Many people don't seem to comprehend that Bayesian statistics cannot be applied to just one data point. This strategy is often used to "calculate" the probability of life elsewhere in the universe.

@@rubiks6 I think the situation here is much much worse. In order for Bayesian inference to apply, you need two events (A and B). There is one event in the context of the fine tuning agrument (constant being equal to a particular set of values) but I fail to see the second event. If I am correct, this means that the Bayesian formula doesn't even apply.

Further, I think noone can get his/her head around Bayesian statistics. It's way too difficult at this point of history.

@@chrissidiras - "... this means that the Bayesian formula doesn't even apply." Exactly. Some have come up with what seem to be convincing arguments from a single data point but they're really just blowing smoke up our rectum. I know that the universe we have subjectively seems to be working quite well. I am certainly living and I have many subjectively rich life experiences. The ability you and I have to communicate the way we do, the ideas we express and exchange are amazing to me. I'm quite certain we live in a very finely tuned universe but someone else may see it differently. It's all totally subjective so it really just depends on your outlook and worldview. I'm quite pleased with the idea that the universe was designed for Man but that, of course, requires a _Designer._ This makes many people unhappy, but I don't know why. Many people see evil in the world and blame God, therefore they want Him to go away. -------------------------------------- Here is an example of how I see life: "A 10-year-old Idaho girl was killed when a rock crashed through the windshield of her father’s truck and hit her in the head." - NYPost, July 30, 2021 Of course, it is terribly sad to see news like that and many people commenting on the event expressed anger at God for having taken the life of a beautiful, young girl but I responded with gratitude that God had given her 10 years of joyous life. I also consider that she lives again in a different place, so she is not gone forever. -------------------------------------- Fine-tuning of the universe is really about whether or not there is a Fine-Tuner. Your premises will determine your interpretation of the evidence. We all have the same evidence. Just keep in mind that your interpretation of evidence _follows_ your premises, not the other way around. Many people perceive that their premises follow the evidence but that is actually the opposite of reality. Your premises come first. Good premises lead to good interpretations. False premises lead to wrong interpretations.

If there is no good reason to assume the constants necessarily have these values (and currently there isn't), then it makes sense to assume they could be different. The question is not whether they change now (once the universe is "up and running"), but if other universes are thinkable with other values. There is nothing to prohobit that possibility The only thing to prevent that would be if the constants were dependent on eachother, and current physics replaced by a meta-theorie ("Theory of Everything"), e.g. with only ONE value to explain, however, that would not make the fine tuning go away. All of the fine tuning would then be concentrated in that ONE fundamental constant. It is just silly to assume that constants with values that are determined already with an exactness of (maybe - not sure) 11 digits behind the comma (e.g. the mass of electrons or protons) could not be different in a single of those later digits. Or that so different forces as the strong nuclear force (with a super stong power but super short reach) is exactly like that, and so different from gravitation (incredibly weak, yet infinite reach), and that they could not be slightly different. But if one of these constants WERE slightly different (by even a single digit), the universe would not have been stable. So this extreme fine tuning is remarkable. One can insist on "I do not see a problem", or "I see nothing to explain", or "I am not interested in these questions", but that does not make this apparent immense fine tuning go away.

I was amazed that my idea was the one Sabine had as well, its a bit reassuring to me. But I still find it to be, a deeply unintuitive one and intrinsically unlikely. Because when you dig deeper into it, either the universe (A) started from nothing - in which case it was something of a random event. Or (B) the universe started out of some necessary precursor, that always existed, somehow before space and time. A lot of people of course claim its God, but it could be non conscious as well or (C) there was an infinite chain of non-necessary events. For (A) it certainly seems invalid to say that the constants must be what they are because if any random universe is possible, its invalidated on the spot. In (B) its just odd to say that a very particular set of constants were somehow "necessary" or that the universe could "only have been that way". Something has to be assuring that necessity, and then you get into this strange paradox where whatever demands necessity must itself be necessary (i.e. whatever law that says these constants have that value) which leads to either an infinite chain of laws, or you get some absurd scenario where the necessary precursor law demands itself is necessary, which is circular. And then there is (C) which seems impossible as well, because an infinite number of events must have transpired to arrive at our universe, but by definition and infinite can never be completed, so it is a direct logical contradiction. I think the conclusion I draw from all this, is that (and perhaps unsurprisingly) the human mind probably would find the origins of the universe incomprehensible. Luke Barnes actaully, his argument can be dismissed pretty easily. All you have to say is that we're still open to a better theory, but there doesn't seem to be one, certainly not one that we have any real evidence for. And there isn't any particular reason why we should expect there to be a better theory. Ignoring the logical analysis above of course.

@@radscorpion8 I think your conclusion is correct. We've already figured out many things about how the universe works that are extremely unintuitive, so when you push the questions out to the farthest extremes of size, time, energy, etc., it is to be expected that the answers will be more unintuitive still. Of course it's irritating to curious minds to accept that we'll probably never know, but the universe owes us no answers.

@@radscorpion8 Why is an infinite chain of events a logical paradox? Yes, you can never reach infinity but so what? If you're talking about Hilbert's hotel paradoxes, most of them were solved by Cantor's different infinities. At any event, this point in time we're at is not infinity or else we'd be frozen in time or something. Time obviously keeps on going so we could conceivably be part of that infinite chain. You couldn't go back in time and reach a starting point of course, because if we're taking about an infinite chain of events in the past, there was no starting point. However under this assumption, we clearly are here and time is proceeding into the future infinity. I know physicists don't like infinities but where's a logical problem with this?

I have responded that both you and Sabine and the rest of those on this trajectory are incorrect that the key flaw for the fine-tuning argument is its argument for probability but I have not heard back from you. You and anyone else including Sabine Hossenfelder are incorrect in your assessment, Sabine is well aware of the principle of indifference and its use in statistical mechanics so she is surely aware that most physicists subscribe to the principle of indifference. Frequency Probability and dice games have little or no application in deterministic science. By definition deterministic means non probabilistic and the use use in statistical mechanics is not frequency probability, it is the flat distribution and equal probabilities of the principle of indifference. Hence the precedent and hence the calculation of parameter probabilities using the principle of indifference with the range truncated at the Planck constant. This response holds equally well for all those who are not familiar with the lack of application of the principle of indifference.

Not at all! Only by analyzing the results, it is quite easy to deduct the number of dies and the number of faces. For examples, because you never get the result of 1, you know there needs to be more than one 'things'. Because you never get more than 12, you know there must be an eve number of things. You can go on and geométricas the only solution is two cubes.

They were on parallel tracks there was no engagement, no contests. Justin’s dead inside..

Hey Stephen, I suggest you add Stephen Meyer's massive and very recent The Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe, and give it a fair reading and tackle its arguments (maybe interview him).

Add Robin Collins' article too, in the Blackwell companion to natural theology

@@edgarrenenartatez1932 its 800 pages!

@@edgarrenenartatez1932 I recommend that we, as humans, finally abandon the ridiculous belief in any sort of gods.

