It is great, but “by fat”? Do you mean “by lipids”?

@@estuchedepeluche2212 you're so funny

Propagate is not the word for which you were struggling, try another. Any thing *but* propagate.

@@vhawk1951kl Why is propagate wrong here? I'm curious.

Look up the meaning of propagate and see if you can apply it to philosophy and science

If you please, but he does not even trouble himself to define his terms and chucks about words like cosmos and universe like confetti. Presumably he assumes or take it for granted that he understands the meaning of the words he uses, even if nobody else does.However you can't really blame him, for it is very rare to discover or encounter any man (human being) that can set out exactly what he means by "the universe or any of it cognates like cosmos, without reference to cognates and synonyms and without resorting to psychological algebra or x=y=x, where both X and Y are undefined and described no particular value or number, or does not define his terms by reference to other undefined terms.

Exactly....we also have the strings theory that's really a Ghost, because there's no scientific procedure to determine to proved and validated the theory....another Ghost is the Dark material according whit what's they say is so abundant in the universe (but they don't have one single particle)they just created something like that to validate they equation....another Ghost dark energy....the same history should be there millions years away from us....but no one particle is being found...it doesn't sound Good to me

We have to wait until the web telescope is in orbit, maybe they change they minds

What is a universe? You have not the faintest idea?-No surprises there.

You saying it always meant to be this way anyways?

@@aqe7914 Fine tuning of the Universe is an invention by those who want there to be a god! But a god is a fiction! There is no objective evidence for a god whatsoever! God is a primitive idea! This is the 21th century, you dodo's

@@GeoCoppens Haha 😂 thanks for passionate monologue, do you believe in Randomness? What are the two primary forces for evolution?

@@aqe7914 What the fuck are you talking about!

@@GeoCoppens not many braincells left up theree

@zempath that's just opinion

Multriverse has no evidence

It depends on how god is defined. There are too many variations so often best avoided

Yes. The idea of God bothers them. Everything to them must be testable. That's why they either invent multiverses, or take an even lazier approach and say, "If things were different we wouldn't be here." The more they find out the odds of all of the factors that go into us being here, the more they panic.

The multiverse and God's existence aren't incompatible.

what is universe? You have no idea?-No surprises there.

"The Universe also seems fine-tuned for life to emerge" so on how many planets or stars does life emerge out of how many stars and planets in the universe?

So far we know of only one instance of life, therefore we can make the assumption that life in general is bound by the constraints that life on earth is bound by. In this case, the fine-tuning argument makes perfect sense.

Seemingly you wrote:" Whatever theory we use has to be fine-tuned for existence because there has to be someone existing to create the theory. It makes it easy for us to blind ourselves." I appreciate that even you have no idea what it means, but who is"we"?- You and which specific identifiable interlocutor? Is there a "we"?

@@vhawk1951kl Oh no, spotted the fag in the comments again. Don’t you have a booster shot to take? Don’t waste your time here.

Dead is forever titch, or it is not dead or you have in mind something else; if it is not final and forever it s not death. Schopenhauer played that funny game in one of his books and it is hilarious

It is just a name.

How exactly do you get from apparent constants to the idea of "fine tuning"? Is it some sort of variation upon what might be called the Goldilocks principle? If something is possible if and only if certain conditions are satisfied, does it not follow from that that if those conditions are satisfied whatever it is will be manifest?

@@vhawk1951kl "Negative feedback" such as found in the thermostat for heating and cooling a room/house.

@@johnhodge6610 Not really my field boy I leave such things to those whose field it is, and have always supposed "negative feedback" to be someone saying that they don't particularly care for something or just don't like it

@@vhawk1951kl Yes, this follows accordingly. However, this also means that we are in an insanely low probability universe.

