Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? Be sure to check out Paul Davies Books (Affiliate Links) The Demon in the Machine: How Hidden Webs of Information Are Solving the Mystery of Life amzn.to/3vXPiOH The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World amzn.to/3d6DLUC The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? amzn.to/2QrgWTV God and the New Physics amzn.to/3fc6IRV
Enjoyed this one. Don't know if I'm just imagining it but it's nice to hear the vindication in his voice that some of his 'whack' ideas are now the primary way of thinking.
So happy to get a longer format interview/discussion. Although I love every episode, often 25-30 minutes seems to leave a few stones un-turned. This is spot on.
Thank You for doing this. Makes my day, actually you make my "going to sleep" and that's big in my life. I always listen again at work so you get 2 views from me. Great work, you should feel proud.
@@mataxpp Yes. Most certainly yes. It describes the history of 'chaos' in academia; and explains how complex systems emerge from chaos. It changed my life. Prof. Davies is my intellectual hero. Therre is another book I regard as similarly foundational... Prof. Kip Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy' (1994 or 5 from memory-I was given a copy in 1995). These two books will give a better than primer introduction to relativity, black holes, chaos, complexity etc.
@@mataxpp I happen to live in Adelaide, where Prof. Davies taught at the Adelaide University. I attended a public lecture he gave soon after arriving in Adelaide. He anwered audience questions after the lecture. One of the greatest moments of my life was after asking a question, he went thoughtful and said 'that is a very good question...'. PAUL DAVIES SAID I ASKED A GOOD QUESTION!!! Funny thing now though, is for the life of me I can't remember the question or the reply. lol. It was something about the twins paradox and entanglement. Relativity is screwy.
@@jennyanydots2389 you’ve contributed so much to this same subject. I just can’t wait to read your books or even listen to your dissertation on the origins of life. You are a National treasure that should be cherished...said no one ever. I have a feeling your mother beat you.
@@Rudderify My sister/mom never beat me, it was all consensual son. And I appreciate your compliments, I'm glad you recognize true greatness. My BBC is heated.
Wow I’ve only watched the first 15mins and I’m ‘hooked’, I always had this theory that life was the result of information being stored/exchanged in the most energy efficient way possible , to then hear you both talking about this same idea has blown my mind .
I found a real love for astronomy from a random John Godier video a couple of years ago. I like to consider myself amateur astronomer now! I used to hate reading books, but I felt so compelled to somehow show my appreciation to him so I bought “the salvagers” and “supermind” as a “contribution” to him a while back and both were fantastic! Highly recommend. There really isn’t enough time to ponder the questions of the universe in one lifetime, but research and listen for hours upon hours and always be fascinated. Keep up the great work Mr. John.
I gotta say that I'm right there with him on information theory being a key to understanding life. Most things that store and replicate information have oddly life like behaviors. And from a universal perspective all life that exists in the universe has a direct informational chain of cause and effect that goes all the way back to the begining of the universe.
Totally agreed. I really like that way of framing the idea of life. It expands nicely beyond the limitations of trying to define life by being carbon-based or involving chemistry that uses other elements in the same way we use carbon (drawing a line thereabouts has always seemed awfully arbitrary to me), and also it neatly ties up and puts a bow on the question of whether viruses are alive. No more ambiguity. Does the matter go through chemical or physical processes involving transmission of information instead of just purely physical (either gross level or molecular/atomic level) reactions? Bam, it's alive. Then the only fuzzy line relates to "artificially" created engineered things that could fit under that umbrella, like computers. Which I think fits, I mean, I think it'd be healthiest if we'd all start framing AIs as life, with limited AI being simply non-self-aware life, life that can't make real decisions of its own. That seems to be to be a good ethical foundation for linguistically forming how humans relate to AI as it develops. I like this, I'm adopting this.
I don't think information theory is what you think it is. It's a field of mathematics established by Claude Shannon in the early 20th century pertaining to things like error correcting codes for use on noisy channels, and how much information is truly present in systems when their bits are unreliable and how to utilize it fully.
Ahhh nothing like a nice long episode of Event Horizon with John Michael Godier! The idea of celestial bodies with consciousness would be a game changer.
Been missing you John. Help me ponder many topics. Science is such a universal language. And you are really great at translating to a simpleton like myself.
Schroedinger's ideas on life, as discussed here, have really made me see his cat in a whole new way! Also interesting to note the parallels between the views of Dr. Davies (and Schroedinger) on a possible role of quantum mechanics in life, and views expressed by Roger Penrose about the possible role of quantum effects in consciousness.
@@jide7765 It's a pretty far-off hypothesis and admittedly is far from favoured by consensus in the field - nor have I expressed support with it. However, to call the views of a Nobel-prize winning scientist, which have been presented in peer-reviewed publications (see: Phys Life Rev. 2014 Mar;11(1):39-78) "bs" is not exactly polite nor scientifically persuasive.
