world is finely tuned for life (as well as electronics) and that does demand an explanation, naturalistic or otherwise.
i do agree that life most likely could evolve in very very different conditions, even if it took trillions or Quadrillions of years, because life is statistically inevitable that if life CAN possibly form sooner or later it will. However you do need a universe for that and some if some parameters were diff there would be no stable universe so thats a factor
i recommend Sean Carroll on this topic
Shehzad Ahmed
not true. there is not reason the universe couldn't be rearranged in such a way that there are no atoms but energy is rearranged in such a way life can occur. its easy to imagine life without atoms
The roll of the dice, probabilities. You wouldn't be alive to know any other alternative than this one. I am speaking of course of the theory of the multiverse. If true, which it seems it may be. Then there are many Universes and we just happen to be in the lucky one that can produce life with this random set of variables.
One word answer... ego.
obviously we, the people alive on earth are a part of a tiny slice of probability that could hold life... so it's no surprise that this outcome would boggle many minds... but just accept that we.. our earth is in a mega sweet spot so just enjoy this awesome outcome and enjoy what happiness we can gather in such a small time? to even read this sentence you are one of the lucky humans to grace your vision on this planet... do you know what i mean? some will understand my message but many will not, but enjoy
People get mad at me for loving this stuff. They don’t want it. I love it. This last year at 65, I’ve been taught quantum physics by our new buddy AI with utubes help. This is exactly where it leads me. This ocupies my mind as I work all day. Good stuff. solution three is inevitable. I’ve number four. God, er no the universe itself is using tests, observation, research, information ect just the way humans do to decide what’s next. It creates a paradox of the unsolavble because the test beds interact. Call it Scott quantum observable quantum paradox, It seems we found the computer code to simulate the universe, organization, but the computer itself is absent. You, your mind and the data, the universe together we create this consciousness so yes it is conscious too solving much. I theorize more. I love it some like it. I discuss this with AI and my current coworkers so so great.
WOW It makes one feel like someone wanted us around
"why gravity is so much weaker than the other forces...well we don't really know but here is we do know even if it was a little bit stronger...stars will burn out too quickly...they wouldn't live long enough for life to evolve.." if this is not fine tuning then what is fine tuning? 🤷🏻♂️
@@tinetannies4637 I did watch the whole video actually. You're welcome to keep the notion that 'ours just happens to work' without any reason or its just a fluke?
@@tinetannies4637 Or it can also mean if it is not fine tuned find one example where you can say that look this planet also happens to have life. But you can't yet find any example and thus rely on other possibilities to prove it as an accident. And we are not even discussing the prime mover of all such possible megaverses
Thank you professor for your time.
And space!
(وجَحَدُوا بِهَا وَاسْتَيْقَنَتْهَا أَنفُسُهُمْ ) 4:37
Dear Mr. Susskind;
This is the best, and most precise general explanation for the state of our "mega-verse" that I have seen in so few words. The unanswered question is what started all of this to begin in the first place. "Existence" in and of itself has been the thing that most troubles me ... not so much how it appears to manifest itself.
The beauty of this universe is that it does ask questions through us. It seems it would be an amazing waste of a bubble universe ( that is huge as ours ) if nobody was around to admire it... or a mindless empty universe. Aren’t we the mind of the universe?
Somebody says something like that in Werner Herzog's documentary 'Encounters at the End of the World'. That the universe created us to look at itself, we are the universe admiring itself. But frankly I think those UFOs zipping around the skies and oceans, defying all known laws of physics, I think those guys have some explaining to do. I think we need to know what's up with those guys, before we can claim to be the mind of the universe.
"Blueprints" are always created by an Architect.
It amazes me to listen to someone as academically distinguished and accomplished as Dr. Susskind descibe the infinitesimal liklihood of our existence because of the ultra-fine-tuned cosmological constant, then repeatedly subconsciously use words like "design" and "create" throughout this interview, but literally laugh off the existence of God as a possible reasonable explanation for the knife's-edge reality of our cosmological and biological existence. Yet he just validated the hand of God.
Consider the possibility that your concept of "creation" is tainted by the presupposition of god
Backwards question.
Life & mind are tuned by the universe.
Probably the best video I have seen on TH-cam.
