Was the universe made for us? | Sabine Hossenfelder

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

🌌 Welcome to Part Two of this incredible journey with Sabine Hossenfelder as we tackle the age-old question: Was the universe made for us? Watch Part 1 here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oIunh6yEfKqUZ5o&ab_channel=TheInstituteofArtandIdeas 👍 Like, share, and subscribe to continue exploring the realms of philosophy and science with us. Join the conversation in the comments below!

[@smlanka4u]

Binary Mathematical Physics and Buddhism research is the way to the theory of everything.

[@ericfarina3935]

The question itself is idiotic. And no, as much as I'd like to indulge your stupidity, we don't have time for this. "Was the Universe made for us?" Only a complete moron would ever ask such a ridiculous question.

[@AurelienCarnoy]

So good. And funny

[@educatedguest1510]

Looks like you have not read Medium: Einstein: Energy-Time Equivalence

[@themeaningoflifeexpert]

A question about 4:30, when Sabine said that we cannot quantify the probability distribution of the constants of nature, it is actually not true. We actually can have a scientific measurement by measuring the area of chaotic disorder Vs the area of order in this solar system, with each second for its continual existence being each test try. So saying that the existence of life being astronomical can be a scientific statement by comparing the area of chaotic disorder Vs the area of order in this solar system. And since the area of order is increasing with a growing population, the probability ratio is increasing.

[@rayhume1971]

Sabine's no nonsense approach to science is such a breath of fresh air for us laymen who are weary of the High Priests of Physics and their Religion of the Untestable.

[@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos]

​@@jonp3890 What multiverse idea? There are many. And one (many-worlds) is just currently the best model we have to explain all the data. I agreed with Sabine and other thinkers like R. Penrose (especially Penrose) on that until maybe a year ago. I started to really try to formalize the flaws in many worlds interpretation. But it turned out there are just a lot of people who communicate the idea terribly. Even the wording "many worlds" is terrible. String theory is a mathematical framework. And that's useful in mathematics. Furthermore it seems more and more clear that string theory is just a generalisation of QFT (so you can reformulate all QFTs in a string theory even the current standard model). What should be most likely abandoned is the idea that string theory in itself will provide a better model of if reality. There is absolutely no reason to believe that.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Ok, You're not in conflict with Bee about string theory, in her books it's what she claims too. Many worlds is not a way to solve the measurement problem, but to smuggle by. I'm not able to discuss the math, but to believe, that the universe breaks apart, every time, a single electron goes decoherence, is exactly that: a belief (or good science fiction).

[@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos]

@@Thomas-gk42 The many worlds interpretation is just the Schrödinger equation. Nothing more. Just forget about the collapse (we have no evidence for any mathematically consistent collapse model and if we don't need an separate collapse process we shouldn't assume it). It turns out the Schröder equation explains the collapse pretty well (say the system you're observing is in a superposition A+B, where A,B are outcomes you can measure with the device you use). The key is to put the observer into the equation, too. The observer goes like everything else in superposition ("old memory and memory of observing A" + "old memory and memory of observing B") with the system when observing the system (linearity of the Schröder equation). And if you look at the memory of the observer it just looks from the perspective of the observer trajectory that the observer split into two parts (observing A or observing B memory) with different memories. It's not the decoherence that splits the world. The observer splits (goes into superposition of two different memories) and only from from an observer (memory!) perspective it looks like the world splits. The randomness comes into the picture because we can't say before observing in which observer we will evolve. Where Sabine is wrong is in how to make Ockham's razor precise. Ockham's razor becomes a mathematical fact if you do it right (statistical learning theory - Kolmogorov-Rademacher complexity). Essentially it counts the complexity of the model. Not how much additional stuff your model predicts that can't be observed. And not assuming a separate collapse process (many worlds) is just a simpler model. It's not important that it predicts stuff you can't observe. It's the same with the continuity of time. All our current best models (both standard models) of physics have a continuous time. But we haven't observed that and we can't observe that below the Planck time. But as long as we have no better evidence for a discrete time model or as long as there is no simpler model with discrete time we should stick with continuous time.

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos thank you for your explanation. About time I understand, we can't observe time being not continuous, because it would be below the Planck's time, to be discrete. You are not with Sabine (and me), if you claim the observer goes in superposition too. That's exactly what Schrödinger wanted to show with his cat 'experiment': How absurd it is, to transfer QM on macro objects like cats or any observers or macro measurement settings/devices. But you must do so, in an indetermined QM theory, think that's what Bell's theorem says. Many worlds of course is determined, including all the different realities, the Schrödinger's equation allows. But the prize is, you have to accept something, that will never be observable.

[@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos]

@@Thomas-gk42 "But the price is, you have to accept something, that will never be observable." Like with continuous time. That will never be observable. And accepting something that is not observable has no statistical consequence. It's just your intuition that's in the way. Not something rational. Accepting parts of a model on the other hand, that are not needed (a collapse process independent of the Schrödinger equation for example), has a consequence according to statistics. The consequence being a worse predictive power estimate. So if you accept a collapse process for which you have no evidence, then you'll be less likely predicting the correct outcome. A more rhetorical answer would be that the absence of evidence for a collapse process is the same as evidence for many world. Like the absence of the observation of discrete time is evidence for continuous time. And you see that collapse models are less and less likely. The most beautiful collapse model (Diósi-Penrose model with natural units abd the less beautiful collapse of GRW with originally proposed values) is already falsified. Although I should point out that the Diósi-Penrose model is indeed something to consider. Why? Because it addresses a problem with gravity and quantum physics. Especially if you look at Penrose's derivation. So the Diósi-Penrose model is not a model of quantum physics alone but a model of gravity and quantum physics together. And it might be actually indeed an as simple or even simpler model then minimally coupled gravity to quantum physics with many world interpretation.

[@tstefanec8203]

Sabine you are one of my heroes and mentors! Delighted to be living in this space-time! So grateful you are here to help me enjoy it!

[@Thomas-gk42]

Nice words❤, I'm with you

[@mstrG]

you like Your cage ?

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@mstrG you mean having a mentor is a mental cage? Depends on the mentor and her/his intentions. You don't need advice, teaching, education I guess, congratulations. But "being delighted living in space-time" doesn't sound like the words of a prisoner, so luckily, your sorrow is unnecessary.

