What are your thoughts on fine-tuning in physics? We're excited to hear in the comments if you learned something new. If you enjoyed this episode, give our excellent contributors a thumbs up! If you'd like to further explore the cosmos, consciousness, and meaning, please consider becoming a subscriber. For more episodes from Season 19, see our Season 19 playlist: bit.ly/38ZCxq9
@Ali124hdkflc4 жыл бұрын
This is by fat the best channel that propagates philosophy and science.
@estuchedepeluche22123 жыл бұрын
It is great, but “by fat”? Do you mean “by lipids”?
@Ali124hdkflc3 жыл бұрын
@@estuchedepeluche2212 you're so funny
@vhawk1951kl Жыл бұрын
Propagate is not the word for which you were struggling, try another. Any thing *but* propagate.
@Ali124hdkflc Жыл бұрын
@@vhawk1951kl Why is propagate wrong here? I'm curious.
@vhawk1951kl Жыл бұрын
Look up the meaning of propagate and see if you can apply it to philosophy and science
@akovalick3 жыл бұрын
I love how Mr. Kuhn asks excellent, probing, questions. He is a great listener. There is another fascinating investigation/video by Kuhn considering how FT relates to cosmology alone. For physics there are about 25 constants such as the masses of protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos and such. Include too the 4 force constants and other fundamental params and FT becomes fundamental to our universe’s structure. Check out UFTmachine.com/radio for a tour of just 6 constants and their importance for life. It Includes a radio fine tuner for fun. PC/Mac only.
@vhawk1951kl2 жыл бұрын
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.
@JeffChen2854 жыл бұрын
On the road of scientific practices, human beings will be easily, gradually and unconsciously disoriented. For example, one of the fundamental scientific traditions is that all theories shall be tested by realities, not the other way around. The problem of the fine-tuning theory is that it is trying to let the universe to fit our theory. Our universe doesn't have a sensitivity problem but our conventionalized theory does. This is a perfect example to show that science is a convention.
@jorgenoriega91524 жыл бұрын
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
@jorgenoriega91524 жыл бұрын
We have to wait until the web telescope is in orbit, maybe they change they minds
@aatifzacky56963 жыл бұрын
Love from Dhong , Gujerkhan , Pakistan
@chrisxavier18482 жыл бұрын
Man is not the center of the universe physically, but conceptually
@tedgrant2 Жыл бұрын
I used to have an acoustic upright piano that required tuning every year or so. Then, when I could afford it, I bought a Kawai Digital piano, top of the range, with a proper sound board, which doesn't need tuning, ever. It's good enough for Jehovah !
@videosbymathew2 жыл бұрын
Actually, the Earth is the center of the universe (but technically every point in space is the center of the universe, so this is a word game I'm playing of course ;)).
@jamesnasmith9844 жыл бұрын
Very very much enjoyed. A wonderful service, thank you. A naive question: might the physical constants of the other universes render them unsustainable and might consciousness be an inevitable but incidental sideshow of the universe that succeeds? .....a cosmic survival of the fittest. I.e. Where there is infinity who needs to pick the right notes?
@Chubbyjohnson215 Жыл бұрын
This is the best, most dive into it all, relate it because... maths, and this is why conversation ever.
@jeffreyzimler79783 жыл бұрын
Love your show Mr. Kuhn
@anirudhadhote6 сағат бұрын
❤ Very good 👍🏼
@Pisati1893 жыл бұрын
Really interesting important to understand the fine tuning in physics
@hanssacosta19902 жыл бұрын
OmG loveeee this channel, every time listening to it levels of relaxation are at the highest ✨✨✨✨✨🌎🌎🪐🪐🪐
@willbrink2 жыл бұрын
I find these vids very helpful! It's an island of actual thinking in a sea of garbage on YT and the 'net.
@danellwein86792 жыл бұрын
according to Wolfram .. fine tuning in physics .. is the ruliad ..it is based on a computationally bounded observer .. who sees a single thread of history .. when there are in reality .. many threads of history .. all seemingly going on at the same time ..
@richardhill34053 жыл бұрын
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.
@lbo-private27482 жыл бұрын
I am glad they finally brought biology into the discussion. This expands the picture which makes the fine tuning argument event more complicated. This leads to questioning Darwinism which would aggravate a lot of biologists. Nobody wants to say the G word but it's hard to write God out of the equation.
