Is the Universe Fine Tuned for Life? The Case FOR and AGAINST Fine Tuning

[@haritinasakova4327]

One of the rare people on youtube I've found that knows how to explain complex things, without using fancy language, but focuses on the science itself. Amazing channel and content

[@Starfire777]

I'm surprised that people do NOT READ their BIBLE to learn how first MAN and WOMAN SINNED! that leads to death and sorrow but GOD SENT JESUS TO SAVE MANKIND and Promise us ETERNAL life!!! IF WE FOLLOW HIM!!!!

[@ericpowell96]

I really respect the fact that you are able to present both sides without bashing one or the other, it's all to rare today. It makes me really sad when people just tear into each other because of some minor viewpoint. Also, you have some of the coolest intro music on youtube :)

[@gillypuente1794]

This isn't a minor viewpoint. They're literally mutually exclusive, opposite positions on one of the biggest questions there is.

[@ericpowell96]

@@gillypuente1794 They are mutually exclusive, but it's not exactly a hot topic with a lot of coverage. Compare it to the debates on evolution or dark matter or climate change, it doesn't receive anywhere near as much attention.

[@gillypuente1794]

@@ericpowell96 Your response is immaterial to my point that these aren't minor viewpoints.

[@darrenmarney8577]

Mr Charles 😃 I like your summarisation 👌

[@caricue]

@@ericpowell96 I think Gilly Puente is illustrating your point by tearing into you over his minor point about it not being a minor point. Well played Gilly!

[@myaccountishacked6417]

I could sit around for a lifetime pondering about who what where when why and how life is. Whatever this thing called 'life' is, were all in this together at this very tiny moment of history. Lets all try our best to make it amazing for each and everyone of us. Have fun, spend lots of time smiling and laughing, Enjoy the short ride, have no regrets and ill catch y'all on the flipside ;)

[@umeshkhanna4896]

👍

[@joexer1]

If we are all one, does that mean we are all alone?

[@THE-X-Force]

@@joexer1 Nope. :)

[@Fecal_Eruptions]

Entp?

[@myaccountishacked6417]

@@Fecal_Eruptions I would assume so

[@pyne1976]

You have fundamentally tailored your channel to my interests. Coincidence?

[@ArvinAsh]

In a universe with KZbin, there was bound to be at least one channel that was tailor made for your interests. haha.

[@AndreasHLux]

... lets make a covid...%

[@prt01]

Ancient astronaut theorists, say yes

[@mariejolene]

You are my favourite KZbinr.

[@WhatWhy42]

@@AndreasHLux let's not and say we did...

[@MrBendybruce]

I have to give you credit Arvin, your content never ceases to feel fresh and interesting. Definitely one of my favorite science channels. ✨

[@ArvinAsh]

Glad you enjoy it!

[@NiToNi2002]

@@ArvinAsh Can only agree - superb and different from many other science channels. Physics is about understanding our universe and therefore ultimately also the big existential question, like whether there’s a creator or if we’re in a simulation etc. I don’t see how or why these ought to be separate concepts.

[@Comment27560]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3aaZ6GtntKoipI

[@darkmatter6714]

I would have thought that every universe would be fine-tuned for the life that eventually gestates in it. In other words, no - it wasn’t fine-tuned for life...life was fine-tuned for IT.

[@rufusapplebee1428]

Live Forever and Prosper, Dark Matter.

[@nenzattibellece4459]

I agree with you. Life is just an additional constant. After all, we wouldn't know what would happen to the universe if this constant disappeared on a sudden, right?

[@pawnriot3269]

@@nenzattibellece4459 Lmao "life is a constant" what you been smoking bruh. Life is just a set of chemical reactions by chance generating something akin to a self-aware and self-replicating mechanism. You are falling in the same trap of considering ourselves more important than we are. We are merely spectators.

[@jakublizon6375]

Exactly, life adapts, and it adapted to the constants of our universe just like it adapted to it's local environment.

[@jakublizon6375]

@@nenzattibellece4459 I don't think that's what he meant. Life is not a constant, it adapts to them. It's what life does, hence..... Well, life.

[@ashley_brown6106]

I love that you give both approaches and leave it to the critical thought of the viewers to decide!

[@neilrawlinson]

The thing is - it's not just the constants. It's the mechanisms. At atomic nucleus, under the influence of the strong force is essentially working like a machine, like an engine. At every level - nuclei, atoms, chemical bonds, DNA, RNA, cells etc...matter is complex, finely tuned machines and complex, finely tuned structures. Wherever we see those things, we always find a designer. "Science" might not like the idea, but all the evidence points to a designer. Other theories such as multivers and so on are not science, they are philosophies akin to a child thinking they can't be seen when they close their eyes.

[@oldpossum57]

We never find a designer. We find a bunch of christians who cannot accept that mindless processes can create complex systems that give the appearance of being ordered, thus confusing naive minds. Ever since Darwin figured out that evolution was based on mindless random mutation and mindless natural selection, the existence of mindless processes should have been apparent to everyone. I’m told that scientifically literate people had accepted that the universe was mindless by the 1870s, and that the mainstream churches had no difficulty with mindless evolution. It was only the American evangelists who suddenly became Bible literalists.