I heard a lot about the Multiverse before; and the Megaverse of Susskind is a very new and nice way to put it. Talking about bubble Universes in a Multiverse make it seems like the bubbles are evolving in something. As I understand it from Leonard, It is really one Mega Universe in which quantum fluctuations make the physic different from places to places. I like it
Must be God's work right?
inelegant and ridiculous right; but I dont expect more than that from a guy named AnarchoRepublican.
The fact that the universe could be any other way shows it’s dependency… requiring a necessary being
Conway's "Game of Life" says that even with silly simple rules, intelligent life would evolve from a sufficiently-large universe sown with a random starting situation. Maybe there is the possibility for life in many other universes, although it wouldn't look much like us
you're expanding the game of life to something much much more higher
The Anthropic Principle implies that this sort of thing is just what we should expect. Not "fine tuning" but the apprehension that there is such a thing as "fine tuning".
If you come to it from a theistic point of view the "fine tuning" is there to see. If you come at it with no preconceptions the apprehension disappears.
What we can say with some certainty is that the universe is what it is and life is a product of it. Any assumption of purpose, design, fine tuning etc. is guesswork.
Good statement sir.
@Jon. We don't. That response is provoked by the same anthropocentric bias that gives us the fine tuning illusion.
Life is the flexible component.
I'd really appreciate if someone explained the image on Mr Susskind's shirt....
M1KA3L it's a drawing of the way one string decays into two strings, sort of a short hand like Feynman diagram in QED( quantum electrodynamics). the diagrams are a simple expression to help understand how strings behave. but the math behind it is extremely difficult both in QED and string theory.
I'm pretty sure there are two snails crawling in that diagram
I like this interviewer he is tough and demanding for complicated explanations, i seen several other interviewers.
B) Circular Reasoning:
-If We were desired, the Universe would be like this. (sure)
-If we weren't it could also be like this (yes)
-We were desired. (Whoa! arbitrarily inserted premise)
-The Universe is like this. (sure)
-Therefore, we were desired.
That's circular reasoning for you.
The ONLY way the "why?" question about the universal "tuning" is relevant is if you previously assume life AS WE KNOW it, and not any other awesome possible thing, was a goal.
That's hubris for you.
Susskins bio is interesting. Read it!! He was working as a plumber before he studied physics....." When I told my father I wanted to be a physicist, he said, ‘Hell no, you ain’t going to work in a drug store.’ I said no, not a pharmacist. I said, ‘Like Einstein.’ He poked me in the chest with a piece of plumbing pipe. ‘You ain’t going to be no engineer,’ he said. ‘You’re going to be Einstein.’"
We are fine tuned for physical law. Not the other way around. I like how he was influenced by biological "design space" but I strongly suggest he should use a somewhat more accurate term of recipe, not blueprint, for a variable law universe. Most evolutionary biologists would tend to suggest the same regarding DNA. There is no representation of the finished product within DNA so blueprint fails to convey the emergent effect of simple chemical reactions.
***** "Technically, the system as it functions via DNA already contains all the possible calculable blueprints/products"
You tried to slide the word blueprint right back into a statement that is supposed to explain _WHY_ the word "blueprint" should be used. A blueprint is a representation of the finished product. Nowhere within DNA is there any such representation, in whole nor in part.
"But the "tuning" is not in the above... It is, as you've said, in the "effect of simple chemical reactions", meaning - all the Universal constants, all chemical constants, the nuclear forces, the electromagnetic constants of Nature..."
That effectively destroys any power in the fine tuning argument as it is used by theists. What is left in it's ashes is an argument for deism.
"If the Universe wasn't fine-tuned, then they should be "evolving" in separate parts of the cosmos differently"
Your conclusion does not follow from the single premise you gave. However, it does suggest that it is possible that some constants _ARE_ different in other patches of the Universe. After all, if the Universe can evolve/change from it's primordial conditions at different times/places, then why can't some of the conditions be different in disparate patches and/or at different times? Nobody is arguing that they _ALL_ have to be subject to change, merely some. And a little change goes a long way in a causal chain.
