Implications of Cosmology? | Episode 1503 | Closer To Truth

The universe is strange and wondrous-dauntingly vast, menacingly violent, infinitely complex. The origin of the universe is equally fascinating. There are explanations, but is there a final explanation? Featuring interviews with Alan H. Guth, Andrei Linde, George F. Smoot III, Robert Spitzer, Jill Tarter, and Douglas Vakoch.
Season 15, Episode 3 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
#Cosmology #BigBangTheory

[@patromo]

I just found this channel a week ago, and I'm stunned by the frequency these high-quality videos are released. Thank you for producing this excellent content

[@Getyourwishh]

Good for you, still millions of ppl dont know about this hidden gem droping on us quality vid regurarly since the start of this pandemic. I like listening to alike content and ofc the scientists.

[@illogicmath]

They are all reposts

[@waerlogauk]

They have been working on these for decades as mentioned they are reposts.

[@donnasmyth45]

Superb channel

[@maxpower252]

You are welcome.

[@sheenaalexis8710]

I always enjoy interviews with Alan Guth..he's humble and down to earth. I like Andre too.

[@ingenuity168]

When the student is ready, the master will appear.

[@sheenaalexis8710]

I didn't want this episode to end! I never do. Please do a part 2,3-30 please :) This topic is exciting and incredibly intriguing to me.

[@MrTornadillo]

I’m a little emotional with Lawrence about the big questions that he is trying to answer. I love his curiosity and his skills to do this great job.

[@sam-lz6pi]

These programmes are absolutely wonderful. Thank you! About this particular epsode, I find it problematic that we should equate physical size with importance. Yes, we are vanishingly small but that does not mean we are insignificant.

[@jsnedd66]

Closer to truth , "is thee Salon of excellence in cognition".i am on the journey with you! Robert.

[@adityganguly4021]

I am so thankful finding this channel. I had been pondering vehemently to find out the designer. Questions kept coming why are we the way we are physically and emotionally. Now this channel is giving me a direction. Thank you so much.

[@youtubetrailerpark]

Having to invent an infinitum of multiple universes to explain our one universe is suspect.

[@patmoran5339]

Guth has infectious optimism. That is a precious commodity that needs to pervade philosophy and science.

[@patmoran5339]

@@rubiks6 I have noticed that certain words like "optimism" seem to bring out very negative emotions in people. When it comes to scientific knowledge, size is irrelevant. Knowledge is relevant. I have seen "Bill Nye." The description might be an "angry pessimistic foul-mouthed bully."

[@sheenaalexis8710]

I agree Pat. I really like Guth and enjoy hearing his ideas

[@Trevor_Green]

Guth for president

[@sheenaalexis8710]

I adore Guth. Love hearing his ideas.

[@NeilWestbrook]

thank you for this video

[@garybalatennis]

Many thanks for this video, yet another, in a mind-bending series. This one ends with your ultimate speculations on the grandest mystery - why the cosmos or existence? I’ll offer my 2 cents on your final 3 possibilities: 1. Deep reason (that is, a meaning or purpose) to the Universe. 2. Brute fact, no reason for Universe. 3. “No answer” because the question does not apply to the Universe as a whole. I will rely on what I call Axioms or revealed regularities which we as humans have learned about the Universe since we’ve been around. 1. Richer and Not Obvious Axiom: Universe is actually far, richer, deeper, complex, mind-bending than we see, and often the opposite what we see (for example, the world is not flat; Earth and man are not the center; “nothing” is not nothing, etc.) That axiom argues for your No. 1. The universe appears to us observers to be random, chaotic, purposeless. So under this axiom the opposite is likely true. There is indeed a reason for it all - “deep reason” path. As far as Nos. 2 and 3, (brute fact and no answer), they fly in the face of another Axiom I’ll call 2. Knowledge Gap Axiom. Everything that seemed in our past to be unexplained or unexplainable or “magical” always finally had an explanation or reason after more thought, analysis, and science. (For example, a bolt of lightening; an eclipse; rainbows, etc.) Thus, as far as your possibilities of “brute fact” (with no reason) and “No answer”, this axiom suggests the opposite is true: that after more thought and analysis - as has always happened before - there is indeed an explanation and reason waiting to be found. Thus, I dismiss 2 and 3 and go for 1 on your thought list. Thanks again for all your wonderful contributions.

[@MrDino1953]

It’s like a young Frank Costanza is doing cosmology interviews. Serenity now!

[@sheenaalexis8710]

Oh...my...fucking...God. Thanks. Now I can't unsee that! I wonder if he's wearing a bro under that turtleneck?

[@Boulos-cb2un]

GET THE HELL OUT HERE!!!

