Sabine Hossenfelder & Luke Barnes • The fine tuning of the Universe: Was the cosmos made for us?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ส.ค. 2024
- The Big Conversation - Episode 4 | Season 3
Many physicists have pointed out the extraordinary ‘fine tuning’ of the physical laws of the universe that have allowed life to develop within the cosmos.
Luke Barnes believes it gives evidence for a designer behind the cosmos, whereas Sabine Hossenfelder disagrees, questioning whether we can even speak of ‘fine tuning’ as a phenomenon.
For bonus content, updates and more shows sign up at www.thebigconve...
We'd love to know what you think of the conversation! Take our survey: unbelievable.m...
For Sabine Hossenfelder: / peppermint78
For Luke Barnes: www.westernsyd...
The Big Conversation is a video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the religious and non-religious community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human. The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with John Templeton Foundation.
• For exclusive resources and to support us: USA www.premierinsi...
• Rest of the World: resources.prem...
• For our regular Newsletter www.premier.or...
• For more faith debates: www.premierchri...
• Facebook / unbelievablejb
• Twitter / unbelievablejb
• Insta / justin.brierley
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8kldrPPsDZs/mqdefault.jpg)
Bayesian inference involves a prior probability. You can’t infer anything about a hypothesis without defining a prior. If there’s no evidence at all the constants may change then Sabine’s argument still holds because there’s really no reason to decide on any particular prior over another and how you define your priors determines your posterior probabilities in a Bayesian inference. So her argument is not just limited to a frequentist view of statistical inference. It applies equally well from a Bayesian approach.
Many people don't seem to comprehend that Bayesian statistics cannot be applied to just one data point.
This strategy is often used to "calculate" the probability of life elsewhere in the universe.
@@rubiks6 I think the situation here is much much worse. In order for Bayesian inference to apply, you need two events (A and B). There is one event in the context of the fine tuning agrument (constant being equal to a particular set of values) but I fail to see the second event. If I am correct, this means that the Bayesian formula doesn't even apply.
Further, I think noone can get his/her head around Bayesian statistics. It's way too difficult at this point of history.
@@chrissidiras - "... this means that the Bayesian formula doesn't even apply."
Exactly.
Some have come up with what seem to be convincing arguments from a single data point but they're really just blowing smoke up our rectum.
I know that the universe we have subjectively seems to be working quite well. I am certainly living and I have many subjectively rich life experiences. The ability you and I have to communicate the way we do, the ideas we express and exchange are amazing to me. I'm quite certain we live in a very finely tuned universe but someone else may see it differently. It's all totally subjective so it really just depends on your outlook and worldview. I'm quite pleased with the idea that the universe was designed for Man but that, of course, requires a _Designer._ This makes many people unhappy, but I don't know why. Many people see evil in the world and blame God, therefore they want Him to go away.
--------------------------------------
Here is an example of how I see life:
"A 10-year-old Idaho girl was killed when a rock crashed through the windshield of her father’s truck and hit her in the head." - NYPost, July 30, 2021
Of course, it is terribly sad to see news like that and many people commenting on the event expressed anger at God for having taken the life of a beautiful, young girl but I responded with gratitude that God had given her 10 years of joyous life. I also consider that she lives again in a different place, so she is not gone forever.
--------------------------------------
Fine-tuning of the universe is really about whether or not there is a Fine-Tuner. Your premises will determine your interpretation of the evidence. We all have the same evidence.
Just keep in mind that your interpretation of evidence _follows_ your premises, not the other way around. Many people perceive that their premises follow the evidence but that is actually the opposite of reality. Your premises come first. Good premises lead to good interpretations. False premises lead to wrong interpretations.
If there is no good reason to assume the constants necessarily have these values (and currently there isn't), then it makes sense to assume they could be different.
The question is not whether they change now (once the universe is "up and running"), but if other universes are thinkable with other values. There is nothing to prohobit that possibility
The only thing to prevent that would be if the constants were dependent on eachother, and current physics replaced by a meta-theorie ("Theory of Everything"), e.g. with only ONE value to explain, however, that would not make the fine tuning go away. All of the fine tuning would then be concentrated in that ONE fundamental constant.
It is just silly to assume that constants with values that are determined already with an exactness of (maybe - not sure) 11 digits behind the comma (e.g. the mass of electrons or protons) could not be different in a single of those later digits. Or that so different forces as the strong nuclear force (with a super stong power but super short reach) is exactly like that, and so different from gravitation (incredibly weak, yet infinite reach), and that they could not be slightly different.
But if one of these constants WERE slightly different (by even a single digit), the universe would not have been stable.
So this extreme fine tuning is remarkable.
One can insist on "I do not see a problem", or "I see nothing to explain", or "I am not interested in these questions", but that does not make this apparent immense fine tuning go away.
Sabine is so good at coming right to the key point of an issue and expressing it in clear terms. In her first comment about fine-tuning at 14:00 she identifies the key flaw in the fine-tuning argument: it's an argument from probability but we don't actually have either data or theoretical understanding we need to determine that probability, large or small. The fundamental constants are like being told the total of a dice roll but not being told how many dice there are, how many sides they have, what numbers are on each of the sides, or how they are being rolled. There's no way to say whether the total you got was likely or unlikely.
I was amazed that my idea was the one Sabine had as well, its a bit reassuring to me. But I still find it to be, a deeply unintuitive one and intrinsically unlikely. Because when you dig deeper into it, either the universe (A) started from nothing - in which case it was something of a random event. Or (B) the universe started out of some necessary precursor, that always existed, somehow before space and time. A lot of people of course claim its God, but it could be non conscious as well or (C) there was an infinite chain of non-necessary events.
For (A) it certainly seems invalid to say that the constants must be what they are because if any random universe is possible, its invalidated on the spot. In (B) its just odd to say that a very particular set of constants were somehow "necessary" or that the universe could "only have been that way". Something has to be assuring that necessity, and then you get into this strange paradox where whatever demands necessity must itself be necessary (i.e. whatever law that says these constants have that value) which leads to either an infinite chain of laws, or you get some absurd scenario where the necessary precursor law demands itself is necessary, which is circular.
And then there is (C) which seems impossible as well, because an infinite number of events must have transpired to arrive at our universe, but by definition and infinite can never be completed, so it is a direct logical contradiction.
I think the conclusion I draw from all this, is that (and perhaps unsurprisingly) the human mind probably would find the origins of the universe incomprehensible.
Luke Barnes actaully, his argument can be dismissed pretty easily. All you have to say is that we're still open to a better theory, but there doesn't seem to be one, certainly not one that we have any real evidence for. And there isn't any particular reason why we should expect there to be a better theory. Ignoring the logical analysis above of course.
@@radscorpion8 I think your conclusion is correct. We've already figured out many things about how the universe works that are extremely unintuitive, so when you push the questions out to the farthest extremes of size, time, energy, etc., it is to be expected that the answers will be more unintuitive still. Of course it's irritating to curious minds to accept that we'll probably never know, but the universe owes us no answers.
@@radscorpion8 Why is an infinite chain of events a logical paradox?
Yes, you can never reach infinity but so what? If you're talking about Hilbert's hotel paradoxes, most of them were solved by Cantor's different infinities.
At any event, this point in time we're at is not infinity or else we'd be frozen in time or something. Time obviously keeps on going so we could conceivably be part of that infinite chain.
You couldn't go back in time and reach a starting point of course, because if we're taking about an infinite chain of events in the past, there was no starting point.
However under this assumption, we clearly are here and time is proceeding into the future infinity.
I know physicists don't like infinities but where's a logical problem with this?
I have responded that both you and Sabine and the rest of those on this trajectory are incorrect that the key flaw for the fine-tuning argument is its argument for probability but I have not heard back from you. You and anyone else including Sabine Hossenfelder are incorrect in your assessment, Sabine is well aware of the principle of indifference and its use in statistical mechanics so she is surely aware that most physicists subscribe to the principle of indifference. Frequency Probability and dice games have little or no application in deterministic science. By definition deterministic means non probabilistic and the use use in statistical mechanics is not frequency probability, it is the flat distribution and equal probabilities of the principle of indifference. Hence the precedent and hence the calculation of parameter probabilities using the principle of indifference with the range truncated at the Planck constant. This response holds equally well for all those who are not familiar with the lack of application of the principle of indifference.
Not at all! Only by analyzing the results, it is quite easy to deduct the number of dies and the number of faces.
For examples, because you never get the result of 1, you know there needs to be more than one 'things'. Because you never get more than 12, you know there must be an eve number of things. You can go on and geométricas the only solution is two cubes.
Man what an excellent discussion and what a remarkable good host. Sabina and Luke are two of my favorite scientists that have TH-cam channels that I follow. This was great. Thanks so much for the professionalism and the quality discussion.
Wonderful civilized discussion. Refreshing. I was close to forget that this is possible.
Really enjoyable convo. Gonna have to pick up both books mentioned, cheers.
Hey Stephen, I suggest you add Stephen Meyer's massive and very recent The Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe, and give it a fair reading and tackle its arguments (maybe interview him).
Add Robin Collins' article too, in the Blackwell companion to natural theology
@@edgarrenenartatez1932 its 800 pages!
@@edgarrenenartatez1932 I recommend that we, as humans, finally abandon the ridiculous belief in any sort of gods.
@@MarkAhlquist
🤦♂️
I need Sabine to know that her worked has helped immensely with my dissertation 😍
Bravo, bravo to you Sabine. Καί μην σταματάς προχώρα σταθερά, μπράβο σου Σαμπίνα. Ε.P.
I wasn't expecting something as warm as this. Love ya'll.
They were on parallel tracks there was no engagement, no contests.
Justin’s dead inside..
Something having a reason & something having a purpose, need to be kept apart here. I get the feeling that Luke is trying to sneak in purpose.
Indeed he is, while, don't miss this point, the woman is trying to sneak in the absurdity of nothing producing every fecking thing in the universe. Ex nihilo nihil fit, but that's not good convenient for the likes of Hossenfelder.
@@horationelson57 I guess it depends on what you mean by "nothing"... what would be a good explanation for why God created a universe with an net energy of zero?
@@martifingers there is only one definition of nothing. Nothing is universal negation. Holy shit can people please stop trying to redefine "nothing". If you want to say "there was a quantum vacuum" or something like that, just say it. But don't call it nothing.
@@rjonesx Hi. I am sorry that my attempt to be precise about language annoyed you but my feeling is that it is easy for communication to get muddled when we are dealing with subjects that are on the edge of understanding. TBH your definition "universal negation" is not much use. The problem is our concepts have developed in what might be termed a classical world and I for one have great difficulty making the mental shift into quantum and relativistic thinking. I could have written "quantum vacuum" or similar but the answer is I don't know. I am not a specialist but as far as I can tell no-one else does either. Forcing someone to take a position is unnecessary and unhelpful IMHO. I mentioned the zero sum energy result as surely regardless of your faith position that is a relevant finding.
@@horationelson57 No, she didn't. What's more I didn't hear ANY of the three persons mention creation from nothing. If someone did, I missed it. Did you hear any of them say that?
Love this one, " I never answered 'god' on any of my physics exams." EXACTLY.
You never answered "God" because of peer pressure and cultural pressure. You believe majorities make truth. You have no mind of your own.
@@rubiks6 peer pressure and cultural pressure? Majority? Mate I live in the southern US. I am in no way a majority as an atheist here, and any societal pressure I’ve had would have been the other way around.
@@schlamothy - Can I assume you went to college?
@@rubiks6 currently in college, my entire friend group here is Christian
@@schlamothy - So why aren't you a Christian?
Do the members of your friend group believe the Bible? or do they believe in the Big Bang and evolution, etc.? What about your professors? Do they believe in God or are they atheists?
