Roger Penrose - Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind?

[@pranchalmishra5402]

Roger's voice is an absolute melody

[@giorgirazmadze5102]

Rarely do you get such brilliant scientists and people on the face of the earth as this one.

[@rumaisabaig895]

Congratulations for winning the Nobel prize an award well deserved

[@stanleydodds9]

I know enough of mathematics to know that Roger Penrose knows far more than me, and so, anything he says I am inclined to agree with; if I have thought about it a bit, then he has thought about it a lot, so he is more correct than I.

[@honesty8082]

How about the All-Knowing Almighty Uncreated Creator who knows about everything inside out, even what you are thinking & whatever is in your heart... That Supreme being knows more than Everyone All together... So Why don't you believe in HIM??

[@ck58npj72]

@@honesty8082 I can do more with my little finger than your imaginary sky daddy😅

[@aspiknf]

​@@ck58npj72 God doesn't mean 'sky daddy'. God means the starting point. If The Big Bang is the origin point, then the Big Bang is God...or the quantum fluctuations that created The Big Bang are God. But I think there was a previous universe that created our current universe...so the universe is in a series of Big Crunches and Big Bangs. I also believe in an infinite Multiverse. I know it sounds crazy. Anyway, I think the Multiverse itself is God, because, by luck, one of its universes gave us life by lucky fine-tuning.

[@aspiknf]

@@ck58npj72 So no, we humans are nothing compared to The Multiverse, the Multiverse being God.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@honesty8082 i bet penrose could teach him a thing or two even.

[@sergioreyes298]

I'm always enthralled, hell, blown away, whenever I see a talk with Sir Roger. There's just no one else like him in the scientific community.

[@PuppetMasterdaath144]

LOL what if he talked with a shitty accent what then, what then, how would he reflect back to your ego value then

[@abhishekshah11]

I find that the brightest of minds are the most humble and soft spoken. What Penrose is saying is that the anthropic principle uses chance and randomness to explain away the elephant in the room instead of endeavoring towards an acutal physical mechanism that could explain the big bang. The way I see it, we are never going to get an answer the second way so most people fall back to the anthropic principle.

[@schmetterling4477]

The physical mechanism that explains the big bang is called "general relativity". You would sound a lot smarter if you would know a little physics.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@schmetterling4477 "I find that the brightest of minds are the most humble and soft spoken" that would let you off then. i could be wrong but i don't think "general relativity" explains the big bang, as far as i know even sir roger can't explain the big bang, we are in the process of working that out, so, you would sound a lot smarter if you knew what you were talking about.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@schmetterling4477 "This channel doesn't have any content" no big surprise there.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@HarryNicNicholas Yes, you are wrong. What general relativity can't do is to describe what happened "before" the big bang, but the big bang itself is well explained by it.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@HarryNicNicholas Which channel doesn't have any content? Mine? Why do I have to work for free for KZbin? If somebody wants content from me, they have to pay for it.

[@felipevillablancamoreira4684]

I have a bachelor degree en business other in economics, and a master degree in finance in the best university in Latin America. I can understand maybe 1/20 of this conversation, I feel like and idiot, and it doesn't bother me, I feel terrible humbled to see so brilliant mind and that they share their knowledge.

[@alanlackey3949]

Hearing this perspective was useful, Sir Roger Penrose developed my understanding of the anthropic principle and how it does or doesn't relate to the cosmic fine tuning of the beginning of the universe. Great :) Exciting.

[@robertflynn6686]

That's the interview I wanted and like. I think Penrose is ✅ right when he give his weil curvature conjecture! Life is so opposite gravity and physical rules in consciousness, we need a repulsive gravity curvature sign , at least. Good going Robert Kuhn.

[@theguardiansmith4408]

I think it requires a tremendous amount of hubris to rule out any possibility; just because the anthropic concept seems an impossibility to our minds doesn’t mean it’s out of the reach of consciousness itself.

[@crabb9966]

He didn't rule it out. He was rather eloquent and he argues logically, is he supposed to abandon his logic and just say well it could be true even though it doesn't get to the heart of the issue.

[@jamesbentonticer4706]

I wish I could switch lives with Robert. He travels the world speaking with the most intelligent members of our species. Lucky duck!

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i wouldn't want to be him though.

[@abhaysreekanth]

@@HarryNicNicholas why

[@tyamada21]

