Can You Observe a Typical Universe?

[@freedomcaller]

Me: Am I watching a physics video, or astronomy, or philosophy? PBS Space Time: Yes.

[@tomsmith4542]

'Yes' is not the answer for such a question.

[@odanemcdonald9874]

THANK YOU FOR ONCE IN A WHILE USING THAT JOKE CORRECTLY. This is the second time I've seen it in a year's time.

[@odanemcdonald9874]

@@tomsmith4542 Are you correcting *_him_* of all people? The one guy to use it right?

[@glitchedpixelscriticaldamage]

@@tomsmith4542 stewpeed.

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

Yes, the Anthropic Principle is powerful when used correctly. But it is far more powerful if you use it wrong.

[@marccox8977]

OMG LOL 😂 .. and now Ima lil 😬 scared too

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

I majored in philosophy with a concentration in physics. The number of times I've seen that principle used wrong... You'd think it can prove just about anything.

[@lisasteel6817]

It's also more financially viable if used wrong.

[@geoffbrom7844]

Ooo can you give a good example of bad use (just curious)

[@custos3249]

@@Sam_on_KZbin "principle used wrong" So philosophy just philosophizing...

[@davidmeans1]

I love how the last sentence is always super long so I can't tell exactly when you're gonna say "Space Time"

[@delson84]

And something about his voice always changes when he starts the sentence.

[@6Twisted]

I could sense it coming too and got sad that the video was ending.

[@dannydazzler1549]

Get outta here. John Michael Gordiers ending is more epic.

[@doughauck57]

"Stars explode, worlds collide, there's hardly anywhere in the universe where humans can live without being frozen or fried, and yet you believe that a... a bed is a normal thing." - Terry Pratchett (well, Death, actually) in "Hogfather"

[@Aurinkohirvi]

Terry was a deep thinker. Almost every sentence he wrote was amazing.

[@chrisgibson5267]

And from somewhere out there I can hear the sound of a Banjo and a song being sung with great gusto..... " A Wizard's staff has a knob on the end. It never will buckle, it never will bend......"

[@mydroid2791]

The bed is a normal typical thing, for universes that generate observers. All Aliens gotta sleep.

[@nextghost]

Nah, Death didn't say that. Death speaks in smallcaps.

[@leonausten1800]

Douglas Hauck The Universe is harsch and it’s getting meaner and Iam just at home using my vacuum cleaner.

[@nicolaspietrangelo5573]

Finally!!!! I reached the last video!!!! Somehow I found this channel a month ago when looking for black hole videos and then I got hooked immediately. Of course I could barely understand anything Matt was saying at the beggining (and nowadays sometimes I still get lost in 30 seconds), so I had to go back to the very first video and then try to catch up. Somehow I ended up learning about GR, Black holes, Hawking radiation, quantum physics and everything in between. Thank you, PBS Space Time for putting up such a wonderful series. And I hope it lasts for many more years.

[@finn3989]

The patreon shoutout they did in this video was for a professor that has lectures up on KZbin. Check the iCard and you can learn more!

[@12runes]

Keep on learning friend. Astrophysics is the best 😍😍😍😍😍 I've be on it as a hobby since I was 16. Now I'm 28. And I will be till the day I check out.

[@randomshittutorials]

Awesome dude. Power to you!

[@jajssblue]

PBS Spacetime, Matt, Eric, and Andrew, Thank you soo much to the wonderful message of support for Dr. Flournoy! I hope everyone enjoys his fantastic lectures as much as I have.

[@brianjlevine]

I checked with my friend in another universe. She assured me that our universe is indeed typical.

[@robertl.fallin7062]

Hope she didn't call you "typical" cause that aint good comming from a woman.

[@brianjlevine]

@@robertl.fallin7062 she did, but it's the evil mirror universe so it's all good.

[@ToThisEndWasIBorn]

I also asked your friend, while she was visiting a universe which does not support life. She says she has realized you are in a special place. :)

[@afwaller]

Aw does she live in Canada, my girlfriend from summer camp lives in canada she’s totally real and typical but very much in a parallel Canadian universe.

[@LupusSolitus]

Wait ... Did your friend say ours is “a typical” or an “atypical” universe? I am sure there is a space for both! 😉

[@caleb5234]

"Wow," thought the puddle, "this hole is perfectly shaped for me."

[@downstream0114]

Reminded me of the Enigma of Amigara Fault.

[@wntu4]

Perfectly put.

[@genghisgalahad8465]

The puddle thought it was just a puddle, but in reality, the puddle is just water occupying a space. And conforming to that space to form a puddle.

[@udaypsaroj]

@@Mutantcy1992 Lol, as the vagina disappears to find a new shape!

[@udaypsaroj]

But the two are more like an entangled pair haha, via synced co-pricing over eons of evolution by natural selection.

[@nthmaster3077]

I like to think I'm a typical observer of 'Space Time'. In fact, it feels like 'Space Time' is made specifically for me.

[@Giantcrabz]

it was made for me actually

[@concrete_dog]

I love it when fundamental physics turns into existential philosophy. Feels like we've come full circle.

[@objective_psychology]

It's almost impossible to do cosmology and elementary physics without wondering about the nature of existence; you'd have to be some kind of robot… and even then, I'm not sure you could

[@stevenmohr9863]

Really? Isnt physics by its nature an existentialist pursuit?

[@concrete_dog]

Yeah idk man I'm just saying I like the video

[@Giantcrabz]

physics and metaphysics

[@gitgud2615]

The universe has predetermined that you will do an episode about superdeterminism.

[@SuviTuuliAllan]

Determinism is an emergent property of quantum mechanics.

[@jeffwads6158]

Super-determinism makes the most sense of all the current theories.

[@erik-ic3tp]

@@SuviTuuliAllan, How?

[@erik-ic3tp]

@@jeffwads6158, Why?

[@superioropinion7116]

@@erik-ic3tp He just felt like writing this, that's all

[@tomkop213]

I mostly dont understand 60% of your episodes but enjoy watching them 100%.

[@invision4236]

It's because it's all total non sense. It's to capture your imagination. It's all bollox. Wake up

[@tomkop213]

@@invision4236 whats wrong with immagination? I sucked at physics thats why i watch Pbs. Thats how you learn and "wake up". Just saying " its bollocks " is lazy and anti productive.

[@elia8544]

INVISION how is it bollocks please explain

[@pronounjow]

@@invision4236 And that's why you're not a physicist.

[@Assickles]

@joecugo He is probably trying to be more specific but does not delve too deep to avoid confusion. He dumbed it down just a bit and not as far as ELI5

[@skyfever111]

at first you hurt my brain but now you've hurt my feelings

[@martiddy]

Nice profile pic of Zero

[@thstroyur]

And that means war, bitch

[@raelynnbaranowski5102]

@@Leynad778 Plenty of people find it entertaining to ponder and learn about that kind of topic. Also I wouldn't rule out the possibility of humanity figuring it out some day, even if it is unlikely. If we do find out the information, who knows what kind of mind bending shenanigans we could use it for?

[@burleighsurfography2241]

Leynad Jee So no one should discuss the scientific origin of existence? We should just shut up and pray to god you are suggesting?

