Can science explain everything in the Universe? Can you travel out of the Universe?

The Doomsday Argument has a number of flaws; Time and Distance being the primary two. What do I mean? The Universe may well be 14 Billion years old however conditions for Billions of years would not support life. The planets of the first Suns for example would be devoid of atomic elements required for any life let alone intelligent life and technology. These elements did not exist before being created in a sun that goes on to explode. Whilst some massive suns may only last a couple of hundred million years, suns like our own last 10 Billion years. The Sun was created when the universe was approx. 9 to 10 Billion years old so perhaps it was part of an early generation of Suns and planets with enough atomic elements to support life. We also know today that not all Suns have planets that could support human life nor would the planets necessarily have all the atomic elements to support technology. It took over 4 Billion years on Earth for conditions to arise that supported life and for evolution to lead to intelligent life, us. So throw in the vast distances of the galaxy, let alone the universe, and the limitations of the speed of light, on just those grounds alone we should not be surprised that we don't find other intelligent life, yet. The other "time factor" that could be at play is Time Dilation. Our solar system is towards the outer edge of the galaxy meaning we are moving faster relative to those suns towards the center; Time (relative to the other suns) is travelling faster for us. Gravity and velocity, certainly nowhere near consistent across the Galaxy and Universe, may play a significant part in the timing of the appearance of intelligent life. I also don't believe the statistical arguments hold weight for a variety of reasons not least being the limited data points available and the huge "unknown" factor. We can determine the probability of any event happening, doesn't mean our prediction will come true. Take a simple coin toss, the probability of a heads vs tails is 50%, yet we could see 50 heads tossed in a row. If you bet on horses that probability said should win, you'd leave the race track poorer most days.

The Doomsday Argument answers the Fermi Paradox.

Dan Howard ..... or maybe an answer to the fermi paradox would solve the doomsday argument. Still so much we don’t know.

@@stinkertoy4310 How 1970's of you. We're way past that now.

@John Omalley ♡ sounds like that one sentence and conversation changed your life for the better. Made it fulfilling. I guess it doesn't matter if it was true or not, in the end.

so much presumption in that.

@Podcast - SørenCast Z It's laughable that some people think they can predict the future. It seems to be a part of the human condition that some people are unable to get over.

Recently I’ve been stuck in constant realization of mortality and it only makes me panic until I accept it mentally.

Take no notice , it is only the usual nutters and dreamers that have nothing more profitable with which to occupy there time, once they have exhausted the potential of their habitual cinque contra uno.

What on earth does this have to do with the doomsday scenario?

The Berlin wall metaphor...it reminded her of that. Does it matter? Does her comment effect your life?

Which gives you a reference point.

Is that for or against the doomsday argument?

Nice!🤣

The Doomsday Argument is bogus. There an infinite or an indeterminate number of possible trajectories for the longevity of any form of life. Because there are an indeterminate number of possible trajectories it is impossible to state which trajectory is a "normal" one. You can't derive a normal distribution from an infinite or indeterminate set. Therefore there can't be an a priori assumption that our current position should be in the "average" section of some normal curve. THERE IS NO NORMAL CURVE THAT APPLIES TO THE QUESTION. The only reason I watch these Closer To Truth videos is to amuse myself by deconstructing the arguments put forward. Usually the questions themselves are bogus. They tend to be formulated on reifying some purely semantic contradiction or ambiguity. There is a reason to fear that we could kill ourselves off in the near term, but this legitimate fear is based on the evidence of existential dangerous factors in our current situation. The Doomsday Argument is based on a misinterpretation of how statistical concepts work. Statistical concepts can't kill you in any case, and you can't reason backwards from our putative position on a non-establishable distribution curve. Another way to realize how bogus this argument is, is to think about the fact that it could have been applied at any point in our history as a species to argue that we are likely to soon become extinct. You could have used it 150,000 years ago to predict that we didn't have long to continue in existence. An argument that could be used at any point in a trajectory to predict that the trajectory will soon come to an end has to be incorrect. My first paragraph explains why it is incorrect.

Well then if you live special times you could easily live the last quarter.

We dont know if intelligent life is very rare. We might be alone. Universe is expanding. In the future will impossible to tell its history. Humans are precious to study the evolution of the cosmos, while it still possible. Also, in the far future, our technology will be vital to save the life in this planet, when the sun starts to expand.

@@domcasmurro2417 In reality, we can stop nothing, can't cure illness or poverty, can't change human nature and most of all, when you say "we" this doesn't include anybody but only top 2% of humanity.

Something You Said As far as I’m concerned, you’re an idiot.

@@carlz28 And your reaction is in keeping with what I have come to expect from the human race.

@@carlz28 By the way, what an obvious troll you are, randomly dumping a bunch of abusive comments in the comments section.

I think that the day is coming when they will be a mass die off of humans however, when you consider that primitive man lived in the hottest, the coldest, the driest, the wettest, etc. in environments with only very primitive tools I think, unless there is a major asteroid collision that humans will be around for a very long time. We’re kind of like cockroaches. L O L.

