The real question for theists is "How would a universe NOT created by a god differ from the one we already inhabit?" It couldn't be any less than what we have, or it would be unstable and we wouldn't be here to ask questions about it.
@@kofidan9128 Not mental gymnastics at all. It's simply following the evidence. The mental gymnastics is "I dunno, therefore I'll pull some magical sky wizard of of my rear end."
@@alfresco8442 If you want proof of the Bible, type "atheist archive Steven Weinberg" and then read my last four posts under the initial comment "Any being worthy of worship..." The first of these four posts begins with the phrase "first off, in my part of the world ..." and the fourth begins with the phrase "in addition to the three preceding posts..." You may need to change the comment settings on that video to "Newest first" to access all 36 or so replies under that initial comment. Also, Weinberg begins thus "many ppl do simply awful things..." Evidence, right? There you go. Richard Dawkins acted for himself. You have every right to act for yourself too.
@@alfresco8442 That's not the real question and you shouldn't only ask theists. Why would you frame it as the counterfactual unless you already thought the argument was won. That question would have to be asked of both scientific and theistic povs because both literally exist in this universe and no other. However, the question would need to be posed with equivalent if, then, else considerations as: How would this universe differ if created by a god. The question would need clarification of: god as creator only, or god as sustainer as generally considered by religious belief. A simpler form would be the original debate: does god exist?, which also didn't get anywhere. But the silliness continues in thinking that there would have to be differences and, if physical realism is true, that the universe could be adversely affected by mental concepts at all. It should become obvious by this time, there are no sound arguments since the question is unknowable, and pointless. The most delusive idea here is that anyone, scientist or other, thinks there's any evidence to be found prior to the start of the universe to prove whether it was a god, a seemingly nonexistent scientific word for the state of randomness that is thought would preclude a god, or a magical sky wizard you pull out of your rear end. Surely you don't think that science has exclusive right to believe in the stability of our universe, and so religions and ideologies are inherently suspect. It seems much easier to practice logic-lapsed mental gymnastics to absurdly describe what theists think god is, so they can derisively assign to them fallacious arguments ad nauseam for foolishly believing that way. No such modern dichotomy exists between science and faith, to the degree conveyed in these types of arguments. Reasonable people would do better to bring rationality down to the the real problem of separation between church and state.
@@skippdiddly1409 It's a perfectly straightforward question that nullifies all the presupposition that theists bring to the table....that the universe is so complicated that a god creating it is the only explanation. All I'm asking is what a universe not created by a god would look like for comparison. And that can be asked of both theists and non-believers. My answer is that such a universe might take many forms, providing that it was functionally stable...and that one of those forms could be the one we inhabit. Because I can think of a million improvements to this one if it had been 'intelligently' designed. Do you have an answer?
@@les2997 And God said, "Let there be a digital piano" and there was a digital piano. And God saw the digital piano, that it was good. In fact, it was a magic piano that could talk !
@@IroquoisPliskin6789 I am intelligent enough to know that preachers have an incentive. They pretend to know the answers to the mysteries of the universe. And they expect a donation for telling me stories I've heard before.
People who claim “fine-tuning” to be a “thing”, are looking it from the unlikely angle, where god/god-like creature dictated the “initial parameters”, whereas logically thinking, everything that is/ exists, has been dictated by the initial parameters regardless of, if there was “a designer” for this location & time.
I've heard many arguments concerning fine tuning. In virtually every argument, regardless of which side of the fence the speaker may be on, there is some degree of separation the speaker inadvertently places between us and the rest of the universe. It's often subtle, but not always. The phrasing, be it subtle or otherwise, implies that there is the universe, and then there is us looking back at it or riding a sort of rail above it, etc. Sometimes hard to hear, but it's in there. When you work to eliminate that separation, sometimes very difficult to do, you end up with a very different conversation. It takes speaking in terms of everything that happens being part of the functions and properties of the universe. Just a observation I made that I find interesting.
Since these constants can be tweaked and life will still exist (they don’t have to be precise and there acceptable ranges) aren’t there an infinite amount of values they could be and there would still be no problem? I’m not sure what I’m missing.
It's doubtful. Consider what changing just one constant would do. If the gravitational constant G were slightly larger the universe would have collapsed on itself shortly after the big bang preventing the formation of stars, planets, and galaxies If it were slightly smaller the universe would expand much more rapidly and stars and planets would be spaced too far from each other to interact (aka the Big Freeze).
If physics is correct the vast majority of these ranges would not allow a stable universe with structure like stars and planets. So life as we imagine it would not be possible. But who knows what we cannot imagine...
@@deanschulze3129That's exactly right Dean and the tolerances for any of twenty or more "constants" such as gravity or the ratio of matter to antimatter after the Big Bang were so minutely critical that the smallest variation would have not produced the long lived cosmos needed for the evolution of sentient life, but trying to explain this to skeptics is like trying to explain blue and green to someone who's color blind.
Douglas Adams' Intelligent Puddle analogy is a prime example of a Shabby Friar joke ( ref from H.Allen Smith, p.152 "How to Write Without Knowing Nothing")
I do not see how a Boltzmann brain can be stable enough to provide our experience, of course given what we know about physics. Even if some structure capable of thought was created spontaneously it would be destroyed in an instant due to instability of the system. Brain requires a lot of support including huge amount of nutrients, protective environment etc., some Boltzmann brain in space lack everything and if it consists of virtual particles even more so unstable. To presuppose working Boltzmann brain capable of emulating our experience even for several seconds we need to assume a constant series of coincidences creating several states of Boltzmann brain in a specific order in a specific place so we can have even a single thought before it dissipates. Each such event is extremely improbable by itself and having like several thousands of them in one place in specific order and in a way that each state seems like evolution of previous one so the sequence would be capable of thought? Ridiculous. This idea is a phylosophical mental masturbation.
@@ngcastronerd4791 That was a question not a premise. I'm pretty sure by "fine-tuned" he simply means "conditions just right for the existence of life" not "there is a designer." After all, he says "by chance" not "by god." The question asked is about the probability of our complex (low entropy) universe given chance vs. the probability of a complex Boltzmann brain spontaneously arising given chance. They both seem highly improbable. The Boltzmann brain question is asked by the best physicists, and it is used as a *reductio ad absurdum* in evaluating competing scientific theories. Sean Carroll talks about them a lot... Anyway, his preferred answer to fine tuning in the video is that we simply don't know how *much* different the universe would be given adjustments to the constants and laws, the dials or conditions responsible for the universe as we know it today..
@@dmitriy4708 You're just reiterating the obvious improbability of a Boltzmann Brain, but for some reason don't understand why it shows up in discourse. It's simply a heuristic physicists use to evaluate competing scientific theories for their *absurdity.*
"Let me give you the wrong answer to that." That's brilliant. I have to try and use that some time. So there is counter argument, question, and give the wrong answer, or even a wronger answer.
Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns. Anthropic principle best explains it, in the space of infinity a single roll that works is all that is needed.
And if the possible configurations are finite for a given amount of space, in an infinte universe there are probably infinitely many bubbles of inhabited space, even if they are incredibly rare.
I think a simple probability question, like what is the chance for chaotic useless mass of combined materials forming a useful product within a period of time could be of great help.
Your mistake is seeing naturally occurring things as having a use, being "useful." Over millions of years of evolution, our increasingly large brains have slowly learned to make use of natural things we found, and then to alter some things to make them more useful. But sand, or trees, or rocks, or lava, or tar, or dirt, or gold, or anything at all, are not inherently "useful," they just "are," and we and a few other animals have figured out ways to use some of them.
Now consider an energy density so high that the term "mass" has no meaning and none of the laws of physics (as we understand them) are valid. This might be the situation prior to the Planck Epoch. Probability & "reality" simply doesn't apply.
We're part of the universe and not separate from it. We're a temporary expression of the universe. So is the universe fine tuned for the universe? The question melts away.
Leaving aside the issue of human existence, few really deny that the odds against the cosmological constants being just perfectly aligned by mere chance is so vastly improbable, that it shouldn't be taken as the most likely reason.
I dunno. Assessing probabilities without knowing the context is too speculative for me to draw a hard conclusion from it. "Mere chance" may actually be far more likely than it may appear through cosmological natural selection (CNS). "Persistence" is to CNS what "survival" is to biological natural selection (BNS). So "existence" may have had no other "choice" -- it's following the path of least resistance, and we really aren't sure what that path is yet. This could lead to "cosmic consciousness" -- or it could lead to a fact about existence itself that even God has to contend with, one which makes God ultimately unnecessary. But, for the sake of argument, even granting odds numbering in the trillions or quadrillions, the time and the size of the playing field allowed for this to happen appears to be either infinite, or so large a finitude that makes even remote possibilities inevitable. It may be 1:1 trillion odds, but if you've got a quadrillion players, there's always a winner, maybe multiple winners, maybe existence has no other choice, and maybe we can understand why it doesn't have any other choice. Does that make the experience of consciousness any less magical? The "most likely reason" is the description that most closely matches the thing being described. Naturalistic explanations have been far too successful to just be coincidence -- i.e., either God is a naturalist, or naturalism itself is the creator. At least that's what makes sense to me.
Fine tuning is a scientific discovery that was made in 1961 by physicist Robert H. Dicke. Fine tuning isn't an assumption. It's an actual scientific discovery. An actual scientific fact.
@@kofidan9128 it is not science in any way. No scientist has discovered a “tuner.” The constants and values are discoveries, the fantasy of a “tuner” is not.
The Fine Tune argument neglects the "delay factor." If the purpose of creation was to create human intelligence, why did that purpose take so long in materializing? For billions of years, as far as we know, human intelligence did not exist. An equally valid argument is to say that the purpose was to create non-intelligent dinosaurs. For millions of years those creature roam the earth. Why was God waiting those millions of years before human intelligence finally appeared? Another perspective, which is unknown to us, is that other intelligences have already appeared and, perhaps, disappeared. Whatever the frequency of human intelligence in the universe, the point remains...why does it take so long? This is a universe where, at the fundamental level, everything happens very fast, at the speed of light!
@@CesarClouds That's an existential reasoning: Is there a God or not? I haven't gone that far (although I strongly suspect the answer is NO). I had more modest goals: discussing the properties of the fine tune argument. Why the delay? In all of physics time is a fundamental variable. Look at the Schrodinger's equation! My modest goal is to stir discussion around the the role of time in fine tuning.
@CarlosElio82 For _specific_ gods like Quetzalcoatl, Zues, Yahweh, I know for a fact they don't exist. For a vague one as "God" I don't even know what that is. Fine tuning is irrelevant here.
I always took issue with option #4, which Carroll pejoratively dumbs "the selection effect." But that's not fair. Its competitor is obviously the multiverse idea. And yet that's just another way of increasing the sample size of your pot without evidence to make the probability of our universe, as one among a potentially infinite number of universes, approach 1. It's the atheist's cop out and violates Occam's Razor because it hypothesizes innumerable entities in order to explain the existence of one. And you thought intelligent design was bad! But I can respect Carroll's preferred answer, #5, which is epistemic: we simply don't know how different than universe would be if we started manipulating the dials. For all we know, life could exist under very different conditions with a different set of laws and constants.
Alternately, the laws of nature are currently favorable for the probability of intelligent life to have emerged, but our universe is not necessarily stable enough that these conditions will persist. Our universe might well have gone through a phase change that gave us the one we now have, and could very possibly go through a phase change which completely changes the laws of physics and does not make the emergence of intelligence possible. It is plausible that phase changes are cyclical and there may have been an infinite number of past variations... or even different regions beyond the observable universe , which could or could not allow for it. Then again maybe it's just the realization of probabilities.
3:00. Giving the story of the relationship and development between the mass of the electron and humankind, and all the things inbetween, that is the general project of science.
How do you do with this...? "However, for anything to be there it needs to be knowledge. Knowledge by its innate nature is organized and coherent. Knowledge by itself is infinite and unlimited as anything in its own right is infinite and unlimited. (Remember, here infinity is an existential infinity which is other than the numerical infinity.) Knowledge is viable and dynamic. Thus, it gives birth to any possible scenario and that scenario has to be definite and determined as having two things simultaneously and so with exactly the same characteristics results into the union of two contradictory entities which is impossible to take place. So, an infinite dynamic knowledge will give rise to an infinite range of definite possibilities and those definite possibilities themselves would bear infinite potential to attain infinite forms of reality but only one will take form as a numerical infinity progresses gradually. " [Imran Al-Mohammadi]
You seem to conflate knowledge with infornation. This allows you to sneak in agency in your argument. But you have no basis for injecting agency. This is where your argument falls appart. Nice word salad though.
@@ngcastronerd4791Yeah, you are right. There is no basis for injecting an agency. And that's the beauty of this argument. It's true, I knowingly used 'knowledge' instead of 'information' because it's infact Ilm; علم in Arabic, which normally translates to 'knowledge' in English.
I see a place for "resemblance", across layers of manifestation. I see a place for math and body, where they are both true, and where math is (metaphysically) precise, and body is by degrees. Now, resemblance occurs, and we can say to accompany manifestation.
It seems that relying on fine-tuning and anthropic arguments to maintain our ideological positions is an attitude as well as a practice that has failed to filter out irrelevant and archaic notions. Medieval thinking of the past that once drove science, and the attempt to explain what is unknowable via a simulation of a universe other than ours with constants required for unknown (sentient) life, is illogical and sensible only in its long standing ability to successfully debate the idea of a god, the idea of religion, which are in essence and fact, the idea of faith. Evolutionary biology explains that life was selected for sentient self awareness through development of self organizing systems and by randomness. Regardless, this should tell us it's not the ideation of a god that has created our desire to be at the centre, it is our ego. We're at a pivotal point in understanding how to manage AI, and in our ability and necessity to find solutions to our REAL problems of energy, climate, and future planetary exploration. It's time to put away juvenile arguments about how the world started. We are going to need all the faith, open-mindedness, consensus, and our egocentricity, if we are to move forward and be successful.
I guess it is the balance between the attractive foces and Repulsive forces of nature that result in such Fine tuning !! If we get the "Ratio" right ... We could to make another unverse 😬🌌
with constants and laws of nature described by mathematics; would human discovery of math argue that there is not fine tuning of universe, while human invention of math could argue for fine tuning of universe through use of math?
If we are smart enough to say we don’t know if the so called fine tuning we do observe is necessary for life, then we are at least smart enough to say that given life does exist, and given the observation of so called fine tuning, there is at least a correlation. That fact alone may not equal causation, but because it doesn’t immediately signify causation should not persuade against its correlation. It’s simply another piece of evidence stacked on a massive body of evidence. The proof is in the body of evidence and the testimony of witness, which, by the way, is what most jury’s would regard as sufficient for proof.
I'm always unimpressed with the god linkage to fine tuning. An all powerful god would not be constrained to required "fine tuning" being able to create a universe with current fine tuning, no fine tuning and a larger amount of fine tuning. So the existence of fine tuning itself is not mandatory for an omnipotent god.
0:19. "It is evidence of design.' Do you see how we are moved here from an agreed upon metaphorical 'designed' character of the universe to a literal 'designer' of said, without the word 'designer' even being used. How about a straight forward 'evidence of a designer'? To say that, yes, the universe was created by design by a designer, is that a real answer to the question or is it a mere string of words pretending to be profound knowledge?