[@Leynad778]

@@burleighsurfography2241 Certainly it's worth to discuss it, but he's wrong anyway. Academics are too narrow minded inside their believe systems and it's like with the fake Apollo-missions: they believe this nonsense because they learned it. Elon Musk doesn't have this problem www.vice.com/en_us/article/8q854v/elon-musk-simulated-universe-hypothesis

[@brentpearson2177]

"Oh no not again" said bowl of petunias.

[@HarryHeck2020]

How come when I read this out loud I sound like Professor Slytherin?

[@RayHuong]

“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the Weather.” -- Bill Hicks

[@ShrimplyPibblesJr]

This video makes as much sense as a mushroom trip. Prying open my third eye.

[@kuelexx5451]

Wow

[@protondecay4607]

Isn't this from the Antimatter Dimensions news ticker?

[@discreet_boson]

@@protondecay4607 so I'm not the only one who plays that game

[@RedSiegfried]

Can I buy some pot from you?

[@spyersecol0013]

I can confirm that every universe I have been in looks exactly like this one. :D

[@EvenTheDogAgrees]

Hahah, you sly devil, you. :)

[@ToThisEndWasIBorn]

I'm right there with you. I have promised to never share any details about any other universe I have visited!

[@swaggtyswoogty3399]

Rick is that you

[@johnjonjhonjonathanjohnson3559]

how boring

[@ShrimplyPibblesJr]

You clearly haven't tried the DMT.

[@DumblyDorr]

I've always loved that Douglas Adams quote - perfect demonstration of how design-arguments go wrong, and the dangers they entail. Don't think it speaks against the anthropic principle, though - as you say, the anthropic principle, just like the copernican principle is about sampling, selection, about humility in how we interpret the evidence of our existance and how the universe seems to work - about careful bayesian thinking... in the end, about epistemology and epistemic constraints on metaphysics and cosmology, not about what the proximal or distal causes of our being here concretely are.

[@DumblyDorr]

@The Jim Reaper™well... thank you for that valuable, nuanced contribution! I hope it helps you feel superior for a while :*

[@BenGrem917]

@@DumblyDorr Everyone's a critic.

[@_general_error]

@The Jim Reaper™ At least people get pointers to read up on concepts new to them. Thanks, @Michael Bauer!

[@tiktik1717]

Will you agree to replace the puddle by a computer? "This is rather as if you imagine a computer waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - All my pieces so perfectly match, doing exactly what I need them to do in order to execute my programs, and that electric cable and socket - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made exactly for me!' " Does the computer argument demonstrate of how design-arguments are so accurate?

[@DumblyDorr]

@@FreneticFolklore hahaha... I'm afraid the people who thought it a good idea to give me a graduate degree in philosophy of science might murder me in my sleep to protect their reputations (or at least leave a strongly worded letter) if I had felt the need to resort to googling any of that 😅

[@Kes22497]

Alex Fluornoy is a true hero in my eyes. The video lectures on his channel really helped me make sense of my QFT course in college and has been quite elucidative. He is an excellent presenter of physics and I would highly recommend going and checking him out.

[@curiodyssey3867]

Can you provide a link please?

[@curiodyssey3867]

Oh gosh it's in the description I apologize

[@dj_laundry_list]

Alex was my undergrad quantum teacher and made us solve the time dependent schroedinger equation in four spatial dimensions. Aliens bless him.

[@tnekkc]

The misanthropic principle: Lock your door to prevent unscheduled sharing.

[@altareggo]

"unscheduled sharing"..... lol i am usually naked when alone, so this is definitely one reason for me to prevent "sharing" stuff on an "unscheduled" basis.

[@viniciussantos14]

10:30 That's Botanical Garden in Curitiba - Brazil

[@marcoknabben]

Vinícius Santos I was looking for this comment hahah

[@g.araujo1043]

Yeah, it was kinda of a surprise when i realized that... lol

[@boostconverter]

@@marcoknabben Me too! hahaha

[@stickylizardbabyangel]

I smiled thoroughly after seeing it and finding these comments ;)

[@CanuckMonkey13]

I love the graphics used to represent the other universes in the multiverse (e.g. at 3:57). These are a clear and appealing way to represent the concept of a multiverse with fundamental constants that vary between universes, and I offer my kudos and thanks to whoever created them!

[@erik-ic3tp]

Imagine how it looks beyond the Multiverse. :) Like this: beyond-universe.fandom.com/wiki/Megaverse

[@lek844]

If they came in contact, they would mutually annihilate each other.

[@danilooliveira6580]

so if I figure out how to create my own life bearing universe I get a free t-shirt ? that is so cool

[@thstroyur]

When Hawking claimed we're close to seeing inside the Mind of God, I'm pretty sure he was thinking about Tees, too

[@eliparker4114]

If you create your own life bearing universe you get an army of minions to do your bidding and become a god. But the t shirt is the real reason for creating a universe.

[@petercarioscia9189]

@@eliparker4114 *Gru intensifies*

[@bagelmaster8]

"I created my own life bearing universe and all I got was this t-shirt"

[@recklessroges]

Or you can use that tinyverse to power your car.

[@froop2393]

this channel only exists in its actual form because we observe it

[@EvenTheDogAgrees]

Of course. If we stopped observing it, the economic incentive would disappear, and it would cease to exist.

[@renerpho]

@@EvenTheDogAgrees A KZbin channel cannot exist without being observed. That's the economical interpretation of quantum physics. Unlike Bohm's interpretation, this one actually has some merit.

[@sock2828]

@MetraMan09 The uncertainty principle and Virtual particles is just really, really tiny fractional reserve banking.

[@DeeperWithDiego]

Wrong. A = A.

[@ToThisEndWasIBorn]

@MetraMan09 that's great. And anyone who keeps those pairs in a continuously anihalating balance will have lots of power in financing.

[@ahmedzaidazam]

This series on Anthropic principle has made it interesting on a next level. Please keep going at it.

[@angelicdemon2912]

Hi, is it possible to add episode numbers chronologically to these amazing videos? It would be easier to both reference them and search when you mention a "previous episode". Thanks for the great work!

[@randomshittutorials]

The organization of content is a subjective matter, as it depends on the interpretation and perception of the individual. Some may see the implementation of episode numbers as a linear progression, while others may view it as a non-linear system of categorization. However, the utilization of such a system is dependent on the intrinsic motivations and extrinsic factors present at any given moment in time. The concept of referencing previous episodes is a complex dichotomy, as it requires a balance between the preservation of continuity and the allowance for novelty.

[@butHomeisNowhere___]

​@@randomshittutorialsso true, bestie. I'm always saying this

[@mindf4rt]

That intro was so loud compared to your voice.

[@EvenTheDogAgrees]

Noticed the same thing. It was uncomfortably loud in comparison.

[@benjaminolsson2162]

It definitely felt a bit louder than usual.

[@Merennulli]

It's the first time I've needed to turn the volume down for the intro and back up to hear him speaking. Definitely an issue with this episode. Sadly, other KZbinrs have said it's problematic to re-upload small fixes like that when I've seen similar comments on other videos, but maybe they'll fix it before uploading for the next video.