@@otohikoamv "However, to call the views of a Nobel-prize winning scientist, "bs" is not exactly polite nor scientifically persuasive." Not the first Nobel-prize to bs... check Luc Montagnier about coronavirus or homeopathy.
I seriously enjoyed this item. I love Paul Davies, he really got me thinking about the origins of live, and the origins of the laws of nature. There are some amazing lectures from Paul on youtube that i really recommend.
Wonderful job by the interviewer by asking great questions and allowing Mr Godier to give a full answer without interruption. The hour passed by in seemly minutes I was so enthralled by this discussion! GREAT Job!!!
My brain really likes when other brains talk about " our brains" and how are they made and how do they function. It's absolutely mind blowing and that the thing can observe itself.
Fascinating discussion. Dr. Davies is a brilliant man capable of thinking outside the standard scientific box. Thank you JMG for posing interesting questions and allowing your guests to answer without superfluous interruptions. Can't wait to purchase some of Dr. Davies' books.
17:45 Quite interesting to think of solar systems with their planets orbiting around the sun in that system like the nucleus of an atom with a number of electrons around each shell and the electrons orbiting around the nucleus of an atom arranged in these shells. With the orbits of these planets being like energy levels/electron shells from the nucleus of an atom, the sun.
There is no [permanent] alternative to Creation. The physical universe is an alternative to Creation, and that is why it is changing and moving, for it has a beginning, a middle and an end. You are somewhere in the middle in the great span of Creation. Only a very small part of Creation is involved in manifest life. But to you, of course, it is immense and incomprehensible, as it should be. It is not possible for your intellect to comprehend the scope and the magnitude of this. For you, Creation is the physical universe. It seems to be forever, but it is really temporary. It has a beginning, a middle and an end. You have not even reached the middle spot of this expanding universe, so this is something that is confounding to your understanding. Both of these powerful quotes are from a book The One God, by Marshall Vian Summers.
I mostly agree with you but in science it called anthropic principle and to rely on it to heavily is considered a bit of a cop out, like saying "it just is". Also if the universe was required to be ultra fine tuned for life then it may put more weight on certain cosmological models.
@@PhiltheMoko Thanks, appreciate your reply. But, It does seem like they're a lot of "just is" particularly in quantum mechanics. Furthermore, It seems like the life itself is doing the "fine tuning" through natural selection. Also which cosmological model would benefit from an ultra fine tuned for life?
@@jamesmitchell2704 the anthropic principle rabbit hole can pop up in the multiverse because you would expect vast numbers of non life universes that you cant observe for each life supporting universe that you can observe.
Omg, this is the first time I heard someone credible acknowledge the connection between magnetism/magnetic fields, and quantum physics!! That makes me super happy, and super excited!
"Shams and delusions are esteemed for soundest truths, while reality is fabulous. ... In eternity there is indeed something true and sublime. But all these times and places and occasions are now and here. God himself culminates in the present moment and will never be more divine in the lapse of the ages." Thoreau put the best words to my same thoughts on this. The more we learn about the incredible depth and complexity and amazingness of the universe, of course the more reverent we'll become of it. It's just truly too vast for us to deeply comprehend. It makes sense that humans would try to interpret it through a human-influenced lens. But yeah, I don't think a bit of subjective spirituality flavors in your personal poetry/metaphors/aesthetic you adopt in your mind is AT ALL in conflict with being scientifically literate and also respecting that the rules of the universe are as mundane and basic and straightforward as they are glorious and magical. It's totally both. Humans have always interpreted the most complex, abstract, mind-blowing things by creating about them. When we have a new idea, we create words for it so we can wrap our heads and our literal mouths (or other word-organs like hands) around it. When we have emotional experiences, we create expressive art of all kinds about it. When we have spiritual experiences, which I'd say includes contemplating science and the universe, we create spiritual metaphors/lenses about it. Sometimes that looks like religion once people add rituals and moral sets to those lenses, and sometimes it just looks like a chill naturalistic spirituality where you know you're in a truly natural universe and all things can be explained rationally but also appreciate that it's incredibly cool and meaningful to be here and spend thoughts on wondering about that meaning. I think it's all healthy as long as people stay flexible and grounded and keep in mind that subjective lenses are just that, subjective lenses, and that our rituals and feelings about them are just our own personal aesthetic just like our own taste in music or food. It's all your prerogative how you want to experience the universe, including how you experience your place and purpose and unimportance and importance in it. That got rambly lol whoops, thanks for coming to my "naturalistic science-mindedness and spirituality aren't mutually exclusive, dang it" TED talk
If I were inclined to be a groupie of a scientist, Paul Davies would be the one I'd be a groupie of! I've purchased a number of his books, and really enjoyed them. Fantastic having 2 episodes with him!