Here's a physics question for you:
Can a universe emerge from nothingness? or would that violate conservation of mass/energy?
How about: Where did the laws of physics come from? Did they teach you that in your physics class where you didn't answer "God" to any of the questions?
Really enjoyed this discussion. Everybody was congenial and the moderator was neutral and didn’t seem to show bias.
It is good that at the end of this Luke finally admits that there doesn’t seem to be a fine tuning to explain why there is suffering. Why would an omniscient being that fine tuned the physical universe not fine tune the biosphere so we would not have parasitic organisms that cause such suffering in the world. That to me is one of the problems (and considering his Christian worldview) that I don’t see how he could possibly ignore. Why stop fine tuning at physics?
The reason why we are here does not need explaining. Got it!
No, you didn't get it. Anyone can do any amount of explaining. The point is, those explanations are not scientific.
I just love Sabine’s intelectual integrity and precise explanations, that’s all I have to say!
She is very narrow minded.
Sabine certainly has no clear scientific answer on the question what life really is from the view of physics, and there is still no consensus in science on this fundamental question concerning the place and the role of life in the general scientific picture of the universe, but nevertheless she is trying to insist that it might be not a scientific question at all, and therefore science doesn't need to find the answers on the questions of such type. it looks as a very rigid and religious position on what science can investigate and what is not allowed to do by science))
the problem of Sabine is that whereas she often uses the Schroedinger cat, Bob and Alice, the Wigner's friends in her educalinal videos on physics, she nevertheless excludes life by itself as a fundamental unanswered problem of physics.)
In my opinion, Sabine is quite an "Emperical Science" blinkered person, There is so much that is beyond the sphere of Science eg Music, Art and Beauty, Love, Consciousness, How about being open on the "How" questions rather than being
confined only to the "Why" questions !!
Sabine is honest and approached this issue with scientific rigor.
She didn't explain the fine tuning, did she?
@@les2997 Sabine stated that there is no "fine tuning" and so there is nothing to explain. The constants are what they are and that is all. She said the question "why are the constants the way they are (fine tuned)" is a philosophical question not a scientific one. For example the value of Pi (π) is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter and is approximately equal to 3.14159. One could ask why does Pi have that value, but that would be a philosophical question not a scientific question. The role of science is to make observations about the natural world and not to answer philosophical questions. That is my understanding of what Sabine expressed in this discussion.
@@mylord9340 I'm afraid you don't understand that we can model the possible universes. Unlike Pi, the universal constants could have been different.
Some scientists try to explain fine tuning by proposing the multi-verse hypothesis in which in each universe the constants vary, and we were lucky to live in one which can support life.
Based on theoretical physics we can model possible universes with mathematical precision and provable self-consistency. Nobody proved that that only our Universe is logically or metaphysically necessary.
Sabine did a very good job side-stepping the question of fine tuning and she seemed to prevaricate. At the end, she never explained why these constants are so finely tuned for life.
Why these constants finely tuned might not be a question which science will ever be able to answer, I agree. Not all questions must have a scientific answer.
@@les2997 She did not. She evades (I like your word "sidestepped," though to be fair, it does veer outside science per se, but she is dismissive of the possibility that science cannot provide the explanation by stating it's a false conversation!) the possible explanation, even as Luke proposes it as merely a possibility.
@@ronharrison2634 These exchanges are getting tiresome. Take a look at the extreme precision of these constants, and then tell us with a straight face that this is due to luck.
What a pleasure, to listen to a reasoned, rational discussion with real adults who can disagree without being disagreeable, all while making the point that much is unknown and that their own views are not set in stone. My favorite moment was probably at 47:15 where Luke, much to his credit, concedes that the Fine Tuning argument isn’t in fact a scientific one, but goes on to rightfully point out that this doesn’t make it any less interesting, or without value.
Very interesting conversation. I like how Sabine's, more concrete, personality is very consistent. So she can easily spot where the assumptions from different world views show up on one's arguments. On top of that, I love the courage of speaking freely regardless of any potential criticisms from top scientists who are allegedly just using "hard science" but come up with metaphysical explanations. Thumbs up for you Sabine, you are a very rare human being (if that makes any sense to you [as depending on how you look at it, any given human is unique and thus no rare human exists {let's bring philosophy to this, shall we?}]).
And Luke, you do a great job and I love how careful you are with your speech.
Sabine is the top scientist. Fine tuning arguments are perceived as goofy by top scientists. Luke is brave to take her on, if anything.
@@StarTigerJLN Fine tuning is real. This is recognized by most scientists.
@@les2997 Strong claim. I don't think that is true. Most scientists are PhD students that you have never heard about. I wonder how you get to this impression. Any studies? Do you think that something is true just because a majority of scientists "recognizes" it?
@@RaphaelBraun You don't have to have a PhD to understand that these constants are fine tuned on the razor's edge.
@@les2997 Great! I do not have a PhD yet. So maybe you can explain to me why you are so confident about this?
Sabine Hossenfelder is so smart and impressive, even though she never answers my stupid questions on her channel.
She lacks creative impetus - very boring person!
@@annanoel-roduner6402 I couldn’t disagree more.
@@annanoel-roduner6402 she JSUT gives honest answers which can be blunt and not the answer you need.
@@annanoel-roduner6402 lol what a lame excuse
@@lumbratile4174 anna does not like sabine because unlike her sabine does not have an imaginary friend
I thought this would be really complicated, but the two speakers (with Justin in the middle summarising each of their points) made it accessible.
@Gary Hughes Agreed, Justin does a really good job at playing the mediator for the lay person. He says he’s a “lay person”, but I think he’s just being humble, I think he knows more than most lay people.
Just my opinion, but starting the conversation with, “Do you believe in God?” is exactly as relevant to this discussion as, “Do you believe in the Vanilla Fairy?”
Belief is not a component in questions involving data. Either it points to a conclusion or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, it does not mean the hypothesis is wrong; however, it cannot be claimed to be correct.
@@ooloncoluphid1942
What you just said is the definition of word salad.
@@brando3342 Sorry, I was not pinged with a reply. What may I clarify?
Belief in gods is not relevant in science. If the question is couched as a scientific one, then its only purposes are irrelevant curiosity ot poisoning the well.
If the FTA is a scientific question, then the answer lies in the data. Belief or its lack play no role.
I hope that makes it clearer.
@@brando3342 Makes perfect sense to me, maybe you are just coming from a different place.
The Host is going places. Very talented. God bless.
very talented at making ££££££££££££££
@@paulrichards6894 I don't think he is making that many Pounds as implied by you but good for him if he is gaining decent amount of wealth as a host of this show.
I am absolutely gobsmacked that Luke points out that a explanation that explains everything explains nothing and goes on to propose god as an explanation. wow...
Exactly.... he pretends that he advocates for Occam's Razor ... but then adds the most tremendously complicated claptrap to advocate for his DIALS TURNER.
These "scientists" are theists trying to put the Genie into there service now that it has escaped the bottle, where their cult of human blood sacrifice kept it shut up for as long as it could.
@Soy Allergies the point is that god _can_ be used to explain anything. If we found ourselves in one of the universes that Luke described that only has neutrons and asked: why does this universe exist? The answer: because this is something that god would do applies. It applies in all scenarios, that's why it's a terrible explanation.
@@bouncycastle955 Plus, FSM is a word that suits the same purpose, but has really less anthropomorphic baggage.
@Soy Allergies so? God wants what he wants. Turns out he wants neutrons and nothing more. Please tell me how you know what god wants without question begging
@Soy Allergies FSM has the traits of spaghetti in the same way god has traits of a man.
I’m more on the Luke Barnes side but when I read, watch documentaries or just gaze out into the clear night sky I’m just in awe. That is very often enough for me😊
Ah yes, the trees.. just look at them
Sure. I like to hear verbalized reasoning behind arguments and Luke does it well.
I've never looked up at the night sky (nor the trees for that matter) and thought, "ahhh, something pre-existent in my likeness must have created all this and desperately wants worship in order to reward immortality for me specifically (and others in the preferred in-group) for thinking something along these lines...ahhhh."
@@letsomethingshine Neither have I.
That means you are probably rather dumb or uneducated.
Sabine seems like a really nice lady for sure and I really enjoyed this conversation. That said, I am a little disappointed that her argument basically came down to “I don’t really care, it is what it is”. I think that’s very unhelpful and actually kind of undermines the spirit behind scientific discovery in the first place, which is to answer “why” questions. Seems like a brick wall to me.
She was addressing brick wall with hammer...she is agnostic so she do not care..lets deal with real thing not mambo jumbo thingys,check her channel..you will understand her better...she is all about show me a data not stupid hypothesis which nobody managed to prove,but yet on yt everybody making money over content which is actually not scientific...she made whole video about multiverse equal religion..
@@misiknuo So only if data is there, can one/she then only form an understanding? Would she have admonished Galileo's heliocentrism or would she have accepted his idea if she were alive during his time? Please remember Galileo's Heliocentric model was only based on observation.
@@bkhan19 If data is changed there is no problem for Sabine,actually she made whole clip about how wrong data and observation made bad theories...this is how science work..and Sabine is all about that..She addressed that in two clips one named Why Do We See Things That Aren't There? and other - False Alien Discoveries
@@misiknuo this does not explain the Galileo problem. Galileo saw things, made observations. He used Copernicus's research and statements for his own research. Galileo did elevate scientific rigor at that time but for heliocentrism he did not completely use scholastic methods of proof. There was no change of existing data. Therefore, if we go by with what you and Sabine say, then Galileo was rightfully prosecuted by the Church.
@@bkhan19 "So only if data is there, can one/she then only form an understanding? Would she have admonished Galileo's heliocentrism or would she have accepted his idea if she were alive during his time? Please remember Galileo's Heliocentric model was only based on observation." This is actually a good question. She would possibly ask Galileo how he came to the conclusion and what observations lead to his conclusion. She is a scientist in the end, so was Galileo. She possibly also would like to do the same observations to see if it has merit.
Sabine's commitment to superdeterminism is a borderline metaphysical take. I am not willing to give a free pass to scientists who somehow think they could completely avoid philosophical questions in their work.
Agreed.
Especially as science does not prove what is the truth, just the observable variables of a hypothesis in a controlled environment.
And it's a thin line between science and scientism.
Plus, science is a lot based on putting trust in authority.
It's awesome we have science, but in many regards it is overrated, often leading, particularly laymen, to assume we have a fantastic insight into everything in nature, when it's just a tiny fraction of what can be known in nature, and even our brains and oceans.
And surprisingly many seem to assume, we know it all. The main danger is to think science is the only answer, so yeah - I am sceptical of this, too.
If Sabine's views are borderline metaphysical, then Luke Barnes's views are well across the border sitting in the heartland. We're to accept that our universe being the way it is demands further explanation and saying "it just is" is unacceptable, but when we consider all the different universes the fine-tuner could have wanted to make, no fine-tuner-tuner is needed for that because God wanting to make exactly this one "just is" and demands no explanation. Right.
But let's give Barnes the free pass we denied to Hossenfelder, why not.
@@scotte4765 The difference is people like Luke Barnes are up front about it, while Sabiner thinks she can be immune to it without realizing some of her views are very close to metaphysical .
@@hellwolf4liberty Barnes isn't up front about being philosophical or metaphysical at all. He's claiming that everything he's arguing is credible science. He wouldn't be trying to defend his misuse of probabilities otherwise. Philosophy doesn't need rigorous mathematics; science does, and he knows it.
Philosophical questions just don't come up in scientific work. That's her point. During the time you're playing with metaphysical questions, you're not doing science. If you figure out how to validly test a metaphysical idea in the real world - it stops being metaphysical.
Wow, what a great guest combo!