[@NVAfilm]

If you think the intro was loud wait for the outro

[@GNParty]

Agreed.

[@pedrohalickii]

Is that Jardim Botânico of Curitiba (10:30)? Loved it. Greetings from Br.

[@Adriano_leal]

;)

[@dominicmarcolincentenaro9977]

Mano BR eh uma desgraça mesmo a gente tá em tudo

[@pedrohalickii]

Br só não domina o mundo porque churrasco e cerveja é melhor

[@ZolhosVerdadeiro]

It is! And there's even a Capybara!

[@jamesdriscoll9405]

I find it interesting how the view of the cosmos changes over time. Newtons universe of clockwork was replaced by the Maxwellian analog version with waves and fields. Now with the information age it's all digital. I'm not sure if these points of view are actually useful or if they are just the fashion we dress our thoughts in.

[@EvenTheDogAgrees]

I'd actually be quite interested in watching a documentary, reading an article, ... on our evolving view of the cosmos. From ancient times right up to present day, presented in an accessible format for us laymen who don't work in the field.

[@rickwyant]

So true, our description always uses analogies from the technology of the time.

[@curiodyssey3867]

Have definitely started to become super aware of this, and am quite surprised there are hardly any videos addressing this. And to add to your example of the digital age, comes the idea of us living in a simulation. Every technological generation has a theory of the universe that fits what would be the most advanced tech of their own time periods

[@ImBarryScottCSS]

What exactly is 'digital' about this theory or indeed any of the leading theories in our current understanding of the cosmos? They don't seem to be digitised much to me, in fact the opposite.

[@jamesdriscoll9405]

@@curiodyssey3867 Great example, if you have a shiny hammer, everything starts to acquire nail - like properties. Of course, this also illustrates how paradigms shift. A man form 1919 might understand "simulation", but not as one of today. In 1819 they had the concept, but to suggest it applied to the universe writ large, and themselves, almost anyone would not understand. I predict that Bioengineering is the next flavor of the week.

[@Backsplash67]

Thanks Matt - I've been waiting for this episode for a long time: a treatment of the apparent contradiction between the "we are in a typical universe" and "we are in a fine-tuned universe" perspectives. I'm still not sure that I understand the resolution but I greatly appreciate that you have directly targeted the issue. Looking forward to more episodes on this topic.

[@cjmahar7595]

You certainly know how to spark up the old imagination. I get lost in thought and end up having to watch your videos multiple times bc I end in a sci fi daydream related to the topic of your video. Thank you so much and this quality makes content stand out (imho)

[@wadimzeller8518]

you talking about the puddle being alive was like an acid trip

[@treering8228]

Wadim Zeller I felt like it kept my brain from rolling about

[@marissajustice2411]

Science is a trip honestly.

[@CosmicCleric]

I wonder what the puddle thought about when the pigeon walk through it.

[@calmeilles]

@@CosmicCleric "That tickles!"

[@PuzzleQodec]

And then you wake up.

[@Vasious8128]

Typical or not, it is the one we have to observe, we cant rely on anyone else observing it, and we can only observe it.

[@elaadt]

If this universe is a simulation, there might be someone out there observing.

[@yourguard4]

maybe we can not only observe it...we will controle it!! muahahahaaha

[@Fsilone]

This is an observable universe. There are many like it, but this one is observed. Without observers, the universe is useless. Without the universe, observers are useless.

[@yourguard4]

​@@Fsilone Every observable universe is observed. For beeing observerable, you need just different fields / forces / particles / whatever which can (and will) "interact" with each other. Lets say, there would be a universe, which has laws that makes it possible to interact, but no particle would meet another. Because of this, that universe does not belong to the group of observable universes, because it seems to have a mechanism to avoid crossing world lines / paths.

[@Fsilone]

@@yourguard4 I take it you didn't get my FMJ reference?

[@dbjungle]

Being a sentient being in the universe is such a strange phenomenon. We have the ability to debate things that we can never understand. Even if a god were to come and take credit for the universe we would be left with the question of what / whom created god. Alternatively, even if we can explain what created our universe or what trigger inflation we will be left with the question of what triggered the triggering of inflation. It's such a strange and inspiring question in which the answers present new questions.

[@stormnova9757]

I know right! It's awesome!

[@anywallsocket]

at that point it might be better to start asking questions about yourself, e.g., why you expect infinite causes, why you care, and what you would do with the answers if they were discovered or provided.

[@ShidaPenns]

We are the universe trying to understand itself.

[@DavenH]

I love this channel. The videos are always pure insight on difficult topics. Also great production and animations.

[@supremereader7614]

Fascinating video's - you do a great job - including by engaging your fans/challengers. I'm not arguing - just loving your videos!

[@PopeGoliath]

What are some testable predictions of the refined anthropic principle?

[@Linshark]

Yes, I didn't hear that either.

[@extragoogleaccount6061]

It seems this is philosophy, not science. But I could be wrong.

[@PopeGoliath]

@Ix Suomi "Testable" is a commonly ccepted term when discussing theories and predictions. It means the principle needs to make an assertion that can be falsified by some sort of scientific observation. Without a falsifiable prediction, a hypothesis isn't scientific.

[@tekrunner987]

From what I understood, Matt explained that this principle predicts that, if the big-bang was just the result of a random localized entropy fluctuation in a high-entropy environment, then our universe should have been much smaller (as small as it can be while still producing life). The universe being larger means that such a random fluctuation isn't a sufficient explanation for the origin of the big-bang. That is a testable prediction. I found this episode quite mind-blowing (in spite of the lack of maths or need for much prior knowledge!), so I could well be wrong.

[@PopeGoliath]

@@tekrunner987 its a great episode, but how would someone test the assertion that the universe doesn't come from a single fluctuation?

[@XOPOIIIO]

I love these alternative universes designs 3:56

[@CSpottsGaming]

As a Colorado School of Mines alum, you have no idea how shocking it was to see my old professor pop up in this video.

[@babaspector]

I absolutly love this video! (currently at 10:20) Was going to comment about you not mentioning that idea, which I thought of as a counterpoint to what you previously said. And just as I finish formalizing it in my brain, that sentence pops up. I feel like the idea that there are many universes is making more sense to me with each passing day. And it has already been my main "belief" since I've read a ~100 pages book of feynman talking about QED.

[@maxkho00]

17:19 Actually, the concept of a multiverse is purely metaphysical and doesn't need any fine tuning. For example, an infinite number of universes can be generated by one extremely simple, un-fine-tuned law: "anything that can logically exist exists". In fact, Occam's Razor actually tells us that this law should exist, as any other configuration of universes would have to make the additional assumption that some universes are somehow "better" than others - in that they exist, while some don't - which effectively rules them out. Therefore, I don't think that it's ever reasonable to dismiss the multiverse idea on an empirical basis, if at all.

[@puskajussi37]

Alright, thats it! I'll re-read hitch hikers.