In the end, I think Feynman said it best with :
_If it turns out it’s like an onion with millions of layers and we’re just sick and tired of looking at the layers, then that’s the way it is, but whatever way it comes out it’s nature is there and she is going to come out the way she is, and therefore when we go to investigate it we shouldn’t predecide what it is we’re trying to do except to try to find out more about it. _ -Richard Feynman
***** "because there are Laws that supersede things, which govern everything past the size of Planck units. You won't find much on this angle in your public physics courses schoolbooks."
Are you just practicing sophistry or what? Do you really think physical laws and the Planck scale are somehow an arcane "angle"?
"It is very arrogant of mankind to devise and to put forward "Theories of Everything","
Audacious, not arrogant.
"But have Faith. ;=)"
Meh, I have no need for faith. Reason is a far superior tool.
It is Doubtful whether you have even reached the ERGO!
Regardless of the miracles he describes in the Universe & the miracle of existence itself, God still still seems out of the question. Christianity sent science on a mission to find God, and he keeps showing up, only to be denied his existence.
the God hypothesis just replaces one problem with another
To the fine tuning parameters add all the accidents and collisions that produced our sun, our world and eventually life. They greatly exceed the fine tuning parameters. The mega verse not only has to produce a world with water, but must do it countless times until life gets its lucky break.
A piece from a new book titled: Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within
Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration.
‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach into the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses.
To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing.
The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlie all spiritual and physical existence.
The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law which allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice verse. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists.
Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment of time than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents.
Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to between making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, or producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always to respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything.
NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result from any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things in a conventional way - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need.
Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life - including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream - already exists within us. th-cam.com/video/NR5DdqjMxgA/w-d-xo.html
Let go, and let God - Olivia Newton-John Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
Let go, and let God - Olivia Newton-John Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
www.youtube.com
"I have proof for the multi-verse!" said no one ever.
I do.
There is the trivial multiverse, equivalent to the empty set, and this exists trivially.
The next smallest multiverse contains one universe. We observe one, hence we live a multiverse which contains within itself this next smallest multiverse. Hence, nontrivial multiverse exists.
@@u.v.s.5583 interesting- what do you mean in layman's terms?
@@bombdottcom111 If I have one bottle of beer, I have beer. The quantity of BEER in BEER is not specified. The number of universes in a multiverse is not specified either, and it is not at all clear that we speak of multiverse only if it has at least two elements - at least two universes. One may be enough.
@@u.v.s.5583 yeah that's what's weird and mysterious about this theory.
@@u.v.s.5583 sounds like the ontological argument for God. Just as useful too.
What was the name of this interview? I really enjoyed it, want more!
The Universe was clearly fine tuned for death. It is an instrument "tuned" to a sadistic melody.
Life for individuals is unimaginably short. As a more general concept, life itself (and planets and stars for that matter) are possible only in a tiny fraction of the universe and for only a relatively small part of the Universe's expansion until it spreads out into an infinitely cold empty void.
The smaller you are, the faster you die. Of course there are some exceptions. But how long does one of your skin cells live? How long do you live? How long does a planet live? How long does a sun, a solar system, a galaxy, how long does a universe live? The bigger you are, the longer you live.
Aaron Shure evil comes from somewhere I m sure if you dig deep enough you ll be able to figure it out.
Mike Subban it comes from the shadowy parts of human imagination
Aaron Shure LMHO!!
The more I learn about these topics the more thankful I am to have experienced life and consciousness. No matter how painful and short it can be.
I like the way Leonard Susskind more or less leaves 'other universes' or 'multiple universes' as pockets within essential one universe with variable conditions - which in a way suggests that many of the constants, aren't so constant, and the laws of physics, broken or different in other regions of one universe. Great interviewing, too, by Steven Weinberg (am I spelling his name correctly?).
Similar to our elements on the periodic table , that create certain attributes when combing certain building blocks, other universes who, let's say dont have electrons, will create balancing atoms and create a different periodic table of elements.
It's very true that many people are too ignorant about other possibilities
I love this guy
It's hard to believe we are all here by such a minute chance.
Maybe I'm just being dense, but it seems to me we are the way we are because the universe is the way it is. The universe is not the way it is simply to support us. This just doesn't seem to be a valid question to me.
If the universe weren't the way it is now we simply would not be. For me it is something like we are in the Goldilocks zone of the univers timewise. It's as simple as that. No big mystery.
