Mario Livio - The Anthropic Principle: Meaning & Significance
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.พ. 2024
- New episodes of the Closer To Truth podcast every Wednesday: shorturl.at/hwGP3
We should expect to observe that the universe in which we live must conform to the conditions required for our presence as observers. This is the unremarkable “Weak Anthropic Principle”: our universe has fundamental constants that happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life. The “Strong Anthropic Principle” makes the teleological claim that the universe must have those properties that allow or require intelligent life to develop, that the universe is in some sense compelled to bring forth conscious life. Does anything meaningful follow from these ideas?
Register for a free membership to receive subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Mario Livio is an Israeli-American astrophysicist and an author of works that popularize science and mathematics.
Shop Closer To Truth merch and support the show with every purchase: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
A man with a very reasonable stance. I have experience that is common with thousands that tells me he is wrong, but his argument is not greedy. He stands on hard fought ground, without philosophically pillaging the spiritual inferences that are consistent between spiritual experiences and scientific observation.
Even if there is a multiverse, then what is its origin? Personally i don't think it matters whether there is a singular universe or a multiverse, as in both cases there must be a point of origin for either, with the "originator", or creator, designer, what have you, being itself infinite and eternal because it must be. This avoids the illogical mess of infinite regression. It also avoids the equally illogical notion that all that exists simply appeared out of nothing at some point deep in the past.
That just punts the question from why the universe exists to why the creator exists. Pretty much any answer you give to the latter could apply to the former, or could apply to an impersonal un caused cause. It gives the illusion of an answer without actually providing one.
Why do you say there must be an origin? Why can't the Multiverse be eternal?
Why must there be an origin? And if there is an origin, what was the origin of the origin? It’s my belief that the universe has always existed. It’s the only logical explanation. We aren’t the only life in the universe to have ever existed.
It looks to me like for complex systems like human beings you needs special conditions whatever those need to be. ''Special conditions'' is what it is may there be one or multiple universes..for complex systems you need a special universe..
what are possible explanations for an accelerating dark energy expansion of universe? acceleration is a mathematical equation; what might bring about mathematical acceleration?
The Anthropic principle is indeed correct I think, but this does not mean there is no spirit world or paranormal phenomena... It just means that spirit type stuff (if we assume it is true), doesn't work the way we thought!
How does it work?
there's a book on it that explains it very well in just the first few pages. its called the bible.
If only we could get people to understand that "I don't know" is a reasonable answer to problems. We need to stop providing magical answers, in order to avoid saying "I don't know." Whether it is picking a religion to cherry pick from, or aliens to explain phenomena, or the response to any other question where the HONEST answer is "I don't know."
.
@3:30 'Everything can be misused by somebody.'
some of them want to misuse you; some of them want to be misused
If one can use to make predictions, good.
Exactly. I’m glad somebody else notices this.
@@IFYOUWANTITGOGETIT Fred Hoyle noticed that along time ago in his predictions about the triple-alpha process.
The "...conditions required for our presence as observers." Should be expected from what? The universe, or our ...interaction with the universe?
If we are "connected" to the Universe and cannot be separated from it, does that then make it "necessary" that all our mental, non-physical, apprehensions are also "necessary connections"? Is intelligence necessary or contingent?
Are the facts of intelligence as necessary as the facts of sensation: the impressions of consciousness? Is 2 + 2 = 4 the same as the coldness 🥶 of winter? Is human intelligence the Universe's intelligence? In other words is "human" intelligence not ONLY human? Is 2 + 2 = 4 as common as hunger? More common or less common? Does the Universe prefer intelligence in the universe? Such that human life in its manifestations is merely a permutation to a certain "avenue" to intelligence? Are there more "avenues" to 2 + 2 = 4? More visceral or impressionable avenues? More ephemeral or less rational avenues?
What other beliefs does the Universe prefer over human existence? For, according to man, math is a human belief; but according to the anthropic principle humanity is the Universe's belief. A belief inferred from intelligence. If intelligence is more Native to the Universe than the "things" which derive from it.
Mario is out of control
Provided we prove the multiverse theory.
Or prove there is fine tuning.