We are all Jack Burton from Big Trouble In Little China, and the Universe is Lo Pan lol. "I don't get it" "Shut up Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to 'get it'!"
My parents witnessed a meteorite strike the earth on a camping trip in the 70s. It was too hot to touch when they found it so they scooped it up in a coffee can. Keeping it in a fishing tank for years because of the pretty color. When I heard this story as a teen I searched for it and found it stowed away in the garage. I used an old tungsten carbide industrial planer blade and a sledge hammer to fracture a piece off for testing. I was told it was specular hematite and that is indeed what it appears to be. So my question is were my parents mistaken in their account? Is there some way this piece of hematite was ejected and returned to Earth? It does appear to have some heat marks or something that all other hematite I've seen lacks. Maybe it was just somehow involved in a tiny impact event? Was it maybe just launched from a thermal event only to reenter the atmosphere in view of some campers? Whatever the case it was always a fun story for me so I though I'd share and ask for some opinions.
Fantastic interview and as usual; John is asking just the right questions. Paul Davies was a great person for this. Just love his way of explaining and admitting that we have no clue. For the love of everything; more please :)
Trying to figure out the source and meaning of life is like trying to count every value between two whole numbers. It seems simple until you really get into it!
Awesome metaphor. I think it was Greg Graffin from Bad Religion who said that the more knowledge we identify in the universe, the more gaps are naturally created between all established discoveries, and so the more we come to know, the more there will be to know, in an infinitely expanding way. Your numbers metaphor really perfectly matches that exact concept of infinite subdivisions of a seemingly finite space.
Also another way to explain why it is right for life is because whatever properties and processes that belong to this universe produces outcomes such as life that you see exist, and no further explanations are needed. It's not as if there was a choice for whatever outcome materialized. Always follow the logic and the answers will arise from that logic. Also the answer is contained within the question
If life isn't as old as the universe, then the universe can (best? only?) be understood without considering life (and especially consciousness) at all. Those would be incidental side effects.
The universe is not just right for life. Life is just right for the universe. It's like saying, "a pothole was made just right for the water that's in it, see how the pothole fits the shape of the water perfectly." We are shaped to fit the universe, the universe is not shaped to fit us.
Face it, you need infinite possibilities within limited time and space. It's the definition of impossible millions of times over and that is just for the information that already has to have the structure that it has written programming for. You need information for the structure and you need structure for the information. Then you need the same thing all over again for each and every different organism, not to mention a compatible environment.
I'm going to answer the topic question myself before listening to the audio. The answer is a bit counter-intuitive, but it is merely happenstance that we see life form the way it does in this universe, and we still don't have a complete index of all the combinations for potential forms of life possible to exist in our universe, and likely never will. If you take the multiverse theory into consideration, and the notion that physics operates under either a slightly different, but generally similar rulebook between each universe, or the more extreme concept that other universes possibly operate on a completely different rulebook altogether, then the product of life that we see in this universe is merely the outcome of the predetermined equations that were plugged into this particular universe at the time of its birth and that life in a different universe might only be possible under the equations plugged into its universe at the time of its birth. If life on this one insignificant ball of rock and water can not only survive, but thrive and persevere through catastrophic adversity numerous times over the billions of years it has been here, who's to say what life can accomplish and the forms it ultimately can come in, not only life to be found in the vastness of our universe, but possibly an innumerable amount of equally immensely vast other universes beyond our own?
After listening to this I`m even more in the dark about the subject, but in the best possible way. What I like about these talks is that make you think at the same time as totally messing with your mind. For my money the best channel on the tube, and that includes any content showing Rachel welsh or Ann Margaret, and there is no higher praise than that. .
So DNA, RNA bends Time and Space on a different scale than Gravity. But in a way does the same thing at a different scale. DNA can repeat with high fidelity Time and Space events on a molecular scale from near Time, or far Time and near Space or far Space... depending on on the right elements in a close proximity.. not unlike a Star, Helium and Hydrogen.
One possibility too is that life from Earth has already contaminated Mars through countless meteor impacts. If life is found on Mars, one of the first tasks will be determining if it evolved on Mars or Earth.
First time I've listened to one of these shows and trust me when I say it won't be last. I was playing a game but I had to stop because my interest was peaked and deserved my full attention. Thanks
Love this channel but being able to listen via podcast would be way better than the dumb YT app, which won’t allow background playing. Is there an audio version of this show? If not there really should be. I think you could automate the whole thing, and not add any additional workload.
46:34 Finally the explanation I've been in search of for a very long time: the significance of the "life originating on Mars" theory. What does it matter which planet it originated on if it's the same life? Originating on Mars before Earth was ready meant life would have had more time to develop. Thanks for this fascinating interview with its many insights!