[@mstrG]

@@Thomas-gk42 there is no sorrow in Me, space and time is a thief which You invite by Yourself, why to put limitations of Yourself if You can have The Infinite Moment Experience?

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@mstrG oh sorry, so I misunderstood you about Zen Girl's statement. This is deeply philosophic. My belief is near to hers, that we can assume to get closer to truth by living in space and time. Free to go, we should use our time for understanding and giving help. Therefore, people like Sabine are an example. Her book is a hopeful journey to th the limits of validation and belief.

[@Thomas-gk42]

"You're free to find suprising, whatever you want", "Do particles think? - No". Sabine is so special. Thanks for part two😊

[@stevedriscoll2539]

I think Sabine and Sean Carrol are the best and most interesting Science communicaters for the general public. They both are excellent at explaining technical concepts in a way that non-technical listeners can understand. And neither one seems to have an agenda by which they smuggle in stuff that might support their own personal theories, projects, or preferences.

[@drbuckley1]

Sabine is marvelous.

[@keithmiddlehurst4036]

Dr. Strangelove Brig. Gen. Jack D Ripper.

[@drbuckley1]

@@keithmiddlehurst4036 Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

[@walternullifidian]

Simply mahvelous! 🥸

[@Littleprinceleon]

​@@drbuckley1or how Doc Hoss has learned to love multiverses? 😅

[@edwardlee2794]

Great lecture, mind-blowing. Thanks Dr Sabine. And keep up the good work.

[@keykrazy]

Love that reasoning Sabine brings up here in the first half minute. When folks rattle off that old and tired "but it's just too improbable" nonsense I'm always screaming in my head "compared to what ?! Like how many other frickin' universes have you been to..?!?" lol

[@Thomas-gk42]

Totally agree

[@linmal2242]

@@Thomas-gk42 Me too

[@Littleprinceleon]

And as far as I know you don't need to count against concrete outcomes. It's enough to know what are the likelihoods of other outcomes. When it comes to those "fine tuned" parameters I thought that physicists claim all the other values to be equally likely given the underlying mechanisms... But yeah, untill science doesn't figure out how the universe came to be, it's utterly pointless to talk about probabilities, since maybe "our" universe is the only possibility or there are a huge amount of uni-versions...

[@Tao_Tology]

Yeah, you could look at the potential space of 'all possible types of universes' and conclude that "life sustaining" ones are rare..... .....but you can't, as an entity existing in a life-sustaining universe state that is rare or common or whatever. We have a data point of 1.

[@keykrazy]

@@Tao_Tology Yes, that's the point I was making. Am glad you see it, too.

[@franzrichter4852]

As it is the "Institute of Art and Ideas" I would like to present here the artful idea of a Swiss poet, Gottfried Keller who in the poem proposes that the universe, i.e. space-time, is not only made FOR us but made BY us. He presents a "field view" of time (which view by the way was recently also expressed in some sense by the theoretical physicist of Oxford, David Tong by answering the topic of his lecture about what we were made of with the bold sentence "Atoms are a lie - we are the field!") Here is the poem by Gottfried Keller (1819 - 1890) in my translation: Time never goes but still it stands, It’s we who walk and wear. Time is a caravanserai, We are the pilgrims there. A something, shape- and colourless You only see it when You dive in it and re-emerge Till you decay again. A sparkling drop of morning dew In which the sun is caught, A day may be a pearl for you, An eon might be naught. A parchment sheet untapped is time, You write on it in red With blood your lore in prose or rhyme, Till all of it is bled. I too have filled my parchment page With letters full of love Which praise creation grand and sage, And laud its Lord above. I’m glad and grateful for the fate Of blooming in Thy field, And do not blur the primal state In which you are revealed. So space-time is made by the cosmic WE or US (in the Vedic terminology the Self, "Atma"). Time is made by cosmic measurement instruments, by the cosmic senses. E.g., light comes from the cosmic sense of sight and not vice versa. And creation comes from measuring. It''s a cosmic computer and sometimes we have access to the "processor", the real "big bang" which is there NOW and always in the forth dimension and which makes time ( =change). And when we have access to the big bang, in these enlightened moments we are free. In fact enlightenment is called "moksha", liberation. But in order to achieve this you have to be able to go beyond the senses as another poet says, Clemens von Brentano, in his German poem "Nachklänge Beethovenscher Musik" ("Resonance of Beethoven's Music"): Holy who without senses Hovers - a spirit over the water, Not like a ship - changing The flags of time and inflating The sails as today’s wind blows. No, without senses, God-like, Himself only knowing and naming. Creates He the world he himself is. Hereafter though man falls into sin, And it has not been His will! But fragmented is all. No-one’s got wholeness, for all things Have Lords, but the Lord not. Lonely is He and serves not. Such is the seer.

[@davedouglass438]

"Is it legitimate to apply some kind of probability analysis to the fine-tuning problem?" - There are several ways to approach this challenge. Ask: "Was the Math made for Man, or Man made for the Math?" If Math was made for Man, then Man can, for each situation to which He has chosen to apply an analysis drawn from the toolbox of Probability, go on and choose to employ a FREQUENTIST interpretation of probability, OR one of the other interpretations. The limitation on that "as you like it" metamathematic, is that if you find that your selected interpretation BREAKS DOWN in this application, then you're obligated to say as much, and pass on to a different interpretation. If you exhaust all the interpretations of Probability that you're competent to apply, then you're obligated to announce, "I haven't found a specific 'flavor' of probability theory that works for this problem. Maybe there IS none! - Maybe this problem is simply impenetrable to any kind of probabilistic analysis!" Or you might circle back, and try again. As Prof. Sabine hints: Hitting a dead end (especially midway through what might properly be a vortex-shaped journey) does NOT license us to cry, "See! NO analysis of ANY kind is possible! We must declare DESPAIR (and perhaps apply a cudgel here, instead of thought)."

[@rick4electric]

The problem with this kind of thinking is that it looks at the problem of existence backwards. We must look at the problem in the way that it actually proceeds; that is in a forward direction. Looking backwards and deconstructing it must always look improbable. Think of an explosion. It seems natural that things fly away from the epicenter in an ever more chaotic fashion. But try now to reverse that process in your head and see how difficult it is to reassemble everything into the original order! Not very easy, is it? The same thing happens when we look back on the Universe and try to see what the likelihood of past events are! It seems so impossible that things happened the way they did, even though it was a natural result of what happened at the time!

