Avi Loeb - The Anthropic Principle: Meaning and Significance

We should expect to observe that the universe in which we live must conform to the conditions required for our presence as observers. This is the unremarkable “Weak Anthropic Principle”: our universe has fundamental constants that happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life. The “Strong Anthropic Principle” makes the teleological claim that the universe must have those properties that allow or require intelligent life to develop, that the universe is in some sense compelled to bring forth conscious life. Does anything meaningful follow from these ideas?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on the Anthropic Principle: bit.ly/3r1tP44
Abraham (Avi) Loeb is an American/Israeli theoretical physicist who works on astrophysics and cosmology and the Frank B. Baird, Jr. Professor of Science at Harvard University. He is the author of Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@TheGreaser9273]

The multiverse is the "God of the Gaps" argument for science. They say "We can't explain it. Therefore. Multiverse."

[@TheGreaser9273]

@@FelixBat I agree. Just like God is only mentioned as a possible explanation.

[@vedocorban]

​@@TheGreaser9273 The multiverse is not "just like god" as an explanation for the unknown. To belive in god is to belive in the fact of god. Beliving in the possibility of god can't be considered beliving in god at all, by the rules of the belivers themselves. The multiverse is just a possibility and it's treated as such by its proponents.

[@TheGreaser9273]

@@vedocorban Yes! God is a possible explanation for (this) unknown because the multiverse is just as empirically verifiable as God is. Whether or not someone "believes in" this God is irrelevant to the suggestion that it is a possible explanation.Every "scienctific" argument levied against the existence of God can be levied agianst the "M"ultiverse. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The multiverse is a fairy tale cloaked and disguised as a scientific idea.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

@@vedocorban Why can't "believing in the possibility of god" also be considered "believing in god"? I have doubts and struggle regarding God's existence. Yet I am hoping that I believe in god. Do I make any sense or no? John in Florida

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

@@TheGreaser9273 Why do you say the "multiverse is a fairy tale"? Do you then also believe that God is a fairy tale?

[@willbrink]

I'm currently a believer in the "lump or leave it" view and more interested in the how, vs the why of it all. I know some feel the "why" leads to the "how" in this one, but I think it's another human-centric approach to assuming everything revolves around us and we are important in the universe. Yes, fine tuned as it is, it simply is how it turned out, and we a manifestation of how it turned out. We may be alone, we may not be, but the universe be there just this one or not, was not fine tuned for our existence, and if we disappear tomorrow, the universe would continue on without us. It reminds me of the utterly human-centric classic Q "If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one to hear it, does it makes a sound." Of course it does! It's typical of humans to think we/they, need to be there for a physical effect that does not require human consciousness to happen. I suspect if we could just get over ourselves as the center of everything, we could make a great deal of progress on so many Qs.

[@johntexas8417]

Avi is being interviewrd lately by everyone. Love it

[@Lone_Star86]

I am seriously waiting for a TV documentary from Dr Avi Loeb.

[@dodmediachannel]

Thanks for bringing such inspiring conversations to the table Robert and Avi, I'm currently working on a multi episode series on this same subject, and this is beyond inspiring! Episode 4 of my series coming soon...

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

What are the implications of having or not having an explanation for fine tuning (in contrast to the existence of fine tuning)? The existence of fine tuning leads to the question of God and - or multiverse; if not have an explanation for fine tuning that is demonstrated scientifically, would this lack of scientific explanation for fine tuning weaken or strengthen the argument for a multiverse?

[@theHoff1974]

asking the right questions always leads to getting the answers you seek.

[@BillyMcBride]

Yes, I think putting more emphasis on appreciation of what is given to us is nice.

