Is God in Physics? Fine Tuning Scrutinized
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 มิ.ย. 2020
- Signup for your FREE TRIAL to The GREAT COURSES PLUS here: ow.ly/5KMw30qK17T . Until 350 years ago, there was a distinction between what people saw on earth and what they saw in the sky. There did not seem to be any connection.
Then Isaac Newton in 1687 showed that planets move due to the same forces we experience here on earth. If things could be explained with mathematics, to many people this called into question the need for a God.
But in the late 20th century, arguments for God were resurrected. The standard model of particle physics and general relativity is accurate. But there are constants in these equations that do not have an explanation. They have to be measured. Many of them seem to be very fine tuned.
Scientists point out for example, the mass of a neutrino is 2X10^-37kg. It has been shown that if this mass was off by just one decimal point, life would not exist because if the mass was too high, the additional gravity would cause the universe to collapse. If the mass was too low, galaxies could not form because the universe would have expanded too fast.
On closer examination, it has some problems. The argument exaggerates the idea of fine tuning by using misleading units of measurement, to make fine tuning seem much more unlikely than it may be. The mass of neutrinos is expressed in Kg. Using kilograms to measure something this small is the equivalent of measuring a person’s height in light years. A better measurement for the neutrino would be electron volts or picograms.
Another point is that most of the constants could not really be any arbitrary number. They are going to hover around some value close to what they actually are. The value of the mass of a neutrino could not be the mass of a bowling ball. Such massive particles with the property of a neutrino could not have been created during the Big Bang.
The fine tuning argument also says that the universe must be fine tuned to have exactly the properties that it has. The problem with this statement is that it presumes a narrow definition of life based on on anthropic view of the of the kind that we see on earth. Even if a universe with different constants could not support life as we know it, it does not mean that the laws we have are the only ones conducive to life.
For example, if the strength of electromagnetism was slightly larger or smaller, it would mean that atoms would be slightly smaller or larger, respectively. Atoms could probably still form. Life could probably still exist, but it would just be different.
Most scientists believe that in order to have life in any universe, complex chemistry is necessary because life needs complex bio chemicals. In order to have this kind of chemistry, larger atoms such as carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and iron are required. This means that stars have to live for at least a billion years so that these elements can be forged inside them.
In a 1983 paper, Press and Lightman showed that much of the gross properties of the universe can be estimated from the values of just four fundamental constants - the strengths of the electromagnetic and strong nuclear interactions, and the masses of the electron and proton.
Physicist Victor Stenger did a study in 2000 where he varied these 4 constants to see what the potential universes would look like. He found was that over half the universes would have stars that live at least a billion years.
Another theory says that the constants we have are due to the probability inherent in the laws of quantum mechanics. At the big bang, cosmologists believe that the laws of quantum mechanics became applicable. If this is true, then the wave equation of the universe decoherred or collapsed randomly in such a way that the constants were set from the very beginning. And each universe may have had different initial conditions leading to different sets of constants. If enough universes form, you’re bound to get one with life like ours.
No known principle rules out the existence of multiple universes. In fact, we would need to hypothesize a new principle in physics to rule out all but a single universe.
What looks like fine tuning may really be due to our ignorance of the underlying mathematics that would explain these constants. The sun is not fine tuned for our eyes. Our eyes are fine tuned for the sun. Similarly, the universe is not fine-tuned for humanity. Humanity is fine-tuned to the universe.
#finetuningargument
#doesgodexist
You could argue that if God is not in the constants, then he must be in the laws of quantum mechanics and general relativity. After all, if the universe follows fundamental laws, there must be a law giver. But the problem with this argument is that you are replacing something like the laws of physics that may be eternal, with something else that is eternal but more complicated - God.
God may or may not exist. But he probably would not emerge from the constants of the universe. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qs5zdBqLn_8/mqdefault.jpg)
![[4K] TREASURE(트레저) “KING KONG” Band LIVE Concert 킹콩은 라이브를 찢어🦍 [it’s KPOP LIVE 잇츠라이브]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/p8bLLOxPDD8/mqdefault.jpg)
Funny how whenever the topic is about Newton they always show a falling apple
Yeah, a story and image of the apple falling on Newton's head was spread around by his niece. Newton himself said, however, that an apple did fall near his feet which made him think about the forces that caused the apple to fall. The rest is history.
@@ArvinAsh i knew that and it's just confirm , and how much people stupidly joke the greatest isaac Newton.
Mmm.... Apples.....
@@ArvinAsh Is that the same as George Washington saying that he can not tell a lie. That he did cut down the apple tree?
@@tarkin1980apa I like apples falling or not they still give of dark radiation.
God or no god, our very existence is incredible and worthy of praise and gratitude
@@ArvinAsh i think you misread hes comment lol.. But your reply does make sense lose to the comment
Arvin Ash free will
@@ArvinAsh I don't have all the answers sir, nor do i claim to, but to think that God is indifferent towards us is reckless, and to think that all the suffering in this world is random and needless is short-sighted... Our existence is absolutely worthy of praise. From a biblical viewpoint, the suffering in this world isn't random, we caused it. Humanity caused the entire world to fall, and even completely "natural" things like cancer are a result of our own evil. This isn't to say that God punishes people by inflicting disease on them when they've misbehaved (though in some cases He can, and does, because He's God), but rather they come as a natural consequence of Humanity wanting to do things our own way. Suffering also isn't needless in any sense of the word. You should look within yourself, and examine where your personal sufferings have gotten you in life. Everyone grows, matures, from experiences both good and bad. And to your first question, we were created for the purpose of imitating and glorifying God. That's the essence of what it means to be created in His image. I hope this comment reaches you in good spirits and with an open heart. :)
@@ArvinAsh, that "infinite" as well as "omnipotent" and "caretaker" need to be understood in a proper way.
God creates a being with free will and consciousness "in the image and likeness of their own". Of course the idea here is that God loves themselves and thus the created being.
So, why to be grateful? To be able to be grateful to you, for example, for creating this video, for sharing and communicating with us.
I am grateful to you, and this derives from being grateful for the universe, the life, the consciousness and the free will including the suffering.
That's, for me, the basic belief in the objective truth - and God.
Why do people love to believe in God and to be grateful? Because they love themselves, the life and the universe. Gratefulness makes happy.
@@ArvinAsh He loves you, that's why. It isn't as if God idly stands by while we suffer. Jesus suffered for us for many reasons.
1) To show His love
2) To show his righteousness
3) To expiate sin
4) To propitiate God's justice (as lawgiver, God needs to uphold morality)
5) To influence us to achieve moral growth
You didn't disable comments on this video? You're a brave man, Arvin.
lol. I would never deny people the opportunity to express their strong opinions on a subject matter like this. Reading them is the best part, don't you think?
@@ArvinAsh It can be entertaining at least.
@@ArvinAsh Yes, some of these comments really help me to see in different perspective and learn more.
Btw your channel's amazing !
@@ArvinAsh Probability to see your reply on this comment was 100%!
@@ArvinAsh my god. You're an international treasure. Much love from Peru.
I love his little tag line: "The answer is coming up right now." These videos are absolutely fascinating to me.
No. Its totally random. No sequences No formulas or preset measurements or molecular orders of chemicals. Just all random unrepetable orders.🤣🤣🤣(kidding)
It is sooooo rigid to a mili second n micro minutes. Just 1 min late of a sperm entering ovulation period the person wouldnt exist. If u were born 4 billion years ago u wouldnt exist. If u were born 4 billion years from now n sun about to die u wouldnt exist. Its sooooooo oddly specific. Too specific.too accurate.
N physics n chemistry n biology atcg or the crysper or cas-9 or whatever. They are specific. Hydrogen structure or helium-3 or 4 its soooo rigidly following an instructed form. Designed n instructed to stay the same n in order for billions of years. Can u imagine if physics were random??U wont arrive to e=mc2 or f=ma or whatever. Can u imagine if its like programmable matter?? But in rebellion?? Nothing is complying to instruction🙉🙉
If there was no god to design n instruct the elements n the periodic table n demand for their submission to not have free will or change as they like or identify as a different element!!!!.there wouldnt be scientists.