Life takes hold where can. At some point our current universe will not exist. Then there will be something else. Perhaps that something else will be completely hostile to life. Would we then if we were able to perceive that time think gee, existence must really hate us because we are unable to exist here. This place is fine tuned against us...?
Anyway you get my point.
David F I sure do, and so it goes...
David F finally a brain.... YAY! You are correct sir!
David F At last, someone who sees it like i do, simple:/ We exist because the random conditions of the verse..the constants, came out in a way that allowed the formation of atoms, galaxys, stars, etc:/ It could be no other way and still have us here arguing about "fine tuning",lol. AS he said, taking earth as example, wow, what a miracle the earth just happened to be just right for us:/ Got the donkey by the tail, we are here only because conditions are right for life like ours, so thats what you get! Could have been different, probably is in one of the many other verses that i have little doubt exist out there. His "pocket universes", only i see it as many individual verses, each with its own laws, not connected by physical space as he suggests. Why do they over complicate shit:/ It does NOT cry out for an explanation, its pretty bloody obvious:/
David F That's fine and logical. I used to think like you until I understood the Boltzmann brain paradox.
So I cant just quickly answer a question like you did. This is still unknown. Mystery... it's fascinating.
www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2008/12/29/richard-feynman-on-boltzmann-brains/
I warn you though this is hard concept to grasp totally...
I've heard of the Boltzman brain paradox. Need to refresh my memory. Will look into it again more closely. Maybe we can discuss the ideas presented. Thanks for the idea.
Marvelous Exchange. 2 masters at their best. Per the video, there are couple of dozen constants that rest on razors edge, if they were different, we couldn't be here. Chiefly among these is the tiny cosmological constant. We're talking a force with 123 numerical places to the right of the decimal. Nobody knows why it is so small but if it were bigger stars and planets could not have formed. Physicists don't understand why it is so small, but it is curious that this universe is so fine tuned for life. At then end of this video, Suskin makes the analogy that just as there are an infinite way of rearranging DNA do make life forms, so it is with matter. We only see one configuration of matter in this universe, but there may be other universes out there with very different properties than ours.
The central argument seems to be that if the universe did not operate as it does, we could not exist, as if humanity is the reason for the existence of the universe. We adapted to the environment as our earliest ancestors found it.
Other life could live in more extreme conditions, not just where water is present....even if it's a single cell organism. Extremities.
It can, any examples?
It's absolutely astonishing. Where I live, when it rains, every puddle turns out to have exactly the same shape as the hollow in the pavement where it forms. Clearly it requires a huge intelligence to make that so.
+universalsailor Conflation fallacy.
Typical atheist thinking.
+universalsailor Whew you make it easy to tell you haven't taken higher levels of mathematics
Switch puddle with swimming pool
No, but it takes an incredibly weak one to think that your comment is clever
How is that at all even similar to the vast number of physical constants aligning and the development of life?
the professor and others like him seem to have stumbled into philosophy - we have not observed anything like a multiverse or detected the necessary extra dimensions nor charted the vastness of the landscape, yet he speaks as if it is.... what we have is the observable universe... and that is incredibly fine tuned.... draw your own conclusions....
It's meant to illustrate our limited perspective. When you start from us and try to work back to the beginning, it seems incredibly unlikely that we should have emerged from nature at all, but we've adapted to nature not the other way round. If the fundamental forces had been different we wouldn't exist at all? Or we maybe we'd just be different too. We only have one living planet to base our assumptions on, and only one slightly living universe for that matter.
You have to appreciate the candor in AE's explanation: theories, ideas, investigation, even in recognizing these approaches seek to offer explanation as to how the universe may behave but not in how it arose.
How about this: life is fine tuned for the universe. I really dont get it why scientists keep debating its the other way around
+Kevin van den Hoek
Because people have very strong beliefs about God and are willing ignore their training in order to lead the evidence to their own preferred conclusion.
+Michael Hurwitz copout or not it may still be correct
+Kevin van den Hoek
This seems for right, honestly. After all, isn't evolutionary theory essentially about life adapting itself to environmental conditions, not the other way around?
That and, fine-tuning overestimates how suited for life the universe is. Even on earth, many environments are ill suited for life, most planets are ill suited for life. It seems arrogant to say the universe is the way it is so we can exist.
