Was the universe made for us?

[@gonshocks]

My cat thinks the house was created for him.

[@johnstown2451]

I’ve come to realize that the search for meaning is a waste of life. That all human life is just a cosmic accident, an arbitrary conglomeration of molecules evolved by chance into an organism with a brain stem, condemning it to ponder, futilely, the reason behind it all. Frasier Crane The last episode of cheers had a lasting impression on me in 2012 I have a game for you- it’s a treasure hunt. I’ll give the clue and you have to find the answers: 1.) Can you find the hidden cross in Numbers chapter 2? Hint, it’s pretty big. 2.) Genesis chapter 5- what do the names mean in Hebrew? Hint, Make a list from Adam to Noah on the left and on the right do the translation. 3.)Why did Jesus keep his miracles secret until the triumphal entry? Hint: 173,880. 1Cor6:9 - WE ARE ALL SINNERS. No one is better than the next. John 3:3 we must be BORN again. Jesus often says “Go, and sin no more”. Sinning after repentance is still sin- repent and be done with the world.

[@Joshua-dc1bs]

@@johnstown2451 copy pasta

[@bozo5632]

@@johnstown2451 Consider the lilies... Before enlightenment: Chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment: Chop wood, carry water.

[@DenkyManner]

Your behaviour towards your cat has not given him any evidence to the contrary

[@Declan-pg8cg]

Take your cat to various freind's houses. Feline multiverse confirmed.

[@tahititoutou3802]

I am a physicist (specialized in electronics). I find Sabine very impressive. She promised "Science without the gobbledygook" and she really does it. It is real science, not even diluted, and there is no (or very little) gobbledygook. I sure wish all teachers could be like that!

[@thomascarroll9556]

Yes, but when she says it [the multiverse] isn’t a scientific idea, it may not be proven or even well attested but surely it’s scientific, we know that our universe exists so it seems at least plausible that others may too.

[@boysteacher3818]

@@thomascarroll9556 With that line of reasoning, I could also "scientifically" say that I am the universe. I have atoms in the body, the universe have atoms. Therefore I am the universe. Irrefutably logical.

[@thomascarroll9556]

@@boysteacher3818 no, that’s just nonsense.

[@CraigCruden]

@@thomascarroll9556 The issue IMHO, is not that there may or may not be a multiverse, but that there is effectively it is a 'guess' (it is a lot like religion but I would not quite classify it as a religion) which is not even supported by anything observable. This guess though is effectively the same as a faith in that you have no foundation, nothing to test to indicate it is true or false... effectively the same foundation as a religion or a faith. Someone stood out on the land and 'guessed' that there must be a some spirit that must have created the land and the sea because... which was another guess that became the foundation for a religion. So it is fine to believe something without anything observable -- but you should not give it any more credence than any other guess - and guesses by themselves should not be considered science.

[@bestcomdand7023]

@@CraigCruden Thank you for your comment. Would you agree with my following summary? A 'belief' is not able to be proven -thus not scientific, non observable, not experimental. If a scientist postulates an idea, it does not make the idea scientific, no matter how much we like the idea. If a Creationist says I believe in a God (so you should believe too) does not make the statement true or false; it is a belief! In both cases (scientist/creationist), I can not argue either way, I can only listen -believe in one, both, or reject one or both.

[@donhayward9825]

"Was water made for fish?" is a nice metaphorical way of framing it and it emphasizes our humble place in the whole thing.

[@buddyrichable1]

@@patrickmulopo7957 Dinosaurs were around for 160 million years. It is just as relevant to say the universe was fine tuned for dinosaurs.

[@rderran5377]

@@patrickmulopo7957 You've completely failed to grasp the basic argument of this video. Either that, or you've just suggested that, for all the trillions of planets in the universe, *YOU* (and you alone, apparently) know the probability distribution for planetary magnetic fields, gravitational coefficients, compositions, orbital distances and climate features that would be "just right for life." Because without that probability distribution, you can't even know wtf "just a coincidence" even *means* (and *that*, Einstein, is the basic argument of the video).

[@fortynine3225]

It looks like there is only one universe and we are the only intelligent life in it. So there is a high probablility that the universe was made for us.

[@ferretappreciator]

@@patrickmulopo7957 why go through all the complications of having dinosaurs terraform the earth and not just have the earth be auto-magically terraformed?

[@ferretappreciator]

@@patrickmulopo7957 so, basically you just think something is 100% true without any evidence nor a way to obtain evidence?? Completely unfalsifiable. Do you even entertain any other world view or do is that a nono Btw, 'god' is a human term as well, considering the hundreds of thousands of different gods that are believed in, and supposedly they're all real too. What makes your god better or more real than any other? If 'god' does exist, it's as a concept within our heads

[@markburns1124]

You are the first person I’m my experience on KZbin that doesn’t try to hype science up. You tell it how it is and nothing more. I’ve learned way more by watching your channel. Thank you!

[@maync1]

She's another Jordan, a YTr of sorts.

[@ThomasistheTwin]

Attributes of a critical thinker.

[@prapanthebachelorette6803]

@@ThomasistheTwin exactly, and I appreciate that a lot 🎉

[@redx11x]

Peter Woit

[@sagittariusa2008]

Sabine was created for us, and we have plenty of videos as evidence.

[@user-ru6mq1xw9y]

How do you know the internet wasn't created for Sabine?

[@MyStarPeopleExperiences]

I'll second that.

[@jimliu2560]

Actually, Sabine (in this context, her videos) “Is” created for Us!!!

[@sylvainbrosseau6239]

Brilliant! :-)

[@MrDorbel]

He made Sabine for us? Nice work!

[@jesseriker260]

It would be strange for us to find ourselves in a universe where we could not exist.

[@kellydalstok8900]

Spoiler: we wouldn’t exist.

[@Radioactive_Slime]

@@kellydalstok8900 great. So I don’t have to wait for the movie then.

[@RolandOrre]

I live within one, and have done for 23891 days, but hopefully not much longer, as it's becoming more and more unbearable for every day with all its inconsistencies. Either I change the universe, or I cease to exist! PS. My plan is it save this reality, to make it sane.

[@timmyjones1921]

yep true and we would not last long to cry or laugh about it either .

[@bhangrafan4480]

It would be impossible.

[@victorpaesplinio2865]

I like a quote from Feynman: "You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!"

[@smichaelkennedy2725]

I hate sarcasm ... in others !

[@JohnBaskette]

And if it were ABC 123, you wouldn’t find that peculiar?

[@taatuu25]

@@JohnBaskette IF ABC 123 was the only license plate I had ever seen, and I had no idea what process leads to the creation of license plates, I couldn't say that it is a peculiar coincidence

[@jackfletcher1000]

What am i missing here?

[@gumgomgim]

Logical Fallasy. It is not „any“ event, it is certain purposeful events that are relevant. If he saw a plate with say his new password on the front and his old one on the back of the car- that would be amazinging.

[@davidtatro7457]

This is the single best, most balanced, most intellectually honest and concise presentation on this topic l have ever seen. Thank you.

[@JonFrumTheFirst]

The universe wasn't made for 'us.' It was made for me. And when I die, you're all fucked. Wish me well - I'm already in my sixties.

[@brothermine2292]

You know nothing, JonFrum. You're really just a brain in a vat.

[@JonFrumTheFirst]

@@brothermine2292 Or a hologram.

[@RSTI191]

HAHAHAHA...

[@zappawench6048]

Jon Frum - get back to the island of Tanna! The natives have been missing you

[@humlakullen]

It's your world Boss... I'm just living in it;-)!

[@Dick_Gozinya]

I have always intuitively known that there was something wrong with this argument, but just didn't have the vocabulary to say why. Thanks, Sabine.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@Sky Gardener what religists seem to actually be saying is that god chose the most unlikely numbers for the outcome he desired, fine tuning ought to be coarse tuning if you want to guarantee humans.

[@Nathan-ng1kp]

I will never get tired of Dr. Hossenfelder’s casual, deadpan dismantling of huge philosophical arguments

[@wadetisthammer3612]

She didn't do a very good job here. For example, she doesn't seem to realize that fine-tuning includes parameters not just constants.

[@Tletna]

@@wadetisthammer3612 I liked her video here in some ways. Still, I agree that she did not sufficiently refute the claims she was trying to refute. Her reasoning also is based upon a lot of assumptions.

[@EyobFitwi]

What are you talking about? She doesn't dismantle philosophical arguments. She clarifies them when they are improperly applied into scientific matters. Note that in the end of the video she said that her argument doesn't mean that it proves or disproves the existence of God or the multiverse, and that her issue is just with people incorrectly non-scientific methods in scientific arguments.

[@arulsammymankondar30]

2:42 "There is no way ever to quantify this probability " . Similar argument in Indian philosophy has been dismissed with an analogy: If you cannot find an object in darkness, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. In other words, your limitations are not absolute limits.

[@RolandOrre]

Despite this was as far from philosophy one can ever imagine. I'm astonished that Hossenfelder has rised this completely trivial argument which doesn't say anything, merely the opposite.

[@nonnobissolum]

Great vid. IN a word (or few, really): A version of "survivor bias." Every other iteration of "everything" unsuited to propagate/exist isn't here to marvel at its own existence.

[@tatonemio6388]

Nice!

[@loki6626]

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

[@andsalomoni]

Now, all we have to do is to find a conscious puddle...

[@jamielondon6436]

Namely if the puddle is in the way of a bypass being built.