[@axle.student]

I tried doing a thought experiment where I created a universe from nothing. It was insightful. I can't talk about it though because the powers that be will try and jump on my head :(

[@marcobiagini1878]

I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). 1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described DIRECTLY by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties. Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property. The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence. 2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property. Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon. Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property. The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain). Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity. For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness. As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness. My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong. Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini

[@eidiazcas]

Do you have any paper in any important scientific journal? You keep saying "I prooved this and that", which sounds really valuable for a scientific journal

[@ianhall3822]

When you consider that there are billions of galaxies containing billions of stars, and life only exists on one planet, you could argue that the constants of Nature were designed for life NOT to exist in the Universe.

[@ulfingvar1]

Well said!

[@edus9636]

When the conditions are given, lifeforms emerge automatically. The universe thrives of lifeforms.

[@grindupBaker]

Those old black & white films from 1932 like at 0:15 were so artistic.

[@rudolfquetting2070]

That’s how I interpret Sabine: If one does not like to believe in coincidence, she or he necessarily needs to believe in the many world interpretation of quantum mechanics. From the mathematical point of view, she or he most certainly has to change from the model based on probability calculation to a model of bifurcation. And than one has to accept, to live in one leave of the universal overlay of a continually bifurcating “reality”. But as the world of a certain copy of anything never will leave her or his or its home-sheet of reality, predictions can be done by probability calculations only. So, from the science view of the world, one wins nothing but a new religion. May all Many-Universers be happy with that. From the philosophical point of view religion is tolerant, but science isn’t. One can believe whatever she or he likes. But one should say “I know”, only if one is prepared to possibly revise her or his opinion. OK Sabine, I can sign tat.

[@nerdyali4154]

"If one does not like to believe in coincidence, she or he necessarily needs to believe in the many world interpretation of quantum mechanics." Why? Maybe there is only one universe at a time recreating itself an infinite number of times. Maybe there are an infinite number of universes. Maybe no other form of universe is possible. We don't know what is possible or likely until we understand how universes form.

[@rudolfquetting2070]

@@nerdyali4154 Why? Because there is either one and only ohne of many possibilities per coincidence or there are some, Many or all of the possibilities in parallel which can be described mathematically as bifurcations or universal overlays. So far the math models. With the physics, that is not quite as easy, we have to confirm our model by observations. And so far there is no one idea, how to do this with a multiverse model. And by oceans razor, our physical model should not have some unobservable flourishes, which nobody ever can prove to exist. Therefore, at least for the time being, probability is the better explanation. From my point of view, thisI coincides with the fact, that we can’t look beyond the limits of Plancks constant.

[@wulphstein]

Does chemistry still work right if you tinker around with the permitivity of free space, permeability and speed of light? What if you lower the nuclear bonding threshold? Do you still get a nice neat periodic table? Or do you get some kind of nucleon plasma?

[@SlipHammer]

Hoyle figured out that the carbon nucleus had a particular resonance for it to be produced in stars but according to her scientists have found other ways that this can happen where the constants of nature are different than the ones we have

[@eric144144]

Mathematics is very difficult. Most people can't do it but the ability to do maths doesn't mean you are better at other things. I have a maths degree but I'm a poor musician.

[@Thomas-gk42]

I'm just a craftsman, a bit jealous of your math degree. Beyond that, Sabine is even a respectable musician. Nobody's flawless😊

[@axle.student]

Thank you Sabine. That was very well presented :) > 11:18 I am having trouble with the idea of an infinite condensed medium spawning infinite Big Bangs next to each other. Overlapping in the same space? Overlapping in some other dimension? Or a kind of Big Bang of infinite Big Bangs? > I am again have trouble with exponential numbers of exponential spawning universes all occupying what medium? > 25:43 Panpsychism: This feels like it has elements of non-locality or quantum entanglement where all information across the universe exist in a shared "now moment" for all particles. I would feel hesitant to call it "Consciousness", but many spiritualists and even philosophers will talk about this concept a oneness with the mind and universe. It's not strictly a human state of mind, but an awareness.

[@Tao_Tology]

11:27 But without infinite matter you literally don't have the resources for 'every possible manifestation to playout'. Infinite space but finite matter means that _some_ possibilities can manifest but not "every one".

[@detailsimply3564]

Proto consciousness is the system which finds a critical point by which the wave functions which come off that particular system, become its lowest energy state with the surrounding system as possible. Proto consciousness; how the electron or any of the fundamental forces coming off of a system, find their most conserved state. That conserved state and finding that conserved state is proto consciousness

[@zeroqool1]

@The Institute of Art and Ideas I don’t know if I stumbled on this video accidentally. Overall, it has persuaded me to use this video as a sounding board to speak the truth. Bottom line: the most abundant element in the universe is hydrogen. It powers our Sun, sustains us through our atmosphere, and makes up more than 50 percent of our bodies(H2). Your statement (“Was the Universe made{created} for us?") based on the word created, meaning life sustaining , then the answer is emphatically Yes. We cannot exist without the life supporting element hydrogen.

[@themeaningoflifeexpert]

A question about 4:30, when Sabine said that we cannot quantify the probability distribution of the constants of nature, it is actually not true. We actually can have a scientific measurement by measuring the area of chaotic disorder Vs the area of order in this solar system, with each second for its continual existence being each test try. So saying that the existence of life being astronomical can be a scientific statement by comparing the area of chaotic disorder Vs the area of order in this solar system. And since the area of order is increasing with a growing population, the probability ratio is increasing.

[@PK-tc2uq]

It's the other way around. Life evolved within the constraints provided by the universe and in that sense is dependent on the specific physical constants and features present in that universe.

[@gretalaube91]

There was a guy in Seattle who I met about 40 years ago who was interesting. He truly believed that a bunch of rocks he had were conscious, and could speak if he just believed that it was manifestly true. Maybe he was a large particle physicist. From what I hear, some have a blind faith in what they call science.

[@jamesonpace726]

Sabine for President 2024

[@Thomas-gk42]

Best idea, that I heard for some time

[@fabiankempazo7055]

My question is: if we cannot scientificly identify consciousness even in human beings (we just assume it because we ourself are), how should we be able to identify proto-consciousness in particles?

