Does Life Need a Multiverse to Exist?

[@user-g3r2d]

can we all just give a shoutout to the Graphics team as the level of detail and quality of the animations and graphics adds so much to the episodes and greatly enhances Matt's fantastic presentations. god, I love this channel so much

[@dirrdevil]

Good point. I have been taking them for granted. They help so much.

[@BenAtHome323]

Totally agree! For those of us who are "visual" learners, it's the difference between "huh?" and "aha!".

[@CosmicNewbie]

All the values of this universe were precisely set so that my beautiful coffee table can exist. My coffee table was the end-game of this universe and humans were merely an instrument in that process (I call it the "coffee table principle")

[@RanEncounter]

But how did you assume the values were finely set?

[@piyh3962]

There's actually a restaurant at the end of the universe, must not have gone far enough

[@CosmicNewbie]

@@RanEncounter Because no other values would have produced the conditions for my coffee table, then the ones present are the precise ones needed. Hence, it's now the "strong coffee table principle".

[@trevorhunting1211]

Coffee table pft! The universe actually exist so that my desk can exist. Don't come hear with your coffee table nonsense.

[@RanEncounter]

@@CosmicNewbie But that is circular reasoning. I say the coffee table threw a dice for so long as it was satisfied with the result. Humans were just a by product.

[@PaulSmooth]

Last week: "We may be alone in the universe." This week: "We may be alone in the multiverse."

[@recklessroges]

Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?

[@broomemike1]

Yeah, it's a continuation of the same story.

[@mvinod57]

So multiverse is confirmed 👍

[@erik-ic3tp]

Next week: We may be alone in the omniverse.

[@CCPJAYLPHAN1994]

The sheer number of narcissism to think that we are alone

[@Elec-DIY]

"The chances of you existing are mind-boggingly low, we are extremely lucky" Me: *Opens up second can of pringles*

[@TheGAMER7293]

I'm not Christian but it sounds like God is the most likely reason for this

[@dmdjt]

@@TheGAMER7293 So there is some kind of reality finetuned so perfectly, that a god exists in it, that wanted to create an universe, that produces you? I think adding a god into this equation, just adds another layer of complexity, another layer of necessity for fine tuning.

[@C--A]

@@dmdjt you do know humans made up god, bibles, Adam & Eve just like we made up Santa Claus 🎅🏼 🤣

[@C--A]

@@TheGAMER7293 There is no god 👍🏾 closest we have to a god creator is the big bang! And I'm pretty sure it doesn't have a brain consciousness 👌🏾

[@dmdjt]

@@C--A I would suggest reading my posting again - until you think your response might be unnecessary :)

[@pneumonoultramicroscopicsi4065]

The fact that existence exists fascinates me, and understanding everything about it is very likely to be impossible, which makes me sad because I know that one day I'll die without wrapping my head around the full story of how did I come to live in the first place.

[@wallabror]

You'll understand after you're done here.

[@SapioiT]

Simple: There are two options: You either exist, or you don't. And because you literally cannot exist if you cannot exist, then you do exist. In other words, the cases in which you don't exist do not matter.

[@allan710]

Actually even if you transcend, there are things you will never know. Suppose there are different creatures that know everything. There is nothing that one of them knows that the other doesn't, including thoughts, personality, reasoning and every derived information, including their own thoughts in every possible future. Therefore, they have the same memories, personalities and thoughts, they must be the same creature or a persistent bond (they are in sync, i.e., they are different views of the same thing) If you get to understand everything, you must be the only one entity that can do that, if there are two, they may be in different places, but they are the same regarding information (that's what matter).

[@MathiasMNielsen]

Life really is a miracle. The fact that a universe exists is a miracle. I mean, nothing is self-evident, yet here we are. Einstein is quite fascinating, how he imagined the universe was working before it could be proven with the scientific method. Why is this important? Intuitively we as human beings with all our powers of intelligence are able to imagine reality as it really is. Testing the possibilities in our minds, being struck by wonder, emotions streaming through our veins as we gaze into the depths of a sunset. Awe-inspiring. Truly amazing, how we as living beings are able to perceive and reflect on all the things around us. Questioning things. Yet, people are not allowing themselves to think. We are making restrictions to our beliefs, to our imagination, towards truth itself. Truth seem so very close, yet we deny it before it gets too close. We don't like the idea, we would rather live without truth itself. If anybody took their time to read this, and you are like me in the sense that life itself makes you deeply wonder - know this; God so loved the world, that whoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. Life is precious and so are you, created in the image of God. He loves his creation. He loves You. You might be rebelling against Him, but know that he is patient, he is forgiving, everything is by the grace of God. Existence is a mystery, it's a miracle, it is truly remarkable. Despite pain and suffering there is still Hope. We have faith in the unseen truths and realities so revealed by God through His creations, by his revelation, his presence and everlasting love. In Jesus name, Amen.

[@johnbrown6347]

@@MathiasMNielsen and the truth shall set you free, that is why I have no need to deceive myself with a god. When you grow up and learn to understand things on your own you will put away the toys of children. Only then can you honestly say you care about the truth. Till the tell yourself what you need to get by.

[@beretperson]

"don't be depressed!" He said, seconds before ending the episode with "we're totally screwing it all up."

[@jovetj]

We're not.

[@jovetj]

*@x41ih10a* Only someone with a grey beard would say that...

[@jovetj]

*@x41ih10a* No, you're not thinking. You stated grey beards don't lie, but beards cannot talk. So, instead, I took your statement to mean that people with grey beards do not lie. Which is preposterous... anyone can lie. Older people do tend to have more wisdom, but older people make mistakes just as younger people do. Lies are an intentional act, but they are still a mistake. The color of one's facial hair does not make anyone more or less trustworthy or accurate. My retort is that someone who displays a grey or greying beard might try to convince others that he is wiser or infallible, despite my previous paragraph. Thus, only someone with a grey beard (who also intends to deceive others regarding its worth and trustworthiness) would state that "grey beards (or those with them) do not lie."

[@jovetj]

You're confusing the color of your beard changes you, and not the two people you're referring to.

[@caspa7]

Moving from FullHD to 4K can be somewhat depressing if you don’t adjust the hardware dials of your video machine universe

[@ExistenceUniversity]

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!” This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this World was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for." -Douglas Adams

[@peikkojumala]

"We have a fine tuned universe." Said while standing in the middle of billions of cubic lightyears of death.

[@xplosionslite6439]

@@peikkojumala It's not really death if there was never life to begin with..

[@0ooTheMAXXoo0]

@@peikkojumala As far as we know it takes about a galaxy worth of stars and planets to get one planet with life. This still leaves an infinite amount of planets with life on them. If all of existence is like a thought about living things, that would still match everything we see in nature. So even if we are part of a mind and everything is actually alive, we would still see what we see in nature. The only difference is a shift in how we think about scales and time.

[@6Twisted]

That puddle analogy supports the multiverse theory. When it rains not every location is suitable to form a puddle.

[@kjustkses]

Oh boy. The crappy puddle analogy...

[@domokato]

There's also the possibility that different universes have different numbers of constants altogether, different types of fundamental particles, or perhaps not even having particle physics.

[@francescoghizzo]

Our universe seems to be fine tuned for life AS WE KNOW IT. Different values for the fundamental constants of nature could indeed prevent the formation of stars and planets, but they could also be at the foundation of different types of physics (and therefore, chemistry) we couldn't even dream of and lead nonetheless to the emergence of complexity and self replication, i.e., what we call "life", even if in forms totally different from our own

[@erik-ic3tp]

Yeah, I think most people forget that. Maybe life is much more versatile than we think. :) Check out this Wiki for cool fantasy. :) Link: verse-and-dimensions.fandom.com/wiki/Verse_and_Dimensions_Wiki

[@jkm7983]

Imagine if life in other universes are energy beings

[@erik-ic3tp]

@@jkm7983, Somewhere in the Multiverse/Omniverse it is true. :)

[@Mernom]

There are far more configurations that don't allow ANY complex structures to exist, than potentially alternative life baring combinations.

[@connoisseurofsorts2479]

Alphabet

[@KLiNoTweet]

Physics is like reverse engineering the universe.

[@karellen00]

Maybe in the long run we could be able to finely tune the variables to create our own universe, and physics will be the recipe book to design universes for certain tasks!

[@SimpleJack71]

Perhaps its reverse math. We start at the conclusions and consequences and we want to derive the set of premises or axioms that would imply them.