Positing the existence of a Multiverse is a far more dangerous proposition to science than the Anthropic Principle could ever be. At least the Anthropic Principle has actual living "human beings" in support as opposed to not a single iota of evidence in support on any other universes than the one we're currently occupying.
That being said, I don't see the necessity for the universe to have any kind of a priori orchestration for the existence of life. "Life" was just something wonderful that managed to emerge ten billion years later based on a minimally intelligent, evolution-friendly configuration of the universe.
A blank canvas and several tubes of paint is not an inevitable prescription for Van Gogh's painting, "The Starry Night." ... Just like with life, it was just something wonderful that was able to emerge based on a very simple organized substrate.
>At least the Anthropic Principle has actual living "human beings" in support as opposed to not a single iota of evidence in support on any other universes than the one we're currently occupying.
There are no actual living human beings that support the multiverse hypotheses? 😉
All dangers are challenges to science.
@@simonhibbs887 well I am little puzzled why none of us seriously consider the phenomenon of crop circles. Definitely they are not made by human beings.
@@simonhibbs887 *"There are no actual living human beings that support the multiverse hypotheses?"*
... Not "sane" ones! 😁
@@sujok-acupuncture9246 Why definitely? We know for sure at least some of them are. People do all kinds of weird things.
The point of the Anthropic Principle and the multiverse idea is to debunk the argument that a creator god is the only possible explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe.
However, it's an incomplete story, because there remain unanswered questions about the origin: how the multiverse came to exist, how the fundamental constants of each universe were (randomly) set, and how the laws of physics came to be as they are.
The eternal inflation multiverse was an accident. Inflation was originally conceived to model the isotropic uniformity if the cosmos. They later realised the mathematics of quantum theory meant it also predicted a form of multiverse.
Anyway, it’s got nothing to do with disproving god. After all, do you think that if he wanted to create a multiverse it is beyond his power to do so?
The multiverse is an interesting idea, but there simply in no evidence that there is more than one universe.
Nothing is random
@@MaloPiloto
Multivers answered nothing
Good comment. Even if there is a multiverse, what determines the set of all possible laws.
This interview is very telling. It shows how utterly desperate cosmologists are in their avoidance of considering the logical implications that "fine tuning" (which is undeniably real and measurable) is the product of a consciously deliberate process. The reason is very simple; it comes far too close to a tacit acknowledgement that an agent of transcendent power is responsible for the uncanny and astronomically improbable outcome of a perfectly balanced universe with fundamental forces that are (not appear to be) exactly calibrated to produce a universe conducive and hospitable to life. So how do they deflect this valid question posed here by Mr. Kuhn? You guessed it. They trot out again the same old tired and very unconvincing idea, I mean the fanciful notion of a "multiverse" to answer the question of "fine tuning" which is no answer at all. The reason is very clear and also very transparent. To posit the bogus idea of a multiverse as Mr. Livio does in response to why the universe (is) fine tuned is really saying or more accurately "inferring" that because so many universes exist this one we currently inhabit is not that special. Have you ever heard a more pedantically absurd idea? The "multiverse" has next to zero evidence to confirm its existence. However this fine tuned, astonishingly balanced and perfectly calibrated universe that appears formulaic in its measurable values is real with mountains of evidence confirming its existence. How can anyone with a straight face purposely avoid the real and probing question of why and how we live in a fine tuned universe and begin immediately advocate for the specious idea of something called a "multiverse"?
This too is also very simple. Let me say here that I respect Mr Livio and his real contribution to astrophysics. I'm an amateur astronomer and have total respect for empirical science. However empirical science which is indispensable in figuring an aircraft wing or developing a vaccine is hopelessly inadequate in answering the basic question of why or how the cosmos behaves as it does.
This argument takes place within a much broader framework of history. Every scientist knows how repressive the church was for centuries in crushing the free inquiry of those bold enough to challenge its dogma, but now the roles are reversed. It's religion that's now on the defensive, and rightly so. Yes, it's payback time and scientists are not shy about calling out the falsehoods and hypocrisy of traditional religion. Bravo! However as no pendulum swings to middle and stops, science, or more accurately certain scientists and skeptics in general now routinely insert themselves into theological debates that have nothing to do with their respective disciplines or particular lines of research. The reason for this is plain. For most science is on one team and religion is on the other in oppositional conflict and when an "us against them" mentality holds the result becomes adversarial stalemate.