I like the way Sabine is thinking - and I never got how the fine tuning argument was in any way impressive, just because of the problem that it assumes a probability distribution that is unknowable. I don't get how bayesian probability changes anything about the issue. The bayesian framework helps converting conditional probabilities and allows to infuse (in this case non existent) prior knowledge.
I might be ignorant to some intricacies regarding the argument, but from what I've heard here i'd have to agree with Sabines response: "I don't know what you are talking about".
Sabine wasn't buying into their crap
The fine tuning argument is very impressive. It is just not a scientific one. And as you move out of the scientific and into nonscientific arguments you will recognize its strength. Not every explanation is scientific in fact very few are in fact. The issue of a creator is not a scientific argument meaning that science cannot say whether there is one or not. She is simply saying that science cannot deal with the question of a creator and any mathematics that does not align with the scientific method and have some chance of describing physical reality is not relevant to science. The details of the Bayesian formulation are irrelevant from the get go.
fine-tuning argument is awful...
Look I am not saying there is no god though I think its a long short......think however there are some gods we can rule out with a fair degree of confidence such as the Abrahamic god(s)
@@howtochoose9650 I do agree that explanations of things that have nothing to do with reality obviously exist. Example: Harry Potter is protected from Lord Voldemort because his Mother chose to die for him, which gave him a powerful magic protection.
I think we do agree on what Sabine said about the fine tuning argument. It has nothing to do with reality and thus is not subject to the scientific method. Arguing about the fine tuning argument is similar to arguing about the exact nature of the protection magic that shields Harry from Voldemort - except here everybody should know that it has nothing to do with reality.
I might misunderstood what you said about "non scientific answers". From my understanding science is just a methodology for finding the best possible explanations for observations. An explanation is scientific if it contains no contradictions and it explains all available data. The fine tuning argument is not an explanation, it is a logical argument. If the conclusion for the argument does not follow from the premise, or if the premise is not true or unreasonable it can be rejected.
The fine tuning argument has an assumption in its main premise that I reject. If and only if we know the probability distribution from which the fundamental constants of the universe were drawn we can make claims about the probability for the constants to be in a specific range (e.g. the range that would allow live to form).
My problem with the argument is that this distribution can not be measured or inferred from anything within our universe because we only have access to phenomena that are caused by exactly our set of constants. By my understanding is impossible and it will never be possible for us to interact with anything outside of our universe, thus this distribution of fundamental constants can not be known. The bayesian framework was mentioned by Luke as a way to get around that fact, but it does not change anything.
So if you for example say the probability for a cosmological constant to be in the ranget to allow for the necessary complexity for live is 1e-100 then all you are saying is that you assume a probability distribution that yields that probability 1e-100 for a value to lie in the given range. However you have no justification for assuming the distribution.
I could just as well come up with an uncountable set of distributions where the probability for the exact same range is 1 (e.g. a dirac distribution with our constants or any normalized nonzero function that is set to zero outside the desired range). So how can we decide which probability distribution is correct? The answer is: we can not. We can not even find out which one is more likely than the other because it is completely inaccessible. We don't even know if there was a beginning to the universe where the constants were drawn from a distribution. So is the main premise of the argument is just wishful thinking or subject to opinion?
This is why I think the fine tuning argument is really not impressive. Assuming a probability distribution with no reason and then pointing out that under that arbitrary distribution our universe is very special is just lame.
Not sure why you mention a creator here, because even if the fine tuning argument was valid and sound (which I don't think it is) it would not imply a creator.
Sorry for this long response, but I really don't get it. I'd be happy to see an explanation that can point out what I am missing.
Sabine's basic point resets the debate. We don't have any halfway rigorous way of assigning probabilities here. This doesn't END the debate but it sets the next challenge fir those who want to say that the exact values of constants we see are so improbable that some intelligence has to have manipulated them. Improbable according to what probability distribution?
Think this is the point and the difference between bayesian and frequentian statistics. Dr. Sabine works this iut in her new book 'existential physics'
@@Thomas-gk42 Well, frequentist statistics requires some frequency. So no other universes can be observed, you can't even get started here.
But I'm not sure that Bayesian statistics can get much farther. After you pull your prior probability out of your ear, you then are supposed to revise it based on new data - and there are no data.
So I think the only real way to save the fine tuning argument would be to develop a fully theory driven probability distribution but that's a very tall order and, once again, there is no way to empirically test its validity.
@@johnrichardson7629 Right, and that's Doc Sabine's point of view: She doesn't reject personal believe as long as you separate it from physics. I myself, as a theist can live very well with that. Would be a lame believe, that needs any finetuning arguments from pseudo science.
I love science and how step by step truth can be found if applied properly. I also respect Sabine very much for her views and how honest she is on certain topics that get bloated out of proportion and are in reality not nearly what they are made to be belived in by some supporters of the hypothesis. However, here is my issue, when Sabine says, asking a question why something is the way it is, it's not a scientific argument. In my opinion all science is based on doing exactly that. Asking why certain stuff is the way is it is. The argument that we can't change the constant doesn't mean, the "constants" we know can't be changed by something we don't know yet. Therefore, it is a valid question to ask, if the constants could be different.
If we had this attitude for everything we think, we can't change, we would not have found most of our knowledge we have now.
To me it feels like just evading questions that way, allmost like putting God in any unknown phenomenon.
Sabine is brilliant!
N0
Hardly.
I wish Luke had thought to ask Sabine a question like the one Alex Pruss once asked. Pruss is a genius at reformulating issues, and he once framed the question something like this (this is my own rough recollection of it): What if we finally found the most fundamental physical equation, from which everything else can be derived; but then translated it into binary or something, and it came out as the verbatim "To be or not to be" speech from Hamlet? Could we agree that, even though we're dealing with the "constants" that are given as the very foundation of the world, and so they can't actually be altered and we can't actually test different configurations... we still MUST find out why the heck they spell out a line from Shakespeare!? The Frequentist mode that Sabine is stuck in can't even *see* this problem (it has a huge blind spot there), nor can certain other theories of probability; but the Bayesian reasoning that Luke is encouraging can address it head-on. I just don't think that anyone (not Sabine; not anyone) would be worried about whether it's technically a scientific question or whether it works in a Frequentist approach to probability or whatever. We'd all agree that this demands an explanation.
Ooh, I like that! Another good one is, “What if, after saying the word ‘god’, monkeys flew out of my butt?”
This is the same line of thought that has brought us hundreds of Prophecies of the Second Coming, all with 100%, unquestionable accuracy. If you look long enough, you can find patterns in random noise. That’s pareidolia. Not evidence for the supernatural.
I apologize for the snark, but humans have been obsessed with reading tea leaves, sheep intestines and Bible codes for as long as there have been humans.
@@ooloncoluphid1942
What does that have to do with what I said? She is basically telling us that, no matter what the initial conditions are, they are a brute and unquestionable fact. Just move along. I can't tell whether you agree with her on that or agree with me that she's wrong (which the Hamlet example was meant to illustrate)....
@@Mentat1231 If we don’t know, and an addition to that no means by which to know, then you are necessarily demanding an unfounded, untestable and unfalsifiable speculation.
In what way does that advance the conversation?
@@ooloncoluphid1942
What speculation am I demanding (or even suggesting)? All I said was that, if the fundamental theory had a mathematical formalism that directly encoded to the Hamlet speech, verbatim, it would be rational to look for an explanation of that. Any epistemology or view of probability or set of rules about rational inquiry which can't see that that is a shocking result that needs an explanation is a broken epistemology/view/ruleset.
Yeah, I'm much less impressed with her argument than many others seem to be. She seems to be advocating for a sort of naive scientism and insists on drawing imaginary borders between philosophical and scientific questions, which isn't possible to do. She doesn't seem to understand that science like nearly everything else is grounded in philosophy, not the other way around.
Newton was insanely smart but when he tried to calculate the orbits of the planets into the future, they always became unstable. His conclusion was God must nudge things occasionally to maintain order. 100 years later, Laplace developed the mathematics required to properly handle orbital mechanics. How is the Fine-Tuning Argument any different? How is this not the God of the Gaps?
Maybe it's science of the gaps.
@@rubiks6 science fills the gaps of knowledge, god can't be found in any case.
@@ck58npj72 - There are many gaps in knowledge that science cannot, even in principle, fill but scient *_ists_* are happy to fill in the missing explanations and sell it to you as if it were truth. This is what "science of the gaps" is.
@@rubiks6 we use the most logical arguments we can, in time we will have more accurate measurements and predictions. We can't know everything and there in the darkness is ur god.
@@ck58npj72 - Who is "we"? It really is important that both of us are clear on who we (you and me) are talking about.
What are the foundations for "the most logical arguments"?
If we use the multiverse to explain fine tuning, then why does life seem so rare. It would seem that there would be universes where life was very very common. If those exist, would we not be most likely find ourselves in one of them? To me the apparent rarity of life in our universe is not an argument for fine tuning.
@Kent Linkletter Exactly! Life is SO rare...human life even more so...far from evidence the universe is fine tuned for us, it certainly seems to suggest we should feel very fortunate to be here at all, meager though our existence may be.
In an infinite, expanding universe it’s just an inevitable fact that life will find a way to exist *somewhere*. It would be a pretty unreasonable assumption to assume only our planet harbors life, and the existence of life elsewhere would undermine the idea that the universe was finely tuned just for us
We simply dont know if life is rare or not. SETI can only investigate a tiny part of this galaxy and then just for aliens trying to communicate with radios. Even if there was just one planet on average in each galaxy with some kind on life of it that would still be 100s of billions of planets with life on them... So we may be the one and only planet in the universe with life on it, OTOH we may not. No idea really, we are as far from discovering the values of the terms in the Drake equation as we ever were.
@@roqsteady5290 True, and good points.
Consider this: we *know* intelligent life is extremely rare. Look at all the space available, and divide it by the volume of human bodies.
That represents the universe's astonishingly *colossal* hostility to humans, even if we ignore the billions of years' time dimension, which seems to make the fine-tuning claims exponentially more absurd, AFAICT.
If reality were as described in Genesis, the Mosaic Gods might be plausible, but it's just not a flat world under a crystal firmament holding back the waters above.
@@roqsteady5290 I agree, we really don't know if we are alone, but we are pretty sure that there is not life on every planet (note the Fermi Paradox). I was surmising that in the proposed multiverse, why not universes where the conditions are so friendly to life, that it might be absolutely teeming with life and has been for billions of years. Why are these not as common as ones like ours where life is hard to find? If they are, it would seem that the most likely place for us would be in one of these universes containing trillions of lifeforms. And the fact we don't find ourselves in one of those might tell us something about the possible multiverse.
It's odd to me how resistant some people are to saying "I don't know and the information I have doesn't tell me"
Ego doesn't allow it.
It’s odd to me some people deny the obvious, ego gets in the way of seeing a Creator
@@notionSlave
Yeah it's pure humility to suppose that the desert specter your ancestors worshiped actually exists and also created the entire cosmos...
@@MrCmon113 ye those desert dwellers are more intelligent than you.
@@notionSlave world looks pretty flat, it's so obvious.
(All obvious things are obviously true, obviously)
Sabine is awesome! Thanks for having her on
There's something I cannot work out - if my soul/spirit/consciousness doesn't require biological life or a brain to exist and it can persist beyond any physical constraints or requirements, why fine tune anything? Is it a test?!
This is one of the big problems of the FTA, is that it's not just "Theism" that's the competing hypothesis in a general sense.
God likes:
Living things
Physical living things
Physical environment for the living things.
Environment is sufficient to sustain them without his direct intervention.
Physical living things able to do morally relevant actions to each other in this environment
etc.
By the time you get through the whole gamut of details, God is just an overfitting hypothesis that has been perfectly tuned to explain the data.
Great point. Although perhaps theists would say the FTA is a sign of God's existence that would support faith?