[@Mystixor]

I like that thought, explains why I enjoy both :)

[@alanlee1355]

@@karellen00 one step at a time.

[@PopeGoliath]

@@SimpleJack71 I like this idea very very much.

[@nomas9893]

I would like to thank pbs and their supporters. Thank you guys.

[@Clenched.Cheeks]

I love the little introduction jingle. I've been binging your episodes and now it's stuck in my head.

[@huntersorce20]

2:05 Another option is that while our universe seems to be very fine tuned to support life, it could be that this is simply the most stable state of settings for a universe, similar to how while there are multiple types of quarks, they all quickly decay into their most stable states of up or down quark. That life developed from those stable states isn't luck, as stated in the anthropic principle, some form of life (an observer), would eventually develop. Whether or not there are multiple universes can't be known from this.

[@the-mush]

Yeah, it feels the same way for me, like the name *_force_* seems kind of biased. Maybe they are side effects, integrations, missinterpretations or whatever of other fundamental properties, similar to the so called "centrifugal force". It's quite appealing for creating narratives and sparking the imagination, I'll give it that (as you can see on the wild tangents in the comments).

[@zpe1200]

Given enough time a universe that is stable will form.

[@huntersorce20]

@@zpe1200 True, but my point is that as matter and energy default to their most stable states over time, the settings of the fundamental constants would also default to the settings that are most stable. The inflaton field is a good example. It postulates that what drove expansion in the early universe is a false vacuum state with a non-zero vacuum energy. This decayed into true vacuum via quantum tunneling, which is its stable state and vastly slowed inflation. Similarly, other constants may or may not have been different in the very early universe, but then decayed into the stable states we observe today.

[@JM-us3fr]

Yeah I think that is the most likely scenario. If nothing else, it's at least a reason to feel like these laws of physics are special. But I'm still open to them not being special.

[@hisajabnes11]

@@beegum1 Yet all the is came from Hydrogen, heat and pressure. That alone makes me a believer in GOD

[@ioresult]

We actually get a cliffhanger! Paraphrasing, "We'll test the multiverse prediction of the strong anthropic principle in an upcoming episode". I can't wait!

[@Richardincancale]

2:34 You forgot case 0: These dial settings are interlinked in such a way that these are the only possible settings. I.e. a Uni-verse and not a Multi-verse.

[@dahbrezel]

I had the same thought :)

[@Aquillyne]

Well said

[@johnbrown6347]

Thank you, the constants do not exist independently they interact with each other and that is the fine tuning of the one verse.

[@hxhdfjifzirstc894]

Richard Deasington They flail to deny the obvious

[@caineblackknife2443]

Actually no, they didn't forget. That is effectively the same thing as case 1.

[@MrOvergryph]

Should be #1 on trending. Thanks for the great content, PBS Space Time! :)

[@RealHypeFox]

Anyone else want Matt to flex his Aussie accent? I’ve been watching for years and have been waiting for him to go full Rippa and get so passionate that he forgets “proper-ness” and goes off in deep Aussie slang.

[@Handles_Are_Bad.Phuk-them-off]

would be good times

[@eduardanielgaitan3898]

Is he Australian? :0

[@ZennExile]

I can't get far enough past how punchable his big ozzy face is to care about how he changes his accent so people don't think he 'sounds' dumb.

[@Handles_Are_Bad.Phuk-them-off]

@@ZennExile sounds like you need an IV drip of chill. the guy has been overseas long enough to have a hybrid accent, it's pretty normal you will find.

[@Handles_Are_Bad.Phuk-them-off]

@@ZennExile I would take it from your demeanour that people report your comments for bullying or harassment and that's why they disappear. Seems that big brain of yours can't connect two dots together at the best of times.

[@hoodglasses8237]

This seems like a good time to take my lunch break.

[@Jakthemoron]

Early lunch for Konzu

[@nlhernandez39]

Lol

[@elman2012]

"Spider Juice points out..." with a totally straight face. Hah!

[@AlphaFoxDelta]

That got me hahah

[@elman2012]

This show brings everyone together, it's so great.

[@SuperOnionBread]

The study 'Experimental test of local observer independence" was recently published that suggests reality may be subjective. To my knowledge, this is the first time Wigner’s Thought Experiment has been tested in a laboratory setting. Space Time should do a video breaking this down. This is mind bending stuff.

[@kasperbuskpedersen]

You seriously upped your graphics for this episode, super awesome! Keep it coming

[@Miss-Hellcat666]

I'm gonna watch this later tonight when I go to bed. I just love drifting off to sleep, dreaming about space and physics and stuff.

[@talltroll7092]

Can't you just count PzIVs?

[@GH-bz2vl]

Same 🙏

[@InvntdXNEWROMAN]

Here I am, 11:12 pm. Watching this video while I drift off to sleep and reading other people's comments, haha. We probably don't have much in common, but this is one.

[@_swordfern]

Every. Night.

[@notquiteordinary]

I love going to sleep listening to fairy tales, that's why I listen to this channel.

[@bophadesnutz3313]

The anthropic principle, or in laymans terms, "we live in a universe"

[@Doattt]

The memetic principle: "we live in a society capable of producing memes", or in memer's terms: "we live in a society"

[@lock_ray]

Bottom Quark

[@Handles_Are_Bad.Phuk-them-off]

@@Doattt when you are that new you don't think memes exist in nature.

[@maxkho00]

More like "our universe is special because we live in it".

[@Merennulli]

@@maxkho00 No, it's a tautology. "We live in it, so therefore it must be a universe in which we can live."

[@amira7310]

Meanwhile marvel scrolling through youtube: Yes this one, use this idea

[@dr-jalalalhrahsheh1315]

DC already did that

[@commandercaptain4664]

But make sure not to permanently kill anyone. And throw in some Bachman Turner Overdrive, because science.

[@ThanosDestroyeryearsago]

Mira they have a multiverse In the comics.

[@انسانيحر]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/iniQkImgpJtjfbs

[@amira7310]

@@ThanosDestroyeryearsago It was a joke

[@exoplanets]

Ingredients for life to _survive:_ air, water and *PBS Space Time* videos

[@leninthebeaniesouhacker.2459]

Also underrail.

[@eifelitorn]

or more precisely, life as we know it.

[@ttopperr]

Don’t forget copulation.

[@zerid0]

How likely is it for a universe to be able to produce a PBS youtube channel ?

[@ttopperr]

Columini 100% with the exception not all individuals are able to access the internet.

[@Gerd_Hellriegel]

The universe was fine-tuned to produce the moon. Life is just fallout.

[@thetruedarksoul168]

Gerhard Hellriegel “I don’t want to set the world on fire”

[@karlbjorn1831]

dammit lunarians

[@hxhdfjifzirstc894]

Incorrect

[@thespider-man2596]

Actually the universe isint even fine tuned! We are fine tuned to exist in this tiny solar system

[@bobs182]

The universe was created by the water god. The water god made humans for the purpose of transporting water. We drink water and pee it elsewhere.

[@kobil316SH]

Im sad that this channel won’t always be a thing, it’s incredible

[@Bennyboy-dog]

sadder still is that you won't always be a thing either.

[@nUrnxvmhTEuU]

@@Bennyboy-dog Bah, I don't really care. But PBS Spacetime, that's what defines humanity!

[@Bennyboy-dog]

@@nUrnxvmhTEuU fair point Michal

[@Spykersan]

Hoo boy... this is one of those subjects that gets everyone in a tizzy! I've seen many arguments for and against the whole fine tuning argument, especially when dealing with those with various theistic beliefs. Though it does seem like an incredibly unlikely set of circumstances, it's possible that universes can't form any other way than ours did also (the multiverse hypothesis also being among that same kind of potential). As we can't observe and test other potential universes, it's difficult to say how likely one thing is to another. We do find that due to the universe's properties being what they are, it makes it possible to form life (at least the type of carbon based life that we're aware of), but since life isn't exactly abundant from what we've witnessed so far, I wouldn't really say that it was fine tuned for life itself and that life is just a byproduct of other things that the universe is more apt at, like black holes, stars, and many other various planetary bodies out there. Life to some extent or another would seem to me to be an inevitable byproduct of the properties of the universe and not that it was 'designed' to have life in mind.

[@MrNatosMusic]

Isn't it possible that even with different universal constants, life would have found a way to appear? It wouldn't have to look like 'our' life but I don't think that we need endless universes. Even 1 universe (which is so big that creates endless possibilities) would be enough for life to appear somewhere from some coincidence of conditions and elements brought together.