1:16. "....thers is a teason and the a reason for that." No. That is the road to infinite regress. At some point you need a suitable premise. A premise is not proven but is rather an assumption which is the basis for even the possibility of proof.
Part 5 No, it did not happen in seven 24 hour days. Yes, it took billions of years, which is nothing inside a time span that involves anything resembling 'eternity'. In fact, 13.8 billion years is most likely short as my cosmological research data indicates a much longer period from the beginning and up to this point, perhaps by a factor of two. 25 to 30 billion years is not an unreasonable number spanning multiple epochs of creative construction, destruction, and then re-creation, and finally getting it to the point where it was called "GOOD". Then, add that to the fact the past, present, and future are all happening simultaneously . . . except at different speeds! Having spent over 50 years of my life in advanced mathematics supporting multiple disciplines of engineering, science, and technology . . . I have compiled over a thousand pages of research, formulas, equations, and surprising discoveries that I've meticulously documented into a copyright format. Turns out . . . once all the dots are connected this subject is not nearly as complicated as one may be led to believe. And based on straightforward Boolean logic the required propositional connectives are expressed. Is the probability greater than zero? I'll let you decide! Then, again I acknowledge that most people will not even bother to read this brief layman terms synopsis. So, why should I expect anyone to ever take their time to wade thru a four inch thick book littered with Calculus IV. Yeah, it's not gonna happen and I know it . . . not in this day and age. LOL! Because, I know full well the average person will not make it past the first quadratic equation they come to, or a condensed explanation of the Riemann Hypothesis . . . much less a quarter million lines of codes deconstructing the numerous Kreb Cycle functions, not to mention the development of prebiotic processes and plausible proto-nucleotides pertaining to the Origin of Life! I can already envision brains exploding in the middle of dissecting 56 pages outlining the formulation of negative frequencies, or a 32 page double resonance equation. And never mind the difficulties in trying to comprehend the very 'REASON' this universe had to come into existence in the first place! NOPE . . . the honest truth is, it's simply not worth the backlash I would be forced to endure from every quadrant of science and religion. As a legacy to my descendants I may perhaps consider allowing one of my children or grandchildren to release it for publication at a later date long after I have expended my time on this earth enjoying a wonderful life of a comfortable retirement in ignorant bliss. Until then, I have the luxury of knowing I have absolutely no confusion and zero remaining questions concerning the existence of the universe, or how it was made, who made it, why they made it . . . and where I fit into its overall design.
"Believing" anything is not reasonable. In fact, belief is kind of the antithesis of reason. You can only say that so-and-so might be a possibility. In that sense, God creating the universe is also a possibility.
So you believe that, hmmm, seems unreasonable. You must be right I believe. Wait, believing it's knowing, believing it's reason. You believe that the axioms and paradigms of our human understanding are true? The ones today? The ones in thousand years? I believe there is something that doesn't change and exists outside time and matter. Completely unreasonable? I believe mathematics live in that metaphysical place, they are real but unaffected by time, space or matter. Do you believe maths? Do you consider maths reasonable? Belief and reason are the same thing. Science believes in axioms, just in the axioms and paradigms that finds reasonable. We are what we believe, it's irrelevant whether we can prove what we believe in or not, we are testimony. Again, belief and reason are unique for every mind. God bless.
@@abhisheksing8379we are what we believe. Belief and reason are not different both try to find truth. Science believes in axioms and paradigms that change over time. Reason leads to Belief. God bless.
It is selected, like the part of the EM spectrum our human eyes can detect. It is selected by nature because the other options don't work. Only carbon's column makes 4 symmetrical bonds and only carbon is light enough. c is c because that is the velocity that precipitates out of space expanding into time.
"It seems to cry out for explanation, and some say it shows evidence of design (ie designer)." How many many more things would cry out for explanation if design--designer were supposed to be true? It impresses on me how important the principle of Ocham's Razor is to science.
@@MarkPatmos Yes indeed. Lately I have been wondering what kind of arguments were currently floating around that prompted him to come up with the Razor. Perhaps about many angels can dance on the tip of a pin.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 You tell me... Claiming it's one or the other requires providing clear definitions of both "miracle" and "natural processes". And since we lack a clear definition of either, making such a claim is nonsensical. Meanwhile, Descarte conceived of his "rational" philosophy after being visited by angels; Kepler was a passionate astrologer; Newton was a fervent alchemist; Einstein believed that imagination is more important than knowledge; Planck was sure that consciousness is fundamental; and Crick discovered the double helix structure of DNA while high on LSD... So tell us where ideas and concepts come from.
The notion that the creator of the universe or another supreme intelligence made it impossible for us to exist except within a set of very narrow parameters, in order to presumably thus signal his or her existence while hiding from us in every other way, is sublimely preposterous, fails to pass the titter test. This would be the peek-a-boo deity. Everything that exists is by definition "fine tuned", from Newton to viruses, from oceans to puddles.
You said: "The notion that the creator of the universe or another supreme intelligence made it impossible for us to exist except within a set of very narrow parameters, in order to presumably thus signal his or her existence while hiding from us in every other way, is sublimely preposterous," I don't recall anyone, theist or otherwise making that statement. These are your words and they are based on a "straw man" argument that has no logical premise. Please tell us exactly how a supreme intelligence is "hiding" from us and allows us to perceive things "within a set of very narrow parameters" to "signal his or her existence." These are fanciful and wholly invented terms with very little descriptive value. You've categorized the very real phenomenon of a "fine tuned" universe as "preposterous" without any credible attempt to explain this reality. You are a skeptic and skepticism is and end in itself for all skeptics. It's enough for you to simply say it's preposterous, and walk away but this is a shallow and unconvincing response to the compelling and as yet unexplained reality of why our cosmos is balanced, calibrated and yes "designed" to function within a very tiny bandwidth of allowable viability. Science, not religion has described this remarkable and highly improbable result and to simply dismiss this reality as "preposterous" without acknowledging the truth that we certainly do live in a finely tuned universe, and that it appears at every level to be formulated and intentional is to be willfully blind to the obvious.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I was trying to summarize Dr. Carroll and other atheists' stance on this issue. I myself have been an atheist for many decades since reading Lord Bertrand Russell's Why I am an atheist. Since I have no diploma in higher education, I wish Dr. Carroll himself would critique my summary. Of course, he's way too busy. @@michaelmckinney7240
@@michaelmckinney7240except that has mr Carrol so eloquently explained. We do noy know enough to know if it is finely tuned or not. So how can it be obvious that it is?
The concept of a Creator engaging in a form of cosmic peek-a-boo with humanity oversimplifies the intricate relationship between the divine and the observable universe. Consider this analogy: imagine a deep-sea creature living in perpetual darkness, oblivious to the existence of the sun, a massive star 150 million kilometers away, vital for all life on Earth. If informed by another creature aware of the sun's existence, the deep-sea dweller might dismiss the notion as fanciful, unable to conceive of something so beyond its immediate reality. Labeling the divine as engaging in hide-and-seek is akin to this deep-sea creature's dismissal of the sun's existence-an illustration of limited perspective. A being of immense complexity and scale, if such exists, wouldn't be bound to human expectations or understanding. Arguing from ignorance or limited knowledge is a critical misstep in pondering the nature of existence and creation. Also, the expectation that the Creator should be directly observable with human senses misunderstands the nature of divinity and creation. If the universe is in a state of constant flux, how could its creator, presumed to be of a fundamentally different essence, be subject to the same conditions? The notion of a creator made from the same material as the creation it presides over contradicts the concept of an unchanging, omnipotent being. Approaching the vast unknown with humility is wise. It's essential to acknowledge the limits of our understanding and perspective. Consider reflecting on the broader implications of our existence and the universe's mysteries with an open mind.
Hey Kuhn can you get a message to Sean Caroll telling him to step his game up. He says he doesn't feel fine tuning was creation because of "i" "i" "i". First, that's just a way to shoot down fine tuning being creation. Because "i" "i" "i" is only used for manipulating what is being talked about. It has absolutely nothing to do with fine tuning and creation. Second, the laws of physics being different somewhere else in the universe doesn't mean the universe wasn't created. Only humans, especially Scientists, believe that they can say what is, how it is, or what it isn't. "I" "I" "I" is lame. Whether the universe was created or not it doesn't change that everything points to creator. If it was created whatever created it can create whatever it wants how it wants. However many it wants of any kind. Hey Sean Caroll stop with bs
😂 "everything points to a creator" what? Nothing "points to a creator". All intelligent agents we know of is a result if evolution in this universe. nothing points to an intelligence not created by evolution.
@@jeffreyanderson6740 no. No it definitely doesn’t. In the expanse of infinity, random iterations will always eventually land on every potential outcome - even one that seems so tuned (but only by us) that from our vantage point we think it must be ordained.
@@jayk5549 So for us to live and have this conversation on these electronic devices. I just have a serious problem with the concept that we're here by the chances of what might be possible. God part of the Brain, which is not to say that God did it. But I would rather have it that God did do all this but I do consider the atheist notion of things even though I don't like it and actually hope it's not actually the case. I myself personally would rather there be a God and a hereafter rather than just this life.
@@jeffreyanderson6740 understood. A Very human bias. I wish that were true too. But maybe the two are not mutually exclusive. Maybe we need to redefine our definition of god. One where we are not the central object of cosmic intent - but merely a beneficial consequence. If there is a “god” what existential question is he/she asking. Surely it js “ how me” and “why me” and “who created me” and what was before me. It doesn’t help to think of a beginning or creator - just kicks the existential question down the road a ways. But I prefer a Christmas with Santa clause too :). Beauty is just as beautiful even if it was not constructed by intentional design. Maybe even more so. Imagine you randomly win a lottery and the prize is a wonderful 2 week (77 year) vacation. Would it make sense to spend the entire time worrying about “why/how” you won the prize or “who selected you” or “who owns / runs the lottery or vacation. No. It makes sense to enjoy it. That’s all.
In retrospect, everything seems fine-tuned or designed. Forget the fact that life adjusted and evolved despite the universe, not because the universe was made for life.
I offer a fifth alternative explanation. The question is bogus. This is like a plumber trying to get a deep understanding of quantum mechanics using the language of plumbing. Where did the universe come from? On the deepest level, why is it the way it is? These are meaningful questions about things in the universe. They are not meaningful in addessing the universe as such. The universe is not just another thing in the universe.
I’m a very spiritual person, there is something in this existence that is really strange. But people like to feel special and the fine tuning argument is just another version of that. There is no fine tuning since things just are. No need for a creator.
Fine-tuning theology and general fine-tuning are not the same thing. But they are variations on the same philosophical issue, in particular,the issue of cosmic selection.
@@deanschulze3129 But there's no proof. God has just as much proof as eternal inflation and infinite universes with different laws of physics. If the universe had different properties we wouldn't be here to observe it. Thats just an axiom
It's not our universe. Nor is it our reality. There is no us. It's consciousness all by itself subjectbeing and objectsbein, time and spacebeing itself.Consciousness happening within itself as if being everything.
@@francesco5581however the universe never developed from a rock or a cloud of gas but if that is your impression what happened….then your correct.
@@deanschulze3129 what is more probable an instant creation event or an epoch of 14 billion heads to achieve if enacted by a divine being? I believe that is his point.
@@tonyatkinson2210 because you have an infinity of other options that would not made us ponder on that ... one atom ..two atoms...three atoms ..one rock ...two rocks ... 7 millions rocks....a banana ...
That fourth argument is nonsense. Having to live in tiny zones within the universe has nothing to do with why the universe is fine tuned as a whole. And there is no reason to believe the laws of physics are different beyond our light cone.
He's not even sure the constants are even finely tuned? We KNOW that if only a few of them varied by much then matter would not even form. That the constants ARE fine tuned is generally agreed upon. Perhaps Sean should be asked how life could exist without matter. Sean is really off the mark here.
@@damienschwass9354 That’s because they choose to attribute it to anything but an intelligent creator. They’re committed atheists who don’t want their worldview to crumble
@birdthompson are you sure you are not there? You might not be somewhere else also. You really should go look for yourself then you will know where your not.
Multiply your existence by the number of stars, each of which potentially has several planets, then it is highly likely that you are here and someone very much like you is on numerous other planets.
@@ngcastronerd4791 oceans regulate the climate, provide oxygen, provide food, etc ... go on living in the delusion that there's no God. You won't always have this window of opportunity to save your soul
@@kofidan9128 you make baseless assertions about souls and gods. Why would i care? Oceans do not provide oxygen. Plants do. And my comment only applied to our planet. Want to include the rest of reality? It doesnt go well for your premise.
@@ngcastronerd4791 😅 just google importance of oceans and see what comes up. Who says oxygen production is restricted to plants or that scientific knowledge is restricted to grade-school science textbooks? As for including other planets, I have no idea what you mean unless you are talking about the afterlife, which is as real as day follows night. The Christian God is real and your soul is real. Seek the truth, don't just defend ur worldview. Truth saves.
@@kofidan9128 I dont deny the importance of oceans for life on earth. I refuted the assertion that humans are fine tuned for life on this planet. Or at all really. There is no evidence for your god, or souls or anything else supernatural. None. No religion ever had the answer. Ever. The only thing that needs rescuing is your critical thinking skills. Seeking the truth is what turned me away from religion in the first place. Scripture and faith are not paths to truth. They are paths to self delusion.
We are not that finely tuned for intelligent life. Things could be much better, and it is possible that this is the case on other planets. We on this planet have had many difficulties, such as war, disease, and survival of the fittest. We just live for a finite time, and we can't seem to shake narcissistic notions that reality revolves around ourselves. Something else that should be considered is the idea that there are forms of life that can exist in conditions that we can't imagine. Life could exist in forms that are not cell based. Life could exist in dimensions that we can't perceive.
If Life could be based on other forms, that form must share a property(s) similar to what we define here as cell based life; Reproduction, nutrition and respiration. Otherwise we wouldn't know what to call it as we couldn't identify it.
Firstly, the laws of physics do not explain nor predict life. Secondly, we have not found a single sign of life anywhere in the Universe except on planet Earth. If that's not special, I don't know what is.
So far as we can tell there’s nothing going on in cells that can’t be explained by physics. Then we observe that evolution is a thing that happens, including in non-biological chemical systems (autocatalytic sets). So we do have an explanatory framework. If your objection is that we haven’t actually observed what actually occurred 4 billion years ago, why not just say so?
@@simonhibbs887 Yes, obviously nothing that happens in cells violates the laws of physics. So everything we observe can be explained in physical terms a posteriori. However, so far as I am aware, no a priori laws of physics dictate or predict the inevitable emergence of Life (and even less of consciousness). But maybe I am mistaken in which case you might be kind enough to explain *step by step* how the known laws of gravitation, motion, electromagnetism and quantum physics -- which is all we currently know and which are not even capable of presenting a coherent picture -- act on elementary particles, atoms, waves and molecules in such a way as to organise in self-replicating organisms. As already discussed, you will need to explain how DNA came about using only the known laws of physics. And if you can do that, you should be nominated for a Nobel Prize for solving the problem of the Origin of Life given that the transition from non-life to life has never been observed experimentally. All we currently have are hypotheses and nothing more. That being the case, it would seem advisable to stop confusing hypotheses for established facts, even when they provide an explanatory framework which is the job of any hypothesis, including that of God breathing Life into a pile of clay (which I do not support). Meanwhile, Earth remains the only place in the universe known to harbour life which makes it pretty special in my understanding. That being the case, it would seem equally advisable to stop pretending that Life is an inevitable common mechanical by-product of the laws of physics and start treating it with the respect it deserves.