A radio can "die" but there are still the waves in the air. A radio requires the waves (to be/hear something), but the waves do not require a radio. Please fine tune your radio - a radio with only buzz is annoying - that´s why fine tuning is important!
@@PjotrII But radio waves exist whether or not a radio was ever invented.
@@jacoblee5796 * If you are unfamiliar with parables, then I need to start from the point that a parable is not a true scientific explanation that should be taken literally in all details, but an image to try to help one understand a point.
If we play with the idea of radio waves, we could think of it as a human born (radio) and a channel specifically ment to that radio (at a certain hz rate). Every radio would then have it´s own specific hz, that can be heard (as long as the person lives), but when the radio dies, the voice cannot be heard, still the data, the radio frequency could be alive. In other word - talking about a religious "resurrection" would be that a new radio (new body) is tuned to that specific frequency.
I'm pretty much an idealist these days, and THAT solves the whole issue if you ask me. If our minds are / consciousness is FUNDAMENTAL, then everything else has to fall into place around that. Your STARTING POINT is "we are here." Everything after has to be compatible with that. In that picture, of course the physical world we perceive is one that will support life, since... our minds are here and we have to see them physically manifested SOMEHOW.
The fine tuning problem just goes away in this scenario. The question that does remain, though, is "Why do we perceive THIS particular physical universe with THESE particular physical laws?" I think Christian Baumgarten's paper "How To (Un-) Quantum Mechanics" puts forward a nice set of ideas here - he shows that so long as at least one conserved quantity exist (and it can be ANYTHING), then the laws of physics MUST have the form that they have. Asking why there is a conserved quantity is a much less daunting question than asking why the whole set of laws of physics are what they are. So if idealists can justify the fact that it's natural for us to perceive a single conserved quantity, then the nut is basically cracked.
I also think that the notion that science somehow "proves materialism" is misguided - regardless of which point of view you take - materialism vs. idealism - we still face exactly the same experimental data. Idealism does not reject any of that. A completely successful idealist picture has to explain all of them, just as a successful materialist picture does. The only thing idealism gives us for free is consciousness - it's much the same as how the Standard Model "starts" with quantum fields. The distinction between the two points of view is "below the level of science."
25:00 - Baumgarten DID publish it, but no one has seemed to notice.
Sabina did an excellent job of not being led down the rabbit hole of a god or designer. She kept to the science despite all attempts by the host to take her down that path. Bravo
How long can she pretende to hold we dont know
She's boring and could send a "glass eye to sleep' Even her book has got the most boring title " lost in math" oh dear!
There's nothing wrong with asking philosophical questions. To me, science is just a branch of knowledge. It's silly to limit our knowledge to only science. We need to be asking, does the fine tuning evidence fit better with a theistic or atheistic worldview?
@@jameswright6203 Yes there is nothing wrong with asking philosophical questions. There is something very wrong when you use philosophy to substitute scientific language. Philosophy is not science and using it to answer or pontificate about science is absolutely wrong. I love philosophy and have read quite a lot which opened my mind however science is a different beast all together.
@@jameswright6203 Excellent point.
To claim "no explanation needed" is philosophy too, Prof Hossenfelder. Much love from Germany 😊
It's worse. "No explanation needed" is dogmatism.
Philosophy isn’t her strong suit
I mean, let's just say everything it's philosophy then.
The fact that you can use philosophy to examine anything doesn't mean that something is philosophy.
This seems like a pointless stretch to me but 🤷🏻♂️
I think you mean: Hitchens Razor. If they don't provide reasoning for assuming the probability in the premise of the argument she does not need to provide any reasoning to reject it.
@@RaphaelBraun 🤝
Unbelievable: was the universe created for us? Me: the observable universe is 93 billions light years in diameters, human beings 1.7 meters in average. What do think?
The earth was the center of the universe a few century ago. Now the universe is fine tuned just for us. See the pattern?
there is a pretty obvious fallacy in your argumentation, maybe you can find it yourself
THIS.
@@oliverhug3 What is your point? That the Earth is not the most important place for humans? Yes, it is. That it is not the centre of the universe? Again, it is. As there is no centre of the universe, anything in the universe can be the centre.
@@rysloan Uh-oh. There’s only barely enough room in here for my ego.
This seems silly to me it seems obvious that through evolution we've become fine tuned to the universe not the other way around........
Evolution wouldn’t happen if it wasn’t fine tuned to happen. Enough light, warmth, atmosphere, gravity, etc.
Absolutely right. Geez, if some entity "designed" a universe to suit life, he sure didnt provide a large proportion of planets where it could develop. having read a lot of the relevant literature, I have virtually no doubt that life has sprung from abiotic chemicals many times in the universe, but so far no where close enough for us here on Earth to detect.
@@notionSlave Natural processes don’t need intention to occur. A rock falling from a cliff didn’t intend to fall, erosion caused it to fall. The root of the fallacy of “fine tuning” is the belief that our existence was “intended to happen.” You know how people falsely ascribe human-like emotions to animals, like saying a dog feels “guilty?” It’s the same mistaken assumption.
@@megameow321 you’re being too reductionist. A video game will have many random things happen in it. But overall the entire design that caused those random things was programmed by someone.
@@notionSlave
Who programmed god then?
If it's ok to say nobody programmed god, then it's equally ok to say nobody programmed the universe.
Sabine herself says she has no interest whatsoever in why the universe is how it is or how the laws of. the universe are how they are. All she is interested in is keeping the field narrow minded and pointing at others calling them 'philosophical' or 'not scientific' for daring to go beyond conventional science or question it. But science should be about how things work and why they are how they are, and how they are how they are. So essentially Sabine is just a caretaker for mainstream science to make sure it doesn't let in anyone who dares question the orthodoxy of the sacred mainstream science religion and narrative. You need a lot of faith to be a mainstream scientist.
My nose was perfectly designed to hold up my glasses.
I was the first human on Mars, and on the ground i found glasses which sit on my nose perfectly. Well, what can i say, that's just the universe we happened to have, nothing to see here.
And your ears to stop them falling off
And every puddle has the ground around it shaped just perfectly, with every pebble or grain of sand in just the right place...
my middle finger was perfectly designed to pleasure me, therefore god exists
@@ShowMeYoBoob congratulations, that’s a new one: the argument from masterbation.
Very nice conversation. I feel sometimes Justin's interventions don't help to keep the flow. Some of his questions to Sabine also seemed redundant which gave the impression of insistence.
I found Justin mostly acting as a moderater who summed up the position each one made rather well; to help the audience understand whats going on.
Seriously, seemingly the same question to Sabine over and over. It was really frustrating.
@@luna-p Exactly, it sometimes felt like she was out of words for having already answered the question before and not knowing what else to add.
In my estimation this might be the result of two facts: 1) the conversation got to its bottom line relativelly quickly, leaving too much space to fill. 2) Justin's limited philosophical background makes it harder to express philosophical questions with precision, the repetition might be the result of his struggle to articulate his questions
If I understood both Sabine & Luke, they agreed that fewer constants would be both simpler and better science. If the math works, if the science works, wouldn't 20 constants be better than 26? 20 or any number below 26 would make for better science and simpler science. I enjoyed the conversation.
Does a circle depend on Pi.... does a circle say that it has to obey Pi.... or is Pi just a number that emerges when we divide the length of the circumference over the length of the diameter of the circle that exists without ever having had Pi affect it in anyway.
These numbers are not determinants and nothing Depends on them.... they are the result of calculations involving the physical facts and while we try to DESCRIBE those physical things using the LANGUAGE of mathematics.
Saying that if Pi differed by a tiny fraction then no circles would exist is as ludicrous as saying that if the Planck constant differed then there would be no universe.
Great comment, well said!
@@jacoblee5796 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
That is a good point, but the problem is there are many constants that we do not have any mathematical explanation for. That's where people introduce the fine-tuning idea. Sabine beautifully describes that in her book. But it may well be that for some constants we will never have a mathematical explanation. Maybe they just are as they are. But I think we will find proper explanations for most constants in the physical theories and reduce the number of those unexplained to a handful. I also think that's the best we can hope for, because every mathematical model describing reality has some tunable constants. Hence if we explain one theory with thousands of constants with a theory with one tunable constant, we are still left with this one constant. I don't think we can overcome that.
@@piotr.ziolo. Could you expand on this a little. I don't quite understand what you mean by "Hence if we explain one theory with thousands of constants with a theory with one tunable constant, we are still left with this one constant. I don't think we can overcome that."
@@piotr.ziolo. ... all this fine-tuning woo reminds me of the woo believers about the Pyramids of Egypt.... they used to jump up and down with excitement over how the ancient Egyptians could have ever known the value of Pi so far back and used it to construct their *pyramids with measurements that are multiples of Pi* .
The fine-tuning lot are doing exactly the same WOO WORSHIP as those Pyramids Mystery cultists.
The ancient Egyptians did not make their pyramid measurements as multiples of Pi... they used a wheel-measuring device and they used those to measure off their required measurements as multiple turns of the wheel.... so... NATURALLY ... without any knowledge whatsoever of Pi or its value.... they ended up to OBLIVIOUSLY have measurements that are multiples of Pi...
If the universe is fine-tuned for life, It demands a reason why it is like this rather than being not. Nothing fine-tunes itself, nothing assembles ivy itself. Every time we observe organization, we infer intentionality and mind. The universe demands an explanation for its organization, beauty and, fine-tuning.
Not everything has a conscious creator or "fine tuner". Some islands were formed due to volcanic eruptions, but you wouldn't say they were formed by volcano gods.
"nothing assembles by itself"
- yes it does.
"Every time we observe organization, we infer intentionality and mind"
- no we don't.
" The universe demands an explanation for its organization, beauty and, fine-tuning."
- no it doesn't.
@@cpt.kimintuitiondemon I do not know if you have anything to back up your statements, besides your mere "no it doesn't". Be serious, please.
If the universe is too complex, unique and unlikely to exist by itself without a designer then god requieres a designer even more than the universe
@@Aguijon1982 Why would God need a designer? Please, elaborate.
In sum: For Sabine these unlikely qualitative features of the universe are not something she would want to investigate (because... science), so there is no explanation needed.
But these features still exist and need an explanation, at least a philosophical one and within a Bayesian framework, it would be scientifically.
Great job Dr. Barnes!
No. 14:00. For Sabine, these “qualitative features” are not “unlikely” because we don’t know the extent to which they could have been otherwise. They are simply what exists and nothing else needs or can be said about them.
@@tripp8833 LOL! The statements *"philosophy is dumb"* and *"nature doesn’t care for human constructs"* are statements that cannot be part of an experiment verified in a laboratory. These are philosophical statements, not scientific.
LOL!!! Self-refutation for the win!
Thanks for the laugh.
@@ericb9804 What? At 14:00 she is not saying what you think. What she is really saying is that we cannot change the constants so Barnes' models are irrelevant. But this is a mistake because it assumes Finite Frequentism (which almost no one accepts) and everyone is into Bayesianism wich allows to consider Barnes' models
Also, let me say that there is no evidence that the nature of the universe is necessary, all evidence seems to confirm that it is contingent. BTW.
@@prime_time_youtube In order to assign Bayesian priors, you need reasons - you need evidence of what the priors might be. You don't just get to pick them out of thin air, which is what Barnes does and why no one outside of overt religious apologists takes it seriously. Sabine is clearly saying that it is inappropriate to use the term "unlikely" in relation to the various cosmological constants. They are constant and that is all that we know. Anything else is speculation at best. And clearly silly when that speculation included magic.
Also, let me point out that you just used the phrase "nature of the universe" unironically, as if the "the universe" were something other than "nature", which is precisely the "nature" of your misconception - the assumption that "reality" is something other than what we observe. Whatever "evidence" you are referring to may suggest that "nature" could be other than what it is given other parameters, but so what? Its not. That's all we know. It most definitely does not "confirm" that magic is real.
