Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind? | Episode 302 | Closer To Truth 

Why ? to make education a joke ? Ohh your a creationist right ?

@@gowdsake7103 no, because it shows how unique is what we have the privilege to live , independently of the cause

Hey, teacher, leave the kids alone!

@@ferdinandkraft857 "the perfect tuning" is something 99% of people arent aware of. And yet 99% of scientists agree on that. Also it have both a materialist and a spiritual answer . To every school ...now !!

@@francesco5581 Kids should be encouraged to look for answers by themselves.

I am amused by the audacious claims of the religious, that they comprehend the answer to that most magnificent of questions. Our primitive cognition will never furnish us with the answer. Just enjoy the circus ride, it’s over before you know it.

@@jennifer97363 Sorry to disappoint. But I’m not a religious person. (If that is what someone is suggesting.) Just using common “horse sense”. And by the way, anyone’s comments on a RU-vid video are only that: comments, suggestions, thoughts, postulations, theories. (Forgive humans for trying, but it’s what intellectually curious and probing creatures do.) No one “knows” all or the ultimate answers, nor should (or rarely) does anyone reasonable insist they “know” such. So just chill, take it all in stride, think, play, have fun and ice up a cold one (or hot one depending on your taste). And “Row your boat . . . Life is but a Dream.”

Yeah because it basically destroys everything that came before it 😂.

It's flawed from the beginning

but the process of 'evolution' is happening right now, it's the basis of every action and choice we make,in other words, the mission to sublimate life is in our hands as we are are product of the universe/god therefore we are in essence THAT!

how would you know?

The problem is that there are no other trees. Other universes don’t generate complexity.

Also there is zero evidence for other universes existing in the first place

@@footspike55 zero proof

@@georgeherbert88999 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DaydqnqJYvA.html

Let alone the ocean or deepest forest and jungles

Read James Lovelocks Gaia Theory about earth as a living organism. Written in 1970.

multi-verse theory is growing in strength.

@@Dion_Mustard Seems like a logical explanation.

Someonr, i think susskind posit that there are dark holes all over the place and they connect like tunnels between parallel univ9erses.

Lol what? We aren't the universe. No one argues that the universe evolved: it's a theory applied to biology.

@@LoraxChannel yeah we are. Do u think I exist outside of the universe and earth isn’t part of it.. only in your ego and mind do you exist outside of it because you live in a box work ina. Box for flat boxes to buy things in boxes while u drive around in a box..

Got em

Short and to the point...too bad they don't get it.

*That's not what fine tuning is. It means if the physical constants were even slightly different, not only would there be no life, there would be no galaxies, stars, planets, or even matter itself. Life would not even be possible.*

@@garythibault8032 *That's not what fine tuning is. It means if the physical constants were even slightly different, not only would there be no life, there would be no galaxies, stars, planets, or even matter itself. Life would not even be possible.*

@@golden-63 well said, the explanation is spot on. The mud puddle metaphor is just referring to the tendency of humans to assign what can't be readily understood to a "Creator".

It's many scientists "creation" theory. I dont know why multiverse is pushed so hard. For people so obsessed with facts and testable theories this one baffles me. Also as far as we know we are the only life in the universe and the vast majority of the universe is a dead vacuum how is that fine tuned?

I believe it arose from string theory. But those in the field should answer. They don’t necessarily need to be parallel. Think of each universe as a small bubble in a huge cosmos.

The multiverse is not yet proven. So, basically we really dont know yet.

"God of the gaps" is a particular flavor of the argument from ignorance fallacy that is applied when the asserted "plug" for our gap in knowledge is "God did it." The multiverse hypothesis could be similarly fallacious if asserted as fact, however I'm not aware of any scientists making such claims.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DaydqnqJYvA.html

What able-bodied god would spend such talent and valuable TIME!! on such a simple thing as us?

@@josephshawa i don’t know but it might not be anything that makes sense to our human nature

@@theliamofella I would have to say this separation of intellect would be much beyond the difference between a little girl and her doll. Even little girls get tired of playing with their dolls

@@josephshawa but earth is much more interesting of a show to watch when there are billions of me running around like wtf is going on.. it could just be entertainment but with a cause and purpose

@@theliamofella Oh. " I don't understand, so it must be right." Boo oo

No, beans are

@@psuedonym8344 I got your point. I or you or anyone else cannot understand it by ourselves, it should happen only as it has already been fine tuned, perhaps through one of us, but ultimately it's all universe alone causing it or to say it was fine tuned.

@@psuedonym8344 perfect. Whatever we call it,universe or nature, it includes everything, including us, every event etc.

Or blackholes

Empty space doesn't need quantum fields. Black holes don't need chemistry.