[@navidazadi4280]

I do not agree with materialists, but we must search to having answer just in the framework of scientific method, we must have only and only "document" to protect a special insight, in either observation/experiment or a theoretical model which is very very consistent with underlying nature

[@joshcarver7930]

“They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised “ Romans 1:25-26. No matter what data you have, belief in God always comes down to belief. I completely agree with Avi that the painting is beautiful, but we disagree about that its place as the ultimate source of joy. “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 people are without excuse” - Romans 1:20. As a pre-medical student, the beauty of this universe, the painting, motivates me back towards the painter and understanding what his thoughts and intentions were in creating the painting. Why does the painting include us? Are the emotions and moral convictions we feel simply a product of biochemicals? If so, was it simply by chance or dumb luck that the conditions governing our universe allow these biochemicals to have these effects on us? Like he said, we are not exactly aware of all the conditions humans can survive in. However, we haven’t found many new possibilities. To me, it seems like the painter was very intentional in his execution of the painting, and demands attention because of it.

[@SM_and_BM]

Where are the corresponding podcasts? You haven't uploaded podcasts in while now?

[@rotorblade9508]

Complexity needs a designer. Then the Designer being more complex doesn’t need a designer, they just introduce an exception to the rule. So there can be exceptions. The first lifeform can also be an exception, on what basis we can say which exception is correct? We also know another certain exception from the rule as opposed to the first two which can’t be certain. That is the natural evolution from relatively simple lifeforms to much more complex. So complex things can derive from simple things. That shows the watch maker argument can have exceptions so it can’t be taken as a consistent rule.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

While human life and mind are consistent with physical constants of nature, the physical constants of nature produce a universe that is about more than human life and mind? Humanity has a niche in a small section of universe where it is special?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Does the fact that intelligent life can be observed almost anywhere on earth, while at this time intelligent life not observed beyond earth in galaxy or universe, bear on the anthropic principle? Is something fine tuned for if it can be observed almost everywhere; in which case is the universe fine tuned for galaxies, with galaxies being fine tuned for stars, and stars being fine tuned for planets?

[@danellwein8679]

if it was computation that produce life .. our version of it .. other versions of it .. then computation is the most amazing thing there is .. it may be blind .. it may be simple ... just follow a few rules and you get much .. its not a god .. but it has god like qualities .. it just iterates and does what it does .. it is not easy to get one's head wrapped around that ..

[@doncorleon9]

I think this too. There are billions of variables that came into play for us to be here. And if just one was off tangent a billion or do years ago, we would either have been here sooner (fighting with dinosaurs), later, or never appear at all. And there would have been no opportunity cost as there was no reason to think or imagine of a possibility of this version of life.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

"Appreciating that beauty by itself, as if it's a work of art" Manifestation on a Universal level is Creation -- a quality of God. That is spiritual recognition; a being, of relation, connection, resonance should experience such meaning. materialists aren't spiritual and are not of soul to experience such majestisism. materialist - "there's no proof it's art, and why should it been seen as beauty". Only Spiritual people with a conviction and sense of expodition, being true in seeking thyself, should be treated seriously when it comes to science. Where science is going today, I'm glad to be here to tell you how foolish the consensus is and how you're training the modern men to only adhere to and believe in science as a god.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

@@FelixBat Pathetic reply. Nobody cares about your explanation Droid. Humans who are spiritually adept are greater with their use of science than materialists.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

@@FelixBat No. That's really a dumb statement and is false. Generalize all you want. You have nothing to offer here, nor will you find security in thinking I will agree with your delusions.

[@tomp2008]

jeeez Avi.. you're everywhere lately!!

[@phuzbrain]

Reminds me of what Joseph Campbell said: Forget the meaning of life, just enjoy the experience of life.

[@r2out]

I think I can do both of these things at the same time, it only takes an open mind, and a quiet mind is also necessary, I may add.

[@Doever]

The interviewer looks like what I assumed Simon and / or Garfunkel to look like before I saw a picture of them

[@Azthecray]

TL;DR 👀👉 Rick & Morty is an analogy of the megaverse. Avi is very sharp and pedagog 💪🏼

[@Caligula138]

Avi seems to be on tour. I've seen him on Lex Fridman, Joe Rogan and now Closer to Truth for the trifecta

[@bozo5632]

Also recently on Sean Carroll and John Michael Godier, and I'm probably forgetting others.