[@Sam-we7zj]

nobody knows how consciousness works.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Like she said: "Do particles think? - No" Panpsychism, Panconsciousness is a pointless belief.

[@richardwebb9532]

​@@Thomas-gk42 ...says the guy who lives in a universe where most "mass" is composed of empty space.

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@richardwebb9532 Ha, thanks for your funny comment. You mean the mass, that comes from the strong nuclear force, I assume? But there's some evidence. About consciousness neuroscientists just deal with some nice coloured MRT images of brains, seems to be more and more pseudoscience. We have to differ science from belief, I think. Therefore I love Dr. Sabine's smart and clear reductionism of "what we currently know".

[@Sam-we7zj]

@@Thomas-gk42 sorry i didnt realise you'd solved the problem of consciousness

[@blueckaym]

There's one really trivial problem that most people miss when thinking that infinite Universe would result in a probability of anything to happen somewhere. There's also the probability that everywhere the things are the same, instead of (slightly) different. Ie such a scenario would mean that the infinite size of the Universe wouldn't be a factor for its diversity. And while just stating that it's also possible, it doesn't shed a light on how likely it is. But if you think about the laws of physics being the same everywhere (as far as we can see & tell. there are only speculations that somewhere they might differ) then we can see some laws acting on keeping things uniform enough to prevent (or at least restrict) that "everything is possible" diversity.

[@Sam-we7zj]

i think randomness in the initial condition might stop stuff being the same everywhere?

[@edus9636]

@@Sam-we7zj Then the laws and constants of physics could be different everywhere and somewhere out there the sub-atomic particles would have different sizes and properties, and even light would have different speeds. Wouldn't then all measurements done from earth on galaxies, stars and quasars be totally wrong?

[@QuantumPolyhedron]

Scientists constantly say they are not at war with the religious, but the religious constantly say they are at war with the scientists.

[@Iambagface]

Physicist out here trying to math their way out of existentialism lol

[@MKSense1]

Why we can't agree that when the first particle were created they already have intrinsic complex properties with different sort of quantum states surrounded . The only problem is that life and complex structures appeared only when very rare conditions are met so those quantum states can produce higher organize structures in millions of combinations. The issues with physics beside academics vanities and "well established" theories that can't be contradicted for some reason is that they use many reductionist methodologies that have their roots from last hundreds of years. Complex thinks can't be explain easier to the extend of becoming weird or logical only by mathematical meaning. If you try to find fine new quantum property by smashing particle in a high energy collider is just ridiculous.

[@thomasdowe5274]

The Universe was created to make a 'room' for Life, by kind! *The Design Is GREAT*

[@johnnyque7684]

Why would knowing the probability distributions of the physical constants matter for the fine-tuning argument? Suppose that the probability of obtaining all the physical constants is exactly 1. In other words, once a universe is created, then the values of all of the physical constants will necessarily take the values to have a stable universe and create life. This would indeed strengthen the fine-tuning argument. A probability of 1 would indicate that the outcome of having these specific values is not a matter of chance but is instead predetermined or designed. In this scenario, if it is necessarily the case that any universe that exists must have these fine-tuned values, it would suggest that there is some underlying reason or mechanism that ensures the universe's parameters align precisely to allow for life. This could be seen as evidence for the existence of a designer or creator who set up the universe with the intention of supporting life. If, on the other hand, the probability distributions revealed that the observed values of the physical constants are extremely unlikely or highly improbable, it could further strengthen the argument for fine-tuning. If the range of possible values for these constants is very broad, and yet the actual values necessary for life fall within an exceedingly narrow range, it would suggest that the fine-tuning is not a result of chance alone. So in both cases, the fine tuning argument holds.

[@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos]

I don't think that makes sense if you spell it out precisely. So to start you would have to say what exactly you mean with "fine tuned for life". The usual phrasing for "it's unlikely" is obviously not what you mean. So in which sense is it "fine tuned"?

[@scambammer6102]

"it would suggest that there is some underlying reason or mechanism that ensures the universe's parameters align precisely to allow for life." No it wouldn't. You just want it to.

[@edus9636]

@@scambammer6102 Of course it would, and that case scenario wouldn't be unscientific either because information is the very foundation of the universe. Without it, no natural laws, no constants, no physics, no fine-tuning, no life, nothing.

[@DS-en4et]

This is like some sort of “coming out” speech for a monotheist

[@edus9636]

It's amazing how the defenders of randomness and magic throw stones at Sabine! This same people would have thrown stones to greats like Semmelweis, Pasteur, Boltzmann, Tesla, Wegener, etc, in the past too. Nothing has changed. Unbelievable...

[@johnmalik7284]

"Copies of us" means each one of us shares the same consciousness system. "Do particles think?" Particles ARE thought. Thought is data recorded from information. Multiverse and many worlds, copies of us, are the same thing from quantum and classical perspectives. The big bang is birth.

[@md.noorulkarim5542]

Excellent lecture, food to think.

[@rudolfquetting2070]

Infinity and eternity do in no way imply or guaranty, that every event that theoretically can happen will actually happen once in a while or sometime.

[@appynoon]

quite so

[@billmccaffrey1977]

Excellent talk. I have to read your book.

[@mykrahmaan3408]

"Negative" and "positive" have no "particle physical" meaning. MASS, for example, is visualizable as corresponding to the size (volume) of a particle. But these two concepts are only "means" to hide our ignorance, similar to "god", "angels" or "devils". Even in the Cartesian System of Coordinates (CSC) the "assumption" of existence of 3 psitive and 3 negative directions to the 3 axes has no physical meaning whatsoever. What physical meaning can one associate with assuming EAST, NORTH and MIDDAY direction as positive and the corresponding other 3 as negative, when CSC is applied to the center of the earth. Same thing applies to the assumption of existence of "charges" in protons and electrons of atoms. Hence, a PHYSICIST has no right to talk about positive and negative, without identifying oneself as a BLINDLY FAITHFUL PERSON to SCIENCE as the believers in GOD are to RELIGIONS. There is a PHYSICAL INTERPRETATION of the property of certain substances to ATTRACT or REPEL each other possible, without assuming existence of "charges" (hence also spins, quarks, etc.) if all particles possess MOBILITY (magnitude and direction of motion, instead of MASS). But then the present atom model must be totally discarded and a "Plum ~ Pudding" model assumed instead, as REST can only occur as balancing of the mobilities of physically interacting particles with this single property, MOBILITY. And the CSC would also be replaced with a unified system of numbers with DIGITS interpreted as unique type of particles with a particular range of mobility. Unscientific = Infidels Sabine, herself agrees, but doesn't take the "crucial step" (leap ~ shift ~ of FAITH) to overcome the crisis in the method we use to "search for knowledge", specifically the criterion of proof, which SHOULD be: PRACTICAL SATISFACTION OF THE NEEDS OF BEINGS, instead of current: PREDICTIONS talliying with RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS, which doesn't guarantee the suitability of the conclusions arrived at for the purpose of PRACTICAL satisfaction of the needs of beings. This "crucial step" involves discarding the inbuilt FATALISM common to both, SCIENCE and RELIGION, that there exists an uncontrollable by us force that determines the flow of all events in the universe, IRRESPECTIVE OF what we ourselves do in it. Out of all current physicists, Sabine's mindset is the most suitable to take this leap in practice.