The Law myoho-renge-kyo represents the identity of what some scientists refer to as the ‘unified field of all consciousnesses’. In other words, it’s a sound vibration that is the essence of all of existence and non-existence, the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the true creator of everything that is, ever was and ever will be, right down to the minutest particles of dust, each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves by tapping directly into it by way of self-produced sound vibration. On the subject of ‘Who or What Is God?’, when we compare the concept of ‘God’, as a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to Nichiren’s teachings, the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people call ‘God’ is our enlightenment, which exists nowhere else but within us. When the disciples asked Jesus where the Kingdom of God is, didn’t he tell them that it was within them? Some say that ‘God’ is an entity that can never be seen. I think that the vast amount of information that is constantly being conveyed via electromagnetic waves gives us proof of how an invisible state of ‘God’ could actually exist. It’s widely known that certain data being relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects, including instant global awareness of something or mass emotional reaction. As well as many other things, it’s also common knowledge that these waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to even enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars. However, none of this is possible without a receiver to decode the information that is being transmitted. Without the receiver, the information would remain impotent. In a very similar way, it’s important for us to have our ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our life, all other life and what we and all else that exists truly is. Chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach into the core of our enlightenment and switch it on. That’s because the sound vibration of myoho-renge-kyo represents the combination of the three major laws that underlie all existence. Myoho represents the Law of latency and manifestation (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. One state of myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists. This includes our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them, our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re not being expressed, our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma, and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes obvious to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory, whenever we experience or express our emotions, or whenever a good or bad effect manifests from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it simply means that it has come out of the state of ‘myo’ (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s simply the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing something. The second law, renge, governs and controls the functions of myoho, ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect. The two laws of myoho and renge, both functions together simultaneously, as well as underlies all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination, kyo, is what allows the law myoho to be able to integrate with the law renge. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects together all Life and matter, as well as the past, present and future. It is often termed the Universal Law of Communication. Perhaps it could even be compared to the string theory that some scientists now suspect exists. Just as our body cells, thoughts, feelings and all else are constantly fluctuating within us, everything in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux, in accordance with these three laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible for us to calculate or describe. And it doesn't matter how big or small, important or trivial that anything may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of myoho-renge-kyo. These three laws are also the basis of the four fundamental forces and if they didn't function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. Simply put, all forms of existence, including the seasons, day and night, birth, death and so on, are all moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation, rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two universal states of myo and ho in absolute accordance with renge and by way of kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn in accordance with the workings of what the combination myoho-renge-kyo represents. Nam, or Namu, on the other hand, is a password or a key; it allows us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with myoho-renge-kyo. On a more personal basis, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives from moment to moment, as well in our environment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is turning, and rhythmically chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo for a minimum of ten minutes daily, anyone can experience actual proof of its positive effects in their life. In so doing, we can pierce through even the thickest layers of our karma and activate our Buddha Nature (the enlightened state). We’re then able to summon forth the wisdom needed to challenge, overcome and change our negative circumstances into positive ones. It brings forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that is preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we truly are, regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexual preference. We are also able to see and understand our circumstances and an environment more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. Actual proof soon becomes apparent to anyone who chants the words Nam-myoho-renge-kyo on a regular daily basis. Everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect, so the strength of the result from chanting depends on dedication, sincerity and determination. To explain it more simply, the difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, or producing a song and so on. NB: There are frightening, disturbing sounds and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It's the emotional result from any sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day you are producing a sound vibration that is the password to your true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things, such as your fears and desires etc. The important way to get the best result when chanting is not to see things in a conventional way (difficult to achieve but can be done), rather than reaching out to an external source, you need to reach into your own life and bring your needs and desires to fruition from within, including any help that you may need. Think of it as a seed within you that you are bringing sunshine and water to in order for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s important to understand that everything that we need in life, all the answers and potential to achieve our dreams, already exist within us. kzbin.info/www/bejne/bHS9YYuApryFqJY OLIVIA NEWTON-JOHN sings about Nam-myoho-renge-kyo

[@GeoCoppens]

Report to the nearest insane asylum!!! Run!

[@tyamada21]

@@GeoCoppens Hmmm... don't you mean run to the nearest asylum and report?

[@WILLYLYNCH.]

Yippee-ky-yo and a bag of dope.

[@georgedoyle7971]

tyamada21 Fascinating hypothesis, no offence intended but it does come across as a bit out there. However, if the absurd multiverse hypothesis turns out to be true then literally everything is possible. Interestingly, the multiverse may even actually support the ontological argument for a supreme consciousness/God. You’ve got me at it now!! Is the multiverse hypothesis a valid explanation for the fine tuning? If so somewhere out there in a parallel universe Christopher Hitchens is Mother Teresa, Richard Dawkins is the Pope and Billy Graham is an atheist.

[@philochristos]

Great minds think like Roger Penrose.

[@harviej]

Roger agrees with me that the anthropic argument is useless, so he must be right

[@johnbrowne8744]

Love Roger. Love his honesty. He has no idea.😊

[@truebeliever6440]

He didn't say "he has no idea", he literally says "the anthropic argument is useless" over and over. If you aren't familiar with what that is, it's the atheist rebuttal to The Fine Tuning Argument that states "no matter how remote the possibility is that we are here, we shouldn't be surprised that we are, because here we are". He's stating that just based on the Cosmological Constant (just one of the many fine tuned constants) that the Anthropic Principle is simply not enough to address the odds. What he was saying "I don't know" about, were the other constants, that are also astronomically remote (as he jokes only 1 /10^ 40 zeroes after it), but not nearly as remote as the CC. Watch the video again.

[@johnbrowne8744]

@@truebeliever6440 I'm a scientist too. Roger didn't say it, I did after listening to him. We can talk after you get a little more education.

[@BillyBike416]

@@johnbrowne8744 "I'm a scientist too"!! Yes sirree!!......and I'm EDUCATED!!.....in Science!..... not stupid history, logic, rhetoric, languages, philosophy, art, theology or the humanities. What I speak is TRUTH so shut up and believe whatever we scientists tell you, Rube!!

[@johnbrowne8744]

@@BillyBike416 😂🤣😅

[@BillyBike416]

@@johnbrowne8744 John, I think I got out of line here! I'll reign it in next time...... :)

[@DanaVastman]

Finally... "we have NO F'n idea!" Bingo.. thanks, Roger...

[@mobiustrip1400]

Yip, it's turtles all the way up and all the way down.

[@WILLYLYNCH.]

He has an idea about not having any idea. Do you get the idea?

[@rohannatu]

If the aliens come. Send Roger Penrose to speak with them.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

lol, they would feel inferior.

[@paulwharton1850]

So good to watch this discussion - Many, many thanks !

[@pine5088]

It should read If the deep laws of the universe had been ever so slightly different human beings wouldn't, and couldn't, exist AS WE KNOW. This isn't a question we can addressed when we don't even know the true nature of reality. But I have to say these 2 men really thought hard about this topic... wonderful discussion.

[@rvirzi]

The "life as we know" point actually doesn't eliminate the fine tuning arguments. You see, there may be another configuration of constants that can support some form of life or conscious minds, but if slightly changing the ones we have eliminates the possibility, then someone still needs to select one of the FEW configurations of constants that works. This still requires precise selection - even if there were millions of possible combinations, what we have proven is that there are orders of magnitude more impossible combinations that need to be weeded out.

[@ramkumarr1725]

After winning the Nobel I am sure that Penrose Quantum Tubule coherent consciousness is something we can live with.

[@tedgrant2]

I bought an old piano many years ago and learned how to tune it myself. I explained to a friend how I spent several hours getting everything to work properly. He listened to my detailed explanation very patiently, then he said, "I've got a record player". I suddenly realised that I had been wasting my time.