[@timo4258]

Life uh... finds a way.

[@audience7264]

Life seems to exist in a very narrow range of value & carbon seems to be the central element. Can life exist based on silicon? Nothing found so far. Can life exist as energy? Would we even recognize it as life?

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

Unless you're a solipsist, we have this one example of life existing on Earth so we know that life is possible. However, we don't (yet) know if life can exist under different conditions. Just because a thing happens doesn't mean it will or can happen again. You are only born and die once and the event(s) that caused a memory of a memory is forever lost.

[@volkhen0]

There must be some complex reactions in such universe. If it’s only a soup of simple things that cannot interact with each other and build more complicated stuff then there is no chance of something more complicated to emerge.

[@erik-ic3tp]

@@volkhen0, So do you think that a Universe with 2 times as many fundamental forces and fundamental particles is more hospitable for life? I don't know, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. :)

[@Baggydawg1]

Literally love this channel so much. So much time, effort and referenced, coherent information, presented brilliantly by the charismatic Matt. Thank you!

[@srofv7805]

Or, Option 4: Life, uh, finds a way...

[@dirrdevil]

I love that you included the 'uh'. 😂

[@Max__apex]

Life finds a away 😂😂😂. How comes death finds a away then ??? Life ain’t that great buddy boy

[@Soundwave1900]

@@Max__apex In other words, physics constans just balanced each other before all stars could take shape. Why not?

[@injunsun]

@@Max__apex Death is necessary for Evolution to work. If no organism died, then when the e environment changed beyond their abilities, they'd all die. Evolution allows changes to occur that allow adaptation over time, by changing gene frequencies within populations. If a population retained its progenitors, that would always skew the gene genepool towards older, less functional genotypes, and hence phenotypes. That isn't to say that we humans shouldn't reach beyond life, to upload into computers, or into clones; we can now tweak our genomes to suit new conditions. However, before self-aware technical culture, Death was necessary. If we become immortal, 1) we'll have to reduce birthrates, perhaps by sterilisation after four children over however long; and 2) we'll need to figure out how to not allow cultures to stagnate. Some of the issues immortality brings could be obviated via interstellar colonisation.

[@Max__apex]

Herne Webber No death don’t occur so evolution can happened. There not related by a force

[@Nathouuuutheone]

Or, option 4: "Fine-tuning" might be biased phrasing. Maybe those numbers are the result of something constant about the Universe and hypothetical Multiverse, something that doesn't seem nearly as arbitrary as our current formulas and constants.

[@MetaphorUB]

Or maybe one or more (or all) of them aren’t actually free to vary. It isn’t clear that the speed of light could have been some other value. So when creationists and others talk about fine-tuning and how unlikely it is that they happened to rest on these constant values, in addition to the objection you raised (which I agree with), it’s possible that these constants couldn’t have been any other values at all.

[@Nathouuuutheone]

@@MetaphorUB exactly. We only know how this Universe works. There's no basis to claim that any of it could have been different. Until we can make observations about other universes, we cannot know what decides all those properties and we cannot know what can vary and in what ways.

[@MetaphorUB]

@@Nathouuuutheone I haven’t had a conversation on YT this polite in ages. Hello, fellow nice person.

[@iwatchwithnoads7480]

@@MetaphorUB starting with the assumption that it can't be anything else seems counter productive. I think the current scientific approach is that there is no reason that we know that it can't be anything else. If you can disprove that you may win a nobel prize or two

[@kevind814]

"The universe is a pretty big place. If it's just us, seems like an awful waste of space." - Carl Sagan

[@jimmurphy6095]

He also said, "In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you first have to create the universe."

[@RsZ789]

You're so vain, you probably think this universe is about you.

[@AmbrosiaDreamWeaver]

@@RsZ789 The best comment... "You're so VAAAAIIIINN!!!!"

[@brianhirt5027]

He lacked perspective on that call. Step back and take a longer view. we're JUST 13.7 billion years in. All the galaxies are still just barely getting all the lights on and hung up. Star formation looks to be vigorous for another hundred billion years. The party itself has anywhere from ten trillion to a hundred trillion years bump and thump across a expanding space/time dance floor hundreds of billions light years wide. Humans are just such overly enthusiastic, socially awkward goofballs that we gate crashed the party early. Like, stupid early. Like, showing up a few days early to your BFF's birthday party stupid early. Chill homie. We ain't alone. We're just the setup crew who gotta get the decorations up, get those flyers posted up everywhere, laser light show going, get the band schedule worked out, the bar stocked & ready, and that snack table loaded for bear. It's just on us to make this party dope AF as the other players start makin the scene

[@deusexaethera]

Carl Sagan had a very small ego. Most people's egos need much more space to be comfortable.

[@benlaffin6466]

Thank you for bringing up the emotional stakes of being alone in the universe! I was particularly inspired by the idea of our responsibility to take advantage of our rare position. It actually helped rebound me through a rough day.

[@nate7790]

I think I understand and agree with you. I rather think of it as a responsibility we have with respect to the universe and life in general than of a hopeless quest for others out there. In some way, we are in the dark and are left to choose whether we want to let the darkness be our only universe of if we want to be a light. While writing this I just had a crazy idea: should we start sending some simpler, more resistant, life forms towards other star systems in hopes that they may find a place to settle and carry on the history of life if we (our species, or even our entire planet's life) disappear of simply never leave our own star system? Then again we'd face the question: what if our attempt to spread life encounters already existing life elsewhere and kills it off?

[@allan710]

@vince furchill Of course not. There are infinity others simulations with weird creatures besides this one. The kind developers sometimes even put some additional creatures here and there on earth too! They even have spaceships (although they are deleted once they leave the sphere of simulation, like all good NPCs). Glitches happen too, but not too frequently. source: I'm a player, and I'm free to write here because nobody will ever consider this being serious, what a convenience! This is actually the best game I ever played. Next month (it may be longer since the time here is accelerated) the patch with dinosaurs will return! Note: this is not a serious answer, it is just a point to show that if someone says something plausible and possibly true but not widely accepted on the internet, they have no point. Living in a simulation is a fairly good point, if we examine how the constants work. In this scenario, aliens are nothing! I want to talk to a "developer". And the argument of an evil or elusive government is overshadowed by the argument of editing the simulation. Even a contact may be false and just an edition in the simulation. Even the aliens can't prove the universe being a simulation being false. Unproved things (at least widely not accepted) are the way they are for a reason. It's impossible for me here to disprove anything you say or confirm. Note: this is a double not serious answer. Disregard anything I said before, because I don't believe in nothing of what I said. Note: this is a triple not serious answer. I am just procrastinating writing random stuff to random guys on random channels because I'm not feeling like doing my chores. This is actually a big bad joke. I'm just blabbering. This escalated very quickly, the best "not-at-all-useful" comment of the century. I should add a citation to an impactful end: "[...] the squirrel, so do Mayonnaise. " Unknown (This text was auto-generated by talktotransformer.com... right?)

[@Civilixation]

Nate are you suggesting we get a massive moon-sized cannon and fire sextillions of water bears into the sea of black that surrounds us

[@nate7790]

@@Civilixation I wasn't thinking this precisely but yes, sort of. I was suggesting selecting life forms that could withstand the trip, placing them in containers that would allow them to survive the voyage and sending them towards selected solar systems where we think they may be able to live and thrive if conditions happen to be as we hope.

[@samanthaqiu3416]

We have all these galaxies to make more engineered solar systems that will breed more people that will know that Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself

[@01plindsay]

I feel there is a fourth option. This would be that these "constants" aren't constant, but in fact variables. We are currently living in a time in which these variables have aligned to facilitate the existence of stars, planets, our Earth, and life. I do understand that a cosmic being could then be the one controlling the variables, which is basically what Matt said in option two, but forget the cosmic being, and leave it to chance...

[@bizo237]

A timeless thermalization of time, still has operation meaning. There is a monism of phase in which these variables may change. Your hypothesis is not determinable. Design as a constraint or a sweeping of potential substrates. I think the video could have done a better job defining a system, and integrating a dialect on configuration spaces, as a means relating to dynamism. Metastability, is also a very interesting criteria, however these topics very quickly go down the rabbit hole. Does life reduce the amount of entropy, by channeling least action via some sort of anticipatory partition? The SYZ conjecture can allow for the a mappable account of forces equilibrium. Yet is seems the journey of life surfs on a boundary of forces non-equilibrium.