@@MarkAhlquist 🤦‍♂️

@Gary Hughes Agreed, Justin does a really good job at playing the mediator for the lay person. He says he’s a “lay person”, but I think he’s just being humble, I think he knows more than most lay people.

Just my opinion, but starting the conversation with, “Do you believe in God?” is exactly as relevant to this discussion as, “Do you believe in the Vanilla Fairy?” Belief is not a component in questions involving data. Either it points to a conclusion or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, it does not mean the hypothesis is wrong; however, it cannot be claimed to be correct.

@@ooloncoluphid1942 What you just said is the definition of word salad.

@@brando3342 Sorry, I was not pinged with a reply. What may I clarify? Belief in gods is not relevant in science. If the question is couched as a scientific one, then its only purposes are irrelevant curiosity ot poisoning the well. If the FTA is a scientific question, then the answer lies in the data. Belief or its lack play no role. I hope that makes it clearer.

@@brando3342 Makes perfect sense to me, maybe you are just coming from a different place.

She lacks creative impetus - very boring person!

@@annanoel-roduner6402 I couldn’t disagree more.

@@annanoel-roduner6402 she JSUT gives honest answers which can be blunt and not the answer you need.

@@annanoel-roduner6402 lol what a lame excuse

@@lumbratile4174 anna does not like sabine because unlike her sabine does not have an imaginary friend

You never answered "God" because of peer pressure and cultural pressure. You believe majorities make truth. You have no mind of your own.

@@rubiks6 peer pressure and cultural pressure? Majority? Mate I live in the southern US. I am in no way a majority as an atheist here, and any societal pressure I’ve had would have been the other way around.

@@schlamothy - Can I assume you went to college?

@@rubiks6 currently in college, my entire friend group here is Christian

@@schlamothy - So why aren't you a Christian? Do the members of your friend group believe the Bible? or do they believe in the Big Bang and evolution, etc.? What about your professors? Do they believe in God or are they atheists? Here's a physics question for you: Can a universe emerge from nothingness? or would that violate conservation of mass/energy? How about: Where did the laws of physics come from? Did they teach you that in your physics class where you didn't answer "God" to any of the questions?

She didn't explain the fine tuning, did she?

@@les2997 Sabine stated that there is no "fine tuning" and so there is nothing to explain. The constants are what they are and that is all. She said the question "why are the constants the way they are (fine tuned)" is a philosophical question not a scientific one. For example the value of Pi (π) is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter and is approximately equal to 3.14159. One could ask why does Pi have that value, but that would be a philosophical question not a scientific question. The role of science is to make observations about the natural world and not to answer philosophical questions. That is my understanding of what Sabine expressed in this discussion.

​@@mylord9340 I'm afraid you don't understand that we can model the possible universes. Unlike Pi, the universal constants could have been different. Some scientists try to explain fine tuning by proposing the multi-verse hypothesis in which in each universe the constants vary, and we were lucky to live in one which can support life. Based on theoretical physics we can model possible universes with mathematical precision and provable self-consistency. Nobody proved that that only our Universe is logically or metaphysically necessary. Sabine did a very good job side-stepping the question of fine tuning and she seemed to prevaricate. At the end, she never explained why these constants are so finely tuned for life. Why these constants finely tuned might not be a question which science will ever be able to answer, I agree. Not all questions must have a scientific answer.

@@les2997 She did not. She evades (I like your word "sidestepped," though to be fair, it does veer outside science per se, but she is dismissive of the possibility that science cannot provide the explanation by stating it's a false conversation!) the possible explanation, even as Luke proposes it as merely a possibility.

@@ronharrison2634 These exchanges are getting tiresome. Take a look at the extreme precision of these constants, and then tell us with a straight face that this is due to luck.

No, you didn't get it. Anyone can do any amount of explaining. The point is, those explanations are not scientific.

very talented at making ££££££££££££££

@@paulrichards6894 I don't think he is making that many Pounds as implied by you but good for him if he is gaining decent amount of wealth as a host of this show.

She was addressing brick wall with hammer...she is agnostic so she do not care..lets deal with real thing not mambo jumbo thingys,check her channel..you will understand her better...she is all about show me a data not stupid hypothesis which nobody managed to prove,but yet on yt everybody making money over content which is actually not scientific...she made whole video about multiverse equal religion..

@@misiknuo So only if data is there, can one/she then only form an understanding? Would she have admonished Galileo's heliocentrism or would she have accepted his idea if she were alive during his time? Please remember Galileo's Heliocentric model was only based on observation.

@@bkhan19 If data is changed there is no problem for Sabine,actually she made whole clip about how wrong data and observation made bad theories...this is how science work..and Sabine is all about that..She addressed that in two clips one named Why Do We See Things That Aren't There? and other - False Alien Discoveries

@@misiknuo this does not explain the Galileo problem. Galileo saw things, made observations. He used Copernicus's research and statements for his own research. Galileo did elevate scientific rigor at that time but for heliocentrism he did not completely use scholastic methods of proof. There was no change of existing data. Therefore, if we go by with what you and Sabine say, then Galileo was rightfully prosecuted by the Church.

@@bkhan19 "So only if data is there, can one/she then only form an understanding? Would she have admonished Galileo's heliocentrism or would she have accepted his idea if she were alive during his time? Please remember Galileo's Heliocentric model was only based on observation." This is actually a good question. She would possibly ask Galileo how he came to the conclusion and what observations lead to his conclusion. She is a scientist in the end, so was Galileo. She possibly also would like to do the same observations to see if it has merit.

Agreed. Especially as science does not prove what is the truth, just the observable variables of a hypothesis in a controlled environment. And it's a thin line between science and scientism. Plus, science is a lot based on putting trust in authority. It's awesome we have science, but in many regards it is overrated, often leading, particularly laymen, to assume we have a fantastic insight into everything in nature, when it's just a tiny fraction of what can be known in nature, and even our brains and oceans. And surprisingly many seem to assume, we know it all. The main danger is to think science is the only answer, so yeah - I am sceptical of this, too.

If Sabine's views are borderline metaphysical, then Luke Barnes's views are well across the border sitting in the heartland. We're to accept that our universe being the way it is demands further explanation and saying "it just is" is unacceptable, but when we consider all the different universes the fine-tuner could have wanted to make, no fine-tuner-tuner is needed for that because God wanting to make exactly this one "just is" and demands no explanation. Right. But let's give Barnes the free pass we denied to Hossenfelder, why not.

@@scotte4765 The difference is people like Luke Barnes are up front about it, while Sabiner thinks she can be immune to it without realizing some of her views are very close to metaphysical .

@@hellwolf4liberty Barnes isn't up front about being philosophical or metaphysical at all. He's claiming that everything he's arguing is credible science. He wouldn't be trying to defend his misuse of probabilities otherwise. Philosophy doesn't need rigorous mathematics; science does, and he knows it.

Philosophical questions just don't come up in scientific work. That's her point. During the time you're playing with metaphysical questions, you're not doing science. If you figure out how to validly test a metaphysical idea in the real world - it stops being metaphysical.