[@31428571J]

Great author, but I think he forgot about phase-transition: "Water as a gas-vapor is always present in the air around us". I'll leave it up to others to decide how powerful omnipresence is:-)

[@patrickfitzgerald2861]

"Why are we here? Because we're here. Why does it happen? Because it happens." -- Neil Peart, drummer and lyricist for the band RUSH. RIP Neil.

[@TiagoMorbusSa]

Peart was a pretty shit person, to be honest.

[@Jim0i0]

Roll the bones.

[@kevint1910]

@@TiagoMorbusSa just because he refused to let vapid admirers slobber all over him after concerts did not make him a "shit person" spitting on a dead man's legacy however makes you a steaming puddle of diarrhea.

[@patrickfitzgerald2861]

@@kevint1910 Yep. He was a thoughtful and well-respected guy, and could not have cared less about KZbin trolls.

[@CaptWesStarwind]

Neil Peart stands alone.

[@rikib.3444]

“If you think this Universe is bad, you should see some of the others.” ― Philip K. Dick

[@nobrakes7247]

LOL!!! Hahahahaa Too good

[@rikib.3444]

@@nobrakes7247 Thank you!!! 👽

[@avatacron60]

LMAO!!

[@DJHastingsFeverPitch]

Hahahahha

[@davedavidson9996]

Cool. The old lady is like his 5th cousin

[@troysmalley7886]

The inverse argument, implied by Sabine's talk here is that: A change in the physical constants to a degree where life does not exist, is unlikely given the fact that life does exist, and no cause for the life-permitting range of constants exists. That is to say, any universe which has a greater or lesser speed of expansion such that life doesn't exist, is unlikely. In other words, the fact that life does exist, implies either there is some cause or a life-permitting universe is more likely than a life-prohibiting universe. So Sabine does have her own implied explanation to compete against the multiverse hypothesis, or a deity hypothesis, namely that life-permitting universes are more likely. But even in the case that life-permitting constants are more likely, there must be some mathematical explanation if not purely physical.

[@warrengibson7898]

Please do discuss the possibility of “constants” that vary with time and/or space.

[@Bazzah999]

no seriously I've heard past rumblings that some of the constants are so constant; is this waffle or is there something in it?

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Will take note of this!

[@En_theo]

@@kensho123456 Well, if they don't change during all the thought-experiment, then you can consider them as constants. What she meant was try different constants and see the results. A variable can change inside the "world" you're developing.

[@En_theo]

@@kensho123456 I'm not sure about the vocabulary there, I'm not good enough to certify that the analogy is the same with what you mentioned. But if it is what I think, then the answer is yes :)

[@dwinantosaputra6679]

@@the_hanged_clown sorry for that

[@miklov]

I always felt the natural conclusion is that life has been fine tuned for this universe and not the other way around.

[@vger5857]

Ofcourse you are right! But this conclusion is not interesting enough.

[@rotorblade9508]

The claim is if you alter slightly some of the constants life would not be possible in any form, no kind of life could emerge from it. Life tuned itself because the right conditions were present but if you alter the constants no conditions for anything would be possible. Anyway the claim is not certain because even if galaxies would not form it could be something at different scale an a much different time rate. For example the life of a lifeform would last like 10billion years but it could be equivalent to 1year. Or some totally different lifeforms may apear idk.

[@miklov]

To me there is no meaning in however "narrow" range of constants that make life as we know it possible since the only way a life form can ponder these things is if that life form happened to develop in a system that allowed for it to develop in the first place. If there have been other universes or are other universes that this one doesn't interact with, then maybe it is quite expected that one of those would have just the right constants. But we can not know if this is the case, we don't know if this universe is the one and only or one in a vast sea of universes since we can't observe anything outside of the system we occupy. This I think make the entire discussion about how narrow these values are moot. My two cents =)

[@miklov]

@Theunis de vierde van Brabant Thank you, I got that. Could you please clarify the nihilistic scientism bit? I did not mean to say there is no proof, I meant to say there can never be proof. We can only observe the system we occupy so (being it narrow world view or not) I find it to be an exercise for philosophers to ponder if this is the only universe or one in many. This would be relevant in order to determine if our constants are unlikely or not.

[@miklov]

@Theunis de vierde van Brabant Thank you for clarifying, never heard nihilism being used specifically for science. I did not mean to give the impression that I take an absence of proof as evidence for absence of existence. My stance is that scientific discussions should not entertain things that can't be proven one way or another since it can't further science. It may be good material for philosophers or fiction writers, or it can simply be entertaining to entertain. But it is unproductive for scientific advancement. Regarding the unlikeliness of the constants, without knowing if there have been more universes in the past or if there are other ones now, or without knowing what caused this one to form this way, we can't determine the likelihood. If you have some sort of foundation for this claim, please share it, I am always happy to widen my horizons. In your analogy (which sounds quite nice!) we would be classifying a structure without knowing how structures are typically classified, without having an established foundation of definitions for temples and caves and it would be silly of us to try to classify it at all if that were the case. We could tell each other what we think of course but we could not put any merit to it. I agree with you and it is essentially my entire point to this debate. We can't know if these constants are likely or not and anything stemming from that does not belong in physics.

[@GeorgeSPAMTindle]

Spike Miligan said that he liked to stare up at the night sky, look at all the stars and galaxies in the never ending darkness, and then marvel at just how insignificant the rest of the universe is.

[@theprior46]

Didn't he also go on to say "I thought what does it all mean - and then I thought - well it's bugger all to do with me so I went back to bed|"

[@ttoughtask7296]

Sabine is my new favorite KZbin science educator. I love the no nonsense approach to bs

[@diegog1853]

Interestingly enough, people that claim that life on other planets is likely because the universe is extremely large are in a way commiting the same fallacy. We cannot measure probability of life because we only have one example, which is us and even here life was generated exactly once and only once (specially when talking about inteligent life). Yes it is true that the sample of planets is tremendously huge, but there is no known limit on how small can the hypothetical probability of life be. It might just as well be so small that we could be considered lucky to even exist, we don't know, there are no measurements.

[@ronanstephens1597]

This argument tends to be based on assumptions about similarities to humans. We absolutely can test how many earth like world's there are, how many are in the goldilocks zone, how many probably hold water and carbon. So in reality these calculations are more estimates of the likelihood that human-like life exists elsewhere in the universe. But yeah there's so much uncertainty in many parts of the calculations that I would be reluctant to say we could even be confident that there was another from of intelligent life in out whole observable universe. But that's no to say we can't refine the numbers and get some useful bounds out of them.

[@avon8794]

There is no reason to think the beginning of life was generated exactly and only once. It likely happened many times, but needed many attempts for the circumstances to be correct for it to survive long enough to sustain and spread. It likely happened many times after, but with the earth already being full of life with a huge evolutionary advantage it would be extremely unlikely for it to survive long. Estimating the probability of life existing on a planet is tough, but we do have data to base it on, there is just a very large uncertainty because of many unknown variables. Based on the variables we know it seems life had a high probability of eventually existing on earth, by extension this means planets very similar to earth also has a high probability of life existing on it. We can also do rough estimates of how many planets are similar to earth. This is a fair amount of data to base it on. Whats different between existence of life and the constants of the universe is that we have a good idea of what the requirements for life to exists are, while we have no idea if the constants of the universe could have been different.

[@ralphgoreham3516]

@@avon8794 and Sabine. This is a massive matter to talk scientiically. You didnt mention intuition or consciousness. Multiverse only tosses the can down the road, and a very long one at that. I am a former atheist turned Jehovahs witness an you did not mention the Bible which is universally misunderstood. Leaving the Bible, (a book that has seen fulfilled 100s of prophecies without fail, some in our day) I shall keep to the empirically known facts in the field of biochemistry, keeping intuition in mind. All cells average 25 nanometres in diameter. It is not disputed DNA in the human nucleus has at least 90 TRILLION bits of info in the CODED form of 4 different molecules . It has 5 repair mechanisms that inspect and repair copying errors, splicing them out and inserting the correct info. Also in the nucleous is a machine (nucleolus) that makes Ribosomes Protein factories, in the 100s of 1000s that are distributed , scattered thoughout the cell, most going to an organelle located alongside the cell nucleous. I am 77 and forget its name "rough something) Ill look it up later. You probably know it Sabine). There are 3 main RNA macro molecules that are essential to produce protein. In every ribosome 2 of the RNAs do their thing out there in the cells plasma, asociated with a specific Ribosome The 3rd is Messenger RNA. When a protein of a cell wears out the Messenger RNA to enter the cell nuclous is selected and it enters the nucleous the the precise spot on the DNA ladder and copies the info in the form of CODONS. This an extremely complex process as it has to read backwards and forwards since the basepairs of the molecules on the ladder requires. After another process the MRNA leaves via one of the nuclear pores and heads to the selected Ribosome in the cell plasma. The ribosome RNA translates the codons and the TRANSFER RNA either seconds or makes the 20 DIFERENT AMINO ACIDS and takes them to the Ribosome and they form a peptide that stretches out to one side of this 54 proteined machine (the Ribosome). Smaller strands self fold into a 3 dimension shape. Larger strands of ribosmes some times have over a1000 a acids and the average is about 600 are fed into a mysterious machine and folded therein. It is not know how it does so, all that is know is out comes the protein ready for transport to where in the cell it was requested. This an extra brief description of how proteins of all life are made and these machines continue 24/7. If I were to type out it all I would be up all night. I finish with a quote from Paul Davies who since he wrote this has escaped into the multiverse of which you well know has not a shred of evidence to support. Continued

[@ralphgoreham3516]

Each amimo acid has its own transfer RNA that makes i, or seconds it ,as it floats in the cell. The storage reservoir of the ribosome is called the "rough reticulum". An important fact about codons is that their mo;ecules must be in perfect sequence or it will get tossed out. There can be no 3 dimensional shape so that the protein will fit exactly as it must. Their are numerous other processes that must be carried out in order to make one protein. I did type out Paul Davies quote, not going to repeat it. To sum it up everything in the cell depends on everything else. Not 5 parts of a mousetrap, but 1000s of parts interdependent.