We have missed the possibility that the laws of physics can evolve, just as how life evolved. The general way of things has been "order emerging from chaos", I don't see why that could not also be true in how a universe developed itself out of nothingness. It could flail blindly and settle upon self reproducing patterns, what is needed to sustain matter then is obviously also a universe that can produce life.
Another observation about scientists like this one. They seem to have an active disdain for any opinions other than their own. His explaination is the only one worth considering.
I suggest you actually watch the video and listen to what he says, because you are factually incorrect. He explicitly says several of the other options might be correct.
@@ronhudson3730 He didn’t claim they are provable. He’s summarising the various theories put forward by physicists and philosophers. Do you have a theory not covered by his summary of the subject?
It feels that way and that is because they've already considered your explanation (I assume you're a theist) and it doesn't have sufficient reason aka has been debunked and so you feel like he's patronising your belief as not worth it and you don't like that. 0:02 0:02
For those curious about fine tuning and this subject , I highly recommended the book "The Purpose-Guided Universe: Believing in Einstein, Darwin, and God" by Bernard Haisch. In it, Dr. Bernard Haisch contends that there is a purpose and an underlying intelligence behind the Universe, one that is consistent with modern science, especially the Big Bang and evolution. It is based on recent discoveries that there are numerous coincidences and fine-tunings of the laws of nature that seem extraordinarily unlikely.
it is quite arrogant and even a little bit narcissistic to think that: you know the truth and, what you think is the truth, when it is as of yet, an untestable hypothesis. and everything body else is wrong, and brainwashed.even those who are much smarter than you. instead of simply admitting that you dont know for sure and you just "believe" it. and you are under the assumption that you or people develope to be wiser as they older, always, you think you know better now than you were younger, specifically on this matter. anti earther and anti vax were once something else as a not so accurate example. Do I know that you are 100% wrong? no. do I know for sure what the ultimate source of the existence of our universe is? no. do I have an idea? maybe. is that the ultimate truth? I don't know.
What if, we are a simulation of an entity that lives in a universe that is fine tuned for themselves ? so someone creted them as well ? or a mix of the 4 options?
So, he is saying that other possibilities was not to have the purpose of fine tuning was not to create him, perhaps the purpose was to create a cow.@@simonhibbs887
Actually there's the fifth alternative which is, oddly enough, the right one: What do we consider now? Life doesn't necessarily need to be carbon based it may be e.g. silicone based. Hence the "fine tuning" argument may have an endless number of solutions. But you both seem stuck on a god/intelligent design argument which simply doesn't rate consideration. Here's a very simple observation simplified but of course can easily be expanded: Intelligently designed = requires a plan = plans are made for replication by others = others can replicate the plan = the intelligent designer can be copied and therefore cannot be omnipotent = cannot be a god = the universe could not be a product of intelligent design. Let me simply high light a god versus intelligent design: I walk down a beach. I find a watch. I open the watch and inside it is complex. I conclude this had an intelligent designer (theist). I walk a further 100 meters and find another watch. I open the watch and inside it is totally empty. The watch is showing the exact time and ticking away quietly. Conclusion: This was made by something supernatural. COMPLEXITY DISPROVES GODS. Which proves a god: A universe running perfectly with no laws (apparently spoken into existence) or a universe with laws that cannot be broken? Now the fifth and correct option: It is believed we have a viable theory which can explain a universe from nothing (out of time) e.g. Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe From Nothing". Here's what I think is the obvious and logical answer to our universe. "Out of time" lasts for eternity. So, a Big Bang naturally occurs from nothing and none of the required laws required to create one of the many possible universes occur with it. It collapse back to nothing. In the infinite "no time", that can occur an infinite number of times until INEVITABLY a stable universe occurs. No intelligent Design or God required.
You really cannot be serious. He begins by saying the anthropic argument "is too cheep and easy" then gives 1/ design. 2/ Its just like that. 3/ Its just like that. 4/ The cheep and easy argument he said he wasn't going to use and is blown away by a Boltzmann brain.
He added nothing to the rebuttal. We've heard this before. Laws of Nature to be complete and non-crashing are inherently "tuned" (aka proofed). Otherwise laws of nature would non-halt and the universe would crash. Also low Kolmogorov complex laws (like ours) show signs of compression.
(5:07) *RLK: **_"Is there no possibility that there is a different alternative?"_* ... And of course there is. Carroll's 5th alternative (no fine-tuning) is basically accepting the status-quo, but that doesn't really answer any questions. The *5th Alternative* that nobody seems to want to consider is that there is a minimal amount of intelligence woven into the fabric of "Existence," and that intelligence has been *evolving* right along with everything else that exists. ... *Intelligence in - intelligence out.* It's the only explanation that remains consistent from start to finish. It's not God, it's not chance, it's not _"we got lucky"_ and it's certainly not an infinite Multiverse. After 13.8 billion years of evolution, a *minimal amount of intelligence* (a single bit) has increased in complexity to the point that self-aware humans now exist. (6:10) And I find it humorous that Carroll pleads for "humility" all the while supporting the existence of an infinite Multiverse. Yah, let's discuss the appearance of universal fine tuning, and then take the most advanced form of intelligence in the known universe (self-aware human intelligence) and act like that's totally irrelevant.
@@wmpx34 *"Key word there being “known” universe - a point which Dr. Carroll also makes in this video."* ... Anything beyond what is known is speculation.
@@blizzforte284 *"So what's the 5th alternative, if it's not designed, fine tuned, chance, multiverse, etc?"* ... From my opening comment: _"The 5th Alternative that nobody seems to want to consider is that there is a minimal amount of intelligence woven into the fabric of "Existence," and that intelligence has been evolving right along with everything else that exists."_
Anyone using the fine-tuning argument to shoehorn his magic creation story in should demonstrate, that the universe could never exist with a different set of those parameters or even over a whole span of parameters. Can those believers show evidence, that a different universe could not exist with different constants?
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y *"Prove materialism is false then make yourself pretty for your Nobel award ceremony"* ... Prove there is no core intelligence embedded into the fabric of "Existence," and you'll be just as pretty for _your_ Nobel Prize.
@@theotormon the universe is the big conscious we r the small conscious
7 หลายเดือนก่อน
Wait... He says the argument of, the universe being made for us is not acceptable, but, at the same time he says, it might be true... What is he saying? It seems to me he's saying that he have no evidence to disprove the idea of a universe that is made in order for us to exist, wich would make the universe not about us precisly, but about the creator. This is just bad philosophy... Sorry forvmy english, in spanish i sound much more intelligent 😅
@@ricomajestic Fine tuning is a fact, since that’s the case the evidence for a “fine tuner” is far greater than the evidence that there isn’t one. Right now the preponderance of evidence is enough to get the fine tuner convicted in court. There is no evidence that a fine tuner doesn’t exist.
Fine tuned or designed it really doesn't matter because we are here and it's miraculous regardless. There is order in the Universe and that's miraculous.
And maybe if you're Nietzsche you could say that, if the laws of physics, as they are, seems designed, its because we put too much of our humanity in our discovery work. So much so that, by looking at this physical system that we theorized, we can only see ourselves and if you're a theist and its been built in your brain that god created us in its own image, then its not a big stretch to say that what we see in this system is in fact god.
@@SolemnPhilosopher “fine-tuned” in what context. Sean was clear in saying that term fined tuned for x is stupid argument is because no one can begin to prove that x won’t happen if it wasn’t fine tuned.
@@SurajAdhikari fine tuned because the universe aim to create complexity and since the universe is complex then the universe is fine tuned to his purpose.
And ur point is stupid to begin with. You don't even seem to know fine tuning is an actual scientific discovery made in 1961 and not just an opinion. And why should we expect an atheist to speak honestly about something that goes against his atheism?
Information is emergent because it's medium dependent. Consciousness is fundamental and does precede what you call information. Information infers cognition and all of it's attendant functions such as memory, perception and sensation. These things are not the same as "consciousness" and your fundamental error is in equating the "experience" of consciousness as being tantamount and co-identical with consciousness when in fact they are two distinctly separate things. Before calling people idiots you should rethink your position.
@@michaelmckinney7240 I liked your comment so you wouldn’t miss my reply. I said information IS emergent and I never mentioned consciousness. But since you brought it up, consciousness is NOT fundamental. Have you ever seen a conscious person without a brain? Probably not, because you need a brain to have consciousness. Therefore, consciousness is reducible. No brain = no consciousness. Memory, binding, and sensory perception (experience) comprise consciousness. (I notice you excluded experience from your list to set up your argument; it’s obvious). But your circular logic is flawed. Sensory perception/sensation IS experience. Give one example of an experience outside of sensory perception. To claim consciousness is fundamental would require proof, not pseudo science and metaphysics. Please cite an experiment that proves consciousness exists independently of the physical brain. Also, list an example of a consciousness person without a brain.
@@dr_shrinkerThank you for your engaging reply. You said; "consciousness is NOT fundamental. Have you ever seen a conscious person without a brain? Probably not, because you need a brain to have consciousness. Therefore, consciousness is reducible. No brain = no consciousness." Despite what many empiricists adamantly deny, "consciousness" is a fundamental property of the universe. When you say; "To claim consciousness is fundamental would require proof," but as you likely know this is not the way science works. Science in nearly every instance doesn't set out to prove or disprove anything. It deals with evidence and probability and its conclusions are always tentative and subject to revision. So where's the evidence, not the "proof" that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe? How does one explain the emergence of evolved complexity we see instantiated throughout the cosmos? How is it that a singularity of pure energy explodes into a universe of mostly hydrogen atoms that eventually differentiates into the complex array of elements found on the periodic table? A physicist would answer by describing the process strictly in terms of matter combining with other matter, but this tells us nothing about what drives this process or why it takes place. Something is driving a universal tendency for matter to combine with itself in order to produce novel and highly evolved structures including animate life. If you place two heart cells on a microscope slide and observe them they beat for a time until they expire. If you have them touch, one delays it's beat in order to start again in sync with the other. How does this happen without a supervening agent of coordination initiating an exchange of "information" taking place? The skeptic would say "Oh that's just chemistry." This is not an answer. It's a dismissive oversimplification that tells us nothing. If you were to buy your daughter a picture puzzle and emptied the contents on the living room floor and then saw the puzzle flawlessly self assemble without the help of hands, and with no mistakes, you'd likely be astonished. This is "exactly" not similar to, but exactly what the universe has done, does, and will continue to do at every level of organization from its inception. The bizarre phenomenon of the double slit experiment is strongly hinting at the possibility of "consciousness" residing, albeit at a highly attenuated level, in and through the sub atomic realm of matter and energy. Before the skeptic jumps out of his shoes in rebuttal to this possibility, he needs to first acknowledge the strange and as yet inexplicable effect of why the behavior of matter is changed solely by the conscious observation of that matter and as yet no human being can explain this oft repeated result. If "universal consciousness" is a reality and a fundamental property of the cosmos it fully explains this curious riddle. Could it be that one level of localized "consciousness" namely our own is interacting with another form of localized "residual consciousness" inherent in all matter in sympathetic resonance? If "consciousness" is universal then it must be at least faintly detectable in matter itself and the well documented "observer effect" is completely consonant with this assertion. You also say; "Give one example of conscious experience outside of sensory perception." This is not difficult. Dreams and hallucinations occur frequently and have no external sensory input. You also say; "Have you ever seen a conscious person with out a brain[?]" This question springs from a fundamental error that more and more neuroscientists are recognizing. The human brain is not the source and ultimate origination of "consciousness." Our brains give us only the capacity to "experience" consciousness via cognition and its attendant mental operations. The manipulation of information such as memory, thought and sensation does not comprise consciousness. These things take place within and are wholly subject to the much larger backdrop of universal consciousness that in my opinion precedes both the human brain and the physical universe. This is a theological statement and this is the core question that animates the question of the origination of consciousness. If one accepts the reality of universal consciousness then it directly infers a transcendent source and this leads to the very real possibility of a supreme being as the source of all existent reality and this in turn is anathema for all skeptics. However, all skeptics know they need only keep shouting "no, no, no" without any plausible rationale or alternative explanations for the convincing evidence that "consciousness" is indeed a fundamental property of the universe.