If the laws of the universe are eternal, immutable and in effect everywhere, then life probably is too. Since life isn't coming into new existence constantly on earth (as far as we know), there may be an early life-forming period in a planet's existence, similar to what happened here 3.5 billion years ago. When we finally figure out how life came into being, my gut tells me it will be a simple process. Maybe not an easy process -- but a simple one.
@@politicallycorrectredskin796 Since life as we know it is so persistent and varied creeping into nearly every possible environment, by inference we may expect to behave the same way throughout the universe acting through the same eternal immutable laws that rule everything. The universe does not appear to be anomalous but uniform. Life should follow that same basic pattern.
@@FluidMotionEnergy Yes! I love the simplicity of your analogy. It describes exactly what I was trying to express. Getting the first two life legos to match up and lock together may not have been easy, but once they did mesh then there was no holding them back. Then legos becomes logos. Some 3.5 billion years ago some fine mechanism done it -- but what?
@@politicallycorrectredskin796 I agree that until we have another sample of life we won't know for sure. Until then, what anyone says about life elsewhere is opinion -- not fact or truth -- that's obvious. That also means most people will take one side or the other: life elsewhere or life unique. You seem to favor the unique viewpoint, while I prefer the elsewhere viewpoint. Neither one of us is right or wrong, because neither one of us can know for sure. But I also believe that analogy alone tells us something. The fact that life arose here on earth 3.5 billion years makes it more probable that it happened elsewhere, not less probable (i.e. unique). That's not certain of course -- but it does increase the odds or hedges the bet -- IMHO.
Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life?
Be sure to check out Paul Davies Books
(Affiliate Links)
The Demon in the Machine: How Hidden Webs of Information Are Solving the Mystery of Life amzn.to/3vXPiOH
The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World
amzn.to/3d6DLUC
The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life?
amzn.to/2QrgWTV
God and the New Physics
amzn.to/3fc6IRV
It seems to be it's definitely one of the ultimate questions. I however am not optimistic we will ever solve it.
best astronomy show the web
No. Wrong question. It’s the other way round; life is fine-tuned for this universe.
We only think so because we're here.
@@giannapple exactly.
People still watch TV with all this absolute GOLD on the Internet. For free!
Become a patreon and help the team deliver more
@@steverafferty4114 i always read that as Patron as in the tequila and i can't help it hahaha
27k views over 2 days. How much money will that make in TV ratings?
Yeah i know, they re so used to their indoctrination device, it has made them addicts.
Who watches tv now with all that woke indoctrination crap. I watch gems like this instead. No woke or race indoctrination just honest science.
Getting lost listening to these interviews is never a waste of time.
Food for the soul!
@Trevor Chase come on mate, that’s clearly not what he meant.
It gets me through a lot of boring lulls at work
Hell yeah brother
“Lost” is a state of mind. A construct of human consciousness. Thank you for your response.
I love how the interviews on this channel make complex topics understandable and interesting for the general populace. Truly a public service.
Enjoyed this one. Don't know if I'm just imagining it but it's nice to hear the vindication in his voice that some of his 'whack' ideas are now the primary way of thinking.
So happy to get a longer format interview/discussion. Although I love every episode, often 25-30 minutes seems to leave a few stones un-turned. This is spot on.
Thank You for doing this. Makes my day, actually you make my "going to sleep" and that's big in my life. I always listen again at work so you get 2 views from me. Great work, you should feel proud.
Thank you johan
Yeah I do the same thing.
One of the best guests you’ve had on, absolutely fascinating
This is an amazing interview. Maximum information density. The topic is nontrivial. 10 out of 10.
I’m a simple man. I see Event Horizon and I stop everything I’m doing.
Mmmm Coffee.
"Doctor, you need to finish the surgery!"
"NOT NOW"
I’m the most complex man so I wait a little bit and make sure I’m done with my complex thoughts before I bother myself.
Preaching from the righteous bible brother :)
;)
I've been learning from Prof. Davies since he published 'The Cosmic Blueprint'. He is a living treasure.
do you think its worth reading it today? or would you recommend another book about it?
@@mataxpp Yes. Most certainly yes. It describes the history of 'chaos' in academia; and explains how complex systems emerge from chaos. It changed my life. Prof. Davies is my intellectual hero. Therre is another book I regard as similarly foundational... Prof. Kip Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy' (1994 or 5 from memory-I was given a copy in 1995). These two books will give a better than primer introduction to relativity, black holes, chaos, complexity etc.
@@mataxpp I happen to live in Adelaide, where Prof. Davies taught at the Adelaide University. I attended a public lecture he gave soon after arriving in Adelaide. He anwered audience questions after the lecture. One of the greatest moments of my life was after asking a question, he went thoughtful and said 'that is a very good question...'. PAUL DAVIES SAID I ASKED A GOOD QUESTION!!! Funny thing now though, is for the life of me I can't remember the question or the reply. lol. It was something about the twins paradox and entanglement. Relativity is screwy.
