Leonard Susskind - Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind? 

Susskind is a legend.

Lenny rules. Look up his lectures.

he is a troll

Lazar Otasevic - 😆🤣😂

Susskind is one of my favourites in the contemporary science space....his books are brilliantly written and his story from being a plumber to becoming a physicist is inspiring too

@Tony DC And often has a more realistic and fundamental understanding of the science than the people he is interviewing. He's a very knowledgeable and scientifically literate individual. Closer to Truth is a fantastic program. His interviews with Paul Davies are fantastic.

Best science channel on youtube. Will also make a great archive for future generations.

Roq Steady Agree 100%

The channel belongs to him

@Donut dude it’s was sooo awesome while trump was POTUS. Now it’s boring

@Donut dude sleeeepy Joe

@@JoshuaMSOG7 keep your bullshit political comments to your self

@@JoshuaMSOG7 fuck trump and his cult of personality

That's true, but we're constantly getting closer and closer to the truth. *Flat earth* was very wrong, but it explained some basic things; then *Classical mechanics* and modern science explained much more, but was still incorrect in some things. The current *Theory of Relativity* and *Quantum theory* explain all of those things, and are more correct in other things, but still not quuuiitee perfect. But you'll notice we're always getting closer. So it's not like suddenly we can end up with a radically different theory that makes all of former science obsolete.

" Then we'll live in a black hole...you cant live in a black hole " .... 2019 now and the holographic principle just say that.... And well > L. Susskind its a strong suporter of the ideea now . How about that?

Darth Nixa relaivity and quantum theories are worse than flat earth

@@redhotbits Can you elaborate on that?

"Models and theories change but nature stays with what's real".

precisely

if gravity was anywhere near the strength of the other forces, earth would be a black hole

Because the earth is so fucking huge

+You don'T Say ? ets fun to toy w that idea, but I've never fully understood how gravity is weak. where do they get that from, in where do they view gravity stronger than et is now to know that gravity is actually weaker than et should be??

A small fridge magnet is enough to create an electromagnetic force greater than the gravitational pull exerted by planet Earth.

Exactly, just like everybody else.

Research the science and you will begin to understand why the universe came into existence without a god.

For a lazy mind everything is a miracle.

@@davidcotuit please do explain

@Nick While I can sit here in furious agreement with you, that answer will never satisfy many people and is simply incoherent to many. This should be no surprise to the person of faith. Unless God opened your mind to accept his reality, you would be no different. The person of faith must recognise this fundamental schism exists not because of any inherent wisdom or knowledge lest they become arrogant with pride. It also serves as a motivator for us to plead with the all powerful God to reveal himself to others - there is no other way. Psalms 127:1 Unless the Lord builds the house, the builders labor in vain

@@davidcotuit the science makes no such claims. As Prof. Susskind so kindly articulated, there are currently 3 schools of thought and he was so generous as to accept Deity as one of them.

He's been a physics professor at Stanford for more than 40 years. Came out of nowhere?

You can watch hundreds of his lectures on stanford university's channel. He teaches many topics like classical mechanics, relativity, cosmology, quantum mechanics, string theory....he's a beast.

Is this a praise or an irony?

Allah !

@@gireeshneroth7127 then who created allah ? Your answer sucks

@@commandvideo it’s the only logical conclusion. You guys stop at “I guess it’s always been there.” Theists go a step further and imagine what the implications of a self-existent entity would really mean. At least in my view. We’ll all find out, or not.

Because, wizards!

Turtles!

U can watch his lectures for free on here

Consider the possibility that your concept of "creation" is tainted by the presupposition of god

+LARRY Yea, they are like pillars by which everything emerges from. Kind of tells you something..

God was fine tuned to meet our primitive needs.

God is the point where you stop asking.

Yes, thanks to the Great Moogly Googly for the universe. And thanks to him for tuning this .00000000000000000001% that we can survive in, just for us.