I think you missed the point. Yes life is fine tuned for the universe, but why is life even possible in the universe? Given the possible ranges of the constants, most possible universes should not allow ANY life, much less ours. So why are we in a universe that's incredibly unlikely?
This is the old conflict between the weak anthropic principle (WAP as earlier mentioned) and the strong anthropic principle and you haven't added anything new to the debate.
It's unlikely to be settled until there is a definitive answer as to whether we live in a multiverse or not, I'm not holding my breath.
This is just confirmation bias. If we were not in a universe able to foster life we wouldn't be able to ask the question...
+Trent Bell The anthropic principle encapsulated .
+Trent Bell Maybe not, but the problem is still there. There IS a Universe/World/Reality (whatever you'd like to call the entierety of the world) and the ''laws'' are very precise for life to form at some point when the right conditions happen. Then, the Universe from which we are a part of gets self-concious of itself. Strange paradox really and I'm not confident to say it's either confirmation bias or some strange selfawareness mecanism the Universe possesses.
+Trent Bell
I think part of the problem with this is, without knowing how consciousness and thought themselves work, the best we can say is "We know life of the kind we have in this reality (organic beings primarily made of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc.) would not exist." Perhaps organic life exists on a knife's edge, but other kinds of thought or awareness as allowed in a material universe do not. This is not an explanation by any means, merely an acknowledgement of the limits of our current understanding. And while it is certainly no disproof, I think it does do merit to weaken the "spookiness" of fine tuning in this way.
Saying that doesnt solve the problem, it just ignores it.
DeusExAstra
You're assuming it's a problem with a solution, and excluding the ones which don't match your personal criteria for what a solution is. The truth is, it's only a problem in the first place because humans exist. Without people to think about the problem, there is no problem, only the existence mathematics, laws, and constants.
Scientists do explain the state of being. A model more " rational " than God.. the cosmological constant, the unlimited number of mutations, mixing of cosmic and galactic and terrestrial conditions, which inevitably result at least one, if not more, for life to exist. This is a truly enlightening interview.
Thanks for the effort and keep up with the good work.
From Hker worldwide
Imagination - Process of Pure Creation
The process of creation starts with thought
- an idea, conception, visualization. Everything you see was once someone's idea. Nothing exists in your world that did not first exist as pure thought.
This is true of the universe as well.
Thought is the first level of creation.
Next comes the word. Everything you say is a thought expressed. It is creative and sends forth creative energy into the universe. Words are more dynamic (thus, some might say more creative) than thought, because words are a different level of vibration from thought. They disrupt (change, alter, affect) the universe with greater impact.
Words are the second level of creation.
Next comes action.
Actions are words moving. Words are thoughts expressed. Thoughts are ideas formed. Ideas are energies come together. Energies are forces released. Forces are elements existent. Elements are particles of God, portions of ALL, the stuff of everything.
The beginning is God. The end is action. Action is God creating - or God experienced.
Hang on. There's one thing more I have to tell you. You are always seeing what by your terms you would define as the "past," even when you are looking at what is right in front of you.
I am?
It is impossible to see The Present. The Present "happens," then turns into a burst of light, formed by energy dispersing, and that light reaches your receptors, your eyes, and it takes time for it to do that.
All the while the light is reaching you, life is going on, moving forward. The next event is happening while the light from the last event is reaching you.
The energy burst reaches your eyes, your receptors send that signal to your brain, which interprets the data and tells you what you are seeing. Yet that is not what is now in front of you at all. It is what you think you are seeing. That is, you are thinking about what you have seen, telling yourself what it is, and deciding what you are going to call it, while what is happening "now" is preceding your process, and awaiting it.
To put this simply, I am always one step ahead of you.
My God, this is unbelievable.
Now listen. The more distance you place between your Self and the physical location of any event, the further into the "past" that event recedes. Place yourself a few light-years back, and what you are looking at happened very, very long ago, indeed.
Yet it did not happen "long ago." It is merely physical distance which has created the illusion of "time," and allowed you to experience your Self as being both "here, now" all the while you are being "there, then"!
One day you will see that what you call time and space are the same thing.
Then you will see that everything is happening right here, right now.
This is....this is....wild. I mean, I don't know what to make of all this.