[@rob-v1y]

Me: Waits patiently for the video to finish to make the "puddle" comment. Arvin: Saves the "puddle" analogy for the end of the video. Me: Doh!

[@Naturamorpho]

thank yourself for the "waits patiently" part... I sometimes won't, and then I make a fool of myself... lol 😆

[@ChrisJones-xd1re]

If a hypothesis begins with, "if the entire universe was different", then the relevance of any conclusions are poor to none.

[@MusicalRaichu]

i was a curious how you would treat this issue but i think you've done a great job. there are implicit assumptions in posing a fine tuning argument and in any case we really don't know enough to make the case convincingly.

[@michaelpudney]

The universe wasn't made for us. We were made for the universe to observe itself. That means any universe, whatever it's constants, might also find different ways to look at itself. Observation, after all, does play a roll in how this universe operates.

[@oldpossum57]

The part of your post that claims “we were made for the universe to observe itself” is quite unwarranted. Evolution is non teleological. The existence of H. sapiens matters not at all to the universe. It did fine before we evolved, will continue fine after we go extinct. You confuse our models of the universe (representations created in the minds of primates) with Reality. As you know, we do not apprehend reality directly.

[@anywallsocket]

A lot of these "fine-tuning" arguments seem to share one fatal flaw: They use a hypothetical situation in which the constants were different, and then suggest that in our Universe, stars, life, etc., would not be able to form. But that's in relation to our Universe in-which the laws of physics are what they are, and are not different. To make the point more obvious, consider the fact that hypothetically changing the constants would have to change them as they emerged from the asymmetries in the bigbang, and therefore you are changing the the whole Universe, in-which you don't know whether or not these structures would or would not form. It is logically unsound to imagine a situation in-which only some aspects of the universe are different, since the interrelations of those aspects originated together. This can be proved by conservation of information.

[@MLim-h9u]

The Fine-Tuned Universe seems improbable already as it is. Increasing the number of variables by making the laws of physics mutable, *increases* not reduces the improbability.

[@anywallsocket]

@ I’m glad you’re bringing back a 3y old comment lol, but I agree. The FT argument relies on the anthropic principle, which clearly does a lot of the heavy lifting for explaining our situation, but it is overtly tautological. The thing is, we want to understand the spectra of laws and their associated future possibilities - something we lack the brain and compute to achieve (so far).

[@thorout8377]

You are so good with life and beyond. My reasoning; There were a maker of life, that steps of fine tuning were implemented to correct the balance of the cosmos as we humans make the mistakes of life!

[@Paulkjoss]

“It’s possible we have not seen the lion that awaits at the end of the tail”… …I think we can safely remove “Its possible”… :D

[@kevintedder4202]

And if we continue to tickle and poke it, and finally discover what the lion looks like, don't be surprised when it bites back. Maybe we are meant to discover the truths of the universe. Remember the great Wizard of Oz. Dorothy was disappointed when she discovered what he really was.

[@johnroemeeks]

"There is not a shred of evidence that the universe is logically necessary. Indeed, as a theoretical physicist I find it rather easy to imagine alternative universes that are logically consistent and therefore equal contenders of reality" -Paul Davies (Agnostic Physicist)

[@maheshiyer3430]

A new video on this channel makes my day. Absolutely love Arvin's Energy!

[@robertinnit1367]

This is the best channel on KZbin I have come across that presents ideas so well thank you for your content

[@effectingcause5484]

Arvin please do a vid on the argument for and against an Ether!

[@BlackRaven-w4e]

Fine tuning for life is a flaw so great as was the idea that Earth was the center of the universe. The universe is extremely hostile to life. The exceptional properties of our solar system and Earth are those that allowed life. Basic cosmologic knowledge. 😊

[@vgrof2315]

"Why is most of the universe hostile to life?" says it all.

[@jaybennett236]

Says that we humans are incredibly special!

[@Ken00001010]

The so called "Fine Tuning" argument makes a fundamental "map v. territory" conceptual error. The models of reality developed by physicists are fine tuned to get the math to produce results that match measurements in reality, but that does not show that the reality is fine tuned. It is like saying that a river is very precisely positioned on the landscape because of how difficult it was to draw the line on our map of the territory. The models of physicists are only valid as they match reality, so speculating what would happen if they did not match reality removes any validity. If someone makes a claim of "Fine Tuning" ask: "Got evidence?"

[@oldpossum57]

Excellent. Using metaphors and snalogies in arguments leads to false induction.

[@MrSnapback52]

I love your videos! It’s the perfect balance between science and philosophy. Not ridiculing any dogma or leaning too far into skepticism. I really appreciate that!!

[@davidfain1454]

Thank you again Arvin. Your presentation and production values are EXCELLENT. To you and your team, Keep up the good work!

[@ArvinAsh]

Much appreciated!

[@drakezone5213]

Universe is not fine tuned for life,its life that is finetuning and adjusting itself to to suit in this universe,that's why we are alive in this harsh universe which we shouldn't at first place.