What if he's a an asshole?

@@zagyex WHAT?! God is the point where you start asking!

But we're special!! Hahaha

But why the puddle is sentient

@@kingdomofbird8174 doesn't much matter, does it?

Water will conform to the shape of any cavity, any hole will do for water. Not the case with life. This is where the analogy fails.

@@kinetic7609 except here on earth, we see life conform to every imaginable environment, no matter how harsh they may seem. And we see life not just existing, but thriving in places we'd never expect. Environments do not form to suit the life they support, rather life makes do with the environment it's provided.

A man being is born ignorant, not stupid.. And he is made stupid through education

or maybe it’s because their brains aren’t developed and they’re given simple explanations by their parents. Children are curious-“why? Why? Why?” It’s the same reason scientists ask these questions about the universe.

You are about as right as a wrong man ain't right.

And space!

I've thought about this. The existence of 'God' doesn't guarantee that the God knows we're here. Moreover, if we were created in his image we could use an analogy. If I create a soup I don't necessarily know what happened to each pea. Nor do I care. Maybe that pea was undercooked compared to the onion. I don't know that. I don't care. And I will happily eat it. (7/10 on that analogy, but you get it I'm sure). :)

"what is the 'prime mover' what started the whole thing?" There is no prime mover, life is an accident, it may have only happened once, here and now, or it may be something that happens regularly. The universe is not constant, it will disappear and another will start again from the energy left behind, but the next, and the one before this one, may have no similarity to this one. Life on Earth has lasted for the merest fraction of a fraction of a microsecond in the the time span of THIS universe, and even less in the infinity of universes that have been before this one. We are not important in space-time, all we can do is make life as good as possible for all life while we exist.

@@jonwolf7252 I Know God, and God's name is Pure Chance.

The fact that the universe could be any other way shows that it is dependent

exactly what i thought (Y)

You need a stable molecule for anything to exist. It’s not about life. It’s about chemistry

@@theresachung703 so when does the mind arise in a molecule. Also dark matter is not made of molecules. Your point is moot.

@@fitnesspoint2006 Maybe your right. Maybe there's a weird-looking monster in another universe. If that's what you believe I recommend you right a book with Dr. Seuss. I don't see any evidence that something that doesn't have our DNA can be living or counciouslly observant until you have evidence its just a speculation.

@@leechybreeze I have that evidence. She served me yesterday in my local post office

DNA is formed from stuff like nitrogenous base, molecules etc (stuff we can make easily) but it contains also adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine from which (as you already know from Miller-Urey experiment) we can create only adenine, but I see no reason why we shouldn’t one day be able to create cytosine etc also.

So, the conclusion is that DNA *most* likely formed from chemical soups from under the ocean.

An Atheist Incorrect. Absolutely not. If you think the cosmological constant is small, what you are suggesting is trillions and trillions of times less likely.

@@manofgod7622 yeah as if nature is the same as a controlled environment with pure chemical substances like a human lab, fuck off

@@manofgod7622 that's the point "able to "create" cytosine etc also." the word "create" implies a creator. amen!

If you watch the whole video, Susskind suggests that there may simply be numerous random possibilities within what he calls the megaverse, and ours is just the one that happens to work.

@@tinetannies4637 I did watch the whole video actually. You're welcome to keep the notion that 'ours just happens to work' without any reason or its just a fluke?

@@tinetannies4637 Or it can also mean if it is not fine tuned find one example where you can say that look this planet also happens to have life. But you can't yet find any example and thus rely on other possibilities to prove it as an accident. And we are not even discussing the prime mover of all such possible megaverses

Similar to our elements on the periodic table , that create certain attributes when combing certain building blocks, other universes who, let's say dont have electrons, will create balancing atoms and create a different periodic table of elements. It's very true that many people are too ignorant about other possibilities

Somebody says something like that in Werner Herzog's documentary 'Encounters at the End of the World'. That the universe created us to look at itself, we are the universe admiring itself. But frankly I think those UFOs zipping around the skies and oceans, defying all known laws of physics, I think those guys have some explaining to do. I think we need to know what's up with those guys, before we can claim to be the mind of the universe.