[@e-t-y237]

Bravo ... Guth nails it right off the bat ... we make our own purpose. It's the religious purposes that are artificial, not the humanist ones. Isn't this implicit in science?

[@shumi8711]

Dear sir. I much appreciate the content of Closer to Truth videos; the music in some of them is amazing too. What brings me here now is asking the name of the instrumental track in this video between 0:25 and 1:34. Thank you.

[@missh1774]

I swear these videos are keyword sensitive to it's own library.

[@ingenuity168]

Did the universe wait 14.8 billion years to be observed? Good question.

[@chrismathis4162]

Always funny when people (those who post here) who couldn't pass high school algebra think they know more than the smartest people on the planet.

[@MonisticIdealism]

The cosmos would never say no, because of the implication.

[@scubaking4408]

the cosmos certainly wouldn't be in any danger

[@delawareciao6428]

I see what you did there!

[@Arithmancy68]

The universe gave rise to meaning. Not the other way around. The heliocentric view has many manifestations.

[@DaveJLin]

Every generation believes it has a handle on truth. Yet the more we know, the more we realize we don't.

[@Jesusismykin]

God is almighty, All knowing ,present everywhere. ❤👍✝️😊

[@jamesbarlow6423]

"A multiverse would have to have had a beginning anyway." Why? "Eternal Recurrence!" (Nietzsche)

[@Trevor_Green]

Reasons (that I state in a silly way) plus not being able to grasp that we might not (and probably not) special......therefore God

[@kuroryudairyu4567]

💜

[@mitseraffej5812]

15:15. I don’t see the significance of the “fine tuning” argument made by the Catholic priest. Unless one was to view every random occurrence or event as sign a supernatural guiding hand the seemingly fine tuning of the universal constants are nothing more than coincidence. We have all most likely had narrow escapes from death or injury purely by luck or timing yet most of us don’t see this as divine intervention. Likewise even the most devout believers would not think God had any hand in a lottery win for an already wealthy person. In short the universe and we exists just because we do.

[@JoeHarkinsHimself]

I agree and suggest one step further. The "fine tuning" argument is a backwards argument. It begins with the assumption that we, by which I mean all life, are the perfect result of fine tuning, while ignoring the possibility we are just the natural result of whatever there is. We "fit" only because we would not exist if we did not "fit." It certainly is not a perfect fit. The fit rxists only now, not in the deep past or in the immeasurable future. We do not know how or why. All we know is, it is. The universe is filled with trillions of trillions of planets. We know that this "fit" is highly limited, temporary and changing. The universe existed for billions of years before life. That universe appears to be on course to exist for more millions of years after we no longer fit. We cannot say with any certainty that the "fit" ever applied anywhere else or ever will again somewhere else. But it is reasonable to assume it could. It might. This brief moment in this vast time is just that. A brief moment. Carpe diem.

[@adrianburns7975]

@@JoeHarkinsHimself like ur thought on that

[@PrivateSi]

Start with a base field lattice of +ve charge cells (charge quanta, +1) held together and balanced by am ethereal sea of -ve charge and many interesting universes can emerge, given a good kick... You can work out all the ways matter could be. It's quite easy to visualise things... Gravity, electricity, magnetism can all emerge.

[@sessions-di8sr]

The ufo lady looks like David Icke

[@michaelrichardson9458]

I wonder, is the universe existing "on top" of something else, or does it occupy what was emptyness/nothingness? At the edge of the expansion is the universe displacing or pushing something else out of the way, or is it expanding into nothingness?

[@timjohnson3913]

We don’t really have a clue, and so any answer to this question is just a guess. It’s possible there is no “edge” to the universe. It’s possible that going so far in one direction will lead you back to the place you started (sort of like Pac-Man going through the top of the screen and appearing at the bottom).

[@homerbartshow3101]

If the universe creates thought if I represent a different kind of thought it’s up to you to maintain alternate thought

[@Jesusismykin]

Eternal life is very real.

[@michaelrichardson9458]

We could make our mission as a species to spread life. For all we know we are the only place where life has arisen. If this is the case we have a responsibility to increase its diversity and number throughout the cosmos.

[@myshowsmarky2284]

Life in the universe is built in to the laws of physics to allow second law of thermodynamics increase entropy faster than it would otherwise. Humans are low entropy dissipating structures that help to increase entropy of a near by star faster that it would without life present. It seems life would need to be common in the universe for this reason and this is why it self preserves and will grow throughout the universe and will not disappear from self annihilation or cosmic catastrophes..until the universe reconstitutes itself for another beginning like loop quantum gravity would imply.