I was the first human on Mars, and on the ground i found glasses which sit on my nose perfectly. Well, what can i say, that's just the universe we happened to have, nothing to see here.

And your ears to stop them falling off

And every puddle has the ground around it shaped just perfectly, with every pebble or grain of sand in just the right place...

my middle finger was perfectly designed to pleasure me, therefore god exists

@@ShowMeYoBoob congratulations, that’s a new one: the argument from masterbation.

She is very narrow minded.

Sabine certainly has no clear scientific answer on the question what life really is from the view of physics, and there is still no consensus in science on this fundamental question concerning the place and the role of life in the general scientific picture of the universe, but nevertheless she is trying to insist that it might be not a scientific question at all, and therefore science doesn't need to find the answers on the questions of such type. it looks as a very rigid and religious position on what science can investigate and what is not allowed to do by science))

the problem of Sabine is that whereas she often uses the Schroedinger cat, Bob and Alice, the Wigner's friends in her educalinal videos on physics, she nevertheless excludes life by itself as a fundamental unanswered problem of physics.)

In my opinion, Sabine is quite an "Emperical Science" blinkered person, There is so much that is beyond the sphere of Science eg Music, Art and Beauty, Love, Consciousness, How about being open on the "How" questions rather than being confined only to the "Why" questions !!

Indeed he is, while, don't miss this point, the woman is trying to sneak in the absurdity of nothing producing every fecking thing in the universe. Ex nihilo nihil fit, but that's not good convenient for the likes of Hossenfelder.

@@horationelson57 I guess it depends on what you mean by "nothing"... what would be a good explanation for why God created a universe with an net energy of zero?

@@martifingers there is only one definition of nothing. Nothing is universal negation. Holy shit can people please stop trying to redefine "nothing". If you want to say "there was a quantum vacuum" or something like that, just say it. But don't call it nothing.

@@rjonesx Hi. I am sorry that my attempt to be precise about language annoyed you but my feeling is that it is easy for communication to get muddled when we are dealing with subjects that are on the edge of understanding. TBH your definition "universal negation" is not much use. The problem is our concepts have developed in what might be termed a classical world and I for one have great difficulty making the mental shift into quantum and relativistic thinking. I could have written "quantum vacuum" or similar but the answer is I don't know. I am not a specialist but as far as I can tell no-one else does either. Forcing someone to take a position is unnecessary and unhelpful IMHO. I mentioned the zero sum energy result as surely regardless of your faith position that is a relevant finding.

@@horationelson57 No, she didn't. What's more I didn't hear ANY of the three persons mention creation from nothing. If someone did, I missed it. Did you hear any of them say that?

Sabine wasn't buying into their crap

The fine tuning argument is very impressive. It is just not a scientific one. And as you move out of the scientific and into nonscientific arguments you will recognize its strength. Not every explanation is scientific in fact very few are in fact. The issue of a creator is not a scientific argument meaning that science cannot say whether there is one or not. She is simply saying that science cannot deal with the question of a creator and any mathematics that does not align with the scientific method and have some chance of describing physical reality is not relevant to science. The details of the Bayesian formulation are irrelevant from the get go.

fine-tuning argument is awful...

Look I am not saying there is no god though I think its a long short......think however there are some gods we can rule out with a fair degree of confidence such as the Abrahamic god(s)

​@@howtochoose9650 I do agree that explanations of things that have nothing to do with reality obviously exist. Example: Harry Potter is protected from Lord Voldemort because his Mother chose to die for him, which gave him a powerful magic protection. I think we do agree on what Sabine said about the fine tuning argument. It has nothing to do with reality and thus is not subject to the scientific method. Arguing about the fine tuning argument is similar to arguing about the exact nature of the protection magic that shields Harry from Voldemort - except here everybody should know that it has nothing to do with reality. I might misunderstood what you said about "non scientific answers". From my understanding science is just a methodology for finding the best possible explanations for observations. An explanation is scientific if it contains no contradictions and it explains all available data. The fine tuning argument is not an explanation, it is a logical argument. If the conclusion for the argument does not follow from the premise, or if the premise is not true or unreasonable it can be rejected. The fine tuning argument has an assumption in its main premise that I reject. If and only if we know the probability distribution from which the fundamental constants of the universe were drawn we can make claims about the probability for the constants to be in a specific range (e.g. the range that would allow live to form). My problem with the argument is that this distribution can not be measured or inferred from anything within our universe because we only have access to phenomena that are caused by exactly our set of constants. By my understanding is impossible and it will never be possible for us to interact with anything outside of our universe, thus this distribution of fundamental constants can not be known. The bayesian framework was mentioned by Luke as a way to get around that fact, but it does not change anything. So if you for example say the probability for a cosmological constant to be in the ranget to allow for the necessary complexity for live is 1e-100 then all you are saying is that you assume a probability distribution that yields that probability 1e-100 for a value to lie in the given range. However you have no justification for assuming the distribution. I could just as well come up with an uncountable set of distributions where the probability for the exact same range is 1 (e.g. a dirac distribution with our constants or any normalized nonzero function that is set to zero outside the desired range). So how can we decide which probability distribution is correct? The answer is: we can not. We can not even find out which one is more likely than the other because it is completely inaccessible. We don't even know if there was a beginning to the universe where the constants were drawn from a distribution. So is the main premise of the argument is just wishful thinking or subject to opinion? This is why I think the fine tuning argument is really not impressive. Assuming a probability distribution with no reason and then pointing out that under that arbitrary distribution our universe is very special is just lame. Not sure why you mention a creator here, because even if the fine tuning argument was valid and sound (which I don't think it is) it would not imply a creator. Sorry for this long response, but I really don't get it. I'd be happy to see an explanation that can point out what I am missing.

Sabine is the top scientist. Fine tuning arguments are perceived as goofy by top scientists. Luke is brave to take her on, if anything.

@@StarTigerJLN Fine tuning is real. This is recognized by most scientists.

​@@les2997 Strong claim. I don't think that is true. Most scientists are PhD students that you have never heard about. I wonder how you get to this impression. Any studies? Do you think that something is true just because a majority of scientists "recognizes" it?

@@RaphaelBraun You don't have to have a PhD to understand that these constants are fine tuned on the razor's edge.

@@les2997 Great! I do not have a PhD yet. So maybe you can explain to me why you are so confident about this?

Think this is the point and the difference between bayesian and frequentian statistics. Dr. Sabine works this iut in her new book 'existential physics'

@@Thomas-gk42 Well, frequentist statistics requires some frequency. So no other universes can be observed, you can't even get started here. But I'm not sure that Bayesian statistics can get much farther. After you pull your prior probability out of your ear, you then are supposed to revise it based on new data - and there are no data. So I think the only real way to save the fine tuning argument would be to develop a fully theory driven probability distribution but that's a very tall order and, once again, there is no way to empirically test its validity.

@@johnrichardson7629 Right, and that's Doc Sabine's point of view: She doesn't reject personal believe as long as you separate it from physics. I myself, as a theist can live very well with that. Would be a lame believe, that needs any finetuning arguments from pseudo science.