[@benjiedrollinger990]

😂😂😂

[@kimwelch4652]

If something grows in a forest, we don’t say that the forest is fine-tuned for life. Life comes forth from life. The model of a mechanical clock is the wrong metaphysical model for the universe. Better to think of it as a forest.

[@honesty8082]

We could say that the forest is finely tuned for that something to grow. The laws are there in the forest as well which makes the trees stand firmly and provide oxygen and shadows to other creatures making it finely tuned for them to survive.

[@kimwelch4652]

@@honesty8082 The forest is finely tuned to the terrain it must grow over just as life is finely tuned to the reality it must live in. However, as a forest grows it also changes the terrain. It changes the composition of the soil and can even change the path of water over the land. It does this without a brain, and without humans. You don't need ego consciousness to change the environment to be more suited to life. Think of life as a semiotic process reading and overwriting the terrain.

[@wulphstein]

I think there is a pretty good chance that a Higher power was involved in the creation of the universe.

[@polsick]

@@DJWeiWei we're "the Truman show" with a bigger set to play on.

[@BenjaminGoose]

There could be a higher power; for example our universe could be a simulation created by a superior race of beings. But there is no evidence for a higher power at this point.

[@2CSST2]

I think on the contrary everything points to the exact opposite of that, both logical sense and empirical indications. Logical sense: Answering the question of "why is there something rather than nothing" with "there was this even bigger and more complex thing already there" just compounds the problem, it's an absurd solution. The most sensical answer to this puzzle is that whatever "something" there was at the beginning was very close to nothing. For example something like quantum fluctuations in an infinite vacuum, which is basically a mix of pure randomness and nothingness, now THAT would make perfect sense for the origin of existence, that out of this unassuming initial state, complex things inevitably arise naturally. Empirically: The universe is nothing else than a huge onion-like peels after peels of more complex things arising out of the dynamic of simpler things, that is: emergent phenomena. Following the trend, the obvious extrapolation is that going closer and closer to the beginning or origin it gets simpler and simpler. A higher power, again, utterly violates this trend and thus is once more an absurd scenario.

[@Ascendlocal]

@@2CSST2 that's is actually a good argument. In other words, a creator God would be in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Especially in the initial state of the big bang. 10 to the 10 to the 10 to the 123. This would be the multiverse on major, major steroids.(infinity?)

[@sahmedmh]

@@2CSST2 The Creator is not within the universe or outside of it. He is independent of it. Space, time, matter are His creations. Concepts of something, nothing, creation and something must come from something or whatever you choose to believe in, do not apply to Him. 'Existence' of the universe; its expansion, events, functions and laws are not independent of Him. He is independent of them and only He exists. Everything else is His continued (according to our perception) Will. I don't know what kind of 'white bearded man sitting in the sky' concept of God you'd have to know in order to propose what you're saying.

[@Jfunkey]

Came for the interesting metaphysics. Stayed for the hilarious comments. In all honesty can anybody have civility with people they disagree with anymore? I'll get off the soapbox now. lol

[@martinzarathustra8604]

Penrose's argument assumes contingency. Contingency is based on limited human observation, which is not a problem for the universe. In other words, there is no real such thing as "odds", what we call probability is simply a mathematical prediction method used by human observers who have limited data about possible future events. If any event happens, it was 100% going to happen. No exceptions.

[@etherealstars5766]

Hey, your comment is two years old but I'm trying to understand this. Penrose States that the antheopic principle is invalidated because he observes that the Second Law of thermodynamics had to be tuned do precisely. Is this valid? Or, is it as you claim, asserting contigency when it can't be asserted? I'm new go this so, Thanks.

[@martinzarathustra8604]

@@etherealstars5766 Think of it this way. What does "tuned" mean in the context of the creation of the universe? To call something "tuned" begs the question since it presupposes a kind of agency to events. The correct observation of the data is that it is complex and specific, not that it is "tuned". This is also a general problem with quantum physics because probabilities are used as place holders for actual knowledge of how quantum events actually occur. Probabilities are what we might call proto- knowledge, they rely on prediction but not understanding of the actual processes involved. It's like watching a highway and being able to predict the percentage of cars that will crash on it in any given year. You have predictive power in the probability, but really have no idea why accidents happen in the first place. The accidents are related to the deeper casual picture that lies behind the probabilities of them happening.

[@etherealstars5766]

@@martinzarathustra8604 Ok, thank you. This gives me more useful input.

[@deletefacebook8419]

We should think of the big bang as a focal point much like what we perceive in our daily lives. The shape of the big bang, mathematically speaking is likely just one focal point or superposition of the macroscopic. The Mandelbrot set appears to do a good job of explaining this within a specifically fine tuned mathematical perspective. However i believe that you cannot actually see the Mandelbrot set within nature because the wavelengths of our reality are entangled with that of others, the information that is translated through these wavelengths is probably what we view within our focal point to be entropy. Entropy probably is entanglement, if youd like to believe that energy truly cannot be created nor destroyed then you may find some comfort in the idea that just as everything we observe consciousness too probably can not be destroyed, albeit this would never be able to be proven directly if it is true. Due to the nature of quantum mechanics and gravity, however it is atleast in my opinion very likely that we do exist in some sort of chaotic Mandelbrot set and our consciousness very likely is also transmissible within nature if gravity and dark energy is made out of the same type of energy that everything else is made out of. There is too me no reason for us to believe that the Universe cannot be eternal.

[@diogenes7419]

I think that the reality is kind of a strange loop, may be every fundamental particle contains its own universe & we might find ourselves living inside one of them or in all of them...

[@erasernox2611]

@@rubiks6 no

[@0ooTheMAXXoo0]

This is several years old. I saw it on here back when it was new... Is this channel ripping itself off?

[@matty35]

Life permeates the universe, there will be so much sentient life & an extremely massive other life out there.

[@pcalculas]

Excellent

[@AngelEarth2011]

I don't think the universe is fine-tuned for life. I think life is fine-tuned for the universe.

[@scambammer6102]

eh. life exists in the universe. there is nothing "fine tuned" about it, whatever that means.

[@juanpablogutierrez9938]

The issue is the fine tuning for structure not for life.

[@benjiedrollinger990]

God didn’t create using probability. He knew exactly what he was doing.