But just annoying lgbtq elements going.
"Hi! I'm m a hydrogen but i i identify as helium. Dont be hydrophobic okay!!! 🤣🤣🤣🙉😋
@@adrianaadnan7704 the problem of people who view stuff like you can be summarized by an example -
You think Oxygen and Atmospheric pressure is suited AS PER living organisms, but you'd never consider that organisms SUITED THEMSELVES to these conditions
@@thorny8013 Que Dr Ian Malcom "life uh, finds a way".
This video is actually really misleading...see why:th-cam.com/video/vi54OCH34pU/w-d-xo.html
Nice work, my friend. Not easy to treat this argument and avoid arguments/words/sentences that may be perceived as disrespectful by some. I think you succeeded.
I know what you mean. Much appreciated
@@ArvinAsh and by the way Arvin, in the end you say: I don't know if there is a God. Important distinction here: we may have our opinion/faith on this but we should all recognize the fact that "we don't know". Also, it seems to me that humans sometimes create theories far more "incredible" even compared to what the Bible says. Just because we are good at math, sometimes we wake up early in the morning and create "many worlds"... many more than even God would ever bother to consider... :-)
@@_Egon it was more a joke than an attempt to be rational, as the smile at the end should imply. Being human I have opinions and prejudices. There are many things that I know I don't know and probably many more that I don't know I don't know, as Rummy would say. At least in this particular world. But who knows, if there are many others...and I can't rule out the possibility, in one of those I might even believe in Barnum-Physics... :-)
@@chalcedonv6997 Here's another opinion friend.. When a Scientist acknowledges their inability to be DECISIVE on a matter, it reflects some of the greatest strengths of science in general.. ALL theories are subject to change with NEW evidence, and out of an abundance of humbleness theories are rarely called facts, even when they are, LIKE the " Theory " of evolution.. I'm not speaking for Arvin, but it's MY opinion that his inference to not EXCLUDE the possibility of God, came from that SAME humble place..Even if the chances were 1 in a quadrillion...Peace..
For such questions.. Best answer is "I/We don't know".
Fascinating. And exactly the information i was seeking. I particularly enjoy your non-confrontational, non-aggressive manner.
Much appreciated. Glad you enjoyed it!
Exactly. For me anyway, it gets old being ostracized and belittled for believing in God/a god(s)/intelligent design/etc (everyone here seems pretty respectful but it's not always that way)... No matter what you believe, there is a point where knowledge ends and faith begins - and I think it will always be that way. Science and atheism are both religions in their own right too or at least have religious/dogmatic elements. And like I said in my comment above, I don't think God and science are or have to be mutually exclusive. I fervently believe in both. When someone asks, "How do you get around these things in religious texts?" - Metaphor, analogies, life lessons, human inaccuracies, etc...
@@Blalack77 keep up your pursuit for accurate knowlege! Your opinions will change little by little over time. I fully grew out of god(s) when I was 20 or so.
I have faith you can do it too someday! Best wishes on your journey to liberate your mind stranger!
@@Blalack77 . Science and atheism religions?
Then non-stamp collection is a hobby too .
@@Blalack77 For some, it is hard to admit there is no God. But everything pointing in the same direction.
For years I've been watching physics videos by many renown physicist and cosmologists and I love them all, but no one explains things better than you. Thank you.
Wow, thanks!
This video is actually really misleading...see why:th-cam.com/video/vi54OCH34pU/w-d-xo.html
What if the constants in our Universe don't allow for the accidental emergence of humans?
Well explained and respectful to everyone's beliefs, hard to achieve. Congrats!
My personal position: I used to be an atheist, now I'm more an open-minded agnostic; the more we know about the Universe the more compelling seems the Fine-tuning to me, not only the constants of Nature but also the laws, the unification of the forces, the weird quantum reign fuzziness that against all chance allows the emergence of causality, life and consciousness to exist at macroscopic scales. If one of those factors were much different life would not be possible as we know it. Other kinds of 'life' maybe, but so complex to achieve also consciousness with other laws... The Multiverse Hypothesis tries to explain it by adding lots of universes with different laws and constants, but looks to me harder to trust than a God. Yes, there are many planets very different to Earth, those we can detect them actually; but a nearly infinity of other universes? Need clear evidences of another one at least, beyond mathematics doesn't forbid them.
So God exists? Although I think Fine-tuning has a point, the fact is I don't know. However if exists I don't think will have any resemblance to any Humanity's Gods at all. Maybe the whole Universe is God itself, some kind of Cosmic consciousness beyond our imagination. Then we would be a little part of that immensurable being, like cells are part of a human without their understanding. But who knows. The only fact we know is that we are here, and that alone is incredibly amazing and terrifying.
I appreciate the thought. But not everyone believes I am respectful to their beliefs - just read some of the comments.
@@ArvinAsh Well, full consensus is impossible, even in science, you know. More in sensitive topics like beliefs. But vast majority of opinions are favorable, so I think you don't have to worry. Keep up your good work.
The universe came with ability to finetune from the Big Bang. Everything, including every law of nature we know and don't know emerged over time from the Big Bang. Finetuning is also inherent in material and biology. The first simple cells had finetuning abilities to make stronger communities. Human brains have abilty to positive and negative tune. The studies are out there. A human body has great ability to fine tune without a known body brain. A safe bet is to say the God isn't one of ancient bad ideas. We need to understand the importance of finetuning in emergence and evolution to know how to maintain and build the human species to survive by thriving.
By God, you're a great communicator Arvin.
Thanks my friend. Much appreciated!
I love this stuff. Watch a lot a lot a lot of it. This is one of the best videos I have ever watched. On any subject. Great job Mr. Ash.
No. Its totally random. No sequences No formulas or preset measurements or molecular orders of chemicals. Just all random unrepetable orders.🤣🤣🤣(kidding)
It is sooooo rigid to a mili second n micro minutes. Just 1 min late of a sperm entering ovulation period the person wouldnt exist. If u were born 4 billion years ago u wouldnt exist. If u were born 4 billion years from now n sun about to die u wouldnt exist. Its sooooooo oddly specific. Too specific.too accurate.
N physics n chemistry n biology atcg or the crysper or cas-9 or whatever. They are specific. Hydrogen structure or helium-3 or 4 its soooo rigidly following an instructed form. Designed n instructed to stay the same n in order for billions of years. Can u imagine if physics were random??U wont arrive to e=mc2 or f=ma or whatever. Can u imagine if its like programmable matter?? But in rebellion?? Nothing is complying to instruction🙉🙉
If there was no god to design n instruct the elements n the periodic table n demand for their submission to not have free will or change as they like or identify as a different element!!!!.there wouldnt be scientists.
But just annoying lgbtq elements going.
"Hi! I'm m a hydrogen but i i identify as helium. Dont be hydrophobic okay!!! 🤣🤣🤣🙉😋
Surrender to the lawhunmahfuz simulation
I love your videos. You deserve as much recognition as big science channels like vsauce and kurgestagt. Always interesting to listen to and never avoid tough questions which nobody knows the answers to.
That's high praise. Thanks my friend.
Unlike Vsauce, Arvin seems much less biased and more factual. I feel sometimes like Vsauce may be paid to say some things. Just a hunch, I didn't do a detective research.
@@lev7509 lmao
No. Its totally random. No sequences No formulas or preset measurements or molecular orders of chemicals. Just all random unrepetable orders.🤣🤣🤣(kidding)
It is sooooo rigid to a mili second n micro minutes. Just 1 min late of a sperm entering ovulation period the person wouldnt exist. If u were born 4 billion years ago u wouldnt exist. If u were born 4 billion years from now n sun about to die u wouldnt exist. Its sooooooo oddly specific. Too specific.too accurate.