[@jean-pierredevent970]

I saw that priest saying the multiverse is still not easily explaining everything. Suddenly I thought that perhaps the multiverse concept is even not needed. If you believe that together with the Bigbang, matter, energy also "mind" (the thing govern laws, rules, forces but even more ) was born than this mind could have been acting, working on matter and energy to gradually form what we have? This mind is not necessarily the same as the God in religion however. The exact number of the constants was in the beginning certainly just as diffuse as even space and time were. There were perhaps not so many laws, rules, "properties" back then...If we look at the galaxies, there are beautiful.Why should creation be beautiful?. So that mind could have values like beauty and creation. It was responsible for the fine tuning because that way even beautiful things like life could be there although for the cosmic mind stars are probably just as important and beautiful and perhaps also sentient as Sheldrake believes. I think about a program on the computer where you want to build complex things via particles governed by very simple rules. The properties and rules are to me "mind".

[@Ringolero]

3:25 "we understand it" ?? No, I suspect that 'we' are only just possibly, approaching the beginnings of any kind of understanding.

[@patmoran5339]

We will always be at the very beginning of understanding.

[@patmoran5339]

@Ψ Simply that we will never have an ultimate understanding of the cosmos. Our understanding, thankfully, will always be at the beginning of discovery because all solutions to problems invariably lead to other problems. That is my theory and if you think it meaningless I find your thought meaningful in that it made me think.

[@patmoran5339]

@Ψ We will never have all the evidence that is available. I swim against the stream. I am arrogant in my anthropocentric stance. I claim that the human mind is the most important phenomenon in the cosmos.

[@patmoran5339]

@Ψ Disagreement and argument are necessary for progress in science and philosophy. Oh, and I don't have a channel and I will be glad to interact with you more should you change your mind.

[@patmoran5339]

@Stefano Portoghesi I said that I claim it is the most important phenomenon in the universe. So, I guess I should say that my theory is that the human mind is the most important phenomenon in the the cosmos. This theory could be refuted in the next 5 minutes if say a creative oracle is discovered. I also claim that the human mind is the only phenomenon that can create explanations. If true AI were to become a reality that theory would also be refutable. Admittedly, I have only parochial knowledge but explanations that end up being universal usually do start out as parochial. Parochialism can lead to egregious errors but only if they are not eliminated as tenable.

[@edgregory1]

And then there's the realm of the subatomic.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Expanding universe might be trying to tell us something. With galaxies moving away from each other at increasing speeds, maybe focus on Milky Way and local galactic cluster that includes Andromeda galaxy where we may find answers to critical questions going forward.

[@illogicmath]

The inflationary fairy tale

[@caricue]

It's fun listening to these sort of videos and thinking about these grand intellectual concepts, but a moment later when you find you can't breath, it all means nothing. Is that when you discover the real truth and horror of the universe?

[@sheenaalexis8710]

Yes. None of us will truly know what the hell is truly going on, until we die. The biggest and best evidence imo are the 100s of NDE's. But that's also because I believe in them.

[@caricue]

@@sheenaalexis8710 Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I was referring to the true horror of being alive and sentient that we ignore instinctually in order to avoid going mad. It's definitely true that no one knows what happens after death, but for me, I assume it will be very much like it was before I was born which wasn't unpleasant in the least. I hope it works out as well for you.

[@ConnoisseurOfExistence]

Here's my answer to that catholic: All kinds of possible structures exist. No specific fine tuning needs explanation, simply because all possibilities do exist simultaneously, somewhere, somehow.

[@runes6843]

This is a postulate on an almost unimaginable, dare one say biblical. scale, without any proof at all. How is that different from a religion? And if you are to have a religion, you might as well have a religion which does not try to pose as anything else but as a religion. That would be my answer.

[@goldentwilight1944]

But you can't prove that any more than you could prove God, so there both in the same boat.

[@mrmajix373]

It’s funny mainstream science gives credo to a multiverse that is dividing in many worlds daily every time a decision is made by 7 billion people but think consciousness is an illusion or paranormal phenomena does not exist.

[@charlesrothauser1328]

The Universe is a very violent place

[@Wardoon]

After humanity becomes liberated from work and toil and artificial intelligence and robots can perform far better everything that humans can do, cosmology and space exploration will be what will give humans occupation, purpose and meaning. Every human can enjoy learning about the infinite Cosmos and the never-ending secrets it holds.

[@kevinmo8811]

The question everyone is asking here is who or what; however, the most important question for me is WHY?

[@tedgrant2]

Who was closer to the truth, Galileo or the Pope ?

[@Mainestreamer]

5 commercials on such short film. Come on

[@sheenaalexis8710]

I counted 11 once! Yt needs a Slap.