[@daviddelaney2407]

The problem with that is that we can +see+ back nearly to the beginning of the universe, as far as we can tell. We can't see past the microwave background ... but that means that the varied conditions would be restricted to the period before that. And we do know that the plasma before then did make certain proportions of hydrogen & helium, matching theory... and that nothing left unexpected obvious patterns on the background or did anything that shone THROUGH it. So having the variables NOT vary during the entire time we can see, plus at least a few indications they didn't beforehand, makes the most reasonable proposition that they didn't vary at any time after the Bang. Dave, granted, they're not MATHEMATICAL constants, which are a whole different order of 'can't vary'

[@gnarlydewd]

Closer you are to the gate the more it changes...

[@p39483]

@@bizo237 ESL or IQ160?

[@Al-ji4gd]

Anything to avoid God for you folks, even if it's preposterous.

[@konberner170]

"We will test this." Looking forward to your extra-dimensional data!

[@konberner170]

@Jason Meyer Exactly.

[@konberner170]

@Jason Meyer I think worse than dark matter. Dark matter is not said to exist in another dimension... they are looking for something here.

[@joshuakahky6891]

*PLEASE cover the weak force soon! I don't know anything about how it works!*

[@WodkaEclair]

2:27 Option 4, these values, for some reason, are the only valid values

[@altrag]

That's kind of string theory's hypothesis in a way. ST essentially only has one free parameter -- the choice of Calabi-Yau manifold that produces the underlying physics of the strings. That's a significant improvement from 20+ free parameters. Of course there's still two pretty massive problems with ST: First, that single free parameter has something like 10^500 possible values, and many of those would even lead to a universe "like" ours (maybe not identical but close enough that we don't have an obvious way to distinguish them.) So that still means our universe has a very, very, very small chance of being the right one -- ie: we're still finely tuned in some (currently) inexplicable way. Second, we have no way to prove ST with our currently technology, nor any foreseeable technology. Probing things at the ST level will require accelerators dozens of orders of magnitude more powerful than the LHC and while they might not be _completely_ impossible for humanity to build one day, that day is very unlikely to happen in the next few spans of a human lifetime given that each new generation of accelerator is pushing the order of 40-50 years from conception to first light. And even with that much time, we'll still probably need to figure out brand new accelerator designs as it would take an accelerator on the scale of the orbit of Earth around the Sun in order to hit those energies if we just try to directly scale up our current designs. But new designs _are_ theoretically possible. For example if we can find a way to produce and harness muons in sufficient quantity, a muon-based collider could produce _significantly_ more energy than its electron-based equivalent. Harnessing muons is a big ask to be sure, but probably more plausible than us ever having the engineering capabilities to construct a Dyson collider.

[@derAtze]

@@altrag what is a muon?

[@altrag]

@@derAtze Heavier cousin of the electron. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon#:~:targetText=The%20muon%20(%2F%CB%88mju%CB%90,is%20classified%20as%20a%20lepton. Heavier implies more energy (E=mc^2) so if you can replace an electron beam with a muon beam in a collider, you will get a more energetic collision (~207x more energetic.) Trouble is, muons aren't easy to produce (basically only being produced in other high-energy collisions) and they have very short half-lives (on the scale of microseconds,) so you'd have a very, very short window to produce them, separate them from the other junk and focus them into a beam for the collision. Almost all of those steps are difficult (but not impossible) to do individually with current technology, but trying to make them all happen in order and with enough muons to give the beam any useful strength.. that's a long way off.

[@cripplingautism5785]

that doesn't do anything to resolve the fine tuning issue though. what are the chances that the only possible values of the constants are exactly the ones capable of producing life? i'd be much more surprised if this were the case, as you wouldn't even be able to appeal to a multiverse to explain it away.

[@WodkaEclair]

@@cripplingautism5785 it doesn't 'resolve' it, but it is a possibility, and should have been mentioned if only to say 'but that's not interesting and irrelevant to today's topic'.

[@mayhemdiscordchaosohmy573]

I don't remember who first stated it and I love its Simplicity and its Elegance. My favorite quote: "You're the product of four and a half billion years of evolutionary success, f****** act like it!"

[@0ooTheMAXXoo0]

That is evolution of life on the planet earth. The observable universe is much older and all that exists has to have existed for an infinite amount of time. If there was a start, what precipitated the start and so on until you get to some kind of energy that has always existed.

[@ColtonSpace]

I was expelled out of high school half way through my sophomore year, and these videos from the bottom to the top explain in enough detail and have been articulated well enough that if you stay interested you can sort of keep up. Thanks to our awesome host!

[@enotdetcelfer]

Physics simulation - Hard mode: iterate through the settings and figure out the bifurcation map of possible setting that support self-propagating pattern entities.

[@almachizit3207]

I really like this idea. Trying to find which combinations of the fundimental constants lead to complex structures capable of self replication in order to map out the probability of a given universe containing life.

[@111455]

i'l stick to talking to women, that's hard enough!

[@critlangford7410]

This is a great idea. Also perhaps the best argument for us being the ones in a simulation. Our creators just wanted to know which parameters succeed. For their own PBS Spacetime vids.

[@broomemike1]

-Conclusion Life is due to rounding errors in the simulationa.

[@tentative_flora2690]

I can tell you we have on a small scale and ours is definately not the only universe that supports life. Though if you paint the target arround the arrow and constrain your definition of life to things this universe can do thats not entirely accurate.

[@Modzybear]

Can “life” be more generalized? Such as a system that works to decrease entropy locally in order to spawn additional systems. Would these generalized systems exist in other universes?

[@Reddles37]

Sure, but the argument is that in the majority of possible universes there wouldn't be any complex systems at all. In particular if there are other universes with bigger cosmological constants, most of them would expand so fast that they just rip everything apart and you end up with universes just full of empty space. I think we can probably all agree that there isn't life there... In fact, the argument only works in the first place if we use an extremely general definition like yours. If you try to be specific then it breaks down because if some life does exist then it will evolve to fit whatever the conditions are.

[@Wakssbm]

@@Reddles37 Now imagine the very few (yet infinite) universes that are more complex than our own. Imagine a universe where "life" becomes eternal and gains control all over it. Does it become like, a solved universe or something?

[@commandercaptain4664]

@@Reddles37 I dunno. That smacks of geocentrism to me. This universe is can be no more central to existence as Earth isn't to this universe.

[@joebainter]

This guy always leaves me feeling inadequate! But, soldier on Dude. I wanna know more!

[@ChrisBrengel]

This is such a great channel. I can always count on fascinating topics discussed seriously, not wasting my time, and I just assume that the latest scientific understanding is being presented. It's never like I'm listening to someone who doesn't quite know what they are talking about or who just finished reading one article on it. This is the real deal.

[@smergthedargon8974]

_Man looking displeased:_ Diproton _Man looking pleased:_ Helium-2

[@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos]

There is one big problem (R. Penrose pointed that out): *Entropy is globally fine-tuned but a locally variable quantity.* Hence a multiverse theory together with the anthropogenic principal can not explain this. R. Penrose developed later his *CCC-model* which can explain the fine tuning of entropy too. *Are there any other models capable of explaining this strange fine-tuning?* Furthermore I want to point out two things: 1. It is a very human thing to see parameter in the theory different from the theory itself. On a mathematical level there is no difference between a parameter and a choice of the model. Then why consider the variation of the former but not the later. 2. Fine tuning for constants (or models) where we have never seen a variation is strange to consider. And there might very well be a deeper explanation but we simply don't see the pattern. But the fine tuning of entropy does not have this problem. We know that it can vary. We know that it is globally fine-tuned. ... *The only fine-tuning problem we are sure of is not solved by a normal multiverse theory.*

[@JM-us3fr]

Agreed

[@AbeDillon]

What do you mean by "we know that [entropy] is globally fine-tuned"? In what way is entropy globally fine-tuned?

[@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos]

@@AbeDillon kzbin.info/www/bejne/r3XUn6xtit-siJY

[@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos]

@@AbeDillon The entropy was low enough such that stars could form all over the place. More precisely the entropy in gravity was low enough in the initial state of the universe. From the CMB we see that this fine tuning happened at least in the visible universe. But why? The anthropogenic principal explains fine tuning only where we live. But why is the whole visible universe entropically fine tuned for life?