When you understand what I have told you, you will understand that nothing you see is real. You are seeing the image of what was once an event, yet even that image, that energy burst, is something you are interpreting. Your personal interpretation of that image is called your image-ination.
And you can use your imagination to create anything. Because - and here is the greatest secret of all - your image-ination works both ways.
Please?
You not only interpret energy, you create it. Imagination is a function of your mind, which is one-third of your three-part being. In your mind you image something, and it begins to take physical form. The longer you image it (and the more OF you who image it), the more physical that form becomes, until the increasing energy you have given it literally bursts into light, flashing an image of itself into what you call your reality.
You then "see" the image, and once again decide what it is. Thus, the cycle continues. This is what I have called The Process.
This is what YOU ARE. You ARE this Process.
This is what I have meant when I have said, you are both the Creator and the Created.
I have now brought it all together for you. We are concluding this dialogue, and I have explained to you the mechanics of the universe, the secret of all life.
Okay.
Now as energy coalesced, it becomes, as I said, very concentrated. But the further one moves from the point of this concentration, the more dissipated the energy becomes. The "air becomes thinner." The aura fades. The energy never completely disappears, because it cannot. It is the stuff of which everything is made. It's All There Is. Yet it can become very, very thin, very subtle - almost "not there."
Then, in another place (read that, another part of Itself) it can again coalesce, once more "clumping together" to form what you call matter, and what "looks like" a discreet unit. Now the two units appear separate from each other, and in truth there is no separation at all.
This is, in very, very simple and elementary terms, the explanation behind the whole physical universe.
Wow. But can it be true? How do I know I haven't just made this all up?
Your scientists are already discovering that the building blocks of all of life are the same.
They brought back rocks from the moon and found the same stuff they find in trees. They take apart a tree and find the same stuff they find in you.
I tell you this: We are all the same stuff. (I and the Father are One Energy)
We are the same energy, coalesced, compressed in different ways to create different forms and different matter.
Nothing "matters" in and of itself. That is, nothing can become matter all by itself. Jesus said, "Without the Father, I am nothing." The Father of all is pure thought. This is the energy of life. This is what you have chosen to call Absolute Love.
This is the God and the Goddess, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. It is the All-in-All, the Unmoved Mover, the Prime Source. It is that which you have sought to understand from the beginning of time. The Great Mystery, the Endless Enigma, the Eternal Truth.
There is only One of Us, and so, it is THAT WHICH YOU ARE.
Easy thumbs up. The most cogent exploration of fine-tuning yet.
Megaverse, multiverse, string theory, lets rearrange the # of possibilities to explain how we think the universe, the galaxies, our solar system just so happened to support life. Only one problem though, none of it can be tested by the scientific method. Until then, it all exists within the frame work of ones imagination. But we will do this, let's call them "theories" to legitimize it and publish these notions before them fundamentalists laugh us out of the labs.
+Keith Bell
That's a great idea! We don't want to be laughed at after all.
Here is another idea: Let's come up with a crazy convoluted story about a magic man who lives in the sky who created everything. The scientists will know we are full of crap but, since they can't _disprove_ our story, we can always fall back to that! If we defend it with logical fallacies we might actually confuse some people into thinking the story is true. We will insist that scientists limit their ideas to the bounds of the scientific method while we can just believe our story without a shred of evidence because, well, we just say _we know_ it's true!
*****
How can it be tested?
These theories come from physicist's extrapolating known laws of physics. None of these ideas were created to figure out anything to do with life (that is a biologist's job, not physicist). Eternal Inflation (which is the main theory that derives a "multiverse"), was created to deal with questions surrounding the big bang. String theory was created as an attempt to answer questions surrounding quantum gravity. None of those investigations are a direct attempt to understand why our universe supports life.
Wouldn't a "multi verse " have to be more or just as fine tuned for it to create all of those universes?
I feel like this "multi verse" theory, though very creative... is totally science fiction.
For one, they would never ever be able to observe it.
Its literary impossible.
+Michael Hurwitz exactly.. that's why it's good to tell people that believe in the multiverse I want proof! the multi universe is their spaghetti monster! Hahahaha
+Michael Hurwitz There is no such thing as a multi-verse...there is only one universe and that is the observable one..
If Inflation theory is shown to be correct (and it may be shown so if we discover gravitational waves from the Big Bang), then the multiverse is a consequence of Inflation.