[@nlolsen89]

Okay bit off topic but I have to ask... If you were able to duplicate yourself into, either a biomechanical life form or some type of clone, do this like 5 times. Each went off to get phds in different fields then had all of them remerge into a single consciousness, is it a singularity or something else entirely??

[@projectmalus]

It's no different than a single person getting 5 phd, unless the person achieves all 5 phd at once, because the person is not the same person at 5 different times.

[@nlolsen89]

@@projectmalus but the experiences that each one would go through would fundamentally be different and would change each one slightly as to when they'd meet back up they'd alI be slight variations of when they first started.

[@projectmalus]

@@nlolsen89 I guess the consciousness (whatever that is) would be the same but the identity would be different. Is the identity singular? It can be, but it could also be that of a captain, with other parts of the body like bacteria being the crew. Not really singular in reality but singular identity that enables a person to do things effectively. A construct.

[@Jesusismykin]

Light and darkness are very real.

[@hassanmirza2392]

There is God. Worship him and him alone. Read Quran and Bible, compare both with each other, and find the truth for yourself.

[@brandonhodnett5420]

If there is reason to the cosmos it is due to intelligent design, otherwise all of this is due to chance which is without reason. Those are the only two logical options. Things are rarely black and white but this is.

[@patmoran5339]

Maybe the cosmos has no purpose and maybe humans can give the cosmos a purpose.

[@thomasridley8675]

Unless the universe will vanish without us to see it. We are just an insignificant part of the story. Along for our part of the ride. As far as aliens. They would have the same limitations in going to the stars we have. Maybe more.

[@mitseraffej5812]

Thomas Ridley . Today I’m sure many people believe that they themselves will vanish if their image is not recorded and posted on social media. I agree that alien species are no more likely to leave their place of origin than humanity is.

[@thomasridley8675]

@@mitseraffej5812 Never have so many had the opportunity to have their world view judged by the world. Never in the history of man have the little people had the opportunity to express themselves to this level. We all want to leave a mark on the world, to be noticed, and this is the best shot most of us will get. As fleeting as it is.

[@sheenaalexis8710]

That would depend on how far advanced they are. Likely wayyyy further ahead then us. Some anyway, depending on how many planets have intelligent life out there far far away. But yea, they would of had to begin somewhere. As we did. I do believe there is other life out there. Wether or not they are comming from our universe just far out, or they are comming in from another universe bubble in the multiverse and found away to get in and out of universes and dimensions etc... Omg my head hurts. Lol Sorry if I'm not relaying my thoughts clearly :) I find all of this so intriguing.

[@thomasridley8675]

@@sheenaalexis8710 Well none of us will ever know if there is life beyond our bubble. It will matter to us about as much as space flight affected people living in the 16th century.

[@sheenaalexis8710]

@@thomasridley8675 unfortunately, this is true. But it sure is fun to think and talk about.

[@sedenshop]

The only reason that I see for the cosmos to exist is to expand consciousness.

[@Jonathan-rm6kt]

That sounds exactly like what a conscious being *would* say :)

[@tedgrant2]

I don't think Venus is finely tuned for life.

[@Jesusismykin]

Jesus my love 💓

[@beefheart1410]

Given the precepts of entropy, is it not possible that in an infinite Universe an Universal self consciousness could emerge. To follow this thought; from one perspective we could view Humanity - and those other species on the planet to which we generally attribute agency - as nothing other than instances of a Universal self consciousness made manifest. This would, of course, also apply to any other conscious life that may be out there in the Universe, but it strikes me that, as things currently stand, the only way the "stuff" of the Universe - everything existent in this Universe from the Qauntm fields to the largest Galaxys and all "in between" - is "aware" of itself is through the higher animals on this planet. We are (obviously) OF the "stuff" of the Universe but, as far as we know, we (and the other higher animals on Earth), are the only instances of this "stuff" that is aware of itself (I.e: instances of the Universe being aware of itself). Looked at in this way, as far as we currently know, WE are the manifestation - or expression there of - of Universal self awareness. Of course, if this is true, then it is thoroughly amazing that this Universal Consciousness, can, on occasion, direct itself to nothing other than the desire to eat a cheese toastie whilst watching soap operas on t.v! 😜

[@antonforsell1454]

Learning about the death and birth of the cosmos to figure out the meaning of our lives is interesting.