N physics n chemistry n biology atcg or the crysper or cas-9 or whatever. They are specific. Hydrogen structure or helium-3 or 4 its soooo rigidly following an instructed form. Designed n instructed to stay the same n in order for billions of years. Can u imagine if physics were random??U wont arrive to e=mc2 or f=ma or whatever. Can u imagine if its like programmable matter?? But in rebellion?? Nothing is complying to instruction🙉🙉
If there was no god to design n instruct the elements n the periodic table n demand for their submission to not have free will or change as they like or identify as a different element!!!!.there wouldnt be scientists.
But just annoying lgbtq elements going.
"Hi! I'm m a hydrogen but i i identify as helium. Dont be hydrophobic okay!!! 🤣🤣🤣🙉😋
Surrender to the lawhunmahfuz simulation
This channel is more informative with less theatrics. Keep it up👌
It’s like trying to take a photo of your own camera in a locked room with no mirrors.
We are intrinsically part of what we’re trying to investigate.
In GTA V you can take a selfie with the phone in a frame.
Use your belt buckle
@@hollister2320 how would that work?
red benada The metal part of your belt also reflects light, so you could technically take a photo of your own camera if you point it there:/
@@hollister2320 wouldn't that count as a mirror though?
OK but the real question from this video: what did the cat do to you?
Awesome video. Love how you can approach the cons and pros with such objectivity.
It's hard to swallow how a neutrino, which is such an "insignificant" and please watch the quotes (small mass and it barely interacts), particle, can be so important in the fine tuning of the universe engine. To me, it's not that the universe is perfect, rather more that we evolved and adapted to the universe's conditions. It's mind-blowing!
Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it!
I took your advice and watched and enjoyed this. I have been using The Great Courses for years and have about 50 courses in my digital library. I seek knowledge at every level every day. One thing I can say is that the more I learn the more I realize I don't know, in many cases nobody knows.
except people who don't really know
This video is actually really misleading...see why:th-cam.com/video/vi54OCH34pU/w-d-xo.html
I always love Arvin Ash's explanations- they're clear and well-organized. The point here about the scale flaw in many fine-tuning arguments is such a solid point. I wonder what he could bring to light on the myriad of constants used in fine-tuning arguments - the gravitational constant, fsc, and so forth.
So many times I've heard strong arguments one way or the other, seemingly flawless, until someone with another point of view can really drill in and illuminate shortcomings. That's why I find conversational presentations so helpful. I'd like to listen to a conversation between Arvin Ash and say, John Lennox, on this topic on "Unbelievable?" to really have all the angles covered and understand the strengths and weaknesses of the case presented here.
I always learn a lot from your videos, Arvin, and enjoy them very much. But,..... in this video, because you are a scientist, no doubt, I believe you are tipping the argument in one direction. The fine tuning argument is not the anthropic argument. It is about the the formation of basic matter that would be able to form more complex structures. There are about 26 measurements in play here, after all. One that was not mentioned, the cosmological constant, from my layman's understanding, is off by 120 orders of magnitude from theorist prediction when measured. It is such a tiny amount above 0 that any change, regardless of the size of the scale{Lebron explanation} is a total deal breaker for anything but an inert universe. I wish we had the technology to dig deeper but for now, I am a solid agnostic. After-all, when I hear the more detailed descriptions of the multiverse or many worlds theory, they make the intelligent prime mover argument seem just as reasonable as the ones that are described and totally not tested. Anyway, thanks for making the world a better place with your efforts to educate, you're great at it.
Valid points! Thank you.
I really think that you forgot the one of the main tuning problems.
How can the universe be launched with the extreme precision?
If the universe can not be launched with extreme precision but slow then the
effect of gravity could be collapse the universe into a big ball
of fire or a huge black hole, if the universe cannot be launched with
extreme precision but faster, then the universe can disintegrate.
For our universe to exist it have to have some accuracy of expansion
of one part in a trillion. It is very difficult to achieve and
maintain for so many millions of years without a real mechanism
to support it and maintain a mechanism like that is very impossible to come from
a Big Bang or fluctuations.
In addition, we have the problem very forgotten by the defenders of the models
of the Big bang and are How the dark matter could be placed so specifically for
when galaxies form it maintain homogeneity, if the universe comes from
a random event like fluctuations or Big Bang. None of these and some others
likes low entropy of initial of the universe could not be explained by the Big
Bang models, so for me it's just a good model if you really do not ask what you
have to ask and it's not that I am defending a creator, but we do not even know
how gravity is really generated. I think if we explain how the universe
generated gravity then we will know a lot about the real universe, not only
partials or incomplete theories.
For me, the big question is how there can be anything at all.
How can something arise from nothing? The origin of matter can be explained with the laws of quantum mechanics and the presence of energy, but how could that law be there and how could there be energy from nothing? Nothing is nothing, and nothing can come to exist out of nothing, yet we exist.
The reality is bizarre, it is crazy that something exists let alone a gigantic system of particles, life, beauty and mathematics in which the simplest living cell is even incredibly complex.
Whatever the truth of existence and reality, it is bizarre and actually impossible by the laws of physics that we know. To my knowledge the following holds true; How impossible the truth that we see, so possible the truth that we don't see.
(I'm not a native English speaker, I don't know if that last sentence makes sense in English, please let me know if not).
I listen to ALOT of videos on the subjects you cover Arvin, and everytime I listen to your videos, I learn a nuance that I had not heard before.
You're becoming a hero to me.
Thank you.
Much appreciated! Thanks for watching.
This video is actually really misleading...see why:th-cam.com/video/vi54OCH34pU/w-d-xo.html
I can’t wait to go to college and be like the only Christian getting a physics degree 😂
I got my PhD in physics and I'm catholic. Metaphysics and physics are different. Just enjoy them both!
I got an M.S, in Physics and I am a devout Christian. I have seen nothing in physics that proves or denies the existence of God. So ou are not alone. In fact most of the scientists in olden times were religious men.
@@wayneyadams Yup,even now plenty of christians in science,many scientist tend to be agnostic or atheist because universitiea have become inherently leftist since the late 19th centure.
@@wayneyadams Yeah there's not supposed to be proof in any kind of science, we're supposed to believe from the Bible not from physical proof
I doubt you are the only. Maybe the only or few in Gen Z or Y, but Gen X and Boomers tend to be christian.
In fact, I just got around to getting a book from Stephen Barr, a catholic and a physicist.
I also think cosmologists tend to be more religious and spiritual. So I think it varies.
Here’s a simpler way to explain the fine tuning problem: if the universe couldn’t support life, we wouldn’t be around to tell.
Nuff said.
DANKMANS yes and that’s the only way the universe can be observed to have life in it.
*An Overview of the Fine tuning argument*
For many, the regularity of the universe and the precision with which the universe exploded ( expands ) into being provides even more evidences for the existence of God. This evidence technically known as the Teleological argument, derives its name from the Greek word telos, which means "design." The Teleological argument goes like this:
1. Every design has a designer
2. The universe has high- complex design
3. Therefore, the universe has a designer
*The Anthropic Principle*
Scientists are finding the universe is like that watch ( anology of William Paley ), except even more precisely designed. These highly-precise and interdependent environmental conditions (called "anthropic constants") make up what is known as the "Anthropic Principle"-- a title for the mounting evidence that has many scientists believing the universe is extremely fine tuned (designed) to support human *_CONSCIOUSNESS_* on earth (Thats why some notorious atheists including Antony Flew later believed in God). Some Anthropic constants example include:
_birth date of the star-planetary system_
_if too early: quantity of heavy elements would be too low for large rocky planets to form_
_if too late: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; ratios of potassium-40, uranium-235, -238, and thorium-232 to iron would be too low for long-lived plate tectonics to be sustained on a rocky planet_
_flux of cosmic-ray protons (one way cloud droplets are seeded)_
_if too small: inadequate cloud formation in planet’s troposphere_
_if too large: too much cloud formation in planet’s troposphere_
_rotation period_
_if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great_
_if shorter: atmospheric jet streams would become too laminar and average wind speeds would increase too much_
_fine structure constant (a number, 0.0073, used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)_
_if larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses_
_if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields _
_if smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses_
_oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere_
_if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly_
_if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly_
_Jupiter’s mass_
_if greater: Earth’s orbit would become unstable; Jupiter’s presence would too radically disturb or prevent the formation of Earth_
_if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth_
For more evidence:
reasons.org/explore/blogs/tag/fine-tuning/page/2
reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/rtb-design-compendium-2009
*What are the chances?*
It's not there just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by chance. There are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an Intelligent Designer. Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, calculated the probability these and other constants would exist for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e, without divine design). To meet all conditions, there is 1 chance in 10^1038 (one chance in one with 1038 zeroes after it)-- essentially 0% chance.