@@ericb9804 what magic are you referring to ... serious question
Beginning at about 1:01:03, Luke Barnes says: "There is something remarkable and rare about the way our universe is in that it permits life." I would say that what is in fact "remarkable" is that after more than an hour of the conversation, during which probability was discussed at length, Barnes should yet again make the claim of rarity when he knows that his sample size is n=1 (that is, our one universe). One has to wonder how many universes he has examined to make the determination that our universe, which is hospitable to life, is "rare". How can anyone who has even the most basic understanding of the meaning of the word "rare" apply it to a single universe in which there is life in the absence of any other universes to compare it with? This claim or "rarity" (or "improbability") forms the foundation of Barnes's "fine-tuning" belief, and he unconsciously adheres to it, even as he occasionally corrects himself, as he did at least once earlier in the conversation when he used the word "unlikely" and then stopped himself. Clearly, Barnes is unable to set aside his Christian mindset and his Christian assumptions, even as he does science, because this mindset and these assumptions are so deeply rooted in the fabric of his thought structure.
Just prior to making the statement quoted above, he says: "I think it's a basic principle not just of science but of rationality to try and put together your worldview in a way that explains the most with the least assumptions." Then he goes on to suggest that Hossenfelder's position (namely, that the values of the constants are just the way the universe is) is a "big assumption"-and then he catches himself and tries to "put it another way", having realized that assuming that the universe is simply the way it is is, in fact, the simplest possible assumption. Positing a supernatural Creator to account for the physical constants is anything but offering the simplest explanation with "the least assumptions". Not only do we have to assume the existence of a supernatural being, but we have to assume that this being exists outside of time and space and outside the universe, so we have to assume further that there is somewhere that answers to "outside the universe"; we also have to assume that this being has a complex mind and that this mind is possessed of the knowledge necessary to set the constants at exactly the right values; we have to assume that this mind is of a different order from human minds, since human minds cannot exist apart from brains consisting of matter within the material universe; and on and on. Does Barnes really think that his "Creator" explanation is the "best" explanation because it has "the least assumptions"?
Sabine is the best & probably the most honest scientist living right now. More importantly, she cares about the scientific method & its abuses and tries to bring it back to earth so to speak. I am surprised to see her in a debate like this. because she never brings religion into her science. She must just be really nice to give this debate as this is not something Sabine seems to care about.
if the universe is fine tuned, does that mean god has to obey the laws of physics, cos couldn't he just set everything to "1" and that would be perfectly naturaql to all of us, but, wouldn't it be simpler to just make us blobs of jelly? nothing in religion is coherent, everything in religion disagrees with everything else in religion, if anything at all is true about religion is buried under so much bollocks, and god himself doesn't turn up for work, it's a waste of time even talking about it.
it implies that god went through his creation checklist, licking the tip of his pencil going "oh damn, i need to expand the universe, now what's a good number for that?" why? he would just make it work with a snap of his fingers. and WHERE at what level does he get involved? string? quantum waves? electrons and photons? atoms? molecules? at what stage does he start fannying about to create mankind? and then how and WHY does he dick with our emotions? it's pretty daft at every level.
and probabilities? they ONLY work if you have another universe to compare them to.
when it comes to hummingbirds luke loves that his god created these things, but he'll immediately deny god creates alligators that tear people's legs off. he can't stand that beauty can come about randomly (and it's beauty according to US not any absolute) but ramndom crocodiles biting legs off can't be anything to do with od, the same god. give me a fk break.
Can't like it more than once. sorry!
And in the crocodile's perspective, it is the most beautiful thing ever when he bites some ugly dinner's leg off... I wonder if Luke's god sits there with a popcorn bucket also laughing his ugly head off while watching all these legs being bit off.... not to mention all the little girls screeching with fear and crying for help while he is sitting on his back end doing nothing.
The entire thing is just a very weird mix of modern science and ancient superstitions. It's like Star Wars fans coming up with explanations for stuff George Lukas never thought of.
Well the discussion was merely about whether the finetuning argument is a scientific one, rather than about the finetuning itself. Fact is that we do live in a universe that seems to be fine-tuned for life, and that's something to think about of itself. The fact that we can't change the existing constants in order to know anything about the probability of it happening, doesn't change the amazing reality of the finetuning phenomenon as we see it. The question whether there could be probabilities if we could change the constants is an irrelevant question because it's a dead end. But stating that the finetuning argument isn't a scientific one, doesn't make it go away. It may well be merely a philosophical one, but on the other hand, if you're gonna argue that there is nothing but mass, matter and energy, then the concept of philosophy once had to "develop" out of that, because here it is. So that should make philosophical questions like this scientifically relevant. But even if you don't believe mass, matter and energy is all there is (like I do) the fact that there are such deep philosophical questions indicates that there have to be (philosophical) answers. Even if it isn't science, science isn't all there is, so it seems it's up to us to decide what's actually relevant.
"Fact is that we do live in a universe that seems to be fine-tuned for life..."
This is not a fact at all. It is an interpretation based on what we do not understand in science. At least not at this point.
@@Jdelli0916 If the fine tuning was a little different in the + or - then is it clear what would happen to our universe and ultimately life here on Earth? I was a little confused about this part.
But we only know of one place in the observable universe where life exists - the thin layer of water and air around Earth. In every other place, including empty space, life would be immediately destroyed. We hope that there are little protected pockets of life elsewhere - but we have not found any, for billions of light years in every direction. How is this extremely deadly universe "fine tuned" for life?
@@nycbearff "How is this extremely deadly universe "fine tuned" for life?" In that with more or less of it life would be impossible. At least that's how the finetuning argument go's.
I love Sabines clearness of thought. She is right science is not here to answer all questions like the existence of God (i personally find more evidence for a creator then i see for coincidence of the origin of life) and she does good not trying to prove otherwise. Also its important to remember Luke point that it would be wrong to claim scientific questions are the best or only questions to ask. Id add truth is not dependent on scientific questions since not all questions can be answered based on the scientific methodology.
While I appreciate your fair and generous perspective on the debate, I have to point out that while, yes, not all questions are framed to be scientific ones, the fine-tuning argument is in fact squarely rooted in scientific evidence, scientific methodology, and well-established mathematics of probability. Thus it not only can but should be evaluated from that perspective, which is what Sabine did when she (correctly, in my view) pointed out the flaws in Luke's probability assumptions. I think it's a red herring, or at least somewhat irrelevant, to point out that not all questions can be answered from scientific methodology when the one we're considering can be.
Awesome stuff!!.. I'm no scientist and I don't believe in religion (i.e. mankinds attempt to socialize the belief and worship of God). I believe mankinds belief and relationship with God is a personal matter between the individual and God. I also strongly believe that God used all the natural laws of all the various fields of science to form all of projected creation, including that which now is and that which is yet to come, modern science doesn't know the half of it, but I believe thy're on the right track...
So I'm more incline to agree with Luke on this matter, however I follow Sabina, she's the science watchdog, I've heard of some really far fetched theories come out of science lately, and Sabina is the one to either blow it out of mainstream and/or put it in its proper context. So when I saw she was apart of this conversation I knew it was going to be interesting, and I was not disappointed..
Therefore in my humble unscientific opinion, I believe all of mankinds knowledge needs to be fine tuned, refined, expanded, classified and unified. This of course is not the complete answer, but merely one means to finding a solution. Of course as I said earlier I'm no scientist, I've never even attended university, I've just read The Urantia Book, which aligns with our Maori cultural viewpoint. Keep up the good work, we will gett there!!...
I love Sabine.
The puddle analogy pretty much covers the issue. The water precisely fits the hole in the ground. The water, out of necessity has responded to the qualities of the hole, not that the hole was created for the water or that the water was created to fit the hole.
The answer might be - both water and the hole were created by natural processes.
Ignoring the probabilities to make a simple analogy does not make your point. Everyday we learn more and the possibility of random chance diminishes. Increased complexity only points to higher order which as far as know only comes conscious intelligence. What is the probability of a flat universe?
@@ElonTrump19 How did you jump from complexity to consciousness? I bet its watchmaker argument again... please tell me i am wrong.
@@EreshKidu the tactic of avoiding the question by trying to diminish the argument is weak. It points to a lack of understanding. Also, both the puddle and watchmaker arguments come from the same person and both are up ended with complexity.
@@ElonTrump19 "Increased complexity only points to higher order" No it doesn't, it is the other way around as we have learned from evolutionary biology - complexity arises from simple natural laws iterated over time with random inputs and it is simple solutions that come from good engineering.
I’ve seen a few interviews and lectures of Sabine Hossenfelder. She reminds me of someone who probably excels at getting the nuts & bolts of work done, but is probably deficient when it comes to discovering novel approaches to the bigger picture.
Discovery often happens from thinking outside the box, and/or putting together differing ideas and concepts into a unique perspective. The way Sabine presents herself, that would not be one of her fortes. Though if a visionary discovered a new concept, she would probably be very good at efficiently and effectively making it work on a daily level.
There's no shortage of people coming up with novel and crazy concepts in answer to just about every scientific question currently being considered. The problem is that almost all of them will turn out to be wrong. While the rare correct visionary often gains hero status later on, an equally important and more thankless job is continuously filtering out the ideas which don't work, aren't scientific, and often don't even exhibit mastery of previously established scientific knowledge and methods.
Sabine is one of those essential gatekeepers who keeps the real science from descending to the level of un-self-critical crackpot pseudoscience web sites. Without people like her repeatedly and unglamorously knocking down faulty ideas and unjustified conclusions, our attention and resources would be overwhelmed by the tide of people who imagine themselves visionaries but who are merely wrong. We should thank her for it, not give backhanded compliments about her just being good at carrying out the real visionaries' ideas. You make her sound like a grad student hired to help in the lab when she's doing a lot more than that currently.
@@scotte4765 I somewhat agree with you, except that I’ve also seen interviews and lectures with Luke Barnes, who doesn’t strike me as someone espousing “crazy concepts to just about every scientific question being considered”. And the fact that Sabine seemed not even to consider his ideas of being worthy of more engaging responses is clearly evident in the exchange between them. The moderator was desperately trying to get her to engage more and she wasn’t having it.
Is Luke Barnes really not the sort of scientist worthy of an intellectual discussion on science?
I’ll say again that I see nothing wrong with the way Sabine presents herself. I just don’t see those types of personalities as the ones who make novel discoveries.
@@ToddSullivanacrowsflying I wasn't trying to suggest that Barnes is a quack, so I apologize if it came off that way. The thing about being a good scientific gatekeeper is that you're willing to call out mistaken assumptions, conclusions, and methods no matter who is making them. Sometimes it's quacks spouting nonsense and sometimes it's credible scientists making human mistakes. In this case Barnes was claiming there's an unlikely thing happening that therefore requires a particular type of explanation, and Hossenfelder correctly called out his probability claim as unjustified. Since it was unjustified, it's not credible science but philosophical speculation. She was correct to say, in essence, "no, stop there."
You're not the only one I've seen on this page criticizing Sabine for not engaging further with Barnes's arguments. The fault lies with the host or whoever decided to invite her to debate this topic. You only need to watch a few of her TH-cam channel videos to predict that she wasn't going to run along with arguments or research she considered flawed or unscientific, and since the flaw in the argument was simple to point out, there wasn't much more to be said about it after she did. They should have found another guest if they wanted someone who would argue just for the sake of making it a good show.
*I just don’t see those types of personalities as the ones who make novel discoveries.*
That may be, but even phrasing it that way gives undue credit to the novel visionaries. Scientific attention and material resources are limited, and their novel discoveries wouldn't get anywhere if there weren't many others like Sabine making sure that only the most worthy and credible new ideas made it into the scientific edifice to receive that attention and those resources. A fine-tuner God is an unjustified conclusion arising from bad math, not a novel discovery.