@Imagicka Жыл бұрын
What need is there for a creator/tuner if there are is a vast number of differently tuned universes generated by the multiverse cosmos itself?
@vhawk1951kl Жыл бұрын
What is a universe? You have not the faintest idea?-No surprises there.
@drefanzor2 жыл бұрын
How lucky are we to be alive, folks? Make the best of it.
@dalrel2 жыл бұрын
Hi, where I can find more information about the 5:30 - size of human being and the relationship with Planc Scale. Thanks
@stoneysdead689 Жыл бұрын
The fine tuning has to exist for anything to exist- not just life- but we choose to say it's all about life. As far as we know we are the only example of life in this unbelievably huge, complex universe. Most of which we will never see nor interact with in any way- to think it all exists so we can exist on this tiny little insignificant, backwater planet- come on man. - that's ridiculously silly and predictably arrogant of us. Really this is just another way of asking- why does anything exist at all? And since that question is circular in nature, creates an infinite regress in that no matter what you answer with the person asking the question can just say "Well why does that exist." So, it just goes on and on forever, infinitely regressing into never ending madness- which means it's a nonsensical question- it has no answer.
@kpballa10092 жыл бұрын
24:53 - "Some criticize fine-tuning for reaching grandiose metaphysical conclusion" (and believe in Multiverse instead) . . (facepalm...)
@machida51144 жыл бұрын
The “mediocrity principle” is an important point of view.
@Alessandro-vd8wz4 жыл бұрын
Do you have some reference ?
@josephhruby32252 жыл бұрын
The 1st segment in this series that was hard for me to watch . Keep your hope Sir , your mind open and your heart pure . Look at how hard scientists work to steer their discoveries away from any indications of intelligent design / God. It's painful to think that these narrow minds are Carrying the torch of discovery for mankind. Meanwhile the theological school sits back with the comfort of their faith. . . Wonderful - All will be revealed
@mathew41813 жыл бұрын
*An Overview of the Fine tuning argument* For many, the regularity of the universe and the precision with which the universe exploded into being provides even more evidences for the existence of God. This evidence technically known as the Teleological argument, derives its name from the Greek word telos, which means "design." The Teleological argument goes like this: 1. Every design has a designer 2. The universe has high- complex design 3. Therefore, the universe has a designer *The Anthropic Principle* Scientists are finding the universe is like that watch ( anology of William Paley ), except even more precisely designed. These highly-precise and interdependent environmental conditions (called "anthropic constants") make up what is known as the "Anthropic Principle"-- a title for the mounting evidence that has many scientists believing the universe is extremely fine tuned (designed) to support human life on earth (Thats why some notorious atheists including Antony Flew later believed in God). Some Anthropic constants example include: Oxygen level • On earth, oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere • That precise figure is an Anthropic constant that make life in earth possible. • If oxygen were 25 percent fire would erept spontaneously • If it were 15 percent, human beings would suffocate Carbon dioxide level • If the carbon dioxide level was higher than it is now, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop, and we would all burnt up • If the level was lower than it is now, plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis, and we would all suffocate For more evidence: reasons.org/explore/blogs/tag/fine-tuning/page/2 reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/rtb-design-compendium-2009 *What are the chances?* It's not there just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by chance. There are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an Intelligent Designer. Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, calculated the probability these and other constants would exist for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e, without divine design). To meet all conditions, there is 1 chance in 10^138 (one chance in one with 138 zeroes after it)-- essentially 0% chance. According to probability theory, odds of less than 1 in 10^50 equals " zero probability" . Check:reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth It only proves that atheism is just a dogmatic belief. Nearly 2000 years ago, the apostle St Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans, *_" For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse"_* _Important: The term “entropy” describes degree of thermodynamic “disorder” in a closed system like the universe. “Maximum entropy” would describe the “heat death” of the universe (which is the state it is slowly gravitating towards). Amazingly, our universe was at its “minimum entropy” at the very beginning, which begs the question “how did it get so orderly?” Looking just at the initial entropy conditions, what is the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?_ _Sir Roger Penrose, 2020 Nobel prize winner and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability of the initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang_ _According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10^123 to 1_ _It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10^123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms [10^79] believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10^10^123 zeros_ _It’s important to recognize that we're not talking about a single unlikely event here. We’re talking about hitting the jackpot over and over again, nailing extremely unlikely, mutually complementary parameters of constants and quantities, far past the point where chance could account for it_
@GeoCoppens3 жыл бұрын
Fine tuning of the universe is a fictitious!