According to probability theory, odds of less than 1 in 10^50 equals " zero probability" .
Check:reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth
It only proves that atheism is just a dogmatic belief. Nearly 2000 years ago, the apostle St Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans, *_" For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse"_*
_Important: The term “entropy” describes degree of thermodynamic “disorder” in a closed system like the universe. “Maximum entropy” would describe the “heat death” of the universe (which is the state it is slowly gravitating towards). Amazingly, our universe was at its “minimum entropy” at the very beginning, which begs the question “how did it get so orderly?” Looking just at the initial entropy conditions, what is the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?_
_Sir Roger Penrose, 2020 Nobel prize winner and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability of the initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang_
_According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10^123 to 1_
_It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10^123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms [10^79] believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10^10^123 zeros_
_It’s important to recognize that we're not talking about a single unlikely event here. We’re talking about hitting the jackpot over and over again, nailing extremely unlikely, mutually complementary parameters of constants and quantities, far past the point where chance could account for it_
@@youwillwin7107 Dang, you really went through all that just to prove... nothing.
1. _"1. Every design has a designer
2. The universe has high- complex design
3. Therefore, the universe has a designer"_
No, you just started off with the assumption that the universe is designed.
2. _"Scientists are finding the universe is like that watch ( anology of William Paley ), except even more precisely designed. These highly-precise and interdependent environmental conditions (called "anthropic constants") make up what is known as the "Anthropic Principle"-- a title for the mounting evidence that has many scientists believing the universe is extremely fine tuned (designed)"_
The universe is nothing like a watch, the only similarity is that they both have a definite shortest possible time; a second and a planck instant.
_"to support human CONSCIOUSNESS on earth"_
Nope, consciousness exists so long as sensory organs exist, there are literal plants that are capable of traversing a maze.
_"(Thats why some notorious atheists including Antony Flew later believed in God). Some Anthropic constants example include:"_
Antony Flew was a philosopher who lost some of his mental capacity before becoming a theist, he didn't know anything about what he was talking about.
After this, you just mentioned a bunch of bullshit that only lowers the chance, without hitting zero. By the same token, think of everything that happened yesterday, at those exact times. What are the chances? Nearly zero - but it happened.
_"According to probability theory, odds of less than 1 in 10^50 equals " zero probability" ."_
That's according to you who has no idea how physics or math works.
_"It only proves that atheism is just a dogmatic belief. Nearly 2000 years ago, the apostle St Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans, ' For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse'"_
Religion is the definition of dogma; atheism is often caused by analytical and insubordinate thinking; critical thinking.
Now tell me, what the fuck does a random dude named Paul know about my life experiences, the same guy that can't even tell me how many apps I have on my phone, or how much money I have in cash? Simple answer: he didn't know anything about me, or anyone else, he was just an ignorant bigot relying on presupposition.
_"According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10^123 to 1"_
Of course, we know the many factors that were important here on earth, but how about other planets? We simply don't have a clue what kind of factors are able to contribute to the emergence of life; save a few.
@@swxqt6826 The assumption of the Universe as "Highly Designed". Which means the absolute Brutality of Nature is something that God designed that he had in mind. When a Pack of Wild Dogs eats a Gazelle alive God had that in mind. Every person that was ever Tortured, Brutalized, Beat, Abused, Raped. God had that in Mind. The infinite amount of Alien Civilizations wiped out by Supernovas, Gamma Ray Bursts, etc... God had that in Mind.
If the Universe is highly designed God is Evil. Heaven God made as an Afterthought. After he realized how terrible of a Universe he made.
@@ExecutiveChefLance that too…
So, in an other universe there would still exist taxes? Man
And they could be 5 orders of magnitude bigger
Death and taxes, you can't escape either of them. If you get the chance you should watch the movie "Meet Joe Black."
You said there is more then one way to skin a cat. Well my cat said there are 9 ways to skin a human
I liked your analysis on how the units of measurement affect the validity and relevance of the 19 constants. I've never heard that factor pointed out and challenged. Well done. Thanks
All defined measurements are really just arbitrary. Even Planck's shit.
This video is actually really misleading...see why:th-cam.com/video/vi54OCH34pU/w-d-xo.html
This debate will run forever. Did the universe create itself or did a creator create it.
@cyoungrun1 by that logic humans, animals, plants aren't intelligent then lol
@cyoungrun1 And who created god if he created intelligence? How did god create itself and but not the universe? Get that nut ass religious shit out of here lol
It will run forever if your premise is flawed from the start like that. You're presupposing a creation when one has never been proven.
There is not creator.
@@corruptneedles3384 it created itself from literally nothing...riiiight
This might be the most truthful explanation of our existence I've ever heard
No. Its totally random. No sequences No formulas or preset measurements or molecular orders of chemicals. Just all random unrepetable orders.🤣🤣🤣(kidding)
It is sooooo rigid to a mili second n micro minutes. Just 1 min late of a sperm entering ovulation period the person wouldnt exist. If u were born 4 billion years ago u wouldnt exist. If u were born 4 billion years from now n sun about to die u wouldnt exist. Its sooooooo oddly specific. Too specific.too accurate.
N physics n chemistry n biology atcg or the crysper or cas-9 or whatever. They are specific. Hydrogen structure or helium-3 or 4 its soooo rigidly following an instructed form. Designed n instructed to stay the same n in order for billions of years. Can u imagine if physics were random??U wont arrive to e=mc2 or f=ma or whatever. Can u imagine if its like programmable matter?? But in rebellion?? Nothing is complying to instruction🙉🙉
If there was no god to design n instruct the elements n the periodic table n demand for their submission to not have free will or change as they like or identify as a different element!!!!.there wouldnt be scientists.
But just annoying lgbtq elements going.
"Hi! I'm m a hydrogen but i i identify as helium. Dont be hydrophobic okay!!! 🤣🤣🤣🙉😋
Surrender to the lawhunmahfuz simulation
Adriana Adnan reeeeeeee
@@adrianaadnan7704
th-cam.com/video/IXqUynqI0Xo/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/1FD5lReqe64/w-d-xo.html
Billy Boffin but the question is why would people lie about this one God? What would they have to gain from it? They must have seen something. Also historical accounts say that Moses, Joseph, Jesus, Muhammad etc were all very good people I mean we’re so biased in our hate towards them but in terms of moral characters they were miles ahead of their time. There was no need for them to be they could make up what ever rules they wanted but they didn’t. Your arguments for religion being made by powerful men is flawed it was quite the opposite and that’s what makes it fascinating and unique. It’s near incomparable to modern day politics that is for sure.
@@zub41r75 peace be upon them
Arvin, I always look forward to your videos. You are very objective and informative and this is very refreshing. You obviously do your research. This video is one of my favourites now.
I appreciate that! Thanks for watching.
Hello Arvin! Thanks for all your super interesting content! Every week i eagerly await your videos!
I have a question, not related to this topic but totally up your alley... could black holes collide... and if so, could we see the phenomenon? Also, what kind of shock wave or impact would the surrounding space have as a result? Thanks in advance! 😊
Thanks for watching. Sure, when two galaxies merge, the supermassive black holes at their center are thought to collide. They will release a lot of gravitational wave and energy when this happens. We detected one through their gravitational waves. Could we view this? Probably in the future with the James Webb telescope, it may be possible.
This video is actually really misleading...see why:th-cam.com/video/vi54OCH34pU/w-d-xo.html
Fantastic! A while ago Arvin posted another great video on how quantum mechanics allows a universe to spawn from no-thing. I wonder if adding that requirement, that a universe must be able to form from nothing, would further constrain the possible extents of fine tuning?
that sounds absurd . something from nothing . like magic?