Ah yes, the trees.. just look at them

Sure. I like to hear verbalized reasoning behind arguments and Luke does it well.

I've never looked up at the night sky (nor the trees for that matter) and thought, "ahhh, something pre-existent in my likeness must have created all this and desperately wants worship in order to reward immortality for me specifically (and others in the preferred in-group) for thinking something along these lines...ahhhh."

@@letsomethingshine Neither have I.

That means you are probably rather dumb or uneducated.

This is one of the big problems of the FTA, is that it's not just "Theism" that's the competing hypothesis in a general sense. God likes: Living things Physical living things Physical environment for the living things. Environment is sufficient to sustain them without his direct intervention. Physical living things able to do morally relevant actions to each other in this environment etc. By the time you get through the whole gamut of details, God is just an overfitting hypothesis that has been perfectly tuned to explain the data.

Great point. Although perhaps theists would say the FTA is a sign of God's existence that would support faith?

A radio can "die" but there are still the waves in the air. A radio requires the waves (to be/hear something), but the waves do not require a radio. Please fine tune your radio - a radio with only buzz is annoying - that´s why fine tuning is important!

@@PjotrII But radio waves exist whether or not a radio was ever invented.

@@jacoblee5796 * If you are unfamiliar with parables, then I need to start from the point that a parable is not a true scientific explanation that should be taken literally in all details, but an image to try to help one understand a point. If we play with the idea of radio waves, we could think of it as a human born (radio) and a channel specifically ment to that radio (at a certain hz rate). Every radio would then have it´s own specific hz, that can be heard (as long as the person lives), but when the radio dies, the voice cannot be heard, still the data, the radio frequency could be alive. In other word - talking about a religious "resurrection" would be that a new radio (new body) is tuned to that specific frequency.

Ooh, I like that! Another good one is, “What if, after saying the word ‘god’, monkeys flew out of my butt?” This is the same line of thought that has brought us hundreds of Prophecies of the Second Coming, all with 100%, unquestionable accuracy. If you look long enough, you can find patterns in random noise. That’s pareidolia. Not evidence for the supernatural. I apologize for the snark, but humans have been obsessed with reading tea leaves, sheep intestines and Bible codes for as long as there have been humans.

@@ooloncoluphid1942 What does that have to do with what I said? She is basically telling us that, no matter what the initial conditions are, they are a brute and unquestionable fact. Just move along. I can't tell whether you agree with her on that or agree with me that she's wrong (which the Hamlet example was meant to illustrate)....

@@Mentat1231 If we don’t know, and an addition to that no means by which to know, then you are necessarily demanding an unfounded, untestable and unfalsifiable speculation. In what way does that advance the conversation?

@@ooloncoluphid1942 What speculation am I demanding (or even suggesting)? All I said was that, if the fundamental theory had a mathematical formalism that directly encoded to the Hamlet speech, verbatim, it would be rational to look for an explanation of that. Any epistemology or view of probability or set of rules about rational inquiry which can't see that that is a shocking result that needs an explanation is a broken epistemology/view/ruleset.

Yeah, I'm much less impressed with her argument than many others seem to be. She seems to be advocating for a sort of naive scientism and insists on drawing imaginary borders between philosophical and scientific questions, which isn't possible to do. She doesn't seem to understand that science like nearly everything else is grounded in philosophy, not the other way around.

N0

Hardly.

Not everything has a conscious creator or "fine tuner". Some islands were formed due to volcanic eruptions, but you wouldn't say they were formed by volcano gods.

"nothing assembles by itself" - yes it does. "Every time we observe organization, we infer intentionality and mind" - no we don't. " The universe demands an explanation for its organization, beauty and, fine-tuning." - no it doesn't.

@@cpt.kimintuitiondemon I do not know if you have anything to back up your statements, besides your mere "no it doesn't". Be serious, please.

If the universe is too complex, unique and unlikely to exist by itself without a designer then god requieres a designer even more than the universe

@@Aguijon1982 Why would God need a designer? Please, elaborate.

The earth was the center of the universe a few century ago. Now the universe is fine tuned just for us. See the pattern?

there is a pretty obvious fallacy in your argumentation, maybe you can find it yourself

THIS.

@@oliverhug3 What is your point? That the Earth is not the most important place for humans? Yes, it is. That it is not the centre of the universe? Again, it is. As there is no centre of the universe, anything in the universe can be the centre.

@@rysloan Uh-oh. There’s only barely enough room in here for my ego.

Ego doesn't allow it.

It’s odd to me some people deny the obvious, ego gets in the way of seeing a Creator

@@notionSlave Yeah it's pure humility to suppose that the desert specter your ancestors worshiped actually exists and also created the entire cosmos...

@@MrCmon113 ye those desert dwellers are more intelligent than you.

@@notionSlave world looks pretty flat, it's so obvious. (All obvious things are obviously true, obviously)

I found Justin mostly acting as a moderater who summed up the position each one made rather well; to help the audience understand whats going on.

Seriously, seemingly the same question to Sabine over and over. It was really frustrating.

@@luna-p Exactly, it sometimes felt like she was out of words for having already answered the question before and not knowing what else to add. In my estimation this might be the result of two facts: 1) the conversation got to its bottom line relativelly quickly, leaving too much space to fill. 2) Justin's limited philosophical background makes it harder to express philosophical questions with precision, the repetition might be the result of his struggle to articulate his questions

@Kent Linkletter Exactly! Life is SO rare...human life even more so...far from evidence the universe is fine tuned for us, it certainly seems to suggest we should feel very fortunate to be here at all, meager though our existence may be.

In an infinite, expanding universe it’s just an inevitable fact that life will find a way to exist *somewhere*. It would be a pretty unreasonable assumption to assume only our planet harbors life, and the existence of life elsewhere would undermine the idea that the universe was finely tuned just for us

We simply dont know if life is rare or not. SETI can only investigate a tiny part of this galaxy and then just for aliens trying to communicate with radios. Even if there was just one planet on average in each galaxy with some kind on life of it that would still be 100s of billions of planets with life on them... So we may be the one and only planet in the universe with life on it, OTOH we may not. No idea really, we are as far from discovering the values of the terms in the Drake equation as we ever were.

@@roqsteady5290 True, and good points. Consider this: we *know* intelligent life is extremely rare. Look at all the space available, and divide it by the volume of human bodies. That represents the universe's astonishingly *colossal* hostility to humans, even if we ignore the billions of years' time dimension, which seems to make the fine-tuning claims exponentially more absurd, AFAICT. If reality were as described in Genesis, the Mosaic Gods might be plausible, but it's just not a flat world under a crystal firmament holding back the waters above.

@@roqsteady5290 I agree, we really don't know if we are alone, but we are pretty sure that there is not life on every planet (note the Fermi Paradox). I was surmising that in the proposed multiverse, why not universes where the conditions are so friendly to life, that it might be absolutely teeming with life and has been for billions of years. Why are these not as common as ones like ours where life is hard to find? If they are, it would seem that the most likely place for us would be in one of these universes containing trillions of lifeforms. And the fact we don't find ourselves in one of those might tell us something about the possible multiverse.