[@ErikBongers]

Says one fish to the other in the fish bowl: "This round universe we live in - what are the odds that it developed in such a way that it was able to create us, and furthermore, that we are capable of consciously observing it? I call this question, The Fishotropic Question. But...what is that moving background radiation?" Says one person to the other, as he is gazing at the fish in the bowl: "Do you think those fish have a form of consciousness? And if so, could that consciousness evolve in such a way that it becomes like a cancer, where the fish just can't stop thinking about nothing else but that consciousness itself?" Says the other person as she approaches the fish bowl: "You mean, will they become philosophers?"

[@casual_ice_consumer4148]

*Pescatropic Or Pescotropic

[@arunabhganodwale1022]

Man! This is underrated..!!!

[@banehog]

Betteridge's law of headlines states that "any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no"

[@RichMitch]

I lol'd

[@T33K3SS3LCH3N]

Let's test this: "Did time start with the big bang? No." "How many universes are there? No." "Could we Terraform Mars? No." "Is Earth's magnet field reversing? No." "Will you travel to space? No." "Neutron stars collide in new LIGO signal? No." This doesn't work out very well...

[@RichMitch]

@@T33K3SS3LCH3N neither does yer mom

[@icollectstories5702]

Can That Be True?

[@gladonos3384]

@@T33K3SS3LCH3N It is intended to be humorous and actually it is true more often then not when you consider that most of what you read is pseudoscience nonsense that relies on this: "See, i didn't say that evolution isn't true i was just saying that if you look at the evidence in the bible then you might realize there is more to life then you think."

[@_BlackSpectrum]

What if there are many Universe based on different or every possible physical constants and those unstable collapses until reaching a steady state if that's possible then the steady state would be life sustaining or something else ?

[@RichardJBarbalace]

Regarding the discussion of @AdlockHungry's comment in the video (t=16:27) on being a Goldilocks universe, I might suggest that the presence of intelligent observers should follow something like a Zipfian distribution. A universe that can support a single (species of) intelligent observer should be more common than one that can support two such observers, since the latter must necessarily support the former. Likewise, universes that can support 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. intelligent observers should be decreasingly common. The most typical universe in a multiverse then might be a relatively barren one with only a single intelligent observer.

[@xGaLoSx]

If a universes initial conditions can support life (like ours) why would it only allow for one intelligent observer? Isn't that potential everywhere in our universe?

[@myothersoul1953]

2:00 Why should we assume the ability to produce us is a "non-typical quality"? That assumes we are special, not typical. The anthropic principle only violates the Copernican principle if you first assume it does. The anthropic principle has its uses, giving philosophers something to talk about, but those uses are outside the domain of science.

[@davidhand9721]

Agree 1000000%

[@SparrowHawk183]

I'm captivated by the implications of the Anthropic Principle, but also somewhat skeptical of some of its assumptions. First, the observer selection bias makes sense: we are alive and observe the cosmos, therefor the universe must hold the right conditions to support our life to emerge. However, isn't it dangerous to say these conditions are "fine tuned"? Isn't that a retrograde projection of our evolutionary history that confuses cause and effect? It seems like it would be more accurate to say our life emerged _as a response to_ certain conditions in the universe, and that our life is _one way_ the universe supports life. The universe is _not_ "fine tuned" for habitable planets to form and support life: rather, life emerged within conditions that support life to emerge. I know, that's a bit circular, but at least it doesn't assume that the conditions for life were pre-programmed into the conditions of the universe. I think one of the biggest questions is, how exactly life did life form on Earth? We seem to know the general process, but the exact parameters and conditions are still somewhat unclear. If we could discover these parameters to a much finer degree, perhaps we could determine just how rare or typical we would expect life (at least Earth-typical life) to be in the cosmos. And perhaps we would also discover other parameters that would support different life forms to exist, based on silicone or adamantium for example. ;) With the Anthropic Principle, I think there's a danger of feeling empowered to make sweeping claims about how the universe must be set up, given that our own ability to observe the universe is still in its infancy. If we discover life to be abundant throughout the universe, we would quickly find a more complete theory how the universe's fundamental conditions would lead to the emergence of life. On the other hand, we are the only life we have yet observed, and we can glean some exceptionally meaningful insights about how our evolutionary history is so intimately connected with the evolutionary history of the universe. And perhaps that is the real value of the Anthropic principle, because we find that we are so intrinsically connected to every piece of the universe, and we are at least one way, one strange, wonderful, perplexing, and awesome way the universe knows itself.

[@bulentkulkuloglu]

This is also how I think. And it concerns me the way anthropic principle is used. The fact that you are trying to introduce Bayesian statistics must not mean confusing the causal hierarchy. We are the result of those 20 parameters and some unique conditions on earth. They cause and explain why and how we are the way we are.

[@ThatCrazyKid0007]

I think you misunderstood the 'fine tuning' problem. The constants aren't fine tuned for the emergence of life, life is just a byproduct of the physics they are tuned for. The question of the fine tuning problem is why are these constants the way they are. Why those exact values? What is the background mechanism that produced these values to be the exact ones that they are today? We are aware that we are the result of these constants, not the other way around, but we ponder what made these constants to be the way they are that resulted in us as the observers.

[@SemlerPDX]

"Therefore, I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you"....

[@damonedwards1544]

Incontheevable

[@ItsAsparageese]

That's so awesome that you guys shouted out Dr. Flournoy! I've never met him but have heard of him from his students before, and it's just generally really cool that you guys were available for his students to reach out to, so that you and they could honor him in this way!

[@Randomstuff-m7p]

16:00 Because the universe is in a waveform until life observers of that universe collapses it into a particle like state. Therefore life is necessary for any universe to form beyond the waveform state.

[@PeterB12345]

Kind of how new regions in Minecraft are only created if you go there to see them

[@ku8721]

This is 1 of 137.036 possible combinations of constants that could create observers

[@erik-ic3tp]

Wow. Hahahaha. :)

[@Zahaqiel]

There's a third option on the "fundamental constants setting the dials" issue - there may be a stability issue involved. Each of the dials relates to a particular kind of force/energy, and those forces/energies must be present for the "dial" to exist. So the presence of those forces/energies should tend towards finding a stable state, otherwise the dial will effectively "break off" and cease to be present along with its associated force/energy. Under this assumption, inability to give rise to complex interactions may actually be evidence that these may simply not be stable state "dial" settings - consequently either universes could not be those states, or those universes cease to exist very rapidly. It may not so much be "getting lucky" or "retrocausality" - it could be cosmic natural selection.

[@12runes]

Yeah it's probably just the only way energy knows how to behave because it doesn't it has to. Like you said cosmic natural selection. But that would raise the question how does it know?

[@12runes]

Anyway I love this videos as a hobby astrophysicist and I love the science of it all. It makes me more accepting of death because I always wonder how the universe will be after I'm gone. Then get worked up in panic attacks. So learning the fundamentals of it all makes it easier to sleep. ☺️

[@Zahaqiel]

@@12runes It doesn't need to know. There's a minimum energy level each kind of field needs to maintain (its "zero-point energy" state) for the field to continue to exist. If it can't hit that, the field just doesn't exist for that universe. Baryonic matter (the stuff we're made of) is dependent on a couple of different fields, if they don't exist then matter doesn't form. So universes that fail to hit the energy level required for those fields to stabilise don't get to be universes like ours in the first place. That's why I suggested it's a kind of "cosmic natural selection" - if the "dials" aren't set right, the universe doesn't survive to be like ours. So its existence is naturally selected against.