"Blueprints" are always created by an Architect.

you're expanding the game of life to something much much more higher

M1KA3L it's a drawing of the way one string decays into two strings, sort of a short hand like Feynman diagram in QED( quantum electrodynamics). the diagrams are a simple expression to help understand how strings behave. but the math behind it is extremely difficult both in QED and string theory.

I'm pretty sure there are two snails crawling in that diagram

yes there is a bias. one could say "maybe the universe is finely tuned for ipads" the reason there is a human bias is because it might make some sense that a big magic man would be motivated to make a universe for people but doesn't seem like he would for apple products. the fact is the world is finely tuned for life (as well as electronics) and that does demand an explanation, naturalistic or otherwise. i do agree that life most likely could evolve in very very different conditions, even if it took trillions or Quadrillions of years, because life is statistically inevitable that if life CAN possibly form sooner or later it will. However you do need a universe for that and some if some parameters were diff there would be no stable universe so thats a factor i recommend Sean Carroll on this topic

Shehzad Ahmed not true. there is not reason the universe couldn't be rearranged in such a way that there are no atoms but energy is rearranged in such a way life can occur. its easy to imagine life without atoms

The roll of the dice, probabilities. You wouldn't be alive to know any other alternative than this one. I am speaking of course of the theory of the multiverse. If true, which it seems it may be. Then there are many Universes and we just happen to be in the lucky one that can produce life with this random set of variables.

One word answer... ego.

The universe is not finely tuned for anything nor does it have some sort of goal it's trying to reach. Everything in this universe conforms to the laws of this universe and if the numbers were different, everything in that universe would conform to the laws of that universe. From the universe's perspective we're no different from a rock or for that matter, anything else in the universe but we try to give ourselves more importance.

exiledfrommyself "we're no different from a rock" So you consider yourself to be as unimportant as a rock. Atheist physicists accept the element of fine tuning. If they didn't they wouldn't have to resort to a multiverse. But its important to note the multiverse idea has only one purpose, and that purpose is to elude the implication of a designer and nothing else, its not even science.

jonesgerard I consider humans more important than rocks but that's just my subjective opinion. In the eyes of the universe, rock human - same difference. If any Atheist physicists say there is such a thing as "fine tuning" they don't know what they're talking about. The universe is what it is and everything in it is just an unintended consequence of the expansion.

***** There is no "fine tuning problem". Science can only tell you what the numbers are. Trying go beyond that is not science. Things like the meaning and purpose behind something are all creations of the human mind; they don't exist outside of it. The numbers are what they are and everything in the universe conforms to those numbers. I'm sure you've heard the example of someone looking at a puddle and then claiming the hole in the ground was fine tuned for the water because the water fits the shape of the hole so perfectly. The water took the shape of the hole and if the hole was different the water would take that shape. What would give me pause is if the universe was made up of different numbers and we still managed to exist in our current form. Us and everything else in the universe conforming to the laws of the universe is expected and shouldn't lead anyone to believe that there's some sort of design element.

*****​ I cling to what is, not to what someone speculates. If you think the numbers have some sort of meaning behind them I'm more than willing to hear and examine your evidence.

Go pray some more

@@jamesgrey7031 Non-sequitur. Off topic. Come back when you have something relevant to add.

I do. There is the trivial multiverse, equivalent to the empty set, and this exists trivially. The next smallest multiverse contains one universe. We observe one, hence we live a multiverse which contains within itself this next smallest multiverse. Hence, nontrivial multiverse exists.

@@u.v.s.5583 interesting- what do you mean in layman's terms?