How I envy Michael getting to pick the brains of all these experts.
That dude was an expert at picking out the little pieces of shit that get caught in the pubes on the rim of my be whole, but not much else.
So you’re rude and an idiot. Keep that out of here please.
@@jennyanydots2389 you’ve contributed so much to this same subject. I just can’t wait to read your books or even listen to your dissertation on the origins of life. You are a National treasure that should be cherished...said no one ever. I have a feeling your mother beat you.
@@Rudderify My sister/mom never beat me, it was all consensual son. And I appreciate your compliments, I'm glad you recognize true greatness. My BBC is heated.
@@jennyanydots2389trolls are just...weird
I hate when work gets in the way of listening to these fascinating videos.
Wow I’ve only watched the first 15mins and I’m ‘hooked’, I always had this theory that life was the result of information being stored/exchanged in the most energy efficient way possible , to then hear you both talking about this same idea has blown my mind .
I HAVE FALLEN INTO EVENT HORIZON!!!
Best lines
You are spaghetti now.
I found a real love for astronomy from a random John Godier video a couple of years ago. I like to consider myself amateur astronomer now! I used to hate reading books, but I felt so compelled to somehow show my appreciation to him so I bought “the salvagers” and “supermind” as a “contribution” to him a while back and both were fantastic! Highly recommend. There really isn’t enough time to ponder the questions of the universe in one lifetime, but research and listen for hours upon hours and always be fascinated. Keep up the great work Mr. John.
Glad I could help! Always stay curious.
awesome video and questions and guest !
thanks for asking the simulation question :D
I gotta say that I'm right there with him on information theory being a key to understanding life. Most things that store and replicate information have oddly life like behaviors. And from a universal perspective all life that exists in the universe has a direct informational chain of cause and effect that goes all the way back to the begining of the universe.
Totally agreed. I really like that way of framing the idea of life. It expands nicely beyond the limitations of trying to define life by being carbon-based or involving chemistry that uses other elements in the same way we use carbon (drawing a line thereabouts has always seemed awfully arbitrary to me), and also it neatly ties up and puts a bow on the question of whether viruses are alive. No more ambiguity. Does the matter go through chemical or physical processes involving transmission of information instead of just purely physical (either gross level or molecular/atomic level) reactions? Bam, it's alive.
Then the only fuzzy line relates to "artificially" created engineered things that could fit under that umbrella, like computers. Which I think fits, I mean, I think it'd be healthiest if we'd all start framing AIs as life, with limited AI being simply non-self-aware life, life that can't make real decisions of its own. That seems to be to be a good ethical foundation for linguistically forming how humans relate to AI as it develops.
I like this, I'm adopting this.
I don't think information theory is what you think it is. It's a field of mathematics established by Claude Shannon in the early 20th century pertaining to things like error correcting codes for use on noisy channels, and how much information is truly present in systems when their bits are unreliable and how to utilize it fully.
I have no proof. Just a feeling. But I believe the reason why I’m alive why I exist is to learn and to grow.
Great interview. Goldilocks dilemma is on the way. Can't wait to read it!
The music at the end of the videos is so soothing and relaxing. Perfect music to begin and end these awesome videos with!
Really enjoyed this interview. I'm definitely going to get his books. Thanks for the episode.
Good to see this channel gaining recognition - 200k subs! Been here since beginning, you deserve much more.
Just cant get enough of your videos. Play both of your channels constantly. Keep them coming.
GREAT episode, John! Love this channel, you are doing a great service for science education.
Ahhh nothing like a nice long episode of Event Horizon with John Michael Godier! The idea of celestial bodies with consciousness would be a game changer.
Omg Thank you! This is going to be perfect tonight with my headphones and the lights out. The BEST!!!!
I could listen to this guy for 13.8 x 10^9 years...
And I love the intro music too so please keep that. And I listen to each episode multiple times - so much rich info
It’s like this channel is at the forefront of natural selection’s effect on TH-cam. Truly amazing content.
I love all of your videos. Awesome work!
thank you!
Great guest, great questions, fascinating discussion. Thanks.
You know you're awesome when you're introduced by an announcer with a British accent.
Thank you guys for all the work you put into this channel. I appreciate it so much. :)
Thank you for watching
Been missing you John. Help me ponder many topics. Science is such a universal language. And you are really great at translating to a simpleton like myself.
I can't wait for your new video every week! Greetings from South Africa.
Always good to hear from Paul. Thanks.
Please never stop uploading 🖤
that was excellent, open minded and forward thinking science right there ..
Really enjoyed this one, Paul Davies was a great guest.
Love reading Davies’ books!
I could listen to him for hours. Excellent show
This show is just amazing, so great content and guests, and John's interventions have perfect timing. I'm so glad I found this!
Schroedinger's ideas on life, as discussed here, have really made me see his cat in a whole new way!