[@Jan96106]

No, we don't understand it. That's hubris. That is the exact opposite of what Guth initially said. He said if this theory is correct. Although everyone currently accepts inflation, many other assumptions in physics are problematic and questioned, at least by some physicists (which is the way science should work). At least initially Guth acknowledged the tentative nature of science, although he tended to negate this with additional comments. But then he corrects Kuhn about his hyperbolic certainty. and, no, we do not know that dark matter exists. I like interviews of various individuals in philosophy and science, but I'd like a more informed interviewer. However, he wrote and hosts this, so that won't happen. If he could listen to the people and interject fewer comments of his own beliefs, that might help.

[@e-t-y237]

They say when the question yields nothing, tweak the question. Instead of "Does the cosmos have a reason?" how about "Does the cosmos (and everything in it, including humans) have a guiding priniciple?" Yes: self-discovery and self-expression. The pat reason question comes from a religious framework. It has no scientific answer.

[@DLee1100s]

It seems to me you're still suffering from an anthropocentric problem by placing too much trust in the 'Laws of Physics'. Don't forget these 'Laws' are merely human constructs generated from our very tiny (in locality and in time) perspective and insist on universality. As we continue to observe, the laws continue to develop. Take a step back and question the laws themselves.

[@patmoran5339]

DLee1100s Who is the in the word your which probably should have been you’re?

[@DLee1100s]

@@patmoran5339 Robert Lawrence Kuhn

[@Jesusismykin]

John chapter one.

[@tombutler7296]

Michio Kako says Cosmology is off by an astronomical factor, Neil DeGrasse Tyson says we are 95% stupid about space and of course, my favorite expert on space William Shatner says there is no difference between science fiction and science fact, one just proceeds the other by a few years. A better title might be "What would the implications of cosmology be if cosmology was actually science?" To me, the answer would be that there is no need for a creator, a God, but that is the purpose every denomination of the religion called Scientism. Scientism seeks to replace the priests of other religions with a new priestly class that dresses up in white lab coats and brand anyone that they can not convince of their nonsense a heretic by calling them a science denier. To be clear not all science is Scientism, but Tesla talked of it when he said: "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." What Tesla failed to say is that when the masses believe the scientists he is talking about, taking on faith what they say without any proof, it is a form of religion. The scientific approach is to design experiments to prove a hypothesis, then have everyone else design experiments to disprove your hypothesis, and when anyone disproves your hypothesis you either abandon or modify the hypothesis. The Scientism approach is that given enough time anything is possible, but the odds that our world was created by chance have been likened to that of a tornado going thru an automobile junkyard and having a fully assembled 747 fully fueled and ready to fly after it passes. To me, it takes far more faith to believe in Scientism than to believe there is a creator, which is really all it means to believe in God. The problem with any real study of the cosmos is that we as individuals can not get far enough away from the earth to gain any kind of perspective to the distances involved, we are forced to rely on the priest in the white lab coats and sometimes they get trapped in their lies. Take that we went to the moon. Don Pettit will tell you "[He] would go back to the moon in a nanosecond, ah, but we lost that technology and it is a painful process to built it again." Or the head of the Orion Project telling us about how "Shielding will be put to the test" in order to protect both men and electronics as they pass through the Van Allen radiation belt. Have some fun and listen to the "​@UCnle0nUC3Fx0lkchpmZy0Lw" on youtube he will tell you all about it in a fun way. The proof for God is all around for anyone with eyes to see. It is there in the irreducible complexity of any form of life. For a long time, I had a gut feeling that evilution was a lie, but I had no proof. Only a lack of evidence. Then one day I was challenged to prove I lived on a ball and using all of the true science I could find all I could do was prove without a doubt that I lived on a flat plane, even though my religious leaders told me otherwise. The implications of the earth being flat and NASA's admissions that we never have been able to get passed what they call low earth orbit, in terms you and I can understand a few hundred miles, is that all we have been told about the cosmos, no matter how fun it is to believe, is a lie. Everything you have been told about the cosmos is based on the idea that you live on a spinning ball. I challenge you today, go out and find the curve of the earth for yourself. Stop taking on faith that you live on a ball! Find a calm, cool body of water more than five miles across, ten is better, and a cold day with low humidity so you do not "trick" yourself by observing the obscuring of the far shore by the density of the air at the water level. (Think fog only less dense to the point you can almost see it.) Get out your smartphone and measure the distance to the far shore. Again use your smartphone and find any earth curvature calculator and prove to yourself that there is a curve. Or better yet go to that same body of water at night and look at the reflection on the water of a beam of light from the far shore. If the water was curved as it would have to be if the earth was curved you would see a short line about halfway between you and the light. All the light hitting the water behind the "bulge" would be hidden and there would be no light from that source hitting in front of the bulge. Instead what you see is a long shimmer of light that comes almost from the source to almost the edge of the water. Call me a science denier if you want but I am the one with the repeatable experiment that anyone can perform! What is your experiment that I can do to prove to myself that I live on a ball? There is a great deal of evidence that something happened about 2000 years ago that can not be explained by science. Many people that formerly believed in many gods, and were willing to even bow down and worship the Roman emperor, the Ceasar as God, suddenly chose to go to their death rather than worship a man or a statue. A religion called Christianity, that does not follow the teachings of its master, was born of this phenomenon, but Jesus or Yeshua as he should probably be called was not a Christian! He was a Torah observant Jew that did not follow the traditions of the elders. He taught that God wants us to follow the Torah as validated by the prophets, not rabbis, and to forgive each other! If you call yourself a Christian I challenge you. If God came incarnate, or even just sent his only begotten son to die as a sacrifice for your sins, why did he have to send Paul a few years later to change what he said? One of the foundational truths Yeshua lived by is the idea that the truth can only be established by the corroborating testimony of two or more eyewitnesses. The only possible eyewitnesses to Yeshua's ministry in the bible are his brother James, the apostle Matthew the tax collector, the apostle Peter thru the hand of Mark, the apostle John and Yeshua's brother Jude. There is a problem with the testimony of John as it is no corroborated and in fact, contradicts the testimony of Matthew and Peter thru Mark.