My cats breath smells like cat food.

Why are the constants the same in different size universes? All the same all the time same same same. Why not different. There would need to be a god. Different gods? Yeah !

Egg came first via reptiles.

@@cps_Zen_Run and how did the reptile emerge ;)

@@Dion_Mustard amphibians. Perhaps it’s easier to refer to a good textbook on evolution.

@@cps_Zen_Run evolution does not explain the universe.

@@cps_Zen_Run plus evolution does NOT explain consciousness. no textbook can inform me of that. so shove your materialist text book up your arse...:)

And creatures with se nse organs to appreciat the whole mess.

Of course with fuck all actual evidence

Layered through different vibrations and energy waves

Everywhere in Our World will kill you. 99.9999999999999999999% times a trillion will kill you. There are not many earths. Stars are hot, space is cold.

Who are you thanking ?

@@Lalakis If average scientists, mathematicians and astronomers have joined forces to produce and create this universe using pure science and logic will they allow the solar system to continue to function knowing that the conduct of the human inhabitants there will gladly believed to the power of electrons and what it can do to their latest smartphones innovations thereby putting more money in their pocket eventhough they haven't seen exactly with there naked eyes on how electrons actually works beyond string theory concept. The most mysterious thing really is not how this universe and it's perfect inner workings manifest itself but how is it that despite humanity's negative reputation of turning atomic particles into a nasty thing, crime, greed to power no matter what, plastics, virus, pleasures, scammers, robbers and cheaters. One must ask, how come that both good and bad still breath the same oxygen, uses the same water experience the same sun. This maker must be very very very good so good that it surpasses all understanding because i tell you, if those average scientists, mathematicians and astronomers are in-charge they will have a new project to the nearby galaxy and to finance it they will require a huge rock and the earth will do it. We have the proof in the past they are not satisfied with just bows and arrows so they want more now they became much more complicated because it has the power to end life on earth as we know it. Yeah but some will always argue that it's just a part of the progress. Give me a break. Thank you.

@@ping9836 Forget I asked.

@@Lalakis Hahaha

@@ping9836 the first tool was an idea. Before that there just was

Go back to the Susskind interview. It's the cosmological constant which being so small can produce a form of anti-gravity. This is where Alan Guth's ideas about the inflationary period during the Big Bang comes from.

@@tanshihus1 But the cosmological constant has an unmatch between theory and observation of 10^120, not 10^10^123. The real value of dark energy is 10^-8 ergs/cm^3. And, by the way, it might be false, Subir Sarkar maintains that it's an apparent local effect and that the Universe is not actually expanding. So it can't be the cosmological constant.

@@Raptorel I'm no expert on such matters. Penrose and Susskind mention the same number while Reese only hints at during his interview. You only have to look at the program to know that it is stitched together from recordings taken over several years. No reason to expect them to be completely accurate or even current.

@@tanshihus1 I am aware of that, of course it is. I've seen pretty much all of the interviews on the closer to truth site anyway, but it's fun to revisit them in a cohesive format for these videos on youtube.

There is a talk by Penrose oine explaining it.

That's a huge or, for something that is not mutually exclusive.

But they ARE mutually exclusive. When asked "What is the true nature of reality?" you are usually given three options. 1. Organic big bang scenario 2. Simulation scenario or 3. Holodeck scenario You can't mix and match when it comes to the OVERALL theory of the true nature of reality. For instance, you can have a simulated reality within an organic reality INSIDE a holodeck.. but from the perspective of the people living inside the holodeck THEIR overall scenario will be a holodeck scenario. The scenarios can co-function but they are completely mutually exclusive. You see, that is the difference between the Holographic universe theory and the Holodeck theory.. and ultimately it is why Professor Leonard Susskind and friends can't write the maths for it.. They are barking up the wrong tree. They are trying to make the organic big bang universe theory and the holographic universe theory work together as some kind of hybrid NON-mutually exclusive thing. Susskind is trying to prove that there are holographic projectors outside of our universe creating our organic reality.. and he's trying to do this using a 2D event horizon and quantum entanglement. He will never succeed but major quodus to him for trying. The holodeck theory, on the other hand is the natural successor / corollary of the holographic universe theory because it makes much more sense AND it is mutually exclusive. We don't live in a true organic big bang universe scenario. We live in an organic REALITY that has been recreated inside a holodeck complex super-structure. Our overall scenario from OUR point of view is a holodeck scenario.

i agree.

Consciousness is a bit like a roof top. It is, is some relevant context, the most important part of the house but as the saying goes... you can't build a house from the roof top.

Please demonstrate a disembodied conciousness. Any conciousness absent a brain/central nervous system.