@@muhammadammar5941 cmon Muhammad, don’t be that guy
Excellent video, and good explication of the measurement problem. One counter-argument I seldom see mentioned regarding the fine tuning argument: If God designed the universe to support (fundamentally human: think "created in the image of God") life, then why is 99.999999% of the universe utterly hostile to our type of life? It was billions of years, and the death and explosion of countless stars, that even created the atoms necessary for any life. There are billions of galaxies, and trillions of stars, and, extrapolating from what we've learned, countless planets. Yet we are not aware of anywhere in the universe that we can live, even for more than a few moments, except this planet. And only up about 4 miles into the atmosphere before we die from lack of oxygen. To paraphrase Richard Feynman, the stage is unimaginably too big for the play.
Further, science tells us that the Earth is only temporary; it will ultimately be scorched to a cinder, if not totally absorbed by the Sun. The universe will continue to exist for many billions of years thereafter. So life, our life, is not only limited to a remarkably tiny part of the universe, it is limited to a remarkably tiny amount of the total time of the universe...
So really? Is this the universe an omnipotent God would create if its purpose was to support our type of life?
This is enough place and time to make a conscious decision from the part of an intelligent human person to love his neighbor selflessly or not.
Ákos Tárkányi: Tongue in cheek, I guess you’re assuming there is an intelligent human who can reasonably deduce the purpose of life.
Who said He created the universe to support life? Earth supports life, the universe supports the celestial bodies.
if we were so important to God (as all religions seem to say) then the Genesis would make more sense than the reality.
You cannot explain the unexplainable but can hypothesize, that's why i believe god emerges from the underlying equations of nature, our equations cannot be necessarily correct but it gets close to the "mind" of god
It's possible. But like I said in the video, the problem with that assertion is that you are replacing potentially eternal laws of physics with a more complex eternal being.
Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Close, isn't science.
If universe is infinite it is almost certainly a Boltzman brain.
We can't be 100% sure that laws of physics are eternal. So, something has to be eternal for us, perishable beings, and potentially perishable laws of physics to exist. So, eternal God comes in naturally.
@@1eV
We are a 100% sure they are not eternal, as the 4 fundamental forces that govern our universe did not come into being until after the Big Bang.
So there was a time when different forces existed than the ones we observe today.
One force replacing another force, or becoming multiple forces, obviously doesn't require a god.
Thank you for keeping the question “Was the universe intelligently designed?” open ended. I think true science means persisting into the unknown so that the truth can eventually be known. But too many “scientists” don’t persist through the unknown, and instead jump to conclusions like “God must exist” or “God does not exist.” Rash assumptions like these hinder scientific progress.
I think you’re my favorite science communicator on TH-cam!
By definition, jumping to a conclusion and manipulating the data to match, is not the scientific method. Therefore those who do, are not scientists.
The question is not open-ended. It can in fact be answered quite simply.
Just start by considering the question: “Is life/the Universe/everything too complex to have arisen by itself?” The answer follows quite logically from there.
Lawrence D’Oliveiro No it doesn’t because you can either create the universe with a creator or without a creator, without a creator one only needs to figure out the probably of quantum states, which isn’t easy, and with a creator one would need to understand which creator it really was. Keep in mind the Abraham Religions edited out much of their history, and all the other religion use analogy to represent creation.
@@KRYMauL Doesn’t matter “who” or “what” the creator was, or whether somewhat named “Abraham” was or was not involved, or whether it was actually “Slartibartfast”. All that matter is: is life/the Universe/everything too complex to have arisen by itself? Everything follows just from considering the answer to that question.
@BananaJunior11 The fact that the answer could either be “yes” or “no”.
The conclusion without bais and giving the possibilities tells me you follow scientific method of explanation and are open to ideas. I can't thank you enough Arvin for this amazing content.
If a universe were to form with different cosmological constants' a star would have roughly the same lifespan, but wouldn't the change of those constants also affect chemical interaction necessary to support biotic system(life)? I dont think your counter argument to fine tuning is really specific enough to disprove it, but I do think you raise some good points.
This channel is seriously underrated.
Congratulations for 300k subscribers
I think if there's a formula/equation for Free Will, I think that's IT.
"If you're good at anticipating the human mind, it leaves nothing to chance."
- Saw V (2008)
Great video thankyou, your best yet. 15 minutes is a good length as well.
Glad you enjoyed it
I cant express how happy I am that I found your channel
This video is actually really misleading...see why:th-cam.com/video/vi54OCH34pU/w-d-xo.html
This is one of the best video on this topic. And I think this 2 sentences are the most important ones to understand this topic.
1) (10:53) "What we see could be a form of natural selection similar to evolution, if enough people buy lottery tickets, someone is going to win eventually." - Maybe if our Universe had different constants, there could be life that is even more complex and more advanced, something non imaginable to us in this Universe.
2) (12:27) "The Universe is not fine-tuned for humanity, Humanity is fine-tuned to the Universe." - Exactly!
of course its fine tuned or the programmers and clients wouldn't be able to get their sick entertainment
I was searching for such a good explanation. THANK YOU !
Asking the right questions. Awesome stuff.
It's simply the best expansion one could ever hear for the nature of physics and constants
I love your videos. Thanks for making them. I have a question about this fined tuned universe idea, if I may:
We live on a lucky planet that happens to orbit the sun in a goldilocks zone, with deadly empty space around us for light years. we're like fish in the only aquarium on the moon. A fined tuned universe would have all the space in it filled with the stuff that some kind of life needs, and this life would be free to roam this universe, like fish in the ocean. So maybe we're not in a fined tuned universe, but in a barely liveable universe. Or am I way off base?
thanks!
I think your point is quite valid. It would appear that most of the universe is quite hostile to life. Just look at the planets in our universe. There does not appear to be any life on them, and we could not survive without advanced technology on any other planet. And when you look around the universe, there are all kinds of things that can kill life. Just going into space will kill you. So, yes the universe is a dangerous place for life forms - at least the ones that are like us.
If you can come up with a set of parameters for a universe that is more hospitable for life than ours, you can win an award.
Constants are physics that have yet to be figured out. They are fudge factors yet to be discovered. PHYSICS RULE.
Probably, yes.
@LordWhorfinX2 In the literal sense you are correct. However, I expect you used "wrote" in a non literal sense.
Did some intelligent entity need to first decide or define how many ones (single unit items) make three?
I don't care about the literal specific English names for these amounts. I'm asking about the actual amounts.
These absurd "questions" posed for the exclusive reason of asserting that a god must be necessary can all be summarily dismissed as navel gazing.
Nothing - meaning no entity - was necessary to *design* "one" into being one. It's axiomatic in this reality. Other realities may exist but we can't measure or assess them from within our own because they are necessarily gibberish in our terms and our experience.
Suppose there was a universe with a fractional amount of dimensions of space and say time as well. What does two and three quarters spatial dimensions and three and one seventeenth time dimensions look like?
Pure mathematics doesn't really care. It's outside of our brain's native capacity to imagine properly though, since we evolved from within our own (3 & 1) space-time universe.
It's all moot. Just navel contemplation. Invoking a god is just using a personified *placeholder* instead of honestly saying, We don't know this thing yet.
Some have called that The God of the Gaps argument.
@LordWhorfinX2 I am not at all surprised that you'd think so. You are consistent at least. 😁
@LordWhorfinX2 How do we tell the difference between someone and something making the universe?
@LordWhorfinX2
"You've yet to say anything intelligent. "
Fits your posts.
"God exists, "
Unsupported assertion.
" I won't argue for religion, "
Since that IS what you are doing, that claim is dishonest.
" but God created the Universe."
Unsupported assertion.
"Physics can't write themselves."
The 'laws' were written by humans, the PROPERTIES of the universe are not written. They simply are the way it is in THIS universe. We cannot exist in one that does not support our existence BUT if a god created it, then that god has an inordinate fascination with vacuum, not life.