No. 14:00. For Sabine, these “qualitative features” are not “unlikely” because we don’t know the extent to which they could have been otherwise. They are simply what exists and nothing else needs or can be said about them.

@@tripp8833 LOL! The statements *"philosophy is dumb"* and *"nature doesn’t care for human constructs"* are statements that cannot be part of an experiment verified in a laboratory. These are philosophical statements, not scientific. LOL!!! Self-refutation for the win! Thanks for the laugh.

@@ericb9804 What? At 14:00 she is not saying what you think. What she is really saying is that we cannot change the constants so Barnes' models are irrelevant. But this is a mistake because it assumes Finite Frequentism (which almost no one accepts) and everyone is into Bayesianism wich allows to consider Barnes' models Also, let me say that there is no evidence that the nature of the universe is necessary, all evidence seems to confirm that it is contingent. BTW.

@@prime_time_youtube In order to assign Bayesian priors, you need reasons - you need evidence of what the priors might be. You don't just get to pick them out of thin air, which is what Barnes does and why no one outside of overt religious apologists takes it seriously. Sabine is clearly saying that it is inappropriate to use the term "unlikely" in relation to the various cosmological constants. They are constant and that is all that we know. Anything else is speculation at best. And clearly silly when that speculation included magic. Also, let me point out that you just used the phrase "nature of the universe" unironically, as if the "the universe" were something other than "nature", which is precisely the "nature" of your misconception - the assumption that "reality" is something other than what we observe. Whatever "evidence" you are referring to may suggest that "nature" could be other than what it is given other parameters, but so what? Its not. That's all we know. It most definitely does not "confirm" that magic is real.

@@ericb9804 what magic are you referring to ... serious question

The answer might be - both water and the hole were created by natural processes.

Ignoring the probabilities to make a simple analogy does not make your point. Everyday we learn more and the possibility of random chance diminishes. Increased complexity only points to higher order which as far as know only comes conscious intelligence. What is the probability of a flat universe?

@@ElonTrump19 How did you jump from complexity to consciousness? I bet its watchmaker argument again... please tell me i am wrong.

@@EreshKidu the tactic of avoiding the question by trying to diminish the argument is weak. It points to a lack of understanding. Also, both the puddle and watchmaker arguments come from the same person and both are up ended with complexity.

@@ElonTrump19 "Increased complexity only points to higher order" No it doesn't, it is the other way around as we have learned from evolutionary biology - complexity arises from simple natural laws iterated over time with random inputs and it is simple solutions that come from good engineering.

Great comment, well said!

@@jacoblee5796 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

That is a good point, but the problem is there are many constants that we do not have any mathematical explanation for. That's where people introduce the fine-tuning idea. Sabine beautifully describes that in her book. But it may well be that for some constants we will never have a mathematical explanation. Maybe they just are as they are. But I think we will find proper explanations for most constants in the physical theories and reduce the number of those unexplained to a handful. I also think that's the best we can hope for, because every mathematical model describing reality has some tunable constants. Hence if we explain one theory with thousands of constants with a theory with one tunable constant, we are still left with this one constant. I don't think we can overcome that.

@@piotr.ziolo. Could you expand on this a little. I don't quite understand what you mean by "Hence if we explain one theory with thousands of constants with a theory with one tunable constant, we are still left with this one constant. I don't think we can overcome that."

@@piotr.ziolo. ... all this fine-tuning woo reminds me of the woo believers about the Pyramids of Egypt.... they used to jump up and down with excitement over how the ancient Egyptians could have ever known the value of Pi so far back and used it to construct their *pyramids with measurements that are multiples of Pi* . The fine-tuning lot are doing exactly the same WOO WORSHIP as those Pyramids Mystery cultists. The ancient Egyptians did not make their pyramid measurements as multiples of Pi... they used a wheel-measuring device and they used those to measure off their required measurements as multiple turns of the wheel.... so... NATURALLY ... without any knowledge whatsoever of Pi or its value.... they ended up to OBLIVIOUSLY have measurements that are multiples of Pi...

(Stephen Hawking quote) "Even our final theory of physics would still just be a bunch of equations, and would not tell us what breathes fire into the equations that makes a Universe for us to describe"

@@jeffbarrett411 thanks, right and not in conflict with Doc Bee

@@jeffbarrett411 : We give things meaning.

@@jeffbarrett411 “We are each free to believe what we want, and it's my view that the simplest explanation is that there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate.” - Stephen Hawking

@@eprd313 Hawking was a crap scientists and even worse philosopher. Quoting him as if it means something is as low IQ as it gets

she wasn't buying into their BS

@@paulrichards6894 yeah but no need to be toxic my friend 🌷🌷

@@paulrichards6894 I wouldn't be so harsh... We are a very gullible species. We just have to praise people like her who are trying to temper without mockery or passion our inate wishful thinking drive.

All scientists are biased. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.

@@garrygraham7901 lol everyone is biased at this point. Sophistry.

How does this contribute anything. What is your position? Do you have one? Do you want to have one? If you do you need for to understand the video. If you do come to Raphael Braun discussion. Otherwise go play with your cats. So far...1. Is the argument that hypothesis of theism is more probable than the hypothesis of theism given fine tuning..Answer No! Is this even a scientific question ....Answer No! Is there fine-tuning even in...process If there is fine tuning does it lead to an inference of intelligent design ...in process....If there is an inference of intelligent design is the intelligent designer God in process... Can you handle it ...let's see come on over and lets find out what you got kizza besides some cats

"Fact is that we do live in a universe that seems to be fine-tuned for life..." This is not a fact at all. It is an interpretation based on what we do not understand in science. At least not at this point.

@@joeye7518 If the fine tuning was a little different in the + or - then is it clear what would happen to our universe and ultimately life here on Earth? I was a little confused about this part.

But we only know of one place in the observable universe where life exists - the thin layer of water and air around Earth. In every other place, including empty space, life would be immediately destroyed. We hope that there are little protected pockets of life elsewhere - but we have not found any, for billions of light years in every direction. How is this extremely deadly universe "fine tuned" for life?

@@nycbearff "How is this extremely deadly universe "fine tuned" for life?" In that with more or less of it life would be impossible. At least that's how the finetuning argument go's.

Depends on how one defines 'scientific' as it seems Sabine is limiting it to her field of theoretic physics. However, that's not how science is defined in Academia which rather uses the tools of science in various disciplines. Maybe it would clarify her stance if she stated the fine tuning argument encompasses more than theoretic physics is capable of handling. Instead, she seems to imply that reality can only be defined in theoretic physics. The deeper question, which Barnes hinted at, is what are the limits of science? And if so, why do the sciences often make claims beyond their fields of expertise?

Answering the design question leads directly to deeper technology.

Restricting science to only things that can be calculated makes it impossible to advance technology in any significant way. We should approach science in a more balanced way.

@@wulphstein what? How so lol

@@lumbratile4174 Read Thomas Kuhn's, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" to find out how science advances not from the "day-to-day gradual process of experimentation" but by "breakthrough moments that disrupt accepted thinking and offer unanticipated ideas that occur outside of "normal science"." We get the famous phrase "paradigm shift" from Kuhn.