@@scotte4765 I will grant you that whoever invited her, if they know anything about her, probably made a mistake. At the same time, if you know anything about this particular channel, I’d think Sabine would realize, even if invited, that this probably wasn’t the best place for her to make an appearance.
I say all this while including that I’m a subscriber to her channel and I’ve seen many of her videos. Truly I’m not trying to disparage her, this just wasn’t the right venue, I suppose.
@@ToddSullivanacrowsflying I would qualify that and say that if the producer(s)' goal was to host a rip-roaring debate on an unanswerable question, then Sabine wasn't a great choice. But if the goal was to actually answer the question or prove/disprove the fine-tuning argument, then she was a good choice because she did that, very concisely. The argument is flawed and she explained why. It's you and other commenters here who think, for some reason I don't understand, that she should have gone on to argue about other aspects of the claim even after it had been disproven. I'm not sure what that would have accomplished besides legitimizing a bad argument.
I don't presume to know or guess your own views on fine-tuning or God, and you don't have to tell me. But I've found it a common and annoying habit among theists to frame things like fine-tuning or the problem of suffering as knotty questions that believers and skeptics have debated for years without ever finding an answer, when in fact skeptics have very soundly answered or refuted them but the theists just won't accept the result. Sabine pointed out a fatal flaw in the fine-tuning argument. It's dead right there.
Sabine's argument seems to be that the constants of the universe are simply a brute fact that require no explanation. However, many scientists (including atheist ones) disagree. If the constants don't need to be the way they are, then they most certainly do require an explanation.
I find her argument narrow minded. Imagine what would happen if all scientists just decided “Well, that’s just the way things are, no reason to look into it any further because it doesn’t fall within my definition of a scientific question.”
Her argument is that in our current theories, these constants are brut fact and it's not reasonnable to try to infer any probability because with our current knowlegde, we don't have acces to any distribution of probability. The fine tuning argument assume that the values of these constants are improbable but we can't know the distribution probability they follow
@@kevinbarbe799 But we do know that the constants don't have to have the values they do. That much seems to be certain at this point. Actually, they don't even have to exist at all. For these reasons, they do seem to be surprising, and demand an explanation.
@@Eric-en9hk No. Currently, these constants are free parameters which have to be put "by hand" in the models. We don't know if they are necessary or not (both in the conversation said it).
And even if they could be different, without a distribution of probability, we can't say if their value are unlikely or not 😉
I know it feels unlikely but without any further knowledge, this argument rests only on intuition, which is not the best tool in science 😉
I never saw someone with such a brilliant analytical mind and straight forward argumentation like Dr. Hossenfelder. I recommend her NEW book 'Existential Physics', in which she points out a quite hopeful and inspiring view on existence and life. This was an interesting discussion, thanks
(Stephen Hawking quote)
"Even our final theory of physics would still just be a bunch of equations, and would not tell us what breathes fire into the equations that makes a Universe for us to describe"
@@jeffbarrett411 thanks, right and not in conflict with Doc Bee
@@jeffbarrett411 : We give things meaning.
@@jeffbarrett411 “We are each free to believe what we want, and it's my view that the simplest explanation is that there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate.” - Stephen Hawking
@@eprd313 Hawking was a crap scientists and even worse philosopher. Quoting him as if it means something is as low IQ as it gets
I have been watching Sabine for a few months now I find her teachings bring me a closer belief in God enjoy her music...big fan...
What? Is the the same deterministic Sabine we're talking about?
In a debate, where the ideal of science itself is disputed, declaring "it is not scientific" is not in anyway different from declaring "it is not christian, islamic, buddhist" or any other.
If the multiverse is real, then one of two things can be true:
1. All universes have different constants. Some will have more life than ours, some less.
2. All universes have the same constants as ours.
If (2) is true, then this 'fine tuning' is a brute fact, and is the way universes are.
I was once prideful about being able to imagine a Universe without a purpose and a Supreme Being. I enjoyed telling anyone that would listen that their religion was bullshit but in the intervening years I have slowly changed my mind about it all and have decided to take that "Leap of Faith." Couldn't be happier. I don't need any proof nor do seek it. All I ultimately know is that it can't be explained by nothingness.
So basically you just lost your curiosity and now you are happy with "goddidit" as an answer to every question. That's not happiness but an outbreak of intellectual laziness.
@@lepidoptera9337 not today satan....
@@zombiestory6353 Ma! The local satanist is here!
So, what else in life do you apply this methodology to?
Did God come from nothingness, if not where from then? Oh dear Lol
The perfection for life to be absolutely points to God .
"The perfection for life"
LOL
99.9999 of the universe is LETHAL TO HUMAN BEINGS not in a spacesuit.
Tsunamis, floods, lightning, mud slides, volcanos ALL KILLING HUMANS.
100,000 choking deaths annually due to EATING FOOD (GREAT design "god")
Sabine = we don’t know, what we don’t know (the constants don’t imply fine-tuning, you gotta first show me it can’t be other ways, anything else ain’t science). Luke = let’s be bold and explore possibilities (and different theories of probability) in a universe that we don’t fully know all about yet. This discussion exposes the fundamental truth that Philosophy and Attitude actually underlie science, not objective facts and observations - whether it’s the approach towards science of Sabine, Luke or anyone else.
Barnes is not merely exploring possibilities here. He is asserting specific explanations as scientifically more probable than others.
Why make animate things out of inanimate particles? It seems like such an unnecessary step, don’t you think? Listening to Luke struggle was painful.
Nope, it simply is what it is and we developed as we are because it is what it is. The fundamental issue is that people have a hard time accepting that we humans just aren't all that special in this universe. They hate to see a loved one die so an afterlife idea was created, a place where they will see them again, or where their loved one will be without pain. It's hard to just accept that this life is all there is, but that's just how it is.
That’s some serious circular reasoning. Maybe take a class in logic.
@@whatsinaname691 circular reasoning example: "The bible is true because it is god's word. God is real because the bible says so."
But, back to this 'was the cosmos made for us' question... If it was made for us why is most of it deadly to us? And what is the point of putting billions of stars out there in space? Just a pretty bit of decoration? But more realistically, even on this world alone, most of the surface is deadly to humans. Not really 'designed for us' is it? They like to talk about how we are exactly the right distance from the sun, but the distance varies by about 3.5 million miles through the year. We, like every other animal, adapted to survive in the temp ranges this produces. Those variants of humans and pre humans that did not adapt died. We survived. That's not tuning that's evolution.
Many of advanced cultures, such as Romans and Greeks in the first century didn't
It's very interesting the way Luke Barnes describes the fine-tuning argument as the ultimate form of people's intuition that the universe seems designed. Of course he glosses over the fact that this intuition has led us astray time and time again. People thought biological structures couldn't arise naturally and had to be designed; they were wrong. People used to explain just about everything in nature as being the direct actions of deities; they were wrong. And the fine-tuning argument is now the last bastion for believers in design. Having lost when it comes to basically everything _in_ the universe, they can still argue that the initial conditions of the universe itself were designed. Well, good luck with that.
It was hard to figure out Luke's exact point, but I think the problem he has it just that he can't accept brute facts. He has a problem with "as far as we know, the universe just is the way it is without further explanation." But he doesn't see a problem with "the universe is the way it is because God created it" coupled with "as far as know, God just is the way he is without further explanation." At least the naturalistic explanation is honest.
Barnes punts the frequentist vs Bayesian issue. Ask WHY the proposition "there are dark clouds gathering" supports the proposition "it will rain soon." It's prior evidence all the way down.
This entire discussion could have been concluded in 5 minutes. Luke: “Sabina, do you believe that a god fine tuned the universe?”
Sabina:”No”
Luke:”Are you sure?”
Sabina:”Yes, I am”
Luke:”Are you sure that you are sure?”
Sabina”Yea”
Luke:”What about the pretty trees? Does that not convince you a hof did it?”
Sabina:”No”
Luke:”Are you sure?”
Sabina:”Yes”
Etc etc …
Does sabine "think" she is just a set of atoms and molecules or more than that ?
Ha, right. In her new book 'Existential Physics', she mentioned exactly this talk. As honest as she is, says, that she didn't want that talk, but did it for the donation.
@@pankaja7974 she would answer, that's the difference between strong and weak emergence. What she is convinced of is that all she's more, is weak emergence, so based on molecules a.s.o., but anyway origin new. Strong emergence would mean, she's something from 'outside' physics, she calls ascientific. All to read in her new book, an exciting work.
I get the impression, that fine tuning was just made to prevent some guys to find successfully a "theory of everything". So with all these detailed mutual constraints of the properties of space and time you just cannot figure out that all to easily.
So I see it like Sabine: as long as you cannot construct a more fundamental explanation of the constants as they are, why overcomplicate everything by fleeing into unobservable different realities/universes? Its more reasonable to concentrate on the scientific problems within our universe.
Well, cosmologists need to be to come up with models and hypotheses, and then they try to find ways of testing them. Multiverse, for instance is one such hypothesis and it fits very well with inflationary theory and general relativity. Cutting edge science is the speculation that when tested and verified leads to confirmed science. So I can hardly agree with Sabine's puritanical approach, but at least it is better than speculating about things that are totally arbitrary and have no place in science, such as religion.
Because tge principle of sufficuenr reason applies in science. There HAS to be a sufficient cause for things that could be otherwise.
I like the way you put the problem there, but one could disagree with you about your definition of 'overcomplicate'.
@@chadjcrase well said
The theory of everything needs much more than the fine tuning problem to be remedied. Susskind said we are most likely a million yrs away from that if it is even possible. It may be that the information is no longer around and has been lost as the universe grew and cooled.
I am not a scientist, but I do try very hard to come to some understanding of science - as of philosophy, as of religion. There are so many concepts, so many well-qualified commentators. I look for people who may or may not turn out to be right, but who seem to me to be reliable guides - people by whom, as I say, "I set my clock". Sabina is one of them. I rather hope that she is wrong about some things (fine tuning included), but she is still someone without whose contribution I would feel far less secure.
Both persons in this video are in my view reliable scientists. One must remember that scientists can interpret the data differently. One scientist can say that the universe is hostile (not fine tuned), as if you would jump just 75 km up, into space, you would die. Another says the world is fine tuned, as changing earth´s orbit 1% closer to the sun, would make this planet inhabitable. They are both right on the data, but interpretation differs.
Hossenfelder at her best ! Sticking to argument and logic.. 😉
Barnes is just looking at the dice after they have been rolled and marveling at the improbability of the result.
Exactly!
And there you have it, religious Bayesianism.
You are fundamentally wrong and you know it. He already responded to your ignorant statement but you are still here repeating that like a parrot. All I would say is that, has your beloved dice infinite number of sides (infinity not being a number as Wittgenstein, Godel and many others say it would be a paradox to begin with anyway...)? Or a finite number of them? If it has infinite sides then it would not be a dice to begin with for obvious reasons as actual infinity is an impossibility, period. On the other hand if, it does only have a finite number of sides, then it would be a very valid question to first of all ask a very legitimate question of why those certain number of sides to begin with? And, also legitimately ask, why that particular side and not others...
-------------
On a different note, randomness is an impossibility, both in concept and in practice. Any random generation system by definition is deterministic, period. And on the other hand, even if one could truly generate or discover a system or natural structure that could potentially speaking express random behaviour, the numerical output of the machine that utilises that natural system to generate a so-called random number is still an anthropocentric structure that works with the anthropocentric language of mathematics (e.g. numbers won't grow on trees) and again fundamentally speaking cannot and is not still able to truly produce random 'anything' let alone random 'numbers'. All random numbers are fundamentally speaking pseudorandom, period. Godel and Wittgenstein say hello btw, I strongly suggest anyone who believes in the cult of 'randomness' of the universe (yes including Bertrand Russell himself) study their works as it opens a new door in their way of thinking.