Ethelred Hardrede
Great video thank you - some of the best explanations and counter points to the fine tuning argument that I’ve heard!
I have been a fan and subscriber to Arvin Ash's channel for more than a couple of years. I have seen this video before, but I had not looked at the details closely. I believe that Mr. Ash chose a poor example to refute the Anthropic Principle. The Standard Model of particle physics I find, shows the Neutrino mass in eV and Mev (electron Volts and Mega electron Volts). The electron Neutrino is listed as
I am a devote Christian and also have dedicated my life to the pursuit of knowledge and have done a tremendous amount of studying physics and still believe in God. All of the examples he gave never disprove the existence of God it only proves that they aren’t reasons to definitely say He is real. I personally have several reasons to believe in Him and yet I still believe almost everything science says, they can coexist
So did the multiverse have a beginning? Cosmologist Alex Vilenkin says a multiverse does not escape requiring a beginning. I agree with him as infinity is illogical.
So then we can ask, what caused the multiverse?
See my video on Quantum creation where I talk about Vilenkin's theory.
The problem is, if we need a Creator to explain the Universe because eternity is illogical, then it must to exist a Creator of the Creator. And if the Creator is eternal, well, then eternity exists as a fact, and the Universe (or some Multiverse) could be eternal too.
@@karekarenohay4432 there is no need for the creator of creator as the creator is not material and beyond space and time. So by definition they do not obey laws of physics.
Thank you for this amazing video. Extremely high quality content in thought and reason.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Good question is then does entropy reduce in production of heavy elements in the stars? So is time flowing backwards when they are produced in supernovae?
Would there be any basis to claim that heavy elements have lower entropy than light elements?
Maybe then if entropy reduced too much in massive stars supernovae they collapsed to black hole. Can the formations of blackhole be justified by lowering of entropy?
If blackhole was single "enlarged" discrete Planck space unit, then what would it cause?
That could be a kind of obvious place for God to be with the physics. But no idea if that really would need that much of controls as per if it was done perfectly.
Great video, but I think you made a mistake when you say they are using misleading units of measurements. A factor of 10 (smaller or bigger) is a factor of 10, it doesn't matter which units you use. What you say only applies if you vary the value by a flat amount dx such that x'=x+dx, but you vary the exponent, such that in fact you apply a factor x'=10*x, which is the same change in every unit system.
Damn! You've outdone yourself on this vid great job good work
I am curious whether Stenger's article was accepted or supported by other scientists or not. He was far from being neutral in this question - indeed he was an extremely militant ideologue of the "not God but Science" idea and tried to prove it in every way possible.
And about the Multiverse as an alternative to fine tuning and anthropic principle as arguments for God... We don't know why quantum waves behave the way they do. Reality splitting into billion versions is not the only posssible explanation to their unpredictability. It is very absurd explanation - and looking for a better explanation is certainly more promising than accepting this without evidence and with blind faith.
Thus Multiverse is not so self-evident, after all.
I doubt it would be accepted by all scientists. It is compelling, but of course, not everyone is going to be impressed.
I love how the color grading of the video changes so substantially sometimes from a scene to another lol
The problem I have with the fine tuning argument is, if it were true, I believe a God wouldn’t have to follow rules of particles, just create beings with no smaller building blocks. The fact that God would have to follow a set of rules and not create his own seems as if he’s not all powerful.
That's a valid point.
I don't care if god exist or not in laws of physics or in the numerical constants. As a human I enjoy music, that gives me pleasure, that is GODLIKE to me. Really we are nothing more than a very complex chemistry. But after all, we have feelings that is enough for me. And the biggest thing is physics can explain these emotions and life too. Hats off Arvin
Terrific video. Positing god as the fine-tuner doesn't help, as this just leads to the question "well who fine-tuned god?"
Why would god need to be fine tuned? A man becomes aware of himself 1 day and sometimes thinks he was popped into existence by unthinking random forces. Is it not possible that "unthinking forces" broke causality and was the effect- to god's cause? As in "god appeared in existence" without time existing and to unthinking forces AND THEN fine-tuned creation? Honestly since 90% of the universe's content isn't even observable its hard to debate this stuff at all.
State of existence of God cannot be described by mortals. He existed before nothing. It is just impossible to imagine, how
@@BioChemistryWizardI don't think you need to go to "god appeared into existence", it's completely fine to assume "god always existed" just like one must assume anything else must have always existed. There's no such thing as "nothing", if there ever was nothing there wouldn't be something as by definition nothing can come from nothing.
Just like a meta-universal Boltzmann brain that knows nigh infinite past and future despite only existing for a blip in time an infinite timeless god is acceptable in my opinion.
But it still leads to questions like "doesn't something supports that complex intelligence?"
On the other hand if your theory is that it's parameterized universes all the way up and down, there's no need to worry about "the next step up". I'd say either is as difficult to prove as the other, even if they weren't impossible to prove. Even if a god could unambiguously convince you it exists, you wouldn't have any way of know that it knows for certain there's nothing more to it.
Like the Boltzmann brain has no idea it's a brief aberration in space-time.
Of course maybe *it* would know somehow but there's likely no way it could convince you reasonably.
- "The sun is not fine-tuned for our eyes, our eyes are fine-tuned for the sun. Similarly, the universe is not fine-tuned for humanity, but humanity is fine-tuned for the universe"
- If we presume the universe came from a pre-existing being who created eternal laws of physics which allowed the universe to come into existence, we are trying to explain the unexplained with something inexplicable. (David Johnson, Professor of philosophy in King's College)
Arvin I just want to ask you these question if 2 nd law of thermo dynamics says that "no process is possible in which there is an overall decrease in the entropy of the universe" so how can this orderly planet form from disorder.
"if enough people buy enough lottery tickets, someone will eventually win".
That is because lotteries have set 6 number combinations out of 1-50 numbers. So what if the combination will be 6 numbers out of 1-50 quintillion? Will someone still win the lottery?
yes, there is still the probability of winning. And quantum mechanics states where there is probability, there is a way.
@@lawrencesimte753 Probability is either possible or impossible. It doesnt give assurance that something will actually happen. It will always give you two ways. Or to simply say is it Fantasy? or is it the Reality?
@@markjanesperanza7144 Well, a particle only has a nearly zero probability to go through an energy barrier, however Quantum Tunneling happens.
Speculations and believes. Play it again and count how many times Arvin said "scientists believe"
Scientists say believe, because in science nothing can be shown to be true, it can only be shown to be false.
The best you can get in science, is that when a certain experiment or action is implemented under identical conditions, identical results have always occurred.
But who knows? One day you might drop a pen and it might go up. It's never happened.
It's never been observed that I know of.
However, it cannot be ruled out.
That just how science works.
Susse Kind -- Precisely! Thanks for clarifying.
I like the word constantl. It gives me great idea about the universe.
Thanks so much. :)
thanks for this series of truly enlightening videos!
“What I cannot create I do not understand”- Richard Feynman. How about recreating?
@active time I don't think so... Re-creation is more like coping... Creation is more like creating anew...
@active time The process itself. Yes. But the concepts of "creation" and re-creation" are different.
@Tech Guy More precisely: nothing can created without information... ;-)
Is it more complex to assume there is an infinite amount of universes instead of one than that there is one god and one universe though?
Valid question. Here's my thought on that. If you ascribe the creation of one universe to an all powerful entity who doesn't have to follow any laws, does not show any evidence of its existence, and does not have to be understood, then, in my view, you could not describe anything more complex than this entity. And you would be ascribing all of reality to this entity with no evidence and no theory. Anything else that does have a basis in theory, or evidence would be far less complex - such a thing as multiverse, and other alternatives I talked about in the video are all based on theoretical models of reality that have been shown to make predictions and seem to fit with our observations. So what is simpler - the most complex entity that can be imagined or ideas that may seem complex but have a basis in reality?
A god would be as complex as an infinitely large multiverse. That is infinitely complex. The basis of these ideas though have the same simplicity. A god that created the universe, and a multiverse where all physical laws can exist. I don't see any complexity on the idea of god, not on the nature of god
@@ArvinAsh thank you for answering though i appreciate your work and respect your beliefs
@@pressaltf4forfreevbucks179 you made a great point. The implications of postulating a multiverse is far more than complexity however.