Like every careered scientist Mr Livio wants to be invited to conferences, and symposiums and fatal to this possibility is being seen askance by his fellow researchers who are also wedded to empiricism and its inherent skepticism. If you think that scientists are completely objective in their views on questions like the "fine tuning" argument, you and they are wrong.
TLDR
@@richardsylvanus2717Inscrutable
The multiverse is an attempt to deny the obvious, Creation is clearly from Design.
And shall I add to this the all-compelling and crowning argument that Homer by “the golden chain”1 refers to nothing else than the sun -Plato
1Make ye fast from heaven a chain of gold -Book 6 of the Iliad
Give me just one Big miracle, and I will explain everything else ... Bang.
It seems to me Mario had never thought about the questions he was being asked.
😂
Does first principles include proof of intelligent design ...or is that conveniently verboten ?
If there's no multiverse, it seems like hard work to me to avoid a conclusion of purposeful design.
Even if there is a multiverse, it must be spectacularly multi- for the joint probability of constants for carbon based life to emerge. They are so sensitive in the nth decimal place, that the joint probabilities are achingly infinitesimal.
@@genghisthegreat2034 Quite. Now if thought is actually expressed as the conjealed collapsed wave function of various options (ie. a selected choice), such that expansion of the universe & spacetime itself, is an inevitable product of that decision making; then the act of 3d/4d creation from thought alone, appears conclusive. Especially if the origin of time appears at or emerges from, the 2D surface of a black hole, that expands with decision making, that we subseqeuntly call ...time.
@@genghisthegreat2034 Something else of interest is how we think of those 4 dimensions.....
1+1+1+1, 1+1+2, 2+2, 3+1 ? If this is important, then 2D to 4D might also be important and implies jumps/relationships of 2 dimenions pairs. Why important ? Well this is how electron shells are configured/considered, only from 2 in shell 1 + 8 in shell 2 = 10. String theory requires 10 dimensions.
There is no proof of any design, much less intelligent design.
@@user-gk9lg5sp4yNo proof, and not accepting proof, are two very different things.
There is more than likely a multiverse. The idea that there is only one universe it limiting to the Anthropic Principle. The idea that there is limits to intelligent life or that it has to be accidental is a fallacy. Intelligence need not be limited to one universe with intelligent life, its opposite would be a challenge to leave, intelligence out of the mix would mean robotic or machine like universes.
In this case, the measure of the two-way instead of the one-way speed of light notion is the key... hahahahaha.
If the multiverse exists, and has different values of fundamental constants, it would be interesting to model variation in one of them, or several of them......but......
How can we know what the real range of values for any of them could be ?
So we can pick and choose the 'theory' that we feel comfortable with? 😁
Yes, but that's not science.
@@thevikingwarrior science is finding that reality cannot completely be defined folliwing scientific methods.
@@catherinemoore9534 What? I have no idea what you are talking about.
Whole lotta empty space for a tiny species to exist, created not even few billion after Big bang ,but after 10 billion years.
Somesay We give meaning to universe cause we observe it , meaning from our point of view not would be whole different if evolution decided to not make consciousness our signature trait
Anthropomorphism, from what i study and apprehend, is to facilitate this struggle in grasping the underlying, of 'all this', and gives us a grip and a true direction, but most definitely must be acknowledged here is the science of nomenclature and the limitation of mind, the delimitation of semantics and definition.
What do i mean: when the fire alarm goes off, we know there's smoke; where there's smoke, we know there is fire. We may not see the fire, but we know there's something going on because of the alarm, which was triggered by smoke and simple retroduction we can realize the underlying of the situation.
I'm not sure if the 'anthropic principle' is similar to anthropomorphism - obviously, it must be, just slight modification.