[@godq3]

Why do you think that life exists in the first place? Only expierience exists.

[@ArvinAsh]

Well, evolution shows that living things are a product of adaptations to suit their environment. So, you might say they are tuned to their environment. And the universe created the environment to begin with. But the universe also created the matter and forces to be such that living things could emerge. So life emerged due to the fine tuning that our universe has, but life was then also fine tuned by the forces of that same universe.

[@oldpossum57]

@@ArvinAsh Arvin, I think you are abusing the metaphor. “Fine tuning”, whether you are tuning the strings of a piano, or an old timey radio, implies a mechanism that adjusts the frequencies, and a tuner. ( think old timey radios and TVs had coarse and fine tuning knobs) . Currently, we do not see that the various constants are contingent on each other. (If we did, we would simply the physics, reduce the numbers of constants.) But you do not know that the constants can in fact be set at different values, creating universes yet more hostile to life than ours. And I don’t need to tell you that we do not want to suggest that there is a Tuner! So to say that the universe has “the fine tuning that it has” could be stated as “in the best models of the universe designed thus far by H. sapiens minds, there are physical constants. If there are other universes, as the multiverse hypothesis holds, these constants might differ, or might be the same: we cannot know.”

[@ProfesorArdLouis]

Evrenin böyle bir yapısı gücü yok. Aklı olmayan yönelmeye yatkın olan evren olamaz. Bir yasa diyebilirsiniz ama asla evren kendi bunu yaptı diyemezsiniz bu cahilce. Fizikçiler buna güler

[@protoword10]

Thank you Arvin, I don’t have any question, but your intelligent thinking and conclusions made me think deeper than I did ever before...

[@Gamer-xb1eo]

They are "fine tuned" because we are measuring them. It's like being the result and then looking at all the steps and thinking the steps are fine tuned for the result. They appear fine tuned because the result exists. The vantage point for observation should be at the beginning or just before the beginning of the universe not us.

[@ArvinAsh]

Good point!

[@ProfesorArdLouis]

Biz onu ölçsek te ölçmesek te ince ayarlıdır. Çünkü Öyleler ap açık şekilde. Ve biz onlar biraz farklı olsaydı olmazdık çünkü Çok Hassaslar.

[@redpower6956]

Amazing video as usual and interesting topic, easily one of the best science channels I have ever seen.

[@ShinySephiroth1]

Me listening to the puddle analogy: "No... no, I don't like this... stop it! Nooo!" *existential dread sets in*

[@mikloscsuvar6097]

Why do you have existential dread?

[@ShinySephiroth1]

@@mikloscsuvar6097 the thought of never thinking again is haunting. One of the reasons I hate going to sleep, haha. I love consciousness.

[@ivyreece9925]

Joe V I know how you feel. I love being conscious. The thought of never thinking again is terrifying. Like we have this great ability to exist and have awareness of reality and then suddenly we don’t.

[@bradbadley1]

@@ivyreece9925 you and joe are my people!! You have the same grasp and dread as I do about soon not existing for all time! Yikes!!!!!

[@MrLoerch]

We as humans don't mean s*** to the universe. We are of utterly no importance to it. It's all about us on this planet, nothing more. The sooner we get that thinking to everyone, the sooner we can have peace and solidarity as a life form and not think of skin color or heritage as a way of measuring the value of somebody. We are all equal, we are one.

[@stiimuli]

Perhaps I misunderstood your intended usage of Adams' sentient puddle analogy (or I misunderstood the analogy itself). I've never seen it as an allusion to multiple potholes/universes with different parameters. I always saw it as a reference to the hole not being intentionally made for the puddle but the puddle naturally forming to fit the hole.

[@ArvinAsh]

yes, in addition, what I was trying to illustrate is that the puddle and hole could have been any size and shape, and we would still say, that the hole was made intentionally.

[@Nuovoswiss]

Is there a reason you didn't cover the anthropic principle? (for those who aren't familiar, it states that life can only develop in a universe/environment which is fine tuned to support it, so no sentient being will ever observe a universe/environment which isn't fine tuned)

[@mobuildsstuff]

Some kind of survivorship bias? It might be possible to observe different configurations by using simulations but i am not sure whether it would be worth the price.

[@ethancntower8850]

I was wondering about that. I didn't know what it was called but it makes sense that we would only exist in a universe and a planet where its actually possible for life to thrive.

[@vibaj16]

There’s a name for that? I’ve always used that as the flaw with any argument of the universe being fine-tuned for life.

[@Nuovoswiss]

@@vibaj16 Yup. Stephen Hawking talked about it a fair bit in his books, so I thought it would be more well known. That's why I was surprised when Arvin didn't mention it. There's also two different versions of it: "Strong" and "Weak".

[@andycopeland7051]

This was a fun video man. Great summarizations of both arguments

[@mohamedluqman6187]

Our existence in this universe can be reduced to nothingness and yet we have the audacity to say that this universe was fine tuned for us.