[@bozo5632]

@@FelixBat Hasn't mentioned a book.

[@owencampbell4947]

We as humans are not able to answer all questions, not even with the most advanced computers, is my opinion. All our senses are extremely limited but we have managed to compensate a large area with science and technology, and are advancing more and more, but it's just not enough. The missing knowledge, materials, vision, lack of cognition for the unknown, hinders a profound wisdom that's missing, and that's not all. We don't really know what's going on in many different parts of our earth, we will always depend on informations, and how much an information will impact us to be absorbed and become knowledge and if its true, or not, or wrong, or a lie. Sooner or later we will have to think about this way, or maybe just another way that is more clear, with less responsibility for changing what is supposed to correct, what doesn't need corrected. The way it looks to me right now, is that we are all in a very dark room, stretching our hands out, trying to feel what we can't see, depending on our healthy senses, hearing and believing someone else's experiences through the dark. Letting ourselves be guided trusting the one that might find the way out of the dark, he that has more experience in the dark than most others. When will we get back to normal?

[@suatustel746]

Ultimate questions knowable by philosophing, science only can not across the bridge..

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

You asked "when will we get back to normal?" I wonder though has mankind ever really been "normal"? How do you define it? I like your analogy that "we are all in a very dark room, stretching our hands out..." I agree with you 100% I only know of one human that could "find the way out of the dark." But darkness cannot destroy him!

[@owencampbell4947]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 hi John, you're right, we've never been normal since we're manipulated from birth on, and I ment the manipulated normal, at least we've been living along on that bubble and continuing the manipulation. Waiting for the one that jumps out the bubble and recognizes the true reality and has proof that all other are speculations on QM.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

@@owencampbell4947 Thanks for the clarification. Maybe my "bubble" will burst before the end and I'll be able to feel normal for a few seconds at least.

[@ChristopherFoster-c5m]

A picture without a painter? To suppose such an idea is antithetical to everything that is. Everything that is, is the result of a design, in order to have a design you must have the right kind of information. Random paintings, painted by no one that simply fall out of the sky for no reason whatsoever, no wonder this proponent of multiverses is uninterested.

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Multuniversi is open question theory. He considered multunivers true.He questions follow less sense. How he question if it not true??arrogant certainly.

[@stanfordgraham8953]

Remarkably idiotic comments. The painter doesn’t matter ... only the painting ... because it’s beautiful. So his curiosity and “relevance” of data is based in enjoyablitiy. Unpersuasive argument about the principle, i.e. I just don’t care about it ... I don’t enjoy it so it must have less validity?

[@mediocrates3416]

I just get the feeling we'd have a better chance if we consider that we actually have a chance. To suggest we have no chance and we might as well just enjoy a distant beauty, surrounded closely by overlooked duty, seems ignorant.

[@carlz28]

With a name like Stanford Graham, your petty argument isn’t unexpected. Yet it remains ridiculous in its very nature. Move on, please. Your kind are not welcome in the comment section of KZbin. Good day, sir!

[@stanfordgraham8953]

@@carlz28 Reversion to ad hominem attacks reveals absence of logic and argument. Your words “your kind” exhibit lowest levels of group think. If this type of “argument” is typical or representative of KZbin, then it’s intellectual irrelevance and demise are not future events, but historical ones.

[@carlz28]

@@stanfordgraham8953 All those words, and yet you really have said nothing at all. Nice try, though. Next!

[@stanfordgraham8953]

@@carlz28 I thought the words would likely tap you out, just not that fast.

[@cps_Zen_Run]

If Theia was not Mars size but of sufficient mass to destroy earth, there is a reasonable probability that Homo sapiens or even multicellular life would not exist in our solar system. The Universe, and even our galaxy would have been fine. Since +99.999999% of the universe is uninhabitable to our life form, I find “fine tuning “ somewhat a ridiculous platform to defend. Peace.