Barnes is not merely exploring possibilities here. He is asserting specific explanations as scientifically more probable than others.

Exactly.... he pretends that he advocates for Occam's Razor ... but then adds the most tremendously complicated claptrap to advocate for his DIALS TURNER. These "scientists" are theists trying to put the Genie into there service now that it has escaped the bottle, where their cult of human blood sacrifice kept it shut up for as long as it could.

@Soy Allergies the point is that god _can_ be used to explain anything. If we found ourselves in one of the universes that Luke described that only has neutrons and asked: why does this universe exist? The answer: because this is something that god would do applies. It applies in all scenarios, that's why it's a terrible explanation.

@@bouncycastle955 Plus, FSM is a word that suits the same purpose, but has really less anthropomorphic baggage.

@Soy Allergies so? God wants what he wants. Turns out he wants neutrons and nothing more. Please tell me how you know what god wants without question begging

@Soy Allergies FSM has the traits of spaghetti in the same way god has traits of a man.

Evolution wouldn’t happen if it wasn’t fine tuned to happen. Enough light, warmth, atmosphere, gravity, etc.

Absolutely right. Geez, if some entity "designed" a universe to suit life, he sure didnt provide a large proportion of planets where it could develop. having read a lot of the relevant literature, I have virtually no doubt that life has sprung from abiotic chemicals many times in the universe, but so far no where close enough for us here on Earth to detect.

@@notionSlave Natural processes don’t need intention to occur. A rock falling from a cliff didn’t intend to fall, erosion caused it to fall. The root of the fallacy of “fine tuning” is the belief that our existence was “intended to happen.” You know how people falsely ascribe human-like emotions to animals, like saying a dog feels “guilty?” It’s the same mistaken assumption.

@@megameow321 you’re being too reductionist. A video game will have many random things happen in it. But overall the entire design that caused those random things was programmed by someone.

@@notionSlave Who programmed god then? If it's ok to say nobody programmed god, then it's equally ok to say nobody programmed the universe.

apart from luke who can't let go of his god, or admit that his god has nothing to do with the laws of nature. he has qriggle and squirm his god into the science. if god hadn't claimed to have created everything, this wouldn't be a problem, blame whoever wrote the bible for trying too hard.

@@HarryNicNicholas Hossenfelder didn't provide any explanation for the fine tuning, did she?

@@les2997 If it ain’t science - her contention - what’s to be said?

That's my question too. Barnes is WAY too quick to handwave certain criticisms away as "frequentism" when actually Sabine made a perfectly good Bayesian criticism which one could tease out of Luke's own counterexample. We can think that dark clouds increase our "confidence" that rain will come within the next 10 minutes, but that's only because we've seen clouds and rain before. If we have never seen clouds or rain (suppose we grew up in a desert with no TV and never heard rain described to us) then we'd see dark clouds and not know what they are or what will happen next. I use this same argument with the firing squad analogy. A child who has never seen a gun or death before wouldn't count their survival miraculous if they were aimed at, because they didn't have relevant background information to make such an inference. And that is the key, background information. Sabine says we don't have relevant background information about what exactly our constants "are", how they mechanistically came about, if the mechanism could be random, if the constants could take other values, how often, and for any other reason. Maybe for the rain example you only need to see rain clouds once to get the confidence raising of dark clouds -> rain, fine. But do we have even ONE instance of relevant background information on either God or the constants? No. So we lack any background information to justify the priors that Luke needs to have to get a Bayesian analysis off the ground.

@@logos8312 I see what you mean but what about Barnes' reference to the literature showing a predominant Bayesian inclination amongst physicists?

@@martifingers My comments keep getting eaten after I post them. My original point was that Sabine wasn't assuming Frequentism in her criticism (her criticism was perfectly Bayesian) so most physicists being Bayesians, or even a critical mass being so, are perfectly consistent with her criticism.

@@martifingers It's also easier to be a Bayesian if you can run experiments and observe a decent amount of data (at which point priors don't matter much). The issue with Barnes is that he's doing what is acceptable when you have lots of data, and applying it to a situation where we only have one data point. So while I don't know if most physicists are Bayesian (which would be a bit surprising, since they use the 6sigma rule), it doesn't mean that they can do it right. And it definitely doesn't mean Sabine was making a frequentist argument.

Does sabine "think" she is just a set of atoms and molecules or more than that ?

Ha, right. In her new book 'Existential Physics', she mentioned exactly this talk. As honest as she is, says, that she didn't want that talk, but did it for the donation.

​@@pankaja7974 she would answer, that's the difference between strong and weak emergence. What she is convinced of is that all she's more, is weak emergence, so based on molecules a.s.o., but anyway origin new. Strong emergence would mean, she's something from 'outside' physics, she calls ascientific. All to read in her new book, an exciting work.

No, what's absurd is your comment. Objectively. Why IS a rational question, the universe itself is what's absurd. The brain is a construct of which deduces logic and reason, both of which are objectively rational things. The universe is just a pointless object, YOU are appealing to that as something that justifies itself in anyway. It rationally doesn't You sound like a christian that excuses a god for acts of harm. Why is a god not excused to cause harm to humans, yet an absurd, mindless object like the universe is always beautiful even if it ends up creating things like lifeforms with birth defects? Things don't just exist for NO REASON, that's what you're saying. To say that things JUST EXIST, is to say things exist for no reason whatsoever. THAT is an absurd concept, because there's ALWAYS an objective reason why something would exist.

Just because asking why happens to be a human trait, that doesn't logically mean that asking why is absurd. The human brain has the capability to do valid logic. To say that the universe is greater than valid logic is like saying a rock is greater than valid logic. No valid logic is a rational thing, the universe isn't, its just a big mess of junk. There's no logical reason why a mess of junk is more valuable than valid logic.

​@@FinalFantasy8911debater Here's a piece of valid logic: to ask WHY (something exists) is equivalent to asking WHY (something should) NOT exist. The question "WHY something exists?" implies the existence of an alternative ("WHY not?"). IF that alternative does really exist, then science could answer the "WHY" question. However, if that alternative is purely imaginary and has NEVER been demonstrated to exist, then the "WHY" question becomes the realm of philosophy and religion, NOT science. For example, it's a valid question to ask: "WHY does anti-matter not exist in the Universe?" That's because we observe anti-matter to exist in the laboratory, therefore an alternative to matter is demonstrated to exist. However, it is UNscientific (not valid from a scientific poin-of-view) to ask: "WHY do photons exist?", or "WHY does the Universe exist?", or "WHY do the fundamental constants have such and such values?" That's because we have NEVER observed an alternative to the photon, or to the Universe, or to the values of fundamental constants. Such alternatives do NOT exist, they are purely imaginary, therefore they are the domain of Philosophy and Religion (and science-fiction), but NOT of Science. In such cases, the "WHY" questions are only valid in our minds, they are only valid from a philosophical or religious point-of-view, but not from a scientific point-of-view. Science cannot explain WHY something NEVER exists, or WHY something ALWAYS exists.