[@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos]

addendum: CCC: short: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nKXNqKGgh5WUprs longer, part 1: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qX6XaJSZhpyje7M longer, part 2: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fIene32MpLmrbdU

[@galerius07]

2:06 It seems like there are other possibilities that might be worth considering. Off the top of my head, I wondered if you could plausibly suggest that the different forces and their constants relate to one-another in such a way that they are only stable at the values we find, or are governed by a broader natural law that forces them into their current values. In that case, what appears to be fine-tuned constants would actually be inevitable. The other thought I had was that it seems like in any system with rules, you find interesting patterns and emergent properties. For example, when you change the axioms of geometry to get some form of non-euclidean geometry, the euclidean theorems stop working, but then you find new theorems that only work in non-euclidean systems. Similarly, if you change the constants of our universe, you might destroy any possibility for chemistry as we know it, but perhaps it opens the door for some otherworldly chemistry that we either can't or haven't yet been able to predict. In this case, it might be exceptionally difficult or even impossible to have a universe that doesn't allow life in one form or another.

[@Bazzo61]

These videos just get better and better. Brilliant. Love PBS Space Time.

[@doughauck57]

He keeps leaving out "... like our own" whenever he says "necessary for life". If there are other universes with different constants, the (unrecognizable to us) life there could be wondering how they got so lucky.

[@theheini5329]

That may be right but we dont know if such life is even possible, assuming life in different ways than our own can exist without knowing if its even possible is just guesswork, if we could create silicon-based (or any kind really)life in a computersimulation and prove that life (or just the formation of dna) is possible in a way different than we know of, than this line of thought has merits.

[@theheini5329]

@vince furchill Only if there is a possibility of life in other forms are possible in the first place, the option of it not even beng possible is still a thing so no matter if infinite universes exist, if its 0 than its 0.

[@vikraal6974]

Infinity is a mathematical term, it's not real

[@TimTeatro]

@vince furchill - May or may not be infinite. It depends on which multiverse model you talk about. If you're a string theorist, it isn't an infinite landscape of universes, just a big one.

[@TimTeatro]

​@@vikraal6974 That's not much of an argument. Even if it is true that infinity, as a concept, is not something that can be reflected in nature, your argument fails. “Three” is a mathematical term. So is “the square of the radius.” By your argument, mathematical terms don't exist, so neither does “three”, or conservative forces in spherical volumes.

[@TimTeatro]

I've always found the statement that “life depends on these constants having values in very narrow ranges” to be a failure of imagination. Of course, it's correct to say “life such as ours” or “carbon-based life” but who knows how many mechanisms for life and general intelligence proliferate, especially if the laws of nature are varied.

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

So the point is that out of effectively infinite number of potential combination, there was not one but ex. a few dozens potential combinations in which life was possible?

[@MathiasMNielsen]

But could it be said that these narrow ranges is describing how any functioning and stable universe must be? If any universe would be expanding by an slower of faster rate any universe would fall apart. The same could be said with the rest of these constants, not permitting atoms to form in stable connections thus permitting molecules and later life to "evolve". The part of atoms evolving into conscious life is a giant leap of faith whereas imagination as you say either fails or comes as a miracle. We are talking about probabilities that far outweighs any logical sentiment. It's truly amazing how the "machinery" inside each and every cell is working, replicating itself and repairing itself. I like the analogy of a computer code. If you suggested that the code for KZbin one day made itself on a computer making random changes to it's own code starting from 0 you would be insane! Yet, in our universe there is somehow an underlying code that permit these strange and miraculous events to occur! Everything is pointing towards the engineer, the master-coder, the watch-maker. God. Who took the shape of human beings, descending from Heaven, beyond the "computer (our world)" into our world as the human we call Jesus. And thus telling us the truth, that whoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

[@hxhdfjifzirstc894]

Failure of your understanding...

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

​@@hxhdfjifzirstc894No, when I heard it first time decades ago, THEN it was interesting. When I see it rehashed again and again, while people who post it expect some attention and admiration, I simply scroll further.

[@dbk5816]

Simply because you could imagine something doesn't mean it's plausible. You could imagine yourself lifting the pyramids, the fact you can do so doesn't make the idea possible. There is a good reason to think the range is indeed very narrow if you understood the implications of the variation of the constants of nature. For example, if the cosmological constant was slightly greater than it is, stars, planets, galaxies wouldn't form. And since stars wouldn't have formed, you would end up with no chemistry as well.

[@DaveTexas]

I subscribe to the Douglas Adams philosophy of a fine-tuned universe - Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!”

[@nathanharvey8570]

The problem with that is that if any of the dimensionless constants or starting conditions for the universe were any different, you wouldn't have a universe capable of complex chemistry in the first place. Everything would instantly implode, or the only things that exist would be hydrogen atoms repelling each other, etc. Which would be more like not having any rain nor any holes in the ground in which a puddle could form, to draw upon the analogy.

[@DaveTexas]

Nathan Harvey That has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. The universe is still not fine-tuned for us. The universe simply is what it is. Fine-tuning implies causality and purpose, whereas the universe - and us - are here only by chance. Fine-tuning is seeing the outcome of 105 minus 27 equals 78 and saying, "This equation was fine-tuned to equal 78," when in reality an infinite number of equations would have resulted in an answer of 78 and an infinite number of equations would have resulted in an answer that is not 78. You just happen to be looking at the equation that has 105 minus 27 as the starting conditions. No fine-tuning of anything. The puddle argument is meant to ridicule religious people who claim that the universe was made so they specifically would exist. No one fine-tuned anything. Nothing is fine-tuned for life. Life is just a result of the conditions that happen to exist.

[@nathanharvey8570]

@@DaveTexas The point I was making is that fine tuning to produce humans, observers, or life in general doesn't matter, because the universe IS fine tuned to allow chemistry to happen, i.e. to have >1 elements that can interact with each other over time. There are no other conditions other than the ones this universe has, that's why there's videos like this about the multiverse.

[@DaveTexas]

Nathan Harvey No, sweetie. Multiverse theory does not, and cannot, show that different conditions exist elsewhere. You have to be able to test something to prove it. You cannot test anything about the multiverse. Please leave your pseudo-scientific pop-culture ideas to the uneducated and go back to googling things to think you’re educating yourself.

[@nathanharvey8570]

@@DaveTexas You seem very emotional about this.

[@golden-63]

*By far the best explanation I've ever heard on this subject. One of the VERY few Space Time videos an idiot layman such as myself actually understood completely. I love this channel so much.*

[@kingshanaman]

Every time I start believing that life is simple then this channel convinces me I might be living in a matrix.

[@gisele8337]

you are, this comment is simply a part of ur simulation.

[@pierfrancescopeperoni]

You are a Boltzmann brain.

[@FischlInsultsMePls]

Ever wonder why your universe is kind of chunky, yeah, this stimulation is running on a crappy potato

[@pierfrancescopeperoni]

@@FischlInsultsMePls And the simulation is run by a Boltzmann brain.

[@ciCCapROSTi]

2:32 The fourth option is that many settings of dials allow for some kind of life, just not life as we understand it.

[@nate7790]

Agreed

[@Gunshinzero]

That's not the point though. There are plenty of ways to make a working vehicle but there are infinitely more ways to make non-functioning one (or better yet, something that isn't a vehicle at all).

[@DenizenCain]

It's only 'lucky' if you presume that life was somehow the goal in all of this. It's equivalent to throwing a ball in a random direction, drawing a circle around where it lands, and saying it's lucky that the ball landed in that circle.

[@dale7326]

Because luck is an imaginary number or chance that you get a critical

[@KeiS14]

Good point, perhaps we-and the rest of life here-are just freak accidents.

[@adh0c468]

No, life is incredibly complex and improbable. In terms of your analogy, it would be like throwing a ball in a random direction in a field and having it land perfectly on top of a thin stick in the ground, which would indeed be lucky.

[@KingfisherTalkingPictures]

This is like the Fermi paradox. We have a sample of 1. More samples are needed.

[@theothercivilization3154]

I was brought to this video after searching for "How to make a really good hot cup of tea".

[@commandercaptain4664]

Sounds like you got your answer. Because multiversal dials.

[@CookingSkinny]

Lol!! 😂🤣😂

[@Chillerll]

You need a tutorial to make tea?

[@lachlanraidal5100]

10:47 "Leaving aside... intentional knob fiddling, for now" Bro it's November, I'm on a hair trigger here!