[@koopsjunta]

Surely Marcus from Raiders of the Lost Ark is based on Roger Penrose. But for archaeology. 😳

[@morphixnm]

Best hypothesis is that it is a conscious universe, produced by and inhabited by something like a mind, which also explains why conscious beings like us are also in it.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

While 'consciousness' is still not fully known by modern science, 'memories and thoughts' are not. It currently appears that physical neurons and physical neuron interconnections connected in a specific way along with a specific energy flow are required to have memories and thoughts. Likewise, even the software interactions of a computer require physical circuits connected in a specific way along with a specific energy flow to have 'memories and thoughts' so to speak. So, where are the universal consciousness' memories physically stored at? How are those memories stored and retrieved? How does it think a single coherent thought even? If inside of this dimension we exist in, then where? If outside of this dimension we exist in, then where is the interface between that dimension and this dimension? No such interface has currently been discovered. And, what really good would 'consciousness' be without that consciousness having any memories and thoughts?

[@morphixnm]

Charles Brightman, so first off the fact that neurons are associated with memories does not at all explain what memories are. Like all attempts at connecting physical structures and processes to consciousness, the hard problem remains that no causal connection is obtained, just that brain activity is observed when there is mental activity. But even that correspondence disappears during near death ecperiences, where there is mental activity in the complete absence of brain activity. As to where a universal mind may store its memories I of course don't know. Perhaps in the trillions of light years of filaments of plasma that are woven across the universe. The scale of these and the fact that they carry substantial currents is highly suggestive.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@morphixnm I do have to wonder though that during fMRI's or whatever device is utilized to view a dying person's brain, who then has a near death experience and comes back to life to tell their perceived experiences during that time frame, if the hind brain I believe it is called and/or the mid brain, (earlier parts of the brain that also have thoughts, etc), are being detected by those devices. I could see where it might be possible that the 'later' parts of the brain possibly being monitored by those devices possibly don't reach down far enough into the hind and/or mid brain regions, and hence, no mental activity would be detected by those devices in the 'later' brain region, but yet thoughts still occur due to the earlier parts of the brain. Just some thoughts from my brain to your brain. "IF" my latest theory of everything idea is really true, (and I have a gravity test that needs to be done to prove or disprove that portion of the TOE, and I'll copy and paste the TOE idea in a separate comment after this one), AND my definitions of space and time are correct, (also will be in another comment after this one), 'then' the 'gem' photon would make up everything in existence, including space time and including even numbers for math to do what math does, (also will post a comment after this post). In essence, 'consciousness/mind' would be space time interacting with itself. But here again, dependent upon the results of the gravity test. Consider also the following: (copy and paste of just a part of this file, it relates to a discussion concerning 'God', but just substitute 'God' for 'universal consciousness'.): "For those who claim God exists, consider the following: a. An actual eternally existent absolute somethingness truly existing. b. An actual eternally existent absolute somethingness that has consciousness, memories and thoughts truly existing. People who claim God actually and eternally exists basically are claiming that 'b' above is correct but yet simultaneously seem to be saying that 'a' is impossible to occur. 'a' above can exist without 'b' existing but 'b' cannot exist unless 'a' exists. " So, all of existence itself could possibly be explained by the eternally existent 'gem' photon, or as it relates to the above, 'a' in the above post. No 'God' or 'universal consciousness' even needed. Or so it would currently seem to me.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@morphixnm (Copy and paste of the TOE idea and associated gravity test): Revised TOE: 3/25/2017a. My Current TOE: THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.). 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons. 10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary. 11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks. 12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon and acts 90 degrees to the EM forces which act 90 degrees to each other. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc. 14. I also believe that a pulsating, swirling singularity (which is basically a pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon) is the energy unit in this universe. 15. When these pulsating, swirling energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 16. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate. 17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure. 18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. NOTES: 22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well. 25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true. 26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught? DISCLAIMER: 27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty. _____ Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way. a. Imagine a 12 hour clock. b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions. c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions. (The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.) d. Shoot a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields. e. Do this with the em fields on and off. (The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results.) f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects. (Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.) (And note: if done right, it's possible a mini gravitational black hole might form. Be ready for it.) (An alternative to the above would be to shoot 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.) 'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done. 'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. Science still wins either way and moves forward.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@morphixnm (Copy and paste from my files concerning 'space time'): FOR ME: 'Space' is energy itself. Wherever space is, energy is. Wherever energy is, space is. They are one and the same thing. And for me, the 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe. 'Time' is the flow of energy. 'Time' (flow of energy) cannot exist unless 'space' (energy itself) exists. And 'space' (energy itself) that does not flow (no flow of time / energy) is basically useless. An entity cannot even think a thought without a flow of energy. If all the energy in the universe stopped flowing, wouldn't we say that 'time stood still'? Time itself would still exist, it would just not be flowing, (basically 'time' stopped). But then also, how space and time are linked in what is called 'space time', (energy and it's flow).

[@Ransomed77]

Everything RP is describing suggests that a creator (or creators) with a consciousness outside of our space-time planned and executed the universe with the precision necessary for our existence. What does a man like RP stand to lose by acknowledging he is a created being? I have my ideas, but I’d be curious to know your thoughts. Why does a “Creator” pose such a threat to so many (who end up calling themselves “atheists”)?

[@byteme9718]

What an ignorant and uneducated comment completely devoid of any logic. You even attempt to use Pascal's wager, a 400 year old Christian argument that had long before been dismissed by philosophers as unsound. You display that combination of ignorance and arrogance so typical of theists. You also demonstrate that other trait of fundamental dishonesty because you have no interest of what atheists think or even have any understanding of what the word means. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god for the most logical of reasons, a total lack of evidence. Not your god or any of the many thousands men have and continue to invent. There are, a very few atheists who claim there is no god but that's a pointless point of view that takes on a burden to provide proof which is impossible for a non existent entity. For almost all of us we have no more interest in disproving god than we do in disproving unicorns, Harry Potter or leprehauns. Theists like you however DO take in a very real burden of proof because your extreme claim is that your random god of choice is real and therefor YOU must either provide evidence or (if your were honest) admit you're deluded. So, which is it? Consider that over thousands of years millions of scientists have been searching for the truth and the method of peer review ensures only the very best explanations are accepted. Their work throws out so many of the supernatural explanations previously attributed to god by ignorant theists. The claim Zeus is the cause of lightning is no less absurd than that of a universe being created in six days of Jesus rising from the dead. Not one of those scientists has founded the tiniest hint of the faintest clue for your god and in fact their work suggests one isn't needed. What evidence do you have for your claim? Before you even consider it, don't even try and prove your Bible by using the Bible because all I will do is provide you with Harry Potter quotes to prove child wizards are schooled at Hogwarts or tell you how the Quran states Muhammad split the moon in two or rode a winged horse to heaven.