@@bombdottcom111 If I have one bottle of beer, I have beer. The quantity of BEER in BEER is not specified. The number of universes in a multiverse is not specified either, and it is not at all clear that we speak of multiverse only if it has at least two elements - at least two universes. One may be enough.

@@u.v.s.5583 yeah that's what's weird and mysterious about this theory.

@@u.v.s.5583 sounds like the ontological argument for God. Just as useful too.

BrootPK I came to Jesus while studying biology (DNA) in college and found Susskind and was amazed at his simple way of explaining such amazing singly complex subjects- I bet a lot of these scientists truly believe behind the scenes (I actually know hundreds of biologists who are Christians but cannot admit this as to lose grant funding and so on). This guy is terrific- my dad read about him in the early 70s.....

Go ahead as long as you don’t attach a religion to it

Walter Daems what if the facts support a religion? Would you still turn a blind eye? The Big Bang was the creation event described in Gen 1:1. The scientific facts we have today prove the universe had a supernatural beginning (because there were no laws of nature before the Big Bang) I was an atheist scientist for about 10 mins back in the 90s and science is what revealed GOD to me. I let the facts speak for themselves and it exposed complexity that no natural causes could “ create” ...... that’s truly a case for “Naturalism of the gaps “. We don’t know but we can dEF cancel out a supernatural occurrence because our “faith” won’t allow it. Just follow the evidence . It’s all black and white

Bad Gator the ‘facts’ support all and none religions and are completely supportive in the eye of the beholder. People tend to transform their wishes into beliefs but believing and thinking are two different exercises. Unfortunately, once people are caught up in a belief system they are not longer approachable in a rational way. I confess that I don’t know if God(s) exist but I’m pretty sure that he, she or it won’t have a high opinion from a flock, preachers and pope’s who are so arrogant to pretend that they know what he, she or it is thinking and I’m even more convinced that he, she or it doesn’t give a rats ass about abortion, gays and all matters that make believers wave with one or another religion.

Walter Daems do you believe in objective truth or is your truth good for you and mine is good for me? Does 2+2= 4 in your world? It does in the real world and in every world. This has nothing do for with subjectivity or “wishes turning into beliefs” or I’d totally be following Buddha. Christianity doesn’t make anyone comfortable. Quite the opposite. If calls out what’s wrong in the world and gives a playbook in which to live a moral life by with an objective standard for those morals.

It can, any examples?

David F I sure do, and so it goes...

David F finally a brain.... YAY! You are correct sir!

David F At last, someone who sees it like i do, simple:/ We exist because the random conditions of the verse..the constants, came out in a way that allowed the formation of atoms, galaxys, stars, etc:/ It could be no other way and still have us here arguing about "fine tuning",lol. AS he said, taking earth as example, wow, what a miracle the earth just happened to be just right for us:/ Got the donkey by the tail, we are here only because conditions are right for life like ours, so thats what you get! Could have been different, probably is in one of the many other verses that i have little doubt exist out there. His "pocket universes", only i see it as many individual verses, each with its own laws, not connected by physical space as he suggests. Why do they over complicate shit:/ It does NOT cry out for an explanation, its pretty bloody obvious:/

David F That's fine and logical. I used to think like you until I understood the Boltzmann brain paradox. So I cant just quickly answer a question like you did. This is still unknown. Mystery... it's fascinating. www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2008/12/29/richard-feynman-on-boltzmann-brains/ I warn you though this is hard concept to grasp totally...

I've heard of the Boltzman brain paradox. Need to refresh my memory. Will look into it again more closely. Maybe we can discuss the ideas presented. Thanks for the idea.

The smaller you are, the faster you die. Of course there are some exceptions. But how long does one of your skin cells live? How long do you live? How long does a planet live? How long does a sun, a solar system, a galaxy, how long does a universe live? The bigger you are, the longer you live.

Aaron Shure evil comes from somewhere I m sure if you dig deep enough you ll be able to figure it out.

Mike Subban it comes from the shadowy parts of human imagination

Aaron Shure LMHO!!