[@hooliganbubsy7298]

There's another possibility other than the three he said. 4. There's an unknown factor that predisposes a universe to these settings

[@kevinpeterse427]

Awesome channel. Happy to subscribe. Thank you.

[@AlphaFoxDelta]

"Why do we exist?" ... "Because everything that can, exists" ... Theory or most probable answer aside, it is incredible to think that we know the answer to the ultimate question. ... It almost feels bad to say, though. Just imagine what that implies. The best, the worst, everything.

[@markonekic1917]

There is no reason for our existence...😔

[@mikeconrad1183]

@@markonekic1917 we can never be sure

[@endthisnonsense7202]

Because we exist.

[@Classic_Frog]

Our universe is suitable for life AS WE KNOW IT. Other universes, with different parameters of the variables, may be incapable of creating and supporting life we know, but they might create other forms of life, dependant on the other set of variables.

[@PranabMallick.]

Maybe life is inevitable in all universes

[@topguntk870]

@@PranabMallick. there could be universes where every world has lifeforms of some kind on it. universes where there is no chaos but peaceful and to those aliens the question wouldnt be "is there life on other worlds" but the question to them would be "are there worlds without life" so they would be searching for the opposite because every world would have life. MIND=BLOWN. if there are infinite universes then everything imaginable exists including what i stated. that being said there could be universes without physics or chemistry or any recognizable feature but somehow creates lifeforms of its own kind. or universes where paradoxes are normal and nothing makes sense but there would be insane alien logic like lifeforms where its universe runs backwards so it dies first then gets younger and younger instead of older and until its born.....so death would be birth and birth would be death in that universe. according to max tegmark every and any possible universe exists. scary stuff.

[@DeathNight77]

agreed

[@FerdinandCesarano]

2:06 - There is, of course, another possibility: that a universe with differently-tuned parameters would produce life that has evolved to exist in those conditions, just as our universe has produced life that can exist in these conditions. The assumption that life in all its possible forms equates to the kind of life that we know of in our experience, this assumption amounts to a profound error. It is an error that trips us up when we try to consider where life could exist in our universe with the laws of physics we know, and when we rule out certain places because we consider the conditions too extreme. And this error certainly comes into play if we try to imagine different laws of physics, and then blithely assume that constants tuned differently would make life impossible (as exemplified by this video).

[@nashleydias1597]

You are brilliant

[@Polyvalent]

I noticed this aswell. Our understanding of consciousness seems a little too elementary to start making assumptions about life in our universe or other universes.

[@nate7790]

I couldn't agree more. A differently tuned universe would probably mean impossibility of life AS WE KNOW IT. It wouldn't necessarily mean "impossibilitiy of life at all". There are many organisms even on this planet that exist in places where conditions are great for them but that wouldn't be able to thrive elsewhere. Ultimately who knows, depending on how we define life there may be life somewhere that is not carbon-based, doesn't require liquid water, or any other characteristics that may seem unimaginable to most or any of us.

[@sycamorph]

I'm pretty sure that a universe that's just a void with separated atoms that can't bind together into molecules, for example, wouldn't be able to produce anything we'd call "life" or even anything slightly complex. But maybe we (or I at least) just don't know.

[@danilooliveira6580]

if there are infinite ways to tune a universe, then there are infinite configuration that can create life in a way or another. but if if there are infinite ways to tune a universe, that means there are infinite configurations where the universe is just a void, with no chemistry, or even time and entropy, or where it has chemistry, but its too unstable for life or too stable for life. it would be too unlikely that every configuration can create a life in a different form, however, that doesn't mean there are not different configurations that can create different forms of what we could call life.

[@0mn1vore]

Great video as always. Thanks. :-) In a way I'm glad your upload schedule isn't too rigorous, because I'd fallen behind and had some catching up to do... All caught-up now.

[@jackrakken4127]

Him- "Here's one totally uncontroversial statement " Me- "F U SCIENCE MAN! I BELIEVE WHAT I WANNA!"

[@Disgruntledgamer]

How do you know these dials are free dials or that we just haven't discovered the theory or part of a theory that predicts them?

[@TheNasaDude]

He does not know that, but the best present day theories (quantum mechanics and general relativity) require all those dials. So our current understanding of the universe requires those dials. There are hypothesis that aim at reducing the number of dials, but for the time being, they do not come together in a theory that works better than QM and GR

[@flyerfan8]

@jacks-over he states at the beginning there may be a deeper theory that sets the dials that hasn’t been discovered yet

[@AnonymOus-ss9jj]

While I agree with the previous two comments, and that Mat mentioned such might be the case. Just explaining why the values are the way they are isn't going to solve things. Unless it is discovered that the variables in question are illusions there will always be the "coincidence" of them being set for life. Instead of replying to every person individually about these topics I've decided to try putting my thoughts on a separate page and just posting links to that page fallaciesinevolution.blogspot.com/p/the-anthropic-principal-and-multiverse.html that being said writing for both intelligent openminded people and fools who will refuse to understand a word I say that isn't pounded into their heads, is quite difficult. I'm not sure if it will go over well.

[@gregbrockway4452]

Our universe sits stuffed far into the back of some alien kid’s closet because he only got a C- at the science fair.

[@harshvatwani2202]

But it will be appreciated years later when someone discovers it accidentally.

[@versag3776]

Hahaha, Yeah like God got a C- when programming the parameters for life. He either got an A+ for figuring it out or an F for copying a working model.

[@blinkin304]

@@versag3776 what if he was trying to create a sterile environment and failed? it all depends on the goal and how it was presented.

[@commandercaptain4664]

@@blinkin304 Itwas presented with a bunch of "thous" and "thees", with an unhealthy smattering of deus ex machina and co-dependence. God was lucky to get a C-.

[@LukeFrasera]

I suggest adding some noise to the gradients in your video. If you do this the eyes perception of the gradient will be smoother and the banding will no longer be present or at least reduced. At 4K the banding is more obvious. Also love the videos!! As well I would also work in a "linear" or 32bit floating point environment when compositing and working with colors. This makes lens flares pop and not have dark regions in the center.

[@tyrvinodinson9790]

We haven't managed to get off the earth yet, apart from the moon landing and the space station. We've also had 6 near life ending situations. Also considering how far it would be to get to another habitable planet, and actually surviving there. I'm sure there is life in the galaxy apart from us, I just don't think it's an easy thing to stroll around saying hello.

[@girv98]

Life is only going to appear in a universe that can support life. So surely, we're gonna find ourselves in one of those universes, no matter how 'finely tuned it may be.

[@JustinL614]

But when considering probability of life..if you started producing universes randomly it would be highly unlikely that any of them would have that fine tuning.. unless you were able to "roll the dice" nearly forever.. where does all that energy come from?

[@sankhyohalder97]

@@JustinL614 I'm far from a physicist, but as far as I am aware, we don't know if the conservation of mass-energy even means anything in the context of the multiverse. I also recall speculation that the positive and negative energy of our universe could cancel out to a net zero, at which point creating a new universe might not cost anything at all. Or course, take this with a big heap of salt, I might and probably am wrong about the concept or at least the implications!

[@McLainCausey]

Well, that's effectively the anthropic principle.

[@kyjo72682]

@@JustinL614 I don't think conservation of energy applies here. It would only apply within our own space-time.

[@suryaya441]

That's a tautology that does not solve the problem. The problem is that the conditions required for us to even be here and observe the universe seem fine tuned.

[@jacoboneill2494]

Even with the ranges being, in our terms, so narrow, there would still be infinitely many life-bearing universes, if reality is infinite. They'd all be extremely far apart, though. I think that how we divide reality is generally arbitrary, so I'd say whether or not there's a multiverse is a matter of perspective/semantics.

[@bitantony8996]

1:26 - the master dial is set to 42

[@bitantony8996]

That's a verifiable scientific fact

[@nofanealbni]

Why does an apparent unlikelihood need justification as a likelihood?

[@matta5498]

This is my favorite episode so far, well done sir.

[@matta5498]

@@thoth111 Have you not?

[@TheBenduOrder]

If we can create our own virtual reality universe, does this count as multiverse? And if so, does animals in this virtual reality need our universe just to exist?

[@trevorhunting1211]

Minecraft pig thanks you.