It delves into, to put it mildly, on that which scientists have attempted to eject the I.D. theory out of the science arena - its falsifiability.
How do you falsify that which exists in a realm that is imagined.
What results is a rewriting of the famous biblical quote:
" WITH THE MULTIVERSE(God) ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE"
There is unknown in both cases, you just don't call it 'God'
Really clear reasoning although I feel your list of 19 constants are not correct but I’m probably wrong and it doesn’t really matter. I never saw before the idea that there is a good amount of wiggle room in these constants so something interesting could happen. Still I think the wiggle room is less but it doesn’t deter from the overall clear reasoning principles - which you do better than anyone almost all the time. This is a favorite topic of mine, I’m surprised my TH-cam feed hasn’t thrown this at me earlier. You didn’t seem to want to discuss the strong anthropomorphic principle. I wish you had. The weak one was more or less covered.
Thanks again for your help putting forward an explanation of the constant I've never heard 👍 quality presentation as always 👍
This video is actually really misleading...see why:th-cam.com/video/vi54OCH34pU/w-d-xo.html
Hi Arvin, I was wondering which scientists pointed out that if the mass of a neutrino was off by one decimal point, life would not exist? I’ve read a lot of arguments for fine-tuning, but I never heard about that one. Honestly, that argument for fine-tuning has to be one of the weakest I’ve ever heard. As far as I can tell, you are the only one to have expressed the mass of a neutrino in kilograms, omitting a decimal point to illustrate the fine-tuning; this hasn't been done by any scientist I know of. It seems strange also that you have picked one of nature's weirdest fundamental particles as an "argument for fine-tuning", while it's known that neutrinos very, very rarely interact with matter, they barely interact with matter at all. Also, they are incredibly light - a million times lighter than the next lightest particle, the electron. When the scientists talk about fine-tuning in Physics, they are not using misleading units of measurement, they usually use the unit eV, or percentage, and generally have much better arguments than those presented in your video. For example, “If protons were 0.2 percent heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms.” - The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking (p. 160).
Speaking of neutrinos, there is a much better argument for fine-tuning than the one you showed in your video. Max Tegmark, Alexander Vilenking, and Levon Pogosian argue that if the sum of the mass of the 3 species exceeds just 1 eV (electron volts), then no galaxies would exist. This constraint is significant since neutrino masses are so tiny compared to other particles.
Victor Stenger's arguments seem flawed to me because it's so obvious that he ignores many of the most discussed fine-tuning examples...
Unfortunately, it seems that most of your arguments are straw man arguments and logical fallacies. The anthropic principle is not a view "that life has to be of the same kind that we see on Earth, in a universe that has properties of our universe". That is so wrong. The anthropic principle is not about human beings specifically. Rather, it's a principle that can be used by any physically-based context-sensitive observer. The term anthropic in "anthropic principle" is a misnomer. Any physically-based context-sensitive observer can run its own version of anthropic reasoning. So really it's an observer principle and not a human-centered principle. In other words, you cannot say “the Universe must be the way it is because we’re here.” That's not the anthropic principle at all; that's a logical fallacy.
“Multiverse theory” is unscientific, and it may be a product of our ignorance. It doesn’t come with a recognized and accepted set of mathematical equations that can be used to perform calculations and make predictions, and so it offers no prospect of connecting in any meaningful way with empirical data. Another big problem is that not only is enormously speculative, but there's no reason, given the inflation and quantum physics we know, to presume that an inflating spacetime has different laws or constants in different regions. The fact is, the concept of multiverse didn't exist until the fine-tuning factor became an issue.
Another example is an incredible fine-tuning between the mass of a Higgs boson and the cosmological constant - these quantities appear to result from an extremely fine-tuned cancellation of two much larger quantities - a fact that many physicists find implausible. The well-known cosmological constant problem. In order to get the right balance, the cosmological constant must be fine-tuned to 1 part in 10^120. If it were just slightly more positive, the universe would fly apart; slightly negative, and the universe would collapse.
As with the cosmological constant, the ratios of the other constants must be fine-tuned relative to each other.
Besides physical constants, there are initial or boundary conditions, which describe the conditions present at the beginning of the universe. Mathematical physicist Roger Penrose estimates that the odds of the initial low entropy state of our universe occurring by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10^10 (123). This ratio is vastly beyond our powers of comprehension.
These are some examples of the fine-tuning I remember at the moment, but there are many, many other examples as well...
mmm..Science class for adults. Thanks Arvin!!
I haven't looked at it that way, but sure, why not.
@@_Egon why suggest it's a who, when it could be a what?
@@deathofanotion The answer to who or what is simple. It's either a who or a what.
Some people choose Who because while they are made of matter they realise that they are also distinct from matter. They have personalities/ whos. So a who is possible.
Some people think that they are only matter so they can only conceptualize a what.
Everything is by design ..just because we make assumptions does not mean our assumptions are correct ..reality is always pointing to design .
It's the space expansion constant that's really the most sensitive constant, as Leonard Susskind says, it's on a knife's edge. If changed slightly, the universe would either collapse too early or expand way too fast for matter to clump into stars.
Wow.. I've never heard more DECISIVE arguments in the science vs superstition explanations for the constant values.. The production quality of these shows are second to none! Thanks Arvin..
Much appreciated! Thanks for watching my friend.
@Swarup Adhikari huh?
You shouldn't use the word 'Superstition' to define the beliefs of all religious people. I believe in God and am impressed by Arvin's presentation, but still believe there are things that a man as bright as Arvin cannot know. Arvin said in the video that God may or not exist and didn't count out that possiblitiy. Insulting people never helps and calling the existence of God superstitiuos is an insult, blasphemy, to billions of people.
Jeff Oregon A superstition is a widespread belief in supernatural entities or processes. The shoe fits. The reason “superstition” has a supposedly bad connotation is that theists can’t see the mote in their own eye... “it means any of those beliefs except mine”. There is tradition spanning most or all of human history that criticisms of bad thinking apply to everyone else, but not us. But that tradition is gradually coming to an end, as is religion’s immunity from criticism in “polite” society.
@@truthstillmatters59 No personal offense intended friend.. My use of the word SUPERSTITION was correct and proper.. Should the dictionary CHANGE the meaning of the word to not offend believers like yourself?
Fine tuning is easy to debunk.
We say our universe is perfect thus these physical constants are finely tuned.
But we haven't observed other possible Universe which might work far better than our universe.
We say these physical constants values are correct for the universe to exists cuz we have witnessed only one Universe. It's highly likely Other value for physical constants would give rise to far richer and far superior Universe.
Richer or superior based on what metric? If it had more matter, or faster light, or stronger gravity? Why would that make any other universe any more or less wondrous than our own?
@@Distant_View yes u r ryt... The word superior might be inaccurate... Maybe exotic, strange but still exists. Let's say richer LifeForms. (Ofcourse LifeForm is the side product of the universe not otherway around. Universe doesn't have a purpose) but I was referring to richer LifeForms..
we can't even see and understand this universe properly and talking about multiverse. we can't see multiverse and can only be proved on paper but we are ok to believe it but not ok to believe in god. if there are multiverse then which machine created those other universes?
@@kitupv we can't even see atoms. We can't see electrons. But without those there's no nuclear bomb,no Nuclear energy, no Electronics, no smartphones, no internet. Duhhh...
@@bhuvaneshs.k638 simple question, how u would prove multiverse and which machine is making so many universe?
Addicted to your videos Ash. You are a great communicator.
I think the core of the tuning argument is the cosmological constant, which is hardly discussed in this video. As I understand it, the multiverse theory was created to deal with the otherwise unexplained sensitivity of the universe to the value of the cosmological constant.
It's the same argument. Choose your numbers, and choose how far you want to take your decimal point. You also have to consider that we humans use an arbitrary numbering system, based on making each decimal have a 10X magnitude change. This is entirely because of the fact that we have 10 digits on our hands and fingers. If we used 2 or some other number, the cosmological constant and any other constant may not be so finely tuned.