@aqe79143 жыл бұрын
You saying it always meant to be this way anyways?
@GeoCoppens3 жыл бұрын
@@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
@aqe79143 жыл бұрын
@@GeoCoppens Haha 😂 thanks for passionate monologue, do you believe in Randomness? What are the two primary forces for evolution?
@GeoCoppens3 жыл бұрын
@@aqe7914 What the fuck are you talking about!
@tabishrana1163 жыл бұрын
@@GeoCoppens not many braincells left up theree
@vhawk1951kl2 жыл бұрын
What is "the cosmos"? As it happens cosmos is simply another Greek synonym or cognate for universe with the equally vague and generalised term that conveys very little
@arsemyth89202 жыл бұрын
Maybe there is just one universe but it's much bigger than we think and it's laws of physics, like languages and cultures on a map, vary from region to region. Your home town on Earth could be the equivalent of the relatively tiny region where these laws exist. Our region could be expanding because of a region surrounding it where the value of gravity is higher
@johnsutton99392 ай бұрын
God is a brilliant engineer
@demej004 жыл бұрын
Scientists just hate the word "God" so some of them just worship Multi-verse which is about as provable as God. And they believe in something called dark-matter, which they can't see or measure. Talk about spiritual people. One of these guys says we are a by-product of nature, not important in the scheme of things - bet he would change his tune if they meddled with his grant.
@ticklemeandillhurtyou58004 жыл бұрын
@zempath that's just opinion
@fanboy80264 жыл бұрын
Multriverse has no evidence
@richardhill34053 жыл бұрын
It depends on how god is defined. There are too many variations so often best avoided
@ronaldmorgan76323 жыл бұрын
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.
@jamesbarlow64232 жыл бұрын
The multiverse and God's existence aren't incompatible.
@dyingempty18442 жыл бұрын
If this knife edge produces witnesses to admire it, then it is plausible to infer that if other knife edges do exist, they should produce lifeforms with the capacity to do the same thing as we are doing right now. As it would seem that knife edges love to be praised.
@jamesruscheinski86023 жыл бұрын
Are the constants of nature based on planck time and planck length?
@jamesruscheinski86023 жыл бұрын
What are all the six to eight constants of nature for the initial conditions of universe?
@vhawk1951kl Жыл бұрын
what is universe? You have no idea?-No surprises there.
@machida51144 жыл бұрын
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.
@jamesruscheinski86023 жыл бұрын
Can any of the constants of nature be observed to come from quantum mechanics?
@mike-Occslong2 жыл бұрын
Why ia there a blade of grass walking around the table
@tedgrant2 Жыл бұрын
Let us forget for a moment that God can work miracles. In that case, he would have to fine-tune the universe in order for us to live in it.
@bruno32 жыл бұрын
Our environment always seems fine-tuned if we're a product of that environment. We're the way we are because of our environment, not the other way around. The Universe also seems fine-tuned for life to emerge, but that's life as we see it. We can only conceptualise things that are consistent with what we can observe, and this is the Universe we can observe.
@kpballa10092 жыл бұрын
"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?
@MarcusHalberstramVP Жыл бұрын
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.
@vhawk1951kl Жыл бұрын
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"?
@MarcusHalberstramVP Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@timsfca Жыл бұрын
You're still only talking about *existential* fine-tuning for some reason. What about aesthetic, experiential, or informational fine-tuning, like those embedded in the Sun-Moon- Earth relationship (only starting with the phenomenon of total solar eclipses, and getting much more dramatic from there), which are not necessary for our existence, and therefore cannot be explained away by "physicalists" making Donald Hoffman's "rookie mistakes" again, and multiverse theories.
@normjohnson46293 жыл бұрын
What if there is only one way that the universe can happen? Just one possible way and so, when you die, you will be dead for an unimaginably long time but that wont matter because it will be like an instant to you. When you awake, you will be born again in the same body you had in your previous life. Everything that happens to you will be the exactly the same and you will live that life over and over for eternity. Evidence for this is that; since it has happened that way, it can happen that way and so given infinity of time it will happen again that way.