@@michaelmckinney7240 you said.” Science in nearly every instance doesn't set out to prove or disprove anything.” -😅 that’s the entire purpose of science. Disproven theories and formulas are discarded. Proven theories are axioms. It is proven gravity exists. It is disproven that the brain is made of Jello pudding. you asked, " How does one explain the emergence of evolved complexity we see instantiated throughout the cosmos?" -- complex relative to what? We call ourselves complex, but that is only because we don't know how complex evolution can get. To a rock, a waterfall seems complex. Random processes sift through the ebb and flow of successful change and eliminates unsuccessful things. Give an army of ants a single function and place them in a confined area and they can create a complex hive which emerges from simple instructions. I don't think evolved complexity is so unique when you can see examples of patterns and complexity emerge from non-sentient things. You said "Something is driving a universal tendency for matter to combine with itself in order to produce novel and highly evolved structures including animate life." -- again, highly evolved relative to what? I don't think the universe is driving anything. I feel the universe allows for complex emergence, but could function just as well without humans and life. Also, in the grand scheme of things, we might just be as intelligent and evolved as a piece of dirt, compared to the universal standard. No one can say what emergent properties the universe can produce from basic molecules. I mean, the brain is made of the same chemicals as stardust. Yet, random processes have created the brain and consciousness. You said " If you were to buy your daughter a picture puzzle and emptied the contents on the living room floor and then saw the puzzle flawlessly self assemble without the help of hands, and with no mistakes, you'd likely be astonished." -- I would be astonished but I would never doubt it could happen. In an infinite universe, ALL possibilities exist and if you drop a glass, all the broken pieces could land in a perfect assemblage of the glass and take the shape of the glass before it shattered; by purely random processes. This is a logical certainty where infinite space-time is concerned. You said, "The bizarre phenomenon of the double slit experiment is strongly hinting at the possibility of "consciousness" residing, albeit at a highly attenuated level, in and through the sub atomic realm of matter and energy. Before the skeptic jumps out of his shoes in rebuttal to this possibility, he needs to first acknowledge the strange and as yet inexplicable effect of why the behavior of matter is changed solely by the conscious observation of that matter and as yet no human being can explain this oft repeated result." -- The suggestion that conscious observation affects the double slit has been debunked long ago. There were no conscious observers who live inside stars to create the solar flares, nor were there observers for the universe for the first 10 billion years. The observer effect is based on "how" the observation is made, not by "who" made the observation. Conscious observation has nothing to do with it. It is the manner by which the measuring detector interacts with the wave, breaking superposition, that creates the observer effect. I can hold my thumbs together and look at sunlight coming through the mgniblinds, and see an interference pattern. Interference patterns exist and can be seen by anyone without all the fancy equipment. You said, ""Give one example of conscious experience outside of sensory perception." This is not difficult. Dreams and hallucinations occur frequently and have no external sensory input. -- EEGs and Neuroscience show us dreams are residual stimulation and external stimulation we experience as we sleep. The stimulation is interpreted as best as it can, because the frontal lobes are asleep and the frontal lobes cannot decipher the brains electrochemical signals. That's why dreams don't not make sense in most scenarios. Someone may dream they are standing in a waterfall because they have a strong urge to pee, or dream they are being run over by a steamroller because their roommate is playing Metallica on full volume. etc. Neurologist have done thousands of sleep studies and clocked a person's EEG as they sleep while being exposed to various methods of stimulation. you said " "Have you ever seen a conscious person with out a brain[?]" This question springs from a fundamental error that more and more neuroscientists are recognizing. The human brain is not the source and ultimate origination of "consciousness." -- you never answered the question. Have you ever seen a conscious person without a brain? You said, "The human brain is not the source and ultimate origination of "consciousness." Our brains give us only the capacity to "experience" consciousness via cognition and its attendant mental operations. The manipulation of information such as memory, thought and sensation does not comprise consciousness." -- consciousness is precisely thought. Thoughts are memory, sensory awareness, binding. Thoughts are physical and measurable. The thing you call thought is an electrochemical signal that creates patterns in the brain. These patterns are the actual things they represent. If a banana creates a pattern we call "banana" and the memory of a "banana" creates the exact same pattern, it is the pattern that is more real than the actual banana. It is our "touch, smell, taste, feel, and sight" of a banana that is the ACTUAL banana. The external, subjective, banana is secondary. We don't need to look inside a persons brain and see a literal banana to say the brain makes the experience of a banana. The electrochemical IS the banana to us, as are all other electrochemical signals; either in real time experience or in memory. Memory of a thing has the same, or close to the same, electrochemical signature as the actual sensory experience of the thing. Often times, the electrochemical signal of a memory might alter and this also alters our recollection of an event...false memory. As I mentioned before, neuroscientist have recorded a person's brain waves and replayed those brain waves back for others to experience. In less than a decade, scientists will be able to record with higher fidelity, and a person can record their thoughts to share them of zip files just like an MP3. Search "Pink Floyd and brain waves. " I mentioned this before, and I doubt you bothered to look it up. You should do so, it is interesting. There are numerous examples I could tell you about, but the easiest way to demonstrate consciousness is the product of the physical brain is this....eat some shrooms and watch how your consciousness is altered by physical processes.
@@dr_shrinkeryeah, that's a great question and point to raise when someone just makes claims about consciousness. I would like to know how this person can prove and demonstrate their claim.
Exploring the grand purpose of the universe, especially from a theological standpoint, offers a fascinating perspective. Theologically speaking, the creation of intelligent life could be seen as the ultimate goal of the universe's existence. This viewpoint suggests that through thousands of years of human history - marked by suffering, wars, deaths, and the toils of life - there has been a steady evolution toward developing and deepening self-awareness among intelligent beings. From this perspective, the challenges and trials faced by humanity are not mere coincidences but integral steps in the evolution of consciousness. These experiences, as harsh and tragic as they may be, are believed to contribute to a greater understanding and connection with the divine. The culmination of this evolutionary journey is envisioned as a unification with God, where all intelligent beings live in an enlightened existence, fully aware, understanding the concept of right and wrong, morality and ethic and the consequences of sin. In this context, the biblical story of Adam and Eve takes on deeper meaning. Seen through this lens, their life in paradise and subsequent fall can be understood not as a tale of inherent wrongdoing, but as an allegory for the innocence and naivety akin to that of children. Just as children might not grasp the dangers of playing with fire, Adam and Eve lacked the experiential knowledge to foresee the outcomes of their choices. Their expulsion from paradise thus serves as a metaphor for humanity's journey towards wisdom and maturity. By facing life's trials on Earth, humans are given the opportunity to grow, learn, and evolve, gaining the knowledge and understanding necessary for eventual spiritual reunification with the divine. In this theological framework, intelligent life can be seen as God's solution to the profound challenge of creating beings independent from Himself, endowed with free will. This freedom allows them to act and live freely, existing alongside the divine. From this perspective, our lives can be likened to a sophisticated programming language, designed to 'program' humanity through the hardships, knowledge and experiences accumulated over millennia. Through thousands of years marked by suffering, wars, and deaths, but also by love and joy, this 'programming' gradually instills a deeper understanding of good and evil, right and wrong. Each generation contributes to this evolving 'code', learning from the past and adding new dimensions of wisdom and understanding. The trials and tribulations of life, as well as its moments of happiness and love, serve as crucial 'instructions', guiding humanity towards a state where it can live in harmony with God. This process is not just about punishment or reward; it's about growth, learning, and the evolution of consciousness. The ultimate goal is for humanity to reach a level of spiritual maturity where it can comprehend and embrace the principles. Just as a programmer perfects a code, the experiences of life refine the human spirit, preparing it for a harmonious existence with God. This theory intertwines spirituality with the evolution of the cosmos, suggesting that the universe's vastness and complexity are part of a divine plan. It proposes that life, particularly intelligent life, is not an accidental byproduct but a central piece in the cosmic puzzle. The ultimate goal, then, is not merely survival or reproduction but spiritual enlightenment and unity with the divine. This view offers a hopeful and profound interpretation of the universe's purpose, inviting us to consider our place in a much larger, spiritually interconnected cosmos. It's a reminder that our struggles and achievements may be part of a greater plan, leading towards a higher state of being and understanding.
This is an incredibly thoughtful, and complete statement… It’s consistent with much of my own thinking about the nature of life the universe and everything
I get that scientists want to formalize creation and become masters of the universe. But I have an experiment for you, try to stop yourself from being born. Can't do it can you. You are evidence that if there's a chance you will exist...you will exist. This should tell us something about the nature of reality. I can't mathematically describe forever. No one can. But here you are, despite our ability to make a functional model that describes you in context of everything. Either we are spawned by the infinite, or we are spawned by just the right amount finite stuff, but whatever it is, if you are reading this, the odds of you existing are pretty good, everytime there is a universe like ours. It's not fined tuned, it's inevitable. The laws of physics don't have to be the way they are, there are other physics possible...but not here. In fact our laws of physics are probably dependent on completely different laws beyond the edge of time, in some quantum entangled way, such that our actions here affect the reality of some physically removed dimension of existence. Maybe encoded in quantum interactions in 2d on the surface of a gargantuan black hole...who knows?
Ontological whipsaw?! Metaphysics might as well be called psuedophysics. In all cases when a metaphysical claim has been embraced, it led to religion and warmurder. Fine tuning…how are you certain that we were tuned to the right pitch? Is there a right pitch? Is there a pitch? I somehow became older despite a serious lack of effort. With the unknowable remainder of my time I am going ro
Part 1 Such an elementary argument. Every honest scientist or mathematician should recognize and admit that scalar quantities existed previous to any universe. Absolute zero is such a scalar number. With motionless atomic components (no motion=no heat) it absolutely had to exist. . . or did it? And of course, there's the 'vacuum' which implies the existence of a quantum vacuum energy. Vacuum fluctuations, anyone? How about 'gravity', though many scientists insist that gravity requires mass and matter. The only question that must be answered in every case is this: Is the probability greater than zero . . . Yes or No? No problem . . . I postulate that information must preexist any version of a universe! And it's possible that some information only applies to the universe it supports based on the raw physics of that universe. For instance, in OUR universe the fact that 1+1=2 is simple information that would be true and existed long before the first life form held up two digits on this or any other planet. (Unless, of course you believe in the a Trinity, in which case you think 1+1+1 =1) I surmise that Pi was hanging around in eternity for billions of years before anyone drew the first circle in the dirt. And then later when they calculated it's circumference . . . Pi was just sitting there waiting for them. Because, it preexisted all spheres, real . . or unreal. Pi would remain true regardless of which universe it may be in. It is information and INFORMATION CONTAINS MASS! Of course, we know and can verify that mass contains energy (which cannot be destroyed as proven by the Hawking Radiation Paradox.) Consider the Pythagorean Theorem just patiently waiting in the corner of eternity . . . in case someone ever needed it. Same with Einstein's E=MC2. Albert didn't invent it . . . he merely 'revealed' it to the world so Oppenheimer could verify it into a reality. And this is true of the all irrefutable information 'data' contained in our universe with its two dozen or so Cosmological Constants, Newtonian physics, and Leibniz's calculus, including every differential or integrated equation that has ever made it from concept to a true measurement . . . not to mention all equations that have yet to make it into a mathematician's head thus far.
I have an interest in astronomy and watch many videos related to JWST. I don't recall hearing anything related to fine-tuning and JWST. Do you have an article or video about this? I can't seem to find anything via searches.
Not true. Fine tuning has to do with the fundamental laws of nature, and JWST hasn't really said anything one way or another on that front. I'm agnostic on fine tuning, but it's still a very real possibility
@@beam5655 *"I'm agnostic on fine tuning, but it's still a very real possibility"* ... Yah, the JWST hasn't debunked nor proven anything so far. All it's done is provide some pretty pictures of the universe.
@@SolemnPhilosopherThe JWST provided evidence of galaxy formation earlier than we were expecting from our theories about galaxy formation, which were highly speculative anyway. The critics interpreted this as evidence for galaxies that were ‘too old’ to fit with the Big Bang model, where in fact they were too old to exist under the old galaxy formation models. Bear in mind until JWST we didn’t actually have observations of galaxy formation to base the models on. The “JwST disproves big bang” stuff is nonsense.
"The universe is not fine-tuned, that is just speculation. Here are my speculations on why the universe is that way, and please note; I am speculating here..."
The real question for theists is "How would a universe NOT created by a god differ from the one we already inhabit?" It couldn't be any less than what we have, or it would be unstable and we wouldn't be here to ask questions about it.
Mental gymnastics 🤸♂️🧠 😂 ... save yourself the bother bro, you can still choose to disbelieve even if you become totally sure that God exists
@@kofidan9128 Not mental gymnastics at all. It's simply following the evidence. The mental gymnastics is "I dunno, therefore I'll pull some magical sky wizard of of my rear end."
@@alfresco8442 If you want proof of the Bible, type "atheist archive Steven Weinberg" and then read my last four posts under the initial comment "Any being worthy of worship..."
The first of these four posts begins with the phrase "first off, in my part of the world ..." and the fourth begins with the phrase "in addition to the three preceding posts..."
You may need to change the comment settings on that video to "Newest first" to access all 36 or so replies under that initial comment. Also, Weinberg begins thus "many ppl do simply awful things..."
Evidence, right? There you go. Richard Dawkins acted for himself. You have every right to act for yourself too.
@@alfresco8442 That's not the real question and you shouldn't only ask theists. Why would you frame it as the counterfactual unless you already thought the argument was won. That question would have to be asked of both scientific and theistic povs because both literally exist in this universe and no other. However, the question would need to be posed with equivalent if, then, else considerations as: How would this universe differ if created by a god. The question would need clarification of: god as creator only, or god as sustainer as generally considered by religious belief. A simpler form would be the original debate: does god exist?, which also didn't get anywhere. But the silliness continues in thinking that there would have to be differences and, if physical realism is true, that the universe could be adversely affected by mental concepts at all. It should become obvious by this time, there are no sound arguments since the question is unknowable, and pointless.
The most delusive idea here is that anyone, scientist or other, thinks there's any evidence to be found prior to the start of the universe to prove whether it was a god, a seemingly nonexistent scientific word for the state of randomness that is thought would preclude a god, or a magical sky wizard you pull out of your rear end.
Surely you don't think that science has exclusive right to believe in the stability of our universe, and so religions and ideologies are inherently suspect. It seems much easier to practice logic-lapsed mental gymnastics to absurdly describe what theists think god is, so they can derisively assign to them fallacious arguments ad nauseam for foolishly believing that way. No such modern dichotomy exists between science and faith, to the degree conveyed in these types of arguments.
Reasonable people would do better to bring rationality down to the the real problem of separation between church and state.
@@skippdiddly1409 It's a perfectly straightforward question that nullifies all the presupposition that theists bring to the table....that the universe is so complicated that a god creating it is the only explanation.
All I'm asking is what a universe not created by a god would look like for comparison. And that can be asked of both theists and non-believers. My answer is that such a universe might take many forms, providing that it was functionally stable...and that one of those forms could be the one we inhabit. Because I can think of a million improvements to this one if it had been 'intelligently' designed. Do you have an answer?
My digital piano doesn't need tuning.
It's a miracle !
Your piano didn't design itself?
@@les2997
And God said, "Let there be a digital piano" and there was a digital piano.
And God saw the digital piano, that it was good.
In fact, it was a magic piano that could talk !
@tedgrant2 you're too intelligent to be this narrow minded. Cmon bro.
@@IroquoisPliskin6789
I am intelligent enough to know that preachers have an incentive.
They pretend to know the answers to the mysteries of the universe.
And they expect a donation for telling me stories I've heard before.
People who claim “fine-tuning” to be a “thing”, are looking it from the unlikely angle, where god/god-like creature dictated the “initial parameters”, whereas logically thinking, everything that is/ exists, has been dictated by the initial parameters regardless of, if there was “a designer” for this location & time.
even more a materialist is tied to the "initial parameters" due to determinism
I've heard many arguments concerning fine tuning. In virtually every argument, regardless of which side of the fence the speaker may be on, there is some degree of separation the speaker inadvertently places between us and the rest of the universe. It's often subtle, but not always. The phrasing, be it subtle or otherwise, implies that there is the universe, and then there is us looking back at it or riding a sort of rail above it, etc. Sometimes hard to hear, but it's in there.
When you work to eliminate that separation, sometimes very difficult to do, you end up with a very different conversation. It takes speaking in terms of everything that happens being part of the functions and properties of the universe.
Just a observation I made that I find interesting.
We are as much a part of the Universe as the trees, the oceans and the waves. Living organisms, human beings are not separate from Nature.
Since these constants can be tweaked and life will still exist (they don’t have to be precise and there acceptable ranges) aren’t there an infinite amount of values they could be and there would still be no problem? I’m not sure what I’m missing.
It's doubtful. Consider what changing just one constant would do.
If the gravitational constant G were slightly larger the universe would have collapsed on itself shortly after the big bang preventing the formation of stars, planets, and galaxies If it were slightly smaller the universe would expand much more rapidly and stars and planets would be spaced too far from each other to interact (aka the Big Freeze).
@@deanschulze3129 How much more “slightly”? Aren’t there infinite values between that number and what it is now?
If physics is correct the vast majority of these ranges would not allow a stable universe with structure like stars and planets. So life as we imagine it would not be possible. But who knows what we cannot imagine...
@@deanschulze3129That's exactly right Dean and the tolerances for any of twenty or more "constants" such as gravity or the ratio of matter to antimatter after the Big Bang were so minutely critical that the smallest variation would have not produced the long lived cosmos needed for the evolution of sentient life, but trying to explain this to skeptics is like trying to explain blue and green to someone who's color blind.
