Nima Arkani-Hamed - What's Fundamental in the Cosmos? 

Sez who?

@@squeakeththewheel read Engels: „dialectic of nature“ and Engels: „Anti-Dühring“ for instance

Will do.

@@markuspfeifer8473 Thanks for the suggestion. I just read through Engels: „dialectic of nature“ . Very interesting philosophy. Of course, he wrote in the 19th century before quantum and relativity theory and thermodynamics theory were discovered. So one has to take most of what he says about physics with a large grain of salt (meaning not too seriously). For example, he says it's obvious that in addition to light being a physical thing (which it is), darkness must also be a physical thing (which we know it's not). And his idea that motion is indestructible and cannot be created is archaic and does not agree with current physics knowledge (and I don't mean theory, I mean confirmed knowledge through modern experiments).

@@squeakeththewheel I think he uses the word „motion“ in a more philosophical sense. The particulars have to be updated of course. But I have yet to come across a more compelling way of thinking about science and the world as such. You seem to be a fast reader or have a lot of time per day, I highly recommend to also check out Anti-Dühring. It’s more instructive in terms of how *not to* think about science/nature, as it explicitly debunks a (now forgotten) 19th century thinker who makes tons of mistakes that still come naturally to us when philosophizing about science.

That's basically multiverse theory. It has the disadvantage of being completely untestable.

@@fluffysheap you're right. It's almost unscientific, and yet, we distinguish the constancy of Pi, or e, from that of G in gravitation, or the charge on the electron. The first two can only be what they are, no matter the universe whereas we can accept the possibilities of variability in the second pair. That which is imaginable as at least potentially variable, may be a tool in the evolutionary toolbox for universes.....at least in principle. It may also be a useful measure of how hard we can run from our own souls.

Secondst!

Most of those things aren't really brute facts. The fundamental particles and forces (except gravity) are all described by the standard model, which relates math and observations in a really remarkable way. That's what allowed physicists to predict the Higgs boson, and then the LHC found it exactly where they expected it to be. (And the same thing happened a couple decades earlier, with the top quark). But then these parameters just stick out. Nothing gives them their values, no theory connects them. They are brute facts in a way that the standard model just is not.

Because the odds for those values are infinitesimally low. Fine tuning is a big problem.

@@metheplant9655 You don't actually know what the "odds" are. For all you know, the odds of these parameters being what they are is 100%

@@fluffysheap You know, the SM doesn't actually predict what the masses of the particles are. Those values need to be measured and inserted into the theory. Same with the strength of the interactions. My point still stands that you can make the same fine-tuning argument with any of these brute-facts.

@@BaconMaker1 one single example (there are countless); carbon (necessary for life) has an unique resonance feature whose excited energy level matches precisely that of beryllium + helium, which should decay in 0.0000000001 seconds. It does not decay only because of that resonance, You can calculate the odds for that. I’m lazy.

I created a Lego masterpiece, then I destroyed it.

You do transformation on lego

@@Deepakyadav-vp8xx Yes I can transform a car into a robot etc.

Too many assumptions to be coherent. Define the terms : Nothing, Created, destroyed.

You just created that comment.

Why make it sound so difficult when it is so simple?

@@sven888 Why put down complexity?

@@jsphotos So true. The purpose of complexity is indeed love. Bless you brother and have a good weekend.

All combinations of lottery numbers are equally likely. When they draw the numbers, something is going to come out. But if you have the winning numbers, that's remarkable. Now assume they drew 10,000 numbers, and you only got one ticket, and you still won. That's fine tuning.

​​@@fluffysheapthat's not a fine tuning it's just still a random number or random event by chance and mistake. Just beacuse only you wins it in 10,000 doesn't mean it is fine tuning. We all know that the odds of winning the lottery is extremely small, but people win the lottery all the time. Rare things happens all the time. Rare is rare but rare things keeps happening in the universe and before the universe all the time.

@@fluffysheap looks like you feel special

The degrees of freedom in a universe full of Helium, and only Helium, would seem to be far less. It's less " demanding " in its conditions for existence. Once the Helium begins to clump, with gravity accentuating quantum effects, now it requires more, of electrons, of weak and strong forces to build as far as carbon in the clumped stars. Then it requires subtleties in the exotic forms of carbon isotopes, to get further again..... The rungs of the ladder up to haemoglobin are ever more improbable.

@@genghisthegreat2034 what degrees of freedom? The helium universe is as improbable as our universe to exist in terms of probability, but seems like most of us feel special, feel that the universe is "made for our existence". Hubris is not a virtue, we must overcome it.

It's all about clicks and money my friend... for truth... read the teachings of Jesus in the NT.