Anthropomorphism is good and can be bad. In religion, we see people claim God, but some who haven't the dialectic mind and guidance of Reason are actually cleaving to their idea of God rather than properly seeking God - and there's good reason to excuse such people. And too, this is the very same problem with men of today's science - no different than religion, only in polarity do they differ. This is where most get stuck; regardless, either side, it's the limitation of the mind. One side is right in acknowledging God, and the other is in being scientific.
If science occlude's or precludes God and the Divine, then it is not science - not exactly rendered necassarily bad, but anybody who seeks to occlude God is no man of science but mental tyranny exalting his feeble ego state which most wonderfully warrents reprehension, as any true and bona fide inquisitor utilizing science will most certainly and wonderfully reveal the beauty of the truth of all.
Currently studying for a second time Plato's works, this time translation by the great Thomas Taylor, who actually was a Platonist and Philosopher that's why his translations are so wonderful. And wow, Plato's compilations i find i learn so much and see so much more clearly. Plato is really a fundamental body of work to truly study and not merely the apparent therein, but realizing the universals that it all indicates and points to ultimately....and then 'The Universal One' by Walter russel, Eriugena's Periphyseon, and Plotinus Enneads, Proclus, Iamblichus, Syrianus....Upanishads, Vivekacudamani, Upadesasahashri, meister eckhart, of course Buddha and the Nikayas, and so on....
...but of course, only gods walk this path, and that's a demonstrable fact!
It's simple. If I wasn't here I would not be writing this comment
40 years down the line we will get the answer for this question. That's just my calculated guesswork.
*"40 years down the line we will get the answer for this question. That's just my calculated guesswork."*
... Is that based on the "Answeropic Principle?
why 40 why not 80 or 1000 years.
40 seems way too soon.
Now that we have landed on Mars.... definitely we may have new frontiers of space and technology opening for us.
Many things seem incredible yet require no explanatory "principle". I knew a pianist who knew Arthur Rubinstein who met violinist Joseph Joachim friend of Brahms. Only three people "link" me to one of the greatest composers in another century and country. If the Titanic hadn't sunk, I wouldn't have been born, because my future grandma wouldn't have been afraid to join her husband in Argentina. Doesn't mean the Titanic sank to propitiate my birth. Do cats ride the coattails of the anthropic principle or is there a separate feline principle?
Stup1d question = "is anthropic principle dangerous?" Anything, or any idea can be dangerous in the mind of a m0r0n. Knowledge is aways a knife of 2 edges. Anthropic principle is an idea that was bound to exist, as any idea that leads to possible explanations.
God allows it. It's a multi verse with in the same universe. Values and morals won't change for a person. If u were born into a Christian home and have that ingrained in you unconscious mind you are apart of that universe. Same goes for Buddhism. Judaism, even atheist. Think about it. It is passed from generation to generation. You can convert yes but you will still be apart of your original universe who which explains why people who were once one way struggle to be another. In the end the only one who can travel from one universe to the other is God for lack of a better name. He allows this so it can all be seen in one place. The multi verse has to exist and it has to exist in one place so he can interview when he has to. Think of it as peace keeping. One universe can't destroy the other without destroying itself!!
The whole West is trapped under the assumption that God is only needed for providing explanations. Have you ever thought God may be more than just a theory to explain observations.
I don't subscribe to any particular religion, however I do believe that logic points you towards the existence of a God/Creator/Intelligent Designer. I say this because every tangible item in existence, down to the smallest molecule, was created by some sort of process, so why would it be that the entire universe just popped into existence from nothing? Logic and just general observations would tell you otherwise. Everything has an origin, so the universe itself just as well. This logic also draws the conclusion that if you go far enough back the chain, you will end with a force (for lack of a better term) that is eternal and infinite. Logic dictates this in order to avoid infinite regression.