@@michaelmckinney7240 - It's ironic that "skeptics" don't subject their beliefs to scrutiny.
Douglas Adams' Intelligent Puddle analogy is a prime example of a Shabby Friar joke ( ref from H.Allen Smith, p.152 "How to Write Without Knowing Nothing")
What is the probability that we exist in a fine tuned universe by chance vs the probability that we exist as a Boltzmann brain?
Your premise is faulty. It presupposes the fine tuning.
Its also fallacious as its a false dichotomy.
I think the Vegas odds are 4/1
I do not see how a Boltzmann brain can be stable enough to provide our experience, of course given what we know about physics. Even if some structure capable of thought was created spontaneously it would be destroyed in an instant due to instability of the system. Brain requires a lot of support including huge amount of nutrients, protective environment etc., some Boltzmann brain in space lack everything and if it consists of virtual particles even more so unstable. To presuppose working Boltzmann brain capable of emulating our experience even for several seconds we need to assume a constant series of coincidences creating several states of Boltzmann brain in a specific order in a specific place so we can have even a single thought before it dissipates. Each such event is extremely improbable by itself and having like several thousands of them in one place in specific order and in a way that each state seems like evolution of previous one so the sequence would be capable of thought? Ridiculous. This idea is a phylosophical mental masturbation.
@@ngcastronerd4791 That was a question not a premise. I'm pretty sure by "fine-tuned" he simply means "conditions just right for the existence of life" not "there is a designer." After all, he says "by chance" not "by god." The question asked is about the probability of our complex (low entropy) universe given chance vs. the probability of a complex Boltzmann brain spontaneously arising given chance. They both seem highly improbable. The Boltzmann brain question is asked by the best physicists, and it is used as a *reductio ad absurdum* in evaluating competing scientific theories. Sean Carroll talks about them a lot... Anyway, his preferred answer to fine tuning in the video is that we simply don't know how *much* different the universe would be given adjustments to the constants and laws, the dials or conditions responsible for the universe as we know it today..
@@dmitriy4708 You're just reiterating the obvious improbability of a Boltzmann Brain, but for some reason don't understand why it shows up in discourse. It's simply a heuristic physicists use to evaluate competing scientific theories for their *absurdity.*
"Let me give you the wrong answer to that." That's brilliant. I have to try and use that some time. So there is counter argument, question, and give the wrong answer, or even a wronger answer.
Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns. Anthropic principle best explains it, in the space of infinity a single roll that works is all that is needed.
But infinity... it is so big.
And if the possible configurations are finite for a given amount of space, in an infinte universe there are probably infinitely many bubbles of inhabited space, even if they are incredibly rare.
I think a simple probability question, like what is the chance for chaotic useless mass of combined materials forming a useful product within a period of time could be of great help.
Infinite 🤨
That's not the situation in this universe
Useful? To whom? Gods and goddesses? What’s the proof they exist?
Your mistake is seeing naturally occurring things as having a use, being "useful." Over millions of years of evolution, our increasingly large brains have slowly learned to make use of natural things we found, and then to alter some things to make them more useful. But sand, or trees, or rocks, or lava, or tar, or dirt, or gold, or anything at all, are not inherently "useful," they just "are," and we and a few other animals have figured out ways to use some of them.
Now consider an energy density so high that the term "mass" has no meaning and none of the laws of physics (as we understand them) are valid. This might be the situation prior to the Planck Epoch. Probability & "reality" simply doesn't apply.
Why the Fine Tuning Argument for the Existence of God or Intelligent Design Fails
th-cam.com/video/RTIUjyxNl7I/w-d-xo.html
The claim is that if you changed the parameters of the universe then life AS WE KNOW IT could not exist, not that no life could exist.
the claim is that if you change parameters not even a stable universe would exist..
Sean is the best, thank you for taking the time to communicate with us the public. We really really appreciate it.
We're part of the universe and not separate from it. We're a temporary expression of the universe. So is the universe fine tuned for the universe? The question melts away.
In that case, pack your things and go live on the sun. We're all one, right?😅
Think about this way: who represents the universe better, the sun, the black hole and its great jets, or the tiny tiny human brain?
Think about this way: who represents the universe better, the sun, the black hole and its great jets, or the tiny tiny human brain?
Leaving aside the issue of human existence, few really deny that the odds against the cosmological constants being just perfectly aligned by mere chance is so vastly improbable, that it shouldn't be taken as the most likely reason.
I dunno. Assessing probabilities without knowing the context is too speculative for me to draw a hard conclusion from it.
"Mere chance" may actually be far more likely than it may appear through cosmological natural selection (CNS). "Persistence" is to CNS what "survival" is to biological natural selection (BNS). So "existence" may have had no other "choice" -- it's following the path of least resistance, and we really aren't sure what that path is yet.
This could lead to "cosmic consciousness" -- or it could lead to a fact about existence itself that even God has to contend with, one which makes God ultimately unnecessary. But, for the sake of argument, even granting odds numbering in the trillions or quadrillions, the time and the size of the playing field allowed for this to happen appears to be either infinite, or so large a finitude that makes even remote possibilities inevitable.
It may be 1:1 trillion odds, but if you've got a quadrillion players, there's always a winner, maybe multiple winners, maybe existence has no other choice, and maybe we can understand why it doesn't have any other choice. Does that make the experience of consciousness any less magical?
The "most likely reason" is the description that most closely matches the thing being described. Naturalistic explanations have been far too successful to just be coincidence -- i.e., either God is a naturalist, or naturalism itself is the creator. At least that's what makes sense to me.
Calling it “fine-tuned” assumes a “tuner.” It’s a circular argument.
So call it something else if that bothers you. The title is not the argument
@@istoner Title: “The Universe Has Observed Conditions.” True, but that’s still only proof of its existence, not of gods and goddesses.
Fine tuning is a scientific discovery that was made in 1961 by physicist Robert H. Dicke. Fine tuning isn't an assumption. It's an actual scientific discovery. An actual scientific fact.
@@kofidan9128 it is not science in any way. No scientist has discovered a “tuner.” The constants and values are discoveries, the fantasy of a “tuner” is not.
@@orver1 yeah i suppose we shouldn't say big bang either since no has discovered a banger 😂
I like his perspective
The Fine Tune argument neglects the "delay factor." If the purpose of creation was to create human intelligence, why did that purpose take so long in materializing? For billions of years, as far as we know, human intelligence did not exist. An equally valid argument is to say that the purpose was to create non-intelligent dinosaurs. For millions of years those creature roam the earth. Why was God waiting those millions of years before human intelligence finally appeared?
Another perspective, which is unknown to us, is that other intelligences have already appeared and, perhaps, disappeared. Whatever the frequency of human intelligence in the universe, the point remains...why does it take so long? This is a universe where, at the fundamental level, everything happens very fast, at the speed of light!
A god wouldn't need to fine tune anything in the first place since it can use magic instead.
@@CesarClouds That's an existential reasoning: Is there a God or not? I haven't gone that far (although I strongly suspect the answer is NO). I had more modest goals: discussing the properties of the fine tune argument. Why the delay? In all of physics time is a fundamental variable. Look at the Schrodinger's equation! My modest goal is to stir discussion around the the role of time in fine tuning.
@CarlosElio82 For _specific_ gods like Quetzalcoatl, Zues, Yahweh, I know for a fact they don't exist. For a vague one as "God" I don't even know what that is. Fine tuning is irrelevant here.
I always took issue with option #4, which Carroll pejoratively dumbs "the selection effect." But that's not fair. Its competitor is obviously the multiverse idea. And yet that's just another way of increasing the sample size of your pot without evidence to make the probability of our universe, as one among a potentially infinite number of universes, approach 1. It's the atheist's cop out and violates Occam's Razor because it hypothesizes innumerable entities in order to explain the existence of one. And you thought intelligent design was bad! But I can respect Carroll's preferred answer, #5, which is epistemic: we simply don't know how different than universe would be if we started manipulating the dials. For all we know, life could exist under very different conditions with a different set of laws and constants.
Alternately, the laws of nature are currently favorable for the probability of intelligent life to have emerged, but our universe is not necessarily stable enough that these conditions will persist. Our universe might well have gone through a phase change that gave us the one we now have, and could very possibly go through a phase change which completely changes the laws of physics and does not make the emergence of intelligence possible. It is plausible that phase changes are cyclical and there may have been an infinite number of past variations... or even different regions beyond the observable universe , which could or could not allow for it. Then again maybe it's just the realization of probabilities.
3:00. Giving the story of the relationship and development between the mass of the electron and humankind, and all the things inbetween, that is the general project of science.
This was beautiful. Thank you.
How do you do with this...?
"However, for anything to be there it needs to be knowledge.
Knowledge by its innate nature is organized and coherent.
Knowledge by itself is infinite and unlimited as anything in its own right is infinite and unlimited. (Remember, here infinity is an existential infinity which is other than the numerical infinity.)
Knowledge is viable and dynamic.
Thus, it gives birth to any possible scenario and that scenario has to be definite and determined as having two things simultaneously and so with exactly the same characteristics results into the union of two contradictory entities which is impossible to take place.
So, an infinite dynamic knowledge will give rise to an infinite range of definite possibilities and those definite possibilities themselves would bear infinite potential to attain infinite forms of reality but only one will take form as a numerical infinity progresses gradually. "
[Imran Al-Mohammadi]
You seem to conflate knowledge with infornation. This allows you to sneak in agency in your argument. But you have no basis for injecting agency. This is where your argument falls appart.
Nice word salad though.
@@ngcastronerd4791Yeah, you are right. There is no basis for injecting an agency. And that's the beauty of this argument.
It's true, I knowingly used 'knowledge' instead of 'information' because it's infact Ilm; علم in Arabic, which normally translates to 'knowledge' in English.
I see a place for "resemblance", across layers of manifestation. I see a place for math and body, where they are both true, and where math is (metaphysically) precise, and body is by degrees. Now, resemblance occurs, and we can say to accompany manifestation.
Can I get blue cheese dressing with that salad
@@user-gk9lg5sp4yBlue cheese is the reason for having a salad.
@CoopAssembly it goes great with hot wings too
That's a great thought.
It seems that relying on fine-tuning and anthropic arguments to maintain our ideological positions is an attitude as well as a practice that has failed to filter out irrelevant and archaic notions.
Medieval thinking of the past that once drove science, and the attempt to explain what is unknowable via a simulation of a universe other than ours with constants required for unknown (sentient) life, is illogical and sensible only in its long standing ability to successfully debate the idea of a god, the idea of religion, which are in essence and fact, the idea of faith.
Evolutionary biology explains that life was selected for sentient self awareness through development of self organizing systems and by randomness. Regardless, this should tell us it's not the ideation of a god that has created our desire to be at the centre, it is our ego.
We're at a pivotal point in understanding how to manage AI, and in our ability and necessity to find solutions to our REAL problems of energy, climate, and future planetary exploration. It's time to put away juvenile arguments about how the world started. We are going to need all the faith, open-mindedness, consensus, and our egocentricity, if we are to move forward and be successful.
I guess it is the balance between the attractive foces and Repulsive forces of nature that result in such Fine tuning !!
If we get the "Ratio" right ...
We could to make another unverse 😬🌌
with constants and laws of nature described by mathematics; would human discovery of math argue that there is not fine tuning of universe, while human invention of math could argue for fine tuning of universe through use of math?
Different laws of physics would give rise to different life forms as long as those laws allow for environments substantially away from equilibrium.
If we are smart enough to say we don’t know if the so called fine tuning we do observe is necessary for life, then we are at least smart enough to say that given life does exist, and given the observation of so called fine tuning, there is at least a correlation. That fact alone may not equal causation, but because it doesn’t immediately signify causation should not persuade against its correlation. It’s simply another piece of evidence stacked on a massive body of evidence. The proof is in the body of evidence and the testimony of witness, which, by the way, is what most jury’s would regard as sufficient for proof.
I'm always unimpressed with the god linkage to fine tuning. An all powerful god would not be constrained to required "fine tuning" being able to create a universe with current fine tuning, no fine tuning and a larger amount of fine tuning. So the existence of fine tuning itself is not mandatory for an omnipotent god.
Exactly, WTF says we're finely tuned? Much less for such a low creature as we appear to be. PS How old is this clip?
Low creature? Uhhh you have any evidence of a higher creature? If so please let us know - on behalf of all of planet Earth.
Good! Thank you!
The sea seems to be fine-tuned for the waves, but it just seems that way
The universe is omnipresent
Liking how Sean tackles these questions, very clear and direct, great to listen to.
My teacher, but had put All Research in to river , The problem is we have to reject Design...
I am also a Physicist
Sean is my favourite
He's lost, you don't need to be too
@@kofidan9128 Hey thanks, I’m finding my way just fine. Off to the Grand Canyon soon to sit and stare at the dark skies.
0:19. "It is evidence of design.' Do you see how we are moved here from an agreed upon metaphorical 'designed' character of the universe to a literal 'designer' of said, without the word 'designer' even being used. How about a straight forward 'evidence of a designer'?
To say that, yes, the universe was created by design by a designer, is that a real answer to the question or is it a mere string of words pretending to be profound knowledge?
1:16. "....thers is a teason and the a reason for that." No. That is the road to infinite regress. At some point you need a suitable premise. A premise is not proven but is rather an assumption which is the basis for even the possibility of proof.
Part 5
No, it did not happen in seven 24 hour days. Yes, it took billions of years, which is nothing inside a time span that involves anything resembling 'eternity'. In fact, 13.8 billion years is most likely short as my cosmological research data indicates a much longer period from the beginning and up to this point, perhaps by a factor of two. 25 to 30 billion years is not an unreasonable number spanning multiple epochs of creative construction, destruction, and then re-creation, and finally getting it to the point where it was called "GOOD". Then, add that to the fact the past, present, and future are all happening simultaneously . . . except at different speeds!
Having spent over 50 years of my life in advanced mathematics supporting multiple disciplines of engineering, science, and technology . . . I have compiled over a thousand pages of research, formulas, equations, and surprising discoveries that I've meticulously documented into a copyright format.
Turns out . . . once all the dots are connected this subject is not nearly as complicated as one may be led to believe. And based on straightforward Boolean logic the required propositional connectives are expressed. Is the probability greater than zero? I'll let you decide!
Then, again I acknowledge that most people will not even bother to read this brief layman terms synopsis. So, why should I expect anyone to ever take their time to wade thru a four inch thick book littered with Calculus IV. Yeah, it's not gonna happen and I know it . . . not in this day and age. LOL!
Because, I know full well the average person will not make it past the first quadratic equation they come to, or a condensed explanation of the Riemann Hypothesis . . . much less a quarter million lines of codes deconstructing the numerous Kreb Cycle functions, not to mention the development of prebiotic processes and plausible proto-nucleotides pertaining to the Origin of Life! I can already envision brains exploding in the middle of dissecting 56 pages outlining the formulation of negative frequencies, or a 32 page double resonance equation.
And never mind the difficulties in trying to comprehend the very 'REASON' this universe had to come into existence in the first place!