[@erik-ic3tp]

You mean this: verse-and-dimensions.fandom.com/wiki/Metaverse

[@loopzoop3409]

is it really a multiverse then? it exist in our universe, and multiverses exist outside of one another

[@erik-ic3tp]

@@loopzoop3409, It's a Metaverse. :)

[@loopzoop3409]

@@erik-ic3tp cool, havent heard of that term yet

[@gregg3692]

The last line in this video hit hard and dead center of our galactic responsibility not just our need to change here on earth, but to change as a whole.

[@AndyHage]

Does the simulation hypothesis even fit in here? Wouldn't it just mean that they then got either extremely lucky or there are lots of different universes?

[@Anthony-lf2kg]

Andy Hage Interesting thought. How do we even know if “they” the creators of the simulation define this universe as a success? Could just be 1 in millions that have created. How would they even define a successful simulation or us even be able to comprehend what they were looking for?

[@dbk5816]

"Simulation hypothesis"- An atheists's way of admitting the believe in a god. The difference between theists and atheists is not big after all. Theists believe in a God, Atheists believe in a timeless computer scientist.

[@brawnyjavier]

@@dbk5816 😂😂 exactly

[@jpeg8596]

I would say that the argument of ‘fine tuning’ of the laws of physics, is flawed. Just because the laws of physics are different in other hypothetical universes, it doesn’t mean observers couldn’t survive in these universes. We just happened to live in a universe that supports carbon based life, but theoretically, there should be all kinds of universes that support all kinds of different types of life, which we couldn’t even wrap our head around, as the fundamental laws they’re based on, are alien to us. Such type of life could include cloud dragons, plasma bacteria or whatever you could imagine. Obviously they wouldnt exist in our universe, because the laws don’t allow it. But in other universers, these laws could. We should also take into account the ‘20 or so independent constants’, there are no laws that says there has to be 20. In other universes, there could be 6 spacial dimensions, 3 time dimensions, and 84 or so constants that can be changed. You could also argue, according to my reasoning, that there doesn’t need to be a multi-universe theory to explain life. We just happened to live in a universe where atoms and such exist, whereas we would be as likely to live in a universe, where gravity doesnt exist, yet other forces we cant even imagine exist, which spawns a wildly different type of life than what we’re currently living in. Though I don’t have a degree in physics, and my argument could also be flawed, so its more really just food for thought.

[@tmmroy]

The video had appropriate qualifications to address everything you wrote. The flaw you mentioned applies to the scenarios where he said that "carbon based life would not be possible" he also listed a number of scenarios where "chemistry is impossible" etc. in those instances, life truly isn't possible. All matter inevitably follows reactions to known ends that do not allow for life. Let's pretend that our universe could be represented by the square root of two. An infinitely long complex number. Somewhere in that number is a string of digits that's a million digits long that means carbon based life exists. Now let's pretend that the multiverse is a random number generator and we always find the square root to look for life. The square root of 7 is another infinitely long complex number. It might be we can rule out carbon based life or it might be we can't, and there could also be another string that leads to different life. Now the next number that outputs is 16. The square root of 16 is 4. There's not anything complex there, we know the whole output and the answer is four. Now, and he qualified this appropriately too, but if the variables that apply to our universe are as arbitrary as they seem to be, most possible values are as easy to simulate as it is to find the square root of 16. Great big universes with nothing in them that's interesting. Some few values lead to complex universes that are still not capable of forming carbon based life, and some very few are capable of holding carbon based life.

[@Top_Weeb]

There's no good reason to believe any of the fundemental constants could ever even be different. He didn't even try to present evidence that they could be different, just presupposed a multiverse with different fundemental constants exists, which makes it seem like circular reasoning.

[@hby7768]

Or every multiverse can not support carbon base life form that requires a very specific parameter to exist. Just a slight variance in gravity and our bones will decay or be crushed. Life is very fragile outside of the earth. We are not as resilient as you think we are. We can't even function when a very small degree in temperature where as the universe operates at a range we can barely fathom.

[@pskale]

For each of the fundamental constants we can precisely determine the impact that different values and combination of values of the fundamental constants would have.. Is it possible that in some other universe there are additional fundamental constants that opur universe does not have have? Yes.. But the same logic would apply to those additional fundamental constants of that universe too. There will only be certain values that will permit a universe with life..

[@erik-ic3tp]

@@tmmroy, So you think that life in more or less dimensions than ours is very unlikely or impossible?

[@dopplervocals]

this is such an amazing topic, i’ve even pondered this, outside out of our individuality, there exists another individual.

[@rDnhey]

Such great videos! Thanks

[@Arcterion]

I strongly want there to be a multiverse. I cannot live without the thought that there is a universe filled entirely with catgirls.

[@erik-ic3tp]

Beyond the Multiverse is even cooler. :) Like the Omniverse. :) Link: verse-and-dimensions.fandom.com/wiki/Omniverse

[@hxhdfjifzirstc894]

Arcterion There is not. So sad!

[@Tyler-bp4md]

Isn't there another possibility (2:30)? What if these dials had to be that way in order for the universe to exist at all. So life has to exist?

[@benashmore]

I guess that then poses the question why does life have the exact same position of the dials to exist, as the universe needs to exist?

[@Tyler-bp4md]

@@benashmore The way i view it, is as if the universe is kinda like water flowing down, and will always take the easiest path. So i think either the universe could not exist at all (definitely the easiest) or it could exist, but something unbeknownst to us is making it take less energy than 0 (the universe not existing.) Although its just speculation, i think something super complicated like life is a crucial part of what makes it possible for us to exist.

[@rujulmanjarley5911]

forget life, the question i want to know first, does a single universe need a multiverse to exist ?

[@user-ep8ns6hg4q]

Single verse*, idk why everyone keeps referring to it as "Uni" when not speaking of it as singular, if it's a multiverse then we just live in one verse, if there is no multiverse then we live in a universe.

[@thelelanatorlol3978]

@@user-ep8ns6hg4q People use universe when talking about universes for the same reason that people use galaxy in a universe where many galaxies exist and planet in a universe where many planets exist. Universe refers to a singular while multiverse is the plural of universe.

[@user-ep8ns6hg4q]

@@thelelanatorlol3978 the term universes is an oxymoron in itself as the word is expressing singular with uni and multi with the s, the proper word would simply be verses or when describing them as a whole - multiverse.

[@bvo..]

@@user-ep8ns6hg4q unfortunately universe came into lexicon before multiverse. Yes it’s true, universe means everything in existence. But atoms also means smallest things observable, and that’s not true either. the words are stuck haha

[@user-ep8ns6hg4q]

​@@bvo.. The singular Universe is a compilation of Micro-verses, Teenie-verses or Mini-verses. So the Multi-Verse is a compilation of Micro-verses, Teenie-verses or Mini-verses. Therefore the Multiverse and Universe are the same thing..... It should still just be, "In this verse" or "that verse".

[@Takahanazawa]

Everyone always forgets the fourth possibility: that there are higher laws or metaphysical principles that dictate/demand that the relevant physical constants are what they are. They only appear fine-tuned to us because we assume all values of these constants must be equally likely - which might not be the case. These might be the only allowable values for reasons we don't yet understand.

[@kingmj87]

"This hole fits me just perfectly!" laughed the puddle. "It must've been made just right for me! What are the odds!"

[@commandercaptain4664]

Meanwhile, the hole yawned "Oh, you were there the whole time? I didn't even know. Yeah, I can totally feel you inside me." And then tunes to the Hallmark channel.

[@happygimp0]

There are many holes that works, but there is no possibility for any intelligent life with different constants. For example if the expension rate would be too high, there would be no stars, no plantes, just gas. There could not be life in such a universe

[@lrwerewolf]

@@happygimp0 That assumes stars and planets are required for life. On what do you base this assumption?

[@happygimp0]

@lrwerewolf blah Because then there would be only hydrogen and helium. Of course, there is a very high possibility that other universes with completely different physics do not need fine tuning for life. Such a universe may do not have chemistry or particles and may do not have any constants at all. But then is the question why do we life in a universe that requires fine tuning, would life in a universe without the need for fine tuning not be much more likely?

[@lrwerewolf]

@@happygimp0 Even if the laws of physics that exist in a universe do not even permit hydrogen and helium, a result possible in the landscape, so long as there is an entropic gradient, there is the possibility of computation and therefore of some form of intelligence.