@@konnektlive I'm not sure what you're going on about, but the fact remains, that the universe is as we observe it to be. That's it. That's all we can honestly say. We don't know if that is remarkable or not. If you want to play with Bayes theorem and ramble on about infinity and randomness, have at it. But don't pretend you have found god just because you have assumed it to be there.
@@ericb9804 I'm disappointed, but not surprised at all. That response was incredibly narrow-minded and borderline dogmatic. Just this statement yours alone "ramble on about infinity and randomness" shows how (no offence) uneducated you are when it comes to sciences and philosophy of science. As a theoretical physicist (who lectures in multiple EU universities) I can surely get technical if needed, but I don't think you are not familiar with the challenge of random number generation as a very legitimate problem of science, hence all these QM attempts and interpretations and utilisations at trying to generate true random number. Simply calling the philosophy and science behind the practical science of randomness 'rambling' shows how easy-going your mind is and your need of lazy shortcuts to answers that superficially satisfy your mind. Well, ignorance is bliss for most people on this planet, so no surprise there either ^^ ...
Sabine is the star, among stars. So smart/ intelligent, interesting. Her two cohorts, as Hitch would say just babble. Cheers SBM.
Sabine is right: it's a human psychological trait to ask "why" questions, without realizing that sometimes such questions don't make sense.
For example, we may ask ourselves: "Why does the Universe exist? Why did the Big Bang happen?"
Or we may ask: "Why do electrons exist? Why do photons exist?"
I think these are absurd questions, things JUST EXIST, and we have never observed a Universe in which electrons or photons don't exist.
No, what's absurd is your comment. Objectively. Why IS a rational question, the universe itself is what's absurd. The brain is a construct of which deduces logic and reason, both of which are objectively rational things. The universe is just a pointless object, YOU are appealing to that as something that justifies itself in anyway. It rationally doesn't You sound like a christian that excuses a god for acts of harm. Why is a god not excused to cause harm to humans, yet an absurd, mindless object like the universe is always beautiful even if it ends up creating things like lifeforms with birth defects? Things don't just exist for NO REASON, that's what you're saying. To say that things JUST EXIST, is to say things exist for no reason whatsoever. THAT is an absurd concept, because there's ALWAYS an objective reason why something would exist.
Just because asking why happens to be a human trait, that doesn't logically mean that asking why is absurd. The human brain has the capability to do valid logic. To say that the universe is greater than valid logic is like saying a rock is greater than valid logic. No valid logic is a rational thing, the universe isn't, its just a big mess of junk. There's no logical reason why a mess of junk is more valuable than valid logic.
@@FinalFantasy8911debater Here's a piece of valid logic: to ask WHY (something exists) is equivalent to asking WHY (something should) NOT exist.
The question "WHY something exists?" implies the existence of an alternative ("WHY not?").
IF that alternative does really exist, then science could answer the "WHY" question. However, if that alternative is purely imaginary and has NEVER been demonstrated to exist, then the "WHY" question becomes the realm of philosophy and religion, NOT science.
For example, it's a valid question to ask: "WHY does anti-matter not exist in the Universe?" That's because we observe anti-matter to exist in the laboratory, therefore an alternative to matter is demonstrated to exist.
However, it is UNscientific (not valid from a scientific poin-of-view) to ask: "WHY do photons exist?", or "WHY does the Universe exist?", or "WHY do the fundamental constants have such and such values?"
That's because we have NEVER observed an alternative to the photon, or to the Universe, or to the values of fundamental constants. Such alternatives do NOT exist, they are purely imaginary, therefore they are the domain of Philosophy and Religion (and science-fiction), but NOT of Science.
In such cases, the "WHY" questions are only valid in our minds, they are only valid from a philosophical or religious point-of-view, but not from a scientific point-of-view.
Science cannot explain WHY something NEVER exists, or WHY something ALWAYS exists.
@@lukebandolino882 No it doesn't, to ask "WHY something is" is just that, its asking what machinations brought something into being and for what reason. Its NOT equivalent to making an argument why something shouldn't exist, that's fallacious thinking on your part. Your brain is mixing 2 different things together. To ask why do apples exist is NOT the same as implying that they shouldn't exist.
You DON'T need noticeable alternatives to justify asking WHY, that's ANOTHER fallacious thought in your brain. The fact that mankind lacks knowledge of alternatives DOESN'T logically mean that alternatives don't exist. So you're saying that everybody in the world ought to assume that the universe NEEDS or SHOULD or JUST exists because humans lack the tools to identify how the universe couldn't have existed. That sounds like appeal to ignorance to me.
Its like christians saying : "Nobody has shown jesus' resurrection to NOT have happened. Therefore it did happen.
You're arguing that : "Its foolish to ask why the universe exists, because no human can prove the universe couldn't exist."
BOTH are appealing to the ignorance of mankind, and mankind's ignorance, objectively, don't signify what happens in objective reality. OBJECTIVE reality dictates what happens to itself. That's the new truth that you need to learn. I'm assuming you're an atheist who cares for logic and reason. If you care about logic and reason, then act like it. Don't sloth down just because atheism has been shown to be a valid philosophy, truth doesn't end at atheism.
And another thing, don't conflate philosophy with religion, philosophy is about deducing the truth, similar to science. Philosophy earns respect in that regard. Religion is about assuming truth and using philosophy and science to justify the assumptions. Philosophy and religion are NOT similar or the same.
Great discussion! It sounds to me Sabine is subconsciously conflating economics with science.
Science has often made advances through hunches. Supposing the string theorists’ hunches about the underlying mathematical beauty of the universe were correct, and it was proved without costing the earth. Would we not have labelled it as one of the greatest scientific intuition and discovery of our time? So what Sabine labelled as not a scientific question would have turned out to be a great scientific question after all. Her problem seems to be that the demand on budget to investigate this theory is so exorbitant that it seriously impacts many other avenues of potentially fruitful research.
I’m with Luke, in that my curiosity is aroused. To me it’s a bit like seeing a surprisingly well fitting 26 (or however many) pieces jigsaw puzzle that makes a magnificent picture. The strange thing about this jigsaw puzzle is that if changed any of the piece just by a miniscule bit, the whole picture blows up, or vanishes, or disintegrate into dust. I must admit, I’d be absolutely fascinated! I’d be asking how??? Why??? What’s going on here???
I admire the fact that the religious person always loses the debates purely based on facts and science yet you dont hide it and pretend it doesnt. Thank you for your honesty it can't be easy!
Why he lost the debate? Because you said it? Pathetic! All I hear from the other side is “it is what it is” “it’s not scientific” “don’t need explanation” “no interest in it”
The probability of winning the lottery is very small. However, someone always wins the lottery.
I don't know how science is surviving these so called scientists deprived of critical thinking 😅
That depends on the type of lottery. You are talking about a lottery where someone must win. There are other types of lottery. Either way: No single person broke the jackpot 1000 times in a row for example. That would be a much better analogy for fine tuning.
There is nothing improbable about someone winning the lottery. A *specific* person winning the lottery is improbable. But that someone wins it is almost certain. So this is a terrible analogy.
Personally, there is 'religion and a belief in a god' (or in a supreme 'decider'); then there is 'orthodoxy' which is a belief in a unique (sole) God that/who makes other beliefs 'heresy' which in former days was punishable by physical punishment or even death. Then there is a mantra (behavioral code, or ethics), which is a general guide for achieving/practicing life in a way that brings peaceful existence, e.g., the Way of Zen.
I think I agree with her (and him, for that matter) that science cannot answer "why"; but it should be able to arrive at how, discuss statistical possibility given the data thus far demonstrated, and be curious in the "what" behind the science. Luke is willing to take a multidisciplinary approach to the question, and he makes the case that such is necessary to probe even while avoiding metaphysically certain explanations.
Luke is willing to speculate. Very different than taking an interdisciplinary approach.
@@StarTigerJLN Actually, his speculation IS interdisciplinary. The science seems to beg for examination behind the "why" for "how" while realizing that science is not enough to explore, that philosophy does have a role--even in deciding not to explore. (And if modern science is to be consistent, then this speculation/exploration shouldn't be ruled out.)
I'm a bit confused, what is the inputs into the bayesian formula om Barnes view? If it doesn't brake down into frequencies eventually is it just how confident he is feeling?
Do we just think of all the ways it seems to us that the world could be and that's our reference class. That seems really weird for something that's supposed to be very scientific and rigorous otherwise.
That's my question too. Barnes is WAY too quick to handwave certain criticisms away as "frequentism" when actually Sabine made a perfectly good Bayesian criticism which one could tease out of Luke's own counterexample.
We can think that dark clouds increase our "confidence" that rain will come within the next 10 minutes, but that's only because we've seen clouds and rain before. If we have never seen clouds or rain (suppose we grew up in a desert with no TV and never heard rain described to us) then we'd see dark clouds and not know what they are or what will happen next. I use this same argument with the firing squad analogy. A child who has never seen a gun or death before wouldn't count their survival miraculous if they were aimed at, because they didn't have relevant background information to make such an inference.
And that is the key, background information. Sabine says we don't have relevant background information about what exactly our constants "are", how they mechanistically came about, if the mechanism could be random, if the constants could take other values, how often, and for any other reason. Maybe for the rain example you only need to see rain clouds once to get the confidence raising of dark clouds -> rain, fine. But do we have even ONE instance of relevant background information on either God or the constants? No. So we lack any background information to justify the priors that Luke needs to have to get a Bayesian analysis off the ground.
@@logos8312 I see what you mean but what about Barnes' reference to the literature showing a predominant Bayesian inclination amongst physicists?
@@martifingers My comments keep getting eaten after I post them. My original point was that Sabine wasn't assuming Frequentism in her criticism (her criticism was perfectly Bayesian) so most physicists being Bayesians, or even a critical mass being so, are perfectly consistent with her criticism.
@@martifingers It's also easier to be a Bayesian if you can run experiments and observe a decent amount of data (at which point priors don't matter much). The issue with Barnes is that he's doing what is acceptable when you have lots of data, and applying it to a situation where we only have one data point. So while I don't know if most physicists are Bayesian (which would be a bit surprising, since they use the 6sigma rule), it doesn't mean that they can do it right. And it definitely doesn't mean Sabine was making a frequentist argument.
Sabine is a Vulcan. She doesn't find Lukes appeals to wizards and magic very convincing
Except, Vulcans are religious.
@@TimothyFish Yes ancient Vulcans practiced a polytheistic religion, but after the time of The Awakening, they became atheists. They still kept their religious rituals because it was part of their culture in the same way as many atheists today still celebrate Christmas
She simply has a very narrow curiosity. It's like a person who is only interested in cows or chess or piano and finds everything else irrelevant.
If by narrow you mean she's not drawn to wild speculation without proper or sufficient evidence, then I guess you could say Sabine's interests are narrow.
@@canwelook that’s your characterization. She is not interested in inquiry that is not exclusive to the natural sciences. I think that is narrow.
Wonderful discussion, thank you!
Surely the notion the the Universe was created just for us is extremely egocentric. The existence of a system 92 billion light years across after 15 billion years of operational process involving a thermonuclear reactor, one of the smaller ones in the Universal system, only the tiniest energy percentage of which is utilized to sustain “life” on this planet and after some 5 extinctions brings us to where we suggest this was made just for us? It’s like a flee on an elephants back thinking “this massive food source was put here just for me” while the elephant feeling an itch where the flea is, is wondering how to scrape off that spot to alleviate the agony of the itch ….. all that to the power of minus 42.
Sabine is saying 'it doesn't explain anything ' but no science explains anything, it only describes it
What is the difference between e.g. an explanation on how to build a car and a description on how to build a car?