@@MarcusHalberstramVP If only you had some clear idea of what you mean by "universe" and could define it, but you are about to demonstrate that you have absolutely *No* clear idea of that you mean by universe by signally failing to define "universe" and failing to set out clearly what you mean by "universe", because you have absolutely *no* idea whatsoever, have you? You have the word" universe" but it is completely devoid of meaning for you; it is as if you have a box marked "universe", and when you look inside that box it is completely empty. Men(human beings) frequently simply *assume* that because they have the word they *necessarily* have the meaning of that word, but when pressed have to confess that the word conveys absolutely *Nothing* to them, is devoid of all meaning for them; in short: You have absolutely*No* idea what you mean by or seek to convey when you use, the word "universe"; it is as if you had a blurred photograph of something marked "universe", but upon looking at it you discover that you simply*cannot* discover of what it is a photograph - it is merely an out of focus photograph, or a vague generalisation, and that is because *all*universals are no more than vague/unfocused generalisations without any corresponding or matching experience. Not only have you no idea what you mean by universe, you have no way or method of experiencing whatever you mean by (and you have no idea)"universe". I would not be overly concerned by that if I were you because you are not the first, or only, person to use the word " universe without having the faintest idea what you mean by "universe", and that is because meaning is a matching or corresponding experience and neither you nor I, nor anyone can *experience* universe *because* it is no more than a vague generalisation that simply *cannot* be experienced. *No* universal can be experienced *because universals are no more than vague generalisations, and no-one can experience what is *no more* than a vague generalisation. You simply*assume* that because you have a word/box marked " universe" there must necessarily be something, specifically meaning)inside it; all you have is a word or box, but on looking inside that box, you discovered that it is empty-that the word "universe, like the box marked " universe", is empty or devoid of all meaning. Hand, bread, pain, dream are all words that have meaning for you because you have actual *experience of hand, bread, pain, dream; those words have -for you, matching or corresponding experiences; and what do we call matching or corresponding experiences? Yup- you got it, meaning, but since you *cannot* experience "universe"(and you have no idea what you mean by, and simply*cannot* define)"universe" *Because*it cannot be experienced except as an image or idea. Have you *experience of universe"? No, of course not because it is only an idea or *image* in your associative/dreaming apparatus(call that mind, brain, or what-you-will) Now what do we call what can *only* be experienced as a word or image? Yup- you got it, Imaginary Next time you want to use the word "universe", if you just use Imaginary in its stead or place, you will be nearer the mark. "we are in an insanely low probability Imaginary. There *is* no "we", you are strictly *on your own* in Imaginary. Some word/images are what David Hume calls compounds, for example a centaur or unicorn several things glued together with imagination. Men have empirical evidence(actual experience of horses and horns, and men, but no experience of centaurs and unicorns so they simply glue a horn onto a horse using imagination(to give a unicorn), or glue a man's torso onto the body of a horse(to give a centaur, thus unicorns and cenraurs are*imag*inary,but based on actual experiences, but your "universe" is similar to centaurs and unicorns in the sense that you can no more experience "universe" than you can experience unicorns or centaurs(which are*compound concepts/word/images)-They can *Only *be experienced as images or ideas in the associative/dreaming apparatus-or function. Is there any element of "Universe* that *can* be experienced as men and horses can be experienced or is you famous and clearly*Imaginary*exactly as unicorns and centaurs are imaginary(no more than words/images/ideas in the associative/dreaming apparatus or function, or imaginary) You must surely accept that you can no more experience "universe" than you can experience centaur or unicorn, thus "universe" like centaur and unicorn can only be ,........................................ .................................... ...................Imaginary QED You can define(or set out what you mean by) centaur or unicorn but not experience them, but your famous and imaginary "universe you cannot even define, as you are about to demonstrate by signally*failing* to define universe. You certainly cannot even begin to set out exactly what you mean by "universe" and this you will demonstrate by signally* failing*to set out what you mean by universe.You cannot even set out what associations the word "universe" evokes inyour associative/dreaming apparatus or function. To help you Unicorn means one(uni) horn(corn) and *uni*verse? You have not the faintest idea?-No surprises there. If-as you are about to demonstrate you have *Asulutely_No*idea what you mean by-or cannot define, "universe", then it is probably wisest not to use the word " universe", whether it be probable universe green universe, or not very fond of Wednesdays, universe, all and any of which hardly signify since you have *not- the- faintest- idea* what you mean by universe and cannot define universe. I ask you the remarkable simple question what is "universe", and you have to tell me that you have not the faintest idea, do you not? This you will demonstrate by signally*failing* to define, or set out what you mean by "universe" Moreover it will not help you to go running to others to tell you what*you* mean by universe, because A, they are not psychic, and B, they have not the faintest idea what universe means either, and when the blind lead the blind, they*both* fall into a ditch.