[@the13mas]

Think of it another way: the argument is not that it is fine-tuned for us earthlings, and volume is irrelevant here. The focus is on how the universe allows to many different levels of complexity. Think of it as a pyramid. The bottom layer is subatomic particles. The layer above it: molecules of all kinds. The layer above that: great structures (rocks, stars, planets, rivers, seas, mountains,...). The layer of that: biological machinery. The layer above that: creatures. The layer above that: highly intelligent creatures. The layer above that: advanced systems created by the intelligent creatures like the internet, AI, civilizations. The layer above that: who knows what the future holds for us. So again, it’s not about volume. We are significant in the universe because we are high up on that pyramid regardless of how small we are. We will learn of our insignificance when we meet aliens who way more advanced and have reached much higher layers on that pyramid. So how many combinations are there of the constants that allow for high pyramids? Very few is the answer. And that’s what makes us special.

[@mohamedluqman6187]

@@the13mas in terms of complexity, we are indeed special.

[@vitovittucci9801]

@@ASeekerOfLife-k6o So, according to you, the universe is the result of a design, in other words of a will....

[@sierrabianca]

@@ASeekerOfLife-k6o "That's why everything leads from the big bang to the stars to the planets and finally to lifeforms....so through them it can have ever evolving degrees of conscious experiences" This is a purely anthropocentric claim and as far as we currently understand everything leads from the big bang, through a "brief" era of star formation and life to a *final* state of entropic decay over a potentially infinite future. Given that the era of low entropy which gives rise to life is limited and that of high entropy will overshadow it by vast cosmological aeons it'd much more accurate to say that the Universe is fine-tuned to be maximally disordered and devoid of life, no?

[@vitovittucci9801]

@@sierrabianca One can say as well that even this brief era of low entropy is turned for life. Life doen't have necessarily last for billions of years. So you don't escape from antropic principle

[@maquinaghost389]

These vids are on another level. Kudos to the graphic department too

[@rufusapplebee1428]

Live Forever and Prosper, Arvin Ash.

[@ArvinAsh]

🖖🖖🖖🖖🖖

[@Nawwar1980]

It's the best channel on youtube, thanks Arvin Ash.

[@TonyP9279]

I just noticed something when you were talking about the mass of particles: What gives the Higgs boson it's mass?

[@ArvinAsh]

HIggs interacts with itself. See my video on the Standard model Lagrangian: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6SopYGAbtiFmbM

[@oldpossum57]

As Ash’s answer suggests, Higgs boson is parthenogenesis. It pleasures itself, and out pops another Higgs boson.

[@mahaveerjanagouda77]

it can be seen in 2 ways 1. if we gave life more importance tht would be one scenario 2.leaving aside life and thinking about other things ,and life may be the byproduct i paused the video at 5 min and thought abt this and thought that different combinations of these constants may form other universes and further in video arvin also talks about it. but every time i think abt this ,my thought process only consider life as main product

[@BlueFrenzy]

Some years ago someone made a few universes' simulations with random constants. The result of the experiment was that in almost half of the universes you can find stars with a lifetime large enough to support life. And that's talking about life as we know it. Maybe in a radically different universe different type of life may emerge. Fine tuning argument doesn't hold its water.

[@tahirsiddiqui9480]

They are not random God created the universe believe it or not

[@BlueFrenzy]

@@tahirsiddiqui9480 Truth doesn't care about your beliefs or mine. If there's no god, nothing there is as nothing there was. I am glad that your faith based narrative will help you to simplify you life choices, but I am not interested in your tales for grown ups, so please, don't make me waste more time and keep your ideology for you.

[@tahirsiddiqui9480]

@@BlueFrenzy did i? I said believe or not but judgment day will come and if you are curious I'm Sunni Muslim my faith Islam and the truth

[@acdude5266]

​@BlueFrenzy Do you want to suppress other people's opinions, irrespective of their inductive probability? If you don't want to waste your time, just say you do not agree instead of being so highbrow.

[@oldpossum57]

@@tahirsiddiqui9480 “believe it or not”. Well, obviously I don’t believe it.

[@musetube9015]

Keep up the great work! We all appreciate it!

[@bibleredpill]

I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and I love science. This is one of my all-time favorite channels. I choose to believe in the creator. Thanks for the great videos.

[@MichaelAntonFischer]

My parents became JW. I studied the Bible with them and this made me an Atheist. I can’t understand how one can live science and be JW? I mean you must deny evolution… and you must gloss over the fact how often JW publications directly lie about science.

[@PetraKann]

How many seats are there in Heaven again?

[@mikloscsuvar6097]

@@MichaelAntonFischer Catholicism accept evolution.

[@MichaelAntonFischer]

@Bible Red Pill just read the articles on Evolution. They are riddled with lies, misrepresentions and straw man arguments. If you deny evolution, you are denying one of the most well proven theories that science has, you are thus a science denier, not a lover of science. Other publications that lie in the JW library are e.g. on Tyre. There in the quotes the article in the JW library deletes one sentence „and will never be rebuilt“ (quoting from the top of my head) from a paragraph, because that sentence contradicts the whole article and the prophecy.