[@gharrison4301]

Sounds as if we're close to inventing the "Heart of Gold"

[@erik-ic3tp]

That would be amazing. :)

[@zeideerskine3462]

The Heart of Gold has already been invented which is why Zaphod is masquerading as Donald Trump to get it. I'd say give it to him. And then we build several ark ships set to crash land on a habitable planet far away and tell all republicans that a space goat will eat up our earth.

[@Yora21]

That seems highly improbable.

[@erik-ic3tp]

@@Yora21, Lol. Hahaha. :-)

[@dididodat1000]

What do I think is the purpose of arcs here on earth?

[@AmyDentata]

If evolution is content with “good enough” rather than perfection, the multiverse might work the same way. Which means we live in a universe that’s tuned well enough to support intelligent life, but not tuned well enough for it to be common. Which supports the rare earth hypothesis.

[@kaitokobayashi6394]

@Fascino93 *we* are animals as well. What I Mean: we originated and evolved in this planet.

[@jackmack1061]

hmm. interesting.

[@burt3724]

Evolutions goal isn't to achieve a system that's "good enough" .The environment determines what traits any species can have, and those traits that benefit survival, and procreation, will be most likely to pass those traits on. It's a balance between environmental conditions, and survival. Giving evolution "agency" by saying it is "content" is misleading. It's a process, not creation. And have you ever heard of radiometric dating?🤔 I'm just saying.

[@kaitokobayashi6394]

@@burt3724 ah, someone who can understand that much. Here's a slap of respect. ✋

[@burt3724]

@Fascino93 I guess that would depend on you definition of "intelligent".

[@clumsydad7158]

Superb … one of the treasures of youtube, ty

[@auregamer5]

Alright there was no way anyone could have guessed "alternate universe rapid helium burning star" on gif friday spoocetaim pls.

[@sasshole8121]

agreed, I was hoping it would be "my bowels after eating Chipotle"

[@burleighsurfography2241]

aurell And it still relates to star life cycle as denied, just an alternate one :)

[@ToThisEndWasIBorn]

I'm thinking we think too deep very often. Human nature. Although the graphic was about the exact thing he denied, it's true that the main topic was not about star life cycle. It's still a fun teaser though right?

[@burleighsurfography2241]

Christopher Speirs Yeah, it was :)

[@Mernom]

This episode reminded me of the Isaac Asimov novel _'The Gods Themselves'_ .

[@user-ov1mn8zg3e]

what if we figure out how to actually do that tho.

[@AlphaFoxDelta]

This episode is what it's all about, this one is key.

[@DaremoTen]

I reject all three of those postulates. This is the life you get with these settings. Without these setting you don't get this kind of life. This in no way implies that there must be other universes any more than a particle moving in one direction implies that it must move in every other direction.

[@MetalMasterdom]

You could also go so far as to say that life need not exist in any form with these settings(or any other). It just so happens that it does. But it doesn't necessarily say anything about why it does. Or why the settings are the way they are. They just are, and it just does. Does it mean anything? Maybe. Maybe not. Who's to say the settings could even be different. Maybe they can. Maybe they can't. Seems a little presumptuous to say they even can. Why? How? Oh yeah...God or a simulation. Like either answers any questions.

[@knyghtryder3599]

@@MetalMasterdom perfect exactly correct

[@hxhdfjifzirstc894]

They must invent a theory to explain the fine tuning in a way that allows them to deny the likelihood that God created the universe. Hence multiverse BS. Grasping.

[@Elrog3]

God is BS too.

[@MetalMasterdom]

@@hxhdfjifzirstc894 God is no less a stretch of the imagination as the multiverse. It can even be argued that the existence of God is even more of a fantasy. All that aside, most scientists will admit that the existence of God is a valid hypothesis. Some will even say they believe God does exist. My questions to you would be, how does the existence of a creator preclude said creator from creating more than one universe? Seems as though it should easily be possible to do so given omnipotence. Why would/should God create just one universe?

[@rc5989]

Matt O'Dowd, your videos always amaze and inform me. Thank you very much for your work on PBS Spacetime.

[@deutan4390]

2:05 Or...you know life adjusted to the universe, not the other way around. A puddle in a hole could say that the hole was perfectly made for him but in reality, he adjusted to the puddle.

[@deutan4390]

@dembro life would just be made out of smth different...That's like my point. Thanks for agreeing

[@HeroofTime55]

Is it odd that I came up with some of this stuff on my own, before hearing about it, and hearing that someone else already gave those ideas a name? Although, I also like to think that other universes have different formulas as well - not just different constants, but a different set of dials altogether. 7 billion people, no matter how clever I think I am, someone else already came up with it first. I'm sure "different set of dials" is already taken, Matt, please tell me who did it first and what they called it.

[@wallabror]

I did too, I've thought about this theory through my faith. Specifically, I thought that every single second, every moment, every "frame" of our lives needs to exist without "us" in it, for our consciousness to enter within it. There needs to be a universe where you read this message and one where you do not. If you choose to read it, the other scenarios still need to exist for you to be able to choose. And if this is the case, there need to be infinite variations of all scenarios that could play out, which means that this universe is one among infinite others.

[@kjustkses]

wallabror Lol

[@caineblackknife2443]

@@wallabror I'm sorry, but your "faith" is just church brainwashing.

[@sharpknife4177]

foolish boy you arent fooling anyone

[@HeroofTime55]

Well, hang on. While I am an atheist, if there are multiple, and indeed infinite, different ways you could create universes with different rules of physics, not just tweaking constants but also completely different formulas and laws, then... Some universes could contain "gods" written into the very laws of physics. Although, the necessary complexity in that case, I would believe, would lend those sorts of universes to be exceedingly rare, far more rare than our own by orders of magnitude that our brains cannot comprehend... And therefore we almost certainly don't live in a universe of that nature. It's far easier to tweak the dials of a couple of simple laws, then to bake in a god.

[@pradnyachoukekar]

Totally unrelated but his voice is kinda soothing

[@CookingSkinny]

pradnya choukekar His voice makes me happy, too. It’s like being taught science by the most patient, kindest teacher ever!

[@addammadd]

The parallax effect on your pan edits is masterful.

[@matthancock9883]

Having read Lee Smolin's "Life of the Cosmos' years back, I still find his argument for background independent, cosmological natural selection and self-organisation to be the most convincing and elegant. In comparison, the multiverse seems like one big fudge.

[@kasuha]

Rather than universe being fine tuned to support life, I'm more on the page of life being fine tuned for the universe it emerged from. Statements like "this change to that parameter would make the universe explode before life had chance on it" assumes we with our chemical composition an on our size and time scales are the only life form possible. I think that's wrong assumption. Honestly though, these things are more of philosophical exercises than science to me. Now, philosophy is important to give scientists some direction for further efforts. But "it must be true because it's such a nice idea" does not sound scientific to me at all.

[@Nestoras_Zogopoulos]

isnt that the story with string theory ?

[@Ryan-zd4rv]

This

[@knyghtryder3599]

Yea great point we are finally tuned for where we evolved to live, random values are random

[@sacr3]

You're not grasping just how complex things are, if you change one of the constants it affects the very particles themselves in ways that mean they either A - can't exist as they are. If they degrade too quickly, you can't get complex elements, if they don't degrade, you can't get stars to be able to create them. So in the end if has to be the way it currently is to allow for all these long processes to occur, to even give you a star, to give you a stable orbit, heavier elements, elements that can connect to each other in stable ways, etc, to even allow for 1 speck of little form of "complex life" to appear. Life = complexity, you need stability in that complexity or else nothing works. Life can't take the millions of years to evolve if the very fundamentals don't even work. So many dials to get the working complexity we have now, to allow for complex "things" to exist. May it be us, or some other form of life. So yes, it does seem this universe is finely tuned. Maybe a few changes may just change things in a way that still lets life live - but like he said, more often than not the end results are bad if those dials are touched.

[@kasuha]

@@sacr3 'millions of years to evolve' is pure human perspective. What we consider millions of years might be nanoseconds for civilization that comes long after us. And what we consider nanoseconds might have been eons for civilizations that emerged before us. All that's really needed is emergent complexity. On any level. We happen to exist on one of the levels where our universe supports sufficient complexity to spawn life. And it's not even going to last. Sure there'll be nobody to complain about universe not being fine tuned for life during the time when there will be no life in it.

[@MrPhange]

"It seems all of our forces are balanced just right to create a stable universe" Dark Energy: (laughs in Big Rip)

[@randywa]

Don’t forget the weirdness of the fact that fundamental forces and specific particles with specific properties even exist in the first place.