English please friend

​@@ticklemeandillhurtyou5800 The conditions for the cellular automata organization to have computational universality are relatively loose. Similarly, the conditions for a dynamic system to create a sufficiently complex mechanism are relatively loose. Rather, the period of 13.8 billion years from the birth of the universe to the present is extremely short. I think that a multi-world is necessary to explain the evolution to humankind during that time.

What about mathematics itself? Where does it come from?

I don't think you get it. The object is to make you think. Robert is just creating a series and a lot of the time he's just playing 'Devil's Advocate' and being us by proxy using critical thinking, and asking the most relevant questions. Apart from being a commercial enterprise like any form of media, the point of the series is to introduce us; the viewing public to some of the great minds and radical thinkers in the world, and to get their take. It's up to you to decide which opinions you think are 'Closer to Truth'. If you don't like the series why watch it?

@@bipolarbear9917 I do get it; however, Kuhn does have an agenda. Also, his mental furniture is in such a state of disrepair that he tends the frame the questions in the wrong way. One example: Kuhn still addresses the issue of consciousness as substance dualism. In Kuhn's thinking, the mind is located in the brain as opposed to being in the person's embodied mind, which of course is connected to the distributed mind of socio-cultural practices and our wider natural history. It's persons in communities who think, act, etc., not brains. Both Heidegger and Wittgenstein made this very point at least 80 years ago, but poor old Robert seems either ignorant of it or in denial. That's why he is a stuckist. Stuckists always ask the wrong questions to make sure they get the answers they crave. "A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it for it was found in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably." (Wittgenstein Philosophical Investigations, 1953) For a discussion of the said picture and Kuhn's being stuck with such a picture see: Dreyfus, H & Taylor, C. (2015) Retrieving Realism, London, Harvard University Press

@@lesliecunliffe4450 Yes. I get all that intellectual argument, but what I'm saying is Robert is playing a part. He's being us; the ignorant public, and all he's doing is opening the door, and giving us a look inside the many rooms or pictures, maybe the very different pictures that most people you mention are captive of. That's what I mean about you not getting it. I'm sure you get the deep philosophical meanings, but Robert is essentially selling a product. I kinda like the product though. blending Cosmos, Consciousness and God together is a good angle to pique viewers interest. I love this stuff, and I've spent a lifetime researching all sorts of stuff in books, documentaries and internet from Cosmology to Psychology, History and Politics, to Natural History and Philosophy, and everything in else between. Robert is just being appealing to the 'kid curiosity' in all of us, by asking the kinds of questions the normal public would like to ask. He's kind of trying to be the David Attenborough of Philosophy. He's showing that it's the search that's important NOT the destination. He's also trying to stimulate comments like your's in the comment section for us to debate. Here's a post of mine from Ep:1909 Jesus as God - A Philosophical Inquiry. “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” - Epicurus (341-270 BCE) Jesus probably did exist, and was someone like Mohandis (Mahatma) Gandhi. A living breathing human being, who was willing to sacrifice his own life to teach others a moral way to live and love one another. Was he the 'Son of God?' No. God or the Cosmos is beyond our total comprehension. Whatever created the Multiverse if a what or who is necessary, is far removed from anything human. We just happen to be lucky enough to have been born of this Universe that can support sentient life. Modern Pantheism makes more sense than some ancient 'Old Man in the Sky' legend. There is no Heaven or Hell, only the reality of constantly recycling Universes in the infinite possibilities of the Multiverse; a beginning without end, an end without a beginning, like an M.C.Escher drawing; and infinity with edges that goes on forever. Is there a difference between good and evil? Maybe... it's probably just the choice of our reasonably intelligent and sentient mind in regards to sustainability of life itself. No need for an orthodox God of the plethora of religions and belief systems, just the Universe itself. So, get used to it. We are the masters of our own destiny. No one's going to rescue us. We must save ourselves. The sooner we realize that the better. There are no races of human beings. 'We are Earthlings; just one family of the human species that originally all came out of Africa, that are living on a tiny insignificant planet, orbiting an average star, lost in an ordinary galaxy, in a tiny forgotten part of the Universe, in a multitude of Multiverses. The Cosmos is all that is, or was, or ever will be'. Are we sentient human beings special? Yes, of course. 'Our ancestors worshiped the Sun, and were not foolish, because it makes sense to revere the Sun and stars, for we are their children... We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself' - Carl Sagan.