As impressive as ever Mr Arvin. Please look at Donald Hoffman's work, I'd love to hear your take on it
I'm going to figure out my exact height in light years and use that if anyone asks how tall I am
.0000000000000
Lebron is 8ft tall
I'm 2×10^-16 light years, so basically I'm very small.
Divide your height by light year
Really love your work ,great insights and presentation, learn a lot ❤️👍👍👍!!!
Great video just like your others. You give some of the best unbiased explanations I've found on these subjects 👍
This video is actually really misleading...see why:th-cam.com/video/vi54OCH34pU/w-d-xo.html
Very clear, as always your videos are, and very useful, thank you.
Glad you like them!
Now, this is the content I’m here for !!!
Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
If the constants weren't what they are, we wouldn't be here to wonder about them. Logically, it would be impossible for us to observe constants that are incompatible with our existence as observers.
As with most theistic arguments, the fine tuning one is in its core an argument from ignorance. "I don't know if a different type of life could exist with different constants, therefore god."
Furthermore, they assume life was the end goal. The universe couldn't care less whether life formed or not. We exist in this form because of the constants. The constants are not what they are because of us. Get it right.
Scientists' argument is "I can imagine how everything came into existence without an intelligent creator, therefore NO GOD". Equally unscientific.
@@MatthewBreithaupt WRONG!
The heavens and the earth declares the glory of God and his handiwork..
If you have nothing logical to add, you might as well have not added a comment at all.
@@bigcauc7530 The only illogical thing was a blind chance accepted by blind fools appearing to be smart.
@@freshbakedclips4659 and so, explain to a fool like me, how the universe came to be?
@@freshbakedclips4659 i mean, since I'm trying to appear to be smart and you must know better than me somehow.
@@freshbakedclips4659 if not, thank you for wasting your time proving nothing. Lol
The TH-cam recommendation algorithm at it again
*An Overview of the Fine tuning argument*
For many, the regularity of the universe and the precision with which the universe exploded ( expands ) into being provides even more evidences for the existence of God. This evidence technically known as the Teleological argument, derives its name from the Greek word telos, which means "design." The Teleological argument goes like this:
1. Every design has a designer
2. The universe has high- complex design
3. Therefore, the universe has a designer
*The Anthropic Principle*
Scientists are finding the universe is like that watch ( anology of William Paley ), except even more precisely designed. These highly-precise and interdependent environmental conditions (called "anthropic constants") make up what is known as the "Anthropic Principle"-- a title for the mounting evidence that has many scientists believing the universe is extremely fine tuned (designed) to support human *_CONSCIOUSNESS_* on earth (Thats why some notorious atheists including Antony Flew later believed in God). Some Anthropic constants example include:
_birth date of the star-planetary system_
_if too early: quantity of heavy elements would be too low for large rocky planets to form_
_if too late: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; ratios of potassium-40, uranium-235, -238, and thorium-232 to iron would be too low for long-lived plate tectonics to be sustained on a rocky planet_
_flux of cosmic-ray protons (one way cloud droplets are seeded)_
_if too small: inadequate cloud formation in planet’s troposphere_
_if too large: too much cloud formation in planet’s troposphere_
_rotation period_
_if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great_
_if shorter: atmospheric jet streams would become too laminar and average wind speeds would increase too much_
_fine structure constant (a number, 0.0073, used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)_
_if larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses_
_if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields _
_if smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses_
_oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere_
_if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly_
_if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly_
_Jupiter’s mass_
_if greater: Earth’s orbit would become unstable; Jupiter’s presence would too radically disturb or prevent the formation of Earth_
_if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth_
For more evidence:
reasons.org/explore/blogs/tag/fine-tuning/page/2
reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/rtb-design-compendium-2009
*What are the chances?*
It's not there just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by chance. There are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an Intelligent Designer. Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, calculated the probability these and other constants would exist for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e, without divine design). To meet all conditions, there is 1 chance in 10^1038 (one chance in one with 1038 zeroes after it)-- essentially 0% chance.
According to probability theory, odds of less than 1 in 10^50 equals " zero probability" .
Check:reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth
It only proves that atheism is just a dogmatic belief. Nearly 2000 years ago, the apostle St Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans, *_" For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse"_*
_Important: The term “entropy” describes degree of thermodynamic “disorder” in a closed system like the universe. “Maximum entropy” would describe the “heat death” of the universe (which is the state it is slowly gravitating towards). Amazingly, our universe was at its “minimum entropy” at the very beginning, which begs the question “how did it get so orderly?” Looking just at the initial entropy conditions, what is the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?_
_Sir Roger Penrose, 2020 Nobel prize winner and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability of the initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang_
_According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10^123 to 1_
_It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10^123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms [10^79] believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10^10^123 zeros_
_It’s important to recognize that we're not talking about a single unlikely event here. We’re talking about hitting the jackpot over and over again, nailing extremely unlikely, mutually complementary parameters of constants and quantities, far past the point where chance could account for it_
Yes, that was a lot of religious bullshit. It has nothing to do with physics. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 That means you don't know what physics is fine😐😐😐😐
@@youwillwin7107 Yes, that is exactly why they gave me a PhD title in physics, because I don't know what physics is. What title did they give you? Creationist? :-)
@@schmetterling4477 Prove it. I can also say these types of things😏
Arvin, can you please do a video about the Gagut theory and Dr Gabriel Oyibo. From my understanding, he completed Einstein’s Theory of general relativity.
What is the difference of a neutrino's mass needed in the right units for there to be no life as we know it?
Good point, I think it's a straw man argument to say that people who believe in God are saying that a change by one complete order of magnitude is a "small change". Show me where a Christian said that multiplying or dividing by a factor of 10 is similar to making a 10% change
This is by far the best video debunking the fine tuning argument
I never would have even thought of the units of measurement thing! My response to the fine tuning argument is what makes you think a God is the explanation for the constants being the way they are? How do you know there aren't an infinite number of failed universes before ours, or that there isn't a multiverse and we're living in a universe within that multiverse that just so happens to allow life, or that the constants aren't the way they are because they can not possibly be any different?
Great video as always. But why 19 parameters of the quantum world to check the existence of fine tuning or not? Wouldn't it make sense to just check one or two obvious parameters and their implications for the formation of life? Like for example, would life have formed if earth's gravity was greater or smaller by just 0.0001% of what it is? Or would life have formed if the earth's tilt on its axis was greater or smaller by 100th of a degree than what it is now?
The universe isn't this way so that we could exist ,
We exist because the universe is this way.
Yes with one caveat. It is not inconceivable that we could exist as a different kind of sentient life form in a different universe with a different set of constants.
Arvin, that was excellent. Of course it did not rule out the concept of a "God". I wonder if you could do a similar exploration of C. Jung's collective unconscientious? I sometimes think that physics may give us only part of the answer.
Vic Stenger did some great work. Thanks for putting his name out there. He has several books that are great reads.
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
Arvin, you seem to know all the fundamental questions that exist in my head. Thank you for addressing them one by one, and for answering them with such clarity and simplicity. BTW I always wondered if this universe is simply one of the infinite combinations of laws and physical constants based universes. I fee l lucky you Arvin is in this universe, otherwise I would not have found answers to my long burning questions. Oh, how interesting it was to hear you say "he" when referring to God. :)
Glad it was helpful!
Pretty sure it doesn’t make a difference if “God” is a “he,” “she,” or “it” or a hologram of our imagination. One fact speaks for itself: the universe IS. Hmm. Or is it all a hologram of our (my) imagination?
This video is actually really misleading...see why:th-cam.com/video/vi54OCH34pU/w-d-xo.html
I love how fair he explains the substance! Amazing and insightful!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Another great video like always!
A pleasure to watch!
This video is actually really misleading...see why:th-cam.com/video/vi54OCH34pU/w-d-xo.html
Found this in my feed. You just got a new subscriber. Thank you for this video.
Welcome aboard!
Arvin Ash thanks