[@Ransomed77]

​@@byteme9718 Thank you so much for taking time to reply. I assure you I’m quite sincere in my desire to understand your position. I’m not really sure how you conclude I’m employing Pascal’s wager. I’m simply asking, “Why does the possibility that there’s a creator/s bother atheists?" Just address my question. If you have issues with particulars about various religious beliefs that’s a whole different discussion. I simply want to know, Why couldn’t a “force” or “energy” beyond our current understanding have been the catalyst for life as we know it? 

In fact isn’t that what (many) atheists put forth? That some “force” (call it a big bang or what have you) initiated life? I ascribe that “force” with intelligence and intentionality, and you don’t (I assume?). Doesn’t that seem to be the only real difference between our two schools of thought? Don’t get lost in the weeds debating is Muhammad, or Jesus, or Harry Potter the force behind the curtain. That seems secondary (at best) to the question at hand. So, I ask you again, Why couldn’t there be intelligence and intentionality behind life as we know it?

[@Ransomed77]

@@byteme9718 Did I lose you?

[@byteme9718]

@@Ransomed77 Other way around.

[@Ransomed77]

​@@byteme9718 Well, I'm glad you responded again. Why is it so difficult for you to hold a conversation? You insult well enough, but you don't engage. Why? If you have something to offer, share. If you have nothing to offer, why comment in the first place?

[@seancostello7608]

I find the “fine tuning” discussion (argument?) utterly nonsensical and without utility or merit. That’s with no disrespect to Robert, since it’s clearly something that takes place. But, what is the problem or issue that the discussion is supposed to address? If the question is “how did the universe end up being the way it, in fact, is, rather than another way (or another universe)?”, then it could equally have been asked of any possible or actual other universe, or manifestation of “the” universe. Unless I’m missing something very fundamental, it seems to me that the actualisation or manifestation of ANY particular universe is as likely/unlikely as that of any other. I am no mathematician, but I don’t see how a relatively “complex” universe (containing us, life, consciousness etc) requires any special explanation, other than because “we” happen to be in it and, from THAT perspective, require that explanation. Douglas Adams’ “puddle” analogy puts this very eloquently, imo. Thoughts appreciated.

[@olyolu2337]

I love this fine tuning argument absolute mystery to unbelievers

[@cesarc9594]

The worst blind is the one who doesn't want to see.

[@godofleverege1829]

Daniel Luke they fill any gap in human knowledge and any mystery with god did it

[@olyolu2337]

Freez Arkaya dude u will never accumulate enough Knowledge to even realise the point of ur own existence lol like u chose to be here

[@godofleverege1829]

Oly Olu im fine by it as long as im not appealing to a bigger mystery 😂

[@godofleverege1829]

rubiks6 we wait for scientists to fill it with a coherent data supported by the bulk of our human scientific knowledge but the hypothesis of god did it wont cut it 😂

[@username82765]

The key to the fine tuning argument is that the range that is life permitting is extremely narrow Therefore an intelligence/God had to create a universe within that range? However, if the FTA is correct, then it just identified a limitation of this intelligence/God ( the universe needing to be within a specific range to create life). which means we can eliminate any God/s claiming to have unlimited power such as the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim God

[@username82765]

@@DJWeiWei It wasn't a question but an observation. The FTA tries to cite a limitation as evidence of a being that wouldn't have that exact limitation.

[@puluzo]

What he's actually saying there could be other universes that allows life and us and those universes wouldn't be this much perfectly adjusted and if multi-verse is truth then the odds of us finding ourselves in those kind of universes is much much higher but then why did we find ourselves in this improbable universe? The one that's almost impossible to exist. Which is why it needs explanation.

[@icemanA84]

Probabilities can become a little pointless when dealing with infinity. Just hope that it’s possible to get answers to the biggest questions, we will be long gone before then but fascinating topics nonetheless.

[@Vito_Tuxedo]

The extensive use of the word "why" is the tip-off that this discussion strays far outside the bounds of physics. Physics answers "how" questions, and only has a handle on the "why" questions when they pertain to subjects wherein the how is already well-understood. The kind of why questions posed here are inappropriate for any purpose other than defining our ignorance. Physics can't answer them. Yet.

[@marveloussoftware1417]

It may appear that the universe us fine tuned. This is the result of evolution. Since life evolved, life became fine tuned for the universe where it developed.

[@SuperMrAndersen]

Also if god existed, then the universe would not be fine tuned because god always break the laws of physics

[@Pier77Tampa]

Fine tuning suggests intentionality and knowledge that no other configurations work. A bit misleading and biased I think since we don’t and never will know either

[@Hiltsuk1]

Brilliant

[@richsw]

What was the 'special' and 'precision' in the early Universe that Roger Penrose was referring to? We kept hearing that the Big Bang was 'special' and 'precise' but how? The 1 2TPO 123 number that was mentioned... what was the relevance to the precision? Was it that the early state of the Universe had a 1 2TPO 123 chance of existing in that form? I didn't get it.

[@chrisxavier1848]

Penrose knows the truth, he's just dodging :D

[@christdhasjoseph6997]

He knows it isn't fine tuned FOR LIFE

[@honesty8082]

@@christdhasjoseph6997 Then how are you living here??? It's finely tuned for you to live here but fir temporary time period. It's clearly not eternal because fhe Galaxies are Dying and So does Humans The Almighty All Knowing Uncreated Creator is Eternal.