[@RobinGlasco]

A nonsensical question. The universe has meaning to you in the same way that Schrodingers cat is in the box. If you are awake to observe it, certinaly. If you are asleep or unconcious, not so much.

[@aroemaliuged4776]

Reasons come from stories Stories are human mind constructs It makes no sense to ask does the universe have a reason

[@Jesusismykin]

Righteousness and wickedness are very real.

[@Jesusismykin]

137 one God,3 officers, 7 spirits of God.

[@ArtDocHound]

Intelligent design is not a scientific argument.

[@Jesusismykin]

Matthew chapter one.

[@adalbertofariadosreis9406]

I recommend to study the implications of Godel's Theorems to the need of a creator to the Universe. Then we could investgate the reasons for the existance of the Universe according to religions we know.

[@Jesusismykin]

Genesis chapter one.

[@eyebee-sea4444]

"At the big bang they [the constants] really could have had other values." This statement is false. Not because the opposite is true, but because we don't know yet if this constants are really independent of each other or not.

[@xspotbox4400]

Everybody have his own favorite picture of the universe, main is probably pale blue dot, taken from Voyager satellite by intervention from Carl Sagan. Earth is just another speck of light if observed from large distance- Imagine we could see all planets in the universe somehow, sky would be completely covered and lit by them, that's how many living worlds can exist out there.Than again those same Voyager probes has shown us pictures from other planets in our solar system and they couldn't detect any signs of life, so only some specks of light might be aware of own existence and ask about reason why universe and they exist. Therefore all this old, giant and magical structure exist just because there are bits of reason here and there inside. It makes sense once we see this situation in another way, it wouldn't make any sense if only sun, moon, Earth and us would existed, since there would be no way to explain how were they created and what could we do, where could we go with such a limited potential, like it's all just an endless void anyway. But it's not, that's the key point, we can see structures, laws, immense diversity, change and motion everywhere we dare to look, even morals exist in that endless cosmic clock. Why do we think universe is so old and same in any direction, all we can see is visible or translated into a small band of visible EM radiation we call light. There are many kinds of light and they all seems to share same property, information remain in space forever as far as we know it, this is why we can see distant stars and planets. That baby universe picture is fake, it doesn't show us image of the past, it's a computer generated graphics made from massive amount of signals sensors sensitive to invisible light has captured. Imagine we could zoom in with some super powerful telescope enough to see details from planet in remote solar system, photons of light contain volumetric property also, it means we can't enlarge picture simply in just two dimensions, perception of depth became blurry with distance. We would see a speck of dust covering most of planet's surface, since it would get magnified same as other captured photons that came from behind. Now imagine we could split entire electromagnetic spectrum into bands with consistent shapes and shadows, it's not just visible light, all kinds of radiation get smeared into microwave background. Entire reality is still coded in that noise, but it's nothing we can recognize from our experience because different wave lengths interfere because of distance between sources and intensity of radiation. We are a long way from real picture of baby universe and nobody knows how universe actually looks like, there must be a good reason why we can't see anything else than those bright lights on dark night sky with our own biological, naked eyes. There is a reason to all of it, but it's hidden, it's complicated.