[@12runes]

@@Zahaqiel so you are basically saying that "our universe" is typical because it has to have it for us to observe it. That those "dials" that were discussed typically are always in mode because without it there is no us? So do you think it's flaw in the anthropic principle and thus stating there is multiple of our universes or just one?

[@Zahaqiel]

​@@12runes I would put it like this: It is possible that our universe once had more fields than it currently does, and that some of them didn't stabilise - meaning that those "dials" broke off our universe and possible forms of matter/energy that could have existed in our universe just don't. This is an avenue by which our universe could be the only one in existence - a massive field flux occurred and what remains is what became stable. It's also possible that there _are_ other universes with different field settings to our universe that have stable versions of those kinds of fields, or other kinds of fields we never had. But if a field type is not capable of stabilising to a zero-point energy state, then no universe has those fields, so maybe there aren't other universes that are different to ours. What can be said with certainty is that our universe is probably typical _for observers that are anything like ourselves._ But as a corollary to that, we may not be able to perceive or interact with universes that are set differently to ours, or only be able to do so in the ways our universes share the same settings. We don't know what things that live in those universes might be like or how they would experience anything. Fundamentally such universes are entirely alien to the experiences we have in this universe. But we can be pretty sure that for the fields our universe has, different settings are unlikely as the fields likely wouldn't remain stable. We have reasonable confidence that if any of the fields our universe currently observably has were to slip even a little below their zero-point state anywhere in our universe, the field would collapse entirely and we would experience a major stability issue with what our universe contains.

[@mohamedouhibi5389]

14:56 why should we assume time isnt unique to our universe?

[@EvenTheDogAgrees]

Meanwhile, in the universe next door... Oh, right...

[@lilsniper117]

Because is a core component of 4D space time. Without time entropy cannot exist as energy would be everywhere always. Which would mean there is no energy gradient. And if there is no way to measure distance as everything travels everywhere instantly. So space wouldn't exist - energy wouldn't exist - matter wouldn't exist. Without time there is no existence.

[@surfside75]

Time IS, it just IS😂✔️🍻

[@nolanwestrich2602]

I might kinda agree with lilsniper here, but I think that it's a reasonable assumption to make that only so much of the laws of physics vary across the entire universe. (The entire universe here meaning everything that exists, for real this time.) It's already a controversial and confusing proposition that the fundamental constants can vary between universes or within universes; the concept that something as fundamental as time could vary will be very hard to reconcile with our understanding of reality.

[@ToThisEndWasIBorn]

Time or Timing? Timing is a definite candidate for one of the knobs, length of a "second" could easily differ. As for Time being all together unique.... Assume there can be at least one universe without time. Similar to other replies, doing so eliminates a factor Einstein has shown us is as fundamental as space itself. Without the effects of time a universe is immutable. Any change to it must be the end of the former universe and the birth of another universe. If that is put into a continuous loop you see time emerge as the generations pass from one to the next. Speaking in terms of 3+1 spacetime, removing time is removing one of the dimensions. What if instead we remove a spacial dimension? Beings which emerge in that universe find themselves living in flat land. Maybe that is more possible than we "can science" as 3+1 beings. Well, we can science whatever we want... However there is a loss of functionality to put a 3-1 being into a 2-1 universe. It can have a purpose, per say. If a 2-1 being enters a 3-1 universe without gaining functionality, has it really entered that universe? Coming back to the knob analogy, unique Timing can be considered a specific setting of the time knob, unique Time would be whether that knob can be excluded for X universe configurations.

[@Rattiar]

That tribute to Dr. Flournoy was amazing. I have no idea who he is, but clearly he has had a huge, positive impact on his students. That is awesome to see and I am touched to know they made the effort.

[@jesusx5258]

Wait wait wait i've heard it a hundred times & it finally occurred to me to question the ASSUMPTION that we're in a typical universe. The statistics may be such that we should definitely BET we are if some multiverse-spanning entity sets up a pool, but this reminds me of my brother-in-law getting mad when a 90% chance of snow utterly failed to show up & he said he'd swear off forecasts. I didn't think at the time to explain that one in ten storms forecast at %90 have to miss or fizzle for the forecaster's overall average to be accurate.

[@Sunlight91]

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases over time. But is our universe isolated in a multiverse cosmos?

[@erik-ic3tp]

@Ix Suomi, Maybe this. :) Link: verse-and-dimensions.fandom.com/wiki/Multiverse

[@GNParty]

Anyone else notice how PBS has been uploading TONS of "multiverse" themed videos as Rick & Morty season 4 is unfolding? 🤔🤔

[@user-vn7ce5ig1z]

14:44 - There might exist a universe in which life is made of energy instead of matter. Scientists already theorize about dark energy in our own universe which might not behave like normal energy, so why couldn't there be a universe where energy works differently and leads to life? To paraphrase Hamlet, _There are more things in space and the multiverse, Matt, than are dreamt of in your science._ In other words, what is, isn't limited by _our_ imaginations. 16:12 - I envy you your optimism. I don't consider the existence of life in the universe as "lucky". ¬_¬ I let the bastards grind me down. :-|

[@erik-ic3tp]

Did Hamlet really have the word Multiverse in it?

[@pawefigura4917]

I have a question. In earlier episodes (about inflation theory) You discussed of what might happened before Big Bang. If I understand this correctly, it is possible that back then, some kind of high energy quantum field „existed”. And from much earlier episode (the one about delayed choise quantum eraser experiment) we learned, that time may „work” differenlty in quantum world. So, if we take inflation theory as true, that high energy quantum field „predicts” existence of observers at some point, therefore Big Bang happens, universe expands, unfolds into observable universe with observers in it. Is this the core of anthropic principle? Am I getting this right, or am I mixing things?

[@pawefigura4917]

Also, it wonders me, that dcqe experiment shows us, that behavior of particles are strictly connected with observer state.

[@natewillson4450]

Heyyyyyy that’s my professor sponsoring my favorite channel! Love to see it :)

[@skirch6094]

I came upon the anthropic principle independently which I was around 7 years old. I was thinking back on a movie I had finished watching & thought it was weird how the main character was the center of so many situations that they sort of just fell into. I then realized, a story only gets told if the story is worth telling.

[@kintamas4425]

You were one smart little kid then. I envy you. I’m pretty the only times I was remotely sentient was when my dad read books to me.

[@osmosisjones4912]

If planetary colision was one extremly rare things for how the earth formed. But turns out planetary collisions are more common in other solar systemed

[@ColeDedhand]

The collision itself may not be rare but the combination of planet sizes, makeups, and orbits required to give us the Earth-Moon system in a stable orbit smack in the middle of the goldilocks zone seems to be.