[@christdhasjoseph6997]

@@honesty8082 life maybe a byproduct. To say these conditions where put specifically life, You need you explain why the initial conditions where inhospitable for life. For instance why was the intial entropy so low?

[@akbarahmed3078]

Mohammad Azam God of the gap, eh. We don’t know why the universe exists, so it must be God. Don’t worry humans have been doing this for thousands of years. They used to think thunderstorms were God’s work because they didn’t know what caused it. Just because we don’t understand something doesn’t mean it’s magic.

[@jcoats1203]

Chris Xavier what would he hope to gain or fear to lose that would cause him to dodge the question?

[@br41nb0x7]

Usefully useful. :)

[@FrancisMetal]

I'm not good to understand English: is he saying that universe is fine-tuned for its existence (for example, laws, constants, so on) but not for life?

[@shuddupeyaface]

That's all well and good, but isn't there a sale on at primark?

[@r.i.p.volodya]

It is UTTER SPECULATION as to what the 'constants of nature' "MEAN".

[@frabber321]

It seems Penroses 10^10^123 number is less well known than the cosmological constant. Why is that?

[@ck58npj72]

It's his own calculation

[@crabb9966]

Wow, this is making me think deeply but I am not sufficiently intelligent

[@chongdaoTJ]

Some for the anthropic argument claim it's precisely the impossibly small odds of the creation of life that proves a God/animator must be behind it. Penrose big bang odds: "hold my beer" But, isn't he also kinda making the case for those who claim there's a creator behind it all by pointing out just how improbable it is this universe came about by chance?

[@byteme9718]

Roger Penrose is never arrogant enough to make definitive claims, you however appear to be doing just that. Everything he asserts he can support but where is your evidence for a god?

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

It is Opposite, Life and Mind is ''fine-tuned'' to give birth to universes. Life-Unit-Principle, Parents-Principle, Organism-Shifting-Principle.

[@Graeme_Lastname]

"Apparent fine tuning"? That's not what I observe. The number one is no more or less precise than any other number. It is what it is, it had to be something.

[@youguy9550]

I’m sorry, why does the anthropic principle not answer this if you have infinite cycles? Big fan of Penrose but I really couldn’t glean what his objection was...

[@Akirex5000]

Actually it’s the other way around. Life and mind are finely tuned for the universe. As creatures evolve, we adapt physically and mentally to our surroundings. We learn to see what works and what doesn’t. We learn how to survive according to what the universe is like. We just play the hand we are dealt.

[@golden-63]

Fine tuning doesn't mean the universe is ideal for life. Clearly it isn't. If the cosmological constant, for example, were even infinitesimally smaller or larger, matter itself would not have been able to form. Life wouldn't even be possible.

[@stevepierce6467]

@@golden-63 Extinctions and evolutionary survival are the overt signs that the universe is not finely tuned for life, and that a wide range of life forms develops, thrives (or shrivels) and keeps on living (or dies out) depending on the variations and changes in the conditions provided in the environment. With different numbers, we would merely see different life forms or absence thereof.

[@akumar7366]

The gentleman on the left reminds me of Einstein.

[@h.astley2113]

‘That’s an *extraordinary* number!’ Isn’t it just 😬😫

[@walmart7020]

Where is this amazing library at?

[@WILLYLYNCH.]

The Muslim's burnt it to the ground. The river runs black with the ink of knowledge.

[@topboychris104]

Hogwarts

[@hatebreeder999]

@@topboychris104 😁😁😁

[@radiowardenclyffe]

The improbability that Penrose discussed would suggest that our fundamental understanding of the universe is deeply flawed, as to the suggestion of a creator, that would require a whole lot more fine tuning to allow the creation of a creator and an infinite regression of such. If the correct answer does not fit with reality, the question is wrong.

[@Vito_Tuxedo]

@Jon Hubbard - Alternatively, there is no need for some kind of external creator if the creator is the universe itself. There is abundant evidence that the universe is constantly creating and re-creating itself. From that perspective, "God" (the creator) is woven into the very fabric of the universe. In any case, I'm not sure that the difference between an infinite regression and a self-creating universe is detectable.

[@Eternaldragon4]

@man with a username if the proposed god doesn’t need creating, then why would the universe? What’s to say the universe hasn’t always existed in one form or another? To explain a mystery with an even larger mystery and then start giving attributes to it that can not be proven, fails to follow logic and reasoning.

[@boblackey1]

​@@Eternaldragon4 It looks to several physicists if our universe is the only universe then likely there is indeed a creator (God ) behind it. But if our universe is part of a multiverse, zillions of universes like bubble wrap and in most the dice didn't come up 7 or 11 and galaxies, stars, planets etc can't form, then in ours the number Roger Penrose stated for the incredible fine tuning required, in a multiverse, can happen by blind chance alone. Actually I don't know what to think as Roger said we don't have a good theory as to how the big bang happened...assuming it did happen :)

[@Eternaldragon4]

@@boblackey1 the difference is, science doesn’t claim to know what is before the plank time. But theists seem to “know” otherwise because some ancient book with ridiculous stories says so. It annoys the pi$$ out of me when theists cherry pick what science they think backs up their god claim and ignore what science actually says.

[@boblackey1]

@@Eternaldragon4 Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe" which means Albert thought there was only one way it works and it's the way it is. I've run across two people with PhDs in science who do exactly what you said. They find the fine tuning to point to the God of their religion. Hugh Ross has a PhD in Astrophysics but is also a Christian pastor. Isn't it possible if a creator is behind the universe the creator may not be the God of any of our religions. Einstein said he believed in the God of Spinoza who reveals himself in the laws of physics and the beauty of nature.

[@chrisconnor8086]

What if some form of life were able to pass information through photons through black holes or into the conformal cyclic end of the universe which encodes certain parameters for multiple big bangs

[@plung3r]

If they only read the Quran, which mentions the big bang in Quran 21:30 "Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and then We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?" It is also mentioned in Quran 25:2 "...and Allah has created everything and designed it in a perfect measure."