+RomeosChannel2105
maybe you should look up the meaning of "literary" ...
also, you are wrong ... observing other universes can be done by inspecting the CMB (cosmic microwave background) or other experiments ...
Also again, a multiverse wouldn't have to be fine tuned AT ALL ... fined tuned to make fine tuned universes? That sounds stupid. A multiverse only needs an inflation field to work.
+CeaoS And?... has it bin observed? ..
"Physicist never understood why it's so small" - that's what she said 😂
I appreciate that you have an opinion. Your opinion is wrong, yet, you are allowed to have one. I'm ok with this.
it’s really not fair that anyone should be that good at math AND that good at explaining abstruse concepts to laymen
Susskind tells it how it is.
He tells it from his very limited mind, which of course will have limited answers to what he can comprehend.
kasparov9 - Oh, poop on you! 💩🖕
Cause we are not an accident, there is a Mastermind behind all of this, the more we discover and advance the more we see that this is true!
This fine-tuning sounds like the one miracle physicists need in order to explain everything else by natural laws.
Nope. Can't have it!
Go pray some more
@@jamesgrey7031
Non-sequitur. Off topic. Come back when you have something relevant to add.
LIFE
The beauty of this universe is that it does ask questions through us. It seems it would be an amazing waste of a bubble universe ( that is huge as ours ) if nobody was around to admire it... or a mindless empty universe. Aren’t we the mind of the universe? And then comes realisation:
Life for individuals is unimaginably short. As a more general concept, life itself (and planets and stars for that matter) are possible only in a tiny fraction of the universe and for only a relatively small part of the Universe's expansion until it spreads out into an infinitely cold empty void.
The multiverse theory is sometimes criticized for not adequately addressing the fine-tuning problem. This problem arises from the observation that the fundamental constants and conditions in our universe appear to be precisely fine-tuned to allow for the emergence of life. Critics argue that invoking a multiverse to explain this fine-tuning merely shifts the question to why our universe is so finely tuned to produce a multiverse.
Beyond any doubt we can be sure that the idea of an anthropic god is false. That bothers very much the theists!
On the other hand it is also clear that we are going to find (maybe in a few centuries or millennia) a much more wonderful explanation for our miraculous life than we could ever imagine!
Something much more wonderful that any idea about any possible god!
No actually it is the following thought that has always bothered and troubled the fool:
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Hebrews 9:27
What Dark Secrets lie in the dark closet of YOUR perfumed soul sir?
One day the whole world will know!
WmTyndale Only the uneducated people can believe the Judaic-Christian-Islamic lies. Unfortunately too many Americans are being brainwashed with Religion!
WmTyndale If you would read carefully the bible, the qur'an and the torah you would realize that all of it is just a bunch of stone-age garbage.
A lot of stone age cruelty! your god is saying: kill the gays, stone to death the women and kill the children who disobey their parents.
Is it not enough shit in them?
48acar19
I disagree. You prove you did not think rationally before.
1º) People believing in God or in no God does not make them educated or uneducated, rational or irrational. It is how they arrive at that stance that counts
2º) Why pay attention to religious books? They might be wrong. Plus, their being right or wrong could not, anyway, change reality regarding the existence or inexistence of a creator. What physically exists does exist whatever we say or write about it, and the same goes with what does not exist.
3º) Apparently there are 2 definitions of atheism a) lack of belief in a creator b) the doctrine that affirms there is no creator. Most atheists now choose a), which constitutes half agnosticism, for the latter also affirms a lack of belief in NO creator. Those bold ones sticking to b) even incur a tremendous incongruity, for in order to prove the inexistence of something you must first know of its features, and if you did, the thing in question would exist or would have existed at least once, hence the incongruity (the other way would be by knowing EVERYTHING so as to ascertain it did not exist, which in turn would imply something like being a god so as to know every corner of this immense Universe in time, and the knowledge faculties to notice the features of a creator in case it existed, hence the other way to incongruity)
So, in a nutshell, the so-called atheists that stick to b) are simply irrational minds. And the ones that stick to a) are just the antithesis of theists for they just have a belief, but neither can prove their thesis right or the other's wrong, hence that science and rationality just looks on both of them as the same thing, neither smarter or more educated than the other. They both just have respectable faith, the same as if some believe there are civilizations in the Tadpole Galaxy or not, or if there is light in a certain corner of the Universe or not, etc, etc.