NOPE . . . the honest truth is, it's simply not worth the backlash I would be forced to endure from every quadrant of science and religion. As a legacy to my descendants I may perhaps consider allowing one of my children or grandchildren to release it for publication at a later date long after I have expended my time on this earth enjoying a wonderful life of a comfortable retirement in ignorant bliss. Until then, I have the luxury of knowing I have absolutely no confusion and zero remaining questions concerning the existence of the universe, or how it was made, who made it, why they made it . . . and where I fit into its overall design.
How is believing in powerful beings that created us in a matrix reasonable but believing in God is not reasonable?
MAGA
"Believing" anything is not reasonable. In fact, belief is kind of the antithesis of reason.
You can only say that so-and-so might be a possibility. In that sense, God creating the universe is also a possibility.
So you believe that, hmmm, seems unreasonable. You must be right I believe. Wait, believing it's knowing, believing it's reason. You believe that the axioms and paradigms of our human understanding are true? The ones today? The ones in thousand years? I believe there is something that doesn't change and exists outside time and matter. Completely unreasonable? I believe mathematics live in that metaphysical place, they are real but unaffected by time, space or matter. Do you believe maths? Do you consider maths reasonable? Belief and reason are the same thing. Science believes in axioms, just in the axioms and paradigms that finds reasonable. We are what we believe, it's irrelevant whether we can prove what we believe in or not, we are testimony. Again, belief and reason are unique for every mind. God bless.
@@abhisheksing8379we are what we believe. Belief and reason are not different both try to find truth. Science believes in axioms and paradigms that change over time. Reason leads to Belief. God bless.
It's equally reason. That's the point he is making
Isn't it wonderful that we don't know the answer.
Lol ... I'm all for perpetual uncertainty or insoluble ignorance. That's progress surely
It is selected, like the part of the EM spectrum our human eyes can detect. It is selected by nature because the other options don't work. Only carbon's column makes 4 symmetrical bonds and only carbon is light enough. c is c because that is the velocity that precipitates out of space expanding into time.
"It seems to cry out for explanation, and some say it shows evidence of design (ie designer)." How many many more things would cry out for explanation if design--designer were supposed to be true? It impresses on me how important the principle of Ocham's Razor is to science.
Everything humans create is conceived, designed and assembled.
@@Samsara_is_dukkha By miracle or by natural processes?
@@MarkPatmos Yes indeed. Lately I have been wondering what kind of arguments were currently floating around that prompted him to come up with the Razor. Perhaps about many angels can dance on the tip of a pin.
@@MarkPatmos Is 'Maybe God is the simplest explanation' and 'Maybe God working by miracles is the simplest explanation' the same thing?
@@arthurwieczorek4894 You tell me... Claiming it's one or the other requires providing clear definitions of both "miracle" and "natural processes". And since we lack a clear definition of either, making such a claim is nonsensical.
Meanwhile, Descarte conceived of his "rational" philosophy after being visited by angels; Kepler was a passionate astrologer; Newton was a fervent alchemist; Einstein believed that imagination is more important than knowledge; Planck was sure that consciousness is fundamental; and Crick discovered the double helix structure of DNA while high on LSD... So tell us where ideas and concepts come from.
The notion that the creator of the universe or another supreme intelligence made it impossible for us to exist except within a set of very narrow parameters, in order to presumably thus signal his or her existence while hiding from us in every other way, is sublimely preposterous, fails to pass the titter test. This would be the peek-a-boo deity. Everything that exists is by definition "fine tuned", from Newton to viruses, from oceans to puddles.
You said:
"The notion that the creator of the universe or another supreme intelligence made it impossible for us to exist except within a set of very narrow parameters, in order to presumably thus signal his or her existence while hiding from us in every other way, is sublimely preposterous,"
I don't recall anyone, theist or otherwise making that statement. These are your words and they are based on a "straw man" argument that has no logical premise. Please tell us exactly how a supreme intelligence is "hiding" from us and allows us to perceive things "within a set of very narrow parameters" to "signal his or her existence." These are fanciful and wholly invented terms with very little descriptive value. You've categorized the very real phenomenon of a "fine tuned" universe as "preposterous" without any credible attempt to explain this reality.
You are a skeptic and skepticism is and end in itself for all skeptics. It's enough for you to simply say it's preposterous, and walk away but this is a shallow and unconvincing response to the compelling and as yet unexplained reality of why our cosmos is balanced, calibrated and yes "designed" to function within a very tiny bandwidth of allowable viability.
Science, not religion has described this remarkable and highly improbable result and to simply dismiss this reality as "preposterous" without acknowledging the truth that we certainly do live in a finely tuned universe, and that it appears at every level to be formulated and intentional is to be willfully blind to the obvious.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I was trying to summarize Dr. Carroll and other atheists' stance on this issue. I myself have been an atheist for many decades since reading Lord Bertrand Russell's Why I am an atheist. Since I have no diploma in higher education, I wish Dr. Carroll himself would critique my summary. Of course, he's way too busy. @@michaelmckinney7240
@@michaelmckinney7240except that has mr Carrol so eloquently explained. We do noy know enough to know if it is finely tuned or not. So how can it be obvious that it is?
The concept of a Creator engaging in a form of cosmic peek-a-boo with humanity oversimplifies the intricate relationship between the divine and the observable universe. Consider this analogy: imagine a deep-sea creature living in perpetual darkness, oblivious to the existence of the sun, a massive star 150 million kilometers away, vital for all life on Earth. If informed by another creature aware of the sun's existence, the deep-sea dweller might dismiss the notion as fanciful, unable to conceive of something so beyond its immediate reality.
Labeling the divine as engaging in hide-and-seek is akin to this deep-sea creature's dismissal of the sun's existence-an illustration of limited perspective. A being of immense complexity and scale, if such exists, wouldn't be bound to human expectations or understanding. Arguing from ignorance or limited knowledge is a critical misstep in pondering the nature of existence and creation.
Also, the expectation that the Creator should be directly observable with human senses misunderstands the nature of divinity and creation. If the universe is in a state of constant flux, how could its creator, presumed to be of a fundamentally different essence, be subject to the same conditions? The notion of a creator made from the same material as the creation it presides over contradicts the concept of an unchanging, omnipotent being.
Approaching the vast unknown with humility is wise. It's essential to acknowledge the limits of our understanding and perspective. Consider reflecting on the broader implications of our existence and the universe's mysteries with an open mind.
@@rezastella777 you assume the divine exist. You shouldn't.
Hey Kuhn can you get a message to Sean Caroll telling him to step his game up. He says he doesn't feel fine tuning was creation because of "i" "i" "i". First, that's just a way to shoot down fine tuning being creation. Because "i" "i" "i" is only used for manipulating what is being talked about. It has absolutely nothing to do with fine tuning and creation. Second, the laws of physics being different somewhere else in the universe doesn't mean the universe wasn't created. Only humans, especially Scientists, believe that they can say what is, how it is, or what it isn't. "I" "I" "I" is lame.
Whether the universe was created or not it doesn't change that everything points to creator. If it was created whatever created it can create whatever it wants how it wants. However many it wants of any kind. Hey Sean Caroll stop with bs
😂 "everything points to a creator" what? Nothing "points to a creator". All intelligent agents we know of is a result if evolution in this universe. nothing points to an intelligence not created by evolution.
Fine-tuning requires a Fine-tuner.
No it doesn’t
@@jayk5549yes it does
@@jeffreyanderson6740 no. No it definitely doesn’t. In the expanse of infinity, random iterations will always eventually land on every potential outcome - even one that seems so tuned (but only by us) that from our vantage point we think it must be ordained.
@@jayk5549 So for us to live and have this conversation on these electronic devices. I just have a serious problem with the concept that we're here by the chances of what might be possible. God part of the Brain, which is not to say that God did it. But I would rather have it that God did do all this but I do consider the atheist notion of things even though I don't like it and actually hope it's not actually the case. I myself personally would rather there be a God and a hereafter rather than just this life.
@@jeffreyanderson6740 understood. A Very human bias. I wish that were true too. But maybe the two are not mutually exclusive. Maybe we need to redefine our definition of god. One where we are not the central object of cosmic intent - but merely a beneficial consequence. If there is a “god” what existential question is he/she asking. Surely it js “ how me” and “why me” and “who created me” and what was before me. It doesn’t help to think of a beginning or creator - just kicks the existential question down the road a ways. But I prefer a Christmas with Santa clause too :). Beauty is just as beautiful even if it was not constructed by intentional design. Maybe even more so.
Imagine you randomly win a lottery and the prize is a wonderful 2 week (77 year) vacation. Would it make sense to spend the entire time worrying about “why/how” you won the prize or “who selected you” or “who owns / runs the lottery or vacation. No. It makes sense to enjoy it. That’s all.
In retrospect, everything seems fine-tuned or designed. Forget the fact that life adjusted and evolved despite the universe, not because the universe was made for life.
No. Life is possible because Universe is designed in such a way to allow for any kind of life.
@@xander-012 Designed by whom? There is no evidence of gods and goddesses.
@@xander-012 and who designed the designers?
@@orver1 that is for the designer to answer. We lack the information needed to make an educated judgement on that.
@@xander-012 Well, while you wait for designer gods and goddesses to reply to your questions, we will continue doing science to find real answers.
I offer a fifth alternative explanation. The question is bogus. This is like a plumber trying to get a deep understanding of quantum mechanics using the language of plumbing. Where did the universe come from? On the deepest level, why is it the way it is? These are meaningful questions about things in the universe. They are not meaningful in addessing the universe as such. The universe is not just another thing in the universe.
It's not our universe. Nor is it our reality. There is no us. It's consciousness all by itself subject and objectsbeing itself.
I’m a very spiritual person, there is something in this existence that is really strange.
But people like to feel special and the fine tuning argument is just another version of that.
There is no fine tuning since things just are. No need for a creator.
Fine-tuning theology and general fine-tuning are not the same thing. But they are variations on the same philosophical issue, in particular,the issue of cosmic selection.
"things just are" would be the death of any kind of science, intelligence or philosophy ...
"things just are" is like saying God just exists.
@@deanschulze3129 But there's no proof. God has just as much proof as eternal inflation and infinite universes with different laws of physics.
If the universe had different properties we wouldn't be here to observe it. Thats just an axiom
It's not our universe. Nor is it our reality. There is no us. It's consciousness all by itself subjectbeing and objectsbein, time and spacebeing itself.Consciousness happening within itself as if being everything.
Sir James Jeans once said : "the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine."
Yes, the thought of God, who thought it and then spoke it into existence 🎉
@@kofidan9128God (universal love) would never "speak" this kind of world into existence. A lack of love would "speak" this world into existence.
What kind of fine tuning that takes 14 billion years to make a human being, guys it’s completely random and accidental
No Gods, just everlasting space
ehhh good luck waiting that an universe develop from a rock ... from a cloud of gas...from 1 atom ...
@@francesco5581however the universe never developed from a rock or a cloud of gas but if that is your impression what happened….then your correct.
There's nothing special about a time period of 14 billion years, though. What's your rush?
@@deanschulze3129 what is more probable an instant creation event or an epoch of 14 billion heads to achieve if enacted by a divine being? I believe that is his point.
@@Andrew-pp2ql so you see that the starting set is too perfect, because for "chance" there is no difference from an universe and a rock
Why would the laws of physics of our universe have to apply to others?
i think sean’s right. how do we know that life is not conceivable in another universe
its not because it can (maybe, the debate is open) , but is about the very very very small chance of that to happen
How do we know what the chance is?@@francesco5581
That’s just pure speculation, so much so that it cannot possibly be confirmed one way or another. It’s a complete leap of faith!
@@francesco5581 how do you know it’s only a very small chance . We have a sample size of exactly one .
@@tonyatkinson2210 because you have an infinity of other options that would not made us ponder on that ... one atom ..two atoms...three atoms ..one rock ...two rocks ... 7 millions rocks....a banana ...
Sean is one of the brilliants.
He really is awesome.
Yeah but he should stick to physics. Like most of his colleagues, he's a poor philosopher, to re-echo Einstein's words
It llooks like a put up job to me like Fred Hoyle said.
The man who denied and yet coined the term The Big Bang.
It wasn't big and it didn't bang.
That fourth argument is nonsense. Having to live in tiny zones within the universe has nothing to do with why the universe is fine tuned as a whole. And there is no reason to believe the laws of physics are different beyond our light cone.
except that you dont know that it isnt (different elsewhere).
He's not even sure the constants are even finely tuned? We KNOW that if only a few of them varied by much then matter would not even form. That the constants ARE fine tuned is generally agreed upon. Perhaps Sean should be asked how life could exist without matter. Sean is really off the mark here.
You're smarter, it's obvious...
What's your degree in?
What we don't know is whether or not these constants can actually be different.
Because it is designed. It’s obvious to anyone who looks at it except for those who choose to be blind.
Cosmologists look at it as a career. It is not obvious to them.
@@damienschwass9354 That’s because they choose to attribute it to anything but an intelligent creator. They’re committed atheists who don’t want their worldview to crumble
@@jollygreen9377 no, they’re not attributing it to anything because it is unknown.
@@damienschwass9354 yep, “unknown,” ANYTHING other than an intelligent cause when ALL the evidence points to that
@@jollygreen9377 no, unknown causes so not attributing it to a deity just because feels.
whatever, it's highly unlikely that I'm here!
@birdthompson are you sure you are not there? You might not be somewhere else also. You really should go look for yourself then you will know where your not.
Multiply your existence by the number of stars, each of which potentially has several planets, then it is highly likely that you are here and someone very much like you is on numerous other planets.
@@stevepierce6467 percentage-wise it is still very low...plus: there is nobody exactly like me!
@@birdthompson We are all unique, but there are trillions upon trillions of all sorts and varieties of us out there!
@@stevepierce6467 Sean thinks we are the only human-like beings
We're fine tuned to live on Earth.
Are we? 70% of the globes surface is water we cant drink.
@@ngcastronerd4791 oceans regulate the climate, provide oxygen, provide food, etc ... go on living in the delusion that there's no God. You won't always have this window of opportunity to save your soul
@@kofidan9128 you make baseless assertions about souls and gods. Why would i care? Oceans do not provide oxygen. Plants do. And my comment only applied to our planet. Want to include the rest of reality? It doesnt go well for your premise.
@@ngcastronerd4791 😅 just google importance of oceans and see what comes up. Who says oxygen production is restricted to plants or that scientific knowledge is restricted to grade-school science textbooks?
As for including other planets, I have no idea what you mean unless you are talking about the afterlife, which is as real as day follows night. The Christian God is real and your soul is real.
Seek the truth, don't just defend ur worldview. Truth saves.
@@kofidan9128 I dont deny the importance of oceans for life on earth. I refuted the assertion that humans are fine tuned for life on this planet. Or at all really.
There is no evidence for your god, or souls or anything else supernatural. None. No religion ever had the answer. Ever.
The only thing that needs rescuing is your critical thinking skills.
Seeking the truth is what turned me away from religion in the first place. Scripture and faith are not paths to truth. They are paths to self delusion.
We are not that finely tuned for intelligent life. Things could be much better, and it is possible that this is the case on other planets. We on this planet have had many difficulties, such as war, disease, and survival of the fittest. We just live for a finite time, and we can't seem to shake narcissistic notions that reality revolves around ourselves. Something else that should be considered is the idea that there are forms of life that can exist in conditions that we can't imagine. Life could exist in forms that are not cell based. Life could exist in dimensions that we can't perceive.