[@osmosisjones4912]

@@ColeDedhand you do know most Rocky planets in Galaxy are larger the earth. Plus a planets atmosphere. If a planet or like Europa only larger enough to have an atmosphere . It could life on the surface

[@Dragrath1]

@@osmosisjones4912 Technically except for some exceptional circumstances we still lack the ability to detect true Earth analogs due to a combination of masses too low to use radial velocity or astrometry alone to detect Earth mass planets around the habitable zone of "Sun like" (K,G or F type stars) and the transit methods extreme bias towards planets very close to their stars. Around M dwarf stars there does seem to be a large population of massive close rocky planets and Ice giants with only a few small gas giants but that doesn't mean there aren't smaller rocky worlds there. (Not to mention we now know it is highly unlikely for an M dwarf star to support life at the so called "habitable zone" for M dwarf stars within the current age of the universe) Interestingly objects the size of Pluto or larger are technically capable of supporting an atmosphere it is just without a protective magnetosphere or high mass said atmospheres have been lost either due to the solar wind or in the case of Jupiter's moons the probable inward migration into the inner solar system. Even our moon likely once had an atmosphere before it lost its magnetosphere. Just like Mars it couldn't keep it.

[@Dragrath1]

​@@ColeDedhand Interestingly Venus might actually still be within the "habitable zone" as simulations suggest that if it ever had water oceans is isotopic analysis of hydrogen, suggest Venus could sustain those oceans for billions of years, although at the expense of being tidally locked due to having water and being closer to the sun. It is possible that were it not for some additional external trigger inducing a "planetary resurfacing event" around 700+ Mya Venus might still have been able to support oceans. Mars were it to have maintained its magnetosphere could have probably held on to oceans as well alas since it lacked a dense core like the other rocky planets in the end it's magnetosphere faded allowing the solar wind to strip away the planets atmosphere along with its former oceans. With three possibly formerly life bearing planets it becomes far more realistic to me that one of them could maintain habitability to this day. Collision wise Mercury, Earth, Mars, Uranus the fragmentary graveyard containing obvious signs of cataclysmic collisions such as Psyche, Vesta, or Hygiea, etc., the rings of Saturn, the dwarf planets Pluto, Eris, Haumea, etc. and perhaps even Jupiter itself* all show significant evidence in favor of truly planetary scale collisions if they are as common as our solar system and alien ones seem to suggest it seems like it was bound to happen somewhere which coupled with the above seems reasonable.

[@osmosisjones4912]

@@Dragrath1 its not the star it's lack megnetic Field. It's to close spin. But planet Europa where the pulling of Other bodies in System causing Geological warming and larger enough to have an atmophire Discribes Trappist 8or 9. And Mars lost It's atmophire do to the solar wind. The core may have cooled sooner. But a paper how the crust cooled sooner. And if understand wind Erosion . The fact that the sea&River Beds Gullies and sediments are still around shows it have been habbitamble much sooner. At the rate of Mars losing it's atmophire. How fare back in time before it get thick. If Remove 90% of Water on Earth. The ground would sink and planet would Deflate. Plus the burning of CO2 Sulfur Hydrogen nitrogen Bonds . Into the atmosphere without a magnetic field . The planetary matterial would blow away with the rest of the atmosphere. Not to mention metieror impacts. Mars might been bigger in the past

[@2joshua123]

This video is answer to a question that doesn't exist.

[@ToThisEndWasIBorn]

If there is a question which does not exist, is all knowledge the answer?

[@epiclivestreams6733]

If the fundamental constants were different, who is to say some other form of life would come into existence perfectly tuned for those constants? Would a better interpretation not be that life is what is finely tuned to its environment, not the other way around?

[@MegaLordOfdestructio]

oh thats sponsorship was so emotional. its nice to see that good teacher gets good students

[@kriegh94]

When science sounds like philosophy

[@ericvilas]

Proposal for naming this modified Anthropic Principle: The Anthro-Copernican Principle

[@burleighsurfography2241]

Does that include self-sampling and Bayesian reasoning?

[@johanbjorklund2815]

Including Bayesian reasoning, it becomes the Anthropic Bayesian Copernican Principle. I.e: The ABC principle. To be taught in Grade school!

[@crackedemerald4930]

The Coperthropic Principal

[@burleighsurfography2241]

The Self-Sampling Anthrosianican Principle.

[@elnurmamedov4419]

Maybe Anthropernican Princinple. Or Copernthropic.

[@pridefulobserver3807]

Thanks for the episode, truly gems of knowledge

[@jpdalvi]

Spoken 30 seconds after publication of the episode. Congrats folks we caught a time traveler.

[@erik-ic3tp]

@@jpdalvi, Lol. Hahahaha. :)

[@pridefulobserver3807]

@@jpdalvi damn i was too obvious

[@Emcee_Squared]

Excellent philosophical episode.

[@takatotakasui8307]

Wow, so cool that such thought provoking content is being produced and watched on such a successful channel.

[@caldencarroll840]

"The most amazing thing happened to me tonight... I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!" -Feynman's perspective on the same problem you illustrated with Adam's puddle

[@LisaBeergutHolst]

"We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself." -Carl Sagan

[@lyrimetacurl0]

At least for now

[@jackfrosterton2530]

We're cells of Spinoza's God

[@lucofparis4819]

Since we aren't a way for Earth to know itself, we aren't a way for our Sun to know itself either. Why would we be a way for the entire Cosmos to know itself? Poetic thoughts shouldn't be taken as some sort of special wisdom about existence. It's just poetic thoughts, period.

[@jackfrosterton2530]

@@lucofparis4819 That's because we are not part of the sun. We are part of the cosmos.

[@lucofparis4819]

@@jackfrosterton2530 We are part of neither. Spacetime is relative. Ever heard of Einstein? We live in our own little raft of spacetime, interacting very remotely with the rest of the observable universe, and completely cut off of the wider cosmos. Poesy never describes reality or any approximation of reality, but it sure sounds awesome and we wish it had some measure of truth. It's inherent to our desire for spirituality. Even atheists have spiritual needs and thoughts. Recognising it and keeping it in mind is important to avoid doing the same mistakes as theists.

[@zackyezek3760]

When you start talking about the entire universe, you need to be clear- are you referring to all physical reality, only observable spacetime, etc? The biggest issue I have with all these "principles" is the logical fallacies baked into them. The biggest is this unstated Platonic assumption that the 'laws of physics', let alone math, somehow exist prior to & independent of the physical universe. Suppose there is some 'multiverse' and a distribution of possible physical laws. You'd STILL have to explain why that distribution exists, where IT comes from, and why none of the myriad alternate laws of physics aren't MORE conducive to sentient life than ours. Our universe certainly offers far more habitable, hospitable real estate to entities made of plasma than it does creatures like us- stars are WAY bigger than planets and last longer too. I can therefore use "anthropic reasoning" to infer that we should be asking these question from inside the photosphere of Sol, not a comparatively tiny rock orbiting it. Examples like that are why you do NOT do statistical inferences from one data point in real science. Second is the metaphysical assumption that our minds, our existence, is somehow "not special" despite that being wrong to the extent it's even well defined. Our consciousness is the bedrock upon which all our thinking & inferences about the world rests, yet contemporary science stridently insists on either ignoring or dismissing it as a "fundamental" part of reality. Heck, the idea that the laws of physics really ARE the same in distant galaxies is merely an ASSUMPTION that may very well be wrong. We already know it is in part- the earliest moments of the Big Bang were a universe of unified electroweak forces and such.