Also interesting to note the parallels between the views of Dr. Davies (and Schroedinger) on a possible role of quantum mechanics in life, and views expressed by Roger Penrose about the possible role of quantum effects in consciousness.
"views expressed by Roger Penrose about the possible role of quantum effects in consciousness."
Please, not that bs...
@@jide7765 It's a pretty far-off hypothesis and admittedly is far from favoured by consensus in the field - nor have I expressed support with it. However, to call the views of a Nobel-prize winning scientist, which have been presented in peer-reviewed publications (see: Phys Life Rev. 2014 Mar;11(1):39-78) "bs" is not exactly polite nor scientifically persuasive.
@@otohikoamv
"However, to call the views of a Nobel-prize winning scientist, "bs" is not exactly polite nor scientifically persuasive."
Not the first Nobel-prize to bs... check Luc Montagnier about coronavirus or homeopathy.
Nice long interview thanks John I can enjoy this at work good stuff as always!
I seriously enjoyed this item.
I love Paul Davies, he really got me thinking about the origins of live, and the origins of the laws of nature.
There are some amazing lectures from Paul on youtube that i really recommend.
Always stoked to hear more fascinating discourse about this universe in which we liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiive.
That was absolutely wonderful, thought provoking, fascinating and educational all throughout. One of the most enjoyable things I ever listened to.
A half moon cookie, cold glass of almond milk, and Event Horizon. Hell yeah.
That sounds just right.
Best interview you've done yet! That was really great, thank you.
Wonderful job by the interviewer by asking great questions and allowing Mr Godier to give a full answer without interruption. The hour passed by in seemly minutes I was so enthralled by this discussion! GREAT Job!!!
My brain really likes when other brains talk about " our brains" and how are they made and how do they function. It's absolutely mind blowing and that the thing can observe itself.
Great interview, loved it.
Fascinating discussion. Dr. Davies is a brilliant man capable of thinking outside the standard scientific box. Thank you JMG for posing interesting questions and allowing your guests to answer without superfluous interruptions. Can't wait to purchase some of Dr. Davies' books.
17:45 Quite interesting to think of solar systems with their planets orbiting around the sun in that system like the nucleus of an atom with a number of electrons around each shell and the electrons orbiting around the nucleus of an atom arranged in these shells. With the orbits of these planets being like energy levels/electron shells from the nucleus of an atom, the sun.
I’ve believed the analogy is appropriate. Maybe using this they could determine the location of the 9th /10th planet.
There is no [permanent] alternative to Creation. The physical universe is an alternative to Creation, and that is why it is changing and moving, for it has a beginning, a middle and an end. You are somewhere in the middle in the great span of Creation. Only a very small part of Creation is involved in manifest life. But to you, of course, it is immense and incomprehensible, as it should be. It is not possible for your intellect to comprehend the scope and the magnitude of this.
For you, Creation is the physical universe. It seems to be forever, but it is really temporary. It has a beginning, a middle and an end. You have not even reached the middle spot of this expanding universe, so this is something that is confounding to your understanding.
Both of these powerful quotes are from a book The One God, by Marshall Vian Summers.
Thank you, Elina.
Now that was an hr very well spent! Making parts of a model and listening to Event Horizon. TFS John, GB :)
What model were you building? That sounds like a perfect combination
@@EventHorizonShow Hi John, It is a1/24th Airfix Hawker Typhoon, very intense kit but nice and detailed. GB :)
Paul Davies!
Oh, THAT Gentleman! 👏✨
I always wonder why the question is why is the universe right for life when for life to exist it would have to be right for the universe.
I mostly agree with you but in science it called anthropic principle and to rely on it to heavily is considered a bit of a cop out, like saying "it just is". Also if the universe was required to be ultra fine tuned for life then it may put more weight on certain cosmological models.
@@PhiltheMoko Thanks, appreciate your reply. But, It does seem like they're a lot of "just is" particularly in quantum mechanics. Furthermore, It seems like the life itself is doing the "fine tuning" through natural selection. Also which cosmological model would benefit from an ultra fine tuned for life?
@@jamesmitchell2704 the anthropic principle rabbit hole can pop up in the multiverse because you would expect vast numbers of non life universes that you cant observe for each life supporting universe that you can observe.
I really like how Mr. Davies explains his answers in a creative and clear way.
Paul is simply remarkable and fearless. I could listen for weeks.
Nice! Just in time as I got in bed.
Thank you, John.
Omg, this is the first time I heard someone credible acknowledge the connection between magnetism/magnetic fields, and quantum physics!!
That makes me super happy, and super excited!
I feel like I am one of the few people who hear things like this and become MORE convinced there is a God. I don't understand why that is.
"Shams and delusions are esteemed for soundest truths, while reality is fabulous. ... In eternity there is indeed something true and sublime. But all these times and places and occasions are now and here. God himself culminates in the present moment and will never be more divine in the lapse of the ages."