@vhawk1951kl Жыл бұрын
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
@steppahouse2 жыл бұрын
I dispute his claim about Brandon Carter. Nothing worthwhile came out of the seventies. :)
@rafique15393 жыл бұрын
Altho I like to follow his videos to see the many views of well respected scientists and philosophers, I do think that the topic is a bit misleading if not self flattery.. how can it be closer to the truth when after hundreds of series he still doesn’t know the truth and therefore he’s no closer to it..
@DarknessIsThePath Жыл бұрын
It is just a name.
@johnhodge66104 жыл бұрын
If a fine-tuned constant/condition be found, then a negative feedback relation among effects (the effect is also a cause of some of the causes) exists. This is well known in room thermostats that use fine-tuning to control room temperature.
@vhawk1951kl2 жыл бұрын
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?
@johnhodge66102 жыл бұрын
@@vhawk1951kl "Negative feedback" such as found in the thermostat for heating and cooling a room/house.
@vhawk1951kl2 жыл бұрын
@@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
@MarcusHalberstramVP Жыл бұрын
@@vhawk1951kl Yes, this follows accordingly. However, this also means that we are in an insanely low probability universe.
@vhawk1951kl Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@@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.
@fjgiie Жыл бұрын
When do we read from the Bible some? He may make the print a little larger for me.
@jamesruscheinski86023 жыл бұрын
Do constants of nature emerge, perhaps from quantum mechanics, like intelligence, biology and chemistry emerge?
@MarcusHalberstramVP Жыл бұрын
What about mathematics itself? Where does it come from?
@lesliecunliffe44504 жыл бұрын
A few years ago when I discovered the Closer to Truth interviews I was very impressed by the content and Robert Lawrence Kuhn’s earnestness in his quest for ‘truth’. I now think his quest equates with ‘stuckism’, that is, Kuhn seems to be primarily concerned to hang on to his present worldview, notably his commitment to mind-in-brain view of personhood, and his self-deluded belief that he is genuinely exploring the big issues. In this regard, his method of investigation reminds me of Lucy’s answer (the character found in the Peanuts cartoon strip) to this geography test question: What is the capital city of Brazil? “As I won’t be traveling there I needn’t know.” He always has reasons not to want to embrace any new insight while giving the impression of being openminded.
@bipolarbear99174 жыл бұрын
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?
@lesliecunliffe44504 жыл бұрын
@@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
@bipolarbear99174 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@lesliecunliffe44504 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@bipolarbear99174 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@tedgrant2 Жыл бұрын
"Fine tuning" in physics is a joke played on religious minded people (RMP). As we all know, pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. But I've managed to convince RMP that God chose pi very carefully indeed !
@buzz-es4 жыл бұрын
Harvard, LOL, knee deep in contradictions.
@helderalmeida34173 жыл бұрын
Maybe when we die we will born on the dark matter universe
@vhawk1951kl Жыл бұрын
Whoever sold you that lie titch ripped you off. There is no " we", you are strictly on your own - just you titch - nobody else.
@jendernewtrall98464 жыл бұрын
Lol - the multiverse is bunk. Mathematics shows that the odds exist only within an individual universe. Having more than one is irrelevant.
@tedgrant2 Жыл бұрын
God chose the value of pi very carefully to make sure circles are perfectly round. Do you believe me ? Hint: it's a joke.
@kpballa10092 жыл бұрын
17:38 - thank you for doing an interview with a Designer rejecting scientist who believes in, assumes a "multiverse" (19:06) while talking about the need (19:19) for data, for things to be testable, for experiments that can test things. His amazing consistency so clearly affirmed that the Bible is true about man's God hating fallen nature. (Rom 1:18-20)
@vhawk1951kl2 жыл бұрын
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".
@xspotbox44004 жыл бұрын
Fine tuning of material properties is the reason why universe exist as such and is stable for at least past 10 billion years. We know this equilibrium of natural forces can result in living and self aware beings somehow. But if same forces can produce human, why not God also? There's more. Maybe living creatures can exist only inside certain anomalies this tuning allow, than beings like God are not possible. But intelligent humans can tweak natural properties a bit, maybe just enough our conscious endevour could be the cause that will or did make creation of God possible. We can't know what kind of life anomalies has produced over such a long span of time, there could be some other creatures at some point that were playing with equilibrium and those made God possible. Nobody can see beyond veil of cosmic background radiation, so there could be times when God was born and transformed entire universe we can see and live in now. Real question for physicists is, can playing with natural constants can cause anomaly so powerful things like life can be spawned into existence, even if that could happened only at very small and insignificant space, just for a brief moment.