[@dannydazzler1549]

Stfu man

[@LightlessDarkfull]

The real question is, is everything that is happening a part of itself? Or a conscious separation occurs, when time is perceived linearly. It could just be, that everything on the macro-scale, has already happened: Time must behave differently, for us to be able to perceive it linearly with our limited biological/technological receptors. For an ant, a puddle can be an ocean, where a bubble blows up instantly for us, but for them, that process could be perceived as a catastrophic natural disaster that seemingly lasts forever. There was a study showing this on a smaller scale, where small animals where observed to perceive time in a "slow-motion-esque" more refined manner, which allowed them to escape larger predators in certain cases. So perhaps, the larger the scale difference of biological observer, the larger the difference of observed phenomenon. As Jiddu Krishnamurti liked to point out: "In order for the observer to observe the unknown, first they should consider, whether the tool they are using to observe is clean, not dull and working as intended." Einstein loved to say : "Time is nothing but a stubborn, consistent illusion". But what do I know, I don't have a PhD in Astrophysics :D

[@PuzzleQodec]

11:39 "Hopefully soon enough." I want to give your script writer(s) a bottle of good whisky for that. Way to go guys.

[@fluffy_tail4365]

13:50 only you guys can make a thank you incredibly cool _and_ a shitpost at the same time. Also the puddle example was chilling...or rather not ;)

[@benheisenberg2633]

I feel like the Anthropic Principle can be used to avoid ruling out non-observer friendly reality, but that it cannot be used to make conclusions whatsoever. Doing so operates on the assumption that by sheer statistical guesswork, we are typical observers, based on unobtainable statistics and an unreliable frame of reference. There are zero indications that our probability guesswork reflects all of reality, due to the nature of the theory being tested.

[@Flacopro40]

You lost me at "I feel like"

[@treering8228]

Wow, I love that

[@NWRefund]

I like to think of the universe as analogous to the “gaseous state” of some extra-universal “fluid.” The universe was nucleated like a bubble in boiling water and has been expanding ever since.

[@lek844]

Yeah, an ether having zero entropy, creating bubbles to acquire a little by letting off some steam, as the Second Law would require. After all, the ether has to obey the Second Law, too, and does so by making all those Big Bangs. Makes sense to me.

[@lncerante]

I love this new road that this show has taken

[@heyitsmecarlosYT]

give the graphics team a RAISE

[@juzoli]

Again, the most likely explanation for these “fine tuned” variables is that they are not fine tuned at all. They cannot have different value, because they are not input parameters, but mere consequences of the underlying logic of physics. Pi cannot have different value then 3.14, this value is not by chance. Only it has a simple enough logic for us to understand, unlike the universe. This episode is like talking about the impossibility of life if we would set the value of Pi to 4.14, because closed circle wouldn’t exist, and amongst the infinite number of universes with different Pi values, we are “lucky” to live in the one with the value of 3.14.

[@Brendan123ization]

Dude I couldnt agree more. I tried saying this in the last fuckin video. It's like they're out of things to makes videos about so they make these incredibly convoluted wishy washy philosophical videos trying to make something out of nothing. Shit isnt fine tuned. It just is how it is. I laughed when he brought up the puddle subject because others in the comments on the last video called out his "were lucky to be this fine tuned" bullshit by quoting the exact same puddle line.

[@TheCopelandr]

I was thinking this too! You said it really well.

[@richard5th]

Absolutely correct these variables and properties of matter are not finely tuned but have the values that are stable and make the universe work at all possible levels. If they did not then this universe would not exist, this does not include the assumption that the universe was made to create life, it just happened according to the conditions extant as defined by said values of the universe, life exists in a few places but due to the huge size of the universe we are unlikely to encounter other life forms. Other multi-verses where there is no "fine-tuning" of quantum stabilising events are unlikely to have existed in the first place or were destroyed soon after creation.

[@Kalumbatsch]

"They cannot have different value" But there is no evidence for that.

[@carlchristensen4299]

Ahh Yes. "It is what is." The highly complicated common sense principle. Thus you reach the true limitation of the philosophy of Modern Science. It can never tell you "Why", in terms of reason, anything is. It can simply show what and how. Yet we still have this burning question, often answering it by adamant denials that the "Why" doesn't matter or can't be known. Still others philosophize about it; surely the "what and how" will tell us "why".

[@unvergebeneid]

Anyone believing in a Goldilocks universe clearly never experienced English weather.

[@erik-ic3tp]

Or Dutch weather. :)

[@upsydaysy3042]

Or Irish summer

[@omeryehezkely3096]

We are (part of) the anti-entropy force of the universe. That IS the meaning of life. 😀

[@lonestarr1490]

That's basically my personal interpretation of the Force in Star Wars: anti-entropy that causes structures (and therefore galaxies, stars, planets, and life) to form. It holds the universe together, as Kenobi once put it.

[@thrilllight]

But life speeds up entropy Creating order or retaining it locally (your body) requires more energy globally (the universe) than just a slow descent into disorder

[@LeeryMuscrat]

@thrilll yep yep. Life locally creates order by globally increasing disorder. You can prove by the mere fact that we glow in the infrared. Our body's take in energy, use a small bit of it to create the ordered systems that make up the organism and then radiates the rest as heat. Just feel how much your body heats up when actively doing work. That's entropy holding strong. Remember, the "closed system" of entropy is the whole universe, so even great drops in disorder locally are no problem because creating that order caused a lot more disorder all around.

[@MaverickBlue42]

Kudos for the mention of Douglas Adams. From a distance, his books were my introduction to the ideas of quantum mechanics as a form of thought experiments. Not, perhaps, the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics, but still a popular one at the time. He even included the multiverse.... ;)

[@valiroime]

_Oh no, not again_

[@unerror]

You've published a lot of great videos, but this is by far my favorite yet.

[@ПопулярновБългария]

so we are in a super cluster of universes, polyverse

[@ToThisEndWasIBorn]

I don't think we should re-use cluster in this case. If we use it for groups of galaxies, and the again for universe the verbiage is going to turn into a cluster... Too much is Too much.

[@ReivecS]

But can you make a Beowulf cluster out of it?

[@erik-ic3tp]

@@ReivecS, What's a Beowulf cluster?

[@ReivecS]

@@erik-ic3tp A type of computer cluster and a very old meme statement from early 2000s slashdot era.

[@erik-ic3tp]

@@ReivecS, Ah, ok. I only was a toddler back then so I can't remember it.

[@tripzero0]

scientists: "You are not special" fermi: "but why don't we see life anywhere?" scientists: "you are special"

[@hhaavvvvii]

You are special, but only as special as you need to be. And maybe a bit more, but not much more.

[@timothyjstrong]

Exactly. If there are any infinite amount of universes and we are in the only one that creates life, then wouldn't it be much more likely that we would be in the one universe that has a TON of life, not just an insignificant speck?

[@hhaavvvvii]

@@timothyjstrong Because we're not in "the only one", but rather one of a small percentage which can still be infinite. And in many of those universes, the chance for life can be so small that it only happens once, or happens so far apart that they'll never meet.