The more I learn about these topics the more thankful I am to have experienced life and consciousness. No matter how painful and short it can be.

Good statement sir.

@Jon. We don't. That response is provoked by the same anthropocentric bias that gives us the fine tuning illusion.

Life is the flexible component.

the God hypothesis just replaces one problem with another

Must be God's work right?

inelegant and ridiculous right; but I dont expect more than that from a guy named AnarchoRepublican.

The fact that the universe could be any other way shows it’s dependency… requiring a necessary being

***** "Technically, the system as it functions via DNA already contains all the possible calculable blueprints/products" You tried to slide the word blueprint right back into a statement that is supposed to explain _WHY_ the word "blueprint" should be used. A blueprint is a representation of the finished product. Nowhere within DNA is there any such representation, in whole nor in part. "But the "tuning" is not in the above... It is, as you've said, in the "effect of simple chemical reactions", meaning - all the Universal constants, all chemical constants, the nuclear forces, the electromagnetic constants of Nature..." That effectively destroys any power in the fine tuning argument as it is used by theists. What is left in it's ashes is an argument for deism. "If the Universe wasn't fine-tuned, then they should be "evolving" in separate parts of the cosmos differently" Your conclusion does not follow from the single premise you gave. However, it does suggest that it is possible that some constants _ARE_ different in other patches of the Universe. After all, if the Universe can evolve/change from it's primordial conditions at different times/places, then why can't some of the conditions be different in disparate patches and/or at different times? Nobody is arguing that they _ALL_ have to be subject to change, merely some. And a little change goes a long way in a causal chain. In the end, I think Feynman said it best with : _If it turns out it’s like an onion with millions of layers and we’re just sick and tired of looking at the layers, then that’s the way it is, but whatever way it comes out it’s nature is there and she is going to come out the way she is, and therefore when we go to investigate it we shouldn’t predecide what it is we’re trying to do except to try to find out more about it. _ -Richard Feynman

***** "because there are Laws that supersede things, which govern everything past the size of Planck units. You won't find much on this angle in your public physics courses schoolbooks." Are you just practicing sophistry or what? Do you really think physical laws and the Planck scale are somehow an arcane "angle"? "It is very arrogant of mankind to devise and to put forward "Theories of Everything"," Audacious, not arrogant. "But have Faith. ;=)" Meh, I have no need for faith. Reason is a far superior tool.

It is Doubtful whether you have even reached the ERGO!

He tells it from his very limited mind, which of course will have limited answers to what he can comprehend.

kasparov9 - Oh, poop on you! 💩🖕

+universalsailor Conflation fallacy. Typical atheist thinking.

+universalsailor Whew you make it easy to tell you haven't taken higher levels of mathematics

Switch puddle with swimming pool

No, but it takes an incredibly weak one to think that your comment is clever

How is that at all even similar to the vast number of physical constants aligning and the development of life?

+Kevin van den Hoek Because people have very strong beliefs about God and are willing ignore their training in order to lead the evidence to their own preferred conclusion.

+Michael Hurwitz copout or not it may still be correct

+Kevin van den Hoek This seems for right, honestly. After all, isn't evolutionary theory essentially about life adapting itself to environmental conditions, not the other way around? That and, fine-tuning overestimates how suited for life the universe is. Even on earth, many environments are ill suited for life, most planets are ill suited for life. It seems arrogant to say the universe is the way it is so we can exist.

I think you missed the point. Yes life is fine tuned for the universe, but why is life even possible in the universe? Given the possible ranges of the constants, most possible universes should not allow ANY life, much less ours. So why are we in a universe that's incredibly unlikely?

This is the old conflict between the weak anthropic principle (WAP as earlier mentioned) and the strong anthropic principle and you haven't added anything new to the debate. It's unlikely to be settled until there is a definitive answer as to whether we live in a multiverse or not, I'm not holding my breath.