This is an adequate direction of reasoning.
If Life could be based on other forms, that form must share a property(s) similar to what we define here as cell based life; Reproduction, nutrition and respiration. Otherwise we wouldn't know what to call it as we couldn't identify it.
Firstly, the laws of physics do not explain nor predict life. Secondly, we have not found a single sign of life anywhere in the Universe except on planet Earth. If that's not special, I don't know what is.
So far as we can tell there’s nothing going on in cells that can’t be explained by physics. Then we observe that evolution is a thing that happens, including in non-biological chemical systems (autocatalytic sets). So we do have an explanatory framework. If your objection is that we haven’t actually observed what actually occurred 4 billion years ago, why not just say so?
@@simonhibbs887 Yes, obviously nothing that happens in cells violates the laws of physics. So everything we observe can be explained in physical terms a posteriori. However, so far as I am aware, no a priori laws of physics dictate or predict the inevitable emergence of Life (and even less of consciousness). But maybe I am mistaken in which case you might be kind enough to explain *step by step* how the known laws of gravitation, motion, electromagnetism and quantum physics -- which is all we currently know and which are not even capable of presenting a coherent picture -- act on elementary particles, atoms, waves and molecules in such a way as to organise in self-replicating organisms. As already discussed, you will need to explain how DNA came about using only the known laws of physics. And if you can do that, you should be nominated for a Nobel Prize for solving the problem of the Origin of Life given that the transition from non-life to life has never been observed experimentally. All we currently have are hypotheses and nothing more. That being the case, it would seem advisable to stop confusing hypotheses for established facts, even when they provide an explanatory framework which is the job of any hypothesis, including that of God breathing Life into a pile of clay (which I do not support).
Meanwhile, Earth remains the only place in the universe known to harbour life which makes it pretty special in my understanding. That being the case, it would seem equally advisable to stop pretending that Life is an inevitable common mechanical by-product of the laws of physics and start treating it with the respect it deserves.
We have missed the possibility that the laws of physics can evolve, just as how life evolved. The general way of things has been "order emerging from chaos", I don't see why that could not also be true in how a universe developed itself out of nothingness. It could flail blindly and settle upon self reproducing patterns, what is needed to sustain matter then is obviously also a universe that can produce life.
"[The] universe developed itself out of nothingness." Pls re-read that sentence. 😅
another version of "the universe popped into existence", only worse
he is just saying it can't be true because he doesn't believe it....
He literally said that it could be true.
Oh so he has no position on the issue lol @@damienschwass9354
Thinking that life needs to be carbon based is putting us again in the center of the universe
Another observation about scientists like this one. They seem to have an active disdain for any opinions other than their own. His explaination is the only one worth considering.
… and you take this from where?
I suggest you actually watch the video and listen to what he says, because you are factually incorrect. He explicitly says several of the other options might be correct.
@@simonhibbs887Each one a supposition on his part. None ultimately provable.
@@ronhudson3730 He didn’t claim they are provable. He’s summarising the various theories put forward by physicists and philosophers. Do you have a theory not covered by his summary of the subject?
It feels that way and that is because they've already considered your explanation (I assume you're a theist) and it doesn't have sufficient reason aka has been debunked and so you feel like he's patronising your belief as not worth it and you don't like that. 0:02 0:02
For those curious about fine tuning and this subject , I highly recommended the book "The Purpose-Guided Universe: Believing in Einstein, Darwin, and God" by Bernard Haisch.
In it, Dr. Bernard Haisch contends that there is a purpose and an underlying intelligence behind the Universe, one that is consistent with modern science, especially the Big Bang and evolution. It is based on recent discoveries that there are numerous coincidences and fine-tunings of the laws of nature that seem extraordinarily unlikely.
Thanks for the book rec 💫📚
This is simply obviously true to anyone not brainwashed by materialism.
And I speak from experience, as this was me in my younger years.
it is quite arrogant and even a little bit narcissistic to think that:
you know the truth and, what you think is the truth, when it is as of yet, an untestable hypothesis.
and everything body else is wrong, and brainwashed.even those who are much smarter than you.
instead of simply admitting that you dont know for sure and you just "believe" it.
and you are under the assumption that you or people develope to be wiser as they older, always, you think you know better now than you were younger, specifically on this matter.
anti earther and anti vax were once something else as a not so accurate example.
Do I know that you are 100% wrong? no.
do I know for sure what the ultimate source of the existence of our universe is? no.
do I have an idea? maybe.
is that the ultimate truth? I don't know.
What if, we are a simulation of an entity that lives in a universe that is fine tuned for themselves ? so someone creted them as well ? or a mix of the 4 options?
Elsewhere Sean claimed fine tuning is rubbish, how can he change his stand claiming it to seem designed, what is wrong with his argument?
He’s not saying it’s rubbish, he’s saying we have no reason to assume it is true given the many other possibilities.
So, he is saying that other possibilities was not to have the purpose of fine tuning was not to create him, perhaps the purpose was to create a cow.@@simonhibbs887
Actually there's the fifth alternative which is, oddly enough, the right one:
What do we consider now? Life doesn't necessarily need to be carbon based it may be e.g. silicone based. Hence the "fine tuning" argument may have an endless number of solutions.
But you both seem stuck on a god/intelligent design argument which simply doesn't rate consideration.
Here's a very simple observation simplified but of course can easily be expanded: Intelligently designed = requires a plan = plans are made for replication by others = others can replicate the plan = the intelligent designer can be copied and therefore cannot be omnipotent = cannot be a god = the universe could not be a product of intelligent design.
Let me simply high light a god versus intelligent design: I walk down a beach. I find a watch. I open the watch and inside it is complex. I conclude this had an intelligent designer (theist).
I walk a further 100 meters and find another watch. I open the watch and inside it is totally empty. The watch is showing the exact time and ticking away quietly. Conclusion: This was made by something supernatural. COMPLEXITY DISPROVES GODS.
Which proves a god: A universe running perfectly with no laws (apparently spoken into existence) or a universe with laws that cannot be broken?
Now the fifth and correct option:
It is believed we have a viable theory which can explain a universe from nothing (out of time) e.g. Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe From Nothing".
Here's what I think is the obvious and logical answer to our universe. "Out of time" lasts for eternity. So, a Big Bang naturally occurs from nothing and none of the required laws required to create one of the many possible universes occur with it. It collapse back to nothing. In the infinite "no time", that can occur an infinite number of times until INEVITABLY a stable universe occurs. No intelligent Design or God required.
Sean just killed the Fine Tuning Argument
Nope
@@oscar1748 He did give valid reasons to question it
@@oscar1748great argument you made
You really cannot be serious. He begins by saying the anthropic argument "is too cheep and easy" then gives 1/ design. 2/ Its just like that. 3/ Its just like that. 4/ The cheep and easy argument he said he wasn't going to use and is blown away by a Boltzmann brain.
He added nothing to the rebuttal. We've heard this before. Laws of Nature to be complete and non-crashing are inherently "tuned" (aka proofed). Otherwise laws of nature would non-halt and the universe would crash. Also low Kolmogorov complex laws (like ours) show signs of compression.
(5:07) *RLK: **_"Is there no possibility that there is a different alternative?"_* ... And of course there is. Carroll's 5th alternative (no fine-tuning) is basically accepting the status-quo, but that doesn't really answer any questions. The *5th Alternative* that nobody seems to want to consider is that there is a minimal amount of intelligence woven into the fabric of "Existence," and that intelligence has been *evolving* right along with everything else that exists.
... *Intelligence in - intelligence out.* It's the only explanation that remains consistent from start to finish.
It's not God, it's not chance, it's not _"we got lucky"_ and it's certainly not an infinite Multiverse. After 13.8 billion years of evolution, a *minimal amount of intelligence* (a single bit) has increased in complexity to the point that self-aware humans now exist.
(6:10) And I find it humorous that Carroll pleads for "humility" all the while supporting the existence of an infinite Multiverse. Yah, let's discuss the appearance of universal fine tuning, and then take the most advanced form of intelligence in the known universe (self-aware human intelligence) and act like that's totally irrelevant.
Key word there being “known” universe - a point which Dr. Carroll also makes in this video.
@@wmpx34 *"Key word there being “known” universe - a point which Dr. Carroll also makes in this video."*
... Anything beyond what is known is speculation.
So what's the 5th alternative, if it's not designed, fine tuned, chance, multiverse, etc?
@@blizzforte284 *"So what's the 5th alternative, if it's not designed, fine tuned, chance, multiverse, etc?"*
... From my opening comment: _"The 5th Alternative that nobody seems to want to consider is that there is a minimal amount of intelligence woven into the fabric of "Existence," and that intelligence has been evolving right along with everything else that exists."_
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Panpsychism? Then questions arises, what is this intelligence, why does it exist, where did it come from, what's its purpose?
There was a time when wheel makers probably thought the same about the circumferences of their wheels, until people understood pi better.
All the while, they were "fine tuning" the wheel
We’re here because we’re here because we’re here because we’re here because……..
Anyone using the fine-tuning argument to shoehorn his magic creation story in should demonstrate, that the universe could never exist with a different set of those parameters or even over a whole span of parameters. Can those believers show evidence, that a different universe could not exist with different constants?
Same old tactics, trying to shift burden of proof etc ... tired 😴
Sean Carroll, the last of the "pretty boys" of materialism.
Prove materialism is false then make yourself pretty for your Nobel award ceremony
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y *"Prove materialism is false then make yourself pretty for your Nobel award ceremony"*
... Prove there is no core intelligence embedded into the fabric of "Existence," and you'll be just as pretty for _your_ Nobel Prize.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Learn how the burden of proof works
You obviously feel the need to attack him because you fear he's correct. Sad.
@@popvinnik materialists are the only ones who will never know, if right, that they were right...
I believe the universe itself is conscious
Every piece individually or as a whole?
@@theotormon the universe is the big conscious we r the small conscious
Wait... He says the argument of, the universe being made for us is not acceptable, but, at the same time he says, it might be true... What is he saying? It seems to me he's saying that he have no evidence to disprove the idea of a universe that is made in order for us to exist, wich would make the universe not about us precisly, but about the creator. This is just bad philosophy... Sorry forvmy english, in spanish i sound much more intelligent 😅
I view fine tuning as coincidental or a byproduct of physical laws.
It may seem to be fine tuned because it is-
Prove the fine tuner exists.
@@ricomajestic Fine tuning is a fact, since that’s the case the evidence for a “fine tuner” is far greater than the evidence that there isn’t one. Right now the preponderance of evidence is enough to get the fine tuner convicted in court. There is no evidence that a fine tuner doesn’t exist.
There are deeper laws
How do you know this?
@@BenjaminGoose I have them partially
@@jason4130 open page
I can listen to Sean talk about anything
Fine tuned or designed it really doesn't matter because we are here and it's miraculous regardless. There is order in the Universe and that's miraculous.
It matters because fine tuning could be a signpost to an even bigger truth or miracle, the existence of God or rather the truth of the Bible.
@@kofidan9128 And if I believe that God is Nature or the Universe like Einstein did and don't believe in the Bible, then what?
@@Resmith18SR then you're lost
@@kofidan9128 I had a feeling you were going to say something idiotic like that.
@@Resmith18SR I thought you'd be smart enough to demand proof instead
And maybe if you're Nietzsche you could say that, if the laws of physics, as they are, seems designed, its because we put too much of our humanity in our discovery work. So much so that, by looking at this physical system that we theorized, we can only see ourselves and if you're a theist and its been built in your brain that god created us in its own image, then its not a big stretch to say that what we see in this system is in fact god.
I think answers were to the point. Completely downplayed fine tuned model because it is kind of stupid to begin with.
What do you mean? Most scientists believe that the universe is fine-tuned. The debate is on what may have caused it to be fine-tuned.
@@SolemnPhilosopher “fine-tuned” in what context. Sean was clear in saying that term fined tuned for x is stupid argument is because no one can begin to prove that x won’t happen if it wasn’t fine tuned.
@@SurajAdhikari fine tuned because the universe aim to create complexity and since the universe is complex then the universe is fine tuned to his purpose.
And ur point is stupid to begin with. You don't even seem to know fine tuning is an actual scientific discovery made in 1961 and not just an opinion. And why should we expect an atheist to speak honestly about something that goes against his atheism?
Information is emergent. It is not fundamental. You can’t have information BEFORE the matter it represents….as some idiots claim.
Information is emergent because it's medium dependent. Consciousness is fundamental and does precede what you call information. Information infers cognition and all of it's attendant functions such as memory, perception and sensation. These things are not the same as "consciousness" and your fundamental error is in equating the "experience" of consciousness as being tantamount and co-identical with consciousness when in fact they are two distinctly separate things.
Before calling people idiots you should rethink your position.
@@michaelmckinney7240 I liked your comment so you wouldn’t miss my reply. I said information IS emergent and I never mentioned consciousness. But since you brought it up, consciousness is NOT fundamental. Have you ever seen a conscious person without a brain? Probably not, because you need a brain to have consciousness. Therefore, consciousness is reducible. No brain = no consciousness.
Memory, binding, and sensory perception (experience) comprise consciousness. (I notice you excluded experience from your list to set up your argument; it’s obvious). But your circular logic is flawed. Sensory perception/sensation IS experience. Give one example of an experience outside of sensory perception.
To claim consciousness is fundamental would require proof, not pseudo science and metaphysics. Please cite an experiment that proves consciousness exists independently of the physical brain. Also, list an example of a consciousness person without a brain.
@@dr_shrinkerThank you for your engaging reply.
You said;
"consciousness is NOT fundamental. Have you ever seen a conscious person without a brain? Probably not, because you need a brain to have consciousness. Therefore, consciousness is reducible. No brain = no consciousness."
Despite what many empiricists adamantly deny, "consciousness" is a fundamental property of the universe. When you say;
"To claim consciousness is fundamental would require proof,"
but as you likely know this is not the way science works. Science in nearly every instance doesn't set out to prove or disprove anything. It deals with evidence and probability and its conclusions are always tentative and subject to revision.
So where's the evidence, not the "proof" that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe?
How does one explain the emergence of evolved complexity we see instantiated throughout the cosmos? How is it that a singularity of pure energy explodes into a universe of mostly hydrogen atoms that eventually differentiates into the complex array of elements found on the periodic table? A physicist would answer by describing the process strictly in terms of matter combining with other matter, but this tells us nothing about what drives this process or why it takes place.
Something is driving a universal tendency for matter to combine with itself in order to produce novel and highly evolved structures including animate life. If you place two heart cells on a microscope slide and observe them they beat for a time until they expire. If you have them touch, one delays it's beat in order to start again in sync with the other. How does this happen without a supervening agent of coordination initiating an exchange of "information" taking place? The skeptic would say "Oh that's just chemistry." This is not an answer. It's a dismissive oversimplification that tells us nothing.
If you were to buy your daughter a picture puzzle and emptied the contents on the living room floor and then saw the puzzle flawlessly self assemble without the help of hands, and with no mistakes, you'd likely be astonished. This is "exactly" not similar to, but exactly what the universe has done, does, and will continue to do at every level of organization from its inception.