[@timothyjstrong]

@@hhaavvvvii but if there are an infinite amount of universes, then there should be a universe that would be teeming with life. According to the anthropic principal, we should be in that universe, rather than one where life is immensely scarce

[@dillonkian559]

Check your privilege, Earth.

[@mehradzeinali9703]

What if earth is the only life hosting planet in the galaxy or ever universe is an indication that this universe or perhaps environment is infact not suitable for life because we do not find life anywhere else. Can it mean that our universe is infact a hostile place for life ?

[@mightyNosewings]

Just because you can tweak parameters in your theory doesn't mean that they can vary freely in actuality.

[@antivanti]

You need to check your conscious observer privilege

[@Emanresu56]

Was that a subtle Rick and Morty reference at the end?

[@EvenTheDogAgrees]

No, it was from "Who's the Boss?", S02E11 "The Graduate" (Dec. 10, 1985).

[@FH-tx5zk]

Emanresu56 *facepalm* no wonder people make fun of us Ricky and Morty viewers.

[@Emanresu56]

At least I asked instead of just assuming. Sheesh.

[@FH-tx5zk]

- A rhetorical question is one for which the questioner does not expect a direct answer: in many cases it may be intended to start a discourse, or as a means of putting across the speaker's or author's opinion on a topic. A common example is the question "Can't you do anything right?" Just stop bro, you’re making us look worse minute by minute.

[@Emanresu56]

@@FH-tx5zk And how do you know I wasn't expecting a direct answer? Seems like you're making a big assumption there.

[@blinkin304]

"Can you observe a typical universe?" their answer: "you probably are." "you aren't special." "nobody loves you."

[@HarryHeck2020]

Life is rough, aye blinkin?.. I was trying to say "hey blinkin" not Abe Lincoln.

[@TheHellogs4444]

But you LOVE the world! Seriously though, you must have some love for life and understanding of it for you to remain stable through discovering existential dread

[@mamabear_books1417]

May sound strange, but I tend to just listen to your voice while I'm cooking. Makes me seriously think about what it is I'm teaching my children as a mother. My son stares at the sky (6 years old) and askes me questions, that I find I can now answer to watching/listening to PBS Space Time. Thank you

[@MostCommentsAreFake-ud8by]

I told my little sister about the billions of stars in billions of galaxies in the infinite universe. I do not think it made her feel special.

[@mamabear_books1417]

@@MostCommentsAreFake-ud8by 🤣 well, there are way to go about it. My son is amazed with it. Even if there is more then one star in the galaxy and it dosnt happen to be him lol

[@BgatesAintNoDoctor]

I look forward to your videos. Keep it up! Perfect videos to sleep too!

[@TheWyrdSmythe]

Seems too speculative to call it a "tool" of science let alone a power one. More of a philosophical rumination.

[@psilyntone3453]

"The second law of thermodynamics tells us that entropy can only increase..." But let's face it: you're not talking about thermodynamics anywhere else in the video except this one quote.

[@tabularasa0606]

And he forgot the most important part, that it only works in an isolated system, and we don't know if the universe is an isolated system.

[@psilyntone3453]

+1 His extrapolation is ridiculous if you think the sentence out. I imagine he scripted it so had to have written it at some point. The quote around 6:15 in full is... "The second law of thermodynamics tells us that entropy can only increase which means extreme means extreme high entropy states must be the norm in the full timeline of our universe but probably also across the multiverse, if it exists." He's taking thermodynamics laws and applying it not only to a universe (which may or may not be a closed system) but also to multiverse hypotheses...yuck. Our understanding of thermodynamics is challenged in the extreme densities of some stars and especially black holes. It's just crazy to apply it to something like the entire universe or multiverse with any certainty whatsoever.

[@erik-ic3tp]

@@psilyntone3453, How's our understanding of Thermodynamics challenged in the extreme environments inside black holes and stars?

[@lucofparis4819]

Why are we assuming any kind of tuning anyway? What if life is a simple incident in our universe, a rare arrangement of complex chemistry that happens every now and then?

[@GamesFromSpace]

Because chemistry itself requires that tuning to be precisely calibrated. Without that, you don't have atoms that combine to form metastable molecules.

[@lucofparis4819]

@@GamesFromSpace That's about as preposterous as saying Life cannot happen without fine tuning. You are seeing one configuration in which the chemistry you know works. Since it has very stable elements, you conclude that it is the only possible configuration to have them: does it start to sound like a tautology yet? You're assuming that tuning, not demonstrating it. Complexity rises from simplicity all the time. Life is in fact the best example. Still, stars and planets life cycles are other examples of very complex interactions happening because of very simple parameters. Precision of that tuning isn't a good argument either: Turing structures can feature what pass as very fine tuning, and yet are formed through a very simple process. The fundamental aspect of chemistry isn't a convincing argument either: theoretical universes with very different constants can also work and feature very stable molecules. However, those would indeed be very different as "our" molecules, to the point where you'd hardly call them molecules. And this is perfectly logical: different conditions create different results. It is your anthropocentric point of view that makes you think the environment you live is "finely tuned" for... what lives in." Again, we are back in tautological territory. Why are we assuming those fine results to be tuned by someone? Because we are the only "someone" we know of, and love to think there is a "someone" behind any fine result, even though we keep finding a complete lack of "someone" behind all phenomena we manage to fully understand. Odd that hey! The minute we fully grasp something, "fine tuning" disappears. Maybe we'll quit some day this primitive thinking 🤔, but I somewhat doubt it 😉.

[@GamesFromSpace]

@@lucofparis4819 Frankly, youtube comments aren't fit for the sort of essay you expect from me on the topic, and your tone is insulting. Just an FYI, if you want to have conversations with other users in the future.

[@lucofparis4819]

@@GamesFromSpace My tone isn't insulting, unless you consider that using the word preposterous to describe fine tuning is insulting. I debate ideas, points of view, not people. Any person is entitled to his or her opinions and beliefs. But any person should aspire to avoid identify herself or himself with the opinion or belief in discussion. If you still feel insulted by my tone after that, then I am sorry to hurt your feelings. That isn't my intent. I commented something, you responded to that, so I responded to your response. Even without qualifiers, my arguments stand, and you didn't address them at all. Instead you've basically called me out for a tone I didn't have. As you said, comment sections aren't very good for such discussion, or any text form for that matter.

[@GamesFromSpace]

@@lucofparis4819 Ignoring that your reply actually contained insulting words.... just like your followup: You're complaining that i didn't cover every possible facet of a detailed topic, in reply to your very simple question. Your original question did not warrant an essay response, and it would have been stupid to give one.

[@kylebowles9820]

Hey I have that shirt! What a spectacular big bang supporter story, must watch his videos! This channel is a treasure. I need a Space Time journal club episode about that recent Wigner's Friend experiment that the science media is reporting "broke objectivity"

[@Lazarosaliths]

Short answer to the title is....Yes! But if you want the longer version try to jump into the rabbit hole with Mart, he is quite the guide!!! Another episode that challenges my understanding!!! Love every one of them!