[@legacyXplore]

As I have aged it’s not that I have become more spiritual. It’s just that I’ve realized there is no difference between someone believing everything revolves around us and what you say you currently believe. You use our scientific theories to explain our existence and everything in it to the point that you can come to the conclusion in essence that we are meaningless. Yet when it really comes down to it we barely know anything and so much of what we say we know has no real confirmation. Just theory. Theory coming from the brain of this meaningless cosmic accident. Thinking a meaningless cosmic accident would somehow be gifted enough to understand such a complex existence sounds a lot like what? Ironically it’s as human centric as you can get in a very odd way. Another thing is we ignore real data that at this point isn’t merely whispering but actually screaming of some incredible things going on completely outside of our concept of life and death. Namely NDE’s and past life memories especially In children. It seems to me we are theorizing and coming up with answers on unknowns with a lot less good data than the data we have about maybe the ultimate unknown. Why?

[@francesco5581]

One that call life a byproduct is an idiot . One life, even of a worm , is more magnificent than all the stars and galaxies . If all the universe have nothing that observe it , nothing that live in it , then it simply does not exists . He also talk about "the beauty of the painting" ..But if there is no one observing it then he can shove the painting up there ...

[@doncorleon9]

Let me get you right, if a tree falls in the forest and no one heard it, did it fall? So if there was no life in the universe it would not exist? Not to be so negative but that comes out as very self centered. Beauty here is not in human terms, but the culmination of circumstances and events that lead to the existence of one form of an object and/or life form despite the many odds that would have caused it to come out otherwise.

[@francesco5581]

​@@doncorleon9 An empty universe without consciousness inside it would be nothing. As it never existed . Remove awareness for your life and your life will lose all his value . While life will go on even if i will be long forgotten or unnoticed (the tree) . It's consciousness that give a meaning , not related to time or to be viewed but related to the fact that is capable to validate something as "real" . No reality without consciousness. My opinion of course.

[@francesco5581]

@@FelixBat i am talking about "existing" in a philosophical way. I perfectly know that if an asteroid wipe out life the universe will still be there. BUT , "REALITY" is about being perceived. There is no "REALITY" without consciousness. Thats why the main scientists start to explore the fact that consciousness is something that is part with the universe if not the very same thing that produce reality. If your remove consciousness then you say that "randomness" produced an universe that is just not a big cloud of hydrogen or a field of 5 rocks. Thats why "fine tuning" and consciousness are so tightly connected . And the whole point of "but there could be an universe without consciousness" is immediately contradicted by facts, since actually consciousness IS there .

[@indikulkarni7781]

@@francesco5581 this is what I've been trying to put into words. The anthropic principle is a great link between consciousness and the universe. Perhaps descartes' words should be amended to "I think therefore I am in a universe with the necessary conditions for there to be thinking things". I think what you are trying to describe is this notion, in that the universe we observe has to allow consciousness. Any other universe may or may not exist, but it is pointless to speculate about this case. It is a meaningless question to ask if another universe exists if there is no consciousness around to observe. we have no knowledge or experience of what a universe without consciousness is. All that we have certainty over is that we and a seemingly "fine tuned" universe exist. Nothing more nothing less.

[@francesco5581]

@@indikulkarni7781 indeed

[@ekekonoise]

how could the chemistry of life be just a byproduct????!!!! life is something specially powerful for modificating the universe, is some unique, extraordinary creative manifestation of the laws of physics, its capable of reflecting and talking about itself and the universe, and effects constant changes over the physical world. Theres no other process with life's powerful, fast changing capabilities, no other process that we know of can produce consciousness or intelligence. Life is the known peak of creation, its not a byproduct, dont be ridiculous.

[@timross6606]

Might be a poorly chosen illustration of the point he was trying to make. If the universe is like a painting, that would imply an artist (which he does mention). It would be shortsighted to enjoy a painting without thinking about the artist and his purpose in creating the painting, since every great artist always paints for a purpose or design.