[@MichaelAntonFischer]

@Bible Red Pill well, you just showed me that you not only know the lies, you even regurgitate them. 1. countless „links“ have been found 2. we have millions of Fossils. But do you know what’s never been proven? In fact not even hinted at? Creation. If your creation myth is true, then surely you can name both the created Kind and the kind that Noah took on the ark?

[@joseluisfernandez7117]

I think that the answer to this question is that life appeared, not only in this planet but probably in many other planets around the Universe, as a cosmic imperative due to the laws of Physics and Chemistry.

[@oldpossum57]

You could edit out “as a cosmic imperative due to the laws of” and replace it with “because”. Your belief is that wherever the conditions are just right and persist that way for a very long time, life will begin. By “life” you mean some form of self-replication: I think you ought to define that better.

[@picksalot1]

Our brains/minds seem to be "fined tuned" to come up with explanations whether or not they are applicable. Excellent video, very well thought out and produced. Thanks 👍

[@Comment27560]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3aaZ6GtntKoipI

[@garyshanklin9972]

Po

[@TheFinagle]

I love that you brought in Douglas Adams sentient puddle into this video. I like how you cover a lot of side some other videos either ignored or just straight rejected as an option, like what about life NOT of the 'As We Know It' variety. 'As we know it' is a very very small view of things. There is so much we dont know that we know is out there to learn (like what causes the effects we attribute to dark mater and dark energy) and still more beyond that we cant even theorize about yet.

[@Johnathan_wick442]

I love your videos ❤️❤️❤️

[@meneeRubieko]

I love the new more philosophical existential vibe of your videos man

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks. But it's not a change. I've always tried to do videos that ask big questions. The nature of those questions usually has an element of philosophy in it.

[@giuffre714]

The vast majority of the universe would kill us very quickly. Heck, you could die of exposure on Earth in most places : )

[@buttelatin1446]

With all due respect, I don't understand why scientists sometimes describe established FACTS as improbable or unlikely. I would think that probability belongs only in the realm of future possibilities, not what is, was and continues to be. How many "bookies" give odds (take bets) on yesterday's horse race?

[@FactTalkOfficial]

The universe gets more stranger as more we explore!!

[@sayyamzahid7312]

I live in Karachi Pakistan and I like your comment thanks

[@epitome641]

@@inquiry-TZ I am a part of divinity or its thought

[@paultorbert6929]

@@guff9567 the proper term would be cannabis.....

[@Starfire777]

I got NEWS for you many scientist make mention of "GOD" as being real ,Like EINSTEIN said "I DONOT BELIEV "GOD" Plays DICE with the UNIVERSE, because of the tremendous power we see on Display, BLACK HOLES< SUPER NOVA Stars that EXPLODE sending GAMMA RAYS throughout the Universe!!! ETC. MATTER and ANTIMATTER etc.How they work together to create UNIVERSE!!

[@idahogreen2885]

Hey, idk about all the super heavy comments. Or what makes this whole universe work. But i know for a fact im enjoying the Show. Ty arvin for all your good work.

[@wntu4]

The water in the puddle marvels at how the depression was tailor made for it.

[@andersjjensen]

Yes. Right down to the minutest of crinkles, it just fits the shape of the water. Heck, right down to the atomic level. RIGHT where the water ends the hole begins. You can't POSSIBLY tell me this wasn't by design!

[@skeebo6885]

Well that puddle of water didn't think things through very well. Due to it's fluid properties it will adopt to whatever size and shape the depression is. You can't say that about life with regard to the values of physical laws and constants.

[@skeebo6885]

@@andersjjensen The water will fit exactly in the depression due to its fluid nature. The physical boundries of the depression determines the shape of the water. A physicist could explain it better, but thats basically why a puddle of water doesn't require design.

[@wntu4]

@@skeebo6885 If you think life doesn't do the same thing you're delusional. Where physics permits, life finds a way. This principle has been proven repeatedly in my lifetime after scientists discovered life existing or had existed under circumstances previously thought impossible.

[@andersjjensen]

@@skeebo6885 This answer has got to be the biggest woooosh moment I've ever witnessed. Like I couldn't have spelled out the sarcasm any more clearly without literally ending with the tag.

[@ximix6982]

Hey, Arvin General question ❓ (1) in space ,being a vacuum- what in theory steady motion thrust . Like 1 lb of thrust continually thrusting , don't the experts say that by having continually thrusting will go faster an faster , only we on planet are over thinking issues, there is a solution to having on measurable amount of energy. By having a electric power drive thrust pushing out force thus elevating speed . I understand that by 1+1=2+2=4+4=8+8=16 an so by elevating output torque specs,thus achieving thus speed needed by theory correct.

[@ArvinAsh]

If you are talking about a continuous acceleration, this does not go on forever. At some point, an infinite amount of energy would be needed to go beyond a certain speed or achieve higher thrust.

[@fredsmith1227]

@@ArvinAsh an infinite amount of energy ? Wouldn't it be an infinite amount of the speed of that energy?

[@fredsmith1227]

@@ArvinAsh but we all know from star-trek that when the thrust stops you go into rapid deceleration in space !