@onestepaway32324 жыл бұрын
So who is the ultimate observer?
@sharonmarsh37283 жыл бұрын
You are
@onestepaway32323 жыл бұрын
@@sharonmarsh3728 we weren’t here before the earth was created so how can humans be ultimate observer.
@pjaworek6793 Жыл бұрын
@@onestepaway3232 We still are the ultimate observer if time is an illusion.
@onestepaway3232 Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@pjaworek6793 Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@jaredsotherbrother35974 жыл бұрын
Another awesome video from the series, but some of the inherent weaknesses of the multiverse 'theory' aren't discussed in any detail. The following is a brief list of the most prominent problems with the multiverse 'theory'. 1.) In the strictest sense it's not valid science as it isn't testable or verifiable. It isn't even a valid scientific theory. 2.) It violates Occam's Razor. It complicates, not simplifies the problem at hand. How do we explain the origin of an infinite number of universes, much less the universe that produced them (that has to be fine tuned in such a way as to produce an infinite number of universes), when we can't even explain the origin of our own universe (more on this later)? 3.) It requires that the inflation seen in our universe, and by extension, the multiverse, be eternal. For this to be true, space and time would need to be continuous rather than discrete. The very heart of quantum mechanics tells us that precisely the opposite is true. 4.) Stephen Hawking, in his last paper that was published posthumously, argues that inflation isn't eternal, and thereby greatly diminishes the number and variability of universes that a multiverse might produce. 5.) Boltzmann's Brain: Many cosmologists believe that if a theory predicts that Boltzmann brains with human-like experiences vastly outnumber normal human brains, then that theory should be rejected.[4]" [Quote from wikipedia] Unlike the single-universe case, one challenge in finding a global solution in eternal inflation is that all possible string landscapes must be summed over; in some measures, having even a small fraction of universes infested with Boltzmann brains causes the measure of the multiverse as a whole to be dominated by Boltzmann's Brains." [Quote from wikipedia] 6.) The measure problem: "The measure problem in cosmology concerns how to compute fractions of universes of different types within a multiverse. It typically arises in the context of eternal inflation. The problem arises because different approaches to calculating these fractions yield different results, and it's not clear which approach (if any) is correct.[1] Measures can be evaluated by whether they predict observed physical constants, as well as whether they avoid counterintuitive implications, such as the youngness paradox or Boltzmann brains.[2] While dozens of measures have been proposed,[3]:2 few physicists consider the problem to be solved.[4]" [Quote from wikipedia] So why does the multiverse theory seem so popular? In large part it's due to it's popularity in science fiction movies and books - science fiction writers love it because it provides unlimited (infinite) possibilities. As far as science and cosmology in particular, the multiverse theory came to be and became popular as a means of silencing theists who used the 'fine tuning constants dilemma' to argue for the existence of God. Paul Davies, an eminent astrophysicist and mathematician, said to the effect: the multiverse as a scientific theory was never heard of until the fine tuning constants dilemma. The multiverse theory came about as a way to address theists using the fine tuning problem as a means to prove God's existence. Someone, aside from Closer to the Truth, who also produces excellent science related videos, who's is very practical and careful about her science. She's fastidious about dispelling pseudoscience, and has said on the subject of multiverse theories: "The idea that we live in a 'multiverse' is a fringe idea in a small part of a subfield of the physics community," said theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder of the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies. "Nobody who does serious science works with the multiverse because it's utterly useless," she told AFP. The main problem, Hossenfelder explains, is that any multiverse theory is "underdetermined" and "doesn't contain enough information to make calculations". The author of the article. Adds this to her statements: "For detractors, a multiverse theory complicates our understanding of our own Universe." ["After death, Hawking cuts 'multiverse' theory down to size" May 6, 2018 by Mariette Le Roux And Laurence Coustal] Dr Hossenfelder has also said that believing in these types of theories (untestable and unverifiable) is akin to believing in a religion. In saying the foregoing, though I'm a theist, I want to make it clear that I'm NOT trying to prove a God's existence. That is a fools errand! Some of the greatest minds down through the history of mankind has tried to prove or disprove God's existence, all of them failed miserably! What I am seeking to do is to demonstrate that, contrary to what most atheists, and even many scientists, would have you believe, belief in a creator that created the universe, stands on roughly equal ground, philosophically and logically, as scientific explanations for the existence of the universe, and the existence of the fine tuning constants. To briefly illustrate my point, here's two questions (the fine tuning constants dilemma we've discussed, but not it's ramifications): 1.) Explain the origin of the universe without relying on an endless regress of questions. Note, Lawrence Krauss' "Something From Nothing" nor the Hawking Hartle model aren't valid as their nothing is a semantics trick that is actually something. IE a scalar field with virtual particles, and the laws of physics In existence to govern them. 2.) Explain the existence of the fine tuning constants. As explained, the multiverse is, at best just a belief (as is belief in a creator). One that requires much more complexity, and is therefore much more unlikely.