[@moses777exodus]

Wishing you a Blessed New Year, Lord-Jesus-Christ com

[@joehinojosa24]

Have FAITH in the MULTIVERSE NOT a "multitasking " GOD.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

What do you mean by a "multitasking' GOD"?

[@joehinojosa24]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 He a Busy Boy

[@PatrickRyan147]

😲 Fine-Tuning: If the mass of the neutrino was one trillionth trillionth trillionth of a gram heavier or lighter then we could not have come into existence. And that's just 1 of 19 constants, that we know about🤯 Therefore, was our reality organically fine-tuned (big bang scenario) OR was it manually fine-tuned (holodeck scenario) 🤔🤔🤔

[@jareknowak8712]

Not sure from were did You get this trillion-trillion thing, but it also might mean that there are trillion-trillions of other Universes in which life do not exist or is slightly different, which also means that there is no such a thing as fine tuning, but simple logic/math.

[@PatrickRyan147]

@@jareknowak8712 Very good argument.. Your argument is actually called the "Borel's monkeys" argument, that given enough time and enough new universes being constantly created, our universe will eventually be created. BUT.. the "Borel's monkeys" argument is actually usually used IN FAVOUR of the Holodeck scenario.. if you accept that all new intelligent species will always go on to create a holodeck complex super-structure.. and they should because it is the perfect solution to the ultimate problem; how do you live forever BUT it has to be fun? Solution: you upload your consciousnesses into Eternal computers, create an organic environment inside a holodeck complex super-structure and then holographically project your consciousnesses onto the beautiful creatures that evolve therein in a reincarnations journey model. Now.. we are clearly an intelligent species so we will either create a holodeck complex in the future OR it has already been done and we're living in one right now. SO.. it becomes a question of odds or likelihoods on whether we are the FIRST intelligent species in our overall reality.. The likelihood of a universe that's fine-tuned for life being organically created in our overall reality is very, very, very improbable, almost impossible (mass of the neutrino, etc.).. BUT.. the likelihood of a universe that's fine-tuned for life being organically created AND our species being the FIRST intelligent species to evolve in that universe.. Now, that is impossible! And because the first intelligent species will always go on to create the holodeck scenario.. that means that we are living in a holodeck scenario right now..

[@rotorblade9508]

Fine tuned by something that is already tuned by default? What if something the creator is made of was slightly different, the creator couldn’t exist?

[@odiupickusclone-1526]

The problem of evil!

[@odiupickusclone-1526]

*“The best of all possible worlds”: What appears as “evil” is only part of the overall good* If God is perfect, then his creation is perfect, and this universe must be the best possible. Yes, there’s what seems like evil but that’s only a part of the goodness of the universe, a necessary part of “the best of all possible worlds,” as Leibniz the German philosopher put it. Our finite nature limits our focus too closely to what we see as “evil.” The truth is the universe is perfect but we can’t zoom out to see it that way. The “bigger picture” is only accessible to God’s infinite perspective. *Response:* By what standard, we could consider this universe to be the best version of itself? *Voltaire* famously mocked this rosy Leibnizian view in his masterpiece *Candide* wondering how could any philosopher encounter so much suffering and claim that the world is perfect and that it couldn’t be any better? So, *Leibniz* declared that we live in “the best of all possible worlds.” He acknowledged pain and suffering in the world, but regarded them as logically necessary to achieve God’s purposes of freedom, love, and grace - purposes that ultimately benefit all humankind. A generation later, *Voltaire’s short novel Candide* made a mockery of “the best of all possible worlds” through the character of Professor Pangloss, who comically portrayed the bumbling optimist. The works of both Leibniz and Voltaire were well known to *Arthur Schopenhauer* who wrote these words : _The most effective consolation in any misfortune or suffering is to look at others who are even more unfortunate than we; and this everyone can do. But what then is the result for the whole of humanity?_ _We are like lambs playing in the field, while the butcher eyes them and selects first one and then another; for in our good days we do not know what calamity fate at this very moment has in store for us, sickness, persecution, impoverishment, mutilation, loss of sight, madness, death, and so on._ _History shows us the life of nations and can find nothing to relate except wars and insurrections; the years of peace appear here and there only as short pauses, as intervals between the acts. And in the same way, the life of the individual is a perpetual struggle, not merely metaphorically with want and boredom but actually with others. Everywhere he finds an opponent, lives in constant conflict, and dies weapon in hand._