[@russchadwell]

It's as fine tuned as freddy's quick pick lotto ticket was when he hit the jack pot.

[@caricue]

russchadwell, I thought the same thing. In fact, after a thing has happened it doesn't really make sense to obsess over the probability. Now that it is a reality, the odds are 100%. In a weird way, you could say that Freddy had 100% chance of winning and everyone else had zero, but no one knew this until the end.

[@russchadwell]

@@caricue in a way, it's as though people can be too "dumb" to fully appreciate dumb luck. (Just a play on words, I don't necessarily think people are truly dumb)

[@caricue]

@@russchadwell The lottery is kind of dumb if you think about it. There are really only two players, there's you and "not you". If "not you" wins, it really doesn't matter who this nameless person is, because it's not you. So you can buy as many tickets as you like, but "not you" will buy pretty much every number, so they will always win. I think that counts as dumb.

[@Radonatos]

Underrated comment, as it is the anthropic principle in a nutshell. Freddy is also likely to be affected by survivorship-bias, and will assume he has been chosen to win by the fine-tuner.

[@russchadwell]

@@Radonatos I sometimes actually pity lotto winners for just this reason... soon destined to lose everything, thinking they can win again... and, of course, there are those lucky few who actually do win an additional time... just to make me sound stupid

[@popeck27]

If it’s fine tuned it means a kind of « super intelligence » makes it happen (to let life appear I guess). If it’s not fine tuned, it is a random « something » , a huge cosmic lottery we won, appeared from nothing? Why is there something instead of nothing? Why these atoms? Why these particles? Why these laws? I know asking « why » is a very human thing. Thank you Arvin for this video, fine tuning of the universe it’s a key question I often ask myself ;)

[@kyjo72682]

Superintelligence or not, we would still see a fine-tuned region of universe around us - in both cases. It is a necessity either way, because we cannot be in any region that doesn't have the right conditions. So the fact that we live in a fine-tuned part of the universe doesn't give us any information one way or the other.

[@conrmckocoa9352]

Please don't ever change "that's coming up right now"

[@blackbear92201]

Awesome video - thanks for posting!

[@InfamoussDBZ]

I died for fifteen minutes and when I was revived I remember nothing after seeing the airbags inflate in my car for a split second. Out of all the things you do in life, death is the easiest.

[@Sasoon2006]

I guess if it is quick. But dying of cancer for months, in pain, does not sound easy.

[@InfamoussDBZ]

@@Sasoon2006 That's definitely true. Maybe my comment wasn't the best.

[@djalmamartins1772]

Being dead is the easiest...

[@Sasoon2006]

@@djalmamartins1772 Yep, just getting there is the issue

[@d4vidh4xor]

That was a very good explanation of the fine tuning argument.

[@petersonjeudy]

We might not be here but life could still exist, just not in a way we recognize

[@NiToNi2002]

@@Smp_lifting Why does a universe need an observer? If you’re referring to collapsing the wave function, this is old school thinking, nowadays only perpetuated by the quantum snake oil vendors. No “consciousness” needed, just an unobserved measurement. What sort of life form would you envisage in a universe full of only neutrons?

[@kyjo72682]

@@Smp_lifting Yep. The regions of universe which don't allow observers are probably vastly more numerous than those which do, such as ours. There probably aren't many "puddles" in the universal desert, and they are very far apart.

[@NiToNi2002]

@@Smp_lifting “We will never observe an universe that doesnt allow life”.... If you assume that we can’t observe any other universe than our own, which is reasonable, we won’t be observing any other universe at all, whether it allows for life or not. In its early beginning, our own universe did not allow for life either, i.e no observer.

[@NiToNi2002]

@@kyjo72682 Are you talking about environments hostile to life or the fundamental physical constants? If the former, you’re right, although many scientists believe life may be more common and widespread in our universe than we (yet ) know and realise. As a matter of fact, it may be teeming with life. If you mean the latter however, the constants are obviously the same across the whole universe and not “fine tuned” just here on earth and other life-friendly planets/environments.

[@vibaj16]

Samuel Paré THANK YOU. This is what I’ve always thought about the fine-tuned argument

[@expchrist]

After watching lots of your episodes this was the one that impressed me the most.

[@priyanshujoshi6057]

Universe is fine tuned, Arvin ash making video on it, now that's called fine tuning....

[@nivekvb]

No fine tuning, no video.

[@bsfunskit]

Awesome contents as usual... Thank you Arvin...

[@ThePawel36]

"If the universe was fine tuned for life, why doesn't life play central role in it ? " Lot of ideas come to mind. 1) Life Does Not playing a central role in the Universe is as good as life doing it, whatever instance you focus on you will always have doubts about opposite one. 2) If life was playing the central role in the Universe then possible life on different planets could not develop independently because it would be immediately influenced or dominated more precisely, by more advanced ones, in this case there would not be, genuine, self-developed civilizations around. It is possible that life would then consist only of the conquest of other planets without giving them time to reach technological and psychological maturity. 3) Or maybe it's just that if life was so usual everywhere, there would be no room for the development of faith and religion, (I write this from the point of view of a believer). The point is that the religion on each planet would not develop independently, but would be imposed by civilizations more advanced. 5) Having Earth as only one known life sustainable planet make people believe. The Universe is so huge, empty and scary, so we gonna be better of believing 6) Or maybe, more life around, would mean more blood, violence, wars, injustice, human tragedies, deaths etc, etc- may even include a threat to destroy the entire planet if the invaders' conditions are not met .