And what's more, build a model of the universe where God does exist build a model of the universe where God does not exist compare the world that we live in and I'm sure you will find it is the world where a God does not exist otherwise how could you explain the problem of evil the problem of divine hiddeness. I think it's wrong to demand worship from any sentient being whatsoever regardless of their power.

​@@robotaholic From ACIM The Bible repeatedly states that you should praise God. ²This hardly means that you should tell Him how wonderful He is. ³He has no ego with which to accept such praise, and no perception with which to judge it. ⁴But unless you take your part in the creation, His joy is not complete because yours is incomplete. ⁵And this He does know. ⁶He knows it in His Own Being and its experience of His Son’s experience. ⁷The constant going out of His Love is blocked when His channels are closed, and He is lonely when the minds He created do not communicate fully with Him. -------------- The lonely part is confusing to me.

Consciousness is a curse, look how broken and fallen the world is 😮‍💨

​@@Jack-gn4glwhy are there so many people like you in these comments? Can't you go somewhere else?

Consciousness like everything is an outcome of materias properties/property I.e. infinite empty space & materia are the two fundamental parts of the universe. This is a bit semantically proposed, as one could for example argue, that movement(quantification of it is time imho), is fundamental also, but what is moving is materia. So only two imo.

Naturalness is not about avoiding fine-tuning altogether, but rather about understanding why certain parameters have the values they do. Naturalness does not necessarily imply that parameters cannot be fine-tuned but rather seeks explanations for observed values based on fundamental principles of physics. The Multiverse Hypothesis was not made up to explain away fine-tuning through sheer numbers. In reality, the multiverse hypothesis is grounded in theoretical frameworks such as inflationary cosmology and string theory and is motivated by fundamental principles of physics. When considering Occam's razor and evaluating the simplicity of explanations, it's essential to examine the assumptions and implications of positing that a minimum intelligence is embedded within the structure of the universe. This introduces additional assumptions without necessarily simplifying the explanation. It raises questions about the nature and origin of this intelligence, which may complicate the overall explanation. Moreover, the assertion that intelligence cannot arise from non-intelligent matter overlooks the well-established principles of emergent phenomena, whereby complex behaviors and properties can emerge from simple underlying rules or structures without the need for external intelligence. Intelligence and consciousness are often conflated, but they are distinctly different. Consciousness is discussed within the framework of philosophy of mind, where the dualism versus physicalism debate offers nuanced perspectives. While dualism raises intriguing points, including the hard problem of consciousness, advancements in neuroscience bolster physicalism's position. But the counterarguments to the claim that whether intelligence and/or consciousness is fundamental are the same. For example, what form does this intelligence take? How does it interact with the physical laws of the universe? How did it come to be embedded within the structure of the universe? These additional assumptions and unanswered questions detract from the simplicity of the explanation.

​@@mortedelsogno *"The Multiverse Hypothesis was not made up to explain away fine-tuning through sheer numbers."* ... That's fine, but Multiverse produces even more unanswered questions then you'd have with explaining a single universe. *Example:* In this video, Nima proposes that out of 10^500 universes, we happen to be in the one that works. ... Yay us! This assumes that each universe that is a failed configuration is supplanted by another attempt, and sooner or later you end up with a winner through process of elimination. What this fails to consider is that a nonintelligent universe wouldn't know what works and what doesn't, so it could produce the same failed configuration over and over and over. You could have 10^500 universes that are constructed using the exact same "failed configuration" as before because there's no filtering agent to suggest otherwise. *"The Multiverse Hypothesis was not made up to explain away fine-tuning through sheer numbers. In reality, the multiverse hypothesis is grounded in theoretical frameworks such as inflationary cosmology and string theory and is motivated by fundamental principles of physics."* ... Maybe so, but positing the existence of 10^500 universes to compensate for something that can be explained in a far simpler way doesn't speak well to "viability." You might as well go one tiny step higher and attribute it all to an omnipotent God. *"Moreover, the assertion that intelligence cannot arise from non-intelligent matter overlooks the well-established principles of emergent phenomena, whereby complex behaviors and properties can emerge from simple underlying rules or structures without the need for external intelligence."* ... And if we had a single example of intelligence emerging from nonintelligence, I would tend to agree ... _but we don't_ It is a far more "reasonable" position to argue that intelligence has always been present in some form, and it has evolved into greater complexity right along with everything else and in the same way *Example:* Complex life emerged from tiny single-celled procaryotes, complex humans emerge from a tiny zygote, the universe emerged from a tiny singularity. Likewise, self-aware intelligence emerged from a tiny representation of intelligence. *"Intelligence and consciousness are often conflated, but they are distinctly different."* ... They are interdependent in biological lifeforms. The only way you can be consciously 'aware" of anything at all is if you possess a minimal amount of intelligence that's able to process whatever you've become aware of. *'For example, what form does this intelligence take? How does it interact with the physical laws of the universe?"* ... It can be as simple as "flipping a bit" all the way up to a hyperintelligence over time. Whatever intelligence is present is commensurate with whatever tasks are required of it. Two atoms sharing an electron could be result of a minimal amount of intelligence setting up that exchange template. If I was the universe, and I rolled 100 marbles down a 45-degree surface to observe their interactions, all physicists would be able to observe 13.7 billion years later would be a bunch of marbles rolling down an incline because physics is an after-the-fact information-gathering process. Physicists can only deal with what has already happened. Anything beyond what is directly observable is reserved for the shady realm of "speculative physics." *"How did it come to be embedded within the structure of the universe? "* ... The same way that matter, energy, space and time are embedded within the fabric of the universe. It's all the necessary ingredients of the "universe cake." leave out any of the ingredients, and you have no cake (or a cake that nobody wants to eat). The truth is people don't want to consider this because it directly conflicts with their "core ideology" (which must always be protected).