Thoreau put the best words to my same thoughts on this. The more we learn about the incredible depth and complexity and amazingness of the universe, of course the more reverent we'll become of it. It's just truly too vast for us to deeply comprehend. It makes sense that humans would try to interpret it through a human-influenced lens. But yeah, I don't think a bit of subjective spirituality flavors in your personal poetry/metaphors/aesthetic you adopt in your mind is AT ALL in conflict with being scientifically literate and also respecting that the rules of the universe are as mundane and basic and straightforward as they are glorious and magical. It's totally both.
Humans have always interpreted the most complex, abstract, mind-blowing things by creating about them. When we have a new idea, we create words for it so we can wrap our heads and our literal mouths (or other word-organs like hands) around it. When we have emotional experiences, we create expressive art of all kinds about it. When we have spiritual experiences, which I'd say includes contemplating science and the universe, we create spiritual metaphors/lenses about it. Sometimes that looks like religion once people add rituals and moral sets to those lenses, and sometimes it just looks like a chill naturalistic spirituality where you know you're in a truly natural universe and all things can be explained rationally but also appreciate that it's incredibly cool and meaningful to be here and spend thoughts on wondering about that meaning.
I think it's all healthy as long as people stay flexible and grounded and keep in mind that subjective lenses are just that, subjective lenses, and that our rituals and feelings about them are just our own personal aesthetic just like our own taste in music or food. It's all your prerogative how you want to experience the universe, including how you experience your place and purpose and unimportance and importance in it.
That got rambly lol whoops, thanks for coming to my "naturalistic science-mindedness and spirituality aren't mutually exclusive, dang it" TED talk
Waiting for new video on John Michael godier......
And event horizon......🥰🥰🥰🥰
Really enjoyed this one. Thank you!
If I were inclined to be a groupie of a scientist, Paul Davies would be the one I'd be a groupie of!
I've purchased a number of his books, and really enjoyed them.
Fantastic having 2 episodes with him!
The Universe has no obligation to make sense to us~
We are all Jack Burton from Big Trouble In Little China, and the Universe is Lo Pan lol.
"I don't get it"
"Shut up Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to 'get it'!"
Good way to start the day 😊
Thanks John! Looking forward to this :)
Love the show, is Event Horizon available on podcast apps? Will it be available at some point? Would love to listen offline via Podbean.
My parents witnessed a meteorite strike the earth on a camping trip in the 70s. It was too hot to touch when they found it so they scooped it up in a coffee can. Keeping it in a fishing tank for years because of the pretty color.
When I heard this story as a teen I searched for it and found it stowed away in the garage. I used an old tungsten carbide industrial planer blade and a sledge hammer to fracture a piece off for testing.
I was told it was specular hematite and that is indeed what it appears to be.
So my question is were my parents mistaken in their account? Is there some way this piece of hematite was ejected and returned to Earth? It does appear to have some heat marks or something that all other hematite I've seen lacks. Maybe it was just somehow involved in a tiny impact event? Was it maybe just launched from a thermal event only to reenter the atmosphere in view of some campers?
Whatever the case it was always a fun story for me so I though I'd share and ask for some opinions.
Very interesting. Will ask John to look at this.
Fantastic interview and as usual; John is asking just the right questions. Paul Davies was a great person for this. Just love his way of explaining and admitting that we have no clue. For the love of everything; more please :)
Amazing episode. I've been reading Davies books since I was 13. He, Roger Penrose, and John Wheeler are my favorite scientists.
incredible interview and i'm high off that gas
I'm on that same wave length. Premium Unleaded . Gassed up. Great interview
Trying to figure out the source and meaning of life is like trying to count every value between two whole numbers. It seems simple until you really get into it!
Awesome metaphor. I think it was Greg Graffin from Bad Religion who said that the more knowledge we identify in the universe, the more gaps are naturally created between all established discoveries, and so the more we come to know, the more there will be to know, in an infinitely expanding way. Your numbers metaphor really perfectly matches that exact concept of infinite subdivisions of a seemingly finite space.
Also another way to explain why it is right for life is because whatever properties and processes that belong to this universe produces outcomes such as life that you see exist, and no further explanations are needed. It's not as if there was a choice for whatever outcome materialized. Always follow the logic and the answers will arise from that logic. Also the answer is contained within the question
Worked in the "in which we live" in under 2 minutes in
Good catch.
Let's go!!!!!
Its my favorite day of the week!
If life isn't as old as the universe, then the universe can (best? only?) be understood without considering life (and especially consciousness) at all. Those would be incidental side effects.
Wow, last time I was this early my wife left me for Raoul the cabana boy. LMAO
Man, I'll say JMG sure packs some mileage into that first question. Prof Davies takes it in stride too.