[@projectmalus]

perhaps there's "something" besides the universe, call it potential, with the problem being that we can't describe it without bringing it into this universe; a simple definition of what we CAN talk about (our universe) is that it consists of movement and relations. Imagine these two giant entities as dark icebergs, movement and relations rubbing against each other and shedding this snowflake detritus with its fractal shapes. Creatures gather at the base of the icebergs in order to gather some of these sheddings, take them home and try to fit them back together. It would seem to be a good meeting ground for sentient species.

[@patmoran5339]

Can you elaborate on "even morals exist in that endless cosmic clock"?

[@xspotbox4400]

@@patmoran5339 Popular science always say stars will die or are born, people generally describe nature as benevolent or malevolent, we almost never address universe as merely just a thing.

[@xspotbox4400]

@@projectmalus I prefers idea there was something already in place where our universe was born, could be remains of old universe or something completely different.

[@projectmalus]

@@xspotbox4400 The potential is something completely different. It's just not there according to how we see things. To actually perceive it (I think) would take the relational part of our universe. Teamwork, in other words, with non-human entities.

[@kaileysweeney4240]

Our existence means that the substance of the universe contemplates itself and its own meaning. Is there is intelligence, or even mere intent in the collective structure of the universe and in the multiverse? If so, then a panentheistic model for something like god is possible. God is the universe but is not contained by the universe.

[@Jesusismykin]

Revelation chapter one.

[@TheBruces56]

"We understand it"? Most of the theories on the cosmos are untestable ergo they are just speculation. We understand very little and even that may be wrong. You don't know what you don't know. I believe that the cosmos has a purpose and that purpose is us.

[@Domispitaletti]

So scientist know very little but thebruce has the answer? I'm curious, who told you?

[@Jesusismykin]

Hebrews chapter one.

[@katalystklub]

Those are all cartoons. There are no real pics of planets or #fakespace

[@margrietoregan828]

Other universes with other laws ?? How about a plasmatic one ? That is to say one in which plasma exists as its ground state ? After all ‘plasma’ is the first state of matter - yes, plasma just happens to be matter in its first state. With plasma as a ground state it is eminently possible to flesh out a universe which turns out to be pretty much exactly like ours but having the very decided advantage that there is no requirement to postulate unseen entities such as dark matter & dark energy, as it is the ginormously powerful electromagnetic properties of plasma which can quite successfully & quite demonstrably & quite measurably do all the work dark energy is supposed to do, & plasma can completely fill up the position dark matter is supposed to occupy .... The folk at the ‘Thunderbolts Project’ have already fleshed out just such a Plasmatic Universe - although they call it ‘The Electric Universe’. See one of their many videos at : kzbin.info/www/bejne/h3-ynGyvlKpnZ6s Just saying .....

[@patmoran5339]

Sounds interesting Margriet.

[@margrietoregan828]

Pat Moran. Thank you, Pat. So much talk about other, or parallel, or newly replicated universes - or made out of ‘string’ - some of infinite number no less, & yet so few investigators examining known-to-be-possible/plausible universes ..... Nevertheless what a privilege to be listening to these top drawer chaps, eh ?!?

[@clorofilaazul]

Religious people have to ruin it allways. "Intelligent Design"... Come on...

[@brandonhodnett5420]

You confuse intelligent design with religion as most people do. This had nothing to do with worship of God. This has to do with the fact that if you think intelligently something had to create the laws that govern this and any any other cosmos. Logic is a dying art unfortunately.

[@jhonnyquaresma3052]

It's not about religion, it's about intelligence coming from intelligence, simple as that.

[@clorofilaazul]

@@jhonnyquaresma3052 "Intelligence coming from intelligence". I'm sorry to say but that is stupid. I will explain why, but I don't think you will understand. All around us we seem to have a progressive mechanism. Physics, Chemistry, Biology, all seem to be progressive. Even Cosmology. Intelligence also shows to be progressive, in the sense that we have a progression of increasing inteligence all around us. From bugs, to hamsters, dogs and cats, monkees, humans. Intelligence arrives at the cost of millions of years of a progressive system. It's totally counter evidence that we need a more complex intelligence to begind with, now that we have a lot of data. That being sad, intelligence is an emergent property. If you don't understand what i've just said, I'm sorry to say that you never will.

[@freethot333]

@@clorofilaazul That makes sense to me cloro. My cataracts are also "fined tuned", just not to my preferred specifications.

[@jhonnyquaresma3052]

clorofilazul Mindless processes can't create intelligence even with any amount of time, because these processes aren't aware of what they're doing, so it's not they who are guiding themselves but a conscious mind.

[@Jesusismykin]

God is very real.

[@philipclements3058]

hhhhh

[@JeffChen285]

Toward the ultimate universe, any speculative feelings such as the advantage of science, religious beliefs, or philosophical logic, all together, will be converted to zero. Because they are still too special and too self-central.