You said ‘Intelligence didn't "evolve" from nonintelligent matter as that would present the same logical paradox as "something from nothing." - I thought you said the universes had a beginning; that nothing could exist eternally. In fact, You challenged someone to “tell you how something exists that didn’t have a beginning.” Now you’re telling us that intelligence didn’t evolve, so you’re saying it didn’t have a beginning. You said “The easiest, simplest, most logical conclusion is that the universe has a minimum amount of intelligence embedded within its structure. It's just enough to facilitate its existence and not enough for us to detect.” - how could anything “facilitate its own existence?” Please give proof of anything that facilitated its own existence. I would love to see an effect become its own cause.

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC “Intelligence didn’t “evolve” from nonintelligent matter as that would present the same logical paradox as “something from nothing.”” This is simply not true. ‘Intelligence from nonintelligence’ is clearly an example of ‘something from something else’, not ‘something from nothing’. (In fact, there is arguably only one example of ‘something from nothing’ since it’s a very precise issue facing anyone presenting a theory of the origin of the universe.) If you were right that ‘intelligence from nonintelligence’ compares directly to ‘something from nothing’, since intelligence (the ‘something’) comes from something without intelligence (what you’re clearly referring to as the ‘nothing’), then that logic would have to extend to all emergent properties, since the property that emerges did not previously exist. ‘Sponginess cannot come from nonsponginess’… and yet sponge cakes exist. There may, of course, be other reasons to deny the plausible emergence of a property like intelligence, but comparing it to ‘something from nothing’ is a logical misstep. To be clear, and hopefully to save some time, this is a precise logical issue. If you choose to respond, please limit yourself to the logic that is under examination. I’m not denying your ‘minimal intelligence hypothesis’, I’m not arguing that intelligence can evolve from nonintelligence, I’m not suggesting that I can provide examples of intelligence coming from nonintelligence, and I’m definitely not suggesting that ‘sponginess’ is anything like intelligence. I’m only challenging the logic of the claim I quoted, and would need to see how nonintelligent matter can plausibly be considered to be nothing before I could seriously entertain that claim.

@@dr_shrinker *"I thought you said the universes had a beginning; that nothing could exist eternally."* ... No, I said "infinite origin" is impossible (inconceivable). You should really try getting this right before commenting. Once something comes into existence, it's potential for eternal existence is present unless there is a barrier to its sustained existence. And yes, the universe has a beginning. *"Now you’re telling us that intelligence didn’t evolve, so you’re saying it didn’t have a beginning."* ... No, I said intelligence cannot evolve from nonintelligence. Get it right! *"how could anything “facilitate its own existence?” Please give proof of anything that facilitated its own existence. I would love to see an effect become its own cause."* ... Why do you think I would waste my time explaining my ToE to you when you can't even get your first two points correct? Besides, I could write out right now what ends up being discovered as the truth later on, and all you'd do is marginalize every word I've written today. You're not interested in my take on reality or any thinking outside the box. Your only interest is marginalizing whatever I write. That's your goal ... and it's good to have goals!

Yeah, love his “chalk-takes”! /s

What do you mean by a state of being? Something you can touch? Something that exists in space? What if at the bottom is something more like information or a series of rules? Something we would call abstract. Tables and chairs would supervene. Their form and being would be inferred by us as observers.

Ah yes, the fiendish and elusive Gibberich, an ephemeral creature that rambles across the celestial horizon, snatching the moon dust crystals from the grubby paws of the Bantamocks.

@@FigmentHF *"snatching the moon dust crystals from the grubby paws of the Bantamocks."* ... While also marginalizing every hypothesis, theory and proposition ever presented on the CTT channel. Yes, the elusive Gibberish Creature hates them ALL!

You are an enigma, Maxwell. But I shall persist in my efforts to learn your language and to determine your motivations. 😊