The bizarre phenomenon of the double slit experiment is strongly hinting at the possibility of "consciousness" residing, albeit at a highly attenuated level, in and through the sub atomic realm of matter and energy. Before the skeptic jumps out of his shoes in rebuttal to this possibility, he needs to first acknowledge the strange and as yet inexplicable effect of why the behavior of matter is changed solely by the conscious observation of that matter and as yet no human being can explain this oft repeated result.
If "universal consciousness" is a reality and a fundamental property of the cosmos it fully explains this curious riddle. Could it be that one level of localized "consciousness" namely our own is interacting with another form of localized "residual consciousness" inherent in all matter in sympathetic resonance? If "consciousness" is universal then it must be at least faintly detectable in matter itself and the well documented "observer effect" is completely consonant with this assertion.
You also say;
"Give one example of conscious experience outside of sensory perception."
This is not difficult. Dreams and hallucinations occur frequently and have no external sensory input.
You also say;
"Have you ever seen a conscious person with out a brain[?]"
This question springs from a fundamental error that more and more neuroscientists are recognizing. The human brain is not the source and ultimate origination of "consciousness." Our brains give us only the capacity to "experience" consciousness via cognition and its attendant mental operations. The manipulation of information such as memory, thought and sensation does not comprise consciousness. These things take place within and are wholly subject to the much larger backdrop of universal consciousness that in my opinion precedes both the human brain and the physical universe.
This is a theological statement and this is the core question that animates the question of the origination of consciousness. If one accepts the reality of universal consciousness then it directly infers a transcendent source and this leads to the very real possibility of a supreme being as the source of all existent reality and this in turn is anathema for all skeptics. However, all skeptics know they need only keep shouting "no, no, no" without any plausible rationale or alternative explanations for the convincing evidence that "consciousness" is indeed a fundamental property of the universe.
@@michaelmckinney7240 you said.” Science in nearly every instance doesn't set out to prove or disprove anything.” -😅 that’s the entire purpose of science. Disproven theories and formulas are discarded. Proven theories are axioms. It is proven gravity exists. It is disproven that the brain is made of Jello pudding.
you asked, " How does one explain the emergence of evolved complexity we see instantiated throughout the cosmos?"
-- complex relative to what? We call ourselves complex, but that is only because we don't know how complex evolution can get. To a rock, a waterfall seems complex. Random processes sift through the ebb and flow of successful change and eliminates unsuccessful things. Give an army of ants a single function and place them in a confined area and they can create a complex hive which emerges from simple instructions. I don't think evolved complexity is so unique when you can see examples of patterns and complexity emerge from non-sentient things.
You said "Something is driving a universal tendency for matter to combine with itself in order to produce novel and highly evolved structures including animate life."
-- again, highly evolved relative to what? I don't think the universe is driving anything. I feel the universe allows for complex emergence, but could function just as well without humans and life. Also, in the grand scheme of things, we might just be as intelligent and evolved as a piece of dirt, compared to the universal standard. No one can say what emergent properties the universe can produce from basic molecules. I mean, the brain is made of the same chemicals as stardust. Yet, random processes have created the brain and consciousness.
You said " If you were to buy your daughter a picture puzzle and emptied the contents on the living room floor and then saw the puzzle flawlessly self assemble without the help of hands, and with no mistakes, you'd likely be astonished."
-- I would be astonished but I would never doubt it could happen. In an infinite universe, ALL possibilities exist and if you drop a glass, all the broken pieces could land in a perfect assemblage of the glass and take the shape of the glass before it shattered; by purely random processes. This is a logical certainty where infinite space-time is concerned.
You said, "The bizarre phenomenon of the double slit experiment is strongly hinting at the possibility of "consciousness" residing, albeit at a highly attenuated level, in and through the sub atomic realm of matter and energy. Before the skeptic jumps out of his shoes in rebuttal to this possibility, he needs to first acknowledge the strange and as yet inexplicable effect of why the behavior of matter is changed solely by the conscious observation of that matter and as yet no human being can explain this oft repeated result."
-- The suggestion that conscious observation affects the double slit has been debunked long ago. There were no conscious observers who live inside stars to create the solar flares, nor were there observers for the universe for the first 10 billion years. The observer effect is based on "how" the observation is made, not by "who" made the observation. Conscious observation has nothing to do with it. It is the manner by which the measuring detector interacts with the wave, breaking superposition, that creates the observer effect. I can hold my thumbs together and look at sunlight coming through the mgniblinds, and see an interference pattern. Interference patterns exist and can be seen by anyone without all the fancy equipment.
You said, ""Give one example of conscious experience outside of sensory perception."
This is not difficult. Dreams and hallucinations occur frequently and have no external sensory input.
-- EEGs and Neuroscience show us dreams are residual stimulation and external stimulation we experience as we sleep. The stimulation is interpreted as best as it can, because the frontal lobes are asleep and the frontal lobes cannot decipher the brains electrochemical signals. That's why dreams don't not make sense in most scenarios. Someone may dream they are standing in a waterfall because they have a strong urge to pee, or dream they are being run over by a steamroller because their roommate is playing Metallica on full volume. etc. Neurologist have done thousands of sleep studies and clocked a person's EEG as they sleep while being exposed to various methods of stimulation.
you said " "Have you ever seen a conscious person with out a brain[?]"
This question springs from a fundamental error that more and more neuroscientists are recognizing. The human brain is not the source and ultimate origination of "consciousness."
-- you never answered the question. Have you ever seen a conscious person without a brain?
You said, "The human brain is not the source and ultimate origination of "consciousness." Our brains give us only the capacity to "experience" consciousness via cognition and its attendant mental operations. The manipulation of information such as memory, thought and sensation does not comprise consciousness."
-- consciousness is precisely thought. Thoughts are memory, sensory awareness, binding. Thoughts are physical and measurable.
The thing you call thought is an electrochemical signal that creates patterns in the brain. These patterns are the actual things they represent. If a banana creates a pattern we call "banana" and the memory of a "banana" creates the exact same pattern, it is the pattern that is more real than the actual banana. It is our "touch, smell, taste, feel, and sight" of a banana that is the ACTUAL banana. The external, subjective, banana is secondary. We don't need to look inside a persons brain and see a literal banana to say the brain makes the experience of a banana. The electrochemical IS the banana to us, as are all other electrochemical signals; either in real time experience or in memory.
Memory of a thing has the same, or close to the same, electrochemical signature as the actual sensory experience of the thing. Often times, the electrochemical signal of a memory might alter and this also alters our recollection of an event...false memory.
As I mentioned before, neuroscientist have recorded a person's brain waves and replayed those brain waves back for others to experience. In less than a decade, scientists will be able to record with higher fidelity, and a person can record their thoughts to share them of zip files just like an MP3. Search "Pink Floyd and brain waves. " I mentioned this before, and I doubt you bothered to look it up. You should do so, it is interesting.
There are numerous examples I could tell you about, but the easiest way to demonstrate consciousness is the product of the physical brain is this....eat some shrooms and watch how your consciousness is altered by physical processes.
@@dr_shrinkeryeah, that's a great question and point to raise when someone just makes claims about consciousness. I would like to know how this person can prove and demonstrate their claim.
Fine tuning is designed
Exploring the grand purpose of the universe, especially from a theological standpoint, offers a fascinating perspective. Theologically speaking, the creation of intelligent life could be seen as the ultimate goal of the universe's existence. This viewpoint suggests that through thousands of years of human history - marked by suffering, wars, deaths, and the toils of life - there has been a steady evolution toward developing and deepening self-awareness among intelligent beings.
From this perspective, the challenges and trials faced by humanity are not mere coincidences but integral steps in the evolution of consciousness. These experiences, as harsh and tragic as they may be, are believed to contribute to a greater understanding and connection with the divine. The culmination of this evolutionary journey is envisioned as a unification with God, where all intelligent beings live in an enlightened existence, fully aware, understanding the concept of right and wrong, morality and ethic and the consequences of sin.
In this context, the biblical story of Adam and Eve takes on deeper meaning. Seen through this lens, their life in paradise and subsequent fall can be understood not as a tale of inherent wrongdoing, but as an allegory for the innocence and naivety akin to that of children. Just as children might not grasp the dangers of playing with fire, Adam and Eve lacked the experiential knowledge to foresee the outcomes of their choices. Their expulsion from paradise thus serves as a metaphor for humanity's journey towards wisdom and maturity. By facing life's trials on Earth, humans are given the opportunity to grow, learn, and evolve, gaining the knowledge and understanding necessary for eventual spiritual reunification with the divine.
In this theological framework, intelligent life can be seen as God's solution to the profound challenge of creating beings independent from Himself, endowed with free will. This freedom allows them to act and live freely, existing alongside the divine. From this perspective, our lives can be likened to a sophisticated programming language, designed to 'program' humanity through the hardships, knowledge and experiences accumulated over millennia. Through thousands of years marked by suffering, wars, and deaths, but also by love and joy, this 'programming' gradually instills a deeper understanding of good and evil, right and wrong.
Each generation contributes to this evolving 'code', learning from the past and adding new dimensions of wisdom and understanding. The trials and tribulations of life, as well as its moments of happiness and love, serve as crucial 'instructions', guiding humanity towards a state where it can live in harmony with God. This process is not just about punishment or reward; it's about growth, learning, and the evolution of consciousness. The ultimate goal is for humanity to reach a level of spiritual maturity where it can comprehend and embrace the principles. Just as a programmer perfects a code, the experiences of life refine the human spirit, preparing it for a harmonious existence with God.
This theory intertwines spirituality with the evolution of the cosmos, suggesting that the universe's vastness and complexity are part of a divine plan. It proposes that life, particularly intelligent life, is not an accidental byproduct but a central piece in the cosmic puzzle. The ultimate goal, then, is not merely survival or reproduction but spiritual enlightenment and unity with the divine.
This view offers a hopeful and profound interpretation of the universe's purpose, inviting us to consider our place in a much larger, spiritually interconnected cosmos. It's a reminder that our struggles and achievements may be part of a greater plan, leading towards a higher state of being and understanding.
in a nutshell God created this realm so he could have some friends..... Im cool with that ;)
This is an incredibly thoughtful, and complete statement… It’s consistent with much of my own thinking about the nature of life the universe and everything
Im cool with that ;)@@retoker
Tldc
@@user-gk9lg5sp4yThat's the problem with dogmas. They are, mostly, extremely boring.
I get that scientists want to formalize creation and become masters of the universe. But I have an experiment for you, try to stop yourself from being born. Can't do it can you. You are evidence that if there's a chance you will exist...you will exist. This should tell us something about the nature of reality. I can't mathematically describe forever. No one can. But here you are, despite our ability to make a functional model that describes you in context of everything. Either we are spawned by the infinite, or we are spawned by just the right amount finite stuff, but whatever it is, if you are reading this, the odds of you existing are pretty good, everytime there is a universe like ours. It's not fined tuned, it's inevitable. The laws of physics don't have to be the way they are, there are other physics possible...but not here. In fact our laws of physics are probably dependent on completely different laws beyond the edge of time, in some quantum entangled way, such that our actions here affect the reality of some physically removed dimension of existence. Maybe encoded in quantum interactions in 2d on the surface of a gargantuan black hole...who knows?
The takeaway seems to be science does not know the true nature of existence, much less conscious existence!
So it's Ptolemy and Copernicus. The Ptolemaic principle vs. the Capernican principle.
Ontological whipsaw?! Metaphysics might as well be called psuedophysics. In all cases when a metaphysical claim has been embraced, it led to religion and warmurder. Fine tuning…how are you certain that we were tuned to the right pitch? Is there a right pitch? Is there a pitch? I somehow became older despite a serious lack of effort. With the unknowable remainder of my time I am going ro
Part 1
Such an elementary argument. Every honest scientist or mathematician should recognize and admit that scalar quantities existed previous to any universe. Absolute zero is such a scalar number. With motionless atomic components (no motion=no heat) it absolutely had to exist. . . or did it? And of course, there's the 'vacuum' which implies the existence of a quantum vacuum energy. Vacuum fluctuations, anyone? How about 'gravity', though many scientists insist that gravity requires mass and matter. The only question that must be answered in every case is this: Is the probability greater than zero . . . Yes or No?
No problem . . . I postulate that information must preexist any version of a universe! And it's possible that some information only applies to the universe it supports based on the raw physics of that universe. For instance, in OUR universe the fact that 1+1=2 is simple information that would be true and existed long before the first life form held up two digits on this or any other planet. (Unless, of course you believe in the a Trinity, in which case you think 1+1+1 =1) I surmise that Pi was hanging around in eternity for billions of years before anyone drew the first circle in the dirt. And then later when they calculated it's circumference . . . Pi was just sitting there waiting for them. Because, it preexisted all spheres, real . . or unreal. Pi would remain true regardless of which universe it may be in. It is information and INFORMATION CONTAINS MASS! Of course, we know and can verify that mass contains energy (which cannot be destroyed as proven by the Hawking Radiation Paradox.)
Consider the Pythagorean Theorem just patiently waiting in the corner of eternity . . . in case someone ever needed it. Same with Einstein's E=MC2. Albert didn't invent it . . . he merely 'revealed' it to the world so Oppenheimer could verify it into a reality. And this is true of the all irrefutable information 'data' contained in our universe with its two dozen or so Cosmological Constants, Newtonian physics, and Leibniz's calculus, including every differential or integrated equation that has ever made it from concept to a true measurement . . . not to mention all equations that have yet to make it into a mathematician's head thus far.
I live in a TRS 80 simulation. 🤯
The old trash 80 huh. Are you stuck on the Oregon trail?
@tomjackson7755 my wagon broke down Years ago.
@@irri4662 Watch out for that simulated cholera. LOL
That's a BASIC life.
Many thanks for this invocation. So many wonderful hours learning BASIC on the Model 1. The other replies are priceless.
ja a little bit out-dated since the latest data coming in from the JWST suggest strongly it wasnt fine-tuned in the beginning...
so what "fine tuned" it ? a kind of intelligence only because without it is pure determinism, so was fine tuned from the very beginning.
I have an interest in astronomy and watch many videos related to JWST. I don't recall hearing anything related to fine-tuning and JWST. Do you have an article or video about this? I can't seem to find anything via searches.
Not true. Fine tuning has to do with the fundamental laws of nature, and JWST hasn't really said anything one way or another on that front.
I'm agnostic on fine tuning, but it's still a very real possibility
@@beam5655 *"I'm agnostic on fine tuning, but it's still a very real possibility"*
... Yah, the JWST hasn't debunked nor proven anything so far. All it's done is provide some pretty pictures of the universe.
@@SolemnPhilosopherThe JWST provided evidence of galaxy formation earlier than we were expecting from our theories about galaxy formation, which were highly speculative anyway. The critics interpreted this as evidence for galaxies that were ‘too old’ to fit with the Big Bang model, where in fact they were too old to exist under the old galaxy formation models. Bear in mind until JWST we didn’t actually have observations of galaxy formation to base the models on. The “JwST disproves big bang” stuff is nonsense.
Have you guys seen Cosmin?
"The universe is not fine-tuned, that is just speculation. Here are my speculations on why the universe is that way, and please note; I am speculating here..."
😂