[@aljohnson3717]

This gave me chills. Thank you Arvin!

[@rrashi4484]

What if the head of the lion is a realization "we are in a simulation"

[@lenroddis5933]

Nice to see variations of 2% and 5% being mentioned. So many times I read creationist claims e.g. that a variation in the order of 10^-50 in the value of G would be catastrophic.

[@Shaqoneil81-ci7dr]

2-5% is very significant especially when you put that against 26 constants.

[@coder_gogeta]

Watching this video during my online class

[@kuzzbillington6392]

To me it's DNA that makes things complicated with these questions. A string of proteine applies rules that makes cells build different organs and body parts in specific places. What thing in the body or cells is the project leader that makes body creation follow this set of rules that DNA describe?

[@30l0l3]

Am I a sentient puddle ? 🤔

[@ArvinAsh]

It's possible you are...metaphorically.

[@joshuaforbus5853]

My God. It's so just dam fascinating. Amazing. Love you're videos and thanks. Semper Fi and God bless

[@SteveStrummerUK]

"Astro-biologist", or 'biologist' as I prefer to call them 😁

[@KaliFissure]

Fine tuned for life? Considering we may be only planet in galaxy w life? Once we find a single other planet with life we can begin to calculate odds. Until then earth is a total anomaly and would be expunged from a decent data set.

[@raghunathan9026]

survivor bias

[@stefaniasmanio5857]

Hi dr. Ash. This is one of the most astonishing, interesting, clear and complete explanation of this subject I’ve ever listened to… you are a super teacher. Your students should be grateful for every lesson…. Thank you so much! Wonderful animations and graphs! 😍😍😍😍👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻❤️

[@ArvinAsh]

Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it!

[@KaiseruSoze]

It's surprising the number of ppl who only see the "pro" side of "intelligent design" ( oops I mean "fine tuning" ).

[@ilkaythe]

What makes us believe that a universe without life should be fine tuned to create life? Maybe it is gone out of tune and that's why life is created. Who decides whether life is an advantage or a flaw for a universe?

[@giuffre714]

That is a very profound question.

[@sravyasarathy1094]

A fantastic video guide for the question which I have in my mind even after a decade of research. It is still not the answer, but definitely a good guide. Thanks @Arvin Ash for fueling the question inside me. On a side note: How many of you reminded about "The Architect" from THE MATRIX movie when Arvin mentions about "The Agent"

[@jeancorriveau8686]

11:55 "Our anthropic bias may be constraining our imagination." Well said as well as everything that followed that statement!

[@jettmthebluedragon]

That’s like saying if a universe is going to die and we will never exist then what’s the point in the first place ? 😑also we know the earth is over 14 billion years old 😐however how would we know earth would form ? It’s like the puddle it’s like we just suddenly appear from nothing 😐we have ideas how the universe will end and it’s beginning and yet we can’t even figure out how we came into existence in the first place 😑after all before we were ever born we were probably all ready dead 😐we were nothing 😑and when we die we will become nothing again 😐 we say the universe will expand forever or it will end in heat death however that’s only based on what we know 😐we honestly don’t know it will take billions of years 😐if the universe is flat like a pice of paper that means it has corners on each end of the universe is open that means things can go Inside it as well as out side and yet with our study’s we say is flat like flat flat 😐to me I think space and time are endless and the margin of error are things like black holes and stuff like that 😐and what’s the point of over very existence? 😐if the universe was really that finite how would we ever know this planet would form ? We probably were all ready dead 😐and lastly we could have Ben anything or anyone we have many chances 😐it’s not like we are the first humans 😑and we could have Ben a bird 😐or whatever so the question is why out of all things a human ? 😐everything that has formed the universe it feels as it was yesterday😐

[@runalyaduwanshi4012]

Can plzz upload lectures explaining science from the very basic to absolute advance level. Because u explains very smoothly and it would be great for us students

[@mobilemarshall]

nice thorough video, well done

[@johnathanmiller3033]

Wow ... that was a great presentation . Good job sir .

[@Kickex]

Yes. That puddle analogy was rather comforting. 😂👍❤️

[@bombdottcom111]

Interesting topic, Arvin, thanks!

[@rotorblade9508]

Life can only develop in a fined tuned Universe, tuned by a lifeform. Very smart. 😂 But of course the claim is the lifeform that tuned the universe is something different. The constants are just right for life to appear, so they explain it is an agent that does it. The agent is impossible to detect and has a few properties like : power, consciousness, love. But other than these abstract properties there is nothing that can tell you if such an agent is possible or not. Also it can’t be made of any constituents because then the constituents would need to have certain values to enable it to exist. The properties are: power, consciousness, love, perfect mind, and not made of constituents. I don’t think this can be taken as an explanation. I’ll simply accept that the value of the constants happened to allow life as we know it and I don’t have an explanation for this rather than accepting some unexplainable agent.