[@stevebl7125]

Why would assigning the probability of the physical constants being what they are at 100% not be a Scientific Argument? Of course it's a working assumption incapable of being disproved but what assumption is disprovable (until theory - which is not sufficient to show alternate probabilities - and experimental evidence actually do disprove it).

[@andreybogoslowsky]

my “time management skills” I believe every millisecond of my life I am fulfilling destiny of the universe . In Hinduism, it’s called karma yoga . In contemporary western mysticism we would say “Andrey believes he is acting the will of God” I was told throughout my education I have a special gift. I should never ignore it . This is my personal responsibility to make sure my artwork is durable/survives time . My artwork should be accessible to general public. The ownership of my artwork will be decided by society. The same about the ultimate judge about quality of artwork -time, history and society -ultimate judge what goes to a museum. (Even if your paintings are in the museum for over 100 years, one day, they might be taken down, sold. I don’t care what time of the week it is, my geographic location in MilkyWay galaxy. I don’t care about food, roof over my head . I care only about loving my girlfriend, children, friends, creating timeless breathtaking artwork. One day I will stop breathing, heart beating. On my deathbed 1000 paintings be owned by corporate art collections and most sophisticated art collectors in the world.

[@BarryShakespeare]

common-sense argument is so rare in philosophy. Go girl.

[@dhaktizero4406]

many worlds sounds like the difference fruit at work the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of the DIFFERENCE between good and evil

[@loz6441]

There are different scales of infinity, and the idea that there's an identical planet somewhere with an identical copy of me doesnt necessarily follow.

[@davidwilkie9551]

If you don't ask Physicists the question that is the Observable constant creation Communication In-form-ation mechanism, they discard Philosophy and work on militaristic money making schemes, otherwise the question is, "Who am I" in the scheme of existence, and the only obvious reason for personal existence is, Defending Life as we know it physically.

[@DavidBrown-om8cv]

"Infinity Is Weird" - Is infinity a semi-theological concept which is empirically invalid? Consider some hypotheses: 1. String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies gravitational energy is conserved, all gravitons have spin 2, and Milgrom's MOND is empirically wrong. 2. String theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies gravitational energy is not conserved, dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5 (implying MOND is approximately correct), gravitational energy is not conserved, some gravitons have spin slightly > 2 (explaining dark matter), some gravitons have spin slightly < 2 (explaining dark energy), the Riofrio-Sanejouand model is approximately correct, string vibrations are approximately confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice, & the multiverse is mathematically isomorphic to a finite-state machine based upon the monster group & the 6 pariah groups. Am I wrong? Please google "kroupa mcgaugh mond" & "witten milgrom mond".

[@jagatiello6900]

There's a version of the universe where they've figured out that the multiverse doesn't exist (with probability one).

[@tstefanec8203]

What's up with all this UAP lately? Do you think the government is trying to slowly get us used to the idea. And I'm saying since the 50s. What does everybody think about this? I would love to hear your thoughts

[@rossmcleod7983]

For those that have actually looked into the phenomenon, it’s history, the coverups by all the alphabet agencies and the government perception management programs and the current hornets nest in congress, to say nothing of the myriad eye witness accounts, then it’s prudent to say that there is a there there.

[@p39483]

It's standard wartime deception. Misinformation, plausible deniability, etc. Basically everything you can think of, it is. Who blew up that bridge? Must have been aliens? Why is that bullet black-body radiating at 20,000k? Must be be aliens. I demand the documents!!! No, sir. Those are the alien files, highly classified.

[@kevincoffey631]

What is fluctuating in the quantum fluctuations? How do they exist? Krauss doesn't explain what caused the quantum foam from which he and you say particles emerge spontaneously.

[@maryadantzer5311]

Isn't it possible that our definition of "life" is too narrow? That is, that there might exist life that we don't recognize as such? That these unrecognized forms of life don't require carbon?

[@LowellParrish-u3o]

Sabine, so this is essentially the only universe where we can exist or one identical. If we observe then it seems we observe a universe like ours or we might not exist to observe. Since we do observe then it is only in a universe like this. ??

[@RickDelmonico]

Have you read the paper; 'No evidence for Particles'?

[@stevedriscoll2539]

No. Who wrote that, please?

[@RickDelmonico]

@@stevedriscoll2539 Casey Blood There are a number of experiments and observations that appear to argue for the existence of particles, including the photoelectric and Compton effects, exposure of only one film grain by a spread-out photon wave function, and particle-like trajectories in bubble chambers. It can be shown, however, that all the particle-like phenomena can be explained by using properties of the wave functions/state vectors alone. Thus there is no evidence for particles. Wave-particle duality arises because the wave functions alone have both wave-like and particle-like properties. Further the results of the Bell-Aspect experiment and other experiments on entangled systems, which seem to imply peculiar properties for particles if they exist, are easily and naturally understood if reality consists of the state vectors alone. The linear equation-Hilbert space structure for the state vectors, by itself, can explain every mystery in quantum mechanics except the origin of the probability law.

[@stevedriscoll2539]

@@RickDelmonico Thanks Rick! That stuff is out of my range, but I find the ideas of wave/particle duality fascinating...the observer effect and all, and what is going on there. I know Niels Bohr stated that particles weren't "real". Are you basically saying the only thing real is the wave function?

[@RickDelmonico]

@@stevedriscoll2539 Jury is still out.

[@stevedriscoll2539]

@@RickDelmonico thanks for the education!

[@HardHardMaster]

A beautiful mind.

[@nyworker]

Answer to what is the meaning of life is: A creature evolves that has a deep sense of meaning.

[@stefandebruyn1884]

Could we be the copies? Maybe a 3rd or more version of the original?

[@machsolid6402]

If it’s not it’ll do till a tailor made version comes along

[@scientistcraft]

For example we can increase our processing power about 25 per second to 100 picture in seconds .so ... That would possibly leads to didcovery about other conscious beings

[@abdonecbishop]

Let’s use the prime number theorem……to predict the proton to electron mass ratio Let’s let…Pn = 10^800….. and..... Pn / n = 10^800 / log(10^800) = 1,842.06............. Next let’s generate a rational formula for computing orbit ratio proton(Pn)/electron(n) …..a proton and electron rest mass constant ratio ….1836.15 = Pn / n = Pn(proton) / n(electron) is satisfied by an ‘n’ inside the interval 10^784 < n < 10^800 ……..n equals the total number of electrons and protons orbits in our universe

[@raajrajan1956]

Constant is nothing but way in which mind or intellect tries to understand.That is perse they have no locus standing except as contivances to understand

[@jamesjpak]

No. The universe was NOT made for us

[@edus9636]

Chance the settings, ANY settings, and no suns, no galaxies, no elements, no lifeforms. Yep, it was made for lifeforms, and for intelligent ones too.

[@scientistcraft]

We can make it as universe made for us . Otherwise there are others! Who can make for themselves. Alians. From other galaxies

[@JCO2002]

A big part of the problem is that the US is highly religious, so many physicists from there instinctively think we must be special and there must be a god (prime mover) involved. You have to always look very critically at any science that comes out of the country.

[@geoffreywilliams9324]

To me, it is far more likely that we were made for the Universe. Think about it, who came first ? Answer: the Universe came first. We have simply evolved to suit it . .

[@dondattaford5593]

Well pick we are here to experience and that's a requirement of reality

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Was the universe made for us? No.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

AGE OF THE UNIVERSE: SPACE IS FINITE AND TIME IS INFINITE: (copy and paste from my files): ('Space' being energy itself, 'Time' being the flow of energy, 'SpaceTime' being energy and it's flow): Consider the following, utilizing modern science and logic and reason: a. Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." b. An 'absolute somethingness' cannot come from 'absolute nothingness', 'absolute nothingness' just being a concept from a conscious entity in 'absolute somethingness'. Hence, an 'absolute somethingness' truly eternally existed throughout all of eternity past, exists today, and will most probably exist throughout all of future eternity. That eternally existent 'absolute somethingness' most probably being energy itself. c. The universe ALWAYS existed in some form, NEVER had a beginning, will most probably ALWAYS exist in some form, and possibly NEVER have an end. Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, have been replaced by actual reality. No Creator needed. * Some people for some reason (social conditioning/brainwashing/wishful thinking) believe in future eternity without end but do not accept eternity past with no beginning. d. And for me, 'space' is energy itself. Wherever space is, energy is. Wherever energy is, space is. They are one and the same thing. 'Space' is most probably gravitational energy fields, electrical energy fields and magnetic energy fields, varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. 'Time' is the flow of energy. Hence 'spacetime' being 'energy and it's flow'. 'Spacetime' had no beginning and will possibly have no end. e. Note also: The singular big bang theory is a fairy tale for various reasons as well as the CMBR from the supposed 'big bang' should be long gone by now and the 'red shift' observations have more 'normal' already known physic explanations. No dark energy or dark matter needed. * There is really only 1 single truly eternal day that had no beginning and will never ever end. The 'day' of truly eternally existent ever flowing energy.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

QUESTIONS: (copy and paste from my files): Questions: Okay, it's claimed that a sub-set of humanity, in only a certain time in human history, out of all the other humans in existence on this Earth throughout time, as well as all the other species on this Earth throughout time, as well as any other life that might exist in this galaxy, as well as all the life in other galaxies, is the only chosen people of God. Really? They truly believe this? Ego centric much? * God did not make man in God's image, man made God in man's image.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Religion is a coping and control mechanism: Coping mechanism to help humans deal with life and death. Control mechanism to help humans control themself and others.

[@davidsoulsby1102]

In my rather uneducated point of view i believe its quite simple. We exist because we fit this particular reality, if we did not fit we wouldn't exist. therefore we are a product not a goal. Its quite narcissistic to look at it as if the universe was made to fit our existence when its much easier to view it as we were made to fit the universes. hence 100% probability that the universe is just what life needs to exist. just my humble view.

[@NoOne-uh9vu]

If the universe is teleological and was created by a divine mind why would it be narcissistic to acknowledge that? It would be self serving, smug and narcissistic to deny such a possibility considering that it needs at least one miracle (pre or meta physical event to create a universe including all the laws of nature etc) Naturalists like Sabine are just flustering forever filling that god shaped hole with cope-soyence. All she spews is untenable claims that sound awfully like rhetoric specifically curated to create a counter narrative. Extremely unscientific at that. Sounds like any other Neo-pagan materialist cult that worships the material in place of the transcendental. They would say anything to keep momentum and control.

[@Oliveir51]

Fortunately not ! We have only the earth and are destroying it

[@BarryShakespeare]

I should think David Chalmers thinks that consciousness is immaterial yet exists, if only by observing

[@edus9636]

The word "immaterial" is politically incorrect, even taboo, for every materialistic atheist.

[@rogeriopenna9014]

We were made for this universe. That's the simple answer. Reducing it to a planetary frame, it's like a creature evolved in Venus and thinking how pleasant it is, how other planets of the solar system are hell holes (like the third planet, with those low temperatures, bad atmosphere with too much poisonous free oxygen, etc)... And starts pondering that certainly, god made Venus to it's creatures, Venusians. No way such a pleasant place was created on a random way.

[@helicalactual]

If hilbert space is infinite they could be trillions of light years between each universe. The universe used to be our galaxy and then we discovered there were other galaxies. These galaxies are millions of light years apart. Why would the universes not be trillions of light years apart? There could be vast expenses between each universe, so their model doesn’t account for this.

[@mcmg-museudacriacao.melind405]

Yes the universe was made for us ! If you understand that our psique reproduces the same movement of the universe !

[@mcmg-museudacriacao.melind405]

This is the affirmation of my research!

[@rudolfquetting2070]

Events that can happen, do not neccesarily happen, even in an infinite event-space or in eternity. Nevertheless, Muliversists very often are pretty sure to be right. But no doubt, they will never know. Hilbert‘s Hotel has infinitely many Roms. That is by far enough for all human beings. Nevertheless, some people may never want to spend a night there. It simply is too crowdy.

[@castelbergtom2252]

Was the universe made for us? Sabine Hossenfelder, physicist: No. Allan Sandage, cosmologist: Yes.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Sandage: born 1926, Hossenfelder: born 1976. Who is right now?

[@castelbergtom2252]

@@Thomas-gk42Sandage.

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@castelbergtom2252 he died 2010. What about her very new arguments about the possibilities to change the constants and get a complex world anyway. Finetuning arguments are ruled out. Just something for pseudoscientific guys like Stephen C. Meyer today.

[@scambammer6102]

@@castelbergtom2252 And nobody has heard from Mr. Sandage since 2010. Guess the universe wasn't made for him.

[@matthewstokes1608]

@@Thomas-gk42 Meyer is not a pseudoscientist

[@janklaas6885]

📍20:23

[@louisbrassard9565]

The values of the constants in the Laws of Nature did not exist at the beginning of the Universe, nor exist objectively but are.artefact deriving with specific mathematical constructs we currently call laws of Nature but in the future will not since we will have other constructs. So there is no fine tuning by Nature of these constants since they only exist in our temporary constructs.

[@tokajileo5928]

there is some music and drum in the distance it is very annoying

[@C0Y0TE5]

it was a conference with tents, etc, outdoors, and you were not there. sad

[@alex79suited]

The big finish hummm. Was a great part 2 on any scale ⚖️. So TOE i disagree a bit. First we only see a tiny bit, but what we do see is a pattern 🤔 😏. Chaos must exist at which point is the question, the tiny and the large are all governed by the same thing. EMFS. Every system as ive explained is closed nothing is retained except the vacuum mass which is 0Msquared. All information is inside the blacksphere its all thats required. The purpose of you me everyone is based in this blacksphere its job, remove the imbalance restore the equivalence principle to the vacuum. This is why it began everywhere. The sound we here of the vacuum i believe isnt how it should sound. Id like to measure that actually and just set that measurement aside for 100 years and listen again. As the matter verse gathers back to itself in these new forms. The infinite ♾️ space has increased and would appear to expand without actually expanding. We must be careful when observing to make sure we see what we're looking at, we've been looking at the shadow on the wall for far to long. Time has been lost. Sabine is always an interesting listen, she has more ballocks than most men it would appear and is to be commended for this in an opinion. Anyway great video

[@Killer_Kovacs]

10:23 if it's fundamentally random this point would be; in part, untrue

[@casuallearning5020]

Sabine failed to address a static block universe without continuous causation in physics. Without continuous causation, the laws of physics are not ontologically real. Rather, the predetermined block universe is what dictates the laws of physics - not the other way around. Consequently, the physical force constants are the result of what is predetermined to appear in the universe. Given that life is predetermined to appear and requires a very narrow band in these constants, one can argue that life is the predetermined occurrence that dictates these narrow bands - and hence the universe was made for life. Sabine apparently failed to read Dr. Hansson’s 2020 physics proof found at Physics Essays Vol. 33, No. 2 (2020). In any event, life was predetermined to appear in the universe and the appearance of life was not a random event.

[@p39483]

So... constraints not causality, and constraints work both ways in time? I'm inclined to agree. Taken to another level I wonder if there are many possible pasts just as there many possible futures, and all possible pasts which satisfy the constraints of the current moment are real.

[@casuallearning5020]

@@p39483 It would seem to me that a strictly deterministic universe would allow for only a single past and future commensurate with the constraints of the present moment. I don’t see how different possible pasts could all result in the exact same present moment, nor how multiple possible futures could be derived from the same present moment. It’s important to note at this point that the collapse of the wave function is a dead duck without continuous causation in physics.

[@Thomas-gk42]

You make a lot of claims without evidence, don't see your point of difference to what Sabine says. She doesn't deny "continuous causation', the block-universe is a hypothetical construction from a 'timeless' perspective, including time as a dimension.

[@casuallearning5020]

@@Thomas-gk42 I cited proof. Read Dr. Hansson’s 2020 publication in Physics Essays Vol. 33, No. 2 (2020).

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@casuallearning5020 will do, but we see an 'inflation' of papers and theories today. Again, what differs you (or Hansson) from Doc Sabine's remarks?

[@phil3.146]

Prove it is infinite.

[@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos]

Do you understand how science works and why it works that way? If so, why did you use the word "prove"? It's not a talk about mathematics.

[@samhianblackmoon]

🔥👍🏽

[@walternullifidian]

Does the Standard Model contain gravitons? 🤔

[@Thomas-gk42]

You mean the standard model of particle physicis? No, it not even contains gravity. Gravitons are the hypothetical gauge quanta of the gravitational field, but no one has a theory of quantum gravity, not even Sabine

[@scarter9447]

I feel like I've entered a parallel universe watching this 🍻🍻😂

[@wulphstein]

Saying you can't quantify the physics constants because it's a "meaningless statement" is a meaningless statement.

[@pbky4676]

It sounds like a dogmatic belief that other universes can not be known for certain. How do we know that for certain? It is not proven that that possibility is strictly ruled out. Moreover, about the possibilities of different fundamental constants, it is wrong to say that it is not scientific, it is simple as you do not know what decide the probability distribution or if there is nothing to distribute it, then equal apriory distribution follows from basic simple argument. It should be kept in mind that reasoning based on agreed upon assaumptions is a major part of science. If this the way people thought then science would not have progressed at all. That is why peoople who practice science should know little bit of phylosophical history of science and phylosophy of scientific method as a tool to convert guess in into closer discription of reality.

[@pericles2122]

Surprised at the nonsensicalness of the question - the universe came first and then life found a way to 'fit in.'

[@ronaldjorgensen6839]

popcorn nebulas' inflation rate is astronomical if not comical

[@Friedfish-zm7fx]

I perused the book "Existential Physics". A bit disappointed. No mention of Aristotle. No mention of metaphysics. Aristotle coined the terms "physics" and "metaphysics". Science, as one commonly understands it to be, is just a set of philosophies of Nature. Science, as one commonly understands to be, is properly Physical Science, physics relating to our 5 senses (vision, touch, taste, hearing, smell). Outputs of physical experiments are relayed to humans via the five senses. That is what Aristotle has figured out. What is beyond the 5 senses, Aristotle classify as metaphysics. Aristotle hypothesized that the tools suitable for physics are not fully suitable for metaphysics. Can emotion be measured by our 5 senses? Clenching one's fists and jaws and getting a large surge in blood pressure may actually make one angry. But the converse may not be true. Lie detectors are quite fallible. Is there a physical equipment to measure consciousness? So far, a big NO. Consciousness. Panpsychism. When people connects randomness and life, there is a problem: pure randomness implies infinite temperature and no life is possible at infinite temperatures. The experiments related to find panpsychism in individual electrons are done at energy levels that are way too high. Consciousness. Do humans have consciousness? At what embryological stage do consciousness arise? Do dogs have consciousness? Do insects have consciousness? Do plants have consciousness? Where on the evolutionary tree does consciousness starts? Can physics and metaphysics ever merge into one? Mathematics is not Physics, thus there are physical aspects necessarily beyond mathematics. Yes Mathematics and Logic are supremely useful to build frameworks of philosophies of Nature. Mathematics cannot create Matter; otherwise witchcraft is real.

[@syzygyman7367]

She's just a regular European Marxist. Trivializing both physical and spiritual natures, to strip humans of any meaning, and give a politically useful group identity. CG Jung and Pauli thought together on deepest questions, this dumb bimbo is worshipping Deutsche Ordnung. Screw her with Marx.

[@Thomas-gk42]

​@@syzygyman7367 what a meaningless comment

[@eidiazcas]

​@@syzygyman7367 Sabine marxist? Damn you religious/woowoo people are obsessed with Marx haha

[@b-m605]

LOL. So the atheists would have you believe that magic happened without a magincian, not once, but an infinite number of times. But you can't observe it, you can only use it to prop up your magical beliefs. Such a beautiful scientific theory. Clever but not honest.

[@eidiazcas]

What magic?

[@b-m605]

@eidiazcas the fact you asked that suggests you aren't interested in an answer and to be sure calling it magic without a magician is actual inaccurate. It is more of a myth about magic without a magician. Magic is generally something observable that defies the laws of science. Something impossible by scientific explanation. There is a scientific law that has never been disproven it is "Life only comes from life." The multiverse takes a hypothesis with zero possibility and multiplies by an imagine infinite number of attempts and images that this overcome the odds. Essentially, saying, given enough time, the impossible becomes inevitable x infinity. This is not science it is mythology, that is if you consider Santa clause and his flying rein deer mythology.

[@annunnaki5013]

What is the probability of the moon being this size it is and the position its in.?

[@scambammer6102]

which moon? dar-oof

[@annunnaki5013]

@@scambammer6102 I'm obviously referring to our own moon as the other planets moons have specific names

[@scambammer6102]

@@annunnaki5013 well the probability is pretty fg good because there are trillions of moons einstein

[@annunnaki5013]

@@scambammer6102 you are not very bright are you?

[@eidiazcas]

​@@annunnaki5013 @scambammer is right, it is not like is hard to get that combination given the huge ammount of planets/moons, sorry but the moon likelyhood is a really bad argument

[@johnstarrett7754]

Panpsychism does not say particles think.

[@johnhough4445]

If the universe exists, then it has existed for all time (and of course, likewise). Yes? No? Maybe?

[@edus9636]

No, else there wouldn't be any radioactive elements anymore.

[@eugen-m]

are there any scientists nowadays who flirt with the anthropic principle?

[@Thomas-gk42]

You mean the strong one?

[@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos]

It's rational to do so. Everything else would be ignoring the a priori conditions for asking the question in the first place.

[@Gsp_in_NYC]

this is all based on our interpretation of reality that is in our mind

[@scambammer6102]

what's an "our mind"? My mind is better than yours

[@Gsp_in_NYC]

@@scambammer6102 our respective minds. Why do you say your mind is better than mine? Under what conditions?

[@scambammer6102]

@@Gsp_in_NYC all conditions. bc I am not suffering from delusions about "our mind" snort. Also, I can write coherent sentences.

[@edus9636]

@@scambammer6102 Delusional are actually all materialists that deny the existence of immaterial things.

[@scientistcraft]

Not by themselves.

[@jcortese3300]

If the universe was made for me, I have a few complaints.

[@suatustel746]

Actually if l find any court case l want to sue the creator..

[@jcortese3300]

@@suatustel746 Make it a class action suit, and I'm in.

[@chrisjohnomnia]

She is just human. Intelligent but GOD is her creator...our creator.

[@eidiazcas]

Any proof?

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

Can somebody maybe please tell this poor lady about Darwin? Turtles evolved to turtle. People evolved to do all the stuff we do. Do any of these folks have anything to say about Great Turtle Theory: The Great Turtle in the Sky provided huaman beings to give the little turtles on Earth an audience and in due course a supply of farm-grown lettuce, too, right?

[@georgeangles6542]

Sabine says nothing exists outside of the mind. She's a smart woman and a pit bull but she's a walking contradiction. What she says about fine tuning is interesting. That's as far as it goes. Not only was the universe created for us. We are the universe.

[@AurelienCarnoy]

No. Things happen in consiousness. Not things generat consiousness. How could you be aware of a thing without it being in your consiousness. But you can be aware of being aware and nothing els. That is what you call deep sleep. Let us not asume stuff. Stick to your experience. And not thought and reflexion on your experience. You cant remember a time you where not aware. Its so simple it is objous. So to you, you are always aware. Oh but remember that time i passed out drunk. Well you are aware of that as you just memtioned it. Awarness has no collor. It is the seing. That is what you are. It is not a thing. That is why "know thy self" And "i know nothing" I am nothing. Not a thing. Not of this world. Its like trying to explain 0 dimension to a 4 D person. There like : so it does not exist. Its not wrong the source of existence is not exterior. It is interior. Like the big bang is not an explosion sins there is no outside. But instead an implosion. In a point is space. Not space in a point. A univers in a grain of sand. We mesure stuff with our ego. Without ego the univers is unphatomable. And its not practical. So you want practical or truth?