@@RaphaelBraun science doesn't 'explain' anything, it claims to, but its 'description' that science does. You cannot 'explain' fire, you can only describe changes in molecular structure.
@@LJ7000 I do agree, however I don't see the difference between a scientific "description" of how fire works and an "explanation" of how fire works.
Is the scientific description of what fire is and how it is caused not qualifying as an explanation for a fire that you observe? If not what would be?
@@RaphaelBraun it's not an "explanation"
Science explains how things happen -- it makes predictions and demonstrates methods. What you mean is "why" or a moral reason. Science does not provide that, no. That's Luke's issue.
People often talk about IF those constants and parameters were just a little bit different one way or another how life would not exist and how some sort of fine tuning must have taken place for us to be here. But that is saying those alternatives could take place in a functioning universe. What if these constants and parameters are the way they are because, given billions of years, they cannot turn out any other way? Regardless of the theories which says they could be otherwise, there is no actual proof that such things are actually possible. At least not in the long run. This universe is the only one we know of so there is nothing to which to compare. We know this universe with it's constants works. All the other possibilities may not. Therefore all universes could be much the same as ours. Nothing special to see here folks, move along.
27:29 - I think clarity is important here. I wouldn't go so far as to say the constants "require" an explanation for having the values they have. I think Sabine's argument is sound up to a point. I would phrase it differently - it would be "interesting to understand" why they have the values they have. I think that distinction is important.
I find it interesting that neither of them mentioned that it's not the universe that is fine tuned to us, but that we are fine-tuned to it. If the constants were different in a way that would allow for life then that life, not us, would be asking this same question.
If the universe was fine-tuned for us, why is 99% of it deadly to us? For that matter why is most of the Earth deadly to us? We can't survive in the ocean, we can't live where there is a lava flow. We are adapted to live between sea level and 6000 or so feet.
That doesn't seem very fine-tuned for us.
I really like the way Sabine keeps it about the science.
If she didn't, the conversation would become a cluster mess of psychological neediness. With science, we can actually focus on demonstrable and USEFUL ideas, rather than our vague conjectures based on our individual/in-group biases and preferences.
She didn't, she just refused to debate.
@@martinploughboy988 there isn't a debate, primitive magical beliefs are silly, the educated folks are just humouring you.
@@j7bsecond540 Christianity has nothing to do with magic. If anything, Evolution relies on magic.
@@martinploughboy988 lol your primitive myth is all about magic
"What is Creation? Creation is all that God has created within time and beyond time. You live within time, so you live in a part of Creation that is in motion, that is in flux, that is unstable and that is evolving and expanding. [This temporary Creation] that you must be concerned with is a reality of contrast and conflict, a reality of life and death. Separation created this reality, for God knew that the separated must have a foundation upon which to exist. This has set in train the physical universe that you are only beginning to comprehend and that you must learn to serve... if you are to outgrow its fascinations and to forgive its tragedies. Creation beyond this is beyond your awareness now, though you are actually living within it. For the temporary Creation is.... surrounded by the permanent Creation, but your eyes cannot see it, your ears cannot hear it, and your fingers cannot touch it because your senses were only established to recognize physical things and things that are moving and .... changing.... This is all happening within the permanent Creation itself. For while there appears to be separation...you have not left the permanent Creation. It is still here...You are lingering in time. Time is the interval between the point at which you left your permanent Creation to the time in which you finally return to it completely." (The One God, Marshall Vian Summers, New Message org)
Janice none of this is scriptural and none of this has one iota of bearing on what we are discussing here. It looks as though you just stepped out of the TV series I grew up with called the Outer Limits. However if you want to join the discussion we are having here and now go to the discussion with Raphael Braun. 1. Is the argument that hypothesis of theism is more probable than the hypothesis of Naturalism given fine tuning..Answer No! Is this even a scientific question ....So far ...Answer No! Is there fine-tuning even in...process If there is fine tuning does it lead to an inference of intelligent design ...in process....If there is an inference of intelligent design is the intelligent designer God in process...
Thank you, Janice.
Thank you
15:00 Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder started off right away erecting a Straw Man of Fine Tuning of the universe with the pencil analogy. The Straw Man was the idea that the pencil standing on its end is less likely than all other ways a pencil can lie because we observe pencils lying in other configurations. That concept is not only irrelevant to the actual Fine Tuning argument, she directly contradicts her own argument by then claiming that we don’t know if the constants could have had other values. Either we KNOW they couldn’t have had other values, which might undermine the fine tuning argument, or we don’t. If we don’t, then the fine tuning argument remains. First of all, the “surprise” aspect is misleading. if a pencil has to be balanced on its tip or the entire universe blows up, and we ALSO know that the far more stable way for a pencil to lie is on its side, we really would be extremely surprised to be here. WHY that pencil that is keeping us alive is still on its end and not where it would be more stable and much more likely to land would not be a question of merely passing interest. Our very existence would depend on understanding why the pencil hasn’t fallen over (and how to keep it from falling over).
And so up front the whole pencil analogy is really a Straw Man, but even so, it would tend to support the idea that there is indeed something that requires explanation.
But it is also not exactly a good analogy of the Fine Tuning argument because it implies that the ONLY reason why the pencil being on its tip is surprising is that we know other positions are more stable or more likely, but in truth, the Fine Tuning argument does NOT rely on saying that the values of the constants are different from what they should have had. That’s not the argument, nor does the argument even depend on it.
Now, to the fundamental question of whether the constants could have been different is another really, REALLY bad argument. That argument is like you finding a mile high carved tower in the middle of the Sahara desert, and asking the locals about it, and then concluding just because the desert nomads have claimed it has always been there, and every time they look it is still there in exactly the same place, and looking exactly the same, that the tower therefore doesn’t require any explanation. It simply must always have been there, as it is. It’s a silly argument. Just because we measure our existing universe as it currently is and see the constants having the same value every time we look today, that in no way negates the validity of the question why the constants have those values in the first place, let alone whether they might have been different. Finally, there is an entire branch of physics that determines the range of possible values those constants might have within the parameters set by things like the Planck constant, which we know sets a limit on the smallest unit of spacetime possible. There are allowable ranges that most of those values could otherwise have had, in theory, and the mere fact that they don’t have other values in our observable universe does not somehow prove they COULDN’T have had other values. That is a non-sequitur.
Wow, you constructed an entire straw village to incorrectly bash Sabine for something she did not do. Congratulations. You're one of the least honest commenters on the thread.
@@rafaelallenblock //Wow, you constructed an entire straw village….// Okay, how, exactly? Did she or did she NOT use the pencil analogy at ~15 minutes in? If she did, then it’s not possible for me to have erected a straw man by pointing out the flaws in that analogy. Maybe if you tell me what you think the fine tuning argument really is we can see if you even understand why the pencil analogy fails. I expect you probably misunderstand it as well, which is why you don’t see the flaws in that analogy.
Most scientists try to avoid the why question; they are only interested in the how questions.
No wonder Sabina keeps her answers short and keeps avoiding justification for the fine-tuning argument.
This was a cordial and stimulating discussion - am a fan of the fine tuning argument but I agree with Sabine that it is illicit to claim the argument is a scientific one, when it is a philosophical one. Also appreciate Dr Barnes's point about preferring deeper theories which eliminate assumptions as it applies to design arguments. Was a cool discussion although I think it goes stuck on "is fine tuning a scientific question" for too long.
Depends on how one defines 'scientific' as it seems Sabine is limiting it to her field of theoretic physics. However, that's not how science is defined in Academia which rather uses the tools of science in various disciplines. Maybe it would clarify her stance if she stated the fine tuning argument encompasses more than theoretic physics is capable of handling. Instead, she seems to imply that reality can only be defined in theoretic physics. The deeper question, which Barnes hinted at, is what are the limits of science? And if so, why do the sciences often make claims beyond their fields of expertise?
Answering the design question leads directly to deeper technology.
Restricting science to only things that can be calculated makes it impossible to advance technology in any significant way. We should approach science in a more balanced way.
@@wulphstein what? How so lol
@@lumbratile4174 Read Thomas Kuhn's, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" to find out how science advances not from the "day-to-day gradual process of experimentation" but by "breakthrough moments that disrupt accepted thinking and offer unanticipated ideas that occur outside of "normal science"." We get the famous phrase "paradigm shift" from Kuhn.
The fine tuning means god argument is just another way of saying we don't know therefor god.
I don't understand thunder, therefore Thor.
I don't understand the Cosmological constant, therefore Jesus.
The God of the Gaps lives on.
This is an absolutely astoundingly brilliant video. Just brilliant! Two knowlegeable and articulate guests and an interviewer who asks exactly the questions I have, in a way that doesn't try to lead the conversation in a particular way.
At the end of the video Justin asks the question that is at the heart of the fine-tuning argument as I see it: Does one's worldview influence how one sees fine tuning. I was pleased with Dr. Barnes' answer, coming as close to "yes" as he could without saying it explicitly. This is my hypothesis on the quesition, that if one is predisposed in some way to seeing a tuning hand then one will perceive fine-tuning.
Education doesn't make you smart. The ego to insist that your magic is real despite all EVIDENCE should be embarrassing but Luke's pride prevents him from realizing he walked into this debate without wearing any clothes.
Sabine is amazing indeed... A totally unbiased scientist... Good show.
she wasn't buying into their BS
@@paulrichards6894 yeah but no need to be toxic my friend 🌷🌷
@@paulrichards6894 I wouldn't be so harsh... We are a very gullible species. We just have to praise people like her who are trying to temper without mockery or passion our inate wishful thinking drive.
All scientists are biased. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.
@@garrygraham7901 lol everyone is biased at this point. Sophistry.
Sabine wins.
She never let the burden of proof get put on her. Best strategy.
@@MarkAhlquist The burden of proof is with the person making the claim. As there has been no rationally credible proof for or evidence of the existence of any god produced after a few thousand years of trying, theists have no option but resorting to manufacturing whatever they can dream up to prop up unjustified belief. That's one of the enduring attractions of delusional belief - it is not constrained by reality.
@@talleyhoe846 Exactly, well said
@@talleyhoe846 And the proof for the atheist claim is...?
@@DavidJohn-ig4sy What would that "atheist claim" be, in your opinion? "I am not conviced there is a God."?
Always love the iron clad reasoning that "ancient people thought that gods were manipulating everything so it must be true". Hope he doesn't reason like that at work.
We should be able eventually to put AI and quantum computing to work solving this riddle. Is the observable universe actually fine-tuned in its constants to permit emergency of life and intelligent sentient life? (Hawking and most physicists seem to think so.) Can the fine-tuning of one or more constants (or some changes in the combination of constants) be another way and still permit life? What is the probability that the apparent fine-tuning of our universe turned out this particular way? Etc. I thought the cosmological constant was so exquisitely fine-tuned to something like 10 to 120 power that random luck seemed out of the question. I also thought Penrose calculated that the fine-tuning of the low entropy initial conditions of the universe at the time of the Big Bang inflationary expansion was something like 10 to the power 10, to the power 123. Mind-boggling number that defies random chance or the argument that it just has to be that way so let’s not ask any questions.
*What is the probability that the apparent fine-tuning of our universe turned out this particular way?*
That is the question that we don't have any data to give us an answer, and neither AI nor quantum computers do either. We don't know the range of values each of the fundamental constants might have taken, we don't know the likelihood of each value within those unknown ranges, we don't know the mechanisms by which they became what we observe, and we've seen no other universes to let us back-calculate those likelihoods.
We have one observed value for each constant, and an as-yet impenetrable black box of cosmic history from which those singular values emerged. Yet theists want to not only assume they know all those numbers, but to then extract from them a being with all sorts of other unrelated traits and very strong feelings about who we have sex with. It's ludicrous.