[@stevepierce6467]

Allah screwed up; everything was "designed in perfect measure"......except my sinuses, my urinary tract, my joints, my eyeballs, my ears, my sinuses (oh, I already mentioned that).

[@MymindW]

A created universe will clearly look like this.

[@MymindW]

@Shep Raynham does not refute the hypothesis.

[@MymindW]

@Shep Raynham the universe is so complicated and organized with highly precise fine tuned laws to be just a result of randomness. The creater is the best hypothesis out there weather you like it or not.

[@MymindW]

@Shep Raynham bro, saying that the creator is the best hypothesis out-there does not make you less curious, it is just the obvious truth. I am still as curious as you are. Maybe more. The universe is stunning.

[@pentosmelmac8679]

It's like the simple farmer tells his neighbor that his cart doesn't move because it is waiting for a horse to push. There is no dream without a dreamer. The car needs a designer. The cosmos doesn't need to be explained. The answers emerge from questions posed by the conscious mind of MAN only. Some of our science is immediately useful, the rest seems to be trying to prove that all that we see including our consciousness came about from nothing and over a period of "time" it miraculously gelled into the complexity and relationships that are evident to our probing minds today.

[@totalfreedom45]

_Our very existence imposes rules determining from where and at what time it is possible for us to observe the universe. That is, the fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the environment in which we find ourselves. This principle is called the weak anthropic principle….Though it may sound like philosophy, the weak anthropic principle can be used to make scientific predictions._ -Stephen Hawking, _The Grand Design,_ 2010, p 153-54 💕 ☮ 🌎 🌌

[@devrimturker]

Can we guess physical laws of one galaxy by observing the shape of its spiral?

[@polsick]

Of course. And know, not guess.

[@durgadasdatta7014]

Balloon inside balloon theory.

[@daves2520]

I find it interesting that the interviewer made no mention of God, a higher being, or a creator in explaining the anthropic principle. Dr. Penrose mentioned an event that had 10^123 chance of occurring randomly; does not this also suggest that a higher being intervened to cause this event? Scientists seem to be very closed minded when it comes to considering alternative explanations.

[@MrKennyBones]

No it does not mean that a higher power intervened. It means it’s highly unlikely that it come to be. Not impossible. It’s highly unlikely you win the lottery, yet people win the lottery every day. Just saying a higher power did it answers nothing. It just moves the question to the next level. If you follow that logic you’ll be perpetually asking the question. Who/what made the higher power? Who/what made THAT higher power. It’s endless.

[@daves2520]

@@MrKennyBones 10^123 is a number that exceeds the total number of atoms in the known universe. I understand that scientists consider such a number the same as being impossible.

[@yitzhakgoldberg2404]

@@MrKennyBones If you think there's a "next level", then you misunderstand the concept of an all powerful Creator.

[@AbeDillon]

Positing a creator only makes the situation worse. You then not only have to account for the low entropy of the universe but also the low entropy of a creator that can create universes.

[@yitzhakgoldberg2404]

@@AbeDillon Please explain what you mean.

[@harryaldieny7697]

very dense content

[@klondike69none85]

well duh yeah, i could have told you that... (looks around nervously)

[@sudipbiswas5185]

Why don't you ask about conceousness to vedantist or shadhguru?

[@stapedtryniti]

So intelectual that dont understand that is so precise because of the HAND OF GOD

[@iamtheone5049]

I would learn grammar before evaluating Oxford professors.

[@PuppetMasterdaath144]

why is he saying that he doesn't understand as an argument whats happening help, help I need help

[@davepangolin4996]

I wish Roger would dumb it down a bit

[@michaelhowell2609]

Theists are always being blamed for using the “god of the gaps”. Every time I here a scientist talk of this argument they use the same logic to explain these numbers. This is the only constants for life that we know exist, so anything else would be using the same logic.

[@Ransomed77]

Dietrich Bonhoeffer put an end to god of the gaps beautifully many years ago. What I find is that many atheists still try to "force" that belief onto theists as if we all still hold to that...which we don't.

[@kemicalhazard8770]

Except religious people often use the god of the gaps as “We don’t understand it, therefore god” The fine tuning talk is not even remotely similar, it’s more like “We don’t understand this, yet”

[@RMT192]

I want to know if the universe is fine-tuned for bullshit?

[@saifanwar1510]

Believe in God or luck ... ? After watching this

[@BillyBike416]

Whatever it is............................................... IT'S NOT THE ANTHROPIC HYPOTHESIS!!!!!!!!! And I am supposed to believe these men are intellectually unbiased??

[@nihlify]

You clearly don't know either of these two men...

[@ck58npj72]

Anthropologist? 😂😂😂

[@Vito_Tuxedo]

The question is meaningless without definitions of "life" and "mind/consciousness". But it's actually worse than that. The question presupposes that the genesis of complex systems (like "life" and "mind") from the simple systems described by physics is understood in the first place. There is no such understanding. It's a fair question as a kind of pointer toward how much more we need to know, but that is the current extent of its utility.

[@byteme9718]

It's reasonable to believe sinmply because we are here that this is likely. What is completely illogical is to ascribe that to a god. Is that what you're suggesting because if you want to make that claim you need to have evidence.

[@Vito_Tuxedo]

​@@byteme9718 I have no idea how you got to "a god" from anything I said. I simply pointed out that it is impossible to have any rational discussion about concepts you haven't bothered to define. The same thing is true of discussions about "god". People blather on and on about it as though everyone knows what they mean. If they know what they mean, they're keeping it a secret. Neither religionists nor atheists ever bother to define "god". Actually, *_you_* didn't define what you think a god is either. But if you mean some kind of supernatural being who created everything that exists out of nothing, then no-I ascribe nothing to such a fantastic, mystical, mythical creature. What kind of evidence do you suppose exists for such a thing, other than the unsubstantiated beliefs of millions of people who cling to such mythology? Anyhow, I don't what your first statement means. Exactly *_what_* is reasonable to believe is likely simply because we are here? You didn't specify what the "this" is that you think is likely.

[@byteme9718]

@@Vito_Tuxedo I see, you wanted to practice philosophical arguments alone. I'm not interested.

[@noonnoussa2]

هل هناك ترجمة الى العربية ؟؟🙏🙏

[@MuhammadbinYusrat]

لا لكن يمكننى ان اترجم لك.

[@stefanblue660]

I see no argument against finetune mystery.

[@jongun65]

Only one thing makes logical sense. Simulation.

[@hastinmy]

hello

[@stridedeck]

Where's the confusion? The initial condition created everything else and so if this initial condition was different, it would still create and life will still be the outcome. We just don't know how everything relates to each other.

[@bruinflight]

The level of arrogance physicists hold for claiming ours is the only possible set of conditions for sentient life is beyond the pale. Look, they have no clue what's going on with 90% of the universe we ARE in, let alone some other one... the proposition of which is speculative woo. Roger is right, again: it's all a bunch of hand waving and posturing.

[@scambammer6102]

he didn't say that. he said the opposite of it. ijut.

[@Keepmovingson]

What if life was fine tuned for this universe? I.e. evolution?

[@stoictraveler1]

This empties that life has a driving force, a propulsion to proliferate. Sounds designed to me.

[@GeoffV-k1h]

Fascinated to hear that the early conditions of the universe required the 2nd Law of T to achieve a precision of 10 to the 123rd power. Could this have been an accident?. A pure coincidence, as were the subsequent fine-structure tuning? Some will say it cannot be otherwise, but on balance is it not more probable likelihood...?

[@japanaircarrier1394]

I thought Roger Penrose was dead. Well sorry for the spoiler. Everybody who's alive in 2023 take a step forward. Not so fast, doc.

[@DeusExAstra]

I wonder if ants sit around discussing how very unlikely it is that the universe was created so perfectly for them to exist.

[@minimead368]

Only the ones who collected the cannabis leaf

[@LudwigSauerteig]

"We need a theory witch explain why the big bang result like this" in eache singularaty mathematic collaps. Sorry your command makes no sens. By the way still see what they call univers as mathematic als Individuum and what und think for Individuum as cosmos.

[@SylverBac]

When you try to find tune the universe for life through a religious lens you have truly lost the meaning of "life".

[@sanjosemike3137]

SylverBac How so? Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

[@SylverBac]

@@sanjosemike3137 The religious mind begins it's observation of the natural world with a belief of knowing. This veil of belief tarnishes his or her ability to observe without partiality. This person will often times find validation of their belief where there is none. Thus unable to observe in truth. Have a nice day my friend 🤓

[@BillyBike416]

@@SylverBac The problem with SylverBac's point is that HE carries bias as well, just of a different nature!! We all come to the data with our biases and it is crucial for all of us to know and admit that. The Myth of the Impartial Observer is a hard myth to die.

[@medexamtoolscom]

Well it's naive to say that different forms of life could definitely exist if the constants of nature were vastly different. Allow me to demonstrate how ridiculous that is. Consider on a logarithmic scale, the strength of the gravitational constant. On a log scale, where a factor of 10 represents 1 step back, the scale still stretches from negative infinity to positive infinity.... and if gravity was 10^40 times stronger, so that even a single electron would immediately become a black hole, that's just 40 steps forward. A universe where effectively there is no gravity of any consequence and clouds of gases never condense to form stars or planets, that's only maybe 10 steps backward. But the log scale still stretches from -infinity to +infinity, and even being in this range of 50 steps out of an expanse of infinity is in this interpretation, an impossible coincidence. And I don't care how different life could potentially be, outside that range of 50 steps, life definitely will never form, and that's just one of the many constants of the universe, the gravitational constant. There's also the speed of light, the charge of an electron, the mass of an electron, etcetera. I'm sorry but it has merit to say that it is finely tuned. I don't really know what can be concluded from this, I'm certainly not going to conclude some intelligent agent designed it to be that way as is the motivation of most those that bring up the fine tuning, but let's be honest here, why did the constants of nature end up being viable values that really are limited to a narrow range on an infinitely long scale?

[@roqsteady5290]

"could definitely exist" Not sure that mean's anything!? It isn't naive to imagine that life or whatever could *possibly* exist under different constants. What is so special about life anyway? it is just a particular process that happened to occur here, but in those other possible universes other shit would likely go down, even if those processes didn't consider themselves as special as we do. As to concluding that an intelligent agent designed it all... Well if you think the universe is fine tuned, just imagine how fine tuned that entity would have to be to create the universe in the first place? People are always trying to solve problems by just pushing them a step back and saying ha! problem solved, but in reality they have just created another question that is harder to answer than the first one.

[@benkeeney9505]

Penrose bails on anthropic argument....then says that some kind of something had to cause it..one hypothesis...YHVH

[@rationalsceptic7634]

Please Roger don't give Theists ammunition

[@anameichose8854]

Truth has a way of doing that

[@annon123]

5

[@smhaack63]

If we are just one of multi trillions of universes, with planets that can evolve complex conscious life, is that a miracle of sorts? No, just As winning the lottery is not miraculous, but rather just unusual thing to occur. No one likes to hear this. We want to be special and imagine we are god’s or created in god’s image.

[@golden-63]

that's the most logical and obvious answer

[@johnnyraybartoshevich3073]

😢

[@stoictraveler1]

Maybe we are finding God.

[@kenjames3346]

GOD is a DJ!

[@stephenstruble5064]

I don't believe that the universe is "fine-tuned" for life. A lot of people used to believe that nature was designed before Darwin. (Some individuals still do.) We know today that the universe is governed by natural laws. Let's assume that the constants of nature were different. In some circumstances life could not exist, and we would never be able to ask the question. But let's assume that the constants were different to an extent where life could exist and ask the question. You could still ask the question of "Why does the universe seem fine-tuned?" Adhering to the logic of our universe does it even make sense to have a scenario where pi is not equal to 3.14159265358979...? It doesn't. Secondly, we don't see very much life at all so far in the observable universe, besides life here on Earth. It would appear that the universe most certainly is not "fine-tuned" for life.

[@golden-63]

Fine tuning doesn't say the universe is ideal for life. Clearly, it isn't. It's much more basic than that. If the value of the cosmological constant, for example, were infinitesimally smaller or larger, matter itself could not exist.