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

@@odiupickusclone-1526 Thanks for sharing the words of Arthur Schopenhauer.

[@suatustel746]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 did you know schopenhauer lived a life style completely oppose to his thoughts principles precepts.. ( but I'm still fan of his pessimism)

[@odiupickusclone-1526]

@@suatustel746 Life is contradictory in itself, why wouldn't we live our lives in accordance with the contradictory nature of life? Not only that it wouldn't be contradictory to live our lives in accordance with the true nature of life which is contradictory, maybe we SHOULD live our lives like that or we should even be logically consistent by commiting suicide so to avoid/exit contradiction alltogether?

[@suatustel746]

@@odiupickusclone-1526 suicide is easy and maybe more painless, but Camus rejected the premise, so like sisyphus we should contend rolling the boulder unto top of the hill knowing it rolls back, and that's confine your job within your lifeline, are you happy with that?

[@rizwanrafeek3811]

At the end Avi sounded like Buddhist monk, what a lame.

[@mintakan003]

I had the same impression. For some reason, the image of the sand castle popped into my mind. Beautiful. But also ephemeral. Somewhat sad.

[@matishakabdullah5874]

Going into multiverse is only going into deeper darkness after the first darkness beyond the horizon of our universe.... while we are on the earth destructing earth entrusted to us to care for!

[@Nicolaitan369]

He'd have been better of in a factory with hands that move that much.

[@davidd5529]

“You can appreciate the universe like a fine work of art” ! And who creates art?, perhaps an artist? This guy suffers a mental illness called scientism, within that delusion the Subject God is not permitted. But that’s ok, I’ll pray for them also❤️

[@rotorblade9508]

The universe was fined tuned for live then lifeforms self tuned for the Universe. 😂 We know the second is right at least the theory of evolution is pretty obvious. It would be funny the first was true as well

[@jazzfish1437]

Why doesn’t life wear beach clothes at the beach?

[@safetydave720]

.

[@odiupickusclone-1526]

Everytime i hear the word multiverse i get sick. I just can't believe how stupid some intelligent people can be...

[@richardcates8918]

Pray tell which multiverse are you referring to? In tegmark’s book he describes four “levels” of multiverse. In Greene’s book, he lists nine types. I do hope you’re not being dismissive of these ideas before evaluating them.

[@odiupickusclone-1526]

@@richardcates8918 Although the nature of God is highly problematic, we know that He (some higher reality) must exist since 1. nothing comes out of nothing and 2. infinite regression of material (temporal) causes is impossible, hence God exists. However, talking about material multiverses is totally and absolutely meaningless. Full stop.

[@everybodyb3cool836]

@@odiupickusclone-1526 since infinity is impossible, we need a being that is infinite (in a special type of way) to explain why infinity is impossible. 🤦‍♂️

[@odiupickusclone-1526]

@@everybodyb3cool836 That is correct!

[@everybodyb3cool836]

@@odiupickusclone-1526 I know... you could calculate Pi using theistic logic😂

[@mediocrates3416]

What a profound waste of money... and pleasure. People are starving for crying out loud!

[@Caligula138]

Whos money? Where and what are these people stsrving for?

[@mediocrates3416]

@@Caligula138 Seriously?

[@mediocrates3416]

@@FelixBat Gee; the only alternative is that those more able help those less able. ... But, surely a blah blah...

[@kevinangelo1118]

blind faith