When the only potable food and water sources get contaminated. Then yes we can very much be completely destroyed. Or the sheer panic and anarchy of people killing each other as quickly as possible to secure whatever resources they can. But the end result from every other WMD ensures death one way or another. We made viral weapons, chemical weapons all with the singular focus of eliminating humans. Point is. Even IF nuclear war and the resulting small scale regional wars and panic and radioactive poisoning of food and water doesnt kill everyone. Then one of the other WMD's will almost certainly finish up

Its a shitty nihilistic way to think. But it's also very realistic. They've had a long time to think about how to ensure total mutual destruction. And I've only listed the additional methods we DO know about.

True

My uncle harry worked at camp century in greenland "operation ice worm" A second strike missle cylo with lots of nukes strapped to ICBM that was designed to launch automatically after russias first nuclear strike. M.A.D.

I think not, we have "evolved" to self destruction , all the players are in place. The scenario was written 2000 years ago or more. What are waiting for the third temple to actually be built? Its already to go, waiting for a man to come in and save the world? Wake up?..

Knowing how far something is along a path you have to know how long that path is. Given the answer to that question is unknown to us at this time how can anyone say where we are along that path, or even if that path has an end?

All species go extinct, humans included.

@@haroldfloyd5518 Eventually, when the sun goes out. But some morphologies are so well adapted they carry on over millennia. Beetles, sharks, rats... if anything has the chops to survive a non-sterilizing global disaster, it's human shaped, domestic primates.

@@con.troller4183 The cockroaches would be my bet for ultimate surface survivor. Deep-ocean vent ecosystems might survive without the sun, for a time.

damn roaches😂@@thedudegrowsfood284

@@rubiks6 I envy you. I wish my intelligence and wisdom could be so devoid of the skepticism and knowledge that utterly destroys the nonsense behind religion. It's just a crutch to hold on to. I agree, my outlook stinks. That's because REALITY isn't designed for me, or you, or humans. We just evolved over so much time, billions of years, from mud, to bacteria, to a vast collection of animals, one of which is us, humans. We are all (even the dumbest people) capable of pondering our fate and we're all aware of our existence and its shortness in the scope of things. So... we've invented all these lovely fairy-tales to make swallowing reality far easier. It's called -- totally delude yourself with bs. Unfortunately, I can't subscribe to religion. And it's not some rebellion. I was this way at 5, at 10, at 20, 30, and today. I always thought it was all nonsense. When people can't explain things... god did it. It's intellectual laziness. If this was 500 years ago you'd still believe lightning and thunder are messages from God. Right? Admit you'd likely believe that. You'd have no reason not to think it's some angry or special message. Science answered that. Science answered so much that we used to think was 'God'. So which is it? Is perhaps science the way to go (which just means reserve conclusions about the heavens until we can prove xy, and z) or praying and just 'having faith'?" Which is the way to get answers? Science? Or prayer? And until I have incontrovertible proof, religion can piss off. In fact, religion is inherently unfair. Who created this 'God'? Who the F put him in charge? I want to bypass this entity, and go to his creator. Is there infinite regression? Are there many levels of God? Who created the creator? That's an unanswerable paradox for you. But science can explain how everything here came to be. Complex things come from simple things, not the other way around. Sorry... you've probably fell asleep.

Kyle is a hero, he ensured humanity would not go extinct!

And as Steve Jobs said, creativity just connecting things. Doomers get creative ideas connecting dots

Johnny Morris you need a better hobby.

Yes, running the audio from these mini-docs through a simple leveler plug-in would fix this problem.

explain

Prog Nosis we don’t know that there hasn’t been.

@@leeimrie1992 Yeah, actually, that was half my point.

Prog Nosis have a look at the first Randall Carlson & Graham Hancock episode on Joe Rogan. Similar topic.

Yes I would be here, because back In the day gramps took what he wanted

yeah,lets nuke everything now🤣🤣🤣

The 'balls in the urn' argument is statistically flawed. If I hit number 2 on a roulette wheel, it doesn't mean there are more likely to be 6 numbers in total than 36. No reliable prediction can be made from a sample of one.

The analogy is flawed, because the second urn contains balls that actually exist, not the sum of balls that exist and those that may exist in the future. This is absurd.

Within the median field of the whole system.

@@rubiks6 I guess that's why algebra was invented. Depending on your definition of "invented".

@@rubiks6 It is an interesting debate. What does it mean to be average? Is average perfect? Are we average or perfect? I would say yes, we are average and we are perfect. Perfect exists within perfection - in the same way that infinity exists within infinity. I believe imperfection also exists within perfection, and zero is there within infinity. Of course, these are just my thoughts. Maybe some day everyone will actually figure everything out.

@@rubiks6 How can it have no meaning if we are using it to describe something? That goes for the word perfect also. We are all a perfect example of ourselves.

@@rubiks6 Maybe this original post is to be taken as a joke. Division by zero is impossible, an average is very possible. I guess if you're right that average is not philosophical, then the OP would somehow be mistaken. It seems they are referring to a philosophical definition. Because clearly someone who can write that understands the mathematical concept of an average. Again, unless they were joking.

CTT has been airing on PBS and other stations since 2000. We have a collection of round-tables, thousands of short-form interviews, and 19 seasons of full-length broadcast episodes! You can see our full library at closertotruth.com.

@@CloserToTruthTV Okay, thanks for responding and clarifying for me.

If so, he’s making pointless hypotheses a specialty.

Johnny Morris why are you sorry?