@fineasfrog4 жыл бұрын
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.
@jaredsotherbrother35974 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@fineasfrog4 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@jaredsotherbrother35974 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@Ploskkky4 жыл бұрын
Fine tuning is the most laughable, bankrupt concept in theism ever, but I can understand that ignorant theists still think this actually is a meaningful idea.
@junaidtahir55973 жыл бұрын
How can you say that?
@golden-633 жыл бұрын
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.
@ronaldmorgan76323 жыл бұрын
That's because you are against the possibility of there being anything greater than yourself.
@MarcusHalberstramVP Жыл бұрын
You know what else is laughable and bankrupt? Your attempt to challenge an argument by employing the easily identifiable fallacy of an hominem attack.
@Ploskkky Жыл бұрын
@@MarcusHalberstramVP You clearly do not understand what an ad hominem is. Please look it up, to protect yourself against further embarrassment.
@ezrawilson69864 жыл бұрын
Posting an invisible, unprovable multiverse is just as futile as positing an invisible, unprovable God. Both are faith-based attempts to answer a question that is probably beyond human ability to fully answer.
@charleshendrix31374 жыл бұрын
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.
@machida51144 жыл бұрын
It is possible to indicate the likelihood by probability.
@MarcusHalberstramVP Жыл бұрын
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?
@vhawk1951kl Жыл бұрын
what is a "multiverse"? You have absolutely no idea whatsoever?-No surprises there; this you are about to demonstrate.
@rameezkhawaja96963 жыл бұрын
Is the existence of multiverse confirmed as a fact? Tested by scientific methods of observation and experiments etc .. cus he just assumed the multiverse somehow exists and used it to dismiss fine tuning … !!! What??!!
@rameezkhawaja96963 жыл бұрын
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)
@machida51144 жыл бұрын
”mediocrity principle” は、重要な観点です。
@georgegrubbs29662 жыл бұрын
Please stop wasting time with so-called "fine-tuning"! There are some fundamental constants that have narrow ("fine") tolerances. So what? There isn't a "tuner" other than nature. A highly complex system like the observable universe is bound to have narrow-tolerance constants; otherwise, it would not exist.
@pjaworek6793 Жыл бұрын
Um mysterious Luke (11:20), found in many videos touching on fine tuning. I will look for and find out what you believe eventually, I promise. For now, what do you mean, "we're finding out what happens when we change one of these numbers"? You're not changing any numbers and have no clue what would happen in a universe with different numbers. Who is taking fine tuning seriously, as you claim here? What theory has been updated because of fine tuning, as you say? Sabine was right in a debate with you, this is all non-science.
@kmajor59102 жыл бұрын
We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is a Witness over all things? Lo, they are in doubt about the meeting with their Lord. Surely, He encompasses all things.Quran 41:53-54
@johnsutton99392 ай бұрын
A marvel idea is “science” but the clear evidence of God isn’t lol what fools
@GeoCoppens3 жыл бұрын
There was never any fine-tuning!
@vhawk1951kl Жыл бұрын
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.
@tedgrant2 Жыл бұрын
I've got two legs. As evolution is completely random, I could have had 256 legs or none. But having two legs is very convenient, proving that God exists and the Bible is true.
@marma69377 ай бұрын
Avi Loeb is a big lier
@vladimir07004 жыл бұрын
Anthropic principle--who came up with that nonsense?
@bipolarbear99174 жыл бұрын
Were you even listening?
@golden-633 жыл бұрын
Scientists
@MarcusHalberstramVP Жыл бұрын
Your mom’s boyfriend.
@vhawk1951kl Жыл бұрын
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.
@MarcusHalberstramVP Жыл бұрын
@@vhawk1951kl You will smile like your mother smiled when I took a huge stinky dump on her face.