Consciousness IS fundamental. I couldn't agree more. What's more is our consciousnesses are holographically projected onto our bodies.. which means.. our souls are computer programs.. which means our original species found a way to live forever by uploading our / their consciousnesses into Eternal Computers.. Where are the Eternal Computers? In the main reality. This reality is a sub-reality of the main reality.

@@psyseraphim look up Pam Reynolds. Also, read Pim Van Lommel Consciousness Beyond Life. Now go away.

And the FACT that 99.99999999999999999999999999 percent of the universe is utterly lethal to us ! Nice fine tuning huh

So, why not consciousnezs.

Use RU-vid Vanced app. No ads at all.

Short episode. No, the end.

The real living does never appear in science. That's the difficulty with self knowledge, like Thales explained, because its about the in principle invisible!

Agree, the "fundamental theory" is rejected even though we have no clue if there is one or not. I think talking about probability and statistics is just wrong when it comes to natural constants because we have no other universes available for measurement. Way to much hype and allusion to a "creator" here.

The two cells, are they brain cells?

WRONG WAY ROUND. EVOLUTION FINE TUNED TO THE UNIVERSE.

Not how probability works. Try again.

You are right that all possible constants are equally unlikely on their own, but when we group all possible constants into “life permitting” constants and “non-life permitting constants”, the life permitting constants are unimaginably less numerous than the non-life permitting constants. What matters here is the result. So while each individual constant is equally unlikely, one result is much much more unlikely than another.

What "unlikely thing" would you even begin to compare with the creation of a universe and everything it brings with it? There is no comparison that we could ever conceive of as our imagination is limited to the information this particular universe can provide us with. We have no evidence that there are worlds out there somewhere just like ours, it's all speculation. My suggestion to all skeptics is to deal with the set of facts you have in front of you about this world you inhabit, and it's own universe which has perfectly brought forth all of the speciation of life, and properties and elements to sustain it and evolve it. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...well you know.

Um because they are? You are basically saying you don't understand the point, so there isn't one. Lol.

@@lindal.7242 yep, for a group that demands evidence, athiests sure make of a ton of speculative fantasy :)

@Pisstake I can't speak for all believers but I know that a large chunk of us know there is a God and an afterlife because we have had personal experiences with this realm. Unfortunately everyone of us is responsible for our own beliefs and nobody will ever be able to convince a non believer without that non believer searching out the truth and evidence for themselves. The key is to not be satisfied with your assumptions but truly humble yourself and ask God for a sign that you can recognize and God will take the veil off of your eyes. You can live your life just fine without knowing the truth, but your being on this page probably having watched a few if Kuhn' s videos leads me to think that deep down inside you're not even satisfied that your assumptions are correct. This is because we humans all know instinctively that there's a reason we exist in such a place as this, keep following that instinct.

no, that's silly. what happens when the creator wakes up?

@@cosmikrelic4815 Dream = Poetic licence? The Creator’s matrix is self sustaining.

@@chyfields do you even know what a matrix is? you're just using words you don'r even understand.

@@cosmikrelic4815 The matrix I perceive is like the top sheet of a multi-layered spread sheet, full of formulae, correlations, spectrums, and 0’s and 1s.

@@chyfields another mixture of words you don't understand. what formulae, correlations between what, spectra of what? these are just meaningless words.

Multiverse was proposed before fine-tuning was discovered, but nice attempt in trying, once again, to project on the scientists your own theistic motivations.

@@ezbodythe multiverse argument is not falsifiable, you're quite the theologian.

The Multiverse is a hypothesis. No-one is asserting it as unassailable fact and putting the unbelievers to death.

And Americans seem unable to write a senetence well. Prodigious includes "amount". L2think.

I think what you really mean is: How can there be _consciousness_ at all?

Why is there anything at all, why is it even possible for the natural laws to conspire in such a way that life and consciousness can come about at all, no matter how many multiverses you have. What would be expected is an endless amount of chaotic multiverses where nothing is created ever, because exactly what is it that makes anything to be able to be created at all? We know that mobile phones, shoes and music can be created in this universe because we do create them, so why doesn’t the natural laws conspire to spontaneously assemble shoes for example, which are far less complicated to spontaneously assemble than life and consciousness. Given enough possibilities anything can be created. Why? Just think something more fundamental is missing from these theories.

How would you show fine-tuning for consciousness?

@@cnault3244 I just wanted to say that in case of Earth its obvious that no one has fine-tuned our planet for life and consciousness. There are just billions of planets with different conditions and one of them is Earth. I support multiverse hypothesis

Probably not. A hypothesis must be falsifiable to be useful. I can’t get two individuals to agree precisely what god is.

@@cps_Zen_Run that's easy. Consciousness.