So in a sence nobody is wrong. God makes all things possible. There is really no argument ever worth having because in the end everyone is right. God makes that possible. It isn't him who wants to see his children fail. They do that to eachother. It is human nature to debate. God gave people free will and I'm sure one day he will want all to come under one decision and live in peace and tranquillity but his own laws prevent that. That is for humans to decide. It's like any argument. When they get tired of fighting about everything one day they will agree. Nobody was right or wrong. Satan wins that fight everytime if you believe Satan exists or whatever that looks like for all religions. This is why I personally agree with Buddhism. There is no right or wrong answer it changes from one minute to the next. If God sees someone going to much in one direction where it will be lost to him. He corrects it. This is why debate is good. You are all tools of the divine plan
Are you an ukrainian journalist with a son or daughter fighting in the war? You are my hope. Your job is to inform the public and your duty as a father or mother is to protect your children. You can protect your children doing your job. Are you interested? I am a psychologist and I have discovered atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. I will rephrase the atheist logical fallacy to facilitate the understanding. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is "sky daddy" to conclude wrongly no creator exists because "sky daddy" doesn't exist. It is important that you understand I am not asking you to agree with me and knowledge should not be censored. Emergency! Thank you.
Remember you are not a psychologist but under the care of one, all the while you are trolling lies and nonsense.
@@LifesInsight I know how to end the war in Ukraine and Gaza. Would you talk with a person who seriously and unambiguously say "I know how to end the war in Ukraine and Gaza"?. Are you ukrainian or russian or palestinian or israeli? I am saying I know how to save your life and your loved one's life. Do you trust me? Please listen to me because I am not joking. To end the war only the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. I will repeat loud and clear to avoid excuses. To end the war only the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. How do you think the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy could be news? I know what you are thinking, "you just have to speak with a journalist you fool!". It is not that easy because journalists are corrupted, journalists run away from the news. The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. I will rephrase the atheist logical fallacy to facilitate the understanding. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is "sky daddy" to conclude wrongly no creator exists because "sky daddy" doesn't exist. You don't have to believe in God because God can not not exist because logically it is impossible the existence of the creation without the creator! It is important that you understand I am not asking you to agree with me and knowledge should not be censored. Emergency! Share! Thank you.
@@tomjackson7755 I know how to end the war in Ukraine and Gaza. Would you talk with a person who seriously and unambiguously say "I know how to end the war in Ukraine and Gaza"?. Are you ukrainian or russian or palestinian or israeli? I am saying I know how to save your life and your loved one's life. Do you trust me? Please listen to me because I am not joking. To end the war only the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. I will repeat loud and clear to avoid excuses. To end the war only the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. How do you think the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy could be news? I know what you are thinking, "you just have to speak with a journalist you fool!". It is not that easy because journalists are corrupted, journalists run away from the news. The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. I will rephrase the atheist logical fallacy to facilitate the understanding. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is "sky daddy" to conclude wrongly no creator exists because "sky daddy" doesn't exist. You don't have to believe in God because God can not not exist because logically it is impossible the existence of the creation without the creator! It is important that you understand I am not asking you to agree with me and knowledge should not be censored. Emergency! Share! Thank you.
@@LifesInsightAtheism is indeed not a quest for truth and does not question everything. Where a theist has made up their mind there definitely is a God or a Creator of all things, an atheist is the polar opposite, one who had made up their mind that there is not. To truly question everything is to take a neutral stance and be open to any and all possibilities. While true that there are as many varying degrees of atheism as there are of theism and varying degrees of zeal about what what both parties believe (or don't believe), to tell you the truth just in my personal observations that many an atheist is every bit as stubborn in their views and set in their ways as any given theist. To truly free yourself and really question everything, you must first be willing to accept that you don't know and never will, not in this existence anyways. Personally I find it rather dull to argue with either side, which are both equally convinced that they are right, and find much more fulfillment in being open to any of the infinite possibilities there are.
To the OP, you are correct sir. When one takes a position by tearing down their oppositions argument by means of attempting to make their argument sound childish or dimwitted, rather than offering up any argument of their own, that in itself is a failure. The "sky daddy" example is spot on. Make your opponent into a child or a fool and you are automatically correct. Well that is flawed logic to say the least. No argument in the history of man that was reached by concluding simply and no more that the counter argument is foolish has ever held muster. He is a fool, and I believe the opposite of him, therefore I must be right. Sorry but that doesn't work. Even if the other guy is a fool, that doesn't mean you are not equally as foolish by default. Hence the fallacy you rightly point out.