[@Regularsshorts]

The universe is fine tuned but there is infinite amount of universes and this is just one of them.Or there is genetic algorithm that keeps on going it's like a big bounce more than big bang. It keeps getting better Once the fabric of space time can't stretch anymore It will coil back,time and entropy gets reversed into the smallest possible state

[@bigblukiwi]

Excellent summary and one which demolishes any idea that the universe is 'fine tuned'.

[@tyamada21]

A piece from a new book titled: Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within... Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlie all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law which allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us. To understand the meaning of Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo even more, I sincerely recommend that you read Tina Turner's new book: Happiness Becomes You. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hIOYdZenn7KrnaM Let go, and let God - Olivia Newton-John Nam Myoho Renge Kyo Let go, and let God - Olivia Newton-John Nam Myoho Renge Kyo www.youtube.com

[@BenYork-UBY]

One issue I have with the fine tuning argument is that it assumes that it is possible that constants of the universe could vary at all. Eg: Before we ask, 'why is the gravitational constant what it is', we need to ask 'could the gravitational constant be any different'. It easily could be that the gravitational constant is forced into the position it is in due to other physical forces and equilibrium. Similar to how the moon is Tidally locked with the earth: that may appear fantastically precise. But that's not some great coincidence nor the result of some agents manipulation. It's the result of physical forces forcing the moon to Tidally lock in order to reach a state of equilibrium. Other constants could be similarly forced without any 'tuning' because they physically cannot be any other way In other words, before we question if the universe is finely tuned, we first need to find the dials

[@jettmthebluedragon]

Well it all depends on what you mean by fine tuning for (life ) if your talking about molicules stars and planets is one thing however if your talking about carbon life forms that’s another 😐

[@ricardodelzealandia6290]

The thing that's being overlooked in the first set of fine tuning arguments you're presenting is that constants are likely to be connected. In 1000 years we may only be talking about one universal constant. Assuming that one constant can be changed in isolation from others is probably not how the universe rolls its dice.

[@ArvinAsh]

Sure, that is a possibility.

[@stabilini]

Maybe this universe was created with random constants after eons of diferent other universes where created with other constants combinations. I think we should be grateful with our incredible small chance of being alive. Absolutly amazing video Arvin, thanks

[@stabilini]

I stuck on this, I’m not a physicist, but maybe there are some combinations of constants that generates big-bangs. Or particles where generated post big-bang?

[@oscopin74]

Love your videos. Glad I found you. ALWAYS interesting.

[@williamwhitehead374]

Wow, great video! Mind opening stuff

[@KaliFissure]

It just occurred to me that the Friedman equation was calculated for a perfect fluid. And yet from evidence and relativity itself it seems like space has a varying viscosity. Space is thixotropic which is why a spinning or orbiting object continues. The shear reduces the viscosity of space to zero.

[@KaliFissure]

It is certainly at least an almost infinitely compressible fluid which is more viscous the LESS dense it is.

[@kumarabhishek624]

loved the video, loved even more that there is a substantial description hidden in the "Show More" area. I think Fine-tuning argument only lives until we find aliens, and then it will be like ok there is not soo much fine tuning required. Also- "Life as we dont know it" may exist which quashes the fine tuning argument but we may never know for sure..

[@Quotheraving]

One of the many reasons I favour the Cosmological Natural Selection hypothesis as this gives a mechanism by which universes that produce black holes would predominate. In that model the fine tuning for life is just a happy side-effect of the selection for black-hole production.

[@duhmez]

A cool thing to think about, Arvin here mentioned that the constants are measured, but we obviously have not measured the plank constant, but we axctually have at the same time. The plank sonstant, is derived, but it is derived from other constants that were measured, so ina sense, al the plank values are measured in a roundabouit way.

[@johnsullivan4025]

Fascinating... I was always leaning towards the notion that there was no need for fine-tuning from a divine deity for us to exist. However, after this presentation all I can say for certain is that I like that cap.

[@lucasnicholson9443]

Since we have no idea what caused the fundamental constants to be what they are, or in other words, we don’t know of the underlying property that determines these constants, I think it’s completely possible that these constants could have all been derived from one system, turning our problem from that of many variables (all the constants) into a problem of one variable (the cause that determines all these constants). If you tuned this one variable, it would change all other constants simultaneously (for example, maybe the change gravity has on stars is counteracted by a stronger subatomic force that also allows fusion to happen faster or slower, balancing out the difference. In the end, fine tuning one underlying variable isn’t as bad as fine tuning all the constants individually.

[@franzculetto5962]

Pretty in line with your suggestions, my nephew and me have been looking for this kind of unification, and ended up with using Julia set fractals and their connectedness loci (i.e. for the second-order polynomials iterated the Mandelbrot set, where everything is depending on the complex constant c), but unfortunately with not much of success. In a more realistic scenario - one has to end up with tensor theories in both the GR and SM low energy limits - c at least had to be c sub jklm or to be of even higher rank...