@@bipolarbear9917 If Kuhn's method is as you describe then it is a very poor one given it doesn't get us closer to truth. Maybe the series should be given an alternative title like Endlessly Avoiding Meaning given it only engages in endless snapshots of the 'truth' on which he usually has the last word. His approach, like your comment above, appears to be exploring something deep whereas much of the 'language goes on holiday'. (Wittgenstein) You confuse giving a manifesto with getting closer to truth.

@@lesliecunliffe4450 Whatever... you're entitled to your own opinion. If you don't like it, then I suggest you watch something else instead of being so cynical. I, like many others will continue to enjoy the series, because we might actually learn something. 'Cynicism is what passes as insight among the mediocre' - Joe Klein. Enjoy your half-empty glass.

Whoever sold you that lie titch ripped you off. There is no " we", you are strictly on your own - just you titch - nobody else.

Does the so-called "designer rejecting scientist" not understand that the term multiverse is an oxymoron or a definitional impossibility, from which it follows as the night the day that if there is more than one universe neither/none of them is the universe, just as if there is more than one unique object - by definition, none of them is unique or if they are you will have to redefine unique, just as you would have to redefine "the universe" if there's more than one "the universe" which is a definitional impossibility possibly also a conceptual impossibility. It seems to me that what some are doing is saying ignore the fact that the what appear to be the facts and just manoeuvre or r-jig the definition so that they do which is classic intellectual dishonesty: If the shoe won't fit the foot simply adjust either the foot or the shoe so that it at least appears that it fits, and thus ignore the fact that it doesn't fit and simply pretend that it does and hope that nobody notices, which reminds me of the court case in which an advocate objected to the admission of hearsay which is inadmissible and was invited not to take the objection, or something along the lines of can't you just pretend that it isn't hearsay and thus is admissible admissible?Needless to say he rejected that invitation, pointing out that if it is hearsay andInadmissible, it isinadmissible ,and simply pretending that it isn't hearsay so that you can admit it, is exactly that, pretence and the evidence doesn't cease to be hearsay(and thus inadmissible) just because you pretend that it isn't hearsay. Since by definition(and also conceptually) there cannot be more than one "the universe", if you want to suppose that there might be, or is more than one "the universe" then you simply change the definition of "the universe," and if that is an intellectual dishonesty, I'd love to know what is. What these creatures are in fact doing is saying: "ignore the fact that there can be only one universe, because if you don't, our theories won't work, and thus turn out to be gibberish - Ignore the fact that by any rational definition and conception of "the universe" there cannot be more than one "the universe", because it is an inconvenient truth, or can't we just pretend that there can be more than one universe? Fine, but don't call either of them " *the* universe".

You are

@@sharonmarsh3728 we weren’t here before the earth was created so how can humans be ultimate observer.

​@@onestepaway3232 We still are the ultimate observer if time is an illusion.

@@pjaworek6793 you cannot have time without space and matter and vice versa. Mathematically you can’t measure anything if time is illusion. For them to exist they must be an observer above to be witness else you have inanimate becoming observer which isn’t the case.

@@onestepaway3232 Time can exist just fine even though you are in an illusion about it. You travel through it and feel it pull you down but do we know everything about causation in our lives? I believe the science term is non-locality. If that exists in space, it must also have an implication on what time is.

Just a note: "What if the creator is not separate from creation and it is only relative vision that makes creation appear, only appear, as separate? What makes the inner and the outer or what makes one thing separate from another in an absolute sense can be brought into question. Is there a kind of non-relative or unitive vision that can be realized by the human consciousness. The inner aspect of the wisdom traditions indicates that a unitive vision is possible. And John G Bennett in his four volumes of The Dramatic Universe presents how such is possible and is understandable when the totally of what is available to human experience including science is rigorously investigated.