​@@lukebandolino882 No it doesn't, to ask "WHY something is" is just that, its asking what machinations brought something into being and for what reason. Its NOT equivalent to making an argument why something shouldn't exist, that's fallacious thinking on your part. Your brain is mixing 2 different things together. To ask why do apples exist is NOT the same as implying that they shouldn't exist. You DON'T need noticeable alternatives to justify asking WHY, that's ANOTHER fallacious thought in your brain. The fact that mankind lacks knowledge of alternatives DOESN'T logically mean that alternatives don't exist. So you're saying that everybody in the world ought to assume that the universe NEEDS or SHOULD or JUST exists because humans lack the tools to identify how the universe couldn't have existed. That sounds like appeal to ignorance to me. Its like christians saying : "Nobody has shown jesus' resurrection to NOT have happened. Therefore it did happen. You're arguing that : "Its foolish to ask why the universe exists, because no human can prove the universe couldn't exist." BOTH are appealing to the ignorance of mankind, and mankind's ignorance, objectively, don't signify what happens in objective reality. OBJECTIVE reality dictates what happens to itself. That's the new truth that you need to learn. I'm assuming you're an atheist who cares for logic and reason. If you care about logic and reason, then act like it. Don't sloth down just because atheism has been shown to be a valid philosophy, truth doesn't end at atheism. And another thing, don't conflate philosophy with religion, philosophy is about deducing the truth, similar to science. Philosophy earns respect in that regard. Religion is about assuming truth and using philosophy and science to justify the assumptions. Philosophy and religion are NOT similar or the same.

Luke is willing to speculate. Very different than taking an interdisciplinary approach.

@@StarTigerJLN Actually, his speculation IS interdisciplinary. The science seems to beg for examination behind the "why" for "how" while realizing that science is not enough to explore, that philosophy does have a role--even in deciding not to explore. (And if modern science is to be consistent, then this speculation/exploration shouldn't be ruled out.)

There's no shortage of people coming up with novel and crazy concepts in answer to just about every scientific question currently being considered. The problem is that almost all of them will turn out to be wrong. While the rare correct visionary often gains hero status later on, an equally important and more thankless job is continuously filtering out the ideas which don't work, aren't scientific, and often don't even exhibit mastery of previously established scientific knowledge and methods. Sabine is one of those essential gatekeepers who keeps the real science from descending to the level of un-self-critical crackpot pseudoscience web sites. Without people like her repeatedly and unglamorously knocking down faulty ideas and unjustified conclusions, our attention and resources would be overwhelmed by the tide of people who imagine themselves visionaries but who are merely wrong. We should thank her for it, not give backhanded compliments about her just being good at carrying out the real visionaries' ideas. You make her sound like a grad student hired to help in the lab when she's doing a lot more than that currently.

@@scotte4765 I somewhat agree with you, except that I’ve also seen interviews and lectures with Luke Barnes, who doesn’t strike me as someone espousing “crazy concepts to just about every scientific question being considered”. And the fact that Sabine seemed not even to consider his ideas of being worthy of more engaging responses is clearly evident in the exchange between them. The moderator was desperately trying to get her to engage more and she wasn’t having it. Is Luke Barnes really not the sort of scientist worthy of an intellectual discussion on science? I’ll say again that I see nothing wrong with the way Sabine presents herself. I just don’t see those types of personalities as the ones who make novel discoveries.

@@ToddSullivanacrowsflying I wasn't trying to suggest that Barnes is a quack, so I apologize if it came off that way. The thing about being a good scientific gatekeeper is that you're willing to call out mistaken assumptions, conclusions, and methods no matter who is making them. Sometimes it's quacks spouting nonsense and sometimes it's credible scientists making human mistakes. In this case Barnes was claiming there's an unlikely thing happening that therefore requires a particular type of explanation, and Hossenfelder correctly called out his probability claim as unjustified. Since it was unjustified, it's not credible science but philosophical speculation. She was correct to say, in essence, "no, stop there." You're not the only one I've seen on this page criticizing Sabine for not engaging further with Barnes's arguments. The fault lies with the host or whoever decided to invite her to debate this topic. You only need to watch a few of her KZfaq channel videos to predict that she wasn't going to run along with arguments or research she considered flawed or unscientific, and since the flaw in the argument was simple to point out, there wasn't much more to be said about it after she did. They should have found another guest if they wanted someone who would argue just for the sake of making it a good show. *I just don’t see those types of personalities as the ones who make novel discoveries.* That may be, but even phrasing it that way gives undue credit to the novel visionaries. Scientific attention and material resources are limited, and their novel discoveries wouldn't get anywhere if there weren't many others like Sabine making sure that only the most worthy and credible new ideas made it into the scientific edifice to receive that attention and those resources. A fine-tuner God is an unjustified conclusion arising from bad math, not a novel discovery.

@@scotte4765 I will grant you that whoever invited her, if they know anything about her, probably made a mistake. At the same time, if you know anything about this particular channel, I’d think Sabine would realize, even if invited, that this probably wasn’t the best place for her to make an appearance. I say all this while including that I’m a subscriber to her channel and I’ve seen many of her videos. Truly I’m not trying to disparage her, this just wasn’t the right venue, I suppose.

@@ToddSullivanacrowsflying I would qualify that and say that if the producer(s)' goal was to host a rip-roaring debate on an unanswerable question, then Sabine wasn't a great choice. But if the goal was to actually answer the question or prove/disprove the fine-tuning argument, then she was a good choice because she did that, very concisely. The argument is flawed and she explained why. It's you and other commenters here who think, for some reason I don't understand, that she should have gone on to argue about other aspects of the claim even after it had been disproven. I'm not sure what that would have accomplished besides legitimizing a bad argument. I don't presume to know or guess your own views on fine-tuning or God, and you don't have to tell me. But I've found it a common and annoying habit among theists to frame things like fine-tuning or the problem of suffering as knotty questions that believers and skeptics have debated for years without ever finding an answer, when in fact skeptics have very soundly answered or refuted them but the theists just won't accept the result. Sabine pointed out a fatal flaw in the fine-tuning argument. It's dead right there.

What? Is the the same deterministic Sabine we're talking about?

How long can she pretende to hold we dont know

She's boring and could send a "glass eye to sleep' Even her book has got the most boring title " lost in math" oh dear!

There's nothing wrong with asking philosophical questions. To me, science is just a branch of knowledge. It's silly to limit our knowledge to only science. We need to be asking, does the fine tuning evidence fit better with a theistic or atheistic worldview?

@@jameswright6203 Yes there is nothing wrong with asking philosophical questions. There is something very wrong when you use philosophy to substitute scientific language. Philosophy is not science and using it to answer or pontificate about science is absolutely wrong. I love philosophy and have read quite a lot which opened my mind however science is a different beast all together.

@@jameswright6203 Excellent point.

Well, cosmologists need to be to come up with models and hypotheses, and then they try to find ways of testing them. Multiverse, for instance is one such hypothesis and it fits very well with inflationary theory and general relativity. Cutting edge science is the speculation that when tested and verified leads to confirmed science. So I can hardly agree with Sabine's puritanical approach, but at least it is better than speculating about things that are totally arbitrary and have no place in science, such as religion.