JUST AGNOSTICISM EQUALS SCIENCE AND RATIONALITY, for we cannot confirm or disconfirm a creator or a lack of a creator (and whatever accompanies the word agnostic, wether atheist or theist, is irrelevant for it is the belief part, and science is not interested in that respectable but fruitless part as far as a scientific and rational approach to the matter is concerned)
Source: scientist.
ratio veritas That defines you as a religionist. You can disagree as much as you want, but religion means distorted thinking.
I would define this as schizophrenia.
Yes, if somebody is a child, things are different. But after the age of reason is reached, things are exactly as I am describing them.
its gets even better than this. assume there is only one pathway to the appearance of the human genome. if, as far as we know, there is only one pathway to the appearance of the human genome. everything that has happened on earth, would have to occur in exactly the same order and under the exactly the same circumstances in another world, in another galaxy, in order for another set of the human genome to exist. this other world would have to recapitulate our cenozoic, mesozoic, paleozoic epochs. dinosaurs would have to be made extinct by a meteor etc. etc. etc.a lineage of primates would have had to evolve form a trembling marsupial etc, etc, etc....we are the only humans in the universe.....there are no other extra-terrestrials....we are unique....
+rafael rondon But who said the human genome is the only type of life that could exist? The assumptions you make have no basis, and therefore, your conclusion is invalid.
there are probably millions of different life forms and therefore different types of DNA that can exist. I was referring to specifically human DNA, I argue that to make human DNA you have to repeat the process that created human DNA. Human DNA exist inly in one place in the universe n human earth. I challenge you to think of another way to create human DNA.
rafael rondon Oh, I see. I agree with that, then, as it would be far too unlikely to make an exact copy of Human DNA by accident. That makes us a unique species, but that's the same with every other species. So, what I'm saying is that life is not unique to us on Earth.
The question gets it backwards. The universe is not fine tuned so we can exist. That presumes intent, which presumes a creator. We are fine tuned to live in our small corner of the universe. No intent is necessary. The only process of fine tuning at work is called natural selection.
+Thomas Briggs
Natural selection applies to biological adaption and selection.
Fine tuning applies to the laws of physics that produce a universe that life can arise in.
Its you who has it backward.
Natural selection fine tunes populations of organisms to their environments. This is elementary biology.
Read Victor Stenger on the disengenuousness of fine tuning arguments. They are ignorant oversimplifications of anthropic arguments. While you can say that the conditions that lead to our existence are necessary for our existence (a tautology that is probably but not demonstrably true) it is fallacious to argue what frauds like William Lane Craig argue, that this is indication of purpose and intent in the physical values assuming the values they do. They take the values they do for reasons that are in dispute. If the resulting universe can support life, it may, and may give rise to intelligent observers.. Just because something is not completely understood is not a reason to imagine a creator. This is the basic argument from ignorance, the god of the gaps, which has always failed in the face of increased knowledge.
Fine tuning arguments are like saying that the odds of your parents meeting might have been 100 to 1, and the odds of their parents' meeting were 100 to 1, so the odds of your existing are 100^3 to one. Go back another generation and it is 100^7 to 1. Another generation and it is 100^15 to 1. It only looks unlikely if you presume we are a goal of creation, and not merely a consequence of the universe.
This is admittedly metaphysical conjecture, but it could be that all of the universe is biological and operates under the same laws as evolution. It could be that we're looking for biogenesis where there is none, simply due to the flaw of anthropomorphism. If there were no presumed delineation between "alive" and "not-alive," things might start to make more sense, including why it's difficult to ignore consciousness when dealing with these subjects in the first place.
Theories are not reality. They are theories......at times quite a touching interview......profound conversation..
The word "theory" in science means something very different than its ordinary usage. Is the theory of gravity not reality? How about germ theory?
golden86 No and no. We can and we do have a number of theories “trying” to explain “the reality” (of whichever subject in nature you wish); are all of them correct? No. The theory may explain observations but not explain the reality.
@@nicholassteel5529 No and No. www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/
Great explanation 🎉
The universe may be finely tuned for electrons, but nearly every speck of it is immensely hostile to life.