@@fineasfrog Thanks for your response. As far as our vision of reality being relative, and may only appear as separate from ourselves, this sounds like solipsism, or a brain in a vat philosophical arguement. As to their being a 'unitive vision'. Are you talking about a universe that is one consciousness? Some philosophers, based on the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, believe that the universe must have a consciousness, and that experimenter and experiment can't be separated.

@@jaredsotherbrother3597 We are speaking from different points of view. While this can not make much sense with reading the previous pages of the book yet do consider this quote from John G Bennett The Dramatic Universe Vol 1 p 97-8: "Thus it becomes apparent that the acquisition of knowledge involves more than the registration and ordering of sense perceptions which is only one component of a triad. This is the function of the 'head brain' yet this ignores the knowing potential contained in the other two brains or aspects of knowing, namely the feeling brain or heart center and the moving and instinctive center or brain. The potential functions of a man/woman go far beyond either his/her mental associations or his bodily behavior, and the ordering of function as a unified whole can far surpass the result of training each group of functions taken separately. For example, ordinarily we train our thinking brain to clear and logical thought; we seek to discipline our emotional reactions; we exercise our bodies in order to develop their powers; but, for the most part, we overlook the importance of achieving a harmony and a balance as between these several functions to enable them to work as one unified, coherent whole. Without such harmony and balance there can be no wholly valid knowledge. In order to know the meaning of our experience, we need to think what we feel and to feel what we think. In addition, thoughts and feelings must be in harmony with the instinctive and motor functions before we can come to any completeness of knowledge." I write this only because I never know who might have a question about what is knowledge and wisdom and they find something of interest in what J G Bennett came to see regarding such matters.

@@fineasfrog I agree! Yet, I do agree with some of your premises. For example, both quotes imply a non materialist view of reality. This is a position, I and other theists strongly agree with, while the majority of atheists don't. I may be wrong, but it sounds like both of us agree that materialism can't explain logic and mathematical principles, morality, among others. An example alluded to in both the quotes you cited is that of the difference of the mind and the brain (as well as emotions and intuition), or mind brain duality.

How can you say that?

It's a scientific concept that physicists have put forward. Yes, it can be appropriated by religious types, but it's a legitimate mystery in scientific circles.

That's because you are against the possibility of there being anything greater than yourself.

You know what else is laughable and bankrupt? Your attempt to challenge an argument by employing the easily identifiable fallacy of an hominem attack.

@@MarcusHalberstramVP You clearly do not understand what an ad hominem is. Please look it up, to protect yourself against further embarrassment.

Ezra Wilson exactly. If you think reality has a beginning then it must also have an end but the laws of nature/physics have to exist as a necessity for reality to even be possible which means that the laws of nature existed before reality which is a contradiction. If there isn’t a fixed point in the creation of reality you then fall into an infinite stream of cause and effect which is a just a causal loop which ultimately results in a logical paradox.

It is possible to indicate the likelihood by probability.

The idea that I am not the only conscious being alive and that everything else is not just the figment of my imagination is also untestable. How do you recommend I proceed, then? Should I default to solipsism?

what is a "multiverse"? You have absolutely no idea whatsoever?-No surprises there; this you are about to demonstrate.

In time We shall make them fully understand Our messages [through what they perceive] in the utmost horizons [of the universe] and within themselves, so that it will become clear unto them that this [revelation] is indeed the truth. [Still,] is it not enough [for them to know] that thy Sustainer is witness unto everything. (Quran 41:53)

Who told you that and why do you believe them titch? You cannot verify or know anything about that dream the past. In fact you dreamers cannot know full stop.

Were you even listening?

Scientists

Your mom’s boyfriend.

Semingly another swaggering mouse(nothing and nobody) like you titch, but you swaggering mice cut such ludicrous figures that at least you provide some entertainment, so small, so temporary, yet so much swagger, bless you. I'm always in need of a laugh and there is nothing funnier than a swaggering mouse(nothing and nobody) so small, so temporary, so funny- bless you. And now for your micean tantrum and name calling; you must, you have no choice. Go for it titch; I shall only smile and say voila.

@@vhawk1951kl You will smile like your mother smiled when I took a huge stinky dump on her face.