The universe is not just right for life. Life is just right for the universe. It's like saying, "a pothole was made just right for the water that's in it, see how the pothole fits the shape of the water perfectly." We are shaped to fit the universe, the universe is not shaped to fit us.
Face it, you need infinite possibilities within limited time and space. It's the definition of impossible millions of times over and that is just for the information that already has to have the structure that it has written programming for. You need information for the structure and you need structure for the information. Then you need the same thing all over again for each and every different organism, not to mention a compatible environment.
The Eerie Silence is one of the absolute best books I've read on the subject of space.
If the second law of thermodynamics is true, how if the formation of even the first protein possible let alone intelligent life?
This was awesome, love it!
Great interview.
Favorite thing to listen to before bed. Thank you man.
I'm going to answer the topic question myself before listening to the audio.
The answer is a bit counter-intuitive, but it is merely happenstance that we see life form the way it does in this universe, and we still don't have a complete index of all the combinations for potential forms of life possible to exist in our universe, and likely never will.
If you take the multiverse theory into consideration, and the notion that physics operates under either a slightly different, but generally similar rulebook between each universe, or the more extreme concept that other universes possibly operate on a completely different rulebook altogether, then the product of life that we see in this universe is merely the outcome of the predetermined equations that were plugged into this particular universe at the time of its birth and that life in a different universe might only be possible under the equations plugged into its universe at the time of its birth.
If life on this one insignificant ball of rock and water can not only survive, but thrive and persevere through catastrophic adversity numerous times over the billions of years it has been here, who's to say what life can accomplish and the forms it ultimately can come in, not only life to be found in the vastness of our universe, but possibly an innumerable amount of equally immensely vast other universes beyond our own?
After listening to this I`m even more in the dark about the subject, but in the best possible way. What I like about these talks is that make you think at the same time as totally messing with your mind. For my money the best channel on the tube, and that includes any content showing Rachel welsh or Ann Margaret, and there is no higher praise than that. .
So DNA, RNA bends Time and Space on a different scale than Gravity. But in a way does the same thing at a different scale. DNA can repeat with high fidelity Time and Space events on a molecular scale from near Time, or far Time and near Space or far Space... depending on on the right elements in a close proximity.. not unlike a Star, Helium and Hydrogen.
One possibility too is that life from Earth has already contaminated Mars through countless meteor impacts. If life is found on Mars, one of the first tasks will be determining if it evolved on Mars or Earth.
Great discussion. More please.
I like Paul Davies. He's not afraid to digress from the 'officially correct' scientific consensus.
One of my favorite guests this far!
First time I've listened to one of these shows and trust me when I say it won't be last. I was playing a game but I had to stop because my interest was peaked and deserved my full attention. Thanks
Love this channel but being able to listen via podcast would be way better than the dumb YT app, which won’t allow background playing. Is there an audio version of this show? If not there really should be.
I think you could automate the whole thing, and not add any additional workload.
We are working on a podcast membership option that will also include all of John’s videos as podcasts as well.
46:34 Finally the explanation I've been in search of for a very long time: the significance of the "life originating on Mars" theory. What does it matter which planet it originated on if it's the same life? Originating on Mars before Earth was ready meant life would have had more time to develop. Thanks for this fascinating interview with its many insights!
If the laws of the universe are eternal, immutable and in effect everywhere, then life probably is too. Since life isn't coming into new existence constantly on earth (as far as we know), there may be an early life-forming period in a planet's existence, similar to what happened here 3.5 billion years ago. When we finally figure out how life came into being, my gut tells me it will be a simple process. Maybe not an easy process -- but a simple one.
Like legos, one brick at a time
@@politicallycorrectredskin796
Since life as we know it is so persistent and varied creeping into nearly every possible environment, by inference we may expect to behave the same way throughout the universe acting through the same eternal immutable laws that rule everything. The universe does not appear to be anomalous but uniform. Life should follow that same basic pattern.
@@FluidMotionEnergy
Yes! I love the simplicity of your analogy. It describes exactly what I was trying to express. Getting the first two life legos to match up and lock together may not have been easy, but once they did mesh then there was no holding them back. Then legos becomes logos. Some 3.5 billion years ago some fine mechanism done it -- but what?
@@politicallycorrectredskin796
I agree that until we have another sample of life we won't know for sure. Until then, what anyone says about life elsewhere is opinion -- not fact or truth -- that's obvious. That also means most people will take one side or the other: life elsewhere or life unique. You seem to favor the unique viewpoint, while I prefer the elsewhere viewpoint. Neither one of us is right or wrong, because neither one of us can know for sure. But I also believe that analogy alone tells us something. The fact that life arose here on earth 3.5 billion years makes it more probable that it happened elsewhere, not less probable (i.e. unique). That's not certain of course -- but it does increase the odds or hedges the bet -- IMHO.