[@Red1Green2Blue3]

It's not the same fallacy at all. The probability of life can be tested (even if not right at the moment), the existence of universes where we, by definition, cannot exist cannot be tested.

[@avendite7206]

Claiming that the universe was made to support life is quite weird, considering the fact that 99.99999% of the universe is extremely hazardous to life. Its like bacteria sitting in sterilised room claiming the room was fine tuned for it, just because it found a place that's not sterile.

[@johnstown2451]

I’ve come to realize that the search for meaning is a waste of life. That all human life is just a cosmic accident, an arbitrary conglomeration of molecules evolved by chance into an organism with a brain stem, condemning it to ponder, futilely, the reason behind it all. Frasier Crane The last episode of cheers had a lasting impression on me in 2012 I have a game for you- it’s a treasure hunt. I’ll give the clue and you have to find the answers: 1.) Can you find the hidden cross in Numbers chapter 2? Hint, it’s pretty big. 2.) Genesis chapter 5- what do the names mean in Hebrew? Hint, Make a list from Adam to Noah on the left and on the right do the translation. 3.)Why did Jesus keep his miracles secret until the triumphal entry? Hint: 173,880. 1Cor6:9 - WE ARE ALL SINNERS. No one is better than the next. John 3:3 we must be BORN again. Jesus often says “Go, and sin no more”. Sinning after repentance is still sin- repent and be done with the world.

[@Argoon1981]

Exactly.

[@6502Assembler]

@@johnstown2451 I would agree with you. However, I'm not sure the word "accident" was appropriate. It implies there was some other plan that didn't work out.

[@tpog1]

Correct, but you’re missing a few dozen 9s. If somebody drops you in a random place in the observable universe, the chances of you dying within seconds is practically 1. Even if you’re dropped within the volume that is occupied by Earth, your chances of surviving are worse than winning the jackpot in any existing lottery, because even if you‘re lucky to be placed within the Earth‘s atmosphere (instead of, say, somewhere in the core), being dropped from more than a few meters in altitude will also kill you. And if you‘re lucky to find yourself on the surface, you‘ll probably drown in the Pacific, die of thirst in the Sahara desert, or freeze to death in Antarctica. The universe is about as friendly to life as the surface of the sun is to a snowball.

[@chuckschillingvideos]

@@johnstown2451 I prefer to remain more open minded, but only open minded. I don't think we know enough to characterize our existence as an "accident" (or any other term, to be honest). We simply DO NOT KNOW. And I for one am completely comfortable with that and with not attempting to assert some theory about how we got here that has no evidentiary basis supporting it. But if you're a theoretical physicist, reliant on gummint grants for your existence, it is far more expedient to just make things up.

[@HarshColby]

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

[@fishmonger1908]

Right. Brilliant. Except that the puddle isn't actually conscious. And consciousness has no explanation by science. None. So this allegory is meaningless.

[@hasanshirazi9535]

Now imagine orange juice waking up and finding itself in a beautiful crystal jug with a covering over it to keep it clean, and six goblets arranged around the jug. This does beg the question "How all of this arrangement came to be?" Life is not a puddle in a hole, it is much much more complex and delicate than even juice in a jug.

[@Lin-vh7uv]

@@fishmonger1908 You're assigning arbitrary meaning to consciousness, when scientists can't even define what consciousness is, or if it can even be measured/observed. I don't like to think that humans are much more conscious than apes - that is, we're just one step above them, barely sentient enough to even contemplate intelligence. Why should we think we're especially conscious or intelligent when we have only just begun to be so? It's very likely that there is an alien civilization somewhere in the vast universe that makes us look extremely stupid. Therefore there is nothing special about the consciousness you seek to explain, much like a puddle of water in a vast layer of mud. It doesn't have any special meaning just because it's the only puddle you can see and you live in it... especially if you're aware of a vast universe where there are probably lots of puddles, just because our universe is so incredibly huge. Also isn't your comment just one giant non-sequitur? You brought up consciousness, then pointed out that it's meaningless and cannot currently be defined, so I don't understand the point you're trying to make. The allegory is valid, because we have no reason to believe we're particularly intelligent or special compared to other life in the universe, and only think we're special because we're not smart enough to find anything else.

[@DanieleNiero]

@@hasanshirazi9535 yours is another version of Paley's _watch maker analogy_ and it suffers from all the same problems.

[@HarshColby]

@@hasanshirazi9535 The puddle found a container that fits him staggeringly well and concluded it was made for him. Changing from a puddle to orange juice doesn't change anything. In both stories, the container fit staggeringly well and unwarranted assumptions were made. The addition of glasses just overcomplicates the simple story for no reason. For example, I could add that the puddle also saw a twig forming part of its (obviously designed) border. The result is the same, making assumptions is an error in reasoning. Also, the puddle's fjords are much more complex than smooth glass. This begs the question: how did the puddle fjords come to be? Or, you're right and the entire universe and all its quadrillions of stars were made specifically so Orange Juice on a tiny insignificant spec of it could be swallowed and consumed in stomach acid.

[@richardbeaudette5940]

The way I see it, the Universe doesn't suit the way we are, we are suited to the way the Universe is.

[@halogenic]

I was just thinking to myself "where is Sabine?" and suddenly there she is.

[@50-50_Grind]

Must be a superpower. Can you teach me how to do it? I would like to answer this question _"Where is all the money on my bank account?"_

[@Nelster]

Me too! Evidence she is made for us.

[@shreyasjv4877]

“I always thought something was fundamentally wrong with the universe“-hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy

[@RobRidleyLive]

"That's just normal paranoia, everyone has that."

[@joeboxter3635]

I love this woman's ability to evicerate the "gobbledygook" logic of other physicists and do it without being mean spirited -- just logical.

[@6502Assembler]

I agree! She was almost explaining it as if Spock were explaining. I like her style!

[@benheideveld4617]

That puts her in a small club with Richard Philips Feynman...

[@6502Assembler]

@@benheideveld4617 Love Feynman. I watched him explain gravity once. Before I watched it I said to myself "Good luck, this is going to be stupid". After I watched it i said to myself "Holy shit, he just explained gravity!" I could be mixing up gravity and magnetism though, but the same thought process I had.

[@CircuitrinosOfficial]

@@6502Assembler Live long and prosper

[@7th808s]

Yep, very good arguments. It indeed silently assumes that the constants of nature COULD be different, which is... something we might never know whether it is true

[@tece2796]

The universe has been finely tuned by the Easter Bunny so that the chocolate does not melt until you have it in your mouth.

[@scribblescrabble3185]

That makes sense, my favorit explanation from now on.

[@benheideveld4617]

@@Denis.Collins Don't you?

[@6502Assembler]

Thank goodness!

[@bozo5632]

@@Denis.Collins So how do you explain chocolate?

[@shadowmax889]

It then makes sense, that's why wolf/dogs are killed by chocolate

[@philkeyouz2157]

This question just reveal how our superiority complex is infinite

[@madallas_mons]

I would say our egocentricity but superiority complex is pretty close

[@redx11x]

Works both ways.

[@007kingifrit]

i don't think looking for something bigger than you shows ego

[@unreasonable3589]

What would be really unlikely if the constants turned out to be incompatible with human life.

[@benheideveld4617]

Best joke this week!!

[@smichaelkennedy2725]

Perfect !

[@Kurushimi1729]

> Scientists calculate human existence is mathematically impossible. > Humans everywhere cease to exist.

[@smichaelkennedy2725]

@@Kurushimi1729 I was a Monty Python fan also.

[@artsmith103]

Completing a discussion of this in less than 10 minutes is really appreciated. Thanks

[@Joshua-dc1bs]

The last 13.8 billion years have led up to this point: Us talking about the universe.

[@johnstown2451]

Assuming you believe time has never changed which goes against Einstein. I’ve come to realize that the search for meaning is a waste of life. That all human life is just a cosmic accident, an arbitrary conglomeration of molecules evolved by chance into an organism with a brain stem, condemning it to ponder, futilely, the reason behind it all. Frasier Crane The last episode of cheers had a lasting impression on me in 2012 I have a game for you- it’s a treasure hunt. I’ll give the clue and you have to find the answers: 1.) Can you find the hidden cross in Numbers chapter 2? Hint, it’s pretty big. 2.) Genesis chapter 5- what do the names mean in Hebrew? Hint, Make a list from Adam to Noah on the left and on the right do the translation. 3.)Why did Jesus keep his miracles secret until the triumphal entry? Hint: 173,880. 1Cor6:9 - WE ARE ALL SINNERS. No one is better than the next. John 3:3 we must be BORN again. Jesus often says “Go, and sin no more”. Sinning after repentance is still sin- repent and be done with the world.

[@proximacentaur1654]

If events are causally anteceded by the events that precede them in time, how would it support the idea that our existence is therefore inevitable or necessary?

[@Declan-pg8cg]

@@proximacentaur1654 Exactly, it doesn't. We just "are", as everything "is". More fascinating to me is what else is out there pondering the same, or has moved past its seeming irrelevance.

[@ypey1]

Congratualtions! You made it

[@GeoffreyFeldmanMA]

That's an awful lot of space time for a youtube video. Not very efficient video production system.

[@OSGondar]

I love this channel. Thank you Sabine ! I am only a few videos into it but I'm so happy I found it. I stumbled upon it during work but I saved it. Don't worry watching KZbin examples was part of the job before I started editing my video work. Just wanted to say thank you! Keep up the great work! I really like how direct and clear you opinions are but also how you present the science. When you agree and especially disagree is very informative and entertaining. I watch to learn something but especially they way you specifically present the data or topic.

[@TokyoTraveller]

We are finely tuned to operate and live in our universe, not the other way around.

[@greyjakson922]

I think even that isn't truly correct. I would say that: we are roughly tuned to live in part of our universe.

[@TokyoTraveller]

@@greyjakson922 A valid point, since we can't observe the vast majority of the rest of the universe due to the cosmic horizon.

[@thegreatbehoover788]

No silly! Your logic is wrong. We couldn't exist at all in any other universe. Create a different environment in a lab...and watch as you CAN'T get life from it ACCIDENTALLY!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🙄

[@kebien6020]

Create a different environment? How? In the context of this video, when people refer to fine-tuning we are talking about the constants of nature which are by definition impossible to change. It is literally impossible for you to know whether life can exist in a "different environment" or not.

[@greyjakson922]

​@@TokyoTraveller No it's even worse than that. Given the constants of the universe, we are only adapted to live on a thin layer around one tiny speck of dirt. Anywhere else and we would die from suffocation. We are not even tuned to live in almost any part of our universe.

[@fabiankempazo7055]

As someone who is open to metaophysical comcepts, I love it how she always challanges my own worldview and makes me aware of the weak spots of my conclusions.

[@iliasbk8886]

She didn't disprove that "the universe was made for us", but rather she pointed out the fact that we connot prove it scientifically. This doesn't implies that the statement is false.

[@Aguijon1982]

The fine tuning argument is no other than yet another lazy attempt to smug a god without having to prove anything

[@iliasbk8886]

@@Aguijon1982 prove what exactly?

[@Aguijon1982]

@@iliasbk8886 Without having to prove that a god exists

[@iliasbk8886]

@@Aguijon1982 what proof do you need to consider it a proof? In my view the fine tuning argument is an argument for the existence of God. One cannot use science to prove or to disprove God, so how the proof should be from your point of view?

[@hfislwpa]

Sabine, is there a chance we could ever find you on lex Fridman podcast? Would love to hear your ideas in a 2-3 hour format. Thanks for all the complex knowledge made accessible to us casuals!

[@iseriver3982]

Why does she need to go on a podcast to talk about her ideas when you're on her youtube channel where she talks about her ideas?

[@avialexander]

Tbh Lex is a terrible host for people who want to hear serious in-depth discussions. He's always asking these completely esoteric, philosophy-bro questions and redirecting the discussion away from the stuff the person wants to talk about. I think of him as basically Joe Rogan for the kind of people who "fucking love science."

[@iseriver3982]

@@avialexander so, I don't listen to lex because I have a life, but youtube used to spam me his clips. Did he seriously spend a podcast talking about aliens because one guy thought he saw one?

[@avialexander]

@@iseriver3982 No? I mean, maybe? I wouldn't know, the last time I listened to one of his podcasts all the way through was the first geohot one. I've tried a few times since then because the guests sounded cool but I cannot get over how insufferable his questions are and how he pulls the discussion up to the lay level constantly, negating the whole point of talking to his brainiac guests.

[@mtfine]

Yes!

[@CrusaderTube]

The argument of fine tuning is a metaphysical one and therefore cannot simply be refuted by the fact that anything we can measure is limited to our universe. This way of refuting merely reflects particular philosophical positions like logical positivism and empiricism, which themselves, it can be argued, are dogmatic. It is a perfectly valid thing to say that the fine tuning of the universe requires explanation, and at least in my opinion and that of many physicists and philosophers whom I wouldn't simply dismiss as fools, multiverse theories are good candidates. I think it is safe to say that there are deeper things in the world that are not dreamt of in your statistics. The fact that we don't have data only shows our ignorance, and to say that everything is nevertheless explained is to not admit that ignorance. Not recognizing this might be the dogma of some people who like to call themselves persons of science.

[@MasaokaKun]

She literally said that. That the idea of "fine tuning" is not scientific and that the evidence we do have doesn't prove (or disprove) that god or the multiverse exists, therefore both Ideas are unscientific or, as you put it, metaphysical. Good job using lots of words to basically said absolutely nothing or add anything of value.

[@janradtke8318]

She didn‘t „refute“ the idea of finetuning, instead she demonstrated that there is no evidence for it, and that arguments regularly made don‘t hold water. It is regularly hard or even impossible to prove negatives. E.g. we can‘t prove that theree is a poker game going on on a small nameless planet in the Andromeda galaxy with God, Allah and Zeus (Wotan‘s wife didn‘t allow him to participate). But I hope that everybody can agree, that it is not a meaningful consideration beyond the fun aspect. ;-)

[@CrusaderTube]

@@janradtke8318 What I don't agree with is saying fine-tuning doesn't require any explanation. There is a lot of crisis in today's physics, and it is a good possibility that multiverse theories that are built with consideration for the fine-tuning may be able to come up with a more complete picture of reality and thereby to shed light on current problems. Historically, a lot of scientific progress has been achieved by such metaphysical concerns. So dismissing them on the ground of our current ignorance (or of some particular beliefs on what kind of reasoning should be allowed in science) may not be a good recommendation for science.

[@cosmoshivani]

you really explain everything so clearly. all popular sci books fail in front of your logical and precise statements. ❤❤💐🌷

[@virgiliustancu9293]

Clear but wrong.

[@6502Assembler]

@@virgiliustancu9293 Oh my goodness sounds like you have a plan to earn a nobel prize! Please explain her wrongness, I'd love to hear it.

[@virgiliustancu9293]

@@6502Assembler Not only me but also many other smart people. Example: Cosmological constant (which controls the expansion speed of the universe) refers to the balance of the attractive force of gravity with a hypothesized repulsive force of space observable only at very large size scales. It must be very close to zero, that is, these two forces must be nearly perfectly balanced. To get the right balance, the cosmological constant must be fine-tuned to something like 1 part in 10 at power of 120. If it were just slightly more positive, the universe would fly apart; slightly negative, and the universe would collapse. 1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.... 1 is too small There are many such constants that are fine tuned and a little change would make impossible our Universe. This can lead to the logical conclusion of the Multiverse or other constructs that impose that our form of Universe is one of many others. In her videos she always explains her point of view by: "It is what it is and any question why it is like that is irrelevant."

[@brunoricciardone2158]

@@virgiliustancu9293 in essential Science, Physics explain How the universe works, and Religion/Philosophy try to find Why universe exists. I think the scientists community already found proof of God, but it's not their goal to declare that statement. Mankind has been always debating what's his place in the universe, but it's clear that it has been designed for us. Emptiness, chaos, null never could create something with logical, organized, consciousness and same time beautiful... life and universe is just perfect.

[@ruschein]

@@brunoricciardone2158 If any scientist has found proof of gods that scientist has done a really good job of hiding it from other scientists. As someone with a Ph.D. in physics myself, I found that most of the people that think that we found proof of the existence of one or more gods are neither physicists , nor scientists of any other kind. I think the problem is that people that are religious have is that they are desperate to find evidence for their wholly unsupported beliefs. I personally doubt that any homo sapiens will ever find out why the universe exists. As to our place in the universe, that is easy to understand, we are animals that, like all animals and other forms of life, are the product of a blind evolutionary process. There is no evidence that there is any guiding hand nor that our existence has any special significance.

[@garydarian]

A team of astrophysicists has run this experiment. Their research focused on two of the four fundamental forces of physics: 1) Electromagnetism, which governs the degree to which atomic nuclei hold onto their electrons, and 2) the strong nuclear force, which governs the degree to which protons and neutrons stick together in the nuclei of atoms. The team's strategy was to construct mathematical models of red giant stars, altering (slightly) the values for the strong nuclear force and electromagnetic force constants. They discovered that even tiny increases or decreases cause problems. The adjusted red giants would produce too little carbon, too little oxygen, or too little of both oxygen and carbon for any kind of physical life to be possible anywhere in the universe. Specifically, they determined that if the value of the coupling constant for electromagnetism were 4% smaller or larger than what we observe, life would be impossible. In the case of the coupling constant for the strong nuclear force, if it were 0.5 percent smaller or larger, life would be impossible. So to claim constants are just brute facts and no way to compare them is not accurate. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10884230/

[@tatonemio6388]

Did you actually read and understand the article?!? Here the conclusion: "Therefore, for the above cases the creation of carbon-based life in our universe would be strongly disfavoured. " You: "life would be impossible" Impossibility must be demonstrated not assumed. 1) maybe *life as we know it* would be less probable 2) a mathematical model is based on what we know today, it doesn't determine what's real but only an hypothetical situation, then evidence must be provided in order to show the hypothesis is real 3) from a logical point of view this argument is weak The whole argument is: If the value of the measured force X would be different by an *arbitrary quantity* , base on *the current knowledge* this would imply "carbon-based life in our universe would be strongly disfavoured." The current condition of our universe are allowing the existence of carbon-based life, in fact we exists. It's kind of a silly speculation, is it not?!? Like to say, the current condition of our universe allows the existence of stars...and the evidence is stars exist. Everything that exists exist. It's a tautology , not an argument.

[@Soundbrigade]

A very unnecessary comment: Descartes: To Do Is To Be Sartre: To Be Is To Do Sinatra: Do Be Do Be Dooooo Love your videos btw.

[@stevenyourke7901]

It was made for me. Not you. Not “us”. Just me. It’s MY universe. Now you get out of MY universe. I OWN this universe. - Jeff Bezos.

[@danesha4705]

Jeff who?

[@richardwagner8498]

"hold my beer" - Elon Musk

[@fredbmurphy]

Seriously though, the universe was not made for any of us; we are just part of it.

[@charitsfachrurizalkusumara5775]

Wait, I'm a bot?

[@meesalikeu]

dont he and musk give like no money to charity? douchelies

[@baldurk.1667]

Just came here a few days ago: This channel is truly a treasure trove! Maybe a quite late question: The constants of nature which are referred here - isn't it necessarily the way that we have admit an uncertainty with which we measure them? This feels like it is enough to think about the possibility if those constants can have a spectrum of values which could create different environments. Btw. I love that dry, german humor an the quite reduced presentation - truely no blah of any kind.

[@TeaParty1776]

Certainty is contextual, a product of a mind focused onto reality, not a property of reality or "God" beyond the mind. When all the evidence implies a conclusion and there is no counter-evidence, that is certainty. One may be wrong, w/new evidence, but the original certainty remains valid in its context. A is true in context B.

[@DistractoQuiz]

I think the biggest argument for a “designer” or entity is that there is order from what seems to be chaos even at the most fundamental level. Order is something that we consider to be linked to consciousness. Error correcting codes in nature do seem to be a big factor towards aiding order but that begs the question where does it originate and what drives it. The fact that things in nature are quantised also indicate design but hey this is mere speculation and acute philosophical reasoning.

[@maikeldoornhein6822]

You are helping an astrophysics master get his knowledge and reasoning skills up to a new level. I love the no B.S. approach in your videos, where the subject is made important and not the way of presenting it to the audience. The internet has too little of that.

[@LeavingGoose046]

I know some other subjects have this, physics just has a bit of an issue with this I guess.

[@justinwmartin73]

I'd be particularly interested in a video on theories where constants are replaced by parameters that can change with place and time. In particular but not only the cosmological constant changing over time.

[@alvinuli5174]

I don't think Sabine has noticed your interest in the theme.

[@jettmthebluedragon]

So like maybe our lives my change or something like that ?😐 also I wonder could some of them repeat ?🤔or I’m I just thinking about trash 😑

[@nycbearff]

You mean hypotheses, not theories. And they're just mind games - the constants are constant in the only universe we have any knowledge of or ability to test.

[@DerekSpeareDSD]

"Man has created god in his own image..." -Voltaire

[@cosmoshivani]

yup🔥

[@Astrochronic]

Man has personified God in his own image. Big difference.

[@ypey1]

Blasphemy! ;)

[@eljcd]

Umm, that sound sexist to me...

[@Astrochronic]

@@eljcd as in huMANity. There is MALE and feMALE.

[@octoberharvest5661]

I believe that the constants mentioned are all as they are currently, because they all interact with one another. Is not that "someone" had to tune them up to meet our universe unique form and nature. Let me explain myself: suppose a thinking organism can exist only in the surface water inside a glass. The water level is just perfect aligned with the edge of the glass, so that air, light and surface are in optimal condition for this thinking organism to thrive. More water would spill and kill the organism, less water would starve it from air,light etc. Is all perfect balance. The organism might think this balance has to be intentional, with a creator. However, from our point of view the water is at that level simply because of the glass is that tall. Water is contained by the glass, the glass shields it and don't allow water to spill. One affects the other one, and all together provides conditions (constants) necessary for the organism to thrive.

[@havenbastion]

The universe is finely tuned for death, life is just a prerequisite.

[@volleyballschlaeger]

Or the universe is fine-tuned for the worst substance in the universe. All animals produce a very bad substance which is even the worst substance.

[@humanitech]

It seem the universe is just a cyclical creative, destructive and recycling process.

[@coryburns9161]

@Clash Clan wow you sound super intelligent I wish I was as smart as you hahaha

[@timmyjones1921]

I can relate to this fully as true .

[@coryburns9161]

@Clash Clan no some dummy like you recommend this crap

[@rayhughes]

I am one with you on this. The Ego of Humankind never ceases to disappoint me .

[@leebennett1821]

You had 8 Billion chances not to exist and some still want more they want to be the Special Creation of an all Knowing all powerful Being who Created an Entire Universe for us

[@Paul-A01]

What ego?

[@DaBlondDude]

I haven't heard it this well explained before. I always just found the "fine tuning" or "intelligent design" approach untestable, self-serving, self-supporting and conveniently flattering (see how special we are?). The multiverse theory is similarly untestable. Both also seem to depend on a lot of assumptions.

[@havenbastion]

"Look," said the puddle, "how perfectly the ground is shaped to fit my profile. It must have been made just for me!" The assumption that those constants could even potentially be different is entirely unwarranted.

[@tomashull9805]

"If you tell a big lie and repeat it often enough people will eventually believe it... and you may find yourself believing your own lies..."- I can't remember whom this quote is attributed to...

[@bozo5632]

Gerbils.

[@beckmack1994]

Goebbles you dummie

[@bozo5632]

@@beckmack1994 Some people should be careful who they call dummie, dummy.

[@eljcd]

I beg a little calm here. It looks to me that the author of a phrase is less important that the truth contained in said phrase, and there is a wagonload in there...

[@beckmack1994]

@@bozo5632 thanks dummies

[@ronb8066]

Great explanation again. I understand why they say "Intelligent is the new sexy".

[@HAL-zl1lg]

Cringe.

[@RedRocket4000]

@O. M. When men who want to oppress women take over they ban sexualizing of women and make women cover their bodies. Communist China under Mao should have been a feminist paradise by the no sexualization theory with its' unsex body covering garments but despite proclamations of women's equality it remained a very male dominated system with very few exceptions. Same of the rest of communist countries with no sexualization of women in media and body covering clothing. Thus sexualizing of women actually gives them power. It the countries that sexualize women who have the most freedom overall. Many things are counter intuitive this is one of them. Not as clear in tropical climates but even there if a dictator takes over women are forced into traditional garb and porn and sex restricted. The sexualization argument is actually a Victorian argument redone from men will not respect you if your sexy. The Victorian period very oppressive to women clearly more so than sexually loose times before it even if those times of course don't make modern standards.

[@FaceFcuk]

Sabine is the jack black of the scientific community. Witty and a rebel and a rockstar.

[@grayaj23]

Does she have a poster of Dio on her wall? I kind of hope so. Or at least the Scorpions.

[@JoJoGunn1956]

Jack Black is a kook. What did she do to deserve such a comparison?

[@paulmahon1613]

@@JoJoGunn1956 No kidding. Jack Black is an idiot.

[@kr7799]

What I appreciate most about Sabine is that she only communicates facts and leaves out the propaganda

[@Earwaxfire909]

I would have liked to hear a discussion on the impact of how changing ranges of the constants would affect the universe. Some suggest that the ranges can be larger than what the popular discussion has postulated. Also the strong and weak anthropic principals and the Boltzmann Brain are captivating philosophical ideas that could use a scientific context. Being too dismissive isn't useful. There are fundamental problems in these ideas that should be brought out for discussion. Thanks for your hard work.

[@markiv2942]

Boltzman Brain is exactly kind of thought experiment you should leave to the moment you go to take a crap. Apparent randomness in particular part of system or in multilevel system doesn't mean chaos in other parts/levels of that same system. "Being too dismissive isn't useful. T" Quite the contrary, nonsensical philosophical arguments should be dismissed at hand so we wouldn't concentrate into useless questions. "There are fundamental problems in these ideas that should be brought out for discussion. " No, they aren't fundamental problems. Probably for some philosophical mind but not for physicists. "I would have liked to hear a discussion on the impact of how changing ranges of the constants would affect the universe." Why exactly? Into what basis this discussion would have?

[@Earwaxfire909]

@@markiv2942 Sabine brought up a philosophical discussion. So it is important to consider the components of that discussion. This isn't physics of course. If you have the chance to read up on these things, they are captivating none the less. The context that I use is to explain these ideas to religious people who are, like yourself, caught up on answers without considering the questions.

[@frankdimeglio8216]

Astro-Physics Community (with 12,541 likes) has now given the following three writings the thumbs up. TOTAL PERFECTION: E=MC2 AS F=MA CLEARLY PROVES (ON BALANCE) WHY AND HOW THE PROPER AND FULL UNDERSTANDING OF TIME (AND TIME DILATION) UNIVERSALLY ESTABLISHES THE FACT THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY: A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Indeed, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Indeed, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA. Great. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. I have mathematically unified physics/physical experience, as I have CLEARLY proven that E=mc2 IS F=ma in what is a truly universal and BALANCED fashion. By Frank DiMeglio Mr. Boris Stoyanov is a super bright and an HONEST physicist. He has agreed that the following post is "crystal clear": ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is proven by F=ma AND E=mc2. Accordingly, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. "Mass"/energy involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance consistent with/as what is balanced ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL force/energy, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Gravity IS electromagnetism/energy. That objects fall at the same rate (neglecting air resistance, of course) PROVES that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Think about it. By Frank DiMeglio THE SIMPLE, PROPER, FULL, AND BALANCED UNDERSTANDING OF THE SHAPE, FORM, AND RELATIONAL MOTION OF WHAT IS THE MOON IN UNIVERSAL ACCORDANCE WITH THE FACT THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA: What is THE MOON is moving AND not moving IN BALANCED RELATION to the Earth AND the Sun AS a linked AND BALANCED opposite in accordance with the UNIVERSAL fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma. THEREFORE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON necessarily matches it's revolution; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the shape AND form of the Moon is basically constant or invariant. The Moon is a BALANCED MIDDLE DISTANCE manifestation or form that is in fundamental accordance with the Earth/Sun BALANCE pursuant to the fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma. GREAT !!! Therefore, the Moon is electromagnetically/gravitationally extended AND contracted ON BALANCE in true agreement with the fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravitational force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/AS what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. By Frank DiMeglio

[@frankdimeglio8216]

Hossenfelder is knowingly and deceitfully lying about physics.

[@terrywbreedlove]

The universe was made special for me. Now get off my front porch

[@johnstonewall917]

Dr Hossenfelder, thank you again.

[@greggapowell67]

Sabine, your explanations and narrative on so many topics are sublime. I watch your videos with great interest. Please keep them coming.

[@dermmerd2644]

I love this thinking. Clear. Logical. No nonsense. Usefulness.

[@archlich4489]

I like her. She's thinky!

[@mkkarroum]

In short, the video is trying to evade the question which asks where did the constants of nature come from. It is a valid question you know and it begs for an answer even if we don’t have statistics to infer probabilities.

[@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763]

Well, I think the question would be more accurately if asked in the form of "why are the constants the way they are", and not "where do they come from". Why do you think the video is about evading the question?

[@lovecraftscat5044]

It’s an interesting question, but it’s a question which belies no answers. This question assumes that there is a “where” to have come from, an origin separate from our universe. It is like any other belief which assumes that something higher than this method of existence exists, and we have no way of observing it. Why ask a question if it gives no answers?

[@thegreatbehoover788]

@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 Because it is evading the question...just like you evaded mine elsewhere. It's a COP-OUT! The logic of this folly is...WELL, WE'RE HERE AREN'T WE???🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@thegreatbehoover788]

@@lovecraftscat5044 Because ANSWERS EXIST for the question. You just don't like the EVIDENCE.

[@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763]

@@thegreatbehoover788 I talk to a lot of people. I don't remember you. Your "🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣" suggests that you are a troll and not interested in an actual discussion. As long as that is the case, putting any more effort into finding out what you are talking about or writing a longer comment would be a waste of time. If you are ever interested in an honest respectful talk, let me know.

[@OGPedXing]

Yes, I would love further discussion of the idea that physical constants could change over time or by place across the universe -- and also what ideas we have for how to test if this has happened!

[@stephenanastasi748]

I would like this also and wouldn't mind if it went deep on math.

[@andsalomoni]

I don't think that the "changing constants" idea is a testable idea. Why do we call them "constants"? Because we HAVE TO consider them constant. If they changed rapidly, we wouldn't call them "constants", but "values" of some variables. Since they appear to be stable, we MUST assume they are constants, to have a reliable and stable playground for further investigations. If we assume that they are not constant, then we can't say anything about the past and the future anymore.

[@stephenanastasi748]

@@andsalomoni Fair comment, but items such as the 'cosmological constant' are under serious review. There is quite a lot of evidence that it may be changing. There are questions also as to whether the fine structure constant is changing. I think it is useful to remember that constants are decided in the here and now. Only when we can investigate much earlier times can we really test for constancy.

[@sportschad]

I just can't fathom how so many people do not recognize the fallacy in this argument. We recognize something is "designed" because we have evidence of it. We can demonstrate records, plans, blueprints, people, documents, etc. or something being designed. We have multiple examples we can compare with each other to determine whether something is "designed". That's the key, A POINT OF COMPARISON. You need this POINT OF COMPARISON to determine whether something is designed AND to actually be able to calculate a probability as you need at least 2 or more examples of something to begin calculating probability. Similar to a watch, how we can compare Rolex, Casio, Tissot, Seiko, Richard-Mille, Timex, with each other and we can observe how they are designed and made, and actually determine the probability of them being designed and made because we have multiple examples of how a watch is designed and made. In the case for a universe being "designed" you need to provide evidence of another universe being designed, let alone one that is being designed by a thinking agent. Evidently, we don't have demonstrable evidence of another universe being designed, moreover, by a thinking agent. We don't have a point of comparison since THIS is the only universe we can demonstrate and observe. We don't have evidence of another universe having a different constant, having different physics, etc. We don't have evidence of another universe to compare to this one, so there's no way to calculate probability, thus we are in no position to use the words "likely" or "unlikely" to determine how anything in the universe can work that way it is. You are not going to shoehorn "the universe must have a designer" by saying "a painting has a painter." We actually have multiple examples of paintings being painted by a painter to determine a painting was designed and made by a painter. We don't have any example of another universe being designed and created by a "designer". You are not going to make anything true by using arguments. Arguments have NEVER and will NEVER make ANYTHING exist. At the end of the day, your argument may still be valid, but you STILL have to provide evidence to support it. If you actually want to make the "watch is designed by a watchmaker, therefore universe was designed by a designer" argument, first, demonstrate the existence of another universe other than this one. Even if you manage to do that, you still have insufficient data to determine the probability of this universe being designed. Next is being able to demonstrate evidence of a "designer" of this other universe. Now you have the sufficient data to actually calculate the probability that this universe was designed and are now in the right to use the words "likely" and "unlikely". Now if you want to validate how likely or unlikely, we can exist in this universe if the properties and constants are different, then you also have to provide evidence of another universe that has different properties and constants. And if you somehow manage to demonstrate evidence of a "designer" of another universe, you still have to demonstrate evidence that, that "designer" is the same designer of this universe, just like trying to determine whether or not a Rolex and a Casio had the same designer. Yeah, there is a lot of fallacious shoehorning in the fine-tuning argument, and the watchmaker argument that people don't realize how much mind-numbing and back-breaking work they have to do in order to validate it.

[@meinfs]

I haven’t heard of Sabine before seeing this. But on the strength of this video, I’ve decided that I like Sabine and I therefore subscribed. I will even check out her book.

[@meesalikeu]

you gotta get on the sabine bus, she answers the big and interesting questions as best is known to humans

[@liquidsonly]

Also check out her music videos.

[@wishlist011]

I find it a little odd that those same religious views will often also have us "living" on after we die without the need for any biology or tuned constants whatsoever. The universe is especially created for something that didn't need to be created that way in the first place?

[@pauligrossinoz]

Nicely put! 👍👍👍👍👍

[@MehYam2112]

Exactly. This existence is some sort of temporary test? Why test things if you already have access to perfection?

[@RedRocket4000]

A good amount of Theology and statement of Devine sources claim this world is an illusion it created this way as a test. Religion also often postulates after death same working as now but better, but existence as spirt form is not often claimed thus the food and drink and everything else in heaven follow physical laws like ours in many ways.

[@DrVictorVasconcelos]

Thanks. Your videos comfort me so much. I always come up with the arguments you show, and it's so annoying that these things get passed as "intellectual" thing that supposedly intelligent people believe and spend SO MUCH TIME discussing. Then I wish I could make them hear this, but I just don't have the proper channel. You do, and you explain it magnificently.

[@Slasgo]

These are things intelligent people discuss, it´s just that they´re philosophers, not physicists. She´s coming from the point of view of a scientist. The idea isn´t uninteresting, you just can´t give it more scientific merit than it has based on data.

[@JR.M.S]

Could be that you are suffering of group think. Just reset your mind and start to think again. Maybe you wouldn’t suffer so much about others stupidity.

[@edenrosest]

Before starting, we should ask if the creator exist first. And this question is beyond the limitation a scientist can answer.

[@Thomas-gk42]

And you are un total accordance with Sabine

[@tommyspoton3771]

The smartest and most attractive woman on the net. And the Universe was made for people like her.

[@youngtrout4950]

Simp

[@6502Assembler]

@@youngtrout4950 Ok..First, I apologize for my stupid questions. I've seen the term "simp" twice now in two days. What does it mean?

[@benheideveld4617]

Spot on, Tommy!

[@DenkyManner]

Bit weird

[@ElectricAlien577]

@@6502Assembler A simp is essentially a devoted fan of an internet personality. Often the term is used in a derogatory way. Implying that the target is a little overly enthusiastic about how great the internet person is.

[@s-g-j]

I have always thought that this argument is completely backward. The universe has constants. Life has evolved within those constraints. No magic required.

[@philuribe7863]

That's not the point though, which is: is it just chance that the constants are what they are (thus allowing life as we know it) - and if so, what was the probability of things being like this - or was it made this way by [a] God, or is this just one out of an infinite number of multiverses, or... Sabine is just pointing out that there is no scientific answer to this question.

[@darioinfini]

@@philuribe7863 I think the point Steve is making is that we don't know for a fact that some other form of intelligent life couldn't have evolved in a universe with different constants. That is, if this universe is not particularly special merely because there's humans in it (i.e., because in a completely different type of universe there may be other intelligences pondering why *they're* so special), then the question is not that "special" that it requires answering in the first place.

[@radiowallofsound]

yup. but it is hard to imagine any life if the universe ends up being a very uniform hot plasma, or a universe without galaxies, stars or atoms.

[@darioinfini]

@@radiowallofsound Right but think of it this way -- in a completely different universe with plasma intelligences -- they ponder a weird universe where the constants cause plasma to condense into strange tiny clumps -- weird things like charged particles orbiting other charged particles. One of the plasma intelligences says well, who knows, maybe it's possible that intelligent life could form from that condensed mess. The other plasma intelligence says how ridiculous!

[@peterclark6290]

@@philuribe7863 Is there any evidence whatsoever that constants are variable? Sub-atomic matter carry their own limits which are constant. Outside of that what is left? Given the physics involved seeing directly into the workings of an atom will probably be impossible which tells us that they aren't little universes of their own, they are the basic unit. Which means even talking about it is Geeks trying to discredit Science.

[@Ken00001010]

It's worse than that. Speculation about different values for the "constants" makes a "map v. territory" conceptual error because the values are part of our model of Nature (map), not actual things in Nature (territory). There is no meaning if the model does not match observed experimental data.

[@toma5153]

Thanks for pointing out the use of the phrase "begging the question" as a specific concept in traditional logic arguments. Today the use of the phrase has devolved into its literal meaning.

[@rizdekd3912]

As in would you please please please ask that question again?

[@swaeyl3883]

"And why is that? It's because they are constant!" 3:08 Hilarious!

[@MarioMandarim]

It is what It is! Some people just can't accept humans not being the center/reason of the Universe.

[@MrElvis1971]

All humans, without exception, perceive themselves at the centre of the universe. It is an unavoidable consequence of consciousness.

[@albertskoope]

@@MrElvis1971 Survival traits perhaps ? I particularly appreciate my own survival slightly higher than yours.

[@MrElvis1971]

@@albertskoope I just read that from the perspective of a rock on Mars 300,561.123643 years ago.

[@proximacentaur1654]

@@MrElvis1971 I don't. Making grandiose philosophical declarations might be an indicator of someone who does. Are you talking about the individual prioritization of their own material security? That's a less inflated assertion.

[@MrElvis1971]

@@proximacentaur1654 who?

[@Cghost-fh4hf]

Yeah, it would be great to hear about changing over time and space parameters.

[@efi3825]

This argument often appeals to a sense of numbers being small, therefor unlikely. But remember, you could easily express the same value in a different unit, for example going from meters to nanometers, and making the numerical value a lot lot bigger that way. There is no reason why meters as a unit would be more truthful than nanometers.

[@SolveEtCoagula93]

As always a clear explanation that goes to the heart of the problem and, in this case, shows that there is no problem. Nice one Sabine!

[@RahulJain-uo5ol]

She's straightforward NOT brutal. Love

[@gary3ward]

Read the book, "Lost in Math" by Sabine Hossenfelder. It is eminently logical.

[@leainelodoen5519]

It is a great read!!

[@johnsmith1474]

@@leainelodoen5519 - So you say, but you can't express it convincingly, so ....

[@johnsmith1474]

An illogical book on math would be interesting.

[@carlosespinal17]

I'm reading it at the moment.

[@pjaworek6793]

I absolutely loved her take down of FTA against a proponent, Luke Barnes. Sabine was so casual after she opened with, "It's not scientific...absolutely no point". Watching Luke try not to imply any science for the rest of the debate looked awkward. Go Sabine!

[@mrbigfellanz]

So 100% of observed universes are the same as the one we have observed.

[@philosoaper]

I never understood the logic behind that argument really.. we exist in this form because the universe we are in.. allows us to exist in this form and the universe can exist in it's form.. if it was slightly different, we could have still been around but in a form that is unrecognizable to us in this universe, and still make the same dumb argument that THAT universe was created that way specifically for them to exist that way..

[@goyonman9655]

"we"?

[@suntzu7727]

That's like finding a corpse and saying "well, if he wasn't dead he wouldn't be a corpse, nothing to see here". The tautology that if things weren't what they were they wouldn't be what they are, does not stop us from asking why they are what they are and what that means. The point the supporters of the fine tuning argument are making is, that the constants being those that happen to be is not due to physical necessity and not plausibly due to chance, so they are due to design. I'm not saying I agree with them since I don't know the relevant physics and I believe Sabine knows them well. I'm just pointing out that your response is just a tautology that missed the point.

[@elrathJohnson]

I think the most insidious form of this argument is when someone slides from parallel worlds due to quantum events into a multiverse with a variety of laws of nature. As an aside, I was first introduced to the multiverse fallacy in an exploration of how the quantum world could birth a macroscopic universe. Their "reasoning" behind the big bang was the universe could be seen as the expansion of a certain quantum state. Their extrapolation continued; because of their assumption that the big bang was the result of a quantum event, and their one "data point" provided evidence that such an expansion _could_ happen it would happen again in the infinity of time. The infinite stable expansions they called the multiverse. So if you're willing to sail over a big assumption that the big bang was the expansion of a quantum event, AND feel that a single data point is sufficient evidence, then you could still find evidence for a multiverse. I left them with their delusions.

[@57thorns]

@@elrathJohnson Those speculations (not yet Theories, as they are not reasonably "proven") are still based on the maths governing our current understanding of the universe and the natural laws. That is one heck of a big leap over just writing something down without a shread of evidence and claiming it to be true despite plenty of evidence that it is false.

[@elrathJohnson]

@@57thorns Hmmm. It sounds like this might be an opportunity for me to learn something. I might have committed the fallacy fallacy- thinking their claims were false because their argument was flawed. Would you mind steel-manning this argument? And do you see it as in conflict with the video denouncing multiverse theories?

[@Harpoika]

I would love to hear Sabine and Sean Carrol discuss multiverse.

[@thegreatbehoover788]

The multiverse is a FARCE...PURE FANTASY. PROVE ME WRONG!!! ..........crickets........... ........ oh...that's right we can't measure or apply SCIENTIFIC METHOD to anything outside the laws of physical SCIENCE!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@thegreatbehoover788]

@Roger Loquitur I was beginning to think I was the only one that GETS THE POINT!!!! WELL DONE! loved the use of the marxist and socialist dogma from humpty and alice.... that merely repeating a lie...by changing word meanings as we do today.... makes it SOMEHOW true for someone!!!! Bravo!👏👏👏👏👏

[@thegreatbehoover788]

@Roger Loquitur How I wish Society would seek to protect TRUTH as they do the use of capitalization! -TheGreatBehoover

[@thegreatbehoover788]

@Roger Loquitur No. It is true that thegreatbehoover responded to your claim. TRUTH is always FACT. I don't presume I responded to you. In fact I did. That statement is TRUE and NOT vacuous nor made in vaccuo. The society of silly naturalists and materialists that pervade and pollute these KZbin boards...that society. You know...the one's that think they are smart for BELIEVING in the natural selection fairy. By in vaccuo...I am assuming you refer to that which is missing between their ears...which is RATIONAL thought.

[@mattplastique5293]

I think the probability argument is a little more complicated than that. We have two possibilities, (1) that the only values that these constants can have are the ones they have now, which are the ones necessary for life or (2) that they can be any value from a set of numbers that contain only a narrow range of values that are necessary for life. In this second case this branches again into two options, (2a) That there is only a shallow range of possible values for the constants, which means which means that there is some mechanism which selects these possible values, which means their is evidence that the mechanism itself favours, to a degree, a set of life necessary values, or (2b) There is an arbitrarily large number of values with only a narrow range which is necessary for life, which leads to the simplified way in which the probability argument is presented. This leaves us with case (1) and (2a) which present some evidence to support the expectation of a universe with some form of life focused teleology, and (2b) which is the probabilistic argument, which can be used to provide evidence either for the aforementioned teleological expectations (in the case of 'fine tuning'), or for a multiverse system (in the case of 'infinite possible worlds'.)

[@xavierxeon]

short version: "if pi had another value we would not have circles, therefore god" is not an argument.

[@jackbarbey]

No, that wasn't actually her argument at all... Her argument was the the probability density functions of these cosmological constants are unknowable, so speculating about the probability of them assuming other values is unscientific. Pi and the cosmological constants are very different in that the CCs so have a direct influence on the makeup of our universe. So it remains true that, if we did have a method of assigning probabilities and the probability of our constants was extremely low, then some sort of mechanism explaining these constants would be called for.

[@benheideveld4617]

π is NOT a physical constant of a specific universe, but a mathematical constant, across all possible universes. Physicists may be masters of our Universe, but Mathematicians are masters of ALL universes. That realization keeps this theoretical physicist (myself) humble, well, relatively humble...

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@jackbarbey And the mechanism could very well be the 'gem' photon, the possible actual energy unit of this entire universe. Consider the following copy and pastes from my files to you.

[@xavierxeon]

@@jackbarbey I disagree. You can not change these constants in this universe, therefore the argument that there is a probability density for them is not falsifiable.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@jackbarbey Revised TOE: 3/25/2017a. My Current TOE: THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.). 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons. 10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary. 11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks. 12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon and acts 90 degrees to the EM forces which act 90 degrees to each other. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc. 14. I also believe that a pulsating, swirling singularity (which is basically a pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon) is the energy unit in this universe. 15. When these pulsating, swirling energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 16. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate. 17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure. 18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. NOTES: 22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well. 25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true. 26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught? DISCLAIMER: 27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty.

[@JesusCruz-jo9ip]

This video is not only sponsored by Brilliant, it is brilliant!

[@kallekontio2322]

And also: How do we know sentient life couldnt exist in universes where the constants are different? Are we sure sentient life needs galaxys or suns? Are we sure sentience even requires chemistry? Truth is, we have very little idea what really constitutes life, sentience or contiousness.

[@stephenanastasi748]

Nah. This is an argument from 'we don't know', therefore it is possible. You first need some evidence that this might be possible.

[@amiththomas3884]

@@stephenanastasi748 No, you're missing the point, this is a response to the argument that it is impossible. The people making that argument have no basis for it. There is no basis of comparison in the first place on what is possible or not, because this is the only universe we can observe. The correct answer is "we don't know", but the fine tuning argument tries to pretend that we can know, despite absolutely no basis of comparison. Literally all we know is that the universe is the way it is.

[@stephenanastasi748]

@@amiththomas3884 Not quite. Arguing that a certain stance could be the case but with zero evidence for some background condition is a nice fun thing to do... but not science or philosophy you will find.

[@kallekontio2322]

@@stephenanastasi748 I would have to provide evidence if I made the claim that it is the case. The proof of burden is not on me if I merely ask "are we sure its impossible?"

[@EklavyaGoyal]

I recently found Frau Hossenfelder's channel and I've been bringing and taking notes! So much information delivered in such a simple yet interesting way! Thank you Frau Hossenfelder!

[@magicweaponr072]

I'd also like to put the argument in another way: How do we know it wasn't life who evolved around the constants, and not the constants being fine-tuned for life?

[@bozo5632]

If the constants were a little bit different there couldn't be atoms and chemistry. The whole universe could be one big black hole, or just photons, or a million billion other things, with no possibility of life. But so what? Why is life the special indicator of anything? So what, if the universe didn't permit life? I think it's more of a psychological question than a physical one.

[@MichaelAntonFischer]

@@bozo5632 as Terry Pratchett Said: Where live is possible, live arises. Where it is impossible, live still arises.

[@proximacentaur1654]

@@bozo5632 Yes I agree. The idea that the universe isn't 'for us' or for that matter 'against us' is an existential challenge.

[@magicweaponr072]

@@proximacentaur1654 I'd say the universe is pretty much against us, since at least 99% of it is extremely inhospitable for life :)

[@ObjectsInMotion]

@@magicweaponr072 Actually, almost the entirety of the universe is extremely *hospitable* to life. There are very few places you could put a living thing with life support and it not be able to survive. Because chemistry works the same almost everywhere in the universe, and its that chemistry that is why our universe is so great for life.

[@rv706]

@Sabine Hossenfelder: when you say "multiverse", which theory are you referring to, precisely?

[@SabineHossenfelder]

All of them: Eternal inflation, many worlds, string theory landscape, simulation hypothesis, the mathematical universe if you wish to add that. (I go through those in my book and did an earlier video about these, except for the simulation hypothesis, about which I have a video upcoming, probably next months.)

[@liquidsonly]

@@SabineHossenfelder Looking forward to the simulation hypothesis. (Note to self: watch The Thirteenth Floor again).

[@rv706]

@@SabineHossenfelder: sorry for adding a late reply (I saw your reply just now). So... I wanted to say in my opinion there's a lot of difference in legitimacy between various "multiverse theories". There are those, such as simulation hypothesis and mathematical universe, which are just a huge arbitrary metaphysical add-on on top of our empirical theories (whatever they are). I think in this case it's just safe to excise the excess metaphysics and throw it out without hurting anything. But there are cases, such as Everettian QM or inflationary 'multiverse', in which the "extra stuff" is entrenched with the mathematics in an irreducible way or follows logically from it: if you were to remove that stuff you would butcher the mathematics and hence the conceptual (not the metaphysical) economy and clarity of the theory. In this case, I think keeping the excess universes is vital and positive, provided the theories do give empirical predictions or solve conceptual problems: e.g. Everett solves the measurement problem (yes I know you don't think it does... and I think you're wrong :) ). Who cares if the metaphysics is a bit fatter; and by the way every physical theory has somehow its "metaphysical sector": theoretical stuff that doesn't have a direct empirical interpretation (e.g. potentials, as opposed to differences of potential, in classical physics). Then there are borderline cases, such as string theory landscape. I don't know if people are trying to put a probability measure on the set of possible Calabi-Yau's or something, thus attempting to make the extra stuff explanatory (at least formally); but right now string theory is not exactly very testable anyway...

[@TheSonicfrog]

I just love how you explain why things don't need explaining ... I wouldn't mind if the universe was made for us, as it includes fine folks like yourself!

[@davidsmith7653]

or even fine tuned folks like yourself :)

[@benmcreynolds8581]

This makes me think of one of my favorite artists of all time. Due to his passion and study of science, physics, and poetic expression. ~[Written By: Eyedea]: If someone grew up in a cubicle as Plato once suggested They would only know the cubicle and not the world outside it And they wouldn't view the cubicle as something geometric We only know it's a cubicle because we live outside it Now the one inside the cubicle can't comprehend his measurements 'Cause measurements are models made up for and by observers Relative to their position on the outside of the cubicle They understand objectively so they can study further If I grew up in a cubicle the walls are limit my universe I have no knowledge of the entirety like the outsiders do If you follow what I say and can swallow the powerdered water Close your eyes and open your minds, this one's for you And the brain equals a cubicle we'll never think outside it Now inside wanna try to tie a diagram to modify them I'm a man as a hybrid of a body of a pirate Of a soul that can fly without control Realizing the brain takes in six billion signals per second And most which of hidden and not given to the senses Whether to do a few futile primitive tools to perception livin in a universal pool of first hand deception The mind's job is to recieve the signals And block the ones out that don't coincide with imprinted symbols That way the information you obtained is recognized Reality is thinkable and comparable to space and time It makes a map of the territory that gives us the gives us The topic of the Copenhagen interpretation of modern quantum Physics which states we dont know the meal We only know the menu that our brains tell us is real We dont know the rules of our heads From inside these cubicles we cant see the truth No one really knows exactly what happens when we think Therefore we can never really ever know anything This is the consciousness revolution You got the right to think Don't think about it just do it (repeats stanza til fade out)

[@granthurlburt4062]

I guess you're referring to Plato's cave. I am not sure his concept was equivalent to the cubicle example.

[@jeffryphillipsburns]

Thank you for using the term “begging the question” correctly. Just yesterday I watched an otherwise unobjectionable video in which a certain “Dr. Becky” (discussing Brian May’s thesis) uses it incorrectly to mean “provoking a question”. (The logical fallacy known as “begging the question” is also called “petitio princippii”.) Anyway, the “universe-was-made-for-us” argument as it pertains to theology is called “the teleological argument”: "The world is such that it must have been created by an intelligent being." The obvious rhetorical rebuttal (as Dr. Hossenfelder points out in so many words) is “Compared to what other world?” But if this argument is so obviously fallacious, why is it manifestly so attractive to so many? I decided when I was sixteen that it has something to do with what I called “the paradox of consciousness”. We perceive the world as a flickering coincidence between ourselves as both the subject and object of our own consciousness.

[@singularitysquaredllc.895]

“Compared to what other world?” Oh... bout four five billion, and counting.

[@andrewphillips-hird3761]

You tell em sis As a psychology graduate with a penchant for psychoanalysis (read:: not necessarily wedded to the scientific method) I hugely approve of the nuances communicated here. I would love to hear more from Sabine on frequentist vs Bayesian stats. Once I was talking to a PhD student about stats and how I thought some aspects made little sense and how I would improve it if I had such influence, and she informed me that what I was "proposing" to her was more or less Bayesian statistics - which I hadn't heard of at that point. And I have heard little about it since, which sucks, as I would have thought that people would want to avoid assuming that blatantly non-independent observations were independent but never mind...

[@LMarti13]

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'” ― Douglas Adams

[@blackfalkon4189]

and if the hole changes slightly (or a lot) the puddle will do just fine

[@jonimaricruz1692]

I am but a lowly liberal arts major, but I want to say, thank you, thank you, thank you, for using the logical term “begging the question” in the proper way. It doesn’t mean, as it’s popularly used, “it makes one want to ask” it’s just a fallacy where you sneak in your conclusion as one of the premises of your argument. Thank you. And, btw, I really enjoy your series, thank for that, as well.

[@seanspartan2023]

Hi Sabine. I'd be interested in your view of the theory that the speed of light has changed over time and how the VSL theory is an alternative theory to cosmic inflation.

[@bluekjar]

Can't believe I just found this channel! This is great!

[@granthurlburt4062]

At two universities, i asked to teach the statistics course (in Biology and Nursing schools respectively) because i think understanding statistics is SO important. Her explanation here is a great example. If you didnt have a feel for the prob. distribution, her excellent argument would be confusing. As usual, she concisely explains what a probability distr is, and why therefore it is pointless to make claims about the "probability" of a unique constant. (I think I'm a good stats prof because I had trouble learning it and can understand the stumbling blocks students can have in understanding)/ Thanks again Sabine!

[@knarfamoranemix6030]

It seems to me that if you would come up with some way to create sets of random probably distrubutions (a set containing a distribution for each parameter), you would find that in the majoroty of those sets the actual parameters are extremely unlikely.