Because tge principle of sufficuenr reason applies in science. There HAS to be a sufficient cause for things that could be otherwise.

I like the way you put the problem there, but one could disagree with you about your definition of 'overcomplicate'.

@@chadjcrase well said

The theory of everything needs much more than the fine tuning problem to be remedied. Susskind said we are most likely a million yrs away from that if it is even possible. It may be that the information is no longer around and has been lost as the universe grew and cooled.

Both persons in this video are in my view reliable scientists. One must remember that scientists can interpret the data differently. One scientist can say that the universe is hostile (not fine tuned), as if you would jump just 75 km up, into space, you would die. Another says the world is fine tuned, as changing earth´s orbit 1% closer to the sun, would make this planet inhabitable. They are both right on the data, but interpretation differs.

the believers mantra always seems to be "i can't imagine" "i can't understand how" or "i cannot believe that! basicallt theists openly admit they can't imagine life without god, in fact they aren't even ALLOWED to.

The answer is hummingbird.

@@oliverhug3 Furgel Burgel Manergel is also possible 😅😅

It's worse. "No explanation needed" is dogmatism.

Philosophy isn’t her strong suit

I mean, let's just say everything it's philosophy then. The fact that you can use philosophy to examine anything doesn't mean that something is philosophy. This seems like a pointless stretch to me but 🤷🏻‍♂️

I think you mean: Hitchens Razor. If they don't provide reasoning for assuming the probability in the premise of the argument she does not need to provide any reasoning to reject it.

@@RaphaelBraun 🤝

Why he lost the debate? Because you said it? Pathetic! All I hear from the other side is “it is what it is” “it’s not scientific” “don’t need explanation” “no interest in it”

More like the glasses are probably made by a designer, because they are a perfect fit

DNA is like software. Software does not write itself. Hence, your ears and your nose are infact designed. Believing in self-organization of matter is like believing scrap would turn into an airplane, if we wait long enough of course.

Doug... If you think that’s what the argument is you should find something better to do with your free time cause scholarly debates aren’t for you. $10 says you’d have to google what free parameter is 🤦🏻‍♂️

@@westleyemmerson4921 better yet, I'll bet you $100 you don't know what humor is.

I've literally heard this

What is the difference between e.g. an explanation on how to build a car and a description on how to build a car?

@@RaphaelBraun science doesn't 'explain' anything, it claims to, but its 'description' that science does. You cannot 'explain' fire, you can only describe changes in molecular structure.

@@LJ7000 I do agree, however I don't see the difference between a scientific "description" of how fire works and an "explanation" of how fire works. Is the scientific description of what fire is and how it is caused not qualifying as an explanation for a fire that you observe? If not what would be?

@@RaphaelBraun it's not an "explanation"

Science explains how things happen -- it makes predictions and demonstrates methods. What you mean is "why" or a moral reason. Science does not provide that, no. That's Luke's issue.

I don't know how science is surviving these so called scientists deprived of critical thinking 😅

That depends on the type of lottery. You are talking about a lottery where someone must win. There are other types of lottery. Either way: No single person broke the jackpot 1000 times in a row for example. That would be a much better analogy for fine tuning.

There is nothing improbable about someone winning the lottery. A *specific* person winning the lottery is improbable. But that someone wins it is almost certain. So this is a terrible analogy.

^Why does water boil at exactly 100°C? Checkmate athiests^

@@ck58npj72 can you explain please

@@redx11x Damn bro, that was a year ago! I was being sarcastic, obviously the fact that water boils at 100 degrees C is completely arbitrary, we made the scale to fit the fact.

very intelligent woman being the reason

@@paulrichards6894 Its not intelligence. Its obstinance. Her approach is unfalsifiable and would just as easily allow her to conclude that a painting she discovered in a field was a product of chance and had no painter.

@@andrewhinson4323 Part of anthropomorphic projection is conflating the things we discover with the things we invent. How long before Hossenfelder is the target of the insult that she is arrogant and needs to humble herself?

@@Simon.the.Likeable which is a nice truism, but how does one distinguish between discovery and invention without first assuming that the discovery is not an invention in and of itself. In order for you to look at the universe and think it does or does not have an intelligent cause, you must first approach it with an assumption for or against one of those two propositions. Unless you happen to know of some concrete fact or reason why you know the universe is an uncreated entity.

@@andrewhinson4323 Yes, either we must choose between anthropomorphic projection and examining physical reality without that filter.

What does before the big bang even mean?

@@RaphaelBraun God?

@@matthewkay1327 I don't understand

Exactly!

And there you have it, religious Bayesianism.

You are fundamentally wrong and you know it. He already responded to your ignorant statement but you are still here repeating that like a parrot. All I would say is that, has your beloved dice infinite number of sides (infinity not being a number as Wittgenstein, Godel and many others say it would be a paradox to begin with anyway...)? Or a finite number of them? If it has infinite sides then it would not be a dice to begin with for obvious reasons as actual infinity is an impossibility, period. On the other hand if, it does only have a finite number of sides, then it would be a very valid question to first of all ask a very legitimate question of why those certain number of sides to begin with? And, also legitimately ask, why that particular side and not others... ------------- On a different note, randomness is an impossibility, both in concept and in practice. Any random generation system by definition is deterministic, period. And on the other hand, even if one could truly generate or discover a system or natural structure that could potentially speaking express random behaviour, the numerical output of the machine that utilises that natural system to generate a so-called random number is still an anthropocentric structure that works with the anthropocentric language of mathematics (e.g. numbers won't grow on trees) and again fundamentally speaking cannot and is not still able to truly produce random 'anything' let alone random 'numbers'. All random numbers are fundamentally speaking pseudorandom, period. Godel and Wittgenstein say hello btw, I strongly suggest anyone who believes in the cult of 'randomness' of the universe (yes including Bertrand Russell himself) study their works as it opens a new door in their way of thinking.

@@konnektlive I'm not sure what you're going on about, but the fact remains, that the universe is as we observe it to be. That's it. That's all we can honestly say. We don't know if that is remarkable or not. If you want to play with Bayes theorem and ramble on about infinity and randomness, have at it. But don't pretend you have found god just because you have assumed it to be there.

@@ericb9804 I'm disappointed, but not surprised at all. That response was incredibly narrow-minded and borderline dogmatic. Just this statement yours alone "ramble on about infinity and randomness" shows how (no offence) uneducated you are when it comes to sciences and philosophy of science. As a theoretical physicist (who lectures in multiple EU universities) I can surely get technical if needed, but I don't think you are not familiar with the challenge of random number generation as a very legitimate problem of science, hence all these QM attempts and interpretations and utilisations at trying to generate true random number. Simply calling the philosophy and science behind the practical science of randomness 'rambling' shows how easy-going your mind is and your need of lazy shortcuts to answers that superficially satisfy your mind. Well, ignorance is bliss for most people on this planet, so no surprise there either ^^ ...