[@patmoran5339]

Bruce Lee what is the ultimate universe?

[@JeffChen285]

@@patmoran5339 ［what is the ultimate universe?］－－－Good question. Reducibility of the universe is the ultimate hope for human beings, especially for those the curiosity is still unsatisfied. "The ultimate universe" here means the reductive ultimate of the universe in both spatial and temporal domains.

[@patmoran5339]

@@JeffChen285 There is no ultimate anything.

[@JeffChen285]

@@patmoran5339 "There is no ultimate anything." ---- Is this an ultimate assertion?

[@patmoran5339]

@@JeffChen285 There is no perfection. Reduction to a lower level of explanation results in no progress. People who are curious are creative. Ending curiosity is not possible. There will always be things to be curious about. There is no ultimate explanation. There is only seeking better explanations. Reducing things to the lowest level of explanation ignores the important explanations of emergent phenomenon. Like life, mind, knowledge, and morality.

[@Jesusismykin]

The Bible is very real.

[@Di66en6ion]

Ah, the religious whom cling to special pleading around creation; only MY god cannot be created ex-nihilo.

[@ThePasserines]

Chapter Al-Anbiya, Verse 30: أَوَلَمْ يَرَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَنَّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ كَانَتَا رَتْقًا فَفَتَقْنَاهُمَا وَجَعَلْنَا مِنَ الْمَاءِ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ حَيٍّ أَفَلَا يُؤْمِنُونَ Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (English - Mohsin Khan) via iQuran Chapter Adh-Dhariyat, Verse 47: وَالسَّمَاءَ بَنَيْنَاهَا بِأَيْدٍ وَإِنَّا لَمُوسِعُونَ "And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander". Chapter Al-Araf, Verse 185: أَوَلَمْ يَنظُرُوا فِي مَلَكُوتِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَمَا خَلَقَ اللَّهُ مِن شَيْءٍ وَأَنْ عَسَىٰ أَن يَكُونَ قَدِ اقْتَرَبَ أَجَلُهُمْ فَبِأَيِّ حَدِيثٍ بَعْدَهُ يُؤْمِنُونَ Do they not look in the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all things that Allah has created, and that it may be that the end of their lives is near. In what message after this will they then believe? (English - Mohsin Khan) via iQuran

[@TheBenevolentDictatorship]

I was raised by atheist parents, and remained an atheist for much of my life. More than this, I was a vitriolic anti-Theist and hateful opponent of the faith. It is in His infinite wisdom that He has used such a sinner as myself to proclaim the Gospel to unbelievers who, in their spiritual wickedness, suppress the Truth within themselves, for they are lovers of self and insolent towards God. I hated the very idea of God and of the Lord, Jesus Christ. It is for His glory in opening my eyes and giving me a heart of flesh that I share these words of mine, which I wrote formerly in ignorance: "To believe in a personal God who intervenes in human affairs, and all the while having a divine plan in order--of which war, disease, famine, poverty and general suffering throughout all of human history--seemingly to incur the wrath, and with so much treachery having a role in divinity--to see incessant human tragedy, and still thank God for His blessings--this is the nature of faith; this is the nature of insanity. When one abandons logic and reason in the name of faith, there is no evil that cannot be justified in having God on one's side. Religion is the greatest scourge upon civilization, and humanity would be far better off with its absolute non-existence." -Me June 2013 “I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life. To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.“ (1 Timothy 1:12-17) I am here to testify that Jesus is the Truth, the Way, and the Life, and that while I once proceeded in darkness and all manners of wickedness, God, by His Grace, saved me, and brought light into my life, that I may be a light unto others. Do not be deceived by the ways of this world, and the lies of natural men, for "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.’For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.’" (1Corinthians 2:14-16) There’s is nothing I or anyone can say or show you, unbeliever, which will bring you into the peace and joy of our Lord through repentance, for as Jesus teaches, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” (John 6:44) It is for this reason that we understand the saying to be true: “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:18). God has made Himself known to men, but men suppress the truth about God due in no small part to spiritual wickedness, both within themselves, and from forces residing in the realms unseen. Turn. Seek the Lord in all sincerity; yearn for truth, which the Holy Spirit of God gives freely to those who love and seek Him with all of their heart. We are all held accountable, without excuse. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” (Romans 1:18-21) I pray that God may use this to bring those He foreknew into repentance, so that they may have abundant life through Jesus Christ; indeed, a relationship with the living God. The power and glory are His forever. Amen.

[@timkbirchico8542]

To resort to god as the solution to these question is moral